Secondhand marijuana smoke

[cigsandcoffee]

OK, so it's a can of worms. But if pot is legalized, I don't see how it could be treated differently from cigarettes.

I understand that some folks will argue that it's not a health danger like tobacco smoke, but it can't be denied that it would have a physiological affect on those inhaling it - without their choosing.

That means no pot smoke in bars or restaurants - the staff there are legally entitled to not be "harmed" by the risk of smoking. And after a night in a club with (legal) pot, there probably wouldn't be anyone in the place who could legally drive home - staff or otherwise.

That means that like tobacco, there would be no smoking in public places - you couldn't enjoy a joint in a football stadium the way someone might enjoy a beer. And God knows what Circle S farms would have to say about it.

Anyway, just a thought. Maybe folks had already considered this.

[spag68]

1. that's really a downer man

I'm old, I want my pot.

[cigsandcoffee]

5. Damn. I'm a buzzkiller.

Sorry about that.

[redphish]

2. That's the way I've always seen it.

It should be controlled in the same way as cigs and alcohol. Your rights end where they begin to intrude on someone else's.

[WindRavenX]

3. Pot smoke has no where NEAR the effect that ciggie smoke has

Granted, people absolutely have the right to be in a smoke free environment--pot or ciggie.
However, please keep in mind that pot is almost entirely non-carcinogenic-- quite possibly the complete opposite--so it's not fair to compare second hand pot smoke to ciggie smoke, IMO.

[cigsandcoffee]

7. I'm not comparing them in health dangers.

Just in the way society would have to treat them. IMO, there just isn't a choice but to ban it in public places exactly like cigarettes - otherwise, you're not allowing those who might inhale it to make their own choices.

[WindRavenX]

9. yeah, totally

I do think, however, that universal bans in smoking in any and all establishments is dumb-- I want a coffee bar where I can fire up a bowl or, gasp, maybe some ciggies!

[Zensea]

21. actually pot smoke is carcinogenic

for example from http://www.brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Services/Health_Education/atod/marijuana.htm
and if you google it there are plenty of other examples

"Respiratory problems
Someone who smokes marijuana regularly can have many of the same respiratory problems as cigarette smokers. Persistent coughing, symptoms of bronchitis and more frequent chest colds are possible symptoms. There are over 400 chemicals that have been found in marijuana smoke. Benzyprene, a known human carcinogen, is present in marijuana smoke. Regardless of the THC content, the amount of tar inhaled by marijuana smokers and the level of carbon monoxide are 3 to 5 times higher than in cigarette smoke. This is most likely due to inhaling marijuana more deeply, holding the smoke in the lungs and because marijuana smoke is unfiltered."

It's the tar that's carcinogenic, not the nicotine in cigarettes.

[WindRavenX]

23. but there is also studies that suggest....

...that the cannaboids are actually able to fight cancerous growths-- and THC is actually a broncodialator and has been used to treat respiratory ailments as well.

While there ARE carcinogenic materials that are present, I don't think you can debate that no one has died from lung-cancer from pot smoking. The same cannot be said for cigarettes or second-hand smoke.

That said, public places= smoke free

link to article from the Science Daily Re: pot and lung cancer:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060526083353.htm

[Zensea]

27. of course you can debate it

sheesh.
Science is always discovering new things.
I can remember when they used to think margarine was better for you than butter & there were plenty of studies to prove.
Now there's studies the other way.
Just to indicate I'm not holding this position because of an anti-drug bias I can remember when there were studies that said LSD caused chromosome damage, those studies got discounted.
It works both ways.

[WindRavenX]

28. There's a bit of a difference...

People actually have gotten lung-cancer and died as a causality of smoking cigarettes

VS

People have actually gotten lung-cancer and died as a causality of smoking pot

One of these statements is true.

Marijuana also has indisputable medicinal properties-- cigarettes do not.

[Dogmudgeon]

32. Cigarettes' medicinal properties

Actually, they do have a few medicinal properties -- mainly the nicotine. The stuff is helpful to certain kinds of dementia and brain dysfunction, as well as in some cases of colitis and Crohn's Disease. There is a body of peer (scientist) reviewed work on the relative benefits of nicotine and cigarette smoking. That being said, I have to add: Don't smoke. It's bad for you.

Nitrogen mustard -- the "mustard gas" of WWI -- was developed into a cancer treatment that dramatically decreased cancer mortality. Botulin toxin has been used therapeutically for a number of neurological disorders and is the active ingredient in the cosmetic drug Botox. Many therapeutic drugs are toxins in other contexts.

No responsible physician would advise a patient to take up smoking to help a case of bowel disease or dementia, but work is proceeding on nicotine derivatives to do the same thing. By the same token, marijuana smoking has bad effects as well as good.

We ought not be deceived -- there are both beneficial and harmful effects in most biologically active chemicals, and smoking anything is usually quite hard on the body. No smoker should think that s/he's puffing for reasons of health, no matter what they're smoking.

