"Marijuana Smoke Contains Higher Levels Of Certain Toxins Than Tobacco Smoke"

[The Scientist]

"Marijuana Smoke Contains Higher Levels Of Certain Toxins Than Tobacco Smoke"

ScienceDaily (Dec. 18, 2007) — Here's another reason to "keep off the grass." Researchers in Canada report that marijuana smoke contains significantly higher levels of several toxic compounds -- including ammonia and hydrogen cyanide -- than tobacco smoke and may therefore pose similar health risks.

David Moir and colleagues note that researchers have conducted extensive studies on the chemical composition of tobacco smoke, which contains a host of toxic substances, including about 50 that can cause cancer. However, there has been relatively little research on the chemical composition of marijuana smoke.

In this new study, researchers compared marijuana smoke to tobacco smoke, using smoking machines to simulate the smoking habits of users. The scientists found that ammonia levels were 20 times higher in the marijuana smoke than in the tobacco smoke, while hydrogen cyanide, nitric oxide and certain aromatic amines occurred at levels 3-5 times higher in the marijuana smoke, they say. The finding is "important information for public health and communication of the risk related to exposure to such materials," say the researchers.

The study, "A Comparison of Mainstream and Sidestream Marijuana and Tobacco Cigarette Smoke Produced under Two Machine Smoking Conditions," is scheduled for the Dec. 17 issue of ACS' Chemical Research in Toxicology.

Adapted from materials provided by American Chemical Society, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.

Citation: American Chemical Society (2007, December 18). Marijuana Smoke Contains Higher Levels Of Certain Toxins Than Tobacco Smoke.


I'd be happy to include the link to the journal/report itself, however ICMAG will not allow me to put a URL in the message (does anyone know why??)

 

[b8man]

So I won't live to 100? Awww shit! I was looking forward to crapping in a bag, being pilled out my gord 24/7 and being an inconvenience to my family. Thank you scientists for the insight and opportunity to drag life into the painful years.

Alternatively, I think I might just try and enjoy the 90 or so years I have on this planet rather than have a crap time and try and live longer.

 

[RED145]

LOL,Here's another one that's got a familiar ring too it!!

So I guess we all better stop smoking now,ya know what....after reading this I think we all better stop smoking marijuana!!!

Hi....awww you know who ya are!!

 

[The Scientist]

Sure makes me not want to smoke. We like our lungs

 

[Guest]

Because its your first post and you need 50.Sure has been a lot of negative propaganda floating around the den lately.Some may say we should remain open-minded and I couldn't agree more except for the obvious agenda behind each and every one of these "studies".The studies are done only to support the status quo and not for anyones benefit so it's impossible for me to have an open mind on the subject.Besides,totally destroying my lungs with blockhead bonghits is within the boundaries of my personal liberty and pursuit of happiness.Some may prefer falling off buildings with a cord tied to their legs,I prefer the lung destruction route.

 

[RED145]

I got nothing against studies,hell theres probably a little truth to them.What burns me the fuck up is people coming here,to a marijuana friendly forum to post about all the bad things it does.
No animosity here,just wondering WHY someone would come here to post this kind of thing.

We ALL know smoking isnt healthy rite.....do we really need another study and do you really expect to convince someone other than yourself to stop smoking?just wonderin

 

[The Scientist]

Well, the wife and I look through a scientific scope, and although it may seem obvious for smoke to be bad, it's interesting to see how bad, scientifically. Personally we are completely aware of the good effects of it. We all know how it makes us feel. So that leaves what we don't know about the bad it can do if ingested in certain ways.

As scientists we value all knowledge, because in the end, more knowledge is good knowledge no matter what, assuming it is sound knowledge, of course. I just come here to spread it. Not only is this knowledge possibly beneficial to someone reading it, but it is a piece of the puzzle of our movement, will be seen by the public, and will need to be analyzed by us. Some people want knowledge, some don't. Some people will view it with an open mind, some won't. So be it! The recent posts as of late spurred us to make an account here, it was interesting to see the articles & reactions lately. Hope you don't take this as an offense, we mean nothing of the sort..

As for the actual report, if you go to acs.org and search the title of the article you will find a direct link to it.

 

[Guest]

This scientific study is more appropriate for a pro-cannabis forum,not that I'm closed minded to non-agenda inspired studies on the subject.Speaking of non-agenda studies and quite a surprise for the guys!http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060526083353.htm

 

[The Scientist]

Unfortunately, cancer links are very hard to assess. We are now just able to study the people in the 60s that were exposed to the herb. We still have entire generations to go in order to observe the effects of today's weed, along with today's heavy use of weed. Luckily, it is easier to analyze the compounds in smoke than correlate cancer. The cancer thing is really out there & undecided. It will be very interesting in the next 30 or so years to see what happens. Thanks for the link, block. Sciencedaily is a great site.

 

[RED145]

Yes,very interesting!But surely there must be other scientific sites out there where you and your scientist friends can discuss these matters?I am afraid your the only scientist here and most definately the only one preaching the evils of cannabis.

 

[drunkenstoner]

im really getting fucking tired of all these threads bashing weed.

 

[The Scientist]

This isn't about talking about it with fellow scientists, most of which most likely don't even know what it feels like to enjoy the herb. It's about discussing with my community the current knowledge on cannabis, which is more relevant to our cause. By our, I mean you, I, and everyone on this site. It ain't about bashing weed, either. This is science, this is reality, and I don't plan on shielding myself (or anyone else) from it.

