Marijuana secondhand smoke

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2005-07-08 11:17pm

So a few months ago a study came out which pretty conclusively showed that secondhand smoke is really at least as bad as it has been hyped up to be, and possible worse. So how does marijuana secondhand smoke stack up? Leaving aside the obvious differences (mind alteration, lack of additives), how toxic is it compared with cigarette smoke?

J · Post by J » 2005-07-08 11:42pm

I haven't seen any conclusive studies yet, but the general consensus is that it's probably about as bad as 2nd hand cigarette smoke. It's hard to say since places with 2nd hand cigarette smoke tend to be filled with it to the point where one can barely see, while marijuana smoke is usually present in much lower concentrations.

Civil War Man · Post by **Civil War Man** » 2005-07-08 11:52pm

Do you have a link to the study at all? From what I heard, studies regarding the dangers of secondhand smoke have been anything but conclusive, though that's specifically in regard to lung cancer.

The big EPA study that started the whole thing was struck down in a Federal court because the judge found that they basically cherry-picked the data they used. First link contains Washington Post article, second a Washington Times article regarding the EPA study. The second link also mentions a WHO study that demonstrated no stastically significant risk.
http://www.sepp.org/reality/courtrules.html
http://www.sepp.org/reality/pseudosci.html

Again, these are specifically in regard to lung cancer. Asthmatics can get pretty well fucked by too much exposure to smoke, for example.

As for marijuana second-hand smoke, I don't know anything about that. I imagine the studies regarding that are pretty scanty, considering the whole War on Drugs thing.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2005-07-09 12:37am

Here's the thread on the study:

link

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2005-07-09 02:01am

Presumably cannabis secondhand smoke is proportionately as dangerous as tobacco secondhand smoke. It usually isn't psychoactive, though--it's not present in anywhere near the quantities to have any mind altering effect unless you're inhaling it directly or the concentration of secondhand smoke is so dense that oxygen deprivation is a more serious problem than THC.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2005-07-09 06:32am

Civil War Man wrote:Do you have a link to the study at all? From what I heard, studies regarding the dangers of secondhand smoke have been anything but conclusive, though that's specifically in regard to lung cancer.

No, there have been other studies. Second hand smoke apologists just focus on the 1993 EPA report without addressing more recentl claims.

The big EPA study that started the whole thing was struck down in a Federal court because the judge found that they basically cherry-picked the data they used. First link contains Washington Post article, second a Washington Times article regarding the EPA study. The second link also mentions a WHO study that demonstrated no stastically significant risk.
http://www.sepp.org/reality/courtrules.html
http://www.sepp.org/reality/pseudosci.html

Again, these are specifically in regard to lung cancer. Asthmatics can get pretty well fucked by too much exposure to smoke, for example.

An example of what I was talking about. Numbers are difficult to track, but there is an obvious danger from it since areas with large amounts of secondhand smoke exposure have illegally unsafe amounts of carcinogens in the air.

Here was a study carried out a while ago, that got on CNN, but currently doesn't appear to be there:

a dead link, but the original address. I saved this article for future smoking debates. It was conducted by the guy that apparently did the first EPA report, though I really can't see a problem with his conclusions, this time.

Study: Smoky bars top roads for bad air

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 Posted: 9:53 AM EDT (1353 GMT)

TRENTON, New Jersey (AP) -- Which is more harmful to your health -- a smoky bar or a city street filled with diesel truck fumes? Well, you might want to skip your next happy hour.

Smoky bars and casinos have up to 50 times more cancer-causing particles in the air than highways and city streets clogged with diesel trucks at rush hour, according to a study that also shows indoor air pollution virtually disappears once smoking is banned.

Conducted by the researcher who first showed secondhand smoke causes thousands of U.S. lung cancer deaths each year, the study found casino and bar workers are exposed to particulate pollution at far greater levels than the government allows outdoors.

"This paper will help localities pass smoking bans," predicted the author, James Repace, a biophysicist who works as a secondhand-smoke consultant after spending 30 years as a federal researcher. "It shows how beneficial smoking bans are for hospitality workers and patrons."

Repace tested air in a casino, a pool hall and six taverns in Delaware in November 2002 and in January 2003, two months after the state imposed a strict indoor smoking ban.

His detectors measured two substances blamed for tobacco-related cancers: a group of chemicals called particulate polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PPAHs, and respirable particles -- airborne soot small enough to penetrate the lungs.

"They are the most dangerous" substances in secondhand smoke, said Repace, a visiting assistant clinical professor at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston.

Repace said his research also showed that ventilation systems -- sometimes touted by tavern, restaurant and casino groups as an alternative to smoking bans -- cannot exchange air fast enough to keep up with the smoke.

The study, published in the September issue of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, was partly funded by the nation's largest philanthropic organization devoted to health care, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation of Plainsboro, New Jersey.
Health benefits of smoking bans

Repace found an average level of respirable particles of 231 micrograms, or millionths of a gram, per cubic meter of air in the eight nightspots in Delaware. That is 15 times the 15-microgram Environmental Protection Agency limit for outdoor air, and 49 times the rush-hour average on Interstate 95 in Wilmington. It even tops the 199-microgram rush-hour level at the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel tollbooths.

