One Thousand Words
Bluelighter
That was Tupac. And Biggie
Marley, too. It just didn't kill him. Fucking melanoma.That was Tupac. And Biggie
Nicotine has been noted to directly cause cancer through a number of different mechanisms such as the activation of MAP Kinases. ie it is on it's own carcinagenic.
The anti cancer effects of cannabis is also minor. While it may slow the rate of tumour growth it doesn't cure it. Otherwise Bob Marley would have lived a hell of alot longer.
Is one worse than the other? Perhaps but that is like saying is being hit by a train worse than being hit by a car?
Nicotine has been noted to directly cause cancer through a number of different mechanisms such as the activation of MAP Kinases. ie it is on it's own carcinagenic.
The anti cancer effects of cannabis is also minor. While it may slow the rate of tumour growth it doesn't cure it. Otherwise Bob Marley would have lived a hell of alot longer.
Is one worse than the other? Perhaps but that is like saying is being hit by a train worse than being hit by a car?
The anti cancer effects of cannabis is also minor. While it may slow the rate of tumour growth it doesn't cure it. Otherwise Bob Marley would have lived a hell of alot longer.
http://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v12/i46/7428.htm said:Nicotine is known to activate several MAPK signaling pathways in a variety of tissue and cell types[32-37]. It also behaves like a growth factor promoting survival of human lung cancer cells[38]. Studies show that nicotine can increase the cell numbers of certain cancer cell lines[39-41]. This suggests that nicotine exposure can lead to the disruption of the dynamic balance between cell death and proliferation, which is required for normal functioning of cells.
One Thousand Birds said:The anti cancer effects of cannabis is also minor. While it may slow the rate of tumour growth it doesn't cure it. Otherwise Bob Marley would have lived a hell of alot longer.
did you actually read that study? No where does it explicitly state that nicotine directly causes cancer, unless you're referring to the studies it cited, which i didn't read.
well i suppose that's enough evidence to prove your premise.
as for being hit by a train or a car, you're leaving out variables, like how fast the train is moving and how fast the car is moving. Poor argument. You seem to have honed your skills in rhetoric to a high degree.
One thing to make note of with this question is how you define "tar". There is a difference between the type of tar generated from combustion of organic compounds(heavier hydrocarbons) and the resins that make up part of the mass of the fresh plant matter(terpenes). Some samples of weed can approach around 30% cannabinoids by mass. This is all a sticky resin that might be mistaken for tar, though it was already present in the plant before it was burned. The "resin" that collects on bowls and pipes is a mix of tar, cannabinoids, and particulate matter.
Shoot, I sure would hate to collide with a train even moving at 1mph, even a fraction of a mile per hour. Mass plays a big role in collisions, and in the case of man v. train I'm afraid man doesn't even compare to the mass of a locomotive.
You don't fuck with trains. I have, however, seen firsthand a person get hit by a car and walk away from the scene. I'd take my chances with a car over a train any day.
/tangent
Yeah, cannabis has more tar, and that's what the thread is about. But I feel it's important to point out that the tar from cannabis isn't carcinogenic unlike the tar from tobacco, which people may assume because cannabis has more tar.Tar/resin after you burn cannabis is littered with hydrocarbons... Hydrocarbons are cancerous. Re-burning it is not even remotely healthy at all.
That is the reason I said tar/resin because that shit that you scrape out of your pipes is the same shit that is in your lungs.
Now tell me you find that much shitty tar in cigarettes...
Note: This is not about what is more cancerous, it is about tar content.
Cannabis definitely has more tar content, hell the active constituents of it are gummy. Resin can be considered a type of pitch...
Not all tar is derived from burning.
It's necessarily not because of the fertilizer. The fertilizers do contribute to the radioactivity, but tobacco is inherently carcinogenic, including chewing tobacco. It is definitely less harmful than smoking, but it can lead to mouth and throat cancers.
Yeah, cannabis has more tar, and that's what the thread is about. But I feel it's important to point out that the tar from cannabis isn't carcinogenic unlike the tar from tobacco, which people may assume because cannabis has more tar.