• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

San Francisco bans smoking inside apartments; pot smoking OK

JacksinPA

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
26,290
Reaction score
16,771
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive

SAN FRANCISCO -- City officials in San Francisco have banned all tobacco smoking inside apartments, citing concerns about secondhand smoke. But lighting up a joint inside? That’s still allowed.

The Board of Supervisors voted 10-1 Tuesday to approve the ordinance making San Francisco the largest city in the country to ban tobacco smoking inside apartments, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

The original proposal sought to ban residents from smoking marijuana in their apartments, but supervisors voted to exclude marijuana after cannabis activists said the law would take away their only legal place to smoke. It’s illegal under state law to smoke cannabis in public places.
================================================================================
Nice city but it's changed a lot since I was there last.
 
I lived in San Francisco (as a 2-pack-a-day smoker) from 2011 until 2014, and I'm pretty sure that smoking was banned in apartments then, as well.
 
Most counties in California banned smoking inside apartments a while ago.
As for pot, pot does not contain the ingredients found in tobacco, because it isn't tobacco.
 
Most counties in California banned smoking inside apartments a while ago.

As for pot, pot does not contain the ingredients found in tobacco, because it isn't tobacco.

But smoking pot is still dangerous to everyone who inhales it.

Is marijuana legal for recreation or just medicinal use in California?
 
But smoking pot is still dangerous to everyone who inhales it.

Is marijuana legal for recreation or just medicinal use in California?

Secondhand smoke studies have not proved that as of yet.
Marijuana in all forms is 100% legal in CA.
You just can't partake of it in public, same as booze.
 
But smoking pot is still dangerous to everyone who inhales it.
Marijuana smoke is far, far safer than tobacco smoke, unless you are operating a vehicle or heavy machinery while under the influence.

It isn't carcinogenic, it doesn't cause emphysema, it doesn't cause cardiac issues, it doesn't even cause or exacerbate asthma.
 
Marijuana smoke is far, far safer than tobacco smoke, unless you are operating a vehicle or heavy machinery while under the influence.

It isn't carcinogenic, it doesn't cause emphysema, it doesn't cause cardiac issues, it doesn't even cause or exacerbate asthma.

I was not implying it does. Marijuana is dangerous in other ways. If it wasn't, why would doctors need voters to approve marijuana as an option for their patients?
 
Secondhand smoke studies have not proved that as of yet.
Marijuana in all forms is 100% legal in CA.
You just can't partake of it in public, same as booze.
And it is always good to remember that evdry car that drives by pukes much more, much worse shit in the air as it drives by than a pot smoker puts out in weeks.

I knew a guy who got into it with a neighbor a couple units over or above or something. Their apartments were right over a freeway. Seemed pretty stupid to me.
 
I was not implying it does. Marijuana is dangerous in other ways. If it wasn't, why would doctors need voters to approve marijuana as an option for their patients?

No other reason other than an antiquated and misguided federal statute that mistakenly has defined it as a Schedule I narcotic, which it isn't and never has been. Doctors should not have to approve cannabis as a medicine anymore than they needed to at the turn of the century when it was included as active ingredients in a wide variety of over the counter medicinal preparations.

It's no more dangerous than a can of beer, just don't use it if you plan to get behind the wheel, again....just like beer.
 
If secondhand pot smoke is ever ruled as hazardous, I am sure that laws will be passed prohibiting smoking it in an apartment.
But by that time I imagine it will be legal to use it outdoors under controlled circumstances.
It's just that I seriously doubt it ever will be ruled hazardous.
If it is, it opens the door to a lot of other hazardous rulings on all kinds of substances found in room air.
 
But smoking pot is still dangerous to everyone who inhales it.

Is marijuana legal for recreation or just medicinal use in California?
It is legal for recreational use and medicinal use in CA. And it is now legal for recreational use in AZ woooo!!!
 
It is legal for recreational use and medicinal use in CA. And it is now legal for recreational use in AZ woooo!!!

The issue is, that whole "medical" thing was just a means of keeping users in second class citizen status.
If you're prescribed Percoset for pain, do they seize your professional licenses, teaching credentials, firearms and firearm permits, or fire you from a job?
All of that AND MORE has been done to "medical marijuana users".
 
I was not implying it does. Marijuana is dangerous in other ways. If it wasn't, why would doctors need voters to approve marijuana as an option for their patients?

If this - " It isn't carcinogenic, it doesn't cause emphysema, it doesn't cause cardiac issues, it doesn't even cause or exacerbate asthma. " - is not what worries you with smoke
from weed, then what does?
 
If this - "It isn't carcinogenic, it doesn't cause emphysema, it doesn't cause cardiac issues, it doesn't even cause or exacerbate asthma" - is not what worries you with smoke from weed, then what does?

