What liability? These are in government-licensed facilities regulated by the same government institutions which regulate the sale of alcohol, which require you, just like a bar or liquor store do, to verify your identity and that you are an adult with a government-issued ID, where all products are subject to government testing and taxation.
This isn’t about liability, it’s about outdated federal regulations which remain in place only because alcohol producers continue to pay off / “donate to” congresspeople to prevent a different inebriant, consumption and usage of which is demonstrably safer for both the direct consumer and the general public, from affecting alcohol profits.
What liability? These are in government-licensed facilities regulated by the same government institutions which regulate the sale of alcohol, which require you, just like a bar or liquor store do, to verify your identity and that you are an adult with a government-issued ID, where all products are subject to government testing and taxation.
This isn’t about liability, it’s about outdated federal regulations which remain in place only because alcohol producers continue to pay off / “donate to” congresspeople to prevent a different inebriant, consumption and usage of which is demonstrably safer for both the direct consumer and the general public, from affecting alcohol profits.
That’s the liability, the feds can theoretically go after it still even if the state has allowed it.
Exactly. Not sure why everyone is down-voting me to hell. I didn’t say I like it, but it is a liability.
Because you sound like you’re arguing that it’s not a liability while making the point of why it’s a liability.
Also you have 3 down votes. Chill.
41 downvotes. I am arguing that it is a liability. What have I said that would suggest it isn’t?