BEAR on 19/12/2007 at 13:37
Saw an interesting article on NS this morning. Quoting it in its entirety due to the fact you have to be a subscriber to read the whole thing (assuming admins will do something if that is not kosher).
Quote:
Cannabis smokers beware: puff for puff, smoke from the plant contains significantly more chemicals and carcinogens than that from tobacco.
Cannabis smoke is well known to be more harmful to the lungs than tobacco, because smokers inhale cannabis one-third more deeply and hold it in their lungs for up to four times as long as cigarette smokers do. Yet while we have a list of more than 4000 chemicals and toxins present in tobacco smoke from dozens of studies, there is no comparable list for cannabis.
So David Moir of Health Canada and his colleagues set out to make a direct comparison, using machines that "smoke" the cigarettes and then collect and analyse the smoke. They found that directly inhaled cannabis smoke contained 20 times as much ammonia and five times as much hydrogen cyanide as tobacco smoke. Nitrogen oxides, known to affect the circulatory and immune systems, were five times as concentrated in cannabis smoke (Chemical Research in Toxicology, DOI: 10.1021/tx700275p).
“Directly inhaled cannabis smoke contained 20 times as much ammonia and five times as much hydrogen cyanide as tobacco”The machine also measured the concentration of these chemicals in "sidestream smoke" - which would account for 85 per cent of the smoke you would be exposed to if you were sitting next to a smoker. Amounts are different because directly inhaled smoke has been produced at a higher temperature as air is drawn through the ember during inhalation. In each case, sidestream smoke contained higher concentrations of almost every chemical measured, although levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons - which affect reproduction and can cause tumours in animals - were higher in directly inhaled tobacco smoke.
"This study highlights that cannabis contains similar carcinogens to tobacco, in particular volatile organic compounds," says British Lung Foundation spokesman Stephen Spiro. "That these exist in similar or even greater proportions to tobacco smoke is a great worry."
(
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3039-cannabis-smoking-more-harmful-than-tobacco.html) Complementary article linked in previous article.
(
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/crtoec/asap/abs/tx700275p.html) Chemical Research in Toxicology, DOI: 10.1021/tx700275p
I found this interesting, I'm not a smoker myself but I know many who are and I often hear the sentiment that it is safer than tobacco. If things are as they say, what would explain the massive disproportion of lung cancer in tobacco compared to weed? I know quite a number of long-term (if not exactly high quantity) users, and none of them have lung problems, nor have they shown themselves to be more prone to infection. I have also known quite a number of long term cigarette smokers, nearly all of which have had a chronic cough, assuming they haven't gotten emphysema and died.
I know my observations are anecdotal, but I cant help but feel there is something missing from this report. Its valuable information regardless, I've always taken users claims that its not unhealthy with a grain of salt as I think they would use it anyways and prefer to believe its better for them than perhaps it is, but I have a feeling this wont really affect many people. I'll certainly be forwarding this article to some people in any case ;)
I would like to hear others thoughts, particularly individual observations. If people know of and can link to reputable sources on conflicting studies that would work as well.
Jason Moyer on 19/12/2007 at 14:02
Quantity smoked? If someone smoked as many joints as I smoke cigars they'd probably go into a coma.
BEAR on 19/12/2007 at 14:05
In the article they dont really address that issue, thats what I've always thought/heard, but they also note the fact that pot smokers inhale deeper and hold it in longer, increasing the danger. The article seems to be more closely comparing the direct danger of the substances and not really touching on the usage, what Im wondering is why the research doesnt seem to represent the realities.
SD on 19/12/2007 at 14:12
Get yourself a vapourizer. Problem solved.
BEAR on 19/12/2007 at 14:20
Quote Posted by SD
Get yourself a vapourizer. Problem solved.
Thats true - I think for many at this point the habit is more than the addiction.
Hier on 19/12/2007 at 15:01
Does anyone seriously, sincerely believe and use the argument that smoking dope is perfectly healthy? I can't remember ever hearing anyone try to make that claim. Nor do they need to, everyone I know who smokes dope does so recreationally, on weekends or at parties or something, not chain smoking a pack a day.
Starrfall on 19/12/2007 at 15:49
You have now!
Marijuana (
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266715,00.html) inhibits the growth of cancer so of course it's good for you.
(ok despite that I also didn't actually think anyone was going around saying smoking pot is somehow as safe as breathing the freshest mountain air while smoking cigs is like sucking on a tailpipe)
BEAR on 19/12/2007 at 17:30
I had heard that same thing (it was a topic also brought up in the comments of the original NS article).
Thanks for the link.
paloalto90 on 19/12/2007 at 17:34
Given the current fad of saying something is good for you because it has something the body can utilize I wonder if hemlock has antioxidants in it?
demagogue on 19/12/2007 at 20:46
I always liked this subversive little factoid for risk-risk tradeoffs: Statistically more people die in car accidents because they replaced asbestos breaks with a poorer substitute ... asbestos kills, don't you know.
