I was thinking of something along those lines. But what do we know about second hand smoke? Nothing, right? Except that it is presumably also dangerous, and potentially mind-altering. That might seem innocuous and possibly helpful to some people, but I am not sure how some of the schizophrenic homeless people on Central Avenue would do with an inadvertant high....
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Charlie Griefer <[email protected]> wrote: > > i remember hearing that smoking weed had 4x the tar of smoking a cigarette. > ... sigh. googling. brb. > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> I would really think that the smoke was just as carcinogenic but it >> seems, currently, to not be true. My intuition tells me that smoke >> should be carcinogenic, period, but the most recent research doesn't >> show a link between lung cancer and marijuana smoke inhalation. If >> anything it shows a slight counter effect. But quite frankly I'm not >> going to believe that until I see it replicated and, ideally, a >> mechanism is figured out. >> >> And what that really means to me is that we really ought to study >> marijuana consumption much more carefully (and with less prejudice). >> Unfortunately that isn't easy in the current political climate either. >> So much for science-based policy. >> >> Judah >> >> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > I would hope that we are smarter than that. I gather that the smoke is >> > just as carcinogenic and everything about secondary smoking probably >> > applies. Not only that, but there's the issue of a contact high. So >> > no, I don't think it would be favorably viewed. >> > >> > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:40 PM, C. Hatton Humphrey <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> No one minds people smoking tobacco at home (away from their kids), or >> >>> outside (but not near me). >> >>> >> >>> It isn't any of my business. >> >> >> >> The problem with you response is that it's internalized. I asked how >> >> society would view it. >> >> >> >> Today we have people that want to tell smokers where they can and >> >> can't smoke. We fund anti-smoking campaigns with tax dollars from the >> >> general fund and yet we fund cancer research with cigarette sales tax >> >> money. States have sued tobacco companies and won or settled based on >> >> medical issues that arise from smoking. >> >> >> >> If non-tobacco products were "legalized" in all 50 states would that >> >> not lead to the commercialization of such products? Might it not lead >> >> to the same cycle as the tobacco industry fell into, where over the >> >> course of 50 years smoking went from glamorized to demonized? >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:287295 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
