Drugs

[Mavsfan911]

Except for the fact no one in Montana is gonna wait that long to buy a pack of cigs...

[avi messika]

four day shipping from switzerland. For two dollars mre, it takes four to eight days. mine arrived in 5.

[ephiroll]

Cigarettes purchased in the US contain Nitrosamine, which is a known cancer causign agent. Its funny i guess, in retrospect. I am buying cigarettes to stay healthy, well, not really but you get what I am trying to say.

Don't bother, cigs from Europe are no better then then stateside cigs, the reason: Fertilizer used during the growing of the tobacco plant leaves residue in the leaves, when burned there's a chemical reaction that produces a short lived radioactive isotobe that you inhale with everything else into your lungs. It's the way that tobacco is grown that makes it so bad, the chemicals added by the companies don't help, but they aren't the entire story either and I seriously doubt there's enough of a difference to justify ordering cigs from another country.

www.acsa2000.net/HealthAlert/lungcancer.html

This is one of many links you can find on the subject, I normally use askjeeves.com to find articles like this

[XBL]

You shouldn't smoke at all, even if there wasn't anything chemical in it. The worst stuff in it are still nicotine and tar (...). Those chemical don't cause real illness, it's the nicotine and the tar (... again), which will give you cancer and yellow teeth.

Jochem

[ephiroll]

Nicotine and tar are the last things I would be worried about in a cigarette, especially if you smoke menthols, not only do they have the chemicals and such in them, but they also have fiberglass in them that physically tears up your lungs.

[The Industriallist]

Cigarettes purchased in the US contain Nitrosamine, which is a known cancer causign agent. Its funny i guess, in retrospect. I am buying cigarettes to stay healthy, well, not really but you get what I am trying to say.

Don't bother, cigs from Europe are no better then then stateside cigs, the reason: Fertilizer used during the growing of the tobacco plant leaves residue in the leaves, when burned there's a chemical reaction that produces a short lived radioactive isotobe that you inhale with everything else into your lungs.

Assuming you meant isotope...I can safely assure you that no chemical reaction creates an isotope that wasn't already present. That would be a nuclear reaction, which is rather different.

Reading your source, it sounds like the isotope is a contaminant in the chemical fertilizer used.

[ephiroll]

http://nepenthes.lycaeum.org/Drugs/THC/ ... r.rad.html

Here's a different version of the same info. But, thing is, the isotopes have nothing to do with contaminants. Any fertilizer that contains phospher compounds will have the same result.

There are literally hundreds of articles on this subject dating back to the early 80's.

[ephiroll]

I was digging up info to go into the real details and found this article that sums up everything I was about to type myself, minus the info on weed, that's just a nice bonus.

Sol Lightman

The following is the text of a pamphlet I wrote for an organization at UMASS amherst

It is an attempt to point out some of the absurdities in the marijuana-is-bad-for-you-like-cigarettes bullshit, as well as take a few cheap (but well aimed) shots at the tobacco industry. It is written from a pro-marijuana-relegalization perspective, and if you want a copy, mail us a Self Addressed Stamped Envelope. (we're poor.)

An address and some sources are at the end.

So, you thought it was the tar that caused cancer...

Think again. Cigarette companies will have you believing anything just as long as you continue to buy their products. The fact is, although insoluble tars are a contributing factor to the lung cancer danger present in today's cigarettes, the real danger is radioactivity. According to U.S. Surgeon General C. Everette Koop (on national television, 1990) radioactivity, not tar, accounts for at least 90% of all smoking related lung cancer. Tobacco crops grown in the United States are fertilized by law with phosphates rich in radium 226. In addition, many soils have a natural radium 226 content. Radium 226 breaks down into two long lived 'daughter' elements -- lead 210 and polonium 210. These radioactive particles become airborne, and attach themselves to the fine hairs on tobacco leaves.

Studies have shown that lead 210 and polonium 210 deposits accumulate in the bodies of people exposed to cigarette smoke. Data collected in the late 1970's shows that smokers have three times as much of these elements in their lower lungs as non smokers. Smokers also show a greater accumulation of lead 210 and polonium 210 in their skeletons,though no studies have been conducted to link these deposits with bone cancer. Polonium 210 is the only component of cigarette smoke which has produced tumors by itself in inhalation experiments with animals.

