what do you think of the smoking ban

i agree with dougtamjj on this one.

Some information regarding health care costs associated with tobacco, alcohol and cannabis

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/health-care-costs-for-alcohol-tobacco-higher-than-marijuana

This one is from Canada but should be relevant

. http://www.heretohelp.bc.ca/publications/cannabis/bck/7

This one is about marijuana and cancer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9328194?ordinalpos=1&itool=PPMCLayout.PPMCAppController.PPMCArticlePage.PPMCPubmedRA&linkpos=3

http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/60640.html

This one compares MJ smoke to tobacco smoke

Pot makes you intoxicated and depending on what kind it is also a hallucinogenic. The effects on your lungs are worse than tobacco. If people smoked it like tobacco you would have lung disease contributed to it. The second hand smoke would have worse effects.

I have often asked friends who are cops or dea agents which is worse, someone smoking pot or someone drinking alcohol? They all agree that the person drinking alcohol is worse. People drinking alcohol are frequently aggressive and often violent. People smoking pot are usually passive and looking for something to eat. 😉

People don't usually chain smoke pot like they do tobacco, they would pass out.

Do you have studies to support your contention on second hand pot smoke or is this opinion?

rotorhead, i def. agree with you on alcohol v pot.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2040350/

"DISCUSSION
Increased knowledge about cigarette additives makes it clear that modern cigarettes are very different from cigarettes of the past, in that they have been extensively engineered to be delivery devices for nicotine and other ingredients. Evidence from tobacco industry documents indicates that additives have been used to increase free base nicotine and addiction potential and to mask and treat symptoms."

and

"Conclusions
Modern cigarettes have been extensively engineered and optimized as nicotine delivery devices developed through major national and international research and development programs. The average smoker has been unaware of these efforts by the tobacco industry and of the extensive manipulation of cigarette chemistry.

Our results indicate that more than 100 of 599 documented cigarette additives have pharmacological actions. Previous research18,21,22 has documented extensive efforts by the tobacco industry to use additives to mask the presence of ETS by reducing the visibility, odor, and irritability of tobacco smoke. Similar to the findings of previous studies, our results show that the tobacco industry used additives (1) that enhance or maintain nicotine delivery and could increase the addictiveness of cigarettes and (2) that mask symptoms and illnesses associated with smoking behavior.

To our knowledge, there has been no systematic evaluation of the public health effects of cigarette additives or their combustion products. The tobacco industry has actively manipulated cigarette content by using potentially hazardous chemical and phytochemical additives that should be regulated. Unregulated use of additives in tobacco products subjects billions of smokers and nonsmokers alike to an uncontrolled experiment with potentially devastating health effects."

While not germane to the original thread it has been hijacked in several directions so why not......

Can anyone tell me the last time a bunch of pot heads got rowdy and busted up a bar or went blasting away with a firearm?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080123104017.htm

Tami,
I have no doubt that MJ smoke is harmful. People did not evolve to breath burning smoke from any source. I only wonder why one source should be legal and another illegal? We need to figure out how people can enjoy their particular vice without forcing others to partake against their will.
John

Tami

A single study just doesn't tell us much. Here's another published study from the sciencedaily site. Sometimes the results of a study simply point to where further research is needed.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm

"The beauty of this study is that we are showing that a substance of abuse, if used prudently, may offer a new road to therapy against lung cancer,"

just pick upyour butts, they are freakin everywhere

My dad used to say that archaeologists of the future will think that we worshiped cylindrical objects because all that they'll find are beer cans and cigarette butts. My butts never touch the ground.

Hi aussie. I am very aware of this study. My sister in law has the worst type of brain cancer a person can have. Similar to the type Ted Kennedy had. She is busy toking away probably at this moment. One of her doctors suggested it. I send her money to buy it. When I was in high school I made the comment to my government teacher that cannabis should be legal so she assigned me a research project on the subject. I have been hooked on research every since. However over the last 33 years I have found that almost all studies are skewed in favor of what ever outcome the researcher wants. I have been involved in blind studies, double blind studies, you name it I have been involved. I have found very few that are completely accurate. Anything and everything that the government puts out, including the surgeon general, CDC, etc. will be what the government wants the public to think. ie, the global warming scientists.

I normally never site any study when I give my opinion because normally the study is flawed and you can find just as many studies for or against any topic so it is a waste of time.

