So, you thought it was the tar that caused cancer...
Think again. Cigarette companies will have you believing anything just as long as you continue to buy their products. The fact is, although insoluble tars are a contributing factor to the lung cancer danger present in today's cigarettes, the real danger is radioactivity. According to U.S. Surgeon General C. Everette Koop (on national television, 1990) radioactivity, not tar, accounts for at least 90% of all smoking related lung cancer.
Tobacco crops grown in the United States are fertilized by law with phosphates rich in radium 226. In addition, many soils have a natural radium 226 content. Radium 226 breaks down into two long lived 'daughter' elements -- lead 210 and polonium 210. These radioactive particles become airborne, and attach themselves to the fine hairs on tobacco leaves.
Studies have shown that lead 210 and polonium 210 deposits accumulate in the bodies of people exposed to cigarette smoke. Data collected in the late 1970's shows that smokers have three times as much of these elements in their lower lungs as non smokers. Smokers also show a greater accumulation of lead 210 and polonium 210 in their skeletons, though no studies have been conducted to link these deposits with bone cancer. Polonium 210 is the only component of cigarette smoke which has produced tumors by itself in inhalation experiments with animals.
When a smoker inhales tobacco smoke, the lungs react by forming irritated areas in the bronchi. All smoke produces this effect. However, although these irritated spots are referred to as 'pre-cancerous' lesions, they are a perfectly natural defense system and usually go away with no adverse effects. Insoluble tars in tobacco smoke can slow this healing process by adhering to lesions and causing additional irritation. In addition, tobacco smoke causes the bronchi to constrict for long periods of time, which obstructs the lung's ability to clear itself of these residues.
Polonium 210 and lead 210 in tobacco smoke show a tendency to accumulate at lesions in specific spots, called bifurcations, in the bronchi. When smoking is continued for an extended period of time, deposits of radioactivity turn into radioactive 'hot spots' and remain at bifurcations for years. Polonium 210 emits highly localized alpha radiation which has been shown to cause cancer. Since polonium 210 has a half life of 21.5 years, it can put an ex-smoker at risk for years after he or she quits. Experiments measuring the level of polonium 210 in victims of lung cancer found that the level of 'hot spot' activity was virtually the same in smokers and ex-smokers even though the ex-smokers had quit five years prior to death.
Over half of the radioactive materials emitted by a burning cigarette are released into the air, where they can be inhaled by non-smokers. In addition to lead 210 and polonium 210 it has been proven that tobacco smoke can cause airborne radioactive particles to collect in the lungs of both smokers and non-smokers exposed to second hand smoke. Original studies conducted on uranium miners which showed an increased risk of lung cancer due to exposure to radon in smokers have been re-run to evaluate the radioactive lung cancer risk from indoor air radon. It turns out that tobacco smoke works as a kind of 'magnet' for airborne radioactive particles, causing them to deposit in your lungs instead of on furniture. (Smoking indoors increases lung cancer risks greatly.)
It has been estimated that the total accumulated alpha radiation exposure of a pack-a-day indoor smoker is 38 to 97 rad by age 60. (Two packs a day yields up to 143 rad, and non-smokers receive no more than 17 rad.) An exposure of 1 rad per year yields a 1% risk of lung cancer (at the lowest estimate.)
Don't smoke. Or if you do, smoke lightly, outdoors, and engage frequently in activities which will clear your lungs. Imported India tobacco has less than half the radiation content of that grown in the U.S.
Kicking the nicotine habit is not easy, and nobody has the right to expect it of you. Often physical addictions are reinforced by emotional and psychological needs. Filling or coming to terms with those needs can give you the inspiration and added freedom to succeed.
Most of all, inform yourself, even if the information is disturbing. You are a lot less likely to be taken in by tobacco advertising once you know the facts.
Nicotine, the active ingredient in tobacco smoke, has long been known to be highly addictive. In fact, doctors and pharmacologists are not in consensus as to which is more addictive -- nicotine, or heroin. Physical addiction occurs when a chemical becomes essential for the body or metabolism to function. In other words, a substance is said to be physically addictive if extended use results in a build up of tolerance in the body to the extent that discontinuing use of the substance results in negative side effects. Called "withdrawal symptoms," these consequences can include anxiety, stress, trauma, depression and physical conditions such as shakes or nausea. It is to avoid these consequences that an addict will keep using his or her substance.
