I lived in Washington state at one time and I tried to return at some point. I am glad I did not. I have respiratory problems, so I don't react well to smoke generally (of any kind). My past exposure to second hand marijuana smoke suggests I am allergic to it.
Given the general rise in asthma (due largely to environmental factors), I am not happy with the idea of tolerating another kind of smoking in public. I think there is plenty of evidence that respiratory problems can be acquired. You don't have to be born with one.
(Don't get me wrong: I think you should be allowed to consume whatever you want. I just don't think you should be allowed to force me and other people to consume it second hand.)
It is in San Diego as well. Yet it is impossible to avoid cigarette smoke in the downtown area. Fortunately, I left that area some weeks back.
I imagine legalized marijuana will eventually come to California as well. This state has had medical marijuana for years. But my hope is that it will be handled in a way that does not become an undue personal burden for me. My life is hard enough as is.
Can you offer a more descriptive and less evasive answer? I'm not trying to be rude (and not a smoker), I'm honestly curious as to what you would do "different".
Most states have moved to blocking smoking in public areas to differing extents, the more blatant exceptions to this tend to be areas like Las Vegas where establishments pay fines for the repeat violations of their customers.
The thing I am reacting negatively to is not the current laws concerning smoking but specifically the public announcement that they will only issues warnings. That is practically an invitation to people who want to be defiant assholes to do whatever they want.
Laws are merely one tool for trying to keep the peace. And the reality is that if you actually have to enforce the law (overly much), you have already kind of failed. I struggle with how to say this clearly, because any sweeping statement is going to be wrong and invite attack and a lot of people are very uncomfortable with how things actually work. But, basically, you announce what is illegal knowing some people will politely do as they are told and then you put in place just enough consequences to act as a deterent to folks who are less inclined to simply do as they are told. Of course, some people will break the law for various reasons. Either they didn't know or it is a poorly designed law that is nearly impossible to obey or...whatever. However if things are done right, there will only be a moderate need for active enforcement. But an announcement like this amounts to a public invitation to do as you please. Some people will do it just because of this invitation, just like some seventeen year olds with college ID's will drink because some places will take a college ID at the door. It is a loophole and some people will take childish glee in that space where it kind of is forbidden but really is not.
That is the piece I hope California handles better. I also hope that the fact that there is medical marijuana here already will help prevent the "must get drunk on my 21st birthday" style of reaction that you so often see when things finally get legalized. I believe that drugs and alcohol tend to attract people who somehow benefit physically. In California, if you really need marijuana and can prove it, it is already legal. Folks who are merely recreational users are going to be less rabid about wanting to fight for and exercise their right to toke. I think it is the people who strongly benefit (medically in some way) who are the most vehement. And those people are mostly already okay to smoke it here. So I am hoping that helps make it a non-event with people happy to keep it behind closed doors.
So... If all they are authorized to do is issue verbal warnings, the "warnings" are essentially meaningless, aren't they? Not saying this is a bad thing, just strikes me as a bit odd - "Warning - stop smoking or I'll... Issue you another warning?"
Issue warning. If person heeds warning, move on. If person ignored warning, grab them for something related, like loitering, being a public nuisance, disorderly conduct, harassment or whatever the local equivalent of not doing as you're told is.
They're not going to enforce anything right now, but things are still up in the air, and they may in the future. By warning now, they can get the word out to people who start (following the election victory) lighting up in public, that "you might want to be careful about that, and here's why."
So if they do decide to get more harsh on public use in the future, the the public will be more prepared, and there'll be less of a mess due to a sudden shift in enforcement.
The article gives a reason for that: it's not clear at the moment how to enforce it, they are waiting for the new regulation to be drafted. I think it's absolutely correct on the part of the police department not to invent its own rules.
The problem with this is that a lot of people think that the battle is now over, that "it's legal".
It's not. Possession of marihuana is a federal crime in the US. If you are a user, you live at the mercy of the federal government not prosecuting you.
This means that, for normal plebs, it's effectively legal - but for anyone who assumes that and does something (otherwise legal) to piss off the federal government, they can lock you up at will.
