It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hazards of secondhand marijuana smoke

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:07 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: AgentShillington

I think this would be a seriously bad idea. Many restaurants make most of their money through liquor sales. Then there is the social aspect, the fact that it is a great place for adults to co-mingle and meet other adults. Society is built around the bar (heck our forefathers planned the revolution in a bar).

So the way I see it, the last thing that we'd ever want to do as a society is close down bars. As an extension to this, since marijuana is a less harmful intoxicant and will soon be legalized across the board (if anyone doubts this, they've been living under a rock for the last 6 or so years) and therefore there should be places where people can go mingle and smoke as well. Then since people like to smoke and drink, there should be places that cater to this. My view is that secondhand smoke laws conflict with public intoxication laws here since secondhand smoke laws force people to smoke outside.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AgentShillington

So does that mean we should close down bars too? After all alcohol is a drug, and if drug usage should be contained at home, then bars therefore shouldn't be allowed either.


You won't get an argument from me. Close down bars, drunk driving becomes all but non-existent. I'm not saying we should outlaw drinking, just do it at home.

Blasphemy! Where are musicians going to earn a buck? Where am I going to pick up a gal? Am I expected to drink Kool-aid while I play pool?
A government ban on bars would be the point at which I would take up arms in protest.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   
So its clear now, Rats should stay away from pot!!1

its really bad for them




posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: skunkape23

Exactly, bars are more than just places to get drunk at. Their impact on society is pretty profound.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AgentShillington

I think this would be a seriously bad idea. Many restaurants make most of their money through liquor sales.


Again, you won't get any disagreement from me. Maybe if we were less reliant on the service industry for making money, manufacturing, farming, and other practical industries would enjoy a renaissance. Private, members only, clubs could also make a return. Fraternity is better when you have a social stake in your establishment anyway.

Besides, I think you are reaching if you are trying to link alcohol an intoxicant that is ingested with no harmful exhaust, to smoking which has a quantifiably harmful exhaust. Very few have outlawed snus or chewing tobacco in bars, it isn't tobacco that's outlawed, merely the delivery method.
edit on 18-11-2014 by AgentShillington because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: AgentShillington

Again, you won't get any disagreement from me. Maybe if we were less reliant on the service industry for making money, manufacturing, farming, and other practical industries would enjoy a renaissance. Private, members only, clubs could also make a return. Fraternity is better when you have a social stake in your establishment anyway.


I like the reliance on bars better myself. Clubs/fraternities tend to be exclusive. I think society is better off without another way for people to exclude others from their social activities. Most everyone enjoys a glass of spirits and mingling with others, creating a club to do that just creates unnecessary levels of social contracts to enjoy that. I guess that's just how I feel because I like to be able to hop between cliques and not get too attached to one clique over the other and that is much easier with a bar setup than a social club.


Besides, I think you are reaching if you are trying to link alcohol an intoxicant that is ingested with no harmful exhaust, to smoking which has a quantifiably harmful exhaust. Very few have outlawed snus or chewing tobacco in bars, it isn't tobacco that's outlawed, merely the delivery method.


So maybe a redesign of bars is in need. Would you reconsider smoking sections for bar establishments? Also, places with smoking sections would have to be well ventilated. I'm just pondering at this point, not all bars have back doors for people to step outside and be out of the public's eye while toking up. So I'm kind of fielding ideas on how it could be integrated (because lord knows it will happen eventually).
edit on 18-11-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: skunkape23

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AgentShillington

So does that mean we should close down bars too? After all alcohol is a drug, and if drug usage should be contained at home, then bars therefore shouldn't be allowed either.


You won't get an argument from me. Close down bars, drunk driving becomes all but non-existent. I'm not saying we should outlaw drinking, just do it at home.

Blasphemy! Where are musicians going to earn a buck? Where am I going to pick up a gal? Am I expected to drink Kool-aid while I play pool?
A government ban on bars would be the point at which I would take up arms in protest.



edit on 18-11-2014 by Teye22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:43 AM
link   
How come no one ever worries about the "secondhand smoke" of car exhaust. If your in a small, enclosed space with a running car you'll die in short order unlike cigarettes or pot? So what is the health risk of sitting in rush hour traffic with thousands of running cars around you?

I had a class once where we were supposed to discuss ads. My group got an advertisement with the WTC burning and collapsing (9/11) with the twist being the towers were cigarettes. They caption equated smokers with being terrorists.

During the course of the discussion (which had me and 2 others vs about 20 people who thought it was fine to call smokers terrorists) I brought up this point about fumes you inhale during rush hour. My teacher ended the discussion because I was scaring people. She told me so after.
edit on 18-11-2014 by tavi45 because: auto correct mistake



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: tavi45

"How come no one ever worries about the "secondhand smoke" of car exhaust."

Simple answer to that is because "They" can tax petroleum and require the revenue generated by said tax. Also society cannot function without it!


