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

[JJDubz]

First off - a big Shoutout to CC (havent seen you in ages bro!) and Baba (hope the legal BS is going well)

Second - When is IC going to IP ban this guy? This is a MJ forum where people can gather and celebrate and share the positives of our joyous herb.

Not where pigs can come and cause shit and rile the locals!

Do us all a favor and remove this waste of bandwidth.

Regards,
JJ

 

[PazVerdeRadical]

bla bla bla

hello the "scientist", lets start by the beginning and forget all your no-sense, so first things first:
so the first thing you should do is establish what is the nature of the subjects you are to study.
in this case the subject is a human being, thus, you include in your data how human beings are mortal, fragile and tend to sickness.
then, you consider how many people get cancer who do not partake of cannabis, and those who do. however, to do this
you will need access to medical data bases, the data has not been collected in a uniform way when your sources are such.
you need a good ammount of study-subjects if you intend to make a general conclusion about the effects of x or y upon human organism.
not only this, but again, you would need to explain how come chronic life-time cannabis smokers (of all qualities btw) do not get cancer and die due to other causes whether natural or not. this is bascially the hardest thing to do, to explain the exceptions to the biased rule in which you started your "scientific study". by the title of the thread, there is an obvious bias already before you have even presented us with well collected data even... so my wives and I wonder what the heck are you and the wifey smoking to think we are going to take you seriously, so what is it you boys and girls be smoking?

what about when people start asking you about the relations of mind upon body and the arisal of cancer? how r u gonna collect for us that empirical proof a la cartessian style you seem to crave so much?

 

[The Scientist]

Alright good people. I've stepped away from making dinner to say something:

Lets realize one thing here. We're all on the same side.
Nobody is claiming the source is correct, or wrong, from this keyboard.

Many of us read it and our love for the herb remains intact.
Some play devil's advocate to *help* our cause, bringing it to discussion, etc.
We all view these articles and come to our own conclusions.

What's important though is discussing how we get to our own conclusions in a friendly way. We all have differing opinions on this and that.

This isn't something to fight over. It's a study and we all have our *individual* opinions. Just because I may disagree with something someone here says, it doesn't mean I'm a cop, a gov't worker, or someone trying to dismantle the entire cannabis community.

Lets just have an easy going discussing. We need to keep in mind we're all on the same side here..

Edit: Paz, just saw your message appear, and will respond to it later after dinner.

 

[The Scientist]

in this case the subject is a human being, thus, you include in your data how human beings are mortal, fragile and tend to sickness.
then, you consider how many people get cancer who do not partake of cannabis, and those who do. however, to do this
you will need access to medical data bases, the data has not been collected in a uniform way when your sources are such.
you need a good ammount of study-subjects if you intend to make a general conclusion about the effects of x or y upon human organism.
not only this, but again, you would need to explain how come chronic life-time cannabis smokers (of all qualities btw) do not get cancer and die due to other causes whether natural or not. this is bascially the hardest thing to do, to explain the exceptions to the biased rule in which you started your "scientific study". by the title of the thread, there is an obvious bias already before you have even presented us with well collected data even... so my wives and I wonder what the heck are you and the wifey smoking to think we are going to take you seriously, so what is it you boys and girls be smoking?

what about when people start asking you about the relations of mind upon body and the arisal of cancer? how r u gonna collect for us that empirical proof a la cartessian style you seem to crave so much?

This study was about the contents of MJ smoke, though. The cancer topic is an entirely different subject....Which, in my opinion, is completely in its infancy in terms of research & solid conclusions, and we do not know, still whether or not it causes cancer. If you feel differently that's ok, it's cool. I strayed away, maybe, by talking about the cancer issue. I didn't intend to. This thread was about contents of MJ smoke being chemically analyzed.

I see offensive comments from even moderators here, it's really unfortunate. Why can't we just keep it to opinions backed up by the study itself? Why throw names? Why accuse people of this and that? Is that the way this community should function?

