Sacramento's drug of choice: Taxable cannabis packaged in $100 bills

It's not OK to expose California workers to secondhand smoke, but is it OK to do so when it comes to cannabis secondhand smoke?

Gov. Gavin Newsom made it clear where he stands on the issue.

Newsom — who just a few years ago was exhorting everyone to follow the science — chose not to follow the science wholesale.

Newsom this week signed into law allowing cities in California to allow cannabis dispensaries to serve hot food and non-alcoholic drinks to customers who smoke marijuana.

Cities may also allow dispensaries to host comedy shows and concerts related to on-site cannabis consumption.

Those who use cannabis clearly have no concerns.

But what about cannabis dispensary workers who could be granted an exemption from California's 30-year-old law banning smoking in public places, businesses, offices and workplaces?

The American Cancer Society has scientific research indicating that secondhand cannabis smoke has higher particulate matter levels than secondhand tobacco smoke.

There is also data showing, although to a lesser extent, that secondhand cannabis smoke can cause asthma attacks, cardiovascular disease and lung problems.

And as ironic as it may sound, the governor vetoed a similar bill last year, citing the same health concerns for grocery workers and customers.

What has changed?

The signed bill stipulates that workers in cannabis cafes have the right to wear respirators and that employers must pay for them.

It will also require such employers to include secondhand smoke in their employees' injury and illness prevention plans.

The new law also includes a provision that states: “If” cities that allow cannabis cafes decide to issue permits that require ventilation standards, the systems must be “powerful enough.”

In other words, it must “prevent smoke and odors from migrating to other parts of a building” where a cannabis cafe is located and not impact neighboring buildings or properties.

This is kind of wishful thinking, because any scientist will tell you that the only way to prevent smoke from spreading is to not smoke.

Newsom, who served as governor while also standing aside as California's head of state, noted in his bill signing message that it is critical for cities to make the safety of their employees a top priority while working to mitigate the risks for public health.

Had Newsom remained true to his position when he vetoed a similar measure last year, such a warning would not be necessary.

But don't be afraid.

Newsom will save us all.

He also added that if cities do not prioritize worker safety and public health, which he has failed to do, “it may require a reconsideration of this limited expansion.”

Notice he said “could,” “wouldn’t.”

And that might mean reconsidering his lawsuit, not withdrawing it.

Loosely translated: Nothing will happen.

There are those who point out that the world has not yet ended in some California cannabis dispensaries that allow smoking, vaping and sampling edibles.

But it still doesn't explain why anyone gets an absolute exemption when it comes to indoor public smoking, whether it's cigarettes, cigars or cannabis.

The answer is honestly: tax money.

It's the drug of choice in Sacramento.

Between the cannabis excise tax and the sales tax on cannabis, the total is approximately $1 billion per year and rising for the state of California.

It's also a $5.5 billion generator for the legal cannabis industry.

This industry has expended an inordinate amount of energy trying to convince voters that legalizing marijuana sales will reduce criminal activity associated with the black market.

They cited high tax revenues as justification for the passage.

Then, when there were no black market losses, even though legal cannabis dispensaries were generating $5.5 billion in sales per year, they argued that taxes made the amount too high for them to close.

Newsom drank the Kool-Aid from the start.

And it has always been the high taxes that Sacramento has been able to spend on a variety of popular political projects, up to and including mega-state government, that have been the price.

Proponents of the new law, including author Matt Haney, D-San Francisco, see it as a way to increase profits from legal cannabis and “crush the illegal drug market.”

They also cited the need to revitalize California's nightlife and create a more pleasant weed culture.

So when did increasing profits from legal cannabis, boosting nightlife and facilitating cannabis culture become problems that state government was created to address?

And more importantly, when has it trumped the fundamental reason for a government's existence, which is to ensure adequate levels of public safety and health?

Was there another compelling reason to back away from the state's decades-long push for smoke-free workplaces?

But people don't have to work in places where smoking cannabis is allowed, right?

This would effectively be discrimination against those who are non-smokers or who believe that their health should not be put at risk in the long term if they take a job.

Even in public accommodations, the state clearly discriminates against tobacco smokers compared to cannabis smokers.

In the California world that created Sacramento, it is illegal for cities to allow restaurants, casinos, nightclubs and concert halls to accommodate tobacco users by allowing cigarette smoking.

However, replace “cannabis” with “tobacco” and suddenly everything is fine,

What do you have to smoke to rationalize this so that it makes sense?

Is marijuana in rolled up $100 bills taxable?