It is not OK to subject California workers to secondhand tobacco smoke but it is OK to do so when it comes to secondhand cannabis smoke?

Gov. Gavin Newsom made it clear where he stands on that question.

Newsom — who just a few short years ago was lecturing everyone to follow the science — opted not to follow the science in a big way.

Newsom this week signed into law the ability for cities in California to allow cannabis dispensaries to serve hot food and non-alcoholic drinks to patrons smoking marijuana’

Cities also can allow dispensaries to host comedy shows and concerts in conjunction with the in-site consumption of cannabis.

Those that partake in cannabis clearly have no concern.

But what about the workers in cannabis dispensaries that could be allowed an exception to the 30 plus years of California law that has prohibited smoking inside public places, businesses, offices, and places of employment?

The American Cancer Society is armed with scientific research that points to secondhand cannabis smoke having higher particulate levels than secondhand tobacco smoke.

There is also data that shows — even though it might be to a lesser degree — that secondhand cannabis smoke can cause asthma attacks, cardiovascular disease, and lung issues.

And as ironic as it might sound, the Governor vetoed a similar bill last year citing the same health concerns for food workers and customers.

What changed?

The bill signed into law assured cannabis cafe workers have the right to wear respirator masks and employers must pay for them.

It also requires such employers to include secondhand smoke in injury and illness prevention plans for their workers.

There’s also a provision in the new law noting “if” cities allowing cannabis cafes decide to issue permits that impose ventilation standards the systems must be “powerful enough.”

In other words, it must “prevent smoke and odors from migrating to any other part of a building” where a cannabis cafe is located in from impacting any nearby buildings or grounds.

That’s kind of wishful thinking given any scientist will tell you the only way to prevent the migrating of smoke is not smoking.

Newsom, acting gubernatorial while side stepping being the leader of California, indicated in his bill signing message that it was critical for cities to make employee safety a top priority while working to minimize public health safety risks.

Had Newsom been consistent with his position last year when he vetoed a similar measure, such a warning wouldn’t be necessary.

But have no fear.

Newsom is going to save us all.

He also added if cities don’t prioritize employee safety and public health which he failed to do, “it could necessitate reconsideration of this limited expansion.”

Notice he said could, not would.

And that was possibly to reconsider his action, not revoke it.

Freely translated: Nothing is going to happen.

There are those who will point out the world hasn’t come to an end in some California cannabis dispensaries that have been allowed to smoke, vape, and sample edibles.

But it still doesn’t explain why anyone is getting an exemption that has been an absolute when it comes to smoking indoors in places of public accommodation whether its cigarettes, cigars, or cannabis.

The answer honestly is tax dollars.

It’s the drug of choice in Sacramento.

Between cannabis excise tax and sales tax on cannabis, it is roughly an annual $1 billion windfall and growing to the State of California.

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

That industry has spent an inordinate amount of energy first convincing voters making pot sales legal will reduce criminal activity associated with the black market.

They dangled high tax revenue as a justification for passage.

Then when it didn’t make a dent in the black market despite legal cannabis dispensaries collecting $5.5 billion a year in sales, they argued taxes were making it too high for them to complete.

Newsom drank the Kool-Aid from the get go.

And it had always been the high from more taxes for Sacramento to spend on a multitude of pet political projects to mega-size state government that has been the prize.

Supporters of the new law, including author Matt Haney, D-San Francisco, see it a way to boost legal cannabis profits and to “beat back the illegal drug market.”

They also cited a need to help reinvigorate nightlife in California plus create a more comfortable weed culture.

So when did boosting legal cannabis profits, jacking up nightlife, and making the weed culture more comfortable become problems the state government was created to address?

More importantly, when did it trump the foundational reason government exists which is assuring reasonable level of public safety and health?

Was there another overriding reason to backtrack on the state’s decades-long drive for smoke free workplaces?

But people don’t have to work in places that allow cannabis smoking, right?

That would be a de facto discrimination against those who are non-smokers or believe their long-term health shouldn’t be jeopardized if they accept a job.

The state’s actions also clearly discriminate against tobacco smokers as opposed to cannabis smokers when it comes to public accommodation.

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

Yet substitute “cannabis” for “tobacco” and all of a sudden it’s OK,

What do you have to smoke to rationalize that in order for it to make sense?

Is it taxable marijuana rolled up $100 bills?