I would be willing to bet that this has to do with the fact that alcohol has plenty of regulations that happen at Federal level and the states (even though they have some local regulation) are not in a hurry to kick that bees nest any further than they already have (especially given who's running the current justice department).
I'm ok with people combining weed and alcohol in the privacy of their own home... and we're stuck with bars as a social meeting space. But alcohol is dangerous, it makes people fight and be angry and I'm ok with not being able to drink at the weed shop.
As a current pothead and former alcoholic, I'm ok with this too. This is, after all, how they run things in that Mecca of indulgence, Amsterdam: one vice per establishment. Weed and booze have a dangerous synergy that squares the effects of both of them. No, you're not going to -die-, but you're far likelier to pass out and/or black out. If you're going to do both at once, please be safely at home. And forget protecting the alcohol industry -- I'm all for protecting the gentle stoner population from belligerent, obnoxious drunks. Good call, California.
Josh is absolutely right -- these laws are stupid. But as @1 pointed out, they are stupid because we still live in this bullshit netherworld where the feds could theoretically come cracking down at any moment. There is no legal reason why the feds couldn't just arrest everyone in every pot shop in Washington. There are political reasons (i. e. thank god for Colorado -- a swing state with legal weed, oh and kudos for Alaska, a Republican stronghold that legalized it a long time ago) but nothing from a legal standpoint.
Besides, it isn't like anyone, anywhere is actually trying to smoke the shit in a bar. Smoking -- in states like California -- is fucking illegal. Has been for a very long time. Holy shit, they started the whole "smoking is bad for your lungs, and really shouldn't be done in an enclosed space because it will kill the poor waitstaff that has to inhale that shit" movement. So that really isn't an issue. But ban the sales of both weed and booze? That is just silly. Yes, Washington has silly laws too, but damn, we were the first. We had no idea if it would actually pass and took every effort to make sure the law dealt with every bullshit issue.
But California? Shit, the kids looking at the history books fifty years from now will scratch their heads and say "What took California so long?". They will wonder why California -- once the leader in social justice issues like this -- was not only behind, but had no interest in moving the ball forward. They seem as passive, and chicken-shit as every other state, even though they are bad-ass, motherfucking California.
Anyway, of course people smoke weed and drink. But this means that if someone goes into a bar and eats an edible there, they will be breaking the law. From a practical standpoint, it probably doesn't matter (it would be hard to enforce) but somehow I think this will somehow result in a black guy going to jail (it is a pot law after all).
The only real difference is that someone who wants to make, say, a beer with weed in it (legally) is prevented from doing so. Holy shit, you can't even have Hemp? What the fuck is that. The Hemperor (from New Belgium) is a damn good beer. They had to "to recreate hemp terpene flavors in a beer", but why the fuck can't they (and much smaller breweries) make beer with a bit of hemp. Or why can't I buy an herbal liqueur with weed in it (something similar to Chartreuse or Génépi)? That's stupid. I know for a fact that people are making this sort of thing, but it is all illegal.
Like most pot laws in this country, all it means is that people get just as high, but do so in a different manner.
I would be willing to bet that this has to do with the fact that alcohol has plenty of regulations that happen at Federal level and the states (even though they have some local regulation) are not in a hurry to kick that bees nest any further than they already have (especially given who's running the current justice department).
Should have read to the end, but the tone of this post had my at way before that.
I'm ok with people combining weed and alcohol in the privacy of their own home... and we're stuck with bars as a social meeting space. But alcohol is dangerous, it makes people fight and be angry and I'm ok with not being able to drink at the weed shop.
As a current pothead and former alcoholic, I'm ok with this too. This is, after all, how they run things in that Mecca of indulgence, Amsterdam: one vice per establishment. Weed and booze have a dangerous synergy that squares the effects of both of them. No, you're not going to -die-, but you're far likelier to pass out and/or black out. If you're going to do both at once, please be safely at home. And forget protecting the alcohol industry -- I'm all for protecting the gentle stoner population from belligerent, obnoxious drunks. Good call, California.
@4 are the evolved form of one Ms. Herzog?
Josh is absolutely right -- these laws are stupid. But as @1 pointed out, they are stupid because we still live in this bullshit netherworld where the feds could theoretically come cracking down at any moment. There is no legal reason why the feds couldn't just arrest everyone in every pot shop in Washington. There are political reasons (i. e. thank god for Colorado -- a swing state with legal weed, oh and kudos for Alaska, a Republican stronghold that legalized it a long time ago) but nothing from a legal standpoint.
Besides, it isn't like anyone, anywhere is actually trying to smoke the shit in a bar. Smoking -- in states like California -- is fucking illegal. Has been for a very long time. Holy shit, they started the whole "smoking is bad for your lungs, and really shouldn't be done in an enclosed space because it will kill the poor waitstaff that has to inhale that shit" movement. So that really isn't an issue. But ban the sales of both weed and booze? That is just silly. Yes, Washington has silly laws too, but damn, we were the first. We had no idea if it would actually pass and took every effort to make sure the law dealt with every bullshit issue.
But California? Shit, the kids looking at the history books fifty years from now will scratch their heads and say "What took California so long?". They will wonder why California -- once the leader in social justice issues like this -- was not only behind, but had no interest in moving the ball forward. They seem as passive, and chicken-shit as every other state, even though they are bad-ass, motherfucking California.
Anyway, of course people smoke weed and drink. But this means that if someone goes into a bar and eats an edible there, they will be breaking the law. From a practical standpoint, it probably doesn't matter (it would be hard to enforce) but somehow I think this will somehow result in a black guy going to jail (it is a pot law after all).
The only real difference is that someone who wants to make, say, a beer with weed in it (legally) is prevented from doing so. Holy shit, you can't even have Hemp? What the fuck is that. The Hemperor (from New Belgium) is a damn good beer. They had to "to recreate hemp terpene flavors in a beer", but why the fuck can't they (and much smaller breweries) make beer with a bit of hemp. Or why can't I buy an herbal liqueur with weed in it (something similar to Chartreuse or Génépi)? That's stupid. I know for a fact that people are making this sort of thing, but it is all illegal.
Like most pot laws in this country, all it means is that people get just as high, but do so in a different manner.