[Zonyc]

Originally Posted by ricard0

Well then. I won't argue with the captain biology here. I will however reiterate my belief that smoking is not good for your plants. A simple test with a control would be an easy tell-all (which i'm sure has been done by many). perhaps yourself. Care to share your results?

Here's a more reputable source supporting my belief that cigarette smoke is bad for plants, and yes, this time i read it. LOL. ---> http://cahe.nmsu.edu/ces/yard/2001/020301.html
^^it's the second question down^^. So it seems some rather astute individuals share my opinions. Maybe they just need to have it laid out for them as well.

The link you posted, albeit quite interesting, is no more relevant than mine in relation to the topic. The spider plant is no more a part of the group dicotyledons than spinach, and even less of an equal candidate for comparison due to it's particularly robust nature and being "very tolerant to neglect". Not to mention those studies are 20 years old, So.........

As for my comparison of cleaning oil from your hands being similar to cleaning tar from walls, both are rather difficult and thus the criteria for comparison. I never said that the processes shared the same molecular roadmap, or abatement regimen. That's reading quite a ways further into the issue than most of us laymen are concerned with. But no less appreciated. And if you thought that was over my head, well just take a look at the wind burn on the OPs' dome. LOL.

As for the study i linked, i did state that it was the first google result for "cigarette smoke and plants", hinting that it's not hard to find studies on it.
Also, i figured i'd at least make an attempt at pointing to a source. Something i thought was missing from all of the opinions drifting about.

You may attack my source. You may point out my inaccuracies. But you may not question my intentions. However coarse my post/s may have been, they were all pretty benign and quite a bit less invasive than some of the other advice wafting through this thread.

I realize that plants of just about any variety will scrub carbon monoxide (and many other gaseous pollutants) from the air, but that's not the question. The question is "is it better for the plants than not"? Plus, what do you suppose happens to all the particulate matter mixed in with the smoke? Just more happy gas? Lol.

I also realize that dicots, in most cases, have more stomata on the under epidermis than they do on the top, but that's still not proof that smoking is good for your plants, nor does it negate/disprove the theory that it will stick on both sides. My ceiling has plenty of tar on it. The floor, not so much. Go figure.

If Stomata are used for gas exchange and lungs are used for gas exchange, how is that not a valid comparison?

I apologize for suggesting such unreasonable solutions as removing your smoking activities from your grow. Your sound reasoning combined with your superior knowledge of all things great and small surely proves that smoking cigarettes with your plants is good for them. Just kidding, c'mon now.

Maybe you should start a thread about the benefits of tobacco smoke in your garden. What has the horticultural community been waiting for? Let's get with the times. Another joke, if that's OK.

I applaud your literary whip (it stings), as well as your, apparently, extensive botanical & biological intellect, but i doubt either has much affect on the OP smoking in his grow room.

Really, it's OK if you want to smoke in your garden..... honest. But you won't catch me doing it till a reputable author suggests it.

I wonder if Shantibaba would mind if came over to smoke up his grow? LMAO. Maybe we could both go to double the effect and help the poor guy out already. Put a few packs in a leaf blower and lookout super healthy plants. If you say so. Lol.

I respectfully agree that if an intelligence quotient was measured in "fish in the bucket", you'd be bringing home more than i. I humbly bow to your fishing prowess. But my advice was based on good 'ol common sense, and again, considerably less invasive than yours. IMO.

Maybe you thought my original post was somehow "calling you out" due to my quoting you, but quite the opposite is true. You felt wounded, i get that. Retaliation, successful however... unnecessary. I was hoping for more participation as far as specificity and impartial sources were concerned. Which kinda happened. Thanx. Your 1st post was just so vague i had to call you on it for my own need to know. Again, sorry. Now that you've had a chance to exercise your excess wisdom, you're welcome, and thanx for stopping in.

BTW, can i just assume the answer to the question i asked you in post #15 is "no". I actually would like to know. Believe it or not.