No matter how much some people don't want to see this stuff, it is beneficial to this community. Some science-minded people enjoy reading this and being aware of it. Some people benefit from it by seeing what people are saying about the herb. Just because you post a study on MJ that doesn't suit the wants of most users doesn't mean you're against pot. Come on guys, seriously...after looking at some of the comments here I'm appalled to see such denial off the bat, such accusatory statements, etc. This isn't how ICMAG should be.

 

[Dr. Buzz]

I've heard the same line when I was in JR high in the early 80's

1 joint = 20 ciggarettes
Weed is 20 times stronger than in the 60's (yup I even heard it back then.

HMMMMM. This STUDY sounds like the same old same old.

 

[The Scientist]

If you were a scientist, you'd have gathered enough data in your threads as both journies and the scientist, to know you shouldn't try alarming a community that already knows better than you ever will.

Smoking is not good for you, living under power lines is not good, eating McDonald's, saturated fats, eating vegetables grown with radioactive fertilizers is not good for you, etc. etc. etc... You're at a site chok full of folks who know smoking isn't the best thing you could do, but have decided the risk is worth the reward. This is what this site is all about, people who have made that decision and are now celebrating the lifestyle so many others have turned away from.

Marijuana is a gift from Jah, God, whatever you call it. The grant that made your study possible is a gift from conservative douchebags, interested only in scaring people away from freedom with "studies". They are losing this battle, they know it, and they are doing whatever they can to frighten people away from the herb.

You won't have an audience for ignorance here, schmientist. Me and all my healthy, cancer-free, hardcore pot smoking friends and family won't let you lie without calling you on it.

Where's the info about the grant? Link? I'd be interested to see.

Also:

Just because people accept the dangers (unknown or known) of smoking, that doesn't mean people are going to be completely closed off to more info on the matter

And:

Nobody is trying to scare or alarm the community, not I at least. This is just an article that was published, pertaining to our herb, and it was posted. I haven't even told you people what I personally think about it. I just play devils advocate and then act as a spectator. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Crazy Composer]

It's more of the same shit as what you were not liked for when you were calling yourself, journies.... Remember? It's not so much the message, in this case, but the messenger and his tenacity toward pushing these studies on this community who already knows better.

Please, spend time digging up and posting reasons not to eat margerine, you'd have a better time of it.

 

[Stoner4Life]

most definately journiesque.......

 

[Sammet]

Here's a free link to the whole Journal:

http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/crtoec/asap/pdf/tx700275p.pdf

And here's a part of the Results and Discussion section that I found interesting:


The simplest explanation
for the very high levels of ammonia found in marijuana smoke
may be that the marijuana used for this study contained more
nitrate than the tobacco sample. The marijuana plants were
grown on soil-less growth medium. All fertilizers were commercially
available and consisted of water-soluble hydroponic
vegetable fertilizers used for horticulture and contained nitrogen
in the form of both nitrate and ammoniacal nitrogen. However,
it is not known to what extent the differences in the growing
conditions between the marijuana and the tobacco, including
the types of fertilizers used, influenced the levels of nitrates
in the plants. The temperature of combustion can also influence
the production of ammonia. Burning tobacco results in a
reduction of nitrate to ammonia, which is released to a greater
extent during sidestream smoke formation (31), suggesting that
lower combustion temperatures favor the production of ammonia.
Combustion temperature differences between marijuana
and tobacco may have also contributed to the differences in
ammonia yield, but this was not verified....


...There is a hypothesis that increased nitrate from fertilizer use
leads to higher pH, higher levels of ammonia, and increased
levels of aromatic amines generated through the intermediacy
of NH2 radicals (30), and this is consistent with all of the results
presented here.

I guess they've never heard of flushing then.

In future before people start posting articles that are written based on a scientific paper please try and read the source material first before jumping to conclusions about the results. Articles written on the internet often need to grab your attention in such a large sea of information and so are willing to bend the facts.

"Marijuana Smoke From Bud That Has Not Been Correctly Flushed of Fertilisers Contains Higher Levels of Certain Toxins Than Tobacco Smoke"

That is not such an appealing headline.

 

[RED145]

In future before people start posting articles that are written based on a scientific paper please try and read the source material first before jumping to conclusions about the results. Articles written on the internet often need to grab your attention in such a large sea of information and so are willing to bend the facts.

