Awesome to have real concrete information presented in a way that seems very distinct from what you'd get from sources on the far ends of the spectrum, like High Times or the DEA.

I'm quite surprised that smoking pot seems to carry an increased risk of bronchitis, like tobacco, but apparently NOT lung cancer (unlike tobacco). Are the carcinogens in tobacco cigarettes all from additional ingredients? Could people be growing their own tobacco and rolling their own cigarettes and avoiding one of the biggest health consequences? If so, shouldn't there be a market for tobacco cigarettes without any added ingredients?


I have never smoked pot OR tobacco. A lot of my reasons for avoiding either come down to a hatred of and pretty real sensitivity to / negative reactions to exposure to smoke. Some of my bias against that transfers into bias against pot in general, since smoking it is the default method.

At the same time, it seems ridiculous to me that pot is double-secret schedule 1 illegal while alcohol and tobacco are both perfectly legal. Especially when it seems apparent (although I don't really know what I'm talking about since I've never used it myself) that the intoxicating effects of pot are comparable to but generally LESS dangerous than alcohol, and the negative health consequences of pot are FAR LESS than either alcohol OR tobacco.

Getting real facts and knowledge out there like this video is doing has to have a positive effect on that very questionable policy.

Waving frantically ... 'I'm' the market!

The brand I smoke is made with organic tobacco ... no additives. In addition, the paper has no accelerants to keep the product burning on its own. However, the sin taxes over the years have raised the price per pack to hair raising levels, especially harsh now that I'm on a limited budget, buuuuuttttt [see what I did there?] ... I've always been a conscientious social pariah. I carry my own ashtray and only smoke outdoors [currently in our designated area] even when I owned my own home. For me it's been a stress reliever and a social outlet as it gets me out of the apartment. I'd be a hermit otherwise so I continue to justify the expense.

As for pot my favorite form is ingestion but, with the change in our state marijuana laws last year, I no longer have the option to obtain the products in sufficient dosage [and dependability] that I once was provided. I'm no Betty Crocker so the chemistry of producing accurate and effective efficiency is out of my wheelhouse [plus the process really stinks up the place]. So mostly I vaporize the flower from the most potent Indica money can buy with my PAX 2. No burning of vegetation like smoking.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it!

I'm another market, since I smoke cigars, which also have no additives.

But you can't inhale those ... soooooo

I had never heard it claimed that cigars pose less/different cancer risks than cigarettes.

Google search provides mixed (as you might expect) results.

Cancer.gov, the Mayo Clinic, and WebMD all seem to suggest that cigar smokers in general tend to have lower rates of lung cancer than cigarette smokers (because they generally don't inhale, which I didn't know), but higher than non-smokers. And they have comparable or possibly higher rates of other cancers (oral, esophageal ... pancreatic) as compared to cigarette smokers.

Several results suggest that there is less data about cigars, results aren't statistically significant, etc. etc. and that they believe that cigars are much safer than cigarettes, if not entirely safe. But frankly, the pages I see (in a cursory search that I don't really have a personal stake in) promoting that view don't seem as ... trustworthy to me as the Mayo Clinic, or Healthcare Triage videos like this one (that list references right in the video).


No holier-than-thou attitude intended. ...Although I can say that I'm personally very glad I never acquired a taste for tobacco products of any kind. And a very low interest in alcohol consumption -- I go months on up to a year+ between drinks of booze without ever missing it. I sometimes avoid social situations because of smoke, which I suppose is a downside. But on the other hand, I'm enough of an introvert that avoiding social situations is probably something I'd be doing anyway... So at the very least I have more money to waste on other things since I'm not a smoker or much of a drinker.

They should have less risk. They don't have carcinogenic chemicals added to make them stay lit or preserve them, and they aren't inhaled (by those who know how to smoke them).
That doesn't mean they're safe, as you mentioned. I think oral and throat cancers, while still a risk, are more likely with cigarettes because of the extra chemicals.
You are right, there's very little data about cigar risks. It would be silly to pretend they don't have risks, though.

I would note that I've seen people publicly harass cigarette smokers, then come tell me how good my cigar smells. I've also never had someone complain about my cigar smoke, but heard it often back when I smoked cigarettes.

But I won't smoke joints. With 1/4 of Americans having herpes, sharing a slobbery smoke straw just seems unnecessarily risky.

The last one I smoked was handed to me by my friend who, as I put it in my mouth, told me about the filthy $10 hooker he was with the night before. I decided then that I have no idea where other people's lips have been, and I never shared another joint with anyone besides my wife...so now if I get the herps, she'll have some serious explaining to do!

"How you read this report is going to be clouded by how you feel about pot in general." Bingo.

No no new science here, though. No new studies. Just re-re-reviewing existing literature.

"We know almost nothing about the medicinal effects of smoked marijuana."

If that's true... then how much do "we" know about the effects of raw cannabis, complete with it's non-psychoactive tetrahydrocannabinolic acid? The large scale, peer reviewed method works far, far to slowly to be of any real use. It is too dependent upon those with enough financial funding to be considered an authority. If "we" finally perform the "right" study on cannabis, will that magically undo nearly 100 years of unjustified criminalization, untold millions of needless deaths, and pain and suffering?