Smoking in a coffeeshop..

[DustSucker]

.. is being prohibited in dutch coffeeshops. Smoking weed/hash was only allowed in coffeeshops and at home, and now they want to ban it from the coffeeshops too. The reason for this nonsense is because "everyone deserves to breathe clean air". Smoking is already forbidden at work and in public places like train stations, and now those assholes want to ban it from pubs and restaurants too. I can see their point from a non-smokers kind of view, but banning it from coffeeshops is just burocratic nonsense. Who would go into a coffeeshop and start complaining about lung cancer? Now coffeeshop owners are planning on placing vaporisers.

The government also has a website where "concerned" citizens can point out coffeeshops that are close to schools.

When those fuckbags keep pushing the legal side of softdrugs back, they should just ban them all at once, it would at least look as if they had a solid policy.

[icy manipulator]

argh i haven't had a cigarette in 7 and a half hours!:mad:

[Tompz]

it's getting banned all over europe including native sweden, mainly beacuse of health concerns of employess

i do see some point though

[ms.peachy]

The fact is they are going to have to come into line with EU regulations. Simple as.

[Tompz]

germany and france won't be easily pursauded

[Otis Driftwood]

It's already passed in Germany starting in September. I'll manage somehow but I wonder about a lot of the clubs having to close 'cause a lot of people will be standing outside smoking and talking. And if there is one thing about which Germans love to call the cops it's noise.

[yeahwho]

It really bugs the crap out of me that there is no compromise in the non-smoking sector. How about letting a percentage of clubs have the ability to cater to those who "don't give a shit"?

I don't give a shit if anybody is smoking in a club. If it bugs me I'll leave. If it is a designated smoking area I have been forewarned. I am speaking of adult only clubs that serve adults. Grown ups. People who pay hefty taxes for nothing in return, then get shutout by blanket discrimination. Is there no compromise? other than, Sorry nobody can smoke in public?

Choices are dwindling. They should shut down Las Vegas, it has been proven to be nothing more than a losing proposition. Gambling is a classified disease. Wait they should shut down all cocktail lounges too. While we're at it lets shut down Krispy Kreme.

[ms.peachy]

It really bugs the crap out of me that there is no compromise in the non-smoking sector. How about letting a percentage of clubs have the ability to cater to those who "don't give a shit"?

I don't give a shit if anybody is smoking in a club. If it bugs me I'll leave. If it is a designated smoking area I have been forewarned. I am speaking of adult only clubs that serve adults. Grown ups. People who pay hefty taxes for nothing in return, then get shutout by blanket discrimination. Is there no compromise? other than, Sorry nobody can smoke in public?

Because the laws do not pertain to customer attitudes, they are workplace health and safety regulations. Whether you give a shit or not is entirely irrelevant.

[skra75]

that's the most retarded shit I've heard all day.
for fucks sake, when you go to a dutch coffeeshop to "smoke" it is a planned activity.
jesus, what's next - banning cartoon characters with giant foam hands and heads from Disneyland?

[yeahwho]

Because the laws do not pertain to customer attitudes, they are workplace health and safety regulations. Whether you give a shit or not is entirely irrelevant.

Yet in the USA workers health and safety regulations do not extend into tribal gambling properties. It is OK for native americans to subject their employees to secondhand smoke. The local casinos around Washington state all have state of the art HVAC systems that barely leave a wisp of smoke in the room.

My attitude is freedom for those who make choices, if an employee is being covered by insurance by an employee who (this is all imaginary because the law has already been made...a freedom lost) why the hell can't a citizen provide a smoking establishment?

Because compromise is not in question here. Compromise is currently illegal. When kids go home from school on the bus they see adults gathered around outside smoking, then ads at the local minimarts pushing cigarettes.

Why is the deadliest liquid ever created for vehicle drivers still served mainly in establishments with parking lots? I do not even begin to understand the wisdom of priorities.

Where does it all end? With smokers being outlawed? I used to smoke, I quit, I also drank more than my share of alcohol....my attitude is objective to keeping freedoms alive, even if it is a compromised freedom, it still is a freedom.

I also see where interstate trafficking via the internet has robbed some state coffers of their beloved sin tax, so damn what do you know! Many states are going after smokers who buy ciggy's tax free! So the money from cigarettes is important to them. They want that money.

I feel like I'm in that cocktail lounge from that movie Thank You for Smoking.

[DustSucker]

it's getting banned all over europe including native sweden, mainly beacuse of health concerns of employess

i do see some point though
Offices and restaurants: ok, I get the point where people don't wanna work or eat in a smoke filled room. But there is no point in complaining about health concerns if you're working in a coffeeshop (a place that's basically ABOUT smoking). You know how things are going to be before you get a job there. It's like getting a job collecting trash (dunno the correct english word) and then start complaining about the stench.

And all that shit about coming into line with EU and health regulations are pure burocratic bull.

[yeahwho]

I'm getting more than a little irritated with all the looneys drinking fancy coffee around this town. Decaf only in Seattle. :mad:

[ms.peachy]

Offices and restaurants: ok, I get the point where people don't wanna work or eat in a smoke filled room. But there is no point in complaining about health concerns if you're working in a coffeeshop (a place that's basically ABOUT smoking). You know how things are going to be before you get a job there. It's like getting a job collecting trash (dunno the correct english word) and then start complaining about the stench.

And all that shit about coming into line with EU and health regulations are pure burocratic bull.
"Bull" or not, it's the way employment law works. You can sit around bitching about it all you like, makes no difference. Your comparison to smelly garbage isn't a valid one, because the smell of garbage does not pose a health hazard to the collector. An employer is bound by law to minimise workplace hazards.

Let's say you have a job removing asbestos. You don't get to say "That's OK, I understand that working with asbestos may cause me serious health problems later in life, but I don't feel like wearing the big hazmat suit." Your employer is obliged to provide you with protective gear, and you are obliged to wear it. In the case of smoking, you could perhaps lobby that instead of banning smoking, everyone in places that allow smoking should have to wear gas masks, but I suspect that you would not get far with that proposal.

[DustSucker]

"Bull" or not, it's the way employment law works. You can sit around bitching about it all you like, makes no difference. Your comparison to smelly garbage isn't a valid one, because the smell of garbage does not pose a health hazard to the collector. An employer is bound by law to minimise workplace hazards.

Let's say you have a job removing asbestos. You don't get to say "That's OK, I understand that working with asbestos may cause me serious health problems later in life, but I don't feel like wearing the big hazmat suit." Your employer is obliged to provide you with protective gear, and you are obliged to wear it. In the case of smoking, you could perhaps lobby that instead of banning smoking, everyone in places that allow smoking should have to wear gas masks, but I suspect that you would not get far with that proposal.
The point i'm trying to make is that there's a border to how much a government should be involved in insuring the wellbeing of its citizens. If some boss sends an employee out to remove asbestos without the proper protective gear, then his employee is an idiot if he knows the health risks and still takes the job. A law to ensure that ensures the employee knows these risks isn't bad. But prohibiting smoking when employees are all smokers themselves, most of the time smoke on the job and accept the fact that they work in a room full of smoke is where I'd say the employee is pretty much responsible for his own career choise.

If I'd want to make a difference, I wouldn't be sitting a home posting shit on BBMB. But I don't give a shit, i'll smoke my weed somewhere else if some politician think it's so important.