Amount of Tar In Marijuana

I'm not sure the exact measurment, in like miligrams or anything, but I know that its about 4X as much as ciggarettes.

 

i dont know what the number is but they governments anti-pot ads say its like smoking 4x the amount in cigarettes and i do know that on average there is about 1mg of tar in every cigarette. so i guess 4mg of tar in the same amount of weed as in a cigarette which i believe is way to much to smoked at one time

 

yeah i heard something like that, 1 joint=4-5 ciggerettes i think it was

 

alright alright alright heres what you need to know. yea smoking marijuana will get tar in your lungs BUT..... its not quite like cigarrette tar cuz cigarette tar has trace radioactive elements in it, and although its not proven but that could very well be the major contributor in causing cancer as radiation is known to mutate cells and cancer is a form of cell mutation. and it is harder to get rid of because the chemicals in cigarrettes burns the cilia that cleans your lungs, from what I understand "natural tar" is much less dangerous than what your average processed death sticks leave in your lungs

 

who cares.
all that matters is that cannabis prevents cancer

 

well said bonez, thats what i think too

 

yep prevents everykind of cancer definatly every time.. if you smoke weed once youll never even get close to having cancer

 

Prevent is alot diffrent than never. and it does prevent cancer studies say, and alziehmers. however you spell it.

 

lol omgz well my health teacher told me that a marihuana cigarette contains 4-5x as much tar as a tobacco cigarette, and it will give me cancer!

In all seriousness, THC is a Bronchial Dilator , which means instead of constricting your bronchi like Nicotine, it actually opens them up. This allows for most tars and mucus that the act of smoking creates to be broken up and cleared out of your Respiratory Passage.

 

Personally I think there are a few facts worth considering:

Your 2-pack-a-day smoker is smoking 40 cigarettes a day. Using the 4X rule (who knows how true this is) you would have to smoke 10 joints a day to keep up with this. That is one hell of a lot of weed couple of zips a week at least, I personally don't smoke anywhere near that and I don't think most pot smokers do either.

As someone else said earlier, nicotine constricts your bronchial tubes, while pot opens them up. The tar in nicotine is much more likely to get stuck to your alveoli than pot tar.

Marijuana is supposed to have anti-carcinogenic properties while tobacco causes cancer.

Basically, I think that if you smoke a ton of weed, you will probably have some breathing troubles like difficulty running and stuff like that, but you won't get cancer. And I think that for anyone but a serious athlete, moderate pot smoking probably has negligible effects on the lungs.

 

blunts would be worse than any of the methods possible obviously, so if your worried about that avoid the blunts.

also, the 4x is supposedly true, but it also is innacurate, like skr8fiah said your comparing maybe a couple a joints today for a moderately heavy smoker to up to 10 or 20 cigs a day. also, that study was based on one gram of each substance. i dont know about you guys but when i smoke a joint by myself, it usually has about .4-.6 grams in it. so... use what you know and make ur own decisions, if you want a detailed reason on why not to smoke blunts, talk to pokernaut, as he is very knowledgeable and zealous about the topic(in a good way). and if your too worried about the herbs effects on your lungs, get a vape and make some brownies.

 

This I have heard from several different sources - not all of them anti-pot - so I'd be inclined to believe it.

 

"Many people think smoking marijuana is just as harmful as
smoking tobacco, but this is not true. Those who hold that
marijuana is equivalent to tobacco are misinformed. Due to the
efforts of various federal agencies to discourage use of
marijuana in the 1970's the government, in a fit of "reefer
madness," conducted several biased studies designed to return
results that would equate marijuana smoking with tobacco smoking,
or worse.
For example the Berkeley carcinogenic tar studies of the
late 1970's concluded that "marijuana is one-and-a-half times as
carcinogenic as tobacco." This finding was based solely on the
tar content of cannabis leaves compared to that of tobacco, and
did not take radioactivity into consideration. (Cannabis tars do
not contain radioactive materials.) In addition, it was not
considered that:
1) Most marijuana smokers smoke the bud, not the leaf, of
the plant. The bud contains only 33% as much tar as tobacco.
2) Marijuana smokers do not smoke anywhere near as much as
tobacco smokers, due to the psychoactive effects of cannabis.
3) Not one case of lung cancer has ever been successfully
linked to marijuana use.
4) Cannabis, unlike tobacco, does not cause any narrowing of
the small air passageways in the lungs.
In fact, marijuana has been shown to be an expectorant and
actually dilates the air channels it comes in contact with. This
is why many asthma sufferers look to marijuana to provide relief.
Doctors have postulated that marijuana may, in this respect, be
more effective than all of the prescription drugs on the market.
Studies even show that due to marijuana's ability to clear
the lungs of smog, pollutants, and cigarette smoke, it may
actually reduce your risk of emphysema, bronchitis, and lung
cancer. Smokers of cannabis have been shown to outlive non-
smokers in some areas by up to two years. Medium to heavy
tobacco smokers will live seven to ten years longer if they also
smoke marijuana."

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_health2.shtml

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_info3.shtml
</pre>

 

^ Typical example of Erowid positive bias; where are their sources for this information? Some old study from the 1970s? What were the parameters of this study? Were there any? Seems very odd to me that all these more recent studies should be wrong, and they should be right.

Question everything that comes without souces.....even if you like what you read, and are tempted to read no further.

<TABLE class=tborder style="BORDER-TOP-WIDTH: 0px" cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR title="Post 1379462" vAlign=top><TD class=alt1 align=middle width=125>Molesrkool</TD><TD class=alt2>Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by thesoftparade
who cares.
all that matters is that cannabis prevents cancer
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
yep prevents everykind of cancer definatly every time.. if you smoke weed once youll never even get close to having cancer </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
I did a big old LOL.

If it cures cancer, why isn't it available for oncologists to prescribe?

 

yeah i waz thinkin the same thing about the natural tar

 

Tobacco tar is also 'natural tar'; it's just any tarry substance that occurs in (usually) plant matter. It is no less of an irritant to the lungs than the kind you'd lay on the road.

What Bonez said about the carcinogens in cigarettes is true, though; among the poisons in tobacco, benzene, formaldehyde, carbon monoxide, butane, nitro and cyanide.

 

Do you hate weed?

 

no im sure she doesn't hate weed but she is being fare instead of ranting about how things none of you have ever studied

 

it is. see medical marijuana