But the Drug War has been unbelievably hard on the body politic, is a form of institutionalized legal ignorance and tyranny, and ought to be snuffed out -- now.

--p!

[Zensea]

33. I've read reports of studies that both statements are true

Many years ago, so I can't provide a link, but the study you cite could be interpreted that way. Doesn't mean those reports were correct, but it does mean that it is debateable which is all I am saying.
Quote from the study you cite.
"They limited the study to people under age 60. "If you were born prior to 1940, you were unlikely to be exposed to marijuana use during your teens and 20s--the time of peak marijuana use," Dr. Tashkin said. People who were exposed to marijuana use in their youth are just now getting to the age when cancer typically starts to develop, he added.
Subjects were asked about lifetime use of marijuana, tobacco and alcohol, as well as other drugs, their diet, occupation, family history of cancer and socioeconomic status. The subjects' reported use of marijuana was similar to that found in other surveys, Dr. Tashkin noted.
The heaviest smokers in the study had smoked more than 22,000 marijuana cigarettes, or joints, while moderately heavy smokers had smoked between 11,000 to 22,000 joints. Even these smokers did not have an increased risk of developing cancer. People who smoked more marijuana were not at any increased risk compared with those who smoked less marijuana or none at all.
The study found that 80% of lung cancer patients and 70% of patients with head and neck cancer had smoked tobacco, while only about half of patients with both types of cancer smoked marijuana.
There was a clear association between smoking tobacco and cancer. The study found a 20-fold increased risk of lung cancer in people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day. The more tobacco a person smoked, the greater the risk of developing both lung cancer and head and neck cancers, findings that were consistent with many previous studies."

That doesn't look to me like it's saying that smoking marijuana does not lead to cancer, just that it is not as likely to lead to cancer as cigarettes.

I think there's a lot not being said in the article since it also doesn't indicate if the study was of people who only smoked cigarettes and not marijuana and vice versa.
Obviously the researchers don't think their study is the final word on the subject judging from the last line of the article ... "the next step."
I wonder why you think it is the last word.

And actually, there are also indisputable medicinal properties of cigarettes the way I see it, at least according to the Amazonian natives who use it in tandem with yage. Of course the tobacco they use has a much higher concentratin of nicotine and thus is hallucinogenic.

Also http://www.nida.nih.gov/nida_notes/NNVol13N3/tearoff.html
"Effects of Nicotine

When a person inhales cigarette smoke, the nicotine in the smoke is rapidly absorbed into the blood and starts affecting the brain within 7 seconds. In the brain, nicotine activates the same reward system as do other drugs of abuse such as cocaine or amphetamine, although to a lesser degree. Nicotine's action on this reward system is believed to be responsible for drug-induced feelings of pleasure and, over time, addiction. Nicotine also has the effect of increasing alertness and enhancing mental performance. In the cardiovascular system, nicotine increases heart rate and blood pressure and restricts blood flow to the heart muscle. The drug stimulates the release of the hormone epinephrine, which further stimulates the nervous system and is responsible for part of the "kick" from nicotine. It also promotes the release of the hormone beta-endorphin, which inhibits pain. .... The association between nicotine addiction and depression is not yet understood, but nicotine appears to have an antidepressant effect in some smokers.

People addicted to nicotine experience withdrawal when they stop smoking. This withdrawal involves symptoms such as anger, anxiety, depressed mood, difficulty concentrating, increased appetite, and craving for nicotine. Most of these symptoms subside within 3 to 4 weeks, except for the craving and hunger, which may persist for months.

[spag68]

24. Thats true

there is a phenomena know as contact high, that's why cars with rolled up windows are good.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. That's A Really Good Point!

I never thought of that.

What do they in The Netherlands? Anyone know?

[NMMNG]

10. To the best of my knowledge,

In the Netherlands pot is not legal but merely decriminalized. People can't smoke it anywhere they choose, but in "cafe's" that are specifically designated for the selling and partaking of the substance. (They might be able to smoke it at home--I'm not sure). It's not like tobacco, however, that can be smoked in the general public except where prohibited by law.

[MannyGoldstein]

14. I Guess It's "Patron Beware"?

I suppose that if one walks into a "coffee shop", even if one doesn't smoke directly, than one should be smart enough to realize that they might get a contact high and thus shouldn't drive.

[Withywindle]

11. Re Amsterdam

I was there a long time ago, so my info is pretty out of date, but the way I remember it is that there are specific cafes you go to for pot. Everyone knows that's what their specialty is -- hookahs in the corners and all that. It's like bars--that's just where you go to drink.

In some cafes like that, it's actually more popular to eat it than to smoke it: they sell tons of hash truffles, cake, brownies, cupcakes, etc. That gets you a good buzz...(gets you lost if you don't know the mazes of 17th century alleys very well...:D) and doesn't bother anyone.

And sometimes people smoke it on the street, but they were cracking down on that a little bit. You'd still get a whiff of it from time to time, just like you get a whiff of somebody's cigarette from time to time.

