Smoking ban could close cannabis cafés

The Guardian via WorldNetDaily.com ^ | May 29, 2003 | Andrew Osborn

[Pern]

For the Netherlands' famous network of cannabis-peddling coffee shops the high times could be about to be stubbed out - for good.

A tough new anti-smoking law due to take effect from January of next year is about to turn the Dutch work place into a smoke-free zone and coffee shops are not exempted.

Under the new law every company in the country must ensure that their employees are not exposed to tobacco smoke. Lighting up a joint in one of 800 coffee shops therefore faces extinction from 2005.

Coffee shops will still be allowed to sell joints but their customers will have to go outside to smoke. Unsurprisingly the country's marijuana retailers are not pleased. "We might as well just shut up shop," Dick Langereis, the manager of two Amsterdam coffee shops, told the daily Trouw. "Just let them try and enforce this in the Hague," added a man called Gilbert who runs a coffee shop in the city of Nijmegen.

However a spokesman from the Dutch health ministry told the Guardian that the law will be rigorously policed.

"Consumer authorities will carry out random spot checks," he said. "Coffee shops are just like any other companies - they will have to follow the law."

Customers could scarcely believe their ears yesterday. "They've got to be out of their minds," said Annemiek van Royan, a regular at the Kashmir Lounge in Amsterdam. "The best part is coming here to relax. It makes my day."

The first Dutch coffee shop opened in 1972 and although cannabis is technically illegal its use and sale has been tolerated ever since. "The point of going to a coffee shop is to smoke," said Arjan Roskam, chairman of the union of cann-abis retailers. Some have floated the idea of heated outdoor terraces to get round the ban.

"We only employ smokers," said Mr Langereis. "If you work for us you are a smoker and all our customers are smokers so this is just crazy."

Coffee shops had a turnover of €300m (£220m) in 1999, the latest year for which figures are available.

[Pern]

However a spokesman from the Dutch health ministry told the Guardian that the law will be rigorously policed.

Wait until the tax money generated by pot dries up, then they'll change their tune.

[jmc813]

WOD Ping

[MrLeRoy]

Well, tobacco is far more addictive, and more clearly implicated in lung disease, than marijuana.

[MrLeRoy]

Wod_list ping

[Wolfie]

The whole reason there are cannabis cafes in the first place is because the Dutch don't knuckle under to busy-bodies. This will go nowhere fast.

[MrLeRoy]

Then how did this law get passed?

[Wolfie]

Because the pols wanted it. They also quickly extended the deadline for another year when the people howled. My guess is it gets extended another year (and then another). In the end, the people will not obey the law, and the cops will figure out that they have better things to do.

[MrLeRoy]

They also quickly extended the deadline for another year when the people howled.

I see. Thanks for the background!

[MrLeRoy]

From another report: "Health Ministry spokesman Bas Kuik said the law was not intended to target coffee shops, and - as in all public areas - they could have designated smoking areas."

Designated smoking areas in a cannabis cafe. That's government for you.

[robertpaulsen]

"and more clearly implicated in lung disease"

"Smoking marijuana can injure or destroy lung tissue. Marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more of some cancer causing chemicals than does tobacco smoke," said John L. Kirkwood, President and CEO of the American Lung Association.

"These reports show that marijuana and tobacco smoking cause similar lung changes--with one difference--marijuana has a much more potent effect. In terms of lung damage, one joint is equivalent to a full pack of 20 cigarettes. Why does marijuana appear to be more dangerous? First, the total amount of tar is greater in marijuana than in tobacco smoke. Second, marijuana contains many of the same lung irritants and cancer-causing compounds that are found in tobacco smoke. Some of those chemicals--such as the potent carcinogen benzopyrene--are found in greater amounts in marijuana. Third, marijuana is smoked more deeply and held in the lungs for a longer time, thus multiplying its danger. Compared to tobacco, our national experience with marijuana is relatively brief--but the current results suggest it is also a powerful respiratory poison with cancer-producing potential."
--For WellnessWise I'm Dr. David DeRose. Reference: Kevin Starr, MD, and Mark Renneker, MD, A cytologic evaluation of sputum in marijuana smokers, The Journal of Family Practice 39(4):359-363. October 1994.

Plus, 97% of the cigarettes marketed in the U.S. are filtered, further reducing the tars and other irritants.

I suppose you have a (credible) source for your statement?

[Wolfie]

Maybe the problem is the European custom of mixing cannabis and tobacco together. They should just go with straight weed.

[jmc813]

Plus, 97% of the cigarettes marketed in the U.S. are filtered, further reducing the tars and other irritants.

The reason you gave is more legitamate than any given in the report you cited.

[MrLeRoy]

The evidence you cite is all indirect---with the possible exception of "In terms of lung damage, one joint is equivalent to a full pack of 20 cigarettes." Wolfie had a nice link debunking a similar claim---would you post that link, Wolfie?

[MrLeRoy]

Plus, 97% of the cigarettes marketed in the U.S. are filtered, further reducing the tars and other irritants.

The reason you gave is more legitamate than any given in the report you cited.

But irrelevant to my statement that "tobacco is [...] more clearly implicated in lung disease than marijuana."

[robertpaulsen]

And the evidence that you cited, per my request, is non-existent.

[MrLeRoy]

My claim is based on absence of evidence; are you asking me to prove a negative?

[Ol' Sparky]

Finally, something good might come out of one of these smoking bans! I guess two wrong, left-wing ideas (decriminalizing pot and banning smoking) might combine to produce a positive result...Amazing.

[robertpaulsen]

Your claim was that "tobacco is ... more clearly implicated in lung disease, than marijuana."

What are you talking about, "based on absence of evidence" and "proving a negative"? Just back up your claim, that's all.

I'm saying, pound for pound, smoked marijuana is more harmful to the lungs than smoked tobacco, compounded by the fact that marijuana is smoked without a filter.

[MrLeRoy]

Your claim was that "tobacco is ... more clearly implicated in lung disease, than marijuana."

What are you talking about, "based on absence of evidence" and "proving a negative"?

Get some coffee---you need a kickstart. There is less (if any) evidence for marijuana causing lung disease than for tobacco causing lung disease, ergo tobacco is more clearly implicated.

I'm saying, pound for pound, smoked marijuana is more harmful to the lungs than smoked tobacco

Do you have any clinical or epidemiological evidence for your claim?

[MrLeRoy]

wrong, left-wing ideas (decriminalizing pot

What's wrong or left-wing about letting adults make their own decisions? Is legal alcohol a "wrong, left-wing idea"?