Joe Biden pardons weed smokers.

Donald Trump pardoned grifters, shady lawyers and war criminals, pardoned 4 russian spies, also got God knows how many (of ours and our allies) killed like the names of the cia agents in those classified docs he stole, first degree murder, recognized only the Taliban not Afghanistan govt and botched the withdrawal, and don't forget that he's tried/trying to get us to kill each other. Oh yes, can't forget that he also did his best to get COVID's kill count as high as possible.

Trump is still cuck tho lol lol Manchurian lol. You can't escape any of these truths beewwwb hahaha!

Interesting, but not surprising.

Fireworks (and bbqs) took LA air from poisonous to deadly on the fourth. It was already pretty ruined on the third. Last I read living there was like being a heavy smoker on the lungs. As I recall, the LA basin air quality was the main reason California enacted our own emission standards decades ago. That was my point, not that fireworks don't pollute, but that LA air quality is legendarily awful.

And in all seriousness: because if you aren't old yourself, you know people who are---your parents, your grandparents---or have friends and family who are in the risk groups---diabetic, asthma, smokers, cancer survivors or in treatment---or are just robust young people with immune systems that over-react and then trigger Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) and death...

So I don't know you--but wash your hands, wear a mask outside, and isolate.
Whatever you have believed at one point or the other.

Social distancing of 6 feet will not prevent overloading the health care system.

Check your state https://covidactnow.org and the point of no return of overwhelming the system.

I think of it as smelling a smoker's smoke. Sometimes you can smell their smoke from 10+ feet away. and farther if you are down wind. That smoke is what they exhaled.

When they are done and come inside or such you can smell it coming off them.

Just trade the smoke for the virus, 6 feet is not enough.

Totally true for ANY smokers since I am very sensitive.

*promote

Good, fuck smokers....

Wow. Little to no evidence of smoked marijuana having any connection to lung or other cancers.

I must admit I'm surprised. To me it seems like burning something and inhaling the smoke is "obviously" a bad idea with regards to health.

Since the link between tobacco cigarettes and cancer is well established and agreed on by doctors, it makes one wonder what the difference is. Is it entirely the additives that cigarette manufacturers put into cigarettes? If so, why the hell wouldn't there be massive pressure to mass produce additive-free cigarettes at least as an option for smokers?

Also, I guess one (potential) downside of legalization is that the same sort of corporations that knowingly put cancer-causing shit into cigarettes might expand into marijuana territory, potentially trying to put crap into your pot that dispensaries and dealers never have.

Still, overall this is clearly good news for pot fans out there, and will put further pressure on the double standard between legal-but-far-more-dangerous alcohol and tobacco as compared to illegal-but-relatively-innocuous pot. Congratulations! Light one up in celebration (as if you needed a reason).

Private background checks is full of privacy, communication, and liability issues, true, but that could be solved in various ways.
In gun store private sales, that's how California does it.
Does it stop all criminal sales? Clearly not. Does it minimize them and hold illegal sellers who ignore the law accountable for what others do with the guns they illegally sold, making illegally selling a criminal your gun insane? Yes.
If it was the law nation wide, would it severely curtail the illicit gun trade, and have a positive impact on gun crime rates? Absolutely, zero question.
Would it stop it altogether? Duh, no, no law is a panacea, the death penalty doesn't stop all murders, but it definitely stops most. That is not how law works. No law has EVER stopped the crimes they regulate altogether except those that legalize the crime out of existence....like legal marijuana eradicated illegal pot smokers completely.

Being 55 / non smoker this vape thing has passed me by so I got to ask.

Why is a Vape better than a pipe/ bong?

Why does this PAX Vape have different temp settings? For a smother smoke or for different items to vape like weed or hash or such?

They don't get a bonus, they avoid a reprimand for not meeting quotas.

For profit prison means all those costs are more reason to lock people up, not reason to avoid imprisonment. Yes, it costs us, but makes money for police departments and prisons. The prison guard union is one of the most aggressive, well funded, and successful lobbies in Washington.
That's the profit he's talking about. No one pays for a recovered missing person, but there's money to be had incarcerating a pot smoker. Engage your brain before you spout ridiculousness....if you have the capability.

Can't argue that. I've been in California so long that the idea of smoking inside a business didn't even occur to me. The 'in private homes with children and apartments or townhouses' part I find draconian and unenforceable...and we have them here.
On a side note, I also find it distasteful that cigars get lumped in with cigarettes. As far as I know, there have been few if any studies on second hand cigar smoke, which has none of the toxic additives most cigarettes have so produce a different smoke. I'm not saying it's good for you, just that it hasn't been proven to be the same kind of toxicity....yet they are now taxed the same here, doubling the price overnight. (If you can't tell, I'm bitter, I can't afford them now)

True, cars have far more utility (except to tobacco farmers) but are also far more damaging in many ways. It's not meant to be a logical argument, it's more about getting people to see that they also pollute the air (a normal complaint I hear about smokers) in a directly more deadly and indirectly disastrous way, and I hope they will consider that before angrily deriding someone for a cigarette. It's a disguised 'people in glass houses' argument.