In addition to being addictive, nicotine is also a toxin (i.e. lethal if ingested in sufficient quantities.) Nicotine has been shown to have a negative effect on the heart and circulatory systems, causing a constriction in veins and arteries which may lead to a stroke or heart attack. In fact, nicotine is so poisonous that smokers who ignore their doctor's advice and continue to smoke while using dermal nicotine patches have managed to overdose and die of heart seizure.
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.
Cannabis is also radically different from tobacco in that it does not contain nicotine and is not addictive. The psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, THC, has been accused of causing brain and genetic damage, but these studies have all been disproved. In fact, the DEA's own Administrative Law Judge Francis Young has declared that "marijuana in its natural form is far safer than many foods we commonly consume."
The disturbing thing about all of this information is that the majority of Americans are as yet unaware of the radioactive risk in cigarettes. In fact, many professionals: doctors, scientists and health administrators, either have never heard of polonium 210 or consider it to be just another scare story.
Why is this information so hard to come by? When the studies were first released in the late 70's, many magazines were unable to print articles because their main advertisers, cigarette companies, threatened to pull support if they published the facts. Although network news did pick up the story, virtually nothing came out in print. Those who heard were hard pressed to produce collaborating evidence, and were eventually convinced it was nothing to worry about.
The power of the cigarette industry to suppress information goes far beyond magazines, however. A well financed tobacco lobby has been very active in the United States Congress for decades procuring subsidies and fighting laws and proposed research which could hurt the American tobacco industry. Tobacco interests practically own Senate and House seats, as many campaign contributions come from cigarette profits. Tobacco pay- offs also go to fund organizations such as the Partnership For A Drug Free America, which adopt a harsh anti-drug agenda yet seem to omit alcohol and tobacco (claiming they are harmless.)
As an example, a 1984 law which was intended to require tobacco companies to release to the public a list of additives used in the manufacture of cigarettes was watered down to the extent that the list is now released only to the Department of Health and Human Services on the condition that it not be shown to anyone else. Companies have been known in the past to add chemicals to cigarettes for flavor, and, many assert, for their addictive properties. In Britain such chemicals have included acetone and turpentine, as well as an assortment of known carcinogens.
Tobacco companies argue that revealing their 'secret ingredients' would hurt their competitiveness. In fact, when Canada passed legislation forcing additive lists to be released, one large company reformulated its recipe for its Canadian distribution; another took its product out of Canada entirely.
Tobacco companies do not have the right to poison the public. Don't trust them. Get the information you need to make your own decisions, and restore government to the people.
Another destructive aspect of the Drug War is the unreasonable measures taken as a result of "reefer madness." Because of the long standing anti-pot-smoking paranoia begun in the 1930's, many law enforcement agencies have taken it upon themselves to censor and limit the marijuana culture through whatever channels they can find. This includes the banning of various forms of drug "paraphernalia" (pipes, clips, rolling papers, etc.)
Water pipes, or "bongs," are quite often the target of such efforts. Claiming that water pipes are constructed to allow marijuana smokers to inhale "dangerous" marijuana smoke deeper into their lungs, many states and towns have passed laws controlling the sale, manufacture, and possession of these items for "health" reasons.
The sad fact is that water pipes have been shown to be extremely effective in removing harmful materials from smoke before it reaches the lungs. They also cool the smoke and prevent injury and irritation to lung passages. In effect, laws against water pipes hurt all smokers, cannabis and tobacco, by preventing the development of safer forms of consumption.
Produced as a public service by the University of Massachusetts
at Amherst Cannabis Reform Coalition
Research and written by Brian S. Julin
Corrections, comments, inquiries should be addressed to:
UMASS CANNABIS
S.A.O. Box #2
Student Union
UMASS Amherst, MA
01003

