• CD Moderators: someguyontheinternet
  • Cannabis Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules

is cannabis more carcinogenic than tobacco?

dark_lord said:
WRONG- where did u here this from??????? Water is the best- it cools the smoke and filters at the same time..

Common misconception. Water is good for cooling smoke down, it doesn't filter as much tar as you want, it filters about an equal amount of THC at the same time it filters tar (even a little bit more THC actually). The unfiltered joint is according to a MAPS study the "healthiest" way to smoke, filters out more tar as opposed to active compounds.

Though a bong does not filter out all things bad, other gasses that aren't mentioned in the study are filtered out as well. Such as; hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, aldehydes, etc. Some of these promote cancer, heart diseases, etc. Though this is wonderful, it's still not as good health wise as the unfiltered joint.
 
Scientists are still arguing about exactly how tobacco causes cancer, and there are countless studies on this, dating back to at least half a century. As for marijuana, the long term studies just aren't there. Most doctors will tell you that, puff for puff, it's probably more dangerous than cigarettes.

Since we are basically just trading opinion for opinion, I'll add my two cents. I believe marijuana users will be less likely to develop cancer than tobacco users for the simple reason that, from personal observation, their lungs seem to be healthier.

It is known that smoke paralyzes the cilia (molecular scale tail thingies) that line the lungs. Since a tobacco smoker lights up every hour or so, their lung cleaning mechanisms are out for a huge chunk of the day. So all the carcinogens are just sitting there, waiting to react with DNA, instead of being coughed up. On the other hand, only the most avid stoners light up every hour on the dot. The rest are gonna have some time in between for their lungs to recover.

BTW, I smoke both tobacco and pot. My only excuse is that I think cancer will be cured in the next 20 or so years. ;)
 
  • Cannabis smoke contains carcinogens.
  • Cannabis resin contains carcinogens
  • Cannabis smoke and cannabis resins both cause mutations in single cell organisms
  • Chronic cannabis smokers show histopathological
    changes of a type that typically precede carcinoma
    development in tobacco smokers
  • There is only one study in humans which links cannabis to cancer.
  • There is no large, general, epidemiological study which links cannabis to cancer.
 
austior said:
Most doctors will tell you that, puff for puff, it's probably more dangerous than cigarettes.

when i smoked both tobacco and pot, my doctors seemed much more concerned about the tobacco.

Since a tobacco smoker lights up every hour or so, their lung cleaning mechanisms are out for a huge chunk of the day. So all the carcinogens are just sitting there, waiting to react with DNA, instead of being coughed up. On the other hand, only the most avid stoners light up every hour on the dot. The rest are gonna have some time in between for their lungs to recover.

i think this line of thinking is pointless because there are plenty of tobacco smokers who only smoke only a cig or two a day, and plenty of herb smokers who bong it up all day. and besides that, how much a user uses a substance doesnt change how dangerous that substance is
 
yes, but i havnt heard of anyone smoking 3 packs of joints a day( wutever 28x3 is...im too lazy to care)
 
^^^
The typical cigarette smoker smokes much more than the typical cannabis user. When you're considering the safety of a substance, you want some idea of how frequently it is used.
 
kittyinthedark said:
striker: exactly. How many people smoke a pack a day? Now how many people smoke 4 joints to themselves a day? I'd say the number is drastically smaller

On my days off I smoke a pack a day, and I have 2 or so joints or bowls to myself, not including the ones that I smoke with others (3-5), and I have smoked a pack and 4 joints to myself in one day once. So it seems like your question has no bearing on anything because what's to say that the person who smokes a pack a day is opposite to the person who smokes four joints a day?
 
Marijuana has 50% more carboxylhemoglobin, a carcinogen, than cigarettes, but carboxylhemoglobin is the by far the primary carcinogen (other carcinogens result from the burning of fuel via lighters). This fact is overshadowed, however, by cigs having far more than 1 primary carcinogen.
 
i didnt read through all ur posts, but tobbaco affects ALL airways in ur lungs, the tiny tiny ones and the big ones, weed only slightly effects the big ones and doesnt effect the small ones
 
Cannabis contains more carcinogins, but at the same time there is another chemical in it that actually stops the mutated cells from growing and feeding off your body. So the carcinogens do mutate your cells, but this other chemical stops, or at least slows, depending on how much you smoke, any chance you have of getting cancer.