Unfortunately, the wife and I foresee a lot more "bad" info as the research rolls in. People will sneer at it, will call it bias....some research will get shot down, some will stand supported, some will be improved....it is the way science works, and the way science should work. Only recently is it that the world has taken an interest in studying MJ. It took years of study for tobacco myths to be put to rest. The same will have to do for MJ. Despite the bad news we will inevitably receive, however, in the process, much good will also be determined, some of which can be used to put other myths to rest, which will work in our favor.

We really just found it interesting how there have been about 3 articles this week on MJ (and probably more) and it's a great thing. I'd rather have that than the gov't shielding research from being conducted, which it still is. Weed won't be kept under the rug forever, though. Just like cigs, it will be exposed, and just like cigs, the scientific community will review findings and they will eventually stand concrete.

Imagine a world where we know the true affects of weed. A world where misinformation is put to rest, and where individuals can make intellectually sound & guided choices based on data that hasn't been smudged by special interest. That's the world I look forward to, and it's the world I look forward to for my children.

It was not too long ago that MJ research was a dream. Now it is reality. I personally am thankful for the want for research of MJ, no matter what news it brings, because in the end, over time, only the good research will stand strong.

 

[b8man]

Personally, I welcome all research into cannabis use. But certain groups have agendas. And I keep thinking of all the reports commissioned by the UK and US government (amongst others) to prove how dangerous cannabis was to support the legal stance that was being adopted. When the reports came back saying that it wasn't any more harmful than substances that were legal, then they were buried and discredited.

Honestly, I think there must be a cost to smoking. But the fact is that there have been many groups trying to prove this and they keep failing. I feel that if it was genuinely dangerous, that science would have been used to discredit it and justify it's illegality. It's the absence of proof when so many were searching (with hefty funding) that makes me wonder how harmful cannabis really is.

 

[The Scientist]

Well I guess the great thing about science is that we have good people who are in it for the science and just the science that shoot down bogus studies.

Indeed, even sound research indicating the downsides of MJ will be used without a doubt for policymaking. The thing is, that any basis for such policy would be weightless, because the people should be allowed to put into their body what they please, no matter if it's smoke or what.

Aside from that, we so commonly hear smoking as a reason why MMJ should not be endorsed...and that's silly, of course, seeing as there are many other ways to ingest MJ.

So in the end, aside from the public being misinformed, which has nothing to do with the research, the research will bring knowledge to inform individuals on making the choice. I think that's the greatest thing to come out of all these articles talking about the neg. effects of weed. The worst, of course, will be the public gobbling up misinformed opinion by those that use the studies to their advantage in an unjust way.. Regardless, the research that is meaningful and not flawed will remain strong, over time, while the others will be rejected. This is why science is so great !

 

[PazVerdeRadical]

Unfortunately, cancer links are very hard to assess. We are now just able to study the people in the 60s that were exposed to the herb. We still have entire generations to go in order to observe the effects of today's weed, along with today's heavy use of weed. Luckily, it is easier to analyze the compounds in smoke than correlate cancer. The cancer thing is really out there & undecided. It will be very interesting in the next 30 or so years to see what happens. Thanks for the link, block. Sciencedaily is a great site.

son, stop pretending, you are no scientist. "we are now just able to study the people in the 60s that were exposed to the herb" is this a joke?
you know, there has been cannabis smoking going on outside the u.s.a (you are gringo too obviously, the world extends beyond your boarders btw!) way before the 60s... you should stop by the Shiva thread recently bumped... sheesh...

 

[The Scientist]

Paz....Anyways what I meant is that we are just (relatively speaking), as a society, starting to encourage, be interested in, and allow scientific studies on MJ. I'm speaking in general terms, very general. I'm completely aware of the world beyond the US, hehe.

MJ research is most definitely in its infancy, as a whole. And as we can see, the cancer debate is still out. Many studies claim there's a link, and many do not.

We are just now at a time when the people whom really used weed starting in the 60s are being examined. This is essentially the 1st generation we can truly examine as a sample group that has members smoking for a lifetime. People before the 60s didn't smoke as much MJ, and there weren't as many smoking it. We are now just getting the 1st wave of a true sample to study, ironically at a time when the world is opening up to MJ research more & more. We will have to wait more generations to get the waves that started in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s. It seems like the cancer thing is out on a conclusion, either way, until we have more time, more studies, and more samples.

 

[b8man]

MJ research is not in it's infancy. I've read at least a dozen books by scientists and hundreds of reports which put forward new research and review current studies (it's not even worth listing sources - try amazon, WHO, google, NORML etc). Cannabis - let's use it's proper name - is one of the most heavily researched substances out there.

 

[The Scientist]

Well, when we compare to cigs & alc, it is most definitely in its infancy, in my opinion, at least...due to social stigma & gov't meddling. We've got a long way to go, with much to learn, which is promising! If MJ were studied as much as alc or tobacco, we as a society would be far ahead of the game!

 

[RED145]

LOL,scientific Journies are so hard to do!!For instance,have they started studying the effects of marijuana on cheese??How many of those old stoners were eating cheese when they smoked?Makes a difference ya know,lol.

 

[Babbabud]

Ive been studying the effects of MJ on my friends for over 40 years now. Havent seen any of them get sick from MJ in the full 42 years of smoking. Most these "studies" seem like a bunch of propaganda to me. Havent you noticed "theyve" stepped up all the negative retoric about MJ lately. The republicans have one year to beat us down and im sure they will try their hardest. Looks like more propaganda to me.