Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Disclosure:

The statements in this forum have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration and are generated by non-professional writers. Any products described are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

Website Disclosure:

This forum contains general information about diet, health and nutrition. The information is not advice and is not a substitute for advice from a healthcare professional.

Tar from cannabis?

Discussion in 'Marijuana Consumption Q&A' started by Imnothigh666, Feb 14, 2014.

  1. Although smoking green is way better then cigarettes. How much of thc resin do you think builds up in a 7 day a week weed smoker? 

     
  2. #2 AlphaOmega420, Feb 14, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 14, 2014
    an asston, cannabis has way more tar than cigs, but its also has antitumor and anticancer effects (telling cells to die prematurely etc) thats why I use my bong and vape (usually both hooked up to eachother :bongin: ) thats why stoners dont die from lung cancer like cig smokers, the smoke is not created equal.
     
    http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4
     
  3.  
    Cannabis smoke produces a lot of tar, just look at your pipe after a week of smoking out of it, the tar does not stop at the end of your pipe it goes into your lungs. Buy a vaporizer and just run it hot (400 degrees F) much healthier and still a satisfying output.
     
  4. Idk if there is more or less tar, I have yet to seen conclusive evidence, but because the tar is usually mostly natural substances, unlike cigarette tar which is chemical tar, your lungs are able to clear it much more readily. 
     
    not to mention we don't inhale anywhere near the same quantity of smoke as cigarette smokers. 
     
    don't concern yourself with it, some studies even find improved lung function is us regular tokers. ;D
     
  5. #5 ReturnFire333, Feb 14, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 14, 2014
     
    The first bold is nothing more than a myth unless there is unbiased research behind it, and the second bold is just a stupid claim.
     
  6.  
    The first was just conjecture, sure, but it's a valid hypothesis. 
     
    The second has studies to back it up, you should look it up. 
    Even the movie "super high me" when Doug gets tested, after 17 years of smoking regularly, they found no decreased lung function. other studies found increased lung function. 
     
    "otherwise healthy men who have smoked the equivalent of one joint daily for seven years have a lung capacity 1.6 times higher than that of otherwise healthy non-marijuana-smoking men.
     
    Mark Pletcher, et al. “Association Between Marijuana Exposure and Pulmonary Function Over 20 Years.” Journal of the American Medical Association, 307 (2): 173–81.
     
    If you reject that, at the very least it does no observable damage to the lungs.
     
  7. #7 ReturnFire333, Feb 14, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 14, 2014
     
    I think any medical professional would refute that, knowing what smoke does to the cilia in the lungs, and the subsequent effect on the immune system from that damage, and also how tar gunks up aveoli in the lungs, I see no way how cannabis smoke would do no damage, it seems theoretically impossible.
     
    The word "study" is not enough evidence behind a report to make me believe it as fact. I need to know exactly what what conducted, and it seems so many of these studies are so misleadingly worded and un-forward that they can't be taken seriously. Any real study will hit you with exactly what they did and what conclusion they drew, no bullshit unless they have something to hide, like for instance the fact that they did a bogus study and drew a bunch of hypothesis.
     
  8.  
    Apparently all the medical professionals at JAMA that conducted that study wouldn't agree with you.
     
  9.  
    One "study" out of numbers, could easily be a bought out study paid for courtesy of NORML propaganda association.
     
  10. I recently heard of a study that tested a 48yr old man who smoked an absolutely rediculous amount of pot. Like a pound a month or something stupid like that. He was also a long time daily pot smoker. The test showed he had the lung function of a healthy 28yr old man.

    I don't have the study so I can't link it but I heard it from a reliable source and I don't doubt its accuracy
     
  11. Place a white t shirt or paper towel over the mouth piece of a bong and inhale, a ton of black tar builds up from one hit.
     
  12.  
    There are exceptions to every case, like the 90 year old man who smokes commercial cigarettes for 60+ years.
     
  13. True...but do you have some study that shows cannabis alone causes decreased lung function or disease? Cause ive never seen one
     
  14.  
    And what is that tar going to do, it damages and prevents cilia from working, and lodges its self in the air sacs (aveoli) of the lungs, decreasing the amount of oxygen absorbed from every breath of air. 
     
    Of course cigarettes are worse because they are fucking irradiated basically with literal radiation, pesticides, and laced to hell with chemicals for god only knows what reason, but a cannabis smoker will be coughing for air before I will on an outdoor activity.
     
  15. #15 ReturnFire333, Feb 14, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 14, 2014
     
    It doesn't take a study to know that smoke in the lungs damages cilia, and the tar content will reduce lung fuction. One could smoke green tea and this would happen, it's common scientific knowledge in itself.
     
    Now do you know what the health effects of damaged cilia are/can be?
     
  16. I agree that theres a lot of tar that comes from smoking pot but that doesnt mean your lungs aren't capable of processing it and getting rid of it. Can anybody link a reliable source that states cannabis only can cause disease of the lungs or poor lung function?
     
  17.  
    Sorry, the American Medical Association is funded by the government. But you're right, it is just one study out of many, but all the other studies also find no appreciable decrease in lung function.
     
    Smokers of marijuana had no significant difference in FEV 1, FVC, FEV 1/FVC or diffusion lung capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) compared with nonsmokers.  That's from Tashkin et al.
     
    You could just look at 
     
    http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/01/10/10098412-smoking-pot-doesnt-hurt-lung-capacity-study-shows?lite
    http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/10/study-smoking-marijuana-not-linked-with-lung-damage/
     
    These aren't articles from High Times, this is fucking Time magazine. Google is your friend, dude. 
     
  18.  
    This article was created from cites of credible sources, doctors, etc http://adai.uw.edu/marijuana/factsheets/respiratoryeffects.htm
     
  19.  
    No, because those studies don't exist... because cannabis doesn't cause disease of the lungs or poor lung function.
     
  20. You make a lot of assumptions without data to back them up. If its so simple and straight forward like u make it seem then there should be plenty of scientific proof of your claim, I would think
     
Loading...

Share This Page