At least that was from one study i read. It makes sense though, there's very low occurance of marijuana smokers who get cancer, a really small amount compared to ciggarette smokers.
 
Yo, tetrahydrocannabinol. Plants dont' contain carboxyhemaglobin. Neither cannabis, nor tobbaco, have any. Meanwhile, I think most of y'all are ignoring some important facts, the big one being in relation to polonium-210:

For over 35 years, researchers and tobacco corporations have known that commercially grown tobacco is contaminated with radioactive elements (1). The contamination is sourced in naturally occurring radioactive radon gas (2) which is absorbed and trapped in apatite rock (3). Apatite is mined for the purpose of formulating the phosphate portion of most chemical fertilizers(4). Polonium releases ionizing alpha radiation which is at least 20 times more harmful than either beta or gamma radiation when exposed to internal organs(5).

Lung cancer rates increased significantly during most of the 1900's (6). Its no coincidence that between 1938 and 1960, the level of polonium 210 in American tobacco tripled commensurate with the increased use of chemical fertilizers and Persistant Organic Pollutant (POP) accumulation(7).

Conservative estimates put the level of radiation absorbed by a pack-and-a-half a day smoker at the equivalent of 300 [ed; up to 8000] chest X-rays every year (8). The Office of Radiation, Chemical & Biological Safety at Michigan State University state in their newsletter that the radiation equivalent was as high as 800 chest X-rays per year(9). The National Institute of Health published a radiation exposure chart which shows that smoking 30 cigarettes per day is the equivalent of 2,000 chest x-rays per year.(10) R.T. Ravenholt of the Centers for Disease Control stated that tobacco is the largest source of radiation exposure among the American public(11). Researchers have induced cancer in animal test subjects that inhaled polonium 210 but have not caused cancer through the inhalation of any of the non-radioactive chemical carcinogens found in tobacco(12).

People have estimated that as much as 95% of cancers caused by tobacco smoke are due to polonium 210.
 
Carboxyhemoglobin is a product of the reation of some of the cannibolnoids and other carcinogens in hydrocarbon fuels with blood. It doesn't exist in the plant; it is only produced when burnt when the burnt plant matter enters the bloodstream. I should have been more clear.
 
No, carboxyhemeaglobin has nothing to do with "cannibolnoids" or even cannabinoids, its caused by the binding of carbon monoxide to hemaglobin.
 
austior said:
^^^
The typical cigarette smoker smokes much more than the typical cannabis user. When you're considering the safety of a substance, you want some idea of how frequently it is used.

Not really. there are plenty of people do not smoke a pack a day of cigarettes, and there are people who probably do smoke close to 20 joints a day (especially if they are smoking low qual pot)
 
I've read that marijuana is 4 times as harmful as tobacco. I've also read that the average joint contains about a half gram of marijuana and the average cigarette contains about 1 gram of tobacco. If marijuana is 4 times worse than tobacco and the average joint has half as much marijuana as cigs have tobacco then 1 joint=2 cigarettes. So 10 joints=1 pack of cigs. The biggest potheads I know don't smoke 10 joints a day, although I'm sure there are some people that do.
Carcinogens aren't the only problem with smoking. One of the problems is the heat from the smoke. It burns the mouth, throat, and lungs. Personally, I think that marijuana smoke is a lot cooler and smoother than tobacco smoke. I can smoke many joints without my throat hurting at all, but after 1 cigarette my throat hurts. Bong users are probably at less of a risk because the smoke cools down from the water, even if some of the THC is taken out by the water causing them to smoke more, the smoke won't damage their lungs as much as hotter smoke would. When I hit my 2 foot bong I usually fill it to the top with ice.
Frequency of smoking is another factor. You need time to heal from the damage done from smoking. The average tobacco user smokes a cigarette about every 40 minutes to an hour. I have never met anyone that smokes weed every hour, but there probably are a few stoners out there that do.
If you smoke better quality weed then because of the reduced amount of stuff you have to smoke you are probably at an even lower risk of problems.
 
