Smoking Cinnamon Sticks (2 Viewers)

[DeathB4Life]

has anyone ever heard of doing this? i tried one at a mates house and it did seem quite nice. there was definately a little buzz and calming/high effect noticeable after a few minutes.

would anyone know if there are any long term health effects and how it would compare to smoking tabacco?

 

[Legham]

lol, whoever thought of doing that must of been bored out of their mind..

 

[pattii]

lol of course there is...

smoke is still smoke just the fact your smoking cinnamon sticks is stupid.

there are different chemicals, it may not be addictive, but its still smoke and constant smoking will of course build up tar or what not in your lungs..

 

[Trev]

lol of course there is...

smoke is still smoke just the fact your smoking cinnamon sticks is stupid.

there are different chemicals, it may not be addictive, but its still smoke and constant smoking will of course build up tar or what not in your lungs..

You're an idiot.

 

[Pace_T]

i remember in school we use to smoke our lunches because we were bored. teachers couldnt stop us. ahhh that was fun sparking up a rollup like a cigar in history class lollll
or those twinkie chocolate cakes, definately had the flavour of winfield :/

 

[Legham]

Wouldn't the roll-up just melt? Funniest thing i remember my friends smoking was a vegemite sandwich

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

we got really bored in year seven and tried to smoke musk sticks and rolled up paper. it sucked. then we decided it would be good to inhale deodorant and get high. that was even worse. cinnamon sticks sounds like it would be nice, though. don't think there would be any health effects beyond the fact that inhaling smoke is bad for you.

 

[RTTTYTR]

lol of course there is...

smoke is still smoke just the fact your smoking cinnamon sticks is stupid.

there are different chemicals, it may not be addictive, but its still smoke and constant smoking will of course build up tar or what not in your lungs..

How exactly would you get tar from smoke in and of itself? Would you claim that steam has tar in it? Steam is merely the smoke of water

 

[pattii]

lol replace tar with particulate matter, i forgot what it was called
but back to the questions:

combustion(incomplete or complete)
the result is you breath in co,co2
both harmful the specific quantities

http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosphere/airquality/publications/biomass.html

How exactly would you get tar from smoke in and of itself? Would you claim that steam has tar in it? Steam is merely the smoke of water

smoke= verrryy small particles, insoluble.
water=verrryy small particles, soluble+ we need water to survive.
shut up and stop being a smart ass.okay?<3

lol look it up somewhere, i cbf to write my fucking pdhpe lesson from yr 9 mmk?

 

[DeathB4Life]

wouldnt the constant breathing in and out and the water vapour and such eventually remove most tiny particules that accumulate in your lungs? surely someone exposed to smoke from bush fires for several days straight once every year wouldnt suffer any long term damage?

and wouldnt breathing in extra CO2 just be pretty much the same as breathing into a paper bag for a few seconds? as long as its not in some huge amount and it occurs slowly over an extended period i would think you would just start naturally breathing faster to compensate.

 

[katie_tully]

Fucking idiot responses everywhere.

Cinnamon? If you wanna be hardcore go do some Nutmeg.

 

[pattii]

um no.. if your so unsure just go to the web sites it linked.

but anyway,

constant breathing in and out and the water vapour and such eventually remove most tiny particules that accumulate in your lungs

smokers are invincible.
which in any case is not true, If you smoke long enough, you'll be able to cough up the particulate matter( in clumps of course)
---------------------------

breathing in extra CO2

when you click on this link it suggests

Self-Care at Home
If you have signs and symptoms of hyperventilation syndrome, you should go to a hospital's emergency department to make sure you're not having other, more worrisome, causes of these symptoms. In other words, home care for hyperventilation syndrome is only for people who have been told by their doctors that they have hyperventilation syndrome.

