Which drug has more tar in it-tobacco or cannabis?

[bloodshed344]

Combustion and pyrolysis byproducts in the smoke are carcinogenic. The texture of the tar has nothing to do with it. The radioactivity does play a part though. Tobacco plants are notorious for depleting the nutrients in the soil so aggressive fertilization is required.

http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/co...1&__uuid=0d6a1cb2-3430-4739-add8-f782f7ff871a
The nitrosamines in tobacco are carcinogenic even when not smoked.

Actually, the texture of the tar does have quite a bit to do with it, as it stays coated on your lungs for pretty much the rest of your life. But I'm not gonna try to quote a study I read a couple of years ago.

To Psychedelic Jay: My opinion? Cigarettes have a smaller amount of deadly tar. Cannabis has a large amount of harmless tar.

 

[Tiger Benzo]

Smoke is smoke...

Neither is better for you in reality.

There are people who smoke entirely too much of both tobacco and weed... Both these people hack up the grosses phlegm ever.
Which was cleaner? I’d say neither.

THC has cancer fighting effects when you eat it.

Smoking anything causes cancer. Period...

Nicotine is carcinogenic as the way it is ingested. Smoking is carcinogenic.

Chewing tobacco is indeed carcinogenic due to other toxins that are in the plant itself, which is far from just nicotine.

Hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, etc... is made by burning plant material in general.

best post in this thread ...i feel sick when i use tobco .chewable weed for the win

 

[bloodshed344]

best post in this thread ...i feel sick when i use tobco .chewable weed for the win

Why would an opinionated post filled with half-truths be the best post? The best post is two posts, mine and Alexander Shulgins. The worst post is your's, for cheering misinformation.

 

[bloodshed344]

If cannabis smoke has more tar than tobacco smoke has, how the hell can the tar that comes from the cannabis smoke even be harmless at all?

It's not radioactive nor does it contain nicotine or some of the carcinogens that actually matter compared to the extremely mild ones from cannabis tar. have you even been following the thread?

 

[Lady Codone]

Not sure if this has been said, but it's not "smoke" or "tar" that causes cancer. It's tobacco.

Weed smoke is an airway irritant but lacks the inherent cancer-causing properties of tobacco (which contains several radioactive materials). Smoking tobacco is like taking a shitload of x-rays to the chest. Even smokeless tobacco causes cancer. Weed doesn't. Same goes for heart disease, which is linked to tobacco but not weed.

Can weed smoke cause cancer? Perhaps, but so can smoked deli meats. And alcohol. Lung cancer is not a common finding even in long-term heavy cannabis users. It certainly can't be compared to the risk associated with tobacco smoking.

As for which one contains more tar, I guess it depends on the quantity you smoke, what filtering methods you use, etc. A bong hit is going to contain less bad stuff than a blunt.

 

[Elven Warriorr]

How much more tar does marijuana smoke have?

 

[itsALLfake]

The answer will vary widely for cannabis...and even tobacco. The amount of elements in each plant is not a consistent thing. The light spectrum varying year to year, altitude, and so forth, and *pfttt* to whoever said nutrients in cannabis doesn't factor.(assuming it wasn't flushed properly, which I love ass.ing)

I tend to stay with the group consensus on this one...cannabis has more less harmful bi-product.

I would like to see the full study on nicotine being a carcinogen.

 

[Elven Warriorr]

The answer will vary widely for cannabis...and even tobacco. The amount of elements in each plant is not a consistent thing. The light spectrum varying year to year, altitude, and so forth, and *pfttt* to whoever said nutrients in cannabis doesn't factor.(assuming it wasn't flushed properly, which I love ass.ing)

I tend to stay with the group consensus on this one...cannabis has more less harmful bi-product.

I would like to see the full study on nicotine being a carcinogen.

Does the smoke from the bud contain more tar or less tar than the smoke which comes from tobacco?

 

[bloodshed344]

Does the smoke from the bud contain more tar or less tar than the smoke which comes from tobacco?

The answer will vary widely for cannabis...and even tobacco. The amount of elements in each plant is not a consistent thing. The light spectrum varying year to year, altitude, and so forth, and *pfttt* to whoever said nutrients in cannabis doesn't factor.(assuming it wasn't flushed properly, which I love ass.ing)

I tend to stay with the group consensus on this one...cannabis has more less harmful bi-product.

I would like to see the full study on nicotine being a carcinogen.

 

[Elven Warriorr]

The answer will vary widely for cannabis...and even tobacco. The amount of elements in each plant is not a consistent thing. The light spectrum varying year to year, altitude, and so forth, and *pfttt* to whoever said nutrients in cannabis doesn't factor.(assuming it wasn't flushed properly, which I love ass.ing)

I tend to stay with the group consensus on this one...cannabis has more less harmful bi-product.

I would like to see the full study on nicotine being a carcinogen.

Exactly how much more tar does marijuana smoke have in comparison to what the tobacco smoke has?

 

[bloodshed344]

Exactly how much more tar does marijuana smoke have in comparison to what the tobacco smoke has?