I don't believe there are a "lot" of people who think this. There was a ton of talk around this coming from the opposition of this initiative, and now that it has passed, there's plenty of press on it. I think the public is pretty well informed.
You're right in the fact that it's terrifying, however, this is an issue that has to be pushed forward. Washington state residents have made it clear that they want to be the ones to do that. If we get nothing more out of this than a real conversation around real facts on a federal level, then I'll consider this a success.
Anyone know how the federal government would prosecute someone for possession of less than an ounce? What statutes would be violated? Who would prosecute you? What would the sentence be?
What sneak is referring to are the producers, distributors, and retailers that will eventually make up this system. The federal government would have interest in those dealing with large quantities.
The problem is that everyone is freaking out before anything is put in place. If the federal government plans to do any of this, they're going to let the state know, and we'll just have to see how it plays out from there.
That's actually not what he was referring to. I'd be interested to see him post one example, though, of the federal government making any enforcement on users for any reason at any time.
You want to ignore that? And still claim it might happen?
This gets decided by the DOJ, which is controlled by President Obama, whose base is college students and...others who show a propensity toward lighting up. Cracking down on everyday pot smokers would be political suicide.
Obama has run his final campaign. Sure, he's going to worry about his legacy now, but there's no such thing as "political suicide" for him any more. Just sayin'.
Also seems as if the White House is strongly considering some moves, either to stymie the state measures in court, or to start prosecuting possessions at the federal level.
It's highly disheartening that the federal government believes this is a good use of their resources and time right now.
The link you posted states that the White House is considering its options. This does not mean that the options posted there will be the final decision. I don't find it disheartening that they are publicly considering them, I will if they go with the bluster and actually put them into practice.
Smoking tobacco is banned by law in most public places in Seattle including parks. Then it was decided not to be enforced. They have a history of doing this, passing laws and deciding they have no effect.
Legislative cowardice to actually make the law reflect reality, I suppose. Funny how I can't just decide to relax my vigilance with regards to paying taxes.
That's also one of the things that makes Seattle such a kickass city.
Don't "enforce the hell out of the law" like a rookie cop with a hard on. Instead, realize that one of the most important jobs of a city is to strike the right balance to make the city an awesome place to live and work.
Laws don't always have to mean heavyhanded enforcement; sometimes they just provide the authority needed to deal with a potential problem in case it ever actually becomes a serious problem.
(Which smoking a cigarette in an outdoor park really, really isn't. I don't care to stand right next to smokers either, but in an outdoor park you really don't have to.)
This is the antithesis to good law. Crafting laws to deal with potential problems to be used at discretion of police should be avoided at all costs. First, because it is unjust, and second, because it leads directly to either actual or perceptions of abuse of police power undermining faith in the system. These sorts of "nuisance" discretionary laws are often used against minority populations discriminately.
Prohibition was essentially a social/cultural movement that was very bad law making possession and distribution of alcohol illegal because it had the potential to lead to things that were already illegal (public drunkeness, etc).
These public smoking bans in theory are crafted because secondhand smoke (be it from tobacco or another source) has the potential to cause cancer in people standing nearby in a public park.
Of course, neither prohibition nor smoking bans in public parks were ever really about preventing minor incidents of public drunkeness or absurdly low risks of cancer from secondhand smoke. They were obviously about abusing the law in order to discourage behaviour (drinking, smoking) that were previously a cultural norm but for which no actual justification exists for ending.
Really bugs me, but I'm obviously biased by preferences for minimalism in regulation and law.
I think it is good policing, though. Seattle has a pretty great police department, especially for a city so big.
Now, the cops deciding how and what laws to enforce doesn't always work out well, but as a practical matter that is part of what police departments have to do in every city, and Seattle's police seem to do it particularly well.
In Austin, the transit authority wanted to ban smoking at bus stops, but they only have the authority to do so on their own property. The vast majority of bus stops are on city property instead, so they just put up "no smoking" signs at all the stops and don't try to enforce it.
"Legislative cowardice to actually make the law reflect reality"
You make this all sound like a terrible thing. Not punishing consensual "crime" is excellent, and refusing to enforce unjust laws is the opposite of cowardice.
