Not to mention the fact that tobacco has radioactive materials that take half a lifetime to clear themself out, and in that whole time they are persistent mutagens.There are a number of factors here. The main factor as far as cannabis not being carcinogenic has to do with the anti-cancer properties of certain cannabinoids that counteract some of the carcinogenic compounds in smoke. Vaporizing or eating cannabis avoids any of the combustion byproducts altogether though. Another point to consider is that tobacco burns much hotter than cannabis. It's pretty easy to take a massive bong rip of weed but it would be torturous to do the same with tobacco. Temperature also affects what compounds are produced from burning. An example is the case of hookahs. Hookahs operate at lower temperatures than burning cigarettes and, as a result, the tobacco smoke from a hookah contains less tar. Though it seems counter-intuitive, cannabis smoke can actually improve symptoms of asthma. This is because there are compounds in cannabis that cause an expansion of the airways. Of course, a vaporizer would be a much better option, but smoking still works. There is a lot of research that needs to be done but, subjective experience tells us that cannabis smoke is much smoother and less irritating to the throat and airways than tobacco. I can understand how cigarette smokers can tolerate that kind of irritative abuse. It's so hot and harsh.
cite your sources sir!Actually, sadly, yes it is,
i have more as well. Though it's not conclusive IMO, nicotine is certainly not as carcinogenic as people once thought.Although the surveillance time was short, smoking predicted cancer in this analysis and nicotine replacement therapy did not.
Tobacco still has polonium and lead in it...Smoke is smoke...
Neither is better for you in reality.
There are people who smoke entirely too much of both tobacco and weed... Both these people hack up the grosses phlegm ever.
Which was cleaner? I’d say neither.
THC has cancer fighting effects when you eat it.
Smoking anything causes cancer. Period...
Nicotine is carcinogenic as the way it is ingested. Smoking is carcinogenic.
Chewing tobacco is indeed carcinogenic due to other toxins that are in the plant itself, which is far from just nicotine.
Hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, etc... is made by burning plant material in general.
It's like you're directly trying to defy what I said by saying "It's smoke! Smoke is harmful! What you said doesn't matter!"Rationalize all you want, put putting burning shit in your lungs is no better than other burning shit.
It has all to do with smoking... Smoking is what makes the most tar from either one of these plants.
Just bacause weed has cancer fighting effects, your rational for BURNING IT is? Weed is an expectorant, great, thats cool... But is smoking it healthier? No.
None the less, smoking causes cancer... weed or tobacco.
All smoking is linked to cancer.
Vaporizing is the way to go for both...
Anyway back to the main question....
Weed has more tar... Hell, a lot of you guys even go as far as re-smoking the tar from weed. LOL
The answer is quite easy to find if you look it up. It's because of fertilizer they use. and each year the repeated use adds more lead and polonium to the soil than was there before.Here's my question to you. Why does chewing tobacco cause people to get cancer even if there's no smoke in it? Is it because of that lead 210 and that polonium 210 that the tobacco plant naturally has in it? I had always thought that all of that radioactive stuff was simply just added to those cigarettes, but is all of those radioactive things really some natural parts of the tobacco plants? Is the natural tobacco radioactive?
More like a train and a bike but anyway I thought Bob Marley was shot?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?