Originally Posted by
SkyWhale
I think a lot of the problem here is that iPortal is also using false information (and not being as accepting to other opinions [no offence intended]).
You seem to forget that you are talking about plain weed, nothing else mixed in. There may be 4 times more tar in the smoke, but there is only 33 cancer causing chemicals in marijuana smoke, compared to the 43 in cigarette smoke. Cigs even have around 400 additional toxins in them (carbon monoxide, cyanide, and arsenic to name a few). These may not cause cancer, but are still poisonous for humans. Furthermore, cigs have nicotine, which is extremely addictive. Most people do not become dependent on weed, but many cigarette users are addicted.
Furthermore, BOTH cigs and marijuana burn the cilia at the back of the throat, so using that as a reference is a futile argument.
I really don't see much of an argument here, personally. I think that cigarettes are far worse in the long run compared to weed.
It there were 33 types of man-eating carnivore in one forest and 43 in another, which would you choose? Trick question, the number of types is irrelevant. You would choose the forest with the lowest density of predators or with the least dangerous types.
I have no idea about what the comparative concentrations of these chemicals is in each option, or what the risk factors of those individual chemicals are, but I do know that the number of types of something does not indicate the density of that thing.
I'de say that there is a fair chance that the number of types of chemicals in cigarettes is greater because they have been being manufactured commercially for so long, so more chemicals may have been added to minimise the production cost, to improve the sensation of smoking or to maximising addictiveness. Cannabis on the other hand has not been streamlined for mass production and maximum profit, so just contains whatever is inside the natural plant.
I'm surprised that you say that cannabis does not produce carbon monoxide, since, in case you didn't realise, this is the product of incomplete combustion of carbon containing substances. It is what is produced instead of carbon dioxide when there isn't enough oxygen to react with the thing being burnt (they are identical molecules except that monoxide contains exactly half as much oxygen per molecule as dioxide). I would assume that incomplete combustion of carbon would be common for anything you smoke. This makes me slightly suspicious of some of your other claims TBH, but this is the only one I actually struggle to believe.