The studies which you reference are innaplicable to this topic and hence irrelevant as they all deal with individuals who smoked cigarettes AND cannabis, invalidating the studies for the purposes of proving anything regarding cannabis alone.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/6/347

quote:

---

The 15 subjects, all men, had smoked both marijuana and tobacco

---

This study essentially determined only that cannabis smokers took larger 'hits' and hence more tar/carbon monoxide was presumed to be inhaled. This means nothing and does not indicate any sort of medical determination that cannabis smoking inherently causes illness.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/MarijBroch/parentref.html
That is just a list of citations without even abstracts; useless and without elaboration or interpretation.

Did you bother to read the entire kaiser study that you cited ? It doesn't determine anything medically conclusive, merely stating correlation between cannabis use, alcohol use, various other traits, and number of outpatient hospital vists. Furthermore it supports the assertion that cannabis DECREASES likelihood of an outpatient respiratory related visit

quote:

---

On the other hand, the duration of marijuana smoking appeared to be inversely related to the risk of outpatient visits for respiratory problems. This result was contrary to our expectation and remains an issue for future research.

---

The Zhang 'study' was not an actual study, but a pilot, and the statistical facts that contributed to that study are highly questionable.

quote:

---

"I interviewed Dr. Zhang on the phone, and, not surprisingly, his 'study' is garbage.

First, it was not a real study, just a pilot study - with the goal of getting a grant for a real study from NIDA. Guess what? He got the grant.
Second, almost all cases of cancer were in people who also smoke cigarettes. Here's what the study didn't report: Among the 170 cancer patients, there were exactly TWO who smoked only marijuana (and no tobacco). Among the 170-person control group, (i.e.; without cancer) there were exactly FIVE people who smoked only marijuana.

That difference is not statistically significant, but if anything it indicates that people who smoke only marijuana and no tobacco are LESS likely to get cancer.

There are many other flaws in the study - a few of which Zhang even acknowledged in his discussion section. But the bottom line is that even if his study were a full study and had no flaws, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that tobacco smokers who also smoke marijuana are slightly more likely to get some forms of cancer than tobacco smokers who do not also smoke marijuana.

---

~Chuck Thomas

Lastly, why does it matter whether cannabis makes one 'high' as opposed to cigarettes ? They are different substances and have different effects. Alcohol is far more intoxicating than cannabis, also, and is certainly legal and socially accepted...

quote:

---

I find it appaling that you present your premises as conclusions in and of them selves, without support, logic, or quantitative reasoning to back you up. You've proven nothing and merely perpetuated several myths which you would be more than unable to prove (gateway effect, brain damage, lung damage). You have not read any of these study's fulltexts and you likely do not understand this issue or its history completely.

---

I was waiting for this...hehehe
Marijuana effects on pulmonary system vastly more severe than tobacco
Marijuana factoids
Marijuana deposits 4 times the carcinogens as tobacco (from a forum with a UCLA epidemiologist.)
Incidence of medical reporting and problems associated with Marijuana use, compared with tobacco and use of neither (see results section for summary). Note also that this infers high healthcare costs.

Notice that none of the references I've cited are from pot-advocacy groups.

quote:

---

Tobbacco is far more dangerous than cannabis and kills approximately 400,000 people anually; there are ZERO deaths documented to be caused by cannabis and ZERO cancer cases documented to be caused by cannabis. Furthermore, vaporization of cannabis rather than combustion removes ALL of the lung-related health risks and those are essentially the only impactful side-effects.

---

What a load of bull$h!t. It's exactly this bu!!$h!t propaganda which pushed my away from supporting marijuana legalization, although I'm on still open to medical necessity. Pot has far more nasty chemicals associated with cancer risks, and is thus immensely more dangerous. Prehaps pot can be processed the way cigarettes are, and some cacinogens removed. Perhaps not. I have yet to see any proof that hardcore pot users fare any better than people who smoke cigarettes at an equivalent rate over a comparable amount of time, but the evidence that does exist shows very much the contrary. See the above.
This is not to mention the fact that marijuana gets you high and alters your sense of reality. That's why (most) people smoke it. Cigarettes do not get you high, at least not normally.

Nushoesagain, I'd question the source you received your information from. People can put anything on the internet.
Check out this sight. I know Dr.Grinspoon personally and can garantee it is all well researched and not your usual junk.
http://www.rxmarihuana.com/

Alright, hate to be the guy who does this, but look at Amsterdam. They have legalized Marijuana, crime is not rampant, there are no underground drug rings and cartels and all that bull. To restrict something on 'moral' grounds when you cannot get a large majority of the population to say it is immoral is wrong. (Don't try saying some dumb thing about murder being legal or stealing, the vast majority of the American population says that those two things are wrong.) The taxation of marijuana would be a saving grace for many states budgets. Every time a substance has been outlawed, it has only become more popular, and the underground smuggtling rings have only lead to greater crime. If you don't believe me read up on what prohibition did to our nation.

That 'cancer causing chemicals times 99999' statement is pure bs. There has NEVER been a case of respiratory system cancer involving a cannabis smoker in which that individual was not also a heavy tobbacco smoker.
Show me evidence that individuals have developed cancer from cannabis alone and/or died of that. Until then, you're just repeating unreliable rhetoric and propaganda.

