Hazards of secondhand marijuana smoke

originally posted by: Salamandy
Biggest hazard is the people who make marijuana out to be the scapegoat for other non related problems. It's smoke people, remember when the world smoked on airlines. Have we seen a decrease in heart attacks since they banned smoking onlanes? Of course not...

Oh noes! Who will think of the smelly smokey clothed folks. Smoky smelling clothes!!! Ahhhhhh!!!!

Smoking related illnesses are down across the board.

www.cdc.gov...

The more you know.

a reply to: AgentShillington

I know that it has nicotine, my point was that the concentration in the vapor is barely there. That's why I said you'd have to shotgun the vapor down someone's throat to experience the negative effects (and I'm not even sure that would do much). If a child is negatively effected by someone sitting next to them vaping, the effects wouldn't be noticeable for their entire lifetime.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
So my question is, after taking my points into consideration, do you think that marijuana smoke should be treated the same as cigarette smoke in regards to secondhand smoke?

That depends on how second hand cigarette smoke is currently treated. If you mean - parents shouldn't smoke around kids, customers of restaurants, airports, etc., should be permitted a smoke-free environment, then yes. If marijuana does become legal, I think there should be rules in place that allow people to smoke it, as long as they're not interfering with other people's rights to breathe what is currently considered "clean" air... I think the current smoking laws should apply, regardless what someone is smoking.

It's similar to a campfire, but people shouldn't have to breath campfire smoke if they don't want to.

The article is crap, I agree. Pumping a rats cage full of smoke for 1/2 hour is not the same as catching a waft of it at an outdoor concert. If people can smoke cigarettes at an outdoor concert, they they should be able to smoke whatever they want there.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I just have questions regarding one section of this expierement.

Isn't all smoke for rats second hand? Was there a test that had rats smoking first hand?

Are they defining second hand as only smoke that's been exhaled by someone else? If so, the day of the test did someone have to inhale and exhale a ton of marijuana smoke into the rats?

If not how do they define and test "second hand"?

a reply to: mindseye1609

I think what happens is they apply a special filter to a smoke machine that simulates a person's lungs taking the majority of the contents of the smoke into the lungs then exhaling the rest. I could be wrong though, because that is just a guess.

a reply to: mindseye1609

Possibly this little dude here was responsible for the first hand smoke and an active group member of said experiment?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Well here is where smoking laws can impact intoxication laws. In places that have public intoxication laws in place, you know the laws that force you to get wasted out of view of the general public, can a bar force people who want to smoke to go outside and then violate the public intoxication laws? How does that play out?

did they use leaves again like those old government studies from the 70's?

those studies were misleading as nobody smokes the leaves/stems/roots/seeds.


for the study to be accurate they need to use buds only. there is no uniform toxicity throughout the plant...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Now how much second hand smoke were they exposed too. That would be the $1000000 question.

Second hand cigarette smoke could be worse than smoking a cigarette, because there is a lot of chemicals in it that are not in first hand smoke. I would bet the same thing happens with pot smoke.

The air we breath out has many more chemicals in it than what we breath in. Maybe they should test how bad it is to be in a crowded room and shut down all the schools. The perfumes and deodorants in schools are definitely toxic. Ban those in public places where people are forced to attend. What about the smell of a bathroom, that problem is out there, maybe we should pee outside near a tree.

I also think that this research is not completely interpreted correctly OP. S&F

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Well here is where smoking laws can impact intoxication laws. In places that have public intoxication laws in place, you know the laws that force you to get wasted out of view of the general public, can a bar force people who want to smoke to go outside and then violate the public intoxication laws? How does that play out?

I would say if there's a public intoxication law in place, then the person (smoker) shouldn't be getting publicly intoxicated outside the bar (even if it's from smoking weed). If the bar doesn't allow smoking, it's up to the smoker to find a place where he can legally smoke AND legally get intoxicated. The onus is not on the bar owner to provide a place for one to get high.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AgentShillington

I know that it has nicotine, my point was that the concentration in the vapor is barely there. That's why I said you'd have to shotgun the vapor down someone's throat to experience the negative effects (and I'm not even sure that would do much). If a child is negatively effected by someone sitting next to them vaping, the effects wouldn't be noticeable for their entire lifetime.

I'd love to see links to an academic paper supporting your claims, because everything I've found says that results are inconclusive at best, harmful to at risk persons at worst.

Also, you are aware that children of smokers can suffer nicotine poisoning from coming into contact with the unwashed hands of a smoker, right?

www.mayoclinic.org...

a reply to: AgentShillington

Secondhand Exposure to Vapors From Electronic Cigarettes

Yes it says that the dangers are inconclusive, but I think we can both agree that the dangers are less than a smoked cigarette since this

The study showed that e-cigarettes are a source of secondhand exposure to nicotine but not to combustion toxicants. The air concentrations of nicotine emitted by various brands of e-cigarettes ranged from 0.82 to 6.23 µg/m3. The average concentration of nicotine resulting from smoking tobacco cigarettes was 10 times higher than from e-cigarettes (31.60±6.91 vs. 3.32±2.49 µg/m3, respectively; p = .0081).

is the case.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think people need to stop giving so many flying f/cks about everything in general.
Especially other people's recreation.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I was thinking more along a legislative front. Should we let the laws conflict because of people's fears?

Tobacco smoke stinks up a place. I smoke tobacco, but not inside. I ask others to do the same.
I love the smell of the other.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AgentShillington

Secondhand Exposure to Vapors From Electronic Cigarettes

Yes it says that the dangers are inconclusive, but I think we can both agree that the dangers are less than a smoked cigarette since this

The study showed that e-cigarettes are a source of secondhand exposure to nicotine but not to combustion toxicants. The air concentrations of nicotine emitted by various brands of e-cigarettes ranged from 0.82 to 6.23 µg/m3. The average concentration of nicotine resulting from smoking tobacco cigarettes was 10 times higher than from e-cigarettes (31.60±6.91 vs. 3.32±2.49 µg/m3, respectively; p = .0081).

is the case.

Oh, you won't get me to disagree with you about ecigs being less dangerous than smoking, I think they are going to help a lot of people live longer, healthier lives. However, that -still- doesn't mean I want them using their drugs around me. But, admittedly, I want people to keep all kinds of things out of the public arena.

Drugs.
Religion.
Guns.
Sex.

You want those things, great, I'm all for it, just keep it all at home.

a reply to: AgentShillington

So does that mean we should close down bars too? After all alcohol is a drug, and if drug usage should be contained at home, then bars therefore shouldn't be allowed either.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AgentShillington

So does that mean we should close down bars too? After all alcohol is a drug, and if drug usage should be contained at home, then bars therefore shouldn't be allowed either.

You won't get an argument from me. Close down bars, drunk driving becomes all but non-existent. I'm not saying we should outlaw drinking, just do it at home.