Ha, I'm not sure if you noticed what I did there... but whatever.

You'll never be able to find an exact number because of growing conditions some plants will have much more than others. Cannabis generally has more (pretty harmless) tar, while tobacco generally has less (quite harmful) tar. I'm sure you could find cannabis plants that had less tar than some tobacco plants however.

You're not going to be able to find the answer you're looking for.

 

[RPonting]

Hey!
Every drugs are harm for health if they are tobacco and cannabis.tobacco have more tar and bad for your body.
You also need the personal development. Not use any drug its good for you and your others.

 

[bloodshed344]

Hey!
Every drugs are harm for health if they are tobacco and cannabis.tobacco have more tar and bad for your body.
You also need the personal development. Not use any drug its good for you and your others.

You have tons of natural drugs in your body. Drugs are everything... everywhere. You cannot say all drugs are bad for you... human development has shown that the use of drugs greatly increases quality of life and length of life... medicine is the ultimate control over own body. Almost every drug has uses.

 

[bloodshed344]

Marijuana smokers probably have black lungs from all of that smoke and tar that they inhale into their bodies. Smoking anything is very unhealthy, whether it be tobacco or marijuana.

Smoking marijuana and drinking alcohol harms the body in different ways. Alcohol destroys the liver, smoking marijuana destroys the lungs. They both cause harm. Pot smokers may not develop cirrhosis, but they may get lung cancer.

But all of that is not true, so I don't get your point. It's been proven there's no correlation cannabis and lung cancer, and when they looked at the lungs of heavy cannabis users they were healthy and not black at all. You're literally spouting BS so cut it out. Don't equate smoking cannabis to smoking tobacco.

I'm tired of people saying stuff like smoke is smoke or smoking anything will give you lung cancer. You people are wrong and I will make it a point to inform all of you of that.

 

[Psychedelic Jay]

Smoke is carcinogenic dude.

And smoking anything will eventually cause some form of lung disease... If you don’t quit, just expect something out of the picture to go wrong.

Emphysema is another thing that is rarely mentioned in smoking.


Time will tell you more as you are choosing stoner logic over reality.

Smoking is bad for you. Weed is as radioactive as the soil it grows in... Many of the same fertilizers are used for both tobacco and weed as well as many other commercial plants. The radioactive bit is not really the way to go in this type of argument.

Smoke from nearly all burning plants are carcinogenic, because many of the same materials make up all plant matter. These create hydrocarbons and cyanides... Severely damaging compounds...


Antioxidant power of THC is highly glorified, so much so that people irrationally smoke way too much... It is inherently dangerous to say that weed smoke is “so safe"...
You are very well making more free radicals smoking than the THC can probably even take up... Nobody has mentioned that here...

Stoner logic kills a lot of stoners bro...

 

[Elven Warriorr]

But all of that is not true, so I don't get your point. It's been proven there's no correlation cannabis and lung cancer, and when they looked at the lungs of heavy cannabis users they were healthy and not black at all. You're literally spouting BS so cut it out. Don't equate smoking cannabis to smoking tobacco.

I'm tired of people saying stuff like smoke is smoke or smoking anything will give you lung cancer. You people are wrong and I will make it a point to inform all of you of that.

This makes absolutely no sense at all. Where are you getting these statistics from? Some biased pro-pot study?

Putting any sort of smoke into the lungs is obviously very unhealthy. Various studies have shown that cannabis smoke has more tar than tobacco smoke.

 

[bloodshed344]

This makes absolutely no sense at all. Where are you getting these statistics from? Some biased pro-pot study?

Putting any sort of smoke into the lungs is obviously very unhealthy. Various studies have shown that cannabis smoke has more tar than tobacco smoke.

So, the rebuttal from you two is "no"? That's it? I'm wrong because you guys say so?

Really don't make me dig up a study just look it up for yourself jesus christ.

Psychedelic Jay: "Stoner logic kills a lot of stoners bro..."
This made me so mad I wanted to just flame you. Do you think the researchers studying this were using stoner logic? Because that's what you just said. It's not like I'm pulling this info from my own mind so obviously you mean the people that conducted this study were using stoner logic. Also, you're implying that your logic is above stoner logic. Ohohoh, so you're implying that your logic is above those of lowly researchers, who are just using stoner logic. Wow, ok.

Anyway, so you're still both wrong even though you just say "No!"

It don't work that way kiddies.

 

[jiyuwekin]

so, just to get this straight; tobacco is bad for you in every form. weed is never bad for you, but it is harmful to your lungs if smoked.

 

[bloodshed344]

so, just to get this straight; tobacco is bad for you in every form. weed is never bad for you, but it is harmful to your lungs if smoked.

That's true in theory but modern science doesn't actually show that to be true. That's why me and these ignorant guys are arguing.

 

[jiyuwekin]

well, i'd certainly trust science over ideology, albeit i immediately assume weed smoke would cause lung cancer. although, that's completely based on propaganda i've been fed since elementary school. whereas i've seen firsthand the affects of tobacco abuse, i've never heard of anyone being harmed by weed.