NationStates Jolt Archive

But only for smoking tobacco.
LETTER FROM AMSTERDAM ISABEL CONWAY THE THICK pall of sweet-smelling pot smoke, which has hung over the Netherlands since the first "coffee shop" opened its doors in 1972, will be all the stronger now that cannabis consumers are banned from "diluting" their joints with tobacco.

A peculiar state of affairs has been created for Amsterdam's famed marijuana coffee shops as of yesterday, when the Dutch introduced a public smoking ban in compliance with EU law to protect hospitality workers' health. Users can still light up joints filled with pure cannabis - which pack a far more potent punch - as long as they don't contain a trace of tobacco.

The new rules have been called "absurd" and "unenforceable", amid warnings that forensic laboratories may not be able to cope with the flood of suspect tobacco-laced marijuana joints confiscated by inspectors.

"It's the world upside down: in other countries they look for the marijuana in the cigarette; here they look for the cigarette in the marijuana," said one coffee-shop manager.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2008/0702/1214949259071.html?via=mr

So, the Dam will still have the wacky, but now without tobaccy. Amusing stuff. A bit on the hypocritical side though, to ban smoking tobacco in public places for the sake of worker's health and safety, but not doing the same with marijuana.

WoW this country is now stupid. and they were doing so well with legalizing pot.

The first European to smoke tobacco in public was imprisoned by the Spanish Inquisition for 7 years for it. Fact.

The arguments against tobacco haven't changed much since King James I. "A custome lothsome to the eye, hatefull to the Nose, harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse."

The first European to smoke tobacco in public was imprisoned by the Spanish Inquisition for 7 years for it. Fact.

The arguments against tobacco haven't changed much since King James I. "A custome lothsome to the eye, hatefull to the Nose, harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse."

i can see banning it from public. but this is a smoke coffee house. you go there knowing the place will be smoked filled.
or to mooch off the hippies.

The first European to smoke tobacco in public was imprisoned by the Spanish Inquisition for 7 years for it. Fact.

The arguments against tobacco haven't changed much since King James I. "A custome lothsome to the eye, hatefull to the Nose, harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse."

Except it turns out he was right about tobacco being dangerous, and we have evidence to support it now, rather than just listening to him cos he's the King and he talks funny.

The first European to smoke tobacco in public was imprisoned by the Spanish Inquisition for 7 years for it. Fact.

The arguments against tobacco haven't changed much since King James I. "A custome lothsome to the eye, hatefull to the Nose, harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse."

Well smoking is a filthy habit of sorts, and very antisocial when you think of it.

i can see banning it from public. but this is a smoke coffee house. you go there knowing the place will be smoked filled.
or to mooch off the hippies.

I imagine that's how they'll try to protect themselves from an extension of the ban. 'This place exists for the purposes of smoking weed, how can you ban it here?' sort of thing.

I imagine that's how they'll try to protect themselves from an extension of the ban. 'This place exists for the purposes of smoking weed, how can you ban it here?' sort of thing.

its a bit silly to legalize pot and ban tobacco

its a bit silly to legalize pot and ban tobacco

Perhaps they're all just high?

that's because marijuana is not nearly as unhealthy as tobacco. tobacco naturally contains nicotine (which is added by companies to maintain a balance of content due to crop flucuations)--a known poison; a few drops of nicotine can kill a person.
marijuana has chemicals, yes. but they are not dangerous. smoking marijuana chronically (no pun intended) is pretty bad though; it activates your adrenal glands and depletes them if you smoke all the time. marijuana also does not kill brain cells; it affects short term memory, but only during use and for a short while afterwards.
i however, am opposed to smoking anything anyway because the smoke alone is damaging enough (make marijuana tea or use it as a cooking herb to eliminate that problem). so if that's where your concern was, i understand; otherwise the ban makes perfect sense to me. i think we should adopt that policy.

The US NEEDS TO INTERVENE HERE. OCCUPY THE PLACE AND REMOVE THE SILLY LEGISLATION. I mean this could effect profits from our tobacco crops.

A bit on the hypocritical side though, to ban smoking tobacco in public places for the sake of worker's health and safety, but not doing the same with marijuana.
I'm not seeing any hypocrisy. It seems to be accepted that passive inhalation of tobacco smoke is bad for people, so banning it in enclosed public spaces makes perfect sense. Marijuana, on the other hand, can be used in a whole host of ways that do not involve mixing it with tobacco.

The only hypocrisy highlighted by this move is that the countries that most of us live in continue to demonise marijuana whilst happily taxing tobacco products at the same time. Doublethink, as they say.

I'm not seeing any hypocrisy. It seems to be accepted that passive inhalation of tobacco smoke is bad for people, so banning it in enclosed public spaces makes perfect sense. Marijuana, on the other hand, can be used in a whole host of ways that do not involve mixing it with tobacco.

