How come we never become completely used to cannabis smoke?

[NextLineIsMine]

After you have smoked a pack or so of cigarettes there is no longer an urge to cough, you simply become used to it. Yet I have smoked cannabis for years and still cough even on small hits sometimes. Even 20 year veterans still cough a bit hitting a little spoon. Why do we never become accustomed to the smoke?

[Matt the Funk]

I don't cough, unless I take TOO large of a hit. I'm sure that's when you cough too. Or if i'm unprepared. When I say too large the smoke has filled my lungs is filling my throat and starting to fill my mouth. Then I exhale and cough a lot.

[Jaerl]

Well, i would be lieing if i said i never cough anymore. But i only do if i take hits 1 after another really fast whe it's rollin' hardcore.

[birdgirl73]

Tobacco smoke is not heavier. Weed smoke contains about twice as much tar and double the amount of other carcinogenic components as a comparable amount of tobacco smoke, plus it's not filtered to the same degree. That's why you still cough.

This is one of those topics that causes constant confusion among cannabis advocates because it's a bit of a paradox. Cannabis smoke is dirtier than tobacco smoke (proven repeatedly in tests) yet it actually does less harm since a) people smoke less of it and b) THC and the other cannabinoids have a protective effect.

Google "carcinogens in marijuana" and you can read all about it for yourself.

[Matt the Funk]

The smoke irritates my throat more than anything. Doesn't bother my lungs and I think it feels really good.

[Nochowderforyou]

I think it's because we don't smoke as much as tobacco smokers. A smoker smokes like, what, 10-15 smokes a day, sometimes a full pack of 24 smokes. If you take a cannabis smoker who smokes 24, cigg. sized joints a day, I think they would get used to it.

I'm guessing there's about 1.5-2g's of compacted tobacco in each smoke, so do the same with weed everyday, I think you would become very used to it and not cough anymore.

I couldn't imagine smoke 24, 2gram sized joints everyday.

[zalami128]

Grit smokers cough a GANG are you guys trippin? Seriously grit smokers who blaze herb cough the most. ive smoked nothing but herb (lot of blunt tobacco atleast) every day for well over a year. For months at a time I would go only coughing once or twice in the week. Some weeks a smokers cough kicks in from all the blunts.

Around here atleast ganjaheads dont seem to hack half as much as a tobacco fiend

[affasd]

i rarely cough, i dont smoke cigs, only thing that consistently makes me cough is my friends steamer

[Breukelen advocaat]

i've heard for years that the biggest danger of modern tobacco is the fact that it contains Polonium 210, a radioactive substance found in fertilizers.

NEW YORK TIMES

December 1, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor

Puffing on Polonium
By ROBERT N. PROCTOR
Stanford, Calif.

WHEN the former K.G.B. agent Alexander V. Litvinenko was found to have been poisoned by radioactive polonium 210 last week, there was one group that must have been particularly horrified: the tobacco industry.

The industry has been aware at least since the 1960s that cigarettes contain significant levels of polonium. Exactly how it gets into tobacco is not entirely understood, but uranium â??daughter productsâ?� naturally present in soils seem to be selectively absorbed by the tobacco plant, where they decay into radioactive polonium. High-phosphate fertilizers may worsen the problem, since uranium tends to associate with phosphates. In 1975, Philip Morris scientists wondered whether the secret to tobacco growersâ?? longevity in the Caucasus might be that farmers there avoided phosphate fertilizers.

How much polonium is in tobacco? In 1968, the American Tobacco Company began a secret research effort to find out. Using precision analytic techniques, the researchers found that smokers inhale an average of about .04 picocuries of polonium 210 per cigarette. The company also found, no doubt to its dismay, that the filters being considered to help trap the isotope were not terribly effective. (Disclosure: Iâ??ve served as a witness in litigation against the tobacco industry.)

A fraction of a trillionth of a curie (a unit of radiation named for poloniumâ??s discoverers, Marie and Pierre Curie) may not sound like much, but remember that weâ??re talking about a powerful radionuclide disgorging alpha particles â?? the most dangerous kind when it comes to lung cancer â?? at a much higher rate even than the plutonium used in the bomb dropped on Nagasaki. Polonium 210 has a half life of about 138 days, making it thousands of times more radioactive than the nuclear fuels used in early atomic bombs.

We should also recall that people smoke a lot of cigarettes â?? about 5.7 trillion worldwide every year, enough to make a continuous chain from the earth to the sun and back, with enough left over for a few side-trips to Mars. If .04 picocuries of polonium are inhaled with every cigarette, about a quarter of a curie of one of the worldâ??s most radioactive poisons is inhaled along with the tar, nicotine and cyanide of all the worldâ??s cigarettes smoked each year. Pack-and-a-half smokers are dosed to the tune of about 300 chest X-rays.

Is it therefore really correct to say, as Britainâ??s Health Protection Agency did this week, that the risk of having been exposed to this substance remains low? That statement might be true for whatever particular supplies were used to poison Mr. Litvinenko, but consider also this: Londonâ??s smokers (and those Londoners exposed to secondhand smoke), taken as a group, probably inhale more polonium 210 on any given day than the former spy ingested with his sushi.

No one knows how many people may be dying from the polonium part of tobacco. There are hundreds of toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke, and itâ??s hard to sort out how much one contributes compared to another â?? and interactive effects can be diabolical.

In a sense, it doesnâ??t really matter. Taking one toxin out usually means increasing another â?? one reason â??lightsâ?� donâ??t appear to be much safer. What few experts will dispute is the magnitude of the hazard: the World Health Organization estimates that 10 million people will be dying annually from cigarettes by the year 2020 â?? a third of these in China. Cigarettes, which claimed about 100 million lives in the 20th century, could claim close to a billion in the present century.

