4 ms·

Second hand smoke is dangerous, no matter what the source is. You're burning a fuel into carcinogens. Just because Marijuana might combust into something slight

Second hand smoke is dangerous, no matter what the source is. You're burning a fuel into carcinogens. Just because Marijuana might combust into something slightly less, doesn't mean anyone wants to breathe it.

collyw 9y ago
Probably not as bad as diesel fumes, but no one gives a shit about those.
- mwfunk 9y ago
  I don't know where you get the idea that "no one gives a shit about inhaling diesel fumes". That's an odd assertion to make.
  - collyw 9y ago
    In comparison to "ban smoking from parks", "ban electronic cigarettes", no one seems to give a shit. In fact I haven't seen any move to limit the fumes in any way.
- overcast 9y ago
  Sure we do, that's why we have emissions laws, catalytic converters, and most of the population running on unleaded gasoline.
throwaway91111 9y ago
And yet cannabis smoke does not seem to carry the same life expectancy and particularly lung cancer risk for light to moderate smokers. How do you square this with your understanding (mine, too) of smoke being inherently carcinogenic? Not to argue against your point; i'm a little confused why one would argue FOR second hand smoke. In any circumstance with smoke.
- linkregister 9y ago
  It's a good way to derail the topic and preserve the status quo of illegal cannabis.
  - rdiddly 9y ago
    "The" topic? Are there not several topics?
- grenoire 9y ago
  I am yet to see a study that has compared one-pack-a-day smokers of tobacco and marijuana. Effects of cigarettes become significant after one pack year, and I don't know if you can even find participants for a test, who smoke marijuana in equivalent weight. Until then, "marijuana is better than tobacco" is simply a bullshit statement. Smoke less cigarettes and your risk of cancer and respiratory diseases will of course be lower!
  - bluejekyll 9y ago
    http://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/health/news/a52634/marijuana-lung-cancer/ http://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/health/news/a52634/marijuan... That sources this study: http://nationalacademies.org/hmd/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2017/Cannabis-Health-Effects/Cannabis-conclusions.pdf http://nationalacademies.org/hmd/~/media/Files/Report%20File... That study states that "there is moderate evidence that there is no statistical evidence for ... lung cancer". Now most studies in this area make mention of the fact that even for heavy marijuana smokers, they never smoke as much as a pack a day cigarette smoker. Which is to say, that even though there is more tar in the smoke of marijuana per gram, people don't smoke as much because they don't feel a need to. That does not mean it is safe, but there is no evidence that it's as bad a cigarettes.
linkregister 9y ago
Cooking with gas in a kitchen also exposes people to toxic fumes. Burning wood in a wood stove without adequate ventilation exposes people to carcinogens, particulates, and carbon monoxide. The secondhand smoke discussion is a good topic derailment for marijuana legalization. People will argue about that issue instead of just thinking about ways to consume it without exposing others to harm, such as going outside or any of the non-smoking ways to consume cannabis. Second-hand smoke is an actual risk, but the studies that WHO cite all consider indoor use. Burning carcinogens should simply never be done without adequate ventilation, whether for food preparation, science experiments, or recreation. http://www.who.int/tobacco/research/secondhand_smoke/about/en/ http://www.who.int/tobacco/research/secondhand_smoke/about/e...
- XorNot 9y ago
  Cooking with natural gas is in no way equivalent to second hand smoke. A gas flame produces almost no particulates, and can't produce complex toxic organics. It's also misdirection to suggest carbon monoxide is dangerous in the same way as smoke is.
  - linkregister 9y ago
    It's misdirection to disregard the extremely effective mitigations to the risk of secondhand smoke in the context of a legalization debate.
    - XorNot 9y ago
      Neverminding that I made no reference to second hand smoke, let's unpack that anyway: Research has shown that the volume of airflow needed to be mitigate the second hand smoke risk in at-risk workers is not met by any establishments, nor is it likely to be (because it's huge) - http://www.tcsg.org/sfelp/FedOHSHAets.pdf http://www.tcsg.org/sfelp/FedOHSHAets.pdf. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/protection/ventilation/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/seco.... So please tell me, what "extremely effective" mitigations exist? Does anyone implement them in the workplace?
calafrax 9y ago
Yes, but what amount of exposure is necessary to have an adverse health effect? Just because something is dangerous at a certain exposure does not make it dangerous at all exposure levels. Failing to highlight this difference is what separates FUD from actual science.

