13 ms·

"Miron advises advocates to argue pot prohibition interferes with individual liberty" This is precisely why legalization will fail, as long as smoking marijuan

by qjz 16y ago

"Miron advises advocates to argue pot prohibition interferes with individual liberty" This is precisely why legalization will fail, as long as smoking marijuana continues to be the principal means of ingestion. The problem is that anyone in the vicinity of a pot smoker is also likely to get high from second-hand smoke. That's simply unacceptable, especially when children are involved, from an individual liberty standpoint.

lotusleaf1987 16y ago
There is absolutely no way that is true unless you're smoking inside of a 3'x 3' closet. Most of the cannabinoids and other intoxicating agents have been consumed by the first inhalation. Can you cite any evidence for the claim you've made? Will exposure to passive marijuana second hand smoke result in a positive marijuana test? The most common excuse for a positive marijuana test is, "I was around some people who were smoking pot." Research has shownthat casual exposure to marijuana smoke will not produce a positive test. A person really has to work at being exposed to "passive" smoke to create a positive test. Very close confinement, without ventilation, with several smokers, for a period of over an hour, may result in a low, but measurable amount of marijuana in urine and blood. This demonstrates that even though the person may not have directly inhaled the smoke from a marijuana cigarette, they inhaled enough second hand smoke to get high. In our opinion, if a person tests positive for marijuana, the issue of whether they smoked the marijuana directly, or whether from intense and prolonged exposure to second hand marijuana smoke is irrelevant. The reasonable choice should be clear! From: http://www.drug-testing-kits.com/drug-test-faq.html http://www.drug-testing-kits.com/drug-test-faq.html which is probably not a good source but it's the best I could find through Google at the moment.
- qjz 16y ago
  No, a site that sells drug testing kits is not a good source, and there's probably a good reason it is the best quote you could find. In any case, a car certainly qualifies as a space that's confined enough to get high from second hand pot smoke. But it doesn't even matter if it's enough to get high, it's the smoke that's objectionable, which is obvious from the trend to prohibit smoking indoors in public places. This fight can't be won with facts, it requires a change of behavior. People simply don't want to inhale other people's smoke anymore. Personally, I'm not against legalizing pot, just smoking it. It's the end of the day, and I'm about to have a drink. I'd much rather have a hash brownie, but I won't go near an illicit drug as long as I have a family to support.
  - lotusleaf1987 16y ago
    But what the company is saying is counter-productive to their business... If they were confirming your argument then it might be more reasonable to be skeptical but this company is turning away business otherwise, so I'm inclined to believe them. Also what do you mean there's a good reason it's it's the best quote I could find? I Googled it and went through the first 5-10 results... Also, marijuana smoke doesn't have free-radical particles and isn't carcinogenic--it doesn't cause cancer. And most, upwards of 80-90% of the psychoactive components of the smoke are absorbed by the first inhalation, the rest is exhaled into the air and becomes negligible once it mixes with the air supply. You are awfully judgmental.
- zmonkeyz 16y ago
  When I was younger I stayed with a friend of mine at his house while his mom was away in Germany for 3 weeks. He would smoke weed in the bathroom with the door closed and the fan on. Eventually the dogs started sniffing under the door every time he went to the bathroom. Even when his mom came back if anyone went to use the bathroom they would run to the door and start sniffing. Now i'm not going to say that it's hard hitting science but it's enough to convince me.
  - lotusleaf1987 16y ago
    Dogs have a better sense of smell... maybe they just liked the smell?
chc 16y ago
So give it all the prohibitions that both booze and tobacco have (despite the fact that proximity is actually more of a threat with cigarettes), plus make it illegal to do within nine feet of a child. Problem solved. This is a very trivial objection.

by qjz 16y ago

lotusleaf1987 16y ago

There is absolutely no way that is true unless you're smoking inside of a 3'x 3' closet. Most of the cannabinoids and other intoxicating agents have been consumed by the first inhalation. Can you cite any evidence for the claim you've made? Will exposure to passive marijuana second hand smoke result in a positive marijuana test? The most common excuse for a positive marijuana test is, "I was around some people who were smoking pot." Research has shownthat casual exposure to marijuana smoke will not produce a positive test. A person really has to work at being exposed to "passive" smoke to create a positive test. Very close confinement, without ventilation, with several smokers, for a period of over an hour, may result in a low, but measurable amount of marijuana in urine and blood. This demonstrates that even though the person may not have directly inhaled the smoke from a marijuana cigarette, they inhaled enough second hand smoke to get high. In our opinion, if a person tests positive for marijuana, the issue of whether they smoked the marijuana directly, or whether from intense and prolonged exposure to second hand marijuana smoke is irrelevant. The reasonable choice should be clear! From: http://www.drug-testing-kits.com/drug-test-faq.html http://www.drug-testing-kits.com/drug-test-faq.html which is probably not a good source but it's the best I could find through Google at the moment.

qjz 16y ago
No, a site that sells drug testing kits is not a good source, and there's probably a good reason it is the best quote you could find. In any case, a car certainly qualifies as a space that's confined enough to get high from second hand pot smoke. But it doesn't even matter if it's enough to get high, it's the smoke that's objectionable, which is obvious from the trend to prohibit smoking indoors in public places. This fight can't be won with facts, it requires a change of behavior. People simply don't want to inhale other people's smoke anymore. Personally, I'm not against legalizing pot, just smoking it. It's the end of the day, and I'm about to have a drink. I'd much rather have a hash brownie, but I won't go near an illicit drug as long as I have a family to support.
- lotusleaf1987 16y ago
  But what the company is saying is counter-productive to their business... If they were confirming your argument then it might be more reasonable to be skeptical but this company is turning away business otherwise, so I'm inclined to believe them. Also what do you mean there's a good reason it's it's the best quote I could find? I Googled it and went through the first 5-10 results... Also, marijuana smoke doesn't have free-radical particles and isn't carcinogenic--it doesn't cause cancer. And most, upwards of 80-90% of the psychoactive components of the smoke are absorbed by the first inhalation, the rest is exhaled into the air and becomes negligible once it mixes with the air supply. You are awfully judgmental.
zmonkeyz 16y ago
When I was younger I stayed with a friend of mine at his house while his mom was away in Germany for 3 weeks. He would smoke weed in the bathroom with the door closed and the fan on. Eventually the dogs started sniffing under the door every time he went to the bathroom. Even when his mom came back if anyone went to use the bathroom they would run to the door and start sniffing. Now i'm not going to say that it's hard hitting science but it's enough to convince me.
- lotusleaf1987 16y ago
  Dogs have a better sense of smell... maybe they just liked the smell?

chc 16y ago

So give it all the prohibitions that both booze and tobacco have (despite the fact that proximity is actually more of a threat with cigarettes), plus make it illegal to do within nine feet of a child. Problem solved. This is a very trivial objection.