Hacker News Reader

Comment by 3825 | Hacker News Reader

> Unlike that issue, the main issue is whether the weed is harmful to its users.

I am pretty sure if (I'd love to say when but let's be realistic) we get proper legalization (as opposed to decriminalization), we will have to start considering regulation on smoking marijuana just like we need to regulate smoking tobacco. Perhaps not as much as smoking tobacco because we know that second-hand tobacco smoke can cause cancer but there might be further discussion on how far this freedom takes us. We might still force people to go on smoke breaks to smoke rather than let them smoke at their desks.

Do you know if the smoke "sticks" to the paint on the walls like tobacco smoke tends to do? Is comparison to tobacco even fair? Sorry, I have to resort to asking others as I don't have much personal experience in this matter.

View on HN

The stickiness comes largely from tar which, if I'm reading this[1] right, is less than half of what's found in Tobacco.

Not to mention that most folks who smoke tobacco smoke 10x more than marijuana smokers.

With legalization we will see an order of magnitude more scientific research and we'll know more.

[1] http://www.cannabis.net/tar/index.html

I re-read that page now that I'm home, it doesn't say what I thought it did re relative tar levels of MJ vs tobacco. But it does make the obvious conclusion that people smoke less pot if it's more potent, and inhale less tar as a result.

Must MJ smokers I know in Cali actually don't light up any more. They use some sort of steaming device that basically transfers the active ingredient into the air without the ash and burning....

they're not "steaming devices" - they do not use steam but rather just hot air. they're called vaporizers, and what they do is cause sublimation of THC into a vapor, which is inhaled along with hot air. this eliminates the presence of tar, which is a byproduct of combustion.

Isn't it all the same smoke?

There is probably some differences but most of the carcinogens should be in both. A consequence of burning plant material AFAIK. Maybe somebody better versed in the subject can chime in.

> but most of the carcinogens should be in both

Hm, I don't think so. While it's true that inhaling burned plant material is never a good thing, there is no evidence so far that smoking cannabis causes cancer. Search for Dr. Donald Tashkin who has done extensive studies on this subject. Afaik tobacco smoke is also radioactive due to phosphate fertilizer [1][2] so I assume this is also a major factor leading to its carcinogenic properties.

[1] http://www.epa.gov/radiation/sources/tobacco.html

[2] http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/radioactive-tobacco.20...

Here comes the radioactive, GMO cannibis! With paraquat!

I think it's the tar and nicotine that stains walls in the smoke. Not to say that pot couldn't, but may not to the same effect.

"The tar from cigarette smoke is similar to that of marijuana smoke"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_(tobacco_residue)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com