One joint = 4 cigarettes

It's often said that smoking one joint is equivalent to smoking 4 cigarettes, as far as tar goes. For the record, I wanted to post this, because I'm sick of stoners here saying it/asking about it.

This is not true. Back in the 1970s when they did the test, they used shitty quality weed from a police seizure, that was mostly leaves, then compared it to tobacco. The tar levels were about 4 times higher in the marijuana leaf joints.

Thing is, most pot smokers smoke the buds, not the leaves. The buds are far lower in tar. Hit for hit, the two (cannabis and tobacco) are basically equivalent in tar.

Same goes for potency. Potency has not increased in the dramatic way the anti-druggers always say. Again, the tests used shitty weed. Better sampling done in the early 1980's, compared to today's weed, shows no major change in potency.

Anyways, more potent weed is healthier, because you need to smoke less to get high. So you're actually doing your lungs a favor. Keeping in mind that your lungs are really the only body part that is at all adversely affected by smoking weed.

Here's a cool website with a bunch of marijuana myths debunked.
http://www.ccguide.org.uk/safety.php

 

For one... present day marijuana smokers are holding in the hit much more than a ciggaret smoker would hold in their smoke..

2.. the potency has GREATLY increased from the 70s to today.. notice how its not brown and shitty? lol. In the 60s, the THC levels in the cannabis was about 1-4%, it has now been recorded over 20, even 30 to 40%. Potency doesnt solve the tar issue though..

3.. you are right about the buds and leaves difference, the buds contain much higher levels of THC than the leaves, although I was under the influence that people have always been smoking the buds... but whatever you say =)

 

notice? sorry but none of us here were around in the 60's, smoking pot that wasnt some stuff a hippy grew in their backyard accidentally.

youre 15, how can you comment on the weed smoked over 40 years ago?

and for point 3, well I didnt see where trippin mentioned at all people smoking leaves, in fact, he said "Thing is, most pot smokers smoke the buds, not the leaves"

the reference the police seizure being mostly leaves is that, if youve ever seen any picture of a cannabis plant, youll see that most of the plant is leaves and stems, and not bud.

however some cheap people, or old people just looking for some tiny buzz smoke leaves

 

Jesus... watch the movie 'Grass', and you'll see plenty of the shit people used to smoke, or watch any Woodstock documentary...

Typo... meant to say "your right, the buds do contain higher amounts of THC than the leaves"...my bad

 

Thanks for the link. Very useful.

 

1, you're right, we do hold the smoke longer, but the point is tar levels in the smoke are the same. Besides, tar doesn't cause problems as much with pot smokers. First, cancer is mostly caused by radioactive elements (not tar) in tobacco smoke, which are not in marijuana. Second, marijuana affects the larger airways, rather than the small lung passages like tobacco does...this makes it far easier to clear the lungs of whatever tars do stay in. Also, marijuana actually dilates lung passages, unlike tobacco which constricts them (trapping the tars with the radioactive shit).

2, The potency has not increased that much, didn't you read my post? That lie is based on the fact that they did the testing on shitty Mexican brickweed that had been stashed in some hot police locker, where the quality degraded to unsmokable levels of about 0.5% THC. Better study shows a slight increase of potency during the 70's, then holding steady afterwards. Remember, they had good weed back then too: Alcapolco Gold, Panama Red, Purple Haze. Just like today, there was dank and there was schwagg. And most of the weed we smoke is not "over 20, even 30 to 40%" those are generally rare strains from the Cannabis Cup competitions and such. Most weed we get is between 3 and 10%.

and 3, yes, people smoke the buds, but the police tested the leaves and stems.

 

I highly doubt that thc is what makes mj greener. Wouldn't that chlorophill?
but i don't know this has always been a mystery - why prettier bud has more thc, i mean, to me thc is what gets you high. So, i don't see how it influences the shape of the nugs. But if it has more crystals, i see that.

 

I havent looked at the website. The number one myths that ive seen are answers to myths. Is there any actual proof besides this guy just spewing out his ass that the marijuana had sat in a locker for awhile? To me, these things cant be proven, because the people who were there probably dont even remember.

Marijuana does look a lot nicer now than from the 70's. As someone said just watch grass. You see no green marijuana in that entire movie, its all tobacco looking shit. I dont think there is any question if marijuana is more potent now or not, of course it is. There have been so many advancements in growing technology you are bound to get more potent bud than fourty years ago. Strains have been worked on, made better, etc. Although I dont know, but from what ive seen, the 60's and 70's were really the beginning in marijuana cultivation and obviously advancements have been made since then.

The reason, atleast what I would think, that prettier bud has more thc is because its grown in better conditions, harvested at the perfect time, and then dried properly. No doubt about it though, some of the best looking and smelling bud can be the shittiest, and some of the worst looking bud can be great.

 

No its not more potent, ive smoked with several old skool stoners in their 40s and 50s.... They all say it is the same, its just EASIER to get more high potent stuff these days. Back then I have heard stories of driving across the entire state just to pick up an ounce of mid. People didnt deal as much as they do now, so people wasnt open to the option of several types of weed. If you had one dealer within 20 miles and he sold shitty semi ok weeed, but that was all the weed you had, then you would smoke it. That was the case back then... it just wasnt as many dealers out there as there are now...

 

I always heard that one J was equal to 10 cigs.

 

Actually, its 5 ciggs, your all wrong, cus my propaganda is better than your propaganda.

My mom was never a stoner, she only smoked a handful of times, but she was around it a good deal. She told me that the pot back in the day looked nothing like what we get today. All the stuff she ever saw was schwag, she never really saw nugs. So what was widely available back then wasn't as nice as most of the stuff we have now. Thats not to say that our stuff is 30 times more potent though. I mean, yeah, there are super potent strains of "Purple Kush x AK x yourmom" but good luck finding that. I doubt that most of the KB and Dro (or at least what everyone calls KB and Dro) thats available today is a whole lot more potent than the nugs that were around back in the day, just that the nugs back in the day weren't as easy to get.

 

The weed is still more potent today. You said it yourself. It was possible to get, but not very. It existed, but it wasnt main stream. Where today, the main stream marijuana is more potent, and there for it can be said that todays general weed is more potent.

People get jumbled up on the idea of more potent weed. Its not like saying theyre sitting there genetically making the weed more potent, its grown in better, more stable conditions. Prime conditions. Which it most likely wasnt back in the day.

 

Back in the day schwag was around more, but there was still amazing bud to be had. Now with better growing methods and what not higher quality bud is available to more people. That doesn't mean the bud is more potent, just that there is more of the good stuff going around.

As the original poster pointed out, the tests are always done on either leaf or EXTREMELY low quality bud material, I've said this many times here on Hipforums. This FACT alone really discredits ANY findings. Until they start doing tests on half way decent bud nobody should even pay attention to them.

Same thing with the "tests" which concluded that a Bong is the most inefficient way of smoking because more THC is filtered out than other things. Other than the fact that they too were using horribly low quality marijuana they also totally ignored the various gases filtered out by water, and there were no actual applications of the test. The fact is, how high you get depends on how much THC you get in a short period of time. You will be higher taking a given amount in one hit, instead of 4-5 for example.

You want to get high, a Bong is the best way. It allows you to take the most smoke in one hit, meaning you get higher. And despite any bullshit studies it DOES filter out TONS of shit. Hit your bong with a measured amount of weed with no water, and put a paper towel over the mouthpiece. Now use the same amount and put the water back in. Without the water there is way more tar and other shit going into your lungs.