The studies suggesting that cannabis contains more carcinogens, etc administer the chemicals in very high doses, unfiltered, to mice. However, several similar studies involving coffee determined that it caused cancer in cancer in mice as well. Mice are not humans. Interestingly, several recent studies have determined that cannabis slows the growth of and shrinks tumors...

http://www.bloodjournal.org/cgi/content/abstract/100/2/627?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=thc&searchid=1030772936991_10616&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&fdate=6/1/2002&journalcode=bloodjournal

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=9257


I find it appaling that you present your premises as conclusions in and of them selves, without support, logic, or quantitative reasoning to back you up. You've proven nothing and merely perpetuated several myths which you would be more than unable to prove (gateway effect, brain damage, lung damage). You have not read any of these study's fulltexts and you likely do not understand this issue or its history completely.

Tobbacco is far more dangerous than cannabis and kills approximately 400,000 people anually; there are ZERO deaths documented to be caused by cannabis and ZERO cancer cases documented to be caused by cannabis. Furthermore, vaporization of cannabis rather than combustion removes ALL of the lung-related health risks and those are essentially the only impactful side-effects.

Lastly, as Kaiser Permanente determined in a 1997 study:

quote:

---

Relatively few adverse clinical effects from the chronic use of marijuana have been documented in humans. However, the criminalization of marijuana use may itself be a health hazard, since it may expose the users to violence and criminal activity.

---

The Kaiser Permanente study - "Marijuana Use and Mortality" April 1997 American Journal of Public Health".

Studies show a "dose" of pot is equivalent to anywhere from 6 to 18 cigarettes. They are not clear on in what form - I would imagine smoking through water (i.e. a bong) versus a raw joint accounts for the disparity. But even if we take a happy medium, one "thingie" of pot is like a dozen cigarettes a day. So if you smoke one a day, you're automatically a half-a-pack-a-day smoker. But pot smoke is far dirtier than cigarette smoke, with some studies suggesting that it deposits up to 150 more carcinogens than even cigarette smoke.

Putting aside all the other damage pot does - brain damage, driving-while-high, leading to more hardcore drug use, etc. - the bottom line is this: why would we want to legalize something that is much more potent than cigarettes, which society is trying to get rid of? Why restrict cigarettes because they're unhealthy, but legalize something that's even more unhealthy?

Summary of NIH factoids - pay attention to the second-to-last point

In 2000, there were 1,579,566 drug arrests in the US. Of those, 46.5 percent -- 734,497 arrests -- were for marijuana. There were 646,042 arrests for simple possession of marijuana in 2000. For more check Drug War Facts sections on marijuana and on crime.

letter11x, I am not sure if I am correct that the US has the highest amount of people in jail. It could just be a high percent. But I do know that one of the main reasons we have people in jail is because we are so strict with marajuana laws.

pickle: People are and have been busted for production of or sale of such devices, including Thomas Chong, who's currently in jail for signing a bong produced by his company and making a cannabis related comment to a narc.

To add you what i just said, it is like encouraging the people to get high by making these smoking devices, so if they want to out law marijuana, then they should outlaw the making of the smoking devices~ duh!

I think that they sould make it leagal too, they expect people not to smoke any, yet many places have BONGS and certain other smoking devices. So why would you make those if people were not already doing that certain drug.

Locutus126, I was delighted to read your posts. How wonderful to finally find someone who actually takes the time to use accepted logical methods and hard facts to debate issues, instead of rhetoric and propaganda! I came into this board with the intention of disagreeing, but your well thought-out arguments have caused me to think twice. I have a good friend who has been trying to accomplish this feat for several months who is now very much in your debt.

You know I really really hate the 'they do it anyway' argument. Even if I thought it should be legal, that's a ridiculous reason. Murder should be legal, people do it anyway, driving while drunk should be legal, they do it anyway. That's dumb.
Is it America's problem if they get it from questionable sources? It's their stupidity/apathy/ignorance, whatever. I'm all for helping out the people of America, but do we now have to save them from their own stupidity? Take responsibility for your actions, people.

quote:

---

What's more, the United States has more people in jail than any other country.

---

Where'd you get this information? How does this in anyway mean that marijuana should be legal? The other countries either have a smaller population than us, or a police and law enforcement force less effective.
Yeah but tobacco doesn't alter your mind, at least as much as marijuana does. I don't care if people run around stoned, it's their choice, but I do not want them driving stoned anywhere near me.