The eight indoor places had an average PPAH level of 134 nanograms, or billionths of a gram, per cubic meter -- five times the level in the air outside. By comparison, the average rush-hour levels of PPAHs on Interstate 95 in Wilmington and in Boston's Roxbury neighborhood, heavily polluted by diesel and truck emissions, were 7 and 18 nanograms, respectively.

After the smoking ban took effect, levels of both cancer-causing substances dropped 90 percent or more in all of the indoor places tested, with the air quality nearly indistinguishable from outside air.

"It demonstrates really clearly that a smoking ban results in a massive improvement in air quality," said Dr. Jonathan Foulds, director of the tobacco dependence program at University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey's School of Public Health. "Here in New Jersey, and in many other states that don't have an indoor smoking ban, this should be used to put pressure on the legislators."

Timothy Buckley, associate professor of environmental health science at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, said other research has shown dramatic air quality improvement after smoking was banned in workplaces, but this appears to be the first study in bars or casinos.

"The magnitude of that effect is striking," Buckley said.

As of July 1, a total of 727 U.S. municipalities had some smoking restrictions, with 312 banning smoking even in bars and restaurants, according to the nonprofit American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation.

Delaware, New York and Massachusetts prohibit smoking in all workplaces, restaurants and bars. California and Connecticut have similar bans, but with exemptions for workplaces with five or fewer employees.

Something to bear in mind: though we don't have specific numbers for those that get lung cancer through second hand smoke, we do know that smoky areas have ridiculous amounts of carcinogens in them, and undoubtedly contribute to the problem.

As for marijuana second-hand smoke, I don't know anything about that. I imagine the studies regarding that are pretty scanty, considering the whole War on Drugs thing.

I don't remember any specific articles on it, but i do remember something somewhere saying it was probably worse, since as well as all the shit from burning it, the stuff the smokers breathe out hasn't been filtered.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2005-07-09 02:04pm

Considering that the primary carcinegen in cigarrette smoke is the radioactive isotopes which are taken by the plant material from the fertilizer (put a geiger counter up to a cigarrette) and cannabis completely is lacking in such isotopes, and considering that not a single case of lung cancer has ever been linked to cannabis (doesnt mean that it doesnt happen, but statistically cannabis smokers have no higher risk of lung cancer than the general public, at least it has never been shown that they do) I really dont see how one could make any informed comments about second hand smoke in this way.

Also the "smokey bar" phenomenon is extremely highly concentrated smoke from many people smoking many cigarrettes without proper ventilation in a confirmed place, which doesnt really occur with cannabis, except in cases of "hot boxing" which is never (in my experience) maintained for long (no more than a few minutes after the joint/blunt/pipe is finished), and even with hot boxing it is usually done in a car or a small room with only the smokers in it, smoking between them less than a single cigarrette smoker would in the "smokey bar" atmosphere.

One is just not nearly as likely to run into the same prolonged concentrations of cannabis smoke as they would with tobacco smoke in a smokey bar.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2005-07-09 05:03pm

I would gather cannabis smoke would be dangerous, but not so much as cigarette smoke which releases many more toxic compounds than straight up weed anyway. Marijuana can still be carcinogenic (it is combusting hydrocarbons anyway), but I'd be surprised if it approached tobacco levels of danger.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2005-07-09 05:39pm

I'd imagine that the danger from second-hand smoke in general is constant exposure to it, like when parents smoke in front of their children. If you're exposed to that much second-hand marijuana smoke on a regular basis, odds are you're the one smoking it.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2005-07-10 12:57am

Considering that the primary carcinegen in cigarrette smoke is the radioactive isotopes which are taken by the plant material from the fertilizer (put a geiger counter up to a cigarrette) and cannabis completely is lacking in such isotopes, and considering that not a single case of lung cancer has ever been linked to cannabis (doesnt mean that it doesnt happen, but statistically cannabis smokers have no higher risk of lung cancer than the general public, at least it has never been shown that they do) I really dont see how one could make any informed comments about second hand smoke in this way.

Source? I KNOW there are more in there, notably nitrosamine which my classes pinpointed as the most significant carcinogens. Holding it up to a Geiger is meaningless, barring a complete regulatory cock-up a banana should return a higher reading.

In any event I've seen the GC/MS run of Marijuana and certain known carcinogens are present, THC (delta - 9 tetrahydrocanabinol) is a suspected carcinogen. Most sources I've read place it at around 150%-170% mutagen content on a mass basis. Marijuana has tested positive as a mutagen in the Ames test.

That being said marjiuana smokers inhale far less, and we have poor data on the uptake of all this crap. Given the brevity of data, it is too soon to call it one way or the other; though they fact you inhale burning hydrocarbons tends to make it EXTREMELY likely that it is a mild carcinogen.

If you replace every cigarette smoked with a joint smoked, I'd hazard a guess that the marijuana might be more dangerous, but the data to back that up isn't complete.

One fun thing, drug tests with sufficiently low thresholds will test positive for marijuana even if you just happen to be in the room. That particular effect of second hand marijuana use is known and observed (good drug tests are set with relatively high thresholds to avoid this).