Thread: Tar...

I was wondering is it true that smoking one joint is equivalent to smoking a whole pack of cigs? I guess smokin a blunt would be considered smokin 3 packs of cigs with the tar lollol..honestly I never hold in hits for more than 5 seconds but I was wondering what exactly are all the long term effects of having tar on your lungs other than possible difficulty of breathing?

lungs will fall...from the heavey tar..
we must stop iot!
ahh so stoneeed....anyways i hold mine in for more than 20 secs.

Smoking one joint is the equivalent of drinking 40 (pints?) of beer according to the Daily Mail. I hardly read that paper before that article, and refuse to read it at all now!

i bet it is bull crap cause i was alwasys told a joint is equal to 4 smokes, like if it was true they would say the same amount anywhere

Tobacco smoke and pot smoke are two different things. Also pot smoke isn't radioactive.

400,000 deaths a year vs 0 dont lie.

According to my Geiger counter, cigs aren't radioactive either and just another one of many myths.

I've kept reading that
1 Joint = 4 Cigs
so 5 jays is 20 cigs. But still, with all that tar, why hasn't anyone really died of cancer and other things assosciated with tar from mj?

That may be correct, but it's still not enough to keep it criminalized.


Dave

While it may be true that there is more tar in tobacco then in cannabis, it is not necessarily what causes malignant lung cancer in users:
Radioactive Tobacco: The Untold Story

Tobacco smoking kills more persons each year than AIDS, heroin, crack, cocaine, alcohol, car accidents, fire, and murder combined. Cigarette smoking is as addictive as heroin, complete with withdrawal symptoms, and the percentage of relapses (75%) is the same as for "kicking" cocaine and heroin users.

It is far and away the number one cause of preventable death in the U.S. today. Tobacco smokers have ten times the lung cancer of non-smokers, twice the heart disease, and are three times more likely to die of heart disease if they do develop it. Yet tobacco is totally legal, and even receives the highest U.S. government farm subsidies of any agricultural product in America, all the while being our biggest killer! What total hypocrisy!

In the U.S. one in seven deaths are caused by smoking cigarettes. Women should know that lung cancer is more common than breast cancer in women who smoke and that smoking on the pill increases cancer and heart risks dramatically.

Seven million dollars a day promotes the tobacco business, and it is estimated that the cigarette industry needs about 3,000 new smokers a day to replace those who quit or die each day from smoking.

Kentucky's principal business and agriculture for 100 years (until 1890) was the healthful, versatile, and useful cannabis hemp. It has since been replaced by non-edible, non-fibrous, soil-depleting tobacco, which is grown in soil fertilized with radioactive materials.

U.S. government studies have show that a pack-and-a-half of tobacco cigarettes per day over a year for just one year is the equivalent to your lungs of what some 300 chest x-rays (using the old, pre-1980s slow x-ray film and without using any lead protection) are to your skin. But while an x-ray dissipates its radioactivity instantly, tobacco has a radioactive half-life that will remain active in the lungs for 21.5 years.

Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop said on national television that radioactivity contained in tobacco leaves is probably responsible for most tobacco-related cancer. No radioactivity exists in cannabis tars.

(National Center for Atmospheric Research, 1964; American Lung Assn.; Dr. Joseph R. DiFranza, U. of Mass. Medical Center; Reader's Digest, March 1986; Surg. Gen. C. Everett Koop, 1990.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Tashkin studies say it's something like two cigarettes per joint, roughly. But then again, pot and chemically manufactured, radioactive, carcinogenic tobacco bullshit are two totaly different smokes, and probably shouldnt even be compared.

Originally Posted by WakingDream

Tobacco smoke and pot smoke are two different things. Also pot smoke isn't radioactive.

400,000 deaths a year vs 0 dont lie.

I hear that all the time but it doesn't really apply, and generally people are using this statistic too broadly. "zero" die from cannabis directly; that is, nobody has ever overdosed or died as a direct result of cannabis. But then nobody has ever died from a cigarette either. All about the toxicity rate I guess. anywhoo, tobacco smoke is still clearly worse in and of itself. Not to mention, I don't know why exactly but tobacco smoke is MUCH harder for me to inhale than weed smoke.

Originally Posted by Synthesizer Man

Smoking one joint is the equivalent of drinking 40 (pints?) of beer according to the Daily Mail. I hardly read that paper before that article, and refuse to read it at all now!

I don't get what they were trying to say there. One joint will intoxicate you worse than 40 beers? Or maybe some other chemical ingestion? It can't be tar, which I thought the thread was about. There ain't tar in beer, is there. I'm kinda confused here. But that ain't a hard thing to do.

I dunno, but I hate cleaning my bong and pipes. Just imagine scraping that tar from your lungs.

Originally Posted by madeline

According to my Geiger counter, cigs aren't radioactive either and just another one of many myths.

Their not radioactive but they have been exposed to radiation. As far as weed goes, They shouldnt even compare it to cigarettes. Weed smoke and Tobacco smoke are 2 different things. One joint isnt worse thain a pack of cigs or whatever you were told. But its certainly better than a pack of cigs.

You cant compair joints to cigarettes any ways you dont know the potenecy of the weed, the paper it was rolled in, and how much weed, too many variables.

All I know is me and my bro ran out of stash. So now we are hittin da tar!!! Tar baby tar baby baby tar tar! LOL

Originally Posted by Delta

All I know is me and my bro ran out of stash. So now we are hittin da tar!!! Tar baby tar baby baby tar tar! LOL

One has to do whatever it takes to maintain...

Originally Posted by WakingDream

Tobacco smoke and pot smoke are two different things. Also pot smoke isn't radioactive.

400,000 deaths a year vs 0 dont lie.

ditto!!! tobacco , unlike cannabis, is grown with radioactive soils, and fed through the foilage with all kinds of growth hormones.
Its not the tar that causes cancer. Its the radiation thats contained in the tar that causes cancer.

dai*ma sf ca 94110

dont smoke blunts

In a study of 64000 people, heavy cannabis use over a long period of time does not increase the chances of any form of cancer.

Originally Posted by LIP

In a study of 64000 people, heavy cannabis use over a long period of time does not increase the chances of any form of cancer.

Yea, but will it affect my lung capacity?

Keep on smoking and find out.

I would imagine so

I've posted this a lot..but again:

Researchers at the Kaiser-Permanente HMO, funded by NIDA, followed 65,000 patients for nearly a decade, comparing cancer rates among non-smokers, tobacco smokers, and marijuana smokers. Tobacco smokers had massively higher rates of lung cancer and other cancers. Marijuana smokers who didn't also use tobacco had no increase in risk of tobacco-related cancers or of cancer risk overall. In fact their rates of lung and most other cancers were slightly lower than non-smokers, though the difference did not reach statistical significance. Sidney, S. et al. Marijuana Use and Cancer Incidence (California, United States). Cancer Causes and Control. Vol. 8. Sept. 1997, p. 722-728.

This isn't about the tar...only about cancer. But, long term smokers don't usually experience health issues...I actually find myself being less winded after heavy physical activity if I've had a smoke before then...I've read that it opens up tiny airways inside your lungs at some place..perhaps they were even the ones that tar from tobacco clings to..maybe. But that's where the bit comes in and it used to be prescribed for asthma in the twenties..