• CD Moderators: madness00 | PotatoMan | Thomas Davie | w01fg4ng

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

deidara

Bluelighter
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
383
Location
Not Caring
I'm not sure about hard evidence but I believe tobacco has more tar. (My theory behind this is that the "roach" of a hand rolled no filter cig has more tar than the roach of a joint)
 

RobotRipping

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 18, 2011
Messages
4,014
Location
NS, Canada
cannabis definitely has more tar, ever see a bong after a month? lol but you don't usually smoke 28-56 grams a day of cannabis do you? that's the difference.

Cannabis has not been shown to be carcinogenic.

I don't know about actual evidence but even if the studies show cannabis has 10x more tar than tobacco, big deal, you're not going to smoke near the mass of tobacco with cannabis, not to mention you can use a vaporizer, which eliminates this issue completely, or pretty close to it. You could also vape your tobacco too or use e-cigs (nicotone isn't carcinogenic either!)
 

xx001

Ex-Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
414
Location
In the lab
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't understand how cigarette smokers can tolerate that kind of irritative abuse. It's so hot and harsh.
 
Last edited:

RobotRipping

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 18, 2011
Messages
4,014
Location
NS, Canada
cannabis isn't carcinogenic itself, and whatever damage it may cause is offset by some property it has; there are no increased rates of cancer for cannabis users while for tobacco users there is a dramatic difference. Yeah inhaling smoke isn't great for you, but you don't have to inhale smoke now do you? for those that do, there's still no difference in rates of cancer, so in that light, i argue cannabis is not carcinogenic, even if it has the possibility of being so.

not to mention the fact you can use edibles and vaporizers.

so smoke carcinogenic? fine but cannabis itself, no.
 

p-helix

Bluelighter
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
181
Nicotine suppresses expectorant activity, the natural clearing of the respiratory tract, whereas THC encourages it. Cannabis increases the lungs' ability to clean themselves from tar build-up, whether smoked, vaped or eaten. For example, smokers who vaporize cannabis cough more due to the expectorant effect which is medicinal for them. Cannabis can be a good indicator of bad lungs in this respect as well as inducing a cleaning operation. Tobacco tends to mask bad lungs by inhibiting coughing and other expectorant activity.
 

bloodshed344

Bluelighter
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
1,577
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.
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.
 

RobotRipping

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 18, 2011
Messages
4,014
Location
NS, Canada

Psychedelic Jay

Bluelighter
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
5,452
Location
Houston, Texas
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.
 

bloodshed344

Bluelighter
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
1,577
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.
Tobacco still has polonium and lead in it...
 

Darksidesam

Bluelight Crew
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
5,428
Location
Uk, London
Tobacco = Tars and addicitve
cannabis = tars but also the anti-cancer components , some people swear by smoking pure and say its better for their lungs too
 

RobotRipping

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 18, 2011
Messages
4,014
Location
NS, Canada
uh just vaporize and use e-cigs, win win. Smoking is carcinogenic, tobacco is carcinogenic but nicotine and cannabis are not carcinogenic. You can't just say they are because they are smoked. They don't have to be smoked. E-cigs AFAIK will not cause cancer, same with vaping cannabis, even smoking cannabis hasn't been linked to increases in lung cancer or anything like that. So cannabis is special, likely due to some cancer fighting properties of cannabinoids and the fact that it makes you cough up everything.

doing bong rip after bong rip hurts the old lungs but vaping doesn't, though you will cough a shit load.
 

Psychedelic Jay

Bluelighter
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
5,452
Location
Houston, Texas
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
 

bloodshed344

Bluelighter
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
1,577
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
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!"

Let me point this out for you, tobacco has lead-210 and polonium-210 that your body likes a lot less than smoking just about anything. These chemicals are going to give you cancer.
 

bloodshed344

Bluelighter
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
1,577
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?
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.
 

One Thousand Words

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
16,566
Location
☼ .←

bloodshed344

Bluelighter
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
1,577
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?
More like a train and a bike but anyway I thought Bob Marley was shot?
 
Top