collyw 9y ago

Probably not as bad as diesel fumes, but no one gives a shit about those.

mwfunk 9y ago
I don't know where you get the idea that "no one gives a shit about inhaling diesel fumes". That's an odd assertion to make.
- collyw 9y ago
  In comparison to "ban smoking from parks", "ban electronic cigarettes", no one seems to give a shit. In fact I haven't seen any move to limit the fumes in any way.
overcast 9y ago
Sure we do, that's why we have emissions laws, catalytic converters, and most of the population running on unleaded gasoline.

throwaway91111 9y ago

And yet cannabis smoke does not seem to carry the same life expectancy and particularly lung cancer risk for light to moderate smokers. How do you square this with your understanding (mine, too) of smoke being inherently carcinogenic? Not to argue against your point; i'm a little confused why one would argue FOR second hand smoke. In any circumstance with smoke.

linkregister 9y ago
It's a good way to derail the topic and preserve the status quo of illegal cannabis.
- rdiddly 9y ago
  "The" topic? Are there not several topics?
grenoire 9y ago
I am yet to see a study that has compared one-pack-a-day smokers of tobacco and marijuana. Effects of cigarettes become significant after one pack year, and I don't know if you can even find participants for a test, who smoke marijuana in equivalent weight. Until then, "marijuana is better than tobacco" is simply a bullshit statement. Smoke less cigarettes and your risk of cancer and respiratory diseases will of course be lower!
- bluejekyll 9y ago
  http://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/health/news/a52634/marijuana-lung-cancer/ http://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/health/news/a52634/marijuan... That sources this study: http://nationalacademies.org/hmd/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2017/Cannabis-Health-Effects/Cannabis-conclusions.pdf http://nationalacademies.org/hmd/~/media/Files/Report%20File... That study states that "there is moderate evidence that there is no statistical evidence for ... lung cancer". Now most studies in this area make mention of the fact that even for heavy marijuana smokers, they never smoke as much as a pack a day cigarette smoker. Which is to say, that even though there is more tar in the smoke of marijuana per gram, people don't smoke as much because they don't feel a need to. That does not mean it is safe, but there is no evidence that it's as bad a cigarettes.

linkregister 9y ago

Cooking with gas in a kitchen also exposes people to toxic fumes. Burning wood in a wood stove without adequate ventilation exposes people to carcinogens, particulates, and carbon monoxide. The secondhand smoke discussion is a good topic derailment for marijuana legalization. People will argue about that issue instead of just thinking about ways to consume it without exposing others to harm, such as going outside or any of the non-smoking ways to consume cannabis. Second-hand smoke is an actual risk, but the studies that WHO cite all consider indoor use. Burning carcinogens should simply never be done without adequate ventilation, whether for food preparation, science experiments, or recreation. http://www.who.int/tobacco/research/secondhand_smoke/about/en/ http://www.who.int/tobacco/research/secondhand_smoke/about/e...

XorNot 9y ago
Cooking with natural gas is in no way equivalent to second hand smoke. A gas flame produces almost no particulates, and can't produce complex toxic organics. It's also misdirection to suggest carbon monoxide is dangerous in the same way as smoke is.
- linkregister 9y ago
  It's misdirection to disregard the extremely effective mitigations to the risk of secondhand smoke in the context of a legalization debate.
  - XorNot 9y ago
    Neverminding that I made no reference to second hand smoke, let's unpack that anyway: Research has shown that the volume of airflow needed to be mitigate the second hand smoke risk in at-risk workers is not met by any establishments, nor is it likely to be (because it's huge) - http://www.tcsg.org/sfelp/FedOHSHAets.pdf http://www.tcsg.org/sfelp/FedOHSHAets.pdf. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/protection/ventilation/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/seco.... So please tell me, what "extremely effective" mitigations exist? Does anyone implement them in the workplace?

calafrax 9y ago

Yes, but what amount of exposure is necessary to have an adverse health effect? Just because something is dangerous at a certain exposure does not make it dangerous at all exposure levels. Failing to highlight this difference is what separates FUD from actual science.