Originally published at: Smoke weed, not cigarettes: CA's new restaurant policy - Boing Boing
…
5 Likes
That’s just gratuitously stupid and wrongheaded.
Smoking weed may not be as bad for you as smoking tobacco, but it’s not good. The problem is the smoking part - inhaling tarry smoke is terrible for your lungs. And, of course, there’s the second-hand smoke issue, with both customers and restaurant staff.
33 Likes
Fuck the workers amirite?
Banning smoking in bars was an essential human rights win for workers.
32 Likes
Dispensaries or not, it’s still letting weed smokers know they can be rude and thoughtless like tobacco smokers in restaurants in the old days.
16 Likes
I’m not interested in eating where any smoking is being done.
31 Likes
Closest pot shop to me in Marin CA is down in SF (cause we Marinites don’t want the tax etc$? Dumb). Urbana has a back room where u can go light up and or eat/drink yer edibles. I haven’t sparked up back there tho I have looked in… it’s nice, like a mellow coffee shop. Combine this w an outdoor patio (cheaper than air cleaning/handling machinery?) w food n beverages and I could see this being a fun way to spend the afternoon.
YMMV
2 Likes
They aren’t allowing it in restaurants as much as they are allowing food to be served in areas where they are already licensed to sell weed and have a smoking area. I am guessing any customers they have are pretty much there for that purpose and the food is an addition. Staff were already in that environment.
5 Likes
So this is the equivalent of a cigar lounge, but with food instead of scotch? Not really for me, but I guess go on with your bad selves.
2 Likes
There’s a huge difference between allowing people to smoke weed in restaurants and allowing people to eat in smoking lounges. I see this development as generally a good thing, and something I’ve wanted personally for a long time, but I’ve never been confronted with the health and safety issue before.
It’s one thing to ignore cancer and respiratory disease in a niche field dedicated to a known carcinogen. Maybe it’s easier to look away when “we all know what we signed up for”? But kitchen, waitstaff, entertainment, and back-of-house staff are adding a whole new dimension to this issue, and I suddenly have a lot more to think about.
2 Likes
Why are you most annoyed that the employer will have to pay for the PPE? That seems pretty standard to me, or at least not something I find offensive.
4 Likes
Because I misread it as employees. 
7 Likes
True! But at least there are some parts of the bill meant to mitigate their exposure:
4 Likes
Maybe have tobacco dispensaries with the same licensing requirements and allow smoking there.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