"Marijuana Smoke From Bud That Has Not Been Correctly Flushed of Fertilisers Contains Higher Levels of Certain Toxins Than Tobacco Smoke"

Good find Sammet,thats not so alarming at all,but if Journies posted that it wouldnt have been near as controversial.

Make NO mistakes people....He is Journies,He DOESNT smoke marijuana,and He is most definately NOT for this community,it is my belief that this shitbird is a police employ-e..if not a cop hisself.

and he needs to be bannished!!

 

[The Scientist]

As usual, Sammet is the only one to actually dig into the facts of the matter.

I said from the beginning - you can look at the study yourself.

But of course, nobody does, and rather, they throw insults and unbacked opinion. If ICMAG had let me post links I would have gladly included the report from the beginning, but I was unable to.

Now that the study has been posted, we can actually have a somewhat meaningful discussion, rather than a flame fest from our younger members (and even MODS, sadly)


CC - you mention my "tenacity" to post these things. My tenacity has nothing to do with flame wars. Assumption on the part of others including yourself leads to the flaming. I haven't even stated my personal stance, and just look at the flames that came. You and others assumed my position wrongly just because I posted an article on a study of MJ, and that's where the only problem lies in this thread. Don't judge a book by its cover, and don't assume people's stances on something just because they link up an article for others to view.

Thanks Sammet for taking the time to do what you did.

Now, as for the study -
You can bet your butt that most commercial growers don't give a crap about flushing. This is why homegrows are much safer!

 

[Babbabud]

If it looks like a duck ......

 

[RED145]

Oh,he's a duck allright,and I will flame him every chance I get!!

Officer Scientist.....you are transparent,the only "study" you are doing is on the members here,you are busted.

What more do you think you can add to this site?No One is Listening...but everyone is smelling,smell that......bullshit and Bacon!!!

 

[The Scientist]

So what lesson did we learn here, Babba? If it looks like a duck, don't make assumptions, and if you're gonna fling stuff, make sure it's actually backed up by reality, rather than denial that makes that of the gov't pale in comparison. See, what Sammet did was the right thing to do. What everyone else did was just bogus and weak denial. That applies to many of the remarks in this thread by others, not just you....although I was heavily saddened to see the callous remarks of mods...anyways...

Seriously - some of the denial here mimics that of the gov't's own denial. It's scary. It's like the gov't is one fringe, and some in the community here are on the complete opposite fringe - both of which are unreasonable fringes - extremist fringes. If potheads wanna advance their cause, and I know I sure do, I dunno about you guys - I don't just sit around and smoke pot - I fight for the right to, and am active politically for it - then we need to have open minds, and not come off to the public like whacko fringists that mimic that of the gov't's extremist fringes. If you wanna get places with the public you need to act civil, rational, etc, rather than deny things off the bat for no good reason, fling insults, etc.

And what did the study tell us, Red? It tells us that black market weed is more dangerous than homegrown weed. Maybe a noob will read this one day and it will push them to homegrow rather than buy, who knows. Either way, it's better that this info gets discussed within the community rather than having the community stick their fingers in their ears and deny every ounce of science that comes their way. Learn to have an open mind, it will benefit you..AND our movement.

And why is this study good? Now we have 1 more piece of knowledge that can be used while doing further studies. The errors of this study can be improved and others can carry out similar studies. Over time we can end up with a stack of studies, and use them to gather overall data, patterns, or trends, to come to conclusions that would be stronger than this study's conclusion alone. Good science isn't out to get people, it is done for the sake of knowledge. Hell, most of the time, scientific studies on MJ *favor* our movement, if anything. I'm sure we'd see a completely different thread off the bat if what was posted was a *positive* study about MJ. Rather, with the negative one, we see people snap, we see insults thrown, we see tempers flare, we see unfounded denial.....It's *quite* amazing, don't ya think, guys?

