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

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

Tobacco is more than just nicotine, infact there are at least 28 other carcingens that can cause oral cancers. Not failing to mention that drinking alcohol will also effect the permeability of cell membranes, allowing such chemicals to leech in. Throw in HPV as a common cause of oral cancers and you can see it is rarely plain cut and dry, cause and effect.

Marley perform a concert a couple of hours after getting shot so I doubt it had much effect on his health.
 
One Thousand Words said:
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?
Click to expand...

^This
 
Peter Tosh was shot dead in his home in '87 although Marley himself was shot and injured in '76. With regard to cannabis and cancer, cannabis cannot be blanket protection for all as each person's susceptibility to cancer and different types of cancer will vary, and some people are going to die from it with or without cannabis. Bob Marley's cancer was found in his big toe, at the furthest point from his spliff incidentally, and he probably did not attempt to use cannabis oil to cure it. If he had eaten the oil and applied it to his toe he may have survived longer or even recovered completely, we'll never know... there are too many variables with regard to an individual, cannabis and cancer to predict anything for sure.
 
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.
 
One Thousand Words said:
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?
Click to expand...

Well said and dully noted.
 
One Thousand Words 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.
Click to expand...

Using the example of one person in the history of the world to illustrate your point regarding cannabis and cancer is statistically irrrelevent and completely misleading. Ridiculous.
 
whole lotta

41RYPWZB2ZL.jpg


in here

NSFW:
UsingVolcano_5.jpg


imo
 
One Thousand Words said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
RobotRipping said:
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.
Click to expand...



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
 
Alexander Shulgin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jibult said:
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
Click to expand...

lol exactly.
 
Psychedelic Jay said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
If your a regularly cannabis consumer,

harm reduction advice is try different methods to help save your lungs. Vaporizing is less damaging than smoking if you do it right, less carcinogens. You can lightly vape the weed then cook with whats left , and dont forget edibles , teas etc i tried a cup of cannabis tea a while ago, and it really got me stoned lol
 
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.
 
Alexander Shulgin said:
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.
Click to expand...

So tobacco is inherently radioactive or just inherently carcinogenic? Because from what I've seen the main reasons it's so bad about causing cancer are 1. It's texture when on the lungs as tar. 2. The radioactivity and how the tar makes it harder to flush any of it out.
 
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.
 
bloodshed344 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree. This statement is whole truth before combustion.

Don’t forget about the almighty combustion... Combustion creates a lot of tar along with the natural gummy oils and extracts of the plants.

It takes an incredibly larger amount of tobacco to build as much tar as cannabis.

That is the argument behind bongs and hookahs. Majority of the hydrocarbons that create most of the tars is water soluble, but this is only well absorbed as the water touching the smoke. (which is not all of it.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top