What I have found about out smoking is that it does not in itself cause lung cancer. All cancers are environmental and or genetic. If you are predisposed genetically to get lung cancer, smoking can and probably will accelerate getting this disease. Environmentally if you are around a substance that causes cancer over time you will develop it. Cigarette smoke does not in itself cause cancer. A firefighter is more likely to develop lung cancer not due to the smoke he or she is exposed to but because of the toxic fumes from various materials that are burning.

Second and third hand smoke. Yes, third hand. Google it. You would have to be locked into a room with smokers and be genetically predisposed to get lung cancer. COPD yes. You may get that.

Smoking tobacco does however cause COPD. Lung disease. Chronic bronchitis, asthma, emphysema. This takes years to develop in most healthy people but again environmental factors and genetics play a huge part. Some people can smoke 30 or 40 years and never have a problem. Some like my mother get emphysema. A nasty way to die. Choking to death. This is genetic with my mother, not environmental. Her sister died of lung disease and did not smoke. Her aunt died of some very rare lung disease and did not smoke. However, smoking accelerated my mothers lung disease.

My first husband is from Nebraska. Everyone on his mothers side of the family has died of colon cancer. No other cause of death. They have two things in common. They are all in the same family and they are all farmers. My husbands mother and father left Nebraska shortly after he was born. They are in their 80s and his mother has minor colon problems but no cancer and has lived a long life. She is one of 13 children. Only two of them left Nebraska and quit farming. The rest of them are dead from cancer and now their children and grandchildren are dying. The cause is pesticides used in farming. Big commercial farms. You probably buy the food they produce. The reason that they are dying and we who buy their food are not is because the pesticides wash off into their ground water. The drink it, wash their clothes in it and feed it to their livestock which they eventually eat. Their cancer is not only environmental it is also genetic. They are genetically predisposed to having stomach, colon, and intestinal problems. One of my daughter inherited this genetic problem.

My current research is on a kidney disease that is killing my 11 year old niece and her father. It is not environmental it is genetic and both of his parents and his sister all died of kidney disease. A double whammy.

Ok now that I have written a book and I am through with this subject. I don't care who smokes what. It seem to be that we should all be able to live in this huge country and not have a bunch of laws telling us what we can and cannot do. We are adults and can make decisions for ourselves. If you don't like smoking don't go where there is smoking. If I ran this country and had to deal with a bunch of cry baby bed wetters that couldn't figure it out I would simply designate different living areas. Smokers, you live in this state. Homophobes live in this state and so on. Really people. Can't we all just get along and be nice. Oh wait, I believe someone already said that.

I will not site any studies or defend my position and anybody can post and tear it all apart. I have stacks of boxes and paperwork as the result of all my research but really, who cares. There are thousands of crazy people out there who are like a dog with a bone. Just won't give it up.

I think I might burn those stacks of boxes tonight. Juanita, may I borrow your cheminea?

Thanks for all the info, Tami. I'm so sorry to hear about your sister-in-law, your niece, and your mother. You and your family have seen far too much suffering.

I need to step away from this topic too....

Thank you aussie. It is just life. When you come from a huge family, poop happens. I can't remember who said, It's not what happens in life, It is how you deal with it". I am the eternal optimist. One day at a time. Today I had breakfast with my best friend, hubby, looking at the beautiful ocean here and felt so blessed. Who knows what will happen tomorrow. I can't wait for the next adventure. 🙂

lungusa.org is a site that shows you state by state what their smoking policies are.

listening to that country station. interesting. if i get this right he is saying no scientific proof of second hand smoke. the media has run away with this..... also EPA tests show no proof.

am i hearing this right?

dixiechick, i was not able to hear this on the radio. you will have to look into it further.

listening to that country station. interesting. if i get this right he is saying no scientific proof of second hand smoke. the media has run away with this..... also EPA tests show no proof.

am i hearing this right?

Sounds like a pipe dream! 😉

EPA page on second hand smoke is here.
http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/healtheffects.html

Next he will quote Philip Morris or the Tobacco Industry Association extolling the health benefits of second hand smoke and how we should all be grateful to smokers for eliminating the weaker members of society by putting them out of their misery with cancer and heart disease.

If anyone knows of a page which talks about the health benefits of second hand smoke please post it!

I'm pulling this post and the links provided. There's too much conflicting and misleading info on the net.

i agree with you aussie....some are just to busy posting sites with our collaberation...

to one sided....and believe me by not posting anymore to this does not mean for a minute i agree....

and we are not discussing or saying that second hand smoke has health benefits. just saying that in open air it is certainly doubtful....

over and out!!!!!

ditto

DITTO for me as well DixieChick on the outdoor open air places & second hand smoke. Give me a break!!.