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

[bloodshed344]

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.

It's a matter of what should happen vs. what actually happens.

 

[sekio]

Dr. Tashkin found that regular smoking of marijuana by itself causes visible and microscopic injury to the large airways that is consistently associated with an increased likelihood of symptoms of chronic bronchitis that subside after cessation of use. He also found that the evidence does not indicate that habitual use of marijuana leads to significant abnormalities in lung function when assessed either cross-sectionally or longitudinally, except for possible increases in lung volumes and modest increases in airway resistance of unclear clinical significance.

The author finds no clear link between marijuana use and the development of COPD or lower respiratory tract infections. In addition, "findings from a limited number of well-designed epidemiological studies do not suggest an increased risk for the development of either lung or upper airway cancer from light or moderate use, although evidence is mixed concerning possible carcinogenic risks of heavy, long-term use," Dr. Tashkin notes. "In summary, the accumulated weight of evidence implies far lower risks for pulmonary complications of even regular heavy use of marijuana compared to the grave pulmonary consequences of tobacco."

http://news.thoracic.org/june-july-2013/annals-ats.php#.UcHhqC0hJgg.facebook

So many people here are forgetting that it doesn't matter if you prove cannabis smoke is harmful with logic on paper. What matters is the actual observed facts of what really happens to people when they smoke cannabis. Most studies on this issue show no correlation between using cannabis, and increased risk.

The circumstances in which cannabis and tobacco are smoked are generally different as well. The total amount of material smoked per day in generally higher for tobacco users than cannabis users. (A typical pack of 20 cigarettes is about 14 grams of tobacco - most cannabis smokers don't come close to that, and some smokers consume more than one pack a day).

 

[jiyuwekin]

The circumstances in which cannabis and tobacco are smoked are generally different as well. The total amount of material smoked per day in generally higher for tobacco users than cannabis users. (A typical pack of 20 cigarettes is about 14 grams of tobacco - most cannabis smokers don't come close to that, and some smokers consume more than one pack a day).

good point. that would mean i personally smoke 6 times the amount of tobacco over weed. awful

 

[sekio]

Personally, i don't see how it's so hard to believe that cannabis smokers aren't at increased risk for cancer for a few reasons.

1. THC has been demonstrated to have an anticancer and anti-inflammatory effect. It's also documented that smoking THC is an effective way to deliver it to the blood (and the rest of the body because THC is so fat soluble).
2. The average cannabis flower contains a higher density of psychoactive compounds than tobacco does. A cigarette has about 10 to 12mg of nicotine in it (at 800mg a cigarette, makes it about 1%), and the smoker absorbs about 1-2mg. Cannabis is typically around 8-10% THC, and much less is destroyed in the smoking process. (greater absorption)
3. People don't, in general, chain smoke marijuana like they do cigarettes. When they do smoke marijuana, they smoke less weight to get intoxicated. The average consumer these days doesn't smoke 20 joints a day of ditch weed, every day, either.
4. THC is not a vasoconstrictor - doesn't increase COPD risk.
5. The cannabis plant isn't generally smoke-cured or otherwise subject to processes that increase its carcinogenicity.


Also, to settle the the 'TAR" debate -

The THC concentration in the smoke condensate varied
between 22.17 mg/g of cannabis and 54.00 mg/g, while the amount of by-products produced
varied between 25.57 mg/g and 107.40 mg/g.

So that makes cannabis smoke between 50% and 70% tar (non-THC compounds) Sounds ominous.

Tobacco smoke is between 6-10% nicotine, or more than 90% not nicotine, aka tar.... In comparison, cannabis smoke is a walk in the park...

Better chart:

Sources:
http://www.erowid.org/plants/tobacco/tobacco_nic.shtml

Cannabis Smoke Condensate I: The Effect of Different Preparation Methods on Tetrahydrocannabinol Levels
F. Van der Kooy, B. Pomahacova, and R. Verpoorte
Inhalation Toxicology, 20:801–804, 2008

 

[jiyuwekin]

sound argument. the amount of weight and tar alone makes one want to deter from tobacco.