I do think it is a bad thing. The law as written should reflect the practice of it. If smoking in public parks should not be enforced, then it should not be illegal. It shouldn't be up to whether a police officer or some prosecutor finds me agreeable enough of a citizen to give me a pass.
That's what I mean by cowardice; on the part of lawmakers who don't want exercise the courage to make the law reflect reality and instead just do whatever is politically expedient.
Thats why economists nowdays come more and more to the conclusion that looking at the institutions rules is usless. You have to look at the defactor rules not at the ones writen down.
From what I heard on NPR earlier today, there was a big crowd near the Space Needle that all lit up at the stroke of 12 last night.
edit: and then meanwhile, there's this: http://www.geekwire.com/2012/diego-marijuana-bill-gates-bud-... — a former Microsoftie who's starting up a premium pot business. I'm not sure how he's going to make this work until late next year (since it's not legal to sell here, yet!), but more power to the guy.
In Berlin people smoke all the time in public places. In U-bahn stations, in parks, in bars etc. And I wouldn't care less. It's not harming me in any way, like it's not also harmful if they drink a bottle of beer on their way home in the subway, which is totally accepted also.
This is one of the things I didn't understand when I visited SF and NY last spring. Especially the drinking part. Parks are the best place to drink some wine or beer, if you ask me.
As a Dutchman I agree with you (and your German beers)! People relaxing and having a drink/smoke in the park? No problem. In France it's the same, but with wine.
Varies a lot by country. Technically in Ireland it's illegal to drink in public. Police can confiscate drink. However the irish police enforcment can be flexible sometimes.
> And I wouldn't care less. It's not harming me in any way, like it's not also harmful if they drink a bottle of beer on their way home in the subway, which is totally accepted also.
To claim that second-hand smoke is not harmful is utterly absurd. The same goes for alcohol consumption in public places. It's fine to have a drink on the subway, but who takes care of the shattered glass the following day[0]? If you're lucky, the local government will use ratepayer money to clean it up. If you're not lucky, it stays there indefinitely.
Frankly, I think that those who drink or smoke in public are being totally inconsiderate of others.
[0]: This wouldn't be such a big deal if glass bottles weren't so popular. Unfortunately, they are.
So in your opinion everybody who drinks in public always makes a mess? I go to the lake with friends and drink often, but we clean up and put it in one of the public bins.
Also one could argue that if the park is publicly owned it should be publicly cleaned. If you dont want the park getting dirty you should let people in there.
> Frankly, I think that those who drink or smoke in public are being totally inconsiderate of others.
I think you can make a argument for smoking inside (or bars for example) but in a public park.
Also you have to understand berlin, even if smoking is not allowed in bars it is done in almost every bar, people seem to just have rejected the legislation.
> So in your opinion everybody who drinks in public always makes a mess? I go to the lake with friends and drink often, but we clean up and put it in one of the public bins.
I was a bit harsh on drinkers. It is more smokers whom I have a beef with. What I should have said is that I feel as though a consistent approach to regulation of where glassware can and cannot be used is required.
> Also one could argue that if the park is publicly owned it should be publicly cleaned.
Perhaps that might be possible where you live, but it would never happen in my city. Most people here (including myself, I admit) simply don't have the necessary motivation to pick up broken glass unless it's in a place where they can't afford to ignore it (a playground, for example). I cycle-commute each day, and there has been a broken bottle sitting on one of the roads I use for the better part of a few months. The road in question has relatively little vehicle traffic, but is next to a small University and is part of a major bicycle corridor used by hundreds of cyclists each day. It would be trivially easy for just about any of the people who pass it to try and dispose of it properly, but nobody ever does. Annoyances like broken glass, buckled footpaths, etc. tend to just be ignored until somebody gets hurt. I'm not convinced that it would be possible (at least, not in the short term) to get a large number of residents to voluntarily take responsibility for fixing problems which they did not cause.
This is simply wrong. Smoking tobacco is highly cancerogenic and so very harmful. Smoking is also highly unpleasant -- it's just that smokers get used to the abuse of their own bodies (and that of others) over time, and feel good about it, because the advertising industry has successfully fooled large groups of people into believing that smoking makes them more sexually attractive.