When a smoker inhales tobacco smoke, the lungs react by forming irritated areas in the bronchi. All smoke produces this effect. However, although these irritated spots are referred to as 'pre-cancerous' lesions, they are a perfectly natural defense system and usually go away with no adverse effects. Insoluble tars in tobacco smoke can slow this healing process by adhering to lesions and causing additional irritation. In addition, tobacco smoke causes the bronchi to constrict for long periods of time, which obstructs the lung's ability to clear itself of these residues.

Polonium 210 and lead 210 in tobacco smoke show a tendency to accumulate at lesions in specific spots, called bifurcations, in the bronchi. When smoking is continued for an extended period of time, deposits of radioactivity turn into radioactive 'hot spots' and remain at bifurcations for years. Polonium 210 emits highly localized alpha radiation which has been shown to cause cancer. Since the polonium 210 has a half life of 21.5 years (Due to the presence of lead 210), it can put an ex-smoker at risk for years after he or she quits. Experiments measuring the level of polonium 210 in victims of lung cancer found that the level of 'hot spot' activity was virtually the same in smokers and ex-smokers even though the ex-smokers had quit five years prior to death.

Over half of the radioactive materials emitted by a burning cigarette are released into the air, where they can be inhaled by non-smokers. In addition to lead 210 and polonium 210 it has been proven that tobacco smoke can cause airborne radioactive particles to collect in the lungs of both smokers and non-smokers exposed to second hand smoke. Original studies conducted on uranium miners which showed an increased risk of lung cancer due to exposure to radon in smokers have been re-run to evaluate the radioactive lung cancer risk from indoor air radon. It turns out that tobacco smoke works as a kind of 'magnet' for airborne radioactive particles, causing them to deposit in your lungs instead of on furniture. (Smoking indoors increases lung cancer risks greatly.)

It has been estimated that the total accumulated alpha radiation exposure of a pack-a-day indoor smoker is 38 to 97 rad by age 60. (Two packs a day yields up to 143 rad, and non-smokers receive no more than 17 rad.) An exposure of 1 rad per year yields a 1% risk of lung cancer (at the lowest estimate.)

Don't smoke. Or if you do, smoke lightly, outdoors, and engage frequently in activities which will clear your lungs. Imported India tobacco has less than half the radiation content of that grown in the U.S.

Kicking the nicotine habit is not easy, and nobody has the right to expect it of you. Often physical addictions are reinforced by emotional and psychological needs. Filling or coming to terms with those needs can give you the inspiration and added freedom to succeed.

Most of all, inform yourself, even if the information is disturbing. You are a lot less likely to be taken in by tobacco advertising once you know the facts.

Nicotine, the active ingredient in tobacco smoke, has long been known to be highly addictive. In fact, doctors and pharmacologists are not in consensus as to which is more addictive -- nicotine, or heroin. Physical addiction occurs when a chemical becomes essential for the body or metabolism to function. In other words, a substance is said to be physically addictive if extended use results in a build up of tolerance in the body to the extent that discontinuing use of the substance results in negative side effects. Called "withdrawal symptoms," these consequences can include anxiety, stress, trauma, depression and physical conditions such as shakes or nausea. It is to avoid these consequences that an addict will keep using his or her substance.

In addition to being addictive, nicotine is also a toxin (i.e.lethal if ingested in sufficient quantities.) Nicotine has been shown to have a negative effect on the heart and circulatory systems, causing a constriction in veins and arteries which may lead to a stroke or heart attack. In fact, nicotine is so poisonous that smokers who ignore their doctor's advice and continue to smoke while using dermal nicotine patches have managed to overdose and die of heart seizure.

Many people think smoking marijuana is just as harmful as smoking tobacco, but this is not true. Those who hold that marijuana is equivalent to tobacco are misinformed. Due to the efforts of various federal agencies to discourage use of marijuana in the 1970's the government, in a fit of "reefer madness," conducted several biased studies designed to return results that would equate marijuana smoking with tobacco smoking, or worse.