 

[Dumbnut]

Personally, i don't see how it's so hard to believe that cannabis smokers aren't at increased risk for cancer for a few reasons.

1. THC has been demonstrated to have an anticancer and anti-inflammatory effect. It's also documented that smoking THC is an effective way to deliver it to the blood (and the rest of the body because THC is so fat soluble).
2. The average cannabis flower contains a higher density of psychoactive compounds than tobacco does. A cigarette has about 10 to 12mg of nicotine in it (at 800mg a cigarette, makes it about 1%), and the smoker absorbs about 1-2mg. Cannabis is typically around 8-10% THC, and much less is destroyed in the smoking process. (greater absorption)
3. People don't, in general, chain smoke marijuana like they do cigarettes. When they do smoke marijuana, they smoke less weight to get intoxicated. The average consumer these days doesn't smoke 20 joints a day of ditch weed, every day, either.
4. THC is not a vasoconstrictor - doesn't increase COPD risk.
5. The cannabis plant isn't generally smoke-cured or otherwise subject to processes that increase its carcinogenicity.


Also, to settle the the 'TAR" debate -


So that makes cannabis smoke between 50% and 70% tar. Sounds ominous.

Tobacco smoke is between 6-10% nicotine, or between 90 - 94% tar. In comparison, cannabis smoke is a walk in the park...


Sources:
http://www.erowid.org/plants/tobacco/tobacco_nic.shtml

Cannabis Smoke Condensate I: The Effect of Different Preparation Methods on Tetrahydrocannabinol Levels
F. Van der Kooy, B. Pomahacova, and R. Verpoorte
Inhalation Toxicology, 20:801–804, 2008

You sir, win this thread.

 

[p-helix]

Well, cannabis has only about some 33 carcinogens in it (compared to tobacco, which has somewhere around 70 carcinogens in it), so that means that smoking cannabis isn't as carcinogenic as smoking some tobacco cigarettes, however, which one has more tar in it? Is there any evidence that cannabis actually has some less tar than tobacco smoke has?

These numbers are dubious for reasoning, however. Tobacco has nitrosamines, for example, whereas Cannabis compounds such as CBD and THC and the body's endocannabinoid system work together to help regulate biological processes and protect the body from cancer. The pharmacology between the two plants is too different. Cannabis tar also clears via the expectorant effect. :D

 

[Elven Warriorr]

Personally, i don't see how it's so hard to believe that cannabis smokers aren't at increased risk for cancer for a few reasons.

1. THC has been demonstrated to have an anticancer and anti-inflammatory effect. It's also documented that smoking THC is an effective way to deliver it to the blood (and the rest of the body because THC is so fat soluble).
2. The average cannabis flower contains a higher density of psychoactive compounds than tobacco does. A cigarette has about 10 to 12mg of nicotine in it (at 800mg a cigarette, makes it about 1%), and the smoker absorbs about 1-2mg. Cannabis is typically around 8-10% THC, and much less is destroyed in the smoking process. (greater absorption)
3. People don't, in general, chain smoke marijuana like they do cigarettes. When they do smoke marijuana, they smoke less weight to get intoxicated. The average consumer these days doesn't smoke 20 joints a day of ditch weed, every day, either.
4. THC is not a vasoconstrictor - doesn't increase COPD risk.
5. The cannabis plant isn't generally smoke-cured or otherwise subject to processes that increase its carcinogenicity.


Also, to settle the the 'TAR" debate -


So that makes cannabis smoke between 50% and 70% tar (non-THC compounds) Sounds ominous.

Tobacco smoke is between 6-10% nicotine, or more than 90% not nicotine, aka tar.... In comparison, cannabis smoke is a walk in the park...

Better chart:

Sources:
http://www.erowid.org/plants/tobacco/tobacco_nic.shtml

Cannabis Smoke Condensate I: The Effect of Different Preparation Methods on Tetrahydrocannabinol Levels
F. Van der Kooy, B. Pomahacova, and R. Verpoorte
Inhalation Toxicology, 20:801–804, 2008

Erwoid also says that marijuana bud contains only 33% the tar of tobacco smoke. However, this chart from Erowid also says that marijuana smoke contains more tar than tobacco smoke.

