Marijuana.com

Lee W

Last week I smoked cannabis passivly three times, the last occasion was in a shop where I called for a packet of cigarettes. This really annoyed me as I had a 90 mile drive in front of me to fix a clients computer network and do not wish to drive under the influance of anything.
I got the usuall load of 'chill out' stuff when I asked the girl in the shop not to blow the smoke in my direction.
Driving with my sense of time and distance messed up was a complete bummer as was dealing with the customer at the other end.
I spent a lot of time in the Merchant navy when younger and in some places we would get the stuff by the pillowcase full. Though after nearly getting wrapped round a winch and squished to death I learned smoking was not an activity that mixes well with machinery including cars.

So if legalized should it be controlled in public places.

 

JTP

I would question the reality of actually being effect by what you describe as "passive smoking", what I guess is commonly termed a "contact high". In the situation you laid out it sounded as if you spent just a few moments exposed. Not what I would consider adequate time required to suffer from a "contact high". But hey, individual results may vary...

Cassius

Yeah, that must've really been some strong shiznit for you to still be high after 90 minutes of driving when only exposed to second-hand smoke...

Hiz Highness

No doubt. If you're heading back to that place again let us know. I'm sure someone on the forums would love to score some bud that can get you that high, second hand, from a brief exposure. Imagine how the people directly inhaling that stuff were feeling.



-HH

Niteshift

I would imagine that anywhere cigarette smoking was prohibited, pot smoking would be too.

But that is a question I hadn't thought about. What about a person who sits in a bar or restuarant for say 90 minutes........not drinking alcohol. Can't they be influenced by the second hand smoke and essentially leave there impaired, despite not having used themselves?

The quick exposure and the 90 mile drive wouldn't concern we, although some might not want to smell like they had been smoking pot when meeting a client.

__________________
A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about. -Thomas Sowell

Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is muzzle flash.

 

MickityMike

The individual in question may also choose not to patron that particular establishment. It's up to the individual to monitor his/her own surroundings.

__________________
I'd be delighted to live in a country where happily married gay couples had closets full of assault weapons. - Glenn Reynolds

CheebaMonkey

In the situation that you described Niteshift, I would say no.

For a contact high to be even feasible, the person is going to have to be in a small, closed area with no ventilation. On top of that, they'd have to be exposed to copious amounts of smoke, which I would think no non-smoker would tolerate.

A bar or a resturant doesn't really fit this description.

A little info on this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...t_uids=3017628

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...t_uids=3037193

And from the last link:

However, it seems improbable that subjects would unknowingly tolerate the noxious smoke conditions produced by this exposure.

__________________

Niteshift

In the situation that you described Niteshift, I would say no.


Thanks.

So then the only "danger" would be smelling like you'd been smoking pot to the client?

CheebaMonkey

Yup, that's pretty much it.

beats

^
Well done

I think the set-up they have in the infamous amsterdam is pretty much how it would be, although it would definately be with many more rules, more strict, it's not as though people would always be high if it was legal.

__________________

search