[cigsandcoffee]

17. A very good point - eating it would be OK.

Maybe not as much fun, but no risk to others.

[Kutjara]

12. Pot is illegal in the Netherlands...

...but it is tolerated in certain special cafes, colloquially called "coffee shops." The cops also tolerate the carrying of small amounts for personal use. Because it is still illegal, however, there are no health and safety laws governing it's use. By going to a coffee shop and consuming pot, you are committing a crime, so I guess you therefore can't complain that you were a victim of "passive stoning."

[High Plains]

15. They were going to institute a general smoking ban...

which would have made it illegal to smoke pot in the coffee shops. But, if I recall correctly, both restaurants and bars protested the ban and got it suspended.

In the pot shops in downtown Vancouver, smokers have to go to an enclosed room, just like they have to do in bars in BC, which by the way, seems better than throwing them outside.

[Subdivisions]

6. Fire up another one and relax, brah! We'll just have to

go along with current ordinances and laws regarding smoking in public places or in situations that present a second-hand smoke hazard, just as cig smokers do. Won't get any complaint from me.

[JeffR]

8. f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f... ahhh

What were you saying?

[Subdivisions]

13. LOL...Hey Humphrey, quit bogartin' that spliff, brah! n/t

[JeffR]

26. Yow, sorry

My concentration drifted there.

[Zensea]

16. Do people get nicotine rushes off of second hand smoke?

Do people get THC rushes off of second hand smoke?

That's really the question here.
Actually it probably can be denied that it would have an effect on others.
Of course I have no evidence either way and I kind of doubt you do either.

[Warpy]

18. Just like tobacco

Ban it in public places and most enclosed places, people should be able to do what they want in their own homes.

Personally, I never wanted to go out into noisy bars or to restaurants when I was high. I'd rather rip open a bag of junk food and listen to loud music at home.

I can see musicians wanting to duck out the back door between sets to toke up, though. Most other jobs are nasty while stoned. There's nothing like working and being grouched at by a boss to harsh the mellow.

[Hippo_Tron]

19. That's fine with me, if you wanna smoke a joint take it outside

[High Plains]

20. There ought to be an exemption to allow pot smoking in pot clubs

I mean, this is getting bizarre. You can't have a smoke in a cigar shop, for Christ's sake!

I frequent a bar where everybody smokes tobacco. The clientele smokes, the staff smokes. Nobody's complaining. Just leave us the fuck alone.

[spag68]

22. All I care about

is that they let me smoke it in my back yard, as it helps when I clean the bike. Oh wait, that's what I do now, never mind.

[Turbineguy]

25. It was one of many good reasons to go to

Bumbershoot.

[SeattleGirl]

29. I agree with you, cigsandcoffee.

Even if smoking pot doesn't have the same detrimental health effects on people, it DOES alter brain function for a time. And I don't want to be around it for that reason, and also because I cannot stand the smell of it. I haven't smoked pot in over 30 years, but I have no problem with people who do. Again, I just don't want to be around it in public places.

[Warren DeMontague]

30. I love it when cigarette smokers try to compare their "plight" to potheads

When was the last time someone was sent to prison for ten years for a Lid of Marlboros?

Seriously. Most of the potheads I know would be perfectly content -happy as clams!- just to be able to light up in their own homes, or step out to a sidewalk and smoke, and not risk arrest (or worse). Ask some cigarette smokers to go outside to smoke, and they whine as if they're being hauled off to Dachau.

[TahitiNut]

34. I see. It's about the smokers, not the smoking, huh?

Yeah. Got it. :eyes:

[Warren DeMontague]

36. Nice try.

I think most pot smokers would be thrilled if the worst they had to face with smoking pot was having to step outside of a bar or restaurant and onto the sidewalk to smoke, as opposed to risking arrest, jail, and the like.

Clearly, there are cigarette smokers who "get it", too. But given the pissing and moaning you hear from some of them (note the use of the word "some", in this post as well as the previous one) because of laws that ask them to step outside before lighting up, you would think they were the ones filling up prisons on non-violent drug offenses.

To draw a parallel between the two situations is ludicrous. Just letting pot smokers smoke in the privacy of their own homes and outside would be a ridiculous amount of freedom compared to the situation with marijuana now. Yet the same EXACT SAME thing for cigarette smoking is painted, by some cigarette smokers, as totalitarianism. Waaaaah! :eyes:

[tridim]

31. Two words.. Cannabis cuisine

Pot nachos at the ball park and pot coffee cake at Starbucks.

You don't have to smoke pot to enjoy it. :smoke:

[Crunchy Frog]

35. I can't stand being around the stuff.

Hate it more than I hate cig smoke.

I'm in favor of its legalization, but I sure don't want to be forced to breathe it.

[Warren DeMontague]

37. Ban any smoking in indoor, public spaces.

That's how it is in many states with cigarette smoke now, so I think that would be fair for pot smoking, too.

Or, if some places, particularly cold climes, want smoking rooms with entirely separate ventillation systems, that could work too. But not in restaurants.