San Francisco bans smoking tobacco in apartments, but not marijuana

[OGIS]

San Francisco bans smoking tobacco in apartments, but not marijuana


An ordinance passed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Tuesday bans city residents from smoking tobacco inside their apartments but allows them to smoke pot at home, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.


On the surface, this seems quite unfair. However, the article also notes that "The ordinance reportedly banned the smoking of marijuana in an earlier iteration but was changed amid concerns that the legislation would rob pot smokers of the only place they can legally light up."

That's a valid point, but it seems to be missing the point. Weed smoke is still second hand smoke, and has many of the same issues as second hand smoke from tobacco (i.e.: no nicotine, but certainly carbon monoxide and other chemicals common to burning vegetation). It seems to me that state law that bans weed smoking outside the home needs to be changed.

As it stands now? Smoking tobacco: go outside; smoking weed: stay inside.

[Lummy]

Far out, you're in luck, ogis.

[Lummy]

The main reason democrats generally view drugs, from dope to horse to fentanyl, in a more favorable light is because these drugs help calm the victims of democrat politics so they don't resist.

[Cotton1]

Hey man, like its an herb, man. Its beyond far out. Its like on Pluto, man.

If the Grateful Dead could've smoked the Ganja legally they'd have named themselves the "Very Grateful Dead", man .

[countryboy]

San Francisco bans smoking tobacco in apartments, but not marijuana


An ordinance passed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Tuesday bans city residents from smoking tobacco inside their apartments but allows them to smoke pot at home, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.


On the surface, this seems quite unfair. However, the article also notes that "The ordinance reportedly banned the smoking of marijuana in an earlier iteration but was changed amid concerns that the legislation would rob pot smokers of the only place they can legally light up."

That's a valid point, but it seems to be missing the point. Weed smoke is still second hand smoke, and has many of the same issues as second hand smoke from tobacco (i.e.: no nicotine, but certainly carbon monoxide and other chemicals common to burning vegetation). It seems to me that state law that bans weed smoking outside the home needs to be changed.

As it stands now? Smoking tobacco: go outside; smoking weed: stay inside.

A textbook example of what leftist lunacy produces.

[countryboy]

Hey man, like its an herb, man. Its beyond far out. Its like on Pluto, man.

If the Grateful Dead could've smoked the Ganja legally they'd have named themselves the "Very Grateful Dead", man .

Hey, mellow out man!

[Dr. Who]

Considering that weed reeks at least 100 times worse than cigarettes - it literally smells like skunk, people will be buying incense to kill the smell of weed in their places, so the cigarette smokers can just burn incense to mask the smell as well or burn a little hemp to add that skunky top note. How is anyone going to know?

[Cotton1]

Considering that weed reeks at least 100 times worse than cigarettes - it literally smells like skunk, people will be buying incense to kill the smell of weed in their places, so the cigarette smokers can just burn incense to mask the smell as well or burn a little hemp to add that skunky top note. How is anyone going to know?

They won't unless someone calls the heat and says "hey man there is a dude down the hall that usually only smokes weed but I think he is smoking cigs too.

Get out here, fast !

[HawkTheSlayer]

[Cotton1]