The tobacco industry of course doesnâ??t like to have attention drawn to the more exotic poisons in tobacco smoke. Arsenic, cyanide and nicotine, bad enough. But radiation? As more people learn more about the secrets hidden in the golden leaf, it may become harder for the industry to align itself with candy and coffee â?? and harder to maintain, as we often hear in litigation, that the dangers of tobacco have long been â??common knowledge.â?� I suspect that even some of our more enlightened smokers will be surprised to learn that cigarette smoke is radioactive, and that these odd fears spilling from a poisoned K.G.B. man may be molehills compared with our really big cancer mountains.

Robert N. Proctor is a professor of the history of science at Stanford University.
Puffing on Polonium - New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/opinion/01proctor.html?ex=1322629200&en=4ee500d70a3216dc&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

[A Scanner Darkly]

The smoke irritates my throat more than anything. Doesn't bother my lungs and I think it feels really good.

That's so exactly how I feel (but didn't know fully until just now). Kills my throat, nearly every time still, but my lungs feel awesome.

[scotteh]

i've heard for years that the biggest danger of modern tobacco is the fact that it contains Polonium 210, a radioactive substance found in fertilizers.

NEW YORK TIMES

December 1, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor

Puffing on Polonium
By ROBERT N. PROCTOR
Stanford, Calif.

WHEN the former K.G.B. agent Alexander V. Litvinenko was found to have been poisoned by radioactive polonium 210 last week, there was one group that must have been particularly horrified: the tobacco industry.

The industry has been aware at least since the 1960s that cigarettes contain significant levels of polonium. Exactly how it gets into tobacco is not entirely understood, but uranium â??daughter productsâ?� naturally present in soils seem to be selectively absorbed by the tobacco plant, where they decay into radioactive polonium. High-phosphate fertilizers may worsen the problem, since uranium tends to associate with phosphates. In 1975, Philip Morris scientists wondered whether the secret to tobacco growersâ?? longevity in the Caucasus might be that farmers there avoided phosphate fertilizers.

How much polonium is in tobacco? In 1968, the American Tobacco Company began a secret research effort to find out. Using precision analytic techniques, the researchers found that smokers inhale an average of about .04 picocuries of polonium 210 per cigarette. The company also found, no doubt to its dismay, that the filters being considered to help trap the isotope were not terribly effective. (Disclosure: Iâ??ve served as a witness in litigation against the tobacco industry.)

A fraction of a trillionth of a curie (a unit of radiation named for poloniumâ??s discoverers, Marie and Pierre Curie) may not sound like much, but remember that weâ??re talking about a powerful radionuclide disgorging alpha particles â?? the most dangerous kind when it comes to lung cancer â?? at a much higher rate even than the plutonium used in the bomb dropped on Nagasaki. Polonium 210 has a half life of about 138 days, making it thousands of times more radioactive than the nuclear fuels used in early atomic bombs.

We should also recall that people smoke a lot of cigarettes â?? about 5.7 trillion worldwide every year, enough to make a continuous chain from the earth to the sun and back, with enough left over for a few side-trips to Mars. If .04 picocuries of polonium are inhaled with every cigarette, about a quarter of a curie of one of the worldâ??s most radioactive poisons is inhaled along with the tar, nicotine and cyanide of all the worldâ??s cigarettes smoked each year. Pack-and-a-half smokers are dosed to the tune of about 300 chest X-rays.

Is it therefore really correct to say, as Britainâ??s Health Protection Agency did this week, that the risk of having been exposed to this substance remains low? That statement might be true for whatever particular supplies were used to poison Mr. Litvinenko, but consider also this: Londonâ??s smokers (and those Londoners exposed to secondhand smoke), taken as a group, probably inhale more polonium 210 on any given day than the former spy ingested with his sushi.

No one knows how many people may be dying from the polonium part of tobacco. There are hundreds of toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke, and itâ??s hard to sort out how much one contributes compared to another â?? and interactive effects can be diabolical.

In a sense, it doesnâ??t really matter. Taking one toxin out usually means increasing another â?? one reason â??lightsâ?� donâ??t appear to be much safer. What few experts will dispute is the magnitude of the hazard: the World Health Organization estimates that 10 million people will be dying annually from cigarettes by the year 2020 â?? a third of these in China. Cigarettes, which claimed about 100 million lives in the 20th century, could claim close to a billion in the present century.

The tobacco industry of course doesnâ??t like to have attention drawn to the more exotic poisons in tobacco smoke. Arsenic, cyanide and nicotine, bad enough. But radiation? As more people learn more about the secrets hidden in the golden leaf, it may become harder for the industry to align itself with candy and coffee â?? and harder to maintain, as we often hear in litigation, that the dangers of tobacco have long been â??common knowledge.â?� I suspect that even some of our more enlightened smokers will be surprised to learn that cigarette smoke is radioactive, and that these odd fears spilling from a poisoned K.G.B. man may be molehills compared with our really big cancer mountains.

Robert N. Proctor is a professor of the history of science at Stanford University.
Puffing on Polonium - New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/opinion/01proctor.html?ex=1322629200&en=4ee500d70a3216dc&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

nice find. makes me never EVER want to smoke another cigg again :thumbsup:

[suhl]

try hitting tobacco out of a pipe one. although people do get used to it. i always wondered how with all the carcinegons in weed it simply doesnt cause cancer

[rebgirl420]

i dont mind coughing, when you cough wayyyy too hard you know its working haha

[Ganj]

I hate coughing. I imagine I was smoking a peace pipe and by coughing I only do the drug shame. Basically, I try to keep it peaceful and not get too greedy before I light up.

[robert42]

i dont feel weed go dwon my throat

but cigs burn lol