The only hypocrisy highlighted by this move is that the countries that most of us live in continue to demonise marijuana whilst happily taxing tobacco products at the same time. Doublethink, as they say.

but cigs dont make me become a dirty hippie who doesn't work.

I'm not seeing any hypocrisy. It seems to be accepted that passive inhalation of tobacco smoke is bad for people, so banning it in enclosed public spaces makes perfect sense. Marijuana, on the other hand, can be used in a whole host of ways that do not involve mixing it with tobacco.

The only hypocrisy highlighted by this move is that the countries that most of us live in continue to demonise marijuana whilst happily taxing tobacco products at the same time. Doublethink, as they say.

Are you suggesting that marijuana isn't bad for people?

No, I'm not. I'm simply pointing out (again) that there is a blatant double standard involved in any society that criminalises use of marijuana whilst simultaneously gaining funds by taxing other narcotics.

That I personally believe marijuana to be less harmful than tobacco -- and, let's face it, I'm not exactly alone in that view -- is irrelevant.

Much though it might be fun to do the whole "it's bad" vs "no it isn't" vs "it's not as bad as <insert whatever>" vs "meh" debate for the nth time (it would at the least be a nice break from the whole religion theme that's dominated the front page since the US election threads first got merged) I just don't have the inclination to go through it all again, which is why I very carefully didn't say it. ;)

There is a not so obvious money dynamic going on here.

Tobacco is the province of huge multibillion corporations operating above-board in western nations. Marijuana isn't.

This means two things, although most people only think of the first.

First, Tobacco is, and has been for years, defended with lots and lots of money.

But second, it means that a lawyer can get lots and lots of money fighting Tobacco.

The effects of Marijuana haven't been studied to nearly the same degree for these two reasons. Who is going to pay for a positive study, and who for a negative one? If you can show in court that Marijuana smoke has crippled your lungs, who can you sue for a hundred million dollars?

This has made it invisible.

and they were doing so well with legalizing pot.
That's a common misconception. As a citizen of the Dutch Kingdom, I can tell you that marihuana actually isn't a legalized commodity in the Netherlands. It's just being tolerated by the authorities, that policy is called gedoogbeleid over here. If marihuana would actually be legalized in the Netherlands, the Swedish and French governments would become infuriated, creating quite a few diplomatic problems for our government in The Hague to solve. It's a pretty absurd situation, actually.

Except it turns out he was right about tobacco being dangerous, and we have evidence to support it now, rather than just listening to him cos he's the King and he talks funny.

But he proves that the anti-tobacco crowd doesn't, and never has, needed 'evidence' or a health risk. For them it's just about an icky habit that annoys them personally.

Most of the evidence is pretty weak anyway.



Well smoking is a filthy habit of sorts, and very antisocial when you think of it.

I think tobacco persecution is very antisocial.

that's because marijuana is not nearly as unhealthy as tobacco. tobacco naturally contains nicotine (which is added by companies to maintain a balance of content due to crop flucuations)--a known poison; a few drops of nicotine can kill a person.

A few drops of pure ANYTHING can be harmful. Do note that alcohol is by definition poison - "intoxication" means that the very effect of alcohol is brought on by killing brain cells. So what's wrong with a little tobacco?

A few drops of pure ANYTHING can be harmful. Do note that alcohol is by definition poison - "intoxication" means that the very effect of alcohol is brought on by killing brain cells. So what's wrong with a little tobacco?

i never said anything about alcohol. i do know that it kills cells and that it is technically (though not by definition) a poison--especially pure (don't drink rubbing alcohol, everclear unmixed, or absinthe {yummy stuff} undiluted {deadly stuff}).
but for fun, let's look at those definitions you spoke of:

al*co*hol /alkehawl, -hol/ n. 1.colorless volatile flammable liquid forming the intoxicatingelemint in wine, beer, liquor, etc., and also used as a solvent, as fuel, etc. 2. any liquor containing this 3. Chem. any of a large class of organic compounds that contain one or more hydroxyl groups attached to carbon atoms

In*tox*i*cat*ing /intoksikayting adj. 1. liable to cause intoxication; alcoholic. 2. exhilarating; exciting

the point being that, relatively speaking, tobacco is unhealthier than either marijuana or alcohol. a cigarette a day can cause lung and mouth problems. a joint a day.... well i don't know; i don't smoke pot but the smoke is bad just like a cigarette. an 8-ounce glass of 80-proof alcohol: cleaner organs free of harmful bacteria (and some good ones too unfortunately) and the eventual liver damage

No, I'm not. I'm simply pointing out (again) that there is a blatant double standard involved in any society that criminalises use of marijuana whilst simultaneously gaining funds by taxing other narcotics.