 

[Foreigner]

Erwoid also says that marijuana bud contains only 33% the tar of tobacco smoke. However, this chart from Erowid also says that marijuana smoke contains more tar than tobacco smoke.

Tar itself does not cause cancer, but it obstructs the cilia in the lungs from removing harmful and toxic debris.

All smoking damages the lungs, whether it's cigarettes, pot, herbal blends, etc. Combusted material is not meant to be inhaled and it has consequences. Tar has obstructive properties. Although cannabis has not been proven to cause cancer, heavy use impairs lung health, makes one more prone to respiratory infection, impairs breathing, and may be a factor in emphysema.

I don't get what your hangup is, EW. This is a harm reduction forum, not a "drugs are a harmless miracle" forum. No one is saying pot is harmless, but as sekio already stated, most tobacco smokers will never match cannabis smokers in quantity. Also, the negative health impacts of cannabis can be easily offset by less frequent smoking or vaporizing.

 

[bloodshed344]

Erwoid also says that marijuana bud contains only 33% the tar of tobacco smoke. However, this chart from Erowid also says that marijuana smoke contains more tar than tobacco smoke.

That's because it varies like I already told you. Just because the two sources conflict doesn't mean either is wrong.

 

[p-helix]

My earlier post in this thread stated that tobacco contains nitrosamines, but according to erowid, nitrosamines are present in cannabis smoke too in similar amounts, so sorry for misleading anyone. Tar is present in similar quantities by weight. There is good evidence that the pharmacological action of cannabis is markedly different though, in that incidences of many cancers are not increased and are even reduced by cannabis smoke, although one study did find an increased risk of testicular cancer.

 

[bloodshed344]

My earlier post in this thread stated that tobacco contains nitrosamines, but according to erowid, nitrosamines are present in cannabis smoke too in similar amounts, so sorry for misleading anyone. Tar is present in similar quantities by weight. There is good evidence that the pharmacological action of cannabis is markedly different though, in that incidences of many cancers are not increased and are even reduced by cannabis smoke, although one study did find an increased risk of testicular cancer.

I believe almost any plant would be safe to smoke for a life time. It's the radioactive metal coating your lungs that kills you, and that's from radiation not plants.

When will people learn?

THIS DISCUSSION is focused around tar, but the root of the problem is the cancer that we supposedly think tar causes. Tar doesn't cause cancer in any appreciable amount so the discussion of tar is useless. It's the radioactive metal that forms a layer over your lungs, and that SHOULD be what we're talking about. The people here are using an illogical train of thought that has made drugs look bad for the past 60 years.

 

[Elven Warriorr]

I believe almost any plant would be safe to smoke for a life time. It's the radioactive metal coating your lungs that kills you, and that's from radiation not plants.

When will people learn?

THIS DISCUSSION is focused around tar, but the root of the problem is the cancer that we supposedly think tar causes. Tar doesn't cause cancer in any appreciable amount so the discussion of tar is useless. It's the radioactive metal that forms a layer over your lungs, and that SHOULD be what we're talking about. The people here are using an illogical train of thought that has made drugs look bad for the past 60 years.

Which information from Erowid is true? Marijuana bud 33% less tar than tobacco smoke, or it has several times more tar than tobacco smoke? Was that chart which Sekio has posted about the tar content, was that chart talking about the tar content of the leaves, or the bud, of marijuana? Which part of the plant was that chart talking about?

 

[bloodshed344]

Which information from Erowid is true? Marijuana bud 33% less tar than tobacco smoke, or it has several times more tar than tobacco smoke? Was that chart which Sekio has posted about the tar content, was that chart talking about the tar content of the leaves, or the bud, of marijuana? Which part of the plant was that chart talking about?

Like I said, just because two studies conflict doesn't mean either one of them is wrong. I can't compact EVERYTHING I'VE SAID into one post, but I've already addressed this concern so stop repeating yourself. To prove it I'll QUOTE MYSELF.

That's because it varies like I already told you. Just because the two sources conflict doesn't mean either is wrong.

and if you'll look up and notice, THAT POST WAS A REPEAT, and this one is too. That means I've repeated the same thing 3 times because each time you asked again in a different way. Are you a spammer? I honestly don't understand!