Sadly, yes, smoking is an easy target today....alcohol could be tomorrow, or marijuana again (just became legal here)....I don't like our governments going after the easy targets heavy handedly just because they can. It's too easy to portray something or someone as an easy target and go after it solely because a small persuasive group finds it distasteful.

To play devils advocate, there are a few positive sides to smoking...smoking tastes good (to smokers), it acts as a stimulant/depressant and appetite suppressor, it supports an industry of farmers and for cigars, hand rollers, and it helps thin out the herd. ;-)

I could use the same argument to try to outlaw cars.
When someone complains about smokers outdoors, I ask them if they drove there to complain, then offer a deal. They sit in their car with the exhaust plumbed into the window, I'll sit in a box smoking a fat cigar, last one breathing wins the debate.
Oddly, no one ever takes me up on that, but at least they all sheepishly drop their complaints.

As to banning it in private homes, this is a terribly slippery slope that gives power to others to decide what's dangerous to you....now consider getting too little sleep has proven to be harmful, so why not a legally enforced bed time based on the youngest or oldest person on your block? Your second hand noise might keep them up, harming them, so night night time is now 6pm. Consider all the food issues you mentioned as second hand groceries, because children have little option but to eat what parents supply, so no more sugar, salt, or processed foods in the stores because they might buy them.

The questions about health and safety vs freedom to be unhealthy are not simple ones to resolve, and it's impossible to fully safeguard both.

It all goes to how comfortable you are with the government legislating what you can and can't do. I used to smoke, nasty habit. I did it for at least 20 years, started when I was 14. I was a light smoker, usually less than 4 or so a day, but I did do it until I weaned myself off with nicotine gum and then quit that later.

Now, I wouldn't want to stay in a hotel or go to an establishment (bar, eatery, etc) 'alone' that allowed it in all areas. But in selected areas that I don't have to enter, I don't have a problem with it. I feel that way because I want people to be able to do what they want to their own body.

As far as employees being forced to be exposed to it, no one can force you to do anything in a job unless you are essentially a slave. You always have the option to look for work elsewhere. Bars could offer a pay differential or force patrons to pay an automatic tip percentage if they want service in a smoking area, giving incentive for people who don't care about serving smokers. Their body, their choice.

Sometimes I feel like people have to expend a lot of effort to miss the point so well...

OH&S - We had a MSDS for Spray and Wipe in the office which required us to use gloves and a facemask. Ordinary surface cleaner. And it was enforced... This is what he is talking about. Taking what started as a good idea and going way too fucking far with it.

PC - You kinda prove the point right off the bat with "straight white dude". You're discriminating. You feel justified in doing so because white males are so fucking awful to everyone on the planet (it's true, I heard a feminist say so..), but it doesn't change the fact that it's discrimination. You're either politically correct all the time or you're a hypocrite. I happen to support your right to discriminate, but take issue with hypocrisy.

Smoking - Missing the point, the government makes it socially unacceptable, removes the places where you can do it, but leaves it as legal and runs up the cost to astronomical levels to keep the revenue rolling in. It's an innately contradictory position.

The bit on Ireland was more a commentary on the Irish than smoking...

And of course smokers are one of the few groups within society that almost no one will stand up to defend. Very easy to be non-PC and discriminate against (gotta let all those uptight PC dickheads vent their spleen somewhere I guess... =)

I totally agree with her that environmental concerns turn "conservatives" off on any argument (funny, since it's conservation of the environment that they can't abide).
I think she should also be using financial phrases, because done properly, renewable energy saves you money in the long run. My solar system, for instance, paid for itself in the first 8 years of an expected 20 year lifespan, so I get 12 years of 'free' electricity and ignoring rate hikes, but most right wingers would claim it will never pay for itself and is nothing more than pie in the sky hippy fantasy because that's what Alex Jones and his ilk told them.
Showing people that being responsible will actually save them large sums of money is the number one way to convince them to change their behaviors, it's far more effective than any philosophical arguments. It's the main reason I bought my system, and is also a main reason I want an electric car.

Side note: the 'sit in your car in your garage' argument is the same one I use against anti-smokers. I tell them, "you sit in the car you drove here in to complain about some smoke with a hose from the tail pipe going into the window, I'll sit in my car smoking, and we'll see who dies first.". This is to illustrate that their complaints about the dangers of smoke are ridiculous and negligible compared to their own polluting behaviors.