View Single Post
Kato
Kato
 
gg's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by keer sucking gewk
kids can... thats a fact... no way i want my kid to get high and then get addicted
Highly improbable, especially in an outdoor setting.

http://my.marijuana.com/1b.php3
Quote:
1.3.1 Passive smoke and positives:
"Second hand marijuana smoke in a car can cause you to fail the next day" (Nightbyrd). It is possible that second hand [marijuana] smoke will raise someone to the 50 ng/mL level; however, *extreme* exposure is required. For instance, a closed car full of pot smokers and a non-smoker may render the non-smoker positive for both urinalysis and the hair test, provided that they are sealed in the car for a while. The Army did a case study where volunteers were put in a room pumped full of smoke for an hour, five time daily. Subjects started testing positive after the second day. The non-smoker would have to take in virtually as much second hand smoke as a smoker. Non-smokers are safe in a ventilated area, as long as they don't get a hair test. According to Clinton, simply blowing crack smoke on ones hair may cause a positive hair test. Second hand pot smoke doesn't affect the hair test results as much as crack smoke does mainly because exhaled smoke contains no THC. The only pot smoke that contains THC is the smoke that hasn't entered the lungs.
http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/...ng_faq.shtml#1
Quote:
By the way, in order for you to test positive for THC, the marijuana smoke would have to be so thick that it would irritate the eyes of smokers and passive smoke breathers alike. Avoiding smoke-filled cars, unventilated rooms, and other enclosed smoky spaces can help ensure that you can hang out while your friends toke and still be clean for bugle call in the morning.
The threshold for a positive test for marijuana use (THC metabolites @ 50ng/mL) is far lower than that needed to produce a high in someone exposed to marijuana smoke.

But even then, is your fear of THC, the main active compound in marijuana smoke justified? It shouldn't be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahy...binol#Toxicity
Quote:
Toxicity

THC has a LD50 value of 1270 mg/kg (male rats), 730 mg/kg (female rats) orally (administered dissolved in sesame oil). Studies of the distribution of the receptors in the brain explain why toxicity of THC is so low (i.e., the LD50 of the compound is so large): parts of the brain that control vital functions such as respiration do not have many receptors, so are relatively unaffected even by doses larger than could ever be ingested under any normal conditions.
But even then, it is still secondhand smoke. The question is, though, is it really dangerous?

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabi..._health2.shtml
Quote:
The fact is, although insoluble tars are a contributing factor to the lung cancer danger present in today's cigarettes, the real danger is radioactivity. According to U.S. Surgeon General C. Everette Koop (on national television, 1990) radioactivity, not tar, accounts for at least 90% of all smoking related lung cancer.

Tobacco crops grown in the United States are fertilized by law with phosphates rich in radium 226. In addition, many soils have a natural radium 226 content. Radium 226 breaks down into two long lived 'daughter' elements -- lead 210 and polonium 210. These radioactive particles become airborne, and attach themselves to the fine hairs on tobacco leaves.
This radioactivity is not present in marijuana smoke, since marijuana is not grown in the same manner as is tobacco.

Please also consider that:
Quote:
1) Most marijuana smokers smoke the bud, not the leaf, of
the plant. The bud contains only 33% as much tar as tobacco.

2) Marijuana smokers do not smoke anywhere near as much as
tobacco smokers, due to the psychoactive effects of cannabis.

3) Not one case of lung cancer has ever been successfully
linked to marijuana use.

4) Cannabis, unlike tobacco, does not cause any narrowing of
the small air passageways in the lungs.


In fact, marijuana has been shown to be an expectorant and actually dilates the air channels it comes in contact with. This is why many asthma sufferers look to marijuana to provide relief. Doctors have postulated that marijuana may, in this respect, be more effective than all of the prescription drugs on the market.

Studies even show that due to marijuana's ability to clear the lungs of smog, pollutants, and cigarette smoke, it may actually reduce your risk of emphysema, bronchitis, and lung cancer. Smokers of cannabis have been shown to outlive non-smokers in some areas by up to two years. Medium to heavy tobacco smokers will live seven to ten years longer if they also smoke marijuana.


Cannabis is also radically different from tobacco in that it does not contain nicotine and is not addictive. The psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, THC, has been accused of causing brain and genetic damage, but these studies have all been disproven. In fact, the DEA's own Administrative Law Judge Francis Young has declared that "marijuana in its natural form is far safer than many foods we commonly consume."

If you are concerned about secondhand marijuana smoke, then to preserve proportionality, you should be deathly afraid of secondhand tobacco smoke. Since tobacco is legal to purchase and use outdoors, why are you calling for a ban on marijuana on the logic of preventing harm from secondhand marijuana smoke? If anything, it should be legal to smoke marijuana in public, and not tobacco, if the decision is to be based on harm.

There has been no link established between secondhand marijuana smoke and harm, so paranoia over the matter is completely unfounded.
__________________
But women and water are in short supply
There's not enough dope for us all to get high
I hear it gets better, that's what they say
As soon as we sail on to Cane Garden Bay
Old 07-27-2005, 11:19 PM Kato is offline  
Reply With Quote
#122