+rep for being a know-it-all. Take it easy bro.

Hi Ricard0, I appreciate your reply written in a neat, concise and mild mannered way. I apologize for my somewhat hostile response, but I admit, I was somewhat miffed at your quoting each line of text to respond to.

In regards to the experiment, a simple experiment would not suffice to provide concrete proof in regard to the efficacy of smoke on a plant. As you know the plant taxa are quite extensive, with over 7,000 plant species being harvested for use. As you know, the effect of a drug on a mammal not in the homo sp genus would not provide the same effect as if it were tested on a specimen within this genus. The same applies to plant, and as you know, due to the illicit nature of cannabis, I do not have access to provide you with the results of such an experiment. I do however, have access to a laboratory with all of the experimental methods available at my disposal. I have an opportunity at the end of this semester to write a research paper on a topic of my choosing. Perhaps the topic will be the effect of exhaled and ambient smoke on a plant in the same group as cannabis (perhaps hops, or hackberry?).

You're right, the link I posted was not anymore relevant than yours, and I stated that in the post I made. I had an opportunity to have a look at the link you provided, however, it is simply a statement made by an individual with no evidence of any experimentation. Common sense would dictate that if you put a plant in a sealed room, and pumped smoke into it 24/7, that some negative would be seen. This, however, is completely different that the discussion we are having. Smoking in a room adjacent to the room in which you are growing, such as the OP is doing would be a completely different scenario. I would be interested to see if you could provide me with a study conducted with proper controls, scientific method with the aforementioned scenario in mind. The argument presented by this person is that photosynthesis can be affected, and stomatal pores can be clogged. Which is it? The stomata are located on the underside of the leaf, and thus have less contact with the smoke. The time line for the study has no bearing on the result, I dont see why you brought that up. It is my understanding that the spider plant, nor carbon monoxide has evolved in any way since the inception and completion of the study.

I have never questioned your intent, just the way it was presented. If you hypothesize that smoke negatively affects plants in the manner we are discussing, then I have absolutely no problem with it what so ever. I am simply presenting to the OP, and your self an alternative view of the issue at hand.

Like I said in the original post, stomata and lungs are analogous, this is opposed to homologous as you have implied.

The question you stated in the quoted post is "is it better for the plants than not"? The question is would smoking harm the plants?. No where did I state that smoking around your plants is better for them. I simply stated that smoking will not harm them. There is quite a difference there.

As far as the particulate matter goes, you slough off many, many times more skin cells on and around your plants than the number of particulates in smoke. Why has nobody seen the effect of this? Is it plausible to surmise that, perhaps there is no effect? What about the particulate matter in the atmosphere, rain with particulate matter falling onto the cannabis plant outdoors? Have you noticed any sort of detrimental effect from this, in your experience?

Going back to your question on post 15 - How would I know that smoking around my plants is not detrimental? Simple, conclusively, I do not. I do, however, know that I have not seen any negative effect on the plants. Perhaps if I were to stop smoking around my plants, this would be more detrimental? Maybe the plants actually ARE benefiting from the increased concentration of CO2? Conclusively, this is very difficult to test, as slight genetic differences in different plants may respond differently. Consider it like topping - some plants benefit greatly, while others do not. I am simply stating, in Layman terms, that I have not seen any detriment.

Your joke, while not serious, gets me thinking. Perhaps in the next few months I will conduct a test in this regard, and post it on this message board. I'm sure that would interest many.

Again, I appreciate another intellectual person to have a lively if not slightly heated debate with on this subject. I do think, however, that in the future if you do wish to reply to this, you should PM me as this is now off topic to what the OP was asking. There is no doubt in my mind, that you are passionate about your garden and want only the best for your babies (who wouldn't)? But if smoking near the plants has no visible detriment, and it is inconvenient to smoke elsewhere, then why not? If, however, you notice that smoking around the plants causes them to lose yield or wither away into nothing, obviously, this would be cause for concern.