I was visiting Berlin a few months ago, and found the smoke in bars and restaurants unbearable. Smoking indoors in the presence of non-smokers is cruel and shows a lack of empathy for others. I couldn't leave fast enough.
I agree however that public drinking (in moderation) is fine and should be legal everywhere.
I'm in favour of banning smoking in all enclosed workplaces and I can see why people are against public drinking. Cigarette smoke smells vile and triggers asthma attacks. From the Irish experience people go “outside” to the patio/courtyard. This means you can drink and smoke but people aren't forced to endure your pollution.
As far as public drinking goes, yes it is lovely but not all countries have as healthy a drinking culture as Germany. I loved going to the Neckarwiese with friends when I lived in Heidelberg and having some beers and a barbecue. But most countries have more Assis than Germany per head, more assholes who would start fights, be loud and obnoxious etc. Or just more binge drinkers. I'm pretty sure legal street drinking just wouldn't work in Ireland or Britain. Too many drunks.
I smoke in bars maybe twice a week and drink on the street or in a park pretty regularly.
Perhaps allowing public drinking, in the long run, might actually foster a 'healthier' drinking culture though.
It's hard to predict, of course, but if you compare it to the 'legalization' of weed in Holland and the resulting 'healthy' weed culture, it might actually work.
Perhaps allowing public drinking, in the long run, might actually foster a 'healthier' drinking culture though.
Maybe in the very long run but I doubt it. And in the long run we're all dead. Personally I doubt drinking culture is really that malleable. In Europe the further north you go the more people drink, on average. Whether it's cultural or genetic drinking culture seems quite stable.
As to the Dutch I am not terribly surprised. If they legalise cocaine it will also generally be used more sensibly than in most countries.
How are the forced. There have allways been bars that allowed smoking and bars that didnt. Everybody gets what they want. I see no reason why owner should do what he thinks is best.
Have there really always been bars that didn't allow smoking? I never saw any in Ireland before the smoking ban. It's not a viable business model.
The rationale behind a ban is approximately thus: Smoking is unpleasant for non-smokers who are a majority. Due to co-ordination problems non smoker disutility from being exposed to cigarette smoke outweighs smoker utility from smoking and this is stable and bad. The government, in an attempt to increase total utility bans smoking in workplaces and total utility goes up.
Forced is perhaps the wrong word but I'm just hoping they bring in a smoking ban here in Shanghai. Going outside to smoke just isn't that much of a hardship and it makes things more pleasant for non smokers and many smokers.
> Have there really always been bars that didn't allow smoking? I never saw any in Ireland before the smoking ban. It's not a viable business model.
I dont know about irland but in Switzerland I was in a Non-Smoking Irish bars for years befor the smokingban came.
Also if it is not a viable buissness model it seams that most people just dont care. Why then do we need to regulate it?
As far as your argument goes for utility, it seems that most non-smokers simple do not really care but the smokers care a lot. Thats why the market is the way it is (or was). Also explain this, lots of resturants where non-smoking only partly smoking befor the smoking bans, so the market does not generally seam to have a problem with banning smoking where people dont want it.
My rational is that I dislick smoking in restaurants but I dont really care in bars that much.
It seams to me that the total utility is much better matched if you let the market do what it does. Also the market is able to change if utility changes much faster then the goverment can change law.
This: "the state’s working on setting up a system to license growers and sellers, but it could take up to a year)."
Excellent. Should have the criminals worried. Even in Holland we still don't have this. (Although we're allowed to have several cannabis plants for personal use).
Many states have had tax stamps for marijuana and other street narcotics on the books for a long time already. You can still buy them and some are collectible [0].
They were used so they could add on even more jail time and so they could seize assets easily since taxes weren't being paid. There was a federal marijuana tax stamp too starting in the 30s I think but it was ruled partially unconstitutional (maybe in the early 70s?) since the way the law was written in order to purchase the stamp you had to incriminate yourself.
Given the general rise in asthma (due largely to environmental factors), I am not happy with the idea of tolerating another kind of smoking in public. I think there is plenty of evidence that respiratory problems can be acquired. You don't have to be born with one.
(Don't get me wrong: I think you should be allowed to consume whatever you want. I just don't think you should be allowed to force me and other people to consume it second hand.)