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6630

Marijuana And Cancer Risk Not Strong, Study Says

August 4, 2005 - Lyon, France

Lyon, France: Moderate use of cannabis not does appear to be associated with an increased risk of tobacco-related cancers, such as lung or colorectal cancer, according to an epidemiological review published in the current issue of the journal Alcohol.

Following the review of two cohort studies and 14 case-control studies, authors concluded, "Results of cohort studies have not revealed an increased risk of tobacco-related cancers among marijuana smokers, possibly because few users smoke enough marijuana to elevate their risk to a detectable level."

Authors did acknowledge an increased risk of certain cancers in a handful of case-control studies, but noted that the results were inconsistent, "highly unstable," and may reflect researchers having controlled poorly for other drug use, including tobacco and alcohol.

A 1999 review by the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine found "no conclusive evidence that marijuana causes cancer in humans, including cancers usually related to tobacco use."

For more information, please contact Paul Armentano, NORML Senior policy Analyst, at (202) 483-5500. Full text of the study, "Epidemiological review of marijuana use and cancer risk," is available in the August issue of the journal Alcohol.

Aug 04, 2005
 
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6587

Moderate Cannabis Use Not Associated With Cancer, Study Says

July 7, 2005 - Clearwater, FL, USA

Clearwater, FL: Moderate use of cannabis is not associated with an elevated risk of developing lung and/or other types of upper aerodigestive tract cancers, according to preliminary data presented at the annual conference of the International Cannabinoid Research Society (ICRS).

Data presented from a retrospective, case controlled study of more than 1,200 adults with cancer of the pharynx, larynx and/or esophagus found that those who reported using moderate levels of cannabis use had no greater odds of suffering from cancer than non- cannabis using controls. "We failed to observe a positive association of marijuana use and other potential confounders," said Donald Tashkin of the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA.

A previous large-scale case-controlled study performed by researchers at John Hopkins University in Maryland revealed similar results, finding that "the balance of evidence ... does not favor the idea that marijuana as commonly used in the community is a major causal factor for head, neck, and lung cancer."

More recently, a 2004 study published in the journal Cancer Research concluded that cannabis use is not associated with an increased risk of developing oral cancer "regardless of how long, how much or how often a person has used marijuana."

For more information, please contact either Allen St. Pierre or Paul Armentano of NORML at (202) 483-5500. A listing of presentations at this year's ICRS conference is available online at:
http://www.cannabinoidsociety.org
 
one more...

http://www.counterpunch.org/gardner07022005.html

Independence Day Weekend Edition
July 2 / 4, 2005
Pot Shots
Study: Smoking Marijuana Does Not Cause Lung Cancer

By FRED GARDNER

Marijuana smoking -"even heavy longterm use"- does not cause cancer of the lung, upper airwaves, or esophagus, Donald Tashkin reported at this year's meeting of the International Cannabinoid Research Society. Coming from Tashkin, this conclusion had extra significance for the assembled drug-company and university-based scientists (most of whom get funding from the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse). Over the years, Tashkin's lab at UCLA has produced irrefutable evidence of the damage that marijuana smoke wreaks on bronchial tissue. With NIDA's support, Tashkin and colleagues have identified the potent carcinogens in marijuana smoke, biopsied and made photomicrographs of pre-malignant cells, and studied the molecular changes occurring within them. It is Tashkin's research that the Drug Czar's office cites in ads linking marijuana to lung cancer. Tashkin himself has long believed in a causal relationship, despite a study in which Stephen Sidney examined the files of 64,000 Kaiser patients and found that marijuana users didn't develop lung cancer at a higher rate or die earlier than non-users. Of five smaller studies on the question, only two -involving a total of about 300 patients- concluded that marijuana smoking causes lung cancer. Tashkin decided to settle the question by conducting a large, prospectively designed, population-based, case-controlled study. "Our major hypothesis," he told the ICRS, "was that heavy, longterm use of marijuana will increase the risk of lung and upper-airwaves cancers."

The Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance program provided Tashkin's team with the names of 1,209 L.A. residents aged 59 or younger with cancer (611 lung, 403 oral/pharyngeal, 90 laryngeal, 108 esophageal). Interviewers collected extensive lifetime histories of marijuana, tobacco, alcohol and other drug use, and data on diet, occupational exposures, family history of cancer, and various "socio-demographic factors." Exposure to marijuana was measured in joint years (joints per day x 365). Controls were found based on age, gender and neighborhood. Among them, 46% had never used marijuana, 31% had used less than one joint year, 12% had used 10-30 j-yrs, 2% had used 30-60 j-yrs, and 3% had used for more than 60 j-yrs. Tashkin controlled for tobacco use and calculated the relative risk of marijuana use resulting in lung and upper airwaves cancers. All the odds ratios turned out to be less than one (one being equal to the control group's chances)! Compared with subjects who had used less than one joint year, the estimated odds ratios for lung cancer were .78; for 1-10 j-yrs, .74; for 10-30 j-yrs, .85 for 30-60 j-yrs; and 0.81 for more than 60 j-yrs. The estimated odds ratios for oral/pharyngeal cancers were 0.92 for 1-10 j-yrs; 0.89 for 10-30 j-yrs; 0.81 for 30-60 j-yrs; and 1.0 for more than 60 j-yrs. "Similar, though less precise results were obtained for the other cancer sites," Tashkin reported. "We found absolutely no suggestion of a dose response." The data on tobacco use, as expected, revealed "a very potent effect and a clear dose-response relationship -a 21-fold greater risk of developing lung cancer if you smoke more than two packs a day." Similarly high odds obtained for oral/pharyngeal cancer, laryngeal cancer and esophageal cancer. "So, in summary" Tashkin concluded, "we failed to observe a positive association of marijuana use and other potential confounders."

There was time for only one question, said the moderator, and San Francisco oncologist Donald Abrams, M.D., was already at the microphone: "You don't see any positive correlation, but in at least one category [marijuana-only smokers and lung cancer], it almost looked like there was a negative correlation, i.e., a protective effect. Could you comment on that?"

"Yes," said Tashkin. "The odds ratios are less than one almost consistently, and in one category that relationship was significant, but I think that it would be difficult to extract from these data the conclusion that marijuana is protective against lung cancer. But that is not an unreasonable hypothesis."

Abrams had results of his own to report at the ICRS meeting. He and his colleagues at San Francisco General Hospital had conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled study involving 50 patients with HIV-related peripheral neuropathy. Over the course of five days, patients recorded their pain levels in a diary after smoking either NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes or cigarettes from which the THC had been extracted. About 25% didn't know or guessed wrong as to whether they were smoking the placebos, which suggests that the blinding worked. Abrams requested that his results not be described in detail prior to publication in a peer-reviewed medical journal, but we can generalize: they exceeded expectations, and show marijuana providing pain relief comparable to Gabapentin, the most widely used treatment for a condition that afflicts some 30% of patients with HIV.

To a questioner who bemoaned the difficulty of "separating the high from the clinical benefits," Abrams replied: "I'm an oncologist as well as an AIDS doctor and I don't think that a drug that creates euphoria in patients with terminal diseases is having an adverse effect." His study was funded by the University of California's Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research.
 
Common misconception. Water is good for cooling smoke down, it doesn't filter as much tar as you want, it filters about an equal amount of THC at the same time it filters tar (even a little bit more THC actually). The unfiltered joint is according to a MAPS study the "healthiest" way to smoke, filters out more tar as opposed to active compounds.

thc isnt water soluable so how would it get stuck in the water? and how does a joint filter out more tar then a bong? there isnt even a make shift filter on most of the ones i smoke
 
Top