If you have been diagnosed with hyperventilation syndrome, you may briefly try certain breathing and relaxation exercises that your doctor has already taught you. This may work to stop an attack.
Breathing into a paper bag is no longer recommended.

http://www.emedicinehealth.com/hyperventilation/article_em.htm

 

[katie_tully]

wouldnt the constant breathing in and out and the water vapour and such eventually remove most tiny particules that accumulate in your lungs? surely someone exposed to smoke from bush fires for several days straight once every year wouldnt suffer any long term damage?

and wouldnt breathing in extra CO2 just be pretty much the same as breathing into a paper bag for a few seconds? as long as its not in some huge amount and it occurs slowly over an extended period i would think you would just start naturally breathing faster to compensate.

Nah, smoke inhalation is pretty serious.
Have a read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_inhalation
More people die from smoke inhalation than burns.

It depends on the severity of the smoke and the length of exposure, but long term effects would include respiratory problems.

 

[RTTTYTR]

lol replace tar with particulate matter, i forgot what it was called
but back to the questions:[/url]

So now, your original premise changes.

combustion(incomplete or complete)
the result is you breath in co,co2
both harmful the specific quantities

http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosphere/airquality/publications/biomass.html

Smoke can be defined in more than a singularity approach.

http://mit.edu/abyrne/www/Interpretivism.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/law-interpretivist/
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=define:+interpretivism&btnG=Search&meta=
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=define:+smoke&btnG=Search&meta=

smoke= verrryy small particles, insoluble.
water=verrryy small particles, soluble+ we need water to survive.
shut up and stop being a smart ass.okay?<3

lol look it up somewhere, i cbf to write my fucking pdhpe lesson from yr 9 mmk?

Does that not require one to define what specific particles are within the smoke? If one define smoke as any gas, and thus mere air (including oxygen, nitrogen, C02, etc) is now a form of smoke, does that not change your conclusion about solubility and the requirement for survival?

smoke= verrryy small particles, insoluble.
water=verrryy small particles, soluble+ we need water to survive.
shut up and stop being a smart ass.okay?<3

lol look it up somewhere, i cbf to write my fucking pdhpe lesson from yr 9 mmk?

Does that not require one to define what specific particles are within the smoke? If one define smoke as any gas, and thus mere air (including oxygen, nitrogen, C02, etc) is now a form of smoke, does that not change your conclusion about solubility?

 

[katie_tully]

which in any case is not true, If you smoke long enough, you'll be able to cough up the particulate matter( in clumps of course)

Until you get emphysema, then you're just fucked.

 

[morganforrest]

How exactly would you get tar from smoke in and of itself? Would you claim that steam has tar in it? Steam is merely the smoke of water

You're a fucking idiot.....steam is the smoke of water....no, just no....it's still water, just in a different physical state....u phayl

 

[RTTTYTR]

You're a fucking idiot.....steam is the smoke of water....no, just no....it's still water, just in a different physical state....u phayl

Poor misguided youth, first learn the philosophical concept of interpretivism, then come back and debate. One could classify a table as an apple and be correct.

 

[morganforrest]

Poor misguided youth, first learn the philosophical concept of interpretivism, then come back and debate. One could classify a table as an apple and be correct.

Sure....if you wanted to use a non-recognised system of classification, but clearly that wasn't your intent

You cocked up, admit it and move on.

 

[RTTTYTR]

Sure....if you wanted to use a non-recognised system of classification, but clearly that wasn't your intent

You cocked up, admit it and move on.

No, my intent was interpretivism you merely misinterpreted my agenda. I am surprised of the arrogance that is inherent in your assumption that you could possibly know another's intent.

In addition, by who is interpretivism not recognised.

 

[black_kat_meow]

No my clear intent was interpretivism, you merely misinterpreted my agenda. I'm surprised of the arrogance that is inherent in your assumption that you could possibly know another's intent.

And by whom is interpretivism not recognised?

You first say "my clear intent", then go on to say that it's arrogant to assume "that you could possibly know another's intent."

Lol.

Oh, and stop using big words to make yourself sound smart, you just sound like a twat.

That's all.