For example the Berkeley carcinogenic tar studies of the late 1970's concluded that "marijuana is one-and-a-half times as carcinogenic as tobacco." This finding was based solely on the tar content of cannabis leaves compared to that of tobacco, and did not take radioactivity into consideration. (Cannabis tars do not contain radioactive materials.) In addition, it was not considered that:

1) Most marijuana smokers smoke the bud, not the leaf, of the plant. The bud contains only 33% as much tar as tobacco.
2) Marijuana smokers do not smoke anywhere near as much as tobacco smokers, due to the psychoactive effects of cannabis.
3) Not one case of lung cancer has ever been successfully
linked to marijuana use.
4) Cannabis, unlike tobacco, does not cause any narrowing of
the small air passageways in the lungs.
In fact, marijuana has been shown to be an expectorant and
actually dilates the air channels it comes in contact with. This is why many asthma sufferers look to marijuana to provide relief. Doctors have postulated that marijuana may, in this respect, be more effective than all of the prescription drugs on the market.

Studies even show that due to marijuana's ability to clear the lungs of smog, pollutants, and cigarette smoke, it may actually reduce your risk of emphysema, bronchitis, and lung cancer. Smokers of cannabis have been shown to outlive non- smokers in some areas by up to two years. Medium to heavy tobacco smokers will live seven to ten years longer if they also smoke marijuana.

Cannabis is also radically different from tobacco in that it does not contain nicotine and is not addictive. The psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, THC, has been accused of causing brain and genetic damage, but these studies have all been disproven. In fact, the DEA's own Administrative Law Judge Francis Young has declared that "marijuana in its natural form is far safer than many foods we commonly consume."

The disturbing thing about all of this information is that the majority of Americans are as yet unaware of the radioactive risk in cigarettes. In fact, many professionals: doctors, scientists and health administrators, either have never heard of polonium 210 or consider it to be just another scare story.

Why is this information so hard to come by? When the studies were first released in the late 70's, many magazines were unable to print articles because their main advertisers, cigarette companies, threatened to pull support if they published the facts. Although network news did pick up the story, virtually nothing came out in print. Those who heard were hard pressed to produce collaborating evidence, and were eventually convinced it was nothing to worry about.

The power of the cigarette industry to suppress information goes far beyond magazines, however. A well financed tobacco lobby has been very active in the United States Congress for decades procuring subsidies and fighting laws and proposed research which could hurt the American tobacco industry. Tobacco interests practically own Senate and House seats, as many campaign contributions come from cigarette profits. Tobacco pay- offs also go to fund organizations such as the Partnership For A Drug Free America, which adopt a harsh anti-drug agenda yet seem to omit alcohol and tobacco (claiming they are harmless.)

As an example, a 1984 law which was intended to require tobacco companies to release to the public a list of additives used in the manufacture of cigarettes was watered down to the extent that the list is now released only to the Department of Health and Human Services on the condition that it not be shown to anyone else. Companies have been known in the past to add chemicals to cigarettes for flavor, and, many assert, for their addictive properties. In Britain such chemicals have included acetone and turpentine, as well as an assortment of known carcinogens.

Tobacco companies argue that revealing their 'secret ingredients' would hurt their competitiveness. In fact, when Canada passed legislation forcing additive lists to be released, one large company reformulated its recipe for its Canadian distribution; another took its product out of Canada entirely.

Tobacco companies do not have the right to poison the public. Don't trust them. Get the information you need to make your own decisions, and restore government to the people.

Another destructive aspect of the Drug War is the unreasonable measures taken as a result of "reefer madness." Because of the long standing anti-pot-smoking paranoia begun in the 1930's, many law enforcement agencies have taken it upon themselves to censor and limit the marijuana culture through whatever channels they can find. This includes the banning of various forms of drug "paraphernalia" (pipes, clips, rolling papers, etc.)

Water pipes, or "bongs," are quite often the target of such efforts. Claiming that water pipes are constructed to allow marijuana smokers to inhale "dangerous" marijuana smoke deeper into their lungs, many states and towns have passed laws controlling the sale, manufacture, and possession of these items for "health" reasons.

The sad fact is, water pipes have been shown to be extremely effective in removing harmful materials from smoke before it reaches the lungs. They also cool the smoke and prevent injury and irritation to lung passages. In effect, laws against water pipes hurt all smokers, cannabis and tobacco, by preventing the development of safer forms of consumption.

Produced as a public service by the University of Massachusetts at Amherst Cannabis Reform Coalition Researched and written by Brian S. Julin Corrections, comments, inquiries should be addressed to:

UMASS CANNABIS
S.A.O. Box #2
Student Union
UMASS Amherst, MA
01003

Sources:
(