Needs must and all that jazz but the hypocrisy is oozing out them.

edit on 18-11-2014 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
So maybe a redesign of bars is in need. Would you reconsider smoking sections for bar establishments? Also, places with smoking sections would have to be well ventilated. I'm just pondering at this point, not all bars have back doors for people to step outside and be out of the public's eye while toking up. So I'm kind of fielding ideas on how it could be integrated (because lord knows it will happen eventually).


Smoking bans are upheld in court because smoking presents an unsafe working environment. If it were just a matter of an employee and employer agreeing that they don't care about smoking, that would be one thing, but you also have to account for municipal employees, meter readers, police, paramedics, fire marshals, vendors, and other people doing their jobs that may not want to be subjected to the secondhand smoke your business generates.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: AgentShillington

"Smoking bans are upheld in court because smoking presents an unsafe working environment."

Going by that logic Soldiers or Police officers should then also be banned considering war and crime prevention are not exactly the safest environment to function within. Is all just PC bull crap, end of the day everyone loses because it our freedom of personal choice that is diminished by "There" overtly totalitarian system of laws. We don't need law to uphold common decency, like not smoking in public places, just common sense and a modicum of respect toward our fellow Man.
edit on 18-11-2014 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: AgentShillington

"Smoking bans are upheld in court because smoking presents an unsafe working environment."

Going by that logic Soldiers or Police officers should then also be banned considering war and crime prevention are not exactly the safest environment to function within. Is all just PC bull crap, end of the day everyone loses because it our freedom of personal choice that is diminished by "There" overtly totalitarian system of laws.


Don't cry to me about it. We live in a democracy. Get out and vote.

ETA: Soldiers and Police are able to make decisions about their own health and safety. Someone working as a Meter Reader shouldn't need to be subjected to smoking when his day to day job does not generally imply the level of risk associated with smoking related activities.


We don't need law to uphold common decency


That is exactly why we need law, because people DON'T uphold common decency.
edit on 18-11-2014 by AgentShillington because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: AgentShillington

I'm hardly crying buddy, just attempting to get my point across. Democracy, really? Maybe in the beginning but these days I would have said its more of a totalitarian technocracy.

edit on 18-11-2014 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: AgentShillington

I'm hardly crying buddy, just attempting to get my point across. Democracy, really? Maybe in the beginning but these days I would have said its more of a totalitarian technocracy.


The mere fact that you can actually speak out against your government.. on a computer no less.. flies in the face of your opinion.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Better get that propaganda machine warmed up CBS! The people are waking up to the fact that you have been lying about cannabis all these years and the truth is coming out!

It seems like this thread has drifted from MJ second hand smoke to cig secondhand smoke. It can't be argued. There IS no argument! In any situation cigarettes will ALWAYS be more deadly than cannabis. ANTS are more deadly than cannabis! It really all boils down to personal responsibility as always. Don't smoke your cannabis where the lingering smoke could possibly be inhaled by someone that does not wish to inhale the smoke. It is simple respect. Break the taboo.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: AgentShillington

"That is exactly why we need law, because people DON'T uphold common decency."

So because people don't do something out of choice we should implement laws that require them to do so by force? See that's what's wrong with our society. TPTB should consider the notion that you catch more flies with Honey rather than Vinegar. Think you may be surprised as to what people may do when presented with a choice rather than an order.

You do realize there is not much chance people will be imprisoned for smoking in public, just fined, there's your revenue generation scheme right there. If you don't do as "They" command it will essentially cost money buy way of fines imposed, how very convenient eh?

edit on 18-11-2014 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: AgentShillington

"That is exactly why we need law, because people DON'T uphold common decency."

So because people don't do something out of choice we should implement laws that require them to do so by force? See that's what's wrong with our society. TPTB should consider the notion that you catch more flies with Honey rather than Vinegar. Think you may be surprised as to what people may do when presented with a choice rather than an order.

You do realize there is not much chance people will be imprisoned for smoking in public, just fined, there's you revenue generation scheme right there. If you don't do as "They" command it will essentially cost Money, how very convenient eh?


"They" is me. I'm the government. We the People, remember? I don't want people tossed in jail for smoking in public. If someone wants to light a cigarette in a public place, and they are willing to accept the fine that goes along with that, a fine that has been set by legally elected representatives, then who am I to tell him he's wrong to do so.

Such a scheme... fining people for smoking in public... I'm counting my hundreds of dollars that brings in from tickets every year.
edit on 18-11-2014 by AgentShillington because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Who hang on .....for years I've been told by the authorities "you'd have to share a phone booth with someone smoking ounces for cannabis to show up on a drug test"
That's from police, military, drug testing labs, and military courts
If this is found to be true then 1000's of employees sacked due to failed drug tests under the premise of the phone box theory can sue ?



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: AgentShillington

So would you suggest as a solution for bars that want to integrate marijuana smoking with drinking should designate a spot out back (maybe with a fence) that they can go toke?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join