Okay, doing some research on it and I came to the conclusion that I only agree with marijuana for medical purposes. Otherwise, I will reject the idea of legalizing marijuana on moral grounds. I just don't agree with the idea of people doing drugs, no matter if some are less harmful then others, I still feel it is wrong. Though I don't judge people who smoke it, because I am not in there situation, I still don't agree with.

*yawn* I'm so sleepy I think I'm gonna fall flat on the keyboard, but I can't go home yet.
Anyways, I think I'm gonna have to do some actual research on this marijana legalization thing.
Man, my eyes are closing...must...stay...awake...

how do you know Nina is a good source?

Jesus ******* christ, the dating site that you found that on (http://www.askninanow.com/mar.html) is not a reliable source, it is unbacked dare type propaganda. Do you have any references for these in medical studies ? I think not. Well, I'll tear em apart anyway.

quote:

---

Marijuana is an addictive drug

---

Medical studies have shown it NOT to be phsyically addictive. The effects you list are blatantly false and unproven.

quote:

---

In recent years there has been a dramatic increase in the number of emergency room mentions of marijuana use. From 1993-2000, the number of emergency room marijuana mentions more than tripled.

---

This just means that more people are smoking cannabis, as statistics also show. It is correlative, NOT causative. 'Marijuana mentions' essentially means that the patient has smoked cannabis within the month.

quote:

---

According to the National Institutes of Health, studies show that someone who smokes five joints per week may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day.

---

There is no concrete evidence of this or scientific research indicating that, hence the may. Furthermore, cannabis is not smoked in the quantities that tobbacco is, and it is often either filtered (through water, etc) or vaporized, in the latter case, no smoke is being inhaled and there is no such risk whatsoever.

quote:

---

Harvard University researchers report that the risk of a heart attack is five times higher than usual in the hour after smoking marijuana

---

ARGH. this type of bs misrepresentation of reseearch REALLY annoys me. That study was one performed on middle aged and elderly individuals, and the doctor who conducted it said the following:

quote:

---

while the increased risk may be negligible for young marijuana users, it could be deadly for people already at higher risk by virtue of their age

---

quote:

---

I think the message is that for individuals who are entering the age group where coronary disease is prevalent -- particularly if they have established coronary disease or have multiple risk factors -- that they should think about whether it's reasonable to continue smoking marijuana

---

quote:

---

The heightened risk from marijuana was roughly equivalent to vigorous exercise for someone of average fitness

---

quote:

---

Users can become dependent on marijuana to the point they must seek treatment to stop abusing it. In 1999, more than 200,000 Americans entered substance abuse treatment primarily for marijuana abuse and dependence.
More teens are in treatment for marijuana use than for any other drug or for alcohol. Adolescent admissions to substance abuse facilities for marijuana grew from 43 percent of all adolescent admissions in 1994 to 60 percent in 1999.

---

This is because individuals, especially teens, often are required to enter treatment by court ruling, not because they believe they are addicted.

quote:

---

A Columbia University study found that ... damaging the immune system and making the user far more susceptible to infection and sickness.6

---

This study was debunked and disproven by a 2003 UCSF study which determined that

"There was no significant change in CD 4 or CD 8 T-cell counts for the placebo group over the course of the study. CD 4 T-cell counts rose by about 20 percent for both the smoked marijuana and the dronabinol group. CD 8 T-cell counts rose by 20 percent in the smoked marijuana group and by 10 percent in the dronabinol group."

In other words, cannabis consumption did not affect some lymphocyte white blood cells, and those that it did effect were AIDED, rising in count.

"The change in lymphocyte counts for the smoked marijuana group is intriguing. At a minimum, it contradicts findings from previous studies suggesting that smoked marijuana suppresses the immune system," said Abrams[ Donald Abrams, MD, professor of clinical medicine in the UCSF Positive Health Program at San Francisco General Hospital Medical Center]

quote:

---

Marijuana is much stronger now than it was decades ago.

---

Ah, correct for once. What this means is that much less needs to be smoked for the same effects. In other words, whereas one might smoke a joint larger than a cigarette decades ago, one can acheive the same effects from a quantity 1/10th or that size now, greatly reducing the only real harmful effect of cannabis; smoke inhalation and resulting lung issues. If cannabis is administered through vaporization or edible means, there are no serious side effects.

[This message was edited by YNLissa on November 20, 2003 at 08:36 PM.]