Marijuana Not Linked To Lung Cancer

How carcinogenic is chewing tobacco in comparison to smoking cigarettes?

That's a good question, does anyone know the answer?

I don't chew/dip but I know people who do and they don't always do it daily, and they don't always use a huge amount of chew/dip, and they don't smoke.
 
Some products like snus carry appreciably lower risk than smoked tobacco.

A large study of almost 10,000 Swedish men published in the International Journal of Cancer in 2008 was unable to statistically confirm a risk elevation for the combined category of oral and pharyngeal cancer.[9] Other studies and opinion pieces in renowned journals such as the British Medical Journal and the Lancet suggest a probable increased risk of pancreatic cancer as a result of snus use.[10][11]

[...]

The European Union banned the sale of snus in 1992, after a 1985 WHO study concluded "oral use of snuffs of the types used in North America and western Europe is carcinogenic to humans",[13] but a WHO committee on tobacco has also acknowledged the evidence is inconclusive regarding health consequences for snus consumers.[14] Only Sweden and EFTA-member Norway are exempt from this ban. A popular movement during the run-up to the 1994 referendum for Sweden's EU membership made exemption from the EU sale ban of snus a condition of the membership treaty.

Recent actions by many European governments to limit the use of cigarettes has led to calls to lift the ban on snus, as it is generally considered to be less harmful than cigarette smoke, both to the user[15] and to others.

Since snus is not intended nor recommended for inhalation, it does not affect the lungs as cigarettes do. Because it is steam-cured, rather than fire-cured like smoking tobacco or other chewing tobacco, it contains lower concentrations of nitrosamines and other carcinogens that form from the partially anaerobic heating of proteins - 2.8 parts per million for Ettan brand compared to as high as 127.9 parts per million in some American brands, according to a study by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Health.[16] The World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledges Swedish men have the lowest rate of lung cancer in Europe, partly due to the low tobacco smoking rate, but does not argue for substituting snus for smoking, citing the effects of snus still remain unclear. Around 2005, several reports,[which?] partially funded by the snus industry, pointed to the fact that no carcinogenic effects could be attributed to Nordic snus and this resulted in the removal of the warning label that claimed snus could cause cancer.[citation needed] It was replaced with the more vague label "May affect your health negatively".[citation needed] Research is still going on, but no conclusive reports have been made regarding the health effects of snus.[citation needed]
 
Why would it carry the same risk? The vast majority of the known carcinogens in tobacco smoke are pyrolytic products.

ebola

I think you took me out of context. That was indeed a guess right there.

The study sekio has posted doesn’t seem to support chewing tobacco.

Chewing tobacco and dipping tobacco are comparible in causing mouth and throat cancer.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12075196

There is also a difference between wet and dry smokeless tobacco
 
Last edited:
Most American "smokeless tobacco" is cured by being hung in a smokehouse - hence the carcinogens. It's important to differentiate between steam cured and smoke cured.
 
Nitrosamines are a product of protien breakdown under heat. They're found in most foods that have been subject to heating, so I expect you would find them in any smoke. They are at comparatively low levels to the levels of nitrosamines formed in the curing of tobacco, though. The nitrosamines in tobacco are mostly reaction products of nicotine and nitrogen oxides, rather than primarily from combustion as in other cases (like cannabis smoke).
 
wow P-Jay, seiko, and NUMBERS, you have the patience of saints.

I have learned from this thread that some people have a really hard time learning.....like dealing with problems and logic.....order of operations.....

EDIT: oh and i nominate this thread for Best of Bluelight.

DrScience :)
 
Some studies have shown that even nicotine gum causes cancer. I know this really doesn't have anything to do with marijuana, this is more of a fact about tobacco's harmful effects, but since you had mentioned tobacco, I feel like it's somewhat on topic.

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2009/04April/Pages/NicotineGumCancer.aspx

Here's what Wikipedia states about this. This may help to explain my earlier questions about why is tobacco so carcinogenic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco-specific_nitrosamines


While marijuana smoke doesn't have as many nitrosamines as tobacco smoke, on the other hand, it has more tar and more carcinogenic hydrocarbons. Tobacco and marijuana probably are just as harmful as each other, but in different ways. That's my guess.
You must not be keeping up with the thread. Sekio has already compared the numbers so your guess is wrong.
 
His guess isn't wrong because no one truly knows.

When you hear about medical weed and cancer treatment in the same sentence, it makes me sick. These people are not and should not be smoking the weed, they should eat it.

Curing your nausea in the same manner you probably got the cancer from in the beginning is radically counterproductive. IMHO
 
You must not be keeping up with the thread. Sekio has already compared the numbers so your guess is wrong.

Where did he compare those numbers? I don't see where he posted a comparison chart between the nitrosamines from tobacco smoke and marijuana smoke.
 
Here's the math.

In this corner, C. Sativa, 14.7% THC, 4.1% water. In the opposite corner, most of Big Tobacco's finer non-mentholated offerings.

Once you crunch the numbers you get this:
G9MnjAv.png


So yes, cannabis does contain more tar than tobacco does, per gram of material burned. Per milligram of delivered psychoactive, though, cigarettes are far worse.

As soon as you move to vaporisation rather than combustion, the efficiency hits pretty close to 80-90% (remainder water, CO2, terpenes).

Refs:
Nicotine, Carbon Monoxide, and Tar content of Cigarettes (1994 data)
Cannabis Smoke Condensate I: The Effect of Different Preparation Methods on Tetrahydrocannabinol Levels
Inhalation Toxicology, 20:801–804, 2008 DOI: 10.1080/08958370802013559
 
Last edited:
Great info sekio!

While it is true the active content delivered blows ass, isn't the potency slashing that concern for nicotine and THC?

Side note: I think vaporizing tobacco is quite dangerous to be honest... as a much heavier nicotine concentration will occur as you know. You could get a rather beastly dose if you put too much in there. Smoking actually augments the acute toxicity by a lot.
 
Where did he compare those numbers? I don't see where he posted a comparison chart between the nitrosamines from tobacco smoke and marijuana smoke.

I'm sorry I got this thread confused with another: http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/threads/677887-Which-drug-has-more-tar-in-it-tobacco-or-cannabis/page3

Check the last few posts by Sekio in that thread, he elucidates on the numbers quite well.

To Psychedelic Jay: It is actually well known that weed smoke is healthier (much) than tobacco smoke. To your other comment, weed is an awesome medicine. One of the best medicines.
 
To Psychedelic Jay: It is actually well known that weed smoke is healthier (much) than tobacco smoke. To your other comment, weed is an awesome medicine. One of the best medicines.

I chunk all of this weed smoke is healthier stuff to stoner logic...

weed this weed that... It makes no real difference. If you smoke you die (faster)
 
Top