You obviously have no educated yourself on why marijuana was federally illegal throughout American history until scientists began to see some medical benefits in certain patients and is still banned even for that purpose in most states. Pot is the only drug that can't be prescribed despite its known medical benefits without voter approval. Why do you think that is?

I support legalizing small doses of marijuana as a controlled prescirption drug for medicinal use in pill form if it does not cause a tolerance in patients like opiates do.
 
Last edited:
You obviously have no educated yourself on why marijuana was federally illegal throughout American history until scientists began to see some medical benefits in certain patients and is still banned even for that purpose in most states.

Lol. You obviously have not educated yourself on how it became illegal. Do some research. Weed is actually very innocuous. Did you have a DARE class in school?
 
But smoking pot is still dangerous to everyone who inhales it.

Is marijuana legal for recreation or just medicinal use in California?

Marijuana smoke is far, far safer than tobacco smoke, unless you are operating a vehicle or heavy machinery while under the influence.

It isn't carcinogenic, it doesn't cause emphysema, it doesn't cause cardiac issues, it doesn't even cause or exacerbate asthma.

I was not implying it does. Marijuana is dangerous in other ways. If it wasn't, why would doctors need voters to approve marijuana as an option for their patients?

What "other ways"? He ran down the list of major things tobacco smoke causes that pot smoke doesn't.




You obviously have no educated yourself on why marijuana was federally illegal throughout American history until scientists began to see some medical benefits in certain patients and is still banned even for that purpose in most states. Pot is the only drug that can't be prescribed despite its known medical benefits without voter approval. Why do you think that is?

You're still saying it's bad, but not why.

At any rate, restrictions only started cropping up in the early 20th century, the most important being the Marihuana Tax Act (1937). The simple fact is that original prohibitions came from racist sentiment against the Mexican migrant workers who smoked it after a long day in the field, black jazz musicians who used it, and so forth. But you might want to take a look at one Harry J. Anslinger. In 1930 he was part of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics under the treasury, and headed a Department of Prohibition.

While (alcohol) prohibition was still on, he said pot wasn't a problem. But as prohibition ended, his department faced obsolescence. He campaigned for a new prohibition: on pot. He cherry picked anecdotes, ignored medical evidence, and long story short put a smear file together aimed at pot. Gotta keep that job, you see. And he ultimately succeeded in whipping up such a public furor that congress passed the Marihuana Tax Act. Etc. He kept his job until 1962.




& internally linked sources.

It had nothing to do with pot being bad. It was just a racist asshole's way to keep his job.




Nixon of course employed the same approach, including hippies with black/civil rights folk he wanted to target.

"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper's writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday. "You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

 
Last edited:
No other reason other than an antiquated and misguided federal statute that mistakenly has defined it as a Schedule I narcotic,

No, it was put there intentionally by John Mitchell, because Nixon hated hippies and blacks and he knew both smoked weed. Nixon actually formed a commission to study marijauna, and they told him to decriminalize it. This is a feature, not a bug, of government regulation.
 
Smoke is smoke. Forest fire smoke causes cancer. All smoke causes cancer. It's introducing carbon and stuff to lung tissue.

They have legal thc and don't vape? Why are they smoking instead of vaping? **** yeah ban smoking. It's stupid. It stinks up the place. I don't care if it's the funky funk, over weeks it becomes wall scum. For thc and for nicotine, just vape. What the hell is wrong with people.
 
LOL You obviously have not educated yourself on how it became illegal. Do some research. Weed is actually very innocuous. Did you have a DARE class in school?

One day in third grade I heard a guest lecture about the dangers of smoking. That was the closest I got to a DARE class.
 
One day in third grade I heard a guest lecture about the dangers of smoking. Does that count?

If weed is innocuous how do people get addicted to it so easily?

Show me some addiction statistics. I have been vaporizing generally 4 times a week for several years now (and off and on throughout my life) and could stop immediately if I wanted to. Its more a case of psychological rather than physical addiction. People get addicted to gambling, to sex, to all kinds of things.
 
I was not implying it does. Marijuana is dangerous in other ways. If it wasn't, why would doctors need voters to approve marijuana as an option for their patients?

How tf do you progressives come up with such asinine arguments? Do you really believe there's a connection between the efficacy of certain drugs and the will of the voters?
 
I was not implying it does. Marijuana is dangerous in other ways. If it wasn't, why would doctors need voters to approve marijuana as an option for their patients?
Pot was deemed dangerous because Mexicans and Blacks were smoking it and it was a good way to prosecute and jail them. That is the reason it was made a schedule 1 drug.
 
Back
Top Bottom