If anything, cannabis seems like a much better (and more profitable) drug around which to build a leisurely establishment.
As long as you don’t stink. So fucking sick of weed users smelling like ass in public.
I’m sick of alcohol users smelling like ass. If you don’t drink then the smell of alcohol on someone’s breath is absolutely nauseating.
that’s just a “coffee” shop in Netherlands
There are some board game cafes in the states. And some of those overlap with legal weed :) but smoking indoors in public is still a no-go
The difference is you can’t taste other people’s alcohol but you can smell others’ smoke
Dry vaporizers (with temperature below 200C, convection-based) don’t have smoke so are a lot less offensive with smell, if not odorless particularly with access to fresh air.
Also people smelling of alcohol, particularly if they are drunk or drinking liquor, is definitely a thing. Also barfing. I wouldn’t doubt bars having bad smells sometimes.
People who are going to a place to smoke typically wouldn’t mind that. Take cigar or vape lounges, for instance. Also it’s usually people who don’t smoke weed who act like the smell of weed bothers them.
right but my point is if a group of friends want to go to a bar and some people don’t smoke or like the smell of smoke then there is a problem, it’s not like they can just opt not to smell smoke
Then don’t go to a weed bar, I guess. Laws are unlikely to allow weed and alcohol in the same place any time soon… though that already happens illegally at concerts and many bars I’ve been to. But people at the bars usually smoke outside. Colorado gov’t acts like all hell would break loose if people smoke and drink at the same time.
…that’s why you would only go to a place like that if everyone is down. Having them for people that want to go is fine, no one is forced to go.
That sounds nice in theory, but in reality the result is usually that if the majority of a group smokes, the nonsmokers don’t have much of a choice except for looking for new friends. That was a very common complaint when smoking in pubs and restaurants was still legal here.
Just because one person doesn’t want to go to something doesn’t mean they shouldn’t exist. You’re basically saying one person’s opinion/choice outweighs an entire group. If those choices constantly put you at odds with the group it might be best to find a group that aligns with your values more. There’s also nothing wrong with being friends with the people that want to go to things you don’t like, just tag along when they do things you do like. You also don’t have to have one set of friends, you can have multiple groups that like to do different things. I’m not pro banning things for the sake of others that can choose not to participate.
Right but you can consume cannabis in tons of different ways - cookies, cocktails, etc. Restaurants had smoking areas for decades with far worse air filtration systems.
there are THC drinks where I live, always a nice option for me to have at gatherings as a non-alcohol person.
Edibles might make it better. But then you’ll need to give people something to do for an hour or so before it kicks in…
You mean like eating, playing board games, and socializing?
If they replaced individual bars rather than expanded the space where drug consumption is the basis of socializing.
I don’t smoke weed, but phrasing it’s usage as “drug consumption” always annoyed me. It makes it sound like it’s the same thing as heroin or meth, which it’s not even close to the same thing.
It’s the same thing as alcohol.
From what I recall weed is considered less harmful and addictive than alcohol. Most recent study that caught my eye was from New Zealand. Alcohol was somewhere on the top along with heroin. THC somewhere in the middle ranks.
Sure, alcohol is pretty bad. But I’ve been disappointed when looking up places to hang out, so many of them are some kind of bar. I’m fine with people using drugs on their own time, but I’d like for there to also be places where people don’t.
The issue is that a lot of people that smoke weed in place would reak. I don’t think many people would enjoy the smell
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Consumables only. Problem solved.
Your dealers home: Am I a joke to you?
Dealer? What’s a dealer? Is that something I’m too Canadian to understand?
There are a number of coffee shops exactly like that in Cape Town
This is quite common in The Netherlands. They’re called coffeeshops.
They are usually not very cozy though since they are barely legal and they don’t want to get too much attention.
No it wouldn’t. I’m sick and tired of the childish argument that if we accept alcohol then we have to accept or introduce other substance abuses because some find it more appealing.
Why shouldn’t we accept it? Its already poven to be better for you than alcohol, many people enjoy it, and a lot less deaths per year will be caused by wee than alcohol. Should people who don’t want to drink not be allowed to have a place they can hang out similar to a bar?
Here we go again. People who don’t want to drink alcohol can hang anywhere and still don’t drink acohol. The unwillingness to drink alcohol or that “many people like it” are not actual arguments to introduce and use other health damaging substances rerdless of their nature and effects.
I just want constancy. Weed is less dangerous than alcohol. Ban both, legalize both, legalize weed but not alcohol, or keep things the way they are and drop the premise that it has anything to do with health and safety.
That “less dangerous” is so subjective and unfounded that I’m not going to address.
On the other hand do you think it’s a good idea to think in extremes? Alcohol is rooted in our culture since literally thousands of years to get it out is almost impossible now but we can struggle for moderation. Weed as we find it on the market didn’t even exist 100 years ago. So maybe it’s a good idea to introduce it get it common as alcohol so in 50 years we will have the problems with alcohol and with weed on top. Smart.
Then we can go further to other drugs because we cant leave them outside. We have to be consistent and some people really like it.
Complains about how dangerous introducing something is. Then says it is subjective and won’t address it.
It’s like the Santa Claus problem. Telling kids that Santa Claus is real and watching, then went they get older telling them it was all a lie. Surprise Pikachu face when they all turn atheist. Tell kids that weed is bad for their health. When they get older, watch as half the country legalise medical marajana. Surprise Pikachu when the kids all start trying meth “cause adults lied about one drug, what about the others?”
Consistency isn’t just to make certain people feel better. Consistency prevents people from going down dangerous paths.
Well, actually reading a post and just glancing over it are two different things and I can asure you that only the first can help you understand what other person is saying.
Introducing a drug (for which we don’t have yet the full table of clinical affections but the data that we have clearly shows it has negative long term effects) to unrestricted consumption and social acceptable norms is not ok especially in the context of how bad alcohol consumption is and how much damage is doing to consumers. But you actually don’t care about alcohol consumption, it’s just an argument you got flying around from the internet forums and subscribes ro whataboutism.
What I won’t address is the comparison “less dangerous than” which is vague and unfounded. I can tell you why but I doubt that you care.
Telling people that weed it’s bad for their health is the truth, especially to kids and that won’t change when they grow older. But maybe you don’t care because you’re young and consuming and nothing bad happened to you.
Medical consumption and for leisure in a bar/coffee house consumption are 2 very different things. A medical drug is not something that is all good for you, it’s something that consumed gives you more benefits than problems in the context of a health affection. Something recreational is something you consume just for fun. So the element of necessity (the health affection) is missing thus the trade-off between beneficial and detrimental is non existing. You actually have to be consistent in your arguments.
How meta. My only argument is that policy should be consistent, less people stop trusting the authority that is issuing the policy; and you complain that my argument is inconsistent.
Its hard to justify it for the same reasons we can’t have Shisha bars and smoking lounges (at least where I live): 2nd hand smoke.
I can, as a non drinker, go to a bar and have myself a soda, and leave there as sober as when I walked in. If I do that in a room where everyone is smoking up, I will get high from the second hand smoke whether I want to for not.
I mean, why not just have a general social club with coffee/food, games, etc, and just step outside for a puff?
Cannabis can be edible and here in Milwaukee we’re already seeing farm bill delta9 show up in bars and restaurants.
The smoke issue has been solved. I’ve been to cigar lounges that do not smell outside and barely smell inside, despite over a dozen people smoking sotgies in there. Massive HVAC systems and filters handle it all.
Removed by mod