AND BY THE WAY BUDDY, WHY ARE YOU ASKING ABOUT TAR WHEN THE POST YOU QUOTED ITSELF SAYS THE DISCUSSION ABOUT TAR IS USELESS? Are you mocking me??? FOR REAL

 

[p-helix]

I believe almost any plant would be safe to smoke for a life time. It's the radioactive metal coating your lungs that kills you, and that's from radiation not plants.

I am not disagreeing with you about the radioactive metal coating the lungs. But there are countless other carcinogens present in the smoke of tobacco, cannabis and probably any plant substance in the world. The whole body is subjected to different chemicals when there is smoking and the smoke is dirty with them, and you get high.

Without any carcinogens at all there would probably not be much effect either because at the high temperature necessary to eliminate them all you would be left with water and carbon dioxide and no nicotine and THC. Smoking a blunt is not hot enough to eliminate all the carcinogens produced by the combustion process basically.

Separately, regarding the radioactive metals in tobacco, that are taken up from the soil, for example polonium and lead, I wonder if hydroponics could make tobacco safer by eliminating heavy metal toxicity, and if the curing process could be adapted to reduce the occurence of nitrosamines.

 

[bloodshed344]

I am not disagreeing with you about the radioactive metal coating the lungs. But there are countless other carcinogens present in the smoke of tobacco, cannabis and probably any plant substance in the world. The whole body is subjected to different chemicals when there is smoking and the smoke is dirty with them, and you get high.

Without any carcinogens at all there would probably not be much effect either because at the high temperature necessary to eliminate them all you would be left with water and carbon dioxide and no nicotine and THC. Smoking a blunt is not hot enough to eliminate all the carcinogens produced by the combustion process basically.

Separately, regarding the radioactive metals in tobacco, that are taken up from the soil, for example polonium and lead, I wonder if hydroponics could make tobacco safer by eliminating heavy metal toxicity, and if the curing process could be adapted to reduce the occurence of nitrosamines.

Has there been any real study done that these "Carcinogens" in tobacco cause any appreciable amount of cancer? That the burnt hydrocarbons from plants acctually cause cancer in some amount that is noticeable? That is what I'm interested in. I know tobacco is full of heavy metal that sticks to your lungs for over 40 years, but that doesn't mean every component of it's structure that is considered "carcinogenic" is what is actually doing the work.

 

[Elven Warriorr]

Has there been any real study done that these "Carcinogens" in tobacco cause any appreciable amount of cancer? That the burnt hydrocarbons from plants acctually cause cancer in some amount that is noticeable? That is what I'm interested in. I know tobacco is full of heavy metal that sticks to your lungs for over 40 years, but that doesn't mean every component of it's structure that is considered "carcinogenic" is what is actually doing the work.

Radioactive fertilizers are not heavy metals. Where are you getting this idea from?

 

[bloodshed344]

Radioactive fertilizers are not heavy metals. Where are you getting this idea from?

Sorry if polonium isn't considered a heavy metal. I don't actually know what a heavy metal is.

 

[p-helix]

Polonium is sometimes referred to as a heavy metal, a term of vague definition, or a toxic metal, or a trace metal, but also as a metalloid, meaning it has properties of a metal and a non-metal.

Here is an interesting article on the presence of polonium-210 in commercial tobacco and how the tobacco industry has significantly increased it in its crop by its high phosphate fertilizer applications as well as lying and suppressing as much scientific and public knowledge of it as possible. Phosphate fertilizers apparently improve the taste of tobacco but increase the amount of PO-210 in the plant. Smoking one cigarette could be as radioactive as ten chest X-rays. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2509609/

 

[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.

1-That's false. Studies from New Zealend have linked cannabis smoking to lung cancer.

2-Post some links about those studies. I find that hard to believe, that long-term smokers have healthy looking lungs. Putting smoke into lungs clogs them up with tar. Marijuana's expectorant effects only minimize the harms of the smoke. It doesn't protect somebody's lungs 100% from the harmful effects of smoking.