And say the noob can't home-grow. Well, maybe this would push them to eat the nug or vape it rather than smoke it. Is this a bad thing? To protect the health of people I share a passion with? Come on guys. It's not like we here are pushing an anti-pot agenda. Rather, if anything, I push a "know about pot" agenda. There are errors in many scientific studies, but with many of them we can glean general information from them such as we did with this one once sammet posted his views. These things we glean can be used to help people that share our passion. I just want to help people who are wondering about their health, or wondering what the world is saying about their herb, etc etc. Knowledge is power, and keeping your head in the sand is NOT. That's just the way I think, I'm sorry if it makes anyone think I'm a gov't worker, because that couldn't be anything farther from the truth. I hope you all enjoy the day, and apologize for my incessant tenacity that may offend or come across incorrectly to some, because it is most definitely not intended to start fights, but rather to empower the individual & our movement.

 

[RED145]

Thanks for the warning Officer.....can we go now?

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

How 'bout this...

Flush your herb properly, and it won't have the necessary excess nitrogen to form Ammonia, Nitric acid, or certain aromatic amines...

Also... Way too many comparisons have been done showing the actual harm done by cannabis smoke to be alot less than the actual harm done by tobacco smoke for some cannuk study of unflushed beasters to change my smoking habits.

 

[Sammet]

Just to make myself clear - Just because the study has a fault, doesn't mean that what they say in general isn't true - Cannabis smoke contains quantities of toxic substances, I just disagree with the quantities that they cite for the reasons above.


I just don't like people dressing up scientific journals through misinterpretation or intent to decieve.

 

[EatCannabisRaw]

smoke if you wanna... sure its "bad" for you... but if you are healthy and don't stuff yourself with food constantly...your body can detox the smoke decently. look at some of the world's oldest people that smoked...the key is giving your body time to detoxify...

i think eating marijuana is awesome. it just takes a different mindset/approach...

you learn to sorta plan the mj into your day... wake up... make some oatmeal and butter and just throw in some chopped weed and simmer it... use it like an herb ya know...

or make a good milk tea with it... like a chai tea... fuck you could even make a LATTE...

take a pot
throw in milk, honey, spices, some concentrated coffee...
and some raw bud... just let it simmer for awhile...heat it on medium for 15 minutes...

drink it up and your set for a good half of the day...

cooking just takes a different approach. its healthy, fun... and gets the job done.

i'm experimented more with just eating raw weed...seems to work best with a fat source. so pop some cacao beans in my mouth with some raw weed and chew/savor the taste...get it all digesting... seems to work rather nicely...

its like switching from smoking tobacco to chewing. its just... different... smoking i do like...i love the art of smoking... i love the breathing... i love my particular style of smoking/breathing... i love going outside for it... the break in your day... etc etc...

but if you get into cooking/eating cannabis...its just as much fun. just make sure you really savor and enjoy your particular cannabis food you made... and try to plan it a bit... say you want to be feeling the effects at 10 AM...then make your food and eat it slowly at 9 AM...

i think cooking is the shit. even making tea...
come home from work... make yourself a little creamy cannabis desert... grind up the weed in a coffee grinder... throw some chocolate squares in a little pot... add the weed... get a bowl of ice cream and throw the chocolate/cannabis sauce over it. boo ya :]

 

[EatCannabisRaw]

i would say some weed is more toxic than others. you know when you smoke it and just feel more vulnerable/weaker etc... i think this is probably because the weed hasn't been flushed...and those things instantly toxify your system. i also feel weakened from smoking tobacco a bit..

but hey..i think part of the reason we smoke IS FOR the weakening.. just to sorta fuck yourself up...kick yourself to the couch...to chill the fuck out.

eating it is cool too...but i find it way less toxic and i think the toxic effect some people like

 

[Crazy Composer]

Unclean weed is worse than clean weed. And The Scientist is a guy who used to be called journies. Look his other posts up.

AND, he's been supposed to be law enforcement, or something along those lines. If he's not, he sure feels that way to more than one experienced freedom fighter on this site.

journies, do us all a favor and find and post some of the positive studies done of marijuana. There's PLENTY out there.

Oh, and here's the kicker... you have to answer this question, if you don't, well... we'll know what you are... The Scientist, ARE YOU WORKING WITH, OR AFFILIATED IN ANY WAY WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT?

Just curious because I said you were government before and you never said that you weren't.