CannabisTours.com – Cannabis Hospitality Done Right. #StayHighFam

How Cannabis Smoke Is Different Than All Other Smokes (Part 1: Tobacco Vs Cannabis)

Cannabis Smoke

It’s VERY tempting to believe that ALL “smoke” is created equally.

With all the information and misinformation flowing around it can be easy to get lost in a sea of information overload.

As a general honest person if you were to believe harm will come to your body, via burning and inhaling any substance’s smoke, you would “technically” be a reasonable person.

I mean. Come on.

As we begin to dig in, we’ll be attempting to “attack” cannabis by getting to the bottom of the truth about cannabis smoke.

The main question we will be tackling in this article is:

 

How is cannabis smoke different from ALL other types of substances you set on fire and inhale?

 

More specifically, is cannabis smoke different from the following smoke:

Naturally you wouldn’t be grinding a pinch of; coal, gasoline or nuclear waste, and put in a pipe for a nice relaxing smoke.

However, with the way we humans produce energy and are exploring the universe, some of our methods are leaving traces of exhaust and fumes in the atmosphere for everyone to be exposed to.

We’re here today to both “redeem cannabis” and also add the “burning of cannabis herb” to the list of things that will actually “reverse” the damage already created by all other forms of smoke.

Part 1: Tobacco Vs Cannabis

How is cannabis smoke specifically different from tobacco smoke?

Inhaling tobacco smoke kills close to half a million people a year & inhaling cannabis smoke kills zero people in all known history.

What is so VASTLY different between these two types of smoke that one causes death and the other causing life?

 

What specifically makes tobacco smoke cause so much death while cannabis smoke causes no death?

Originally, we used to think the tar that tobacco would deposit into your lungs via smoking, was what triggered lung cancer and death.

Now we know this is not true.

No matter if you’re pouring high tar cigarettes into your lungs or low tar cigarettes, it’s all the same.

Whether you have a little bit of tar in your lungs or a LOT of tobacco tar, you’re still going to be receiving the exact same dose of radiation from the tobacco smoke.

The truth is tobacco smoke has radiation in it (“polonium-210” among several other radioactive elements). [2]

Tobacco smoke is radioactive and once it gets inside your lungs it will BLAST your body from the inside, with cancer causing radiation.

Disturbingly, only 50% of the radioactive smoke gets absorbed by the lungs of the person smoking the tobacco.

The other half of the smoke goes out into the surrounding environment and delivers an equivalent dose of radiation to all those who are within immediate reach of the radioactivity.

Thus causing radioactive cancer to both the smoker and the victims in the environment.

How does tobacco get radioactive particles in it?

As the tobacco farmers grow the tobacco, they’re using a radioactive “organic phosphate fertiliser” to give the vegetation “proper” nutrients.

The tobacco plant is absorbing the radioactivity from the phosphates used as fertiliser to promote “healthy” plant growth.

These radioactive phosphates get absorbed by the tobacco because tobacco has a unique absorption pattern.

This unique absorption pattern allows the tobacco plant to absorb a wide range of radioactive elements from the “organic” rock phosphates.

To satisfy the technical minds, tobacco absorbs the following radioactive elements from organic rock phosphates:

Radioactive tobacco is what gets put into the cigarettes and are sold worldwide.

When the smoke gets inhaled you’ll receive an intense radioactivity dose.

After inhaling, the smoker proceeds to exhale the radioactive smoke, which sends 50% of the smoke radiation out into the surrounding environment for others to be HIT with.

Once the radioactive smoke is in the environment, those within range will also receive a similar radioactive dose and take on the same amount of harm as the smoker did, but unaware.

How do we know that the radioactive elements in the tobacco smoke is actually causing damage and not just the tar or heat?

Stated by a radiochemist (chemistry of radioactive materials) Dr. Edward Martell goes on to say that, “enough polonium-210 (polonium is a radioactive chemical metal) alpha radiation exists in tobacco for the polonium alone to be the cause of at least 95% of lung cancer in tobacco smokers.”

Dr. Edward Martell goes on to explain that, “In Addition to the polonium causing up to, or more than, nine out of ten cases of lung cancer, the evidence demonstrates radiation as cause to all carcinosis (cancer) in humans.” [2]

This is true because the “same” amount of people die from high tar cigarettes as do low tar cigarettes. [1]

No matter how much tar you’re putting into your lungs, you’re still receiving about the same amount of radioactive particles inside your body.

What causes cancer from tobacco is not the “chemicals” found in the actual vegetative “smoke-tar” but the radioactivity.

It is the radioactivity from polonium-210 that is the cause of 95% of all cancers from tobacco.

Does cannabis have radioactive phosphates in it?

Right now, the answer is probably not.

As time moves forwards and the cannabis community gets bigger and bigger, there could be a foreseeable unfavorable situation that could allow inappropriate “things” to be “forced” inside our sacred cannabis plant.

Situations where big cannabis companies could start “tinkering” with their grow operations to maximize production.

This is why it is more important now than ever before to get properly educated about cannabis growing methods, testing purities, and knowing how the cannabis was grown and how it was cultivated.

The risk we all have to take is not knowing we don’t’ know if something “wonky” is going on in the cannabis community.

It’s up to us to keep an eye on ourselves and not rely on corporations or governments to monitor, or tinker, with our sacred cannabis plant.

Part 2: All Other Smoke Vs Cannabis

 

[1] U.S. National Institute of health study, Lancet, Sept., 1983

[2] http://palgrave.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v304/n1/full/scientificamerican0111-78.html

Exit mobile version