Um...marijuana isn't a narcotic. Nor is tobacco. If you are talking about actual narcotics (opium, opiate dirivatives [synthetic and natural] and (only by US legal definition) cocaine), the federal government only gains through corporate income taxes upon the manufacturer and pharmacy.

Um...marijuana isn't a narcotic. Nor is tobacco.<snip>
True enough, if we want to be properly linguistically accurate. I apologise.

It's worth noting though, that 'narcotics' is another example of a word that, in its normal day-to-day usage by the majority of the population, has had its 'correct' meaning superceded. It is no longer used just as a descriptor for a substance that induces sleep, but has come to be used interchangeably with the wonderful catch-all label, 'drugs'.

Contemporary dictionaries reflect this change of use. Merriam-Webster, for example, defines modern meanings for it as both a noun and an adjective ("inducing mental lethargy" and "something that soothes, relieves, or lulls", respectively), neither of which match its classical meaning. MW actually also lists a secondary meaning which explicitly names marijuana as 'a narcotic', a drug (as marijuana or LSD) subject to restriction similar to that of addictive narcotics whether physiologically addictive and narcotic or not which kind of nullifies your objection if you're prepared to accept MW definitions as correct. If you're not, of course, we can always do the whole colour vs color thing again ;)

Regardless, it was a clumsy choice of word on my part, I agree.

i never said anything about alcohol. i do know that it kills cells and that it is technically (though not by definition) a poison--especially pure (don't drink rubbing alcohol, everclear unmixed, or absinthe {yummy stuff} undiluted {deadly stuff}).

Well, people tend not to drink rubbing alcohol. They also tend not to drink pure nicotine. ;)


but for fun, let's look at those definitions you spoke of:

al*co*hol /alkehawl, -hol/ n. 1.colorless volatile flammable liquid forming the intoxicatingelemint in wine, beer, liquor, etc., and also used as a solvent, as fuel, etc. 2. any liquor containing this 3. Chem. any of a large class of organic compounds that contain one or more hydroxyl groups attached to carbon atoms

..."Intoxicatinglemint?"


the point being that, relatively speaking, tobacco is unhealthier than either marijuana or alcohol.

About how many domestic abuse and crimes are related to alcohol and alcoholism?

About how many people die a year thanks to drunk driving or alcohol-related diseases?

The point is, alcohol is legal. Since that's legal, tobacco should be too. (As marijuana.)

a cigarette a day can cause lung and mouth problems. a joint a day.... well i don't know; i don't smoke pot but the smoke is bad just like a cigarette.

A joint a day would easily have the same affect as a cigarette a day. I am rather skeptical about that claim too. They obviously don't determine it by giving people a cigarette per day and seeing what happens. So how?

an 8-ounce glass of 80-proof alcohol: cleaner organs free of harmful bacteria (and some good ones too unfortunately) and the eventual liver damage

...also causes intoxication, which does far more harm than some smoke. In fact, I would describe alcohol-related violence and drunk driving to be "passive drinking."

So, the Dam will still have the wacky, but now without tobaccy. Amusing stuff. A bit on the hypocritical side though, to ban smoking tobacco in public places for the sake of worker's health and safety, but not doing the same with marijuana.

Not really, I mean tobacco is way more dangerous then weed. Not saying it doesn't happen but I've never heard of anybody getting cancer from smoking a little bit of weed. We may get stupid but we don't get cancer.

It's not truly "government" if it isn't passing stupid laws and enforcing stupid regulations.

If the Netherlands weren't hypocritical on something like this, they might be accused of not having a real government.

That's a common misconception. As a citizen of the Dutch Kingdom, I can tell you that marihuana actually isn't a legalized commodity in the Netherlands. It's just being tolerated by the authorities, that policy is called gedoogbeleid over here. If marihuana would actually be legalized in the Netherlands, the Swedish and French governments would become infuriated, creating quite a few diplomatic problems for our government in The Hague to solve. It's a pretty absurd situation, actually.

Note however that courts have ruled that this gedoogbeleid has been going on so long that it is no longer allowed to just break it. Shutting an establishment down on the grounds of "we will no longer tolerate it" is therefor not lawful anymore.

it affects short term memory, but only during use and for a short while afterwards.
But does it affect short term memory?

lame... i always liked our way of mixing bud with baccy. ah well

Note however that courts have ruled that this gedoogbeleid has been going on so long that it is no longer allowed to just break it. Shutting an establishment down on the grounds of "we will no longer tolerate it" is therefor not lawful anymore.

It's a grey area. Personally I would support the full-fledged legalization of the stuff, even though I'm not a consumer of marihuana products.