| Forum | Shop | Market | ![]() |
Seeds | FAQ | Tools |
SEE OUR MARIJUANA SEED GUIDE FOR THE BEST STRAINS |
Looking for Legal Marijuana look no further! |
|||||
|
#1
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
State rules marijuana smoke is a carcinogen, may require dispensaries to post warnings - San Jose Mercury News[It's not clear that the article below is accurate about the implications of CA EPA's finding that marijuana smoke is a carcinogen. According to my reading of Prop 65, the only thing it requires is that employers post warning signs in premises where workers will be exposed to marijuana smoke, and only in businesses with more than 10 employees. I don't see anything in Prop 65 that would require warning signs on the product itself. Maybe I missed something in the regulations; we need to have an attorney look at this more closely. There was nothing surprising in the ruling itself. Cal NORML has been advising users for years that marijuana smoke, like tobacco, contains known carcinogens. The question is how much of a cancer risk they actually present. Note that not a single study to date has examined the cancer risks of second-hand inhalation of marijuana smoke. Thus, it is entirely possible that not a single case of cancer has ever been caused by workplace exposure to marijuana smoke. By far the largest epidemiological study of first-hand marijuana smoking, by Dr. Hashibe and Tashkin, surprisingly found no evidence of increased risk of respiratory cancers. However, a number of smaller studies have found a possible link to throat & neck cancer and other cancers. Like most environmental agencies, the CA EPA does not operate on economic principles of risk analysis by attempting to weigh positive versus negative evidence, but tends to put heavy emphasis on any potential risks, no matter how small. Thus, under Prop. 65, warning signs would be required for a chemical that had been proven to increase life expectancy (for example, by preventing heart attacks), if that same chemical happened to have a minute cancer risk. It is important to note that the CA EPA finding does not apply to vaporized marijuana, nor to marijuana edibles. - Dale Gieringer, Cal NORML ] Newshawk: DrugSense: Drug Law Reform - DrugSense: Drug Policy Reform Contributions-- Dale Gieringer - dale@canorml.org California NORML, 2215-R Market St. #278, San Francisco CA 94114 -(415) 563- 5858 - www.canorml.org |
|
#2
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Got that in my inbox this morning, thought it might be worth posting.
|
|
#3
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Interesting.. Does not sound too bad. Now the shutdown of the 600 clubs that got their liscenses late.. That is BS..
|
|
#4
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Seriously.
|
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
glad i vaporize but i think when i get my humongous grow op going im going to cook with it every meal of the day
__________________
Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind
|
|
#6
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
just like your avatar!
|
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
ironically i work at an italian restaurant too LOL
__________________
Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind
|
|
#9
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
|
| Tags |
| california, carcinogen, epa, marijuana, rules, smoke |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Thread |
Thread Starter |
Forum |
Replies |
Last Post |
| NC House Bill 1380--THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA ACT! | Jerry Garcia | General Marijuana Growing | 411 | 11-14-2009 11:35 PM |
| yeah, its my first post, get off my nuts | xBadfishx | Newbie Central | 50 | 11-10-2009 03:48 PM |
| im beginner, help me to learn alittle bit more. | wuzgud7 | Indoor Growing | 59 | 10-25-2009 03:59 PM |
| Breeding Questions | acexxacer | Advanced Marijuana Cultivation | 27 | 08-19-2009 03:27 AM |
| Myths and Facts | AllMeatNoPotato | Toke N Talk | 3 | 06-29-2009 11:22 AM |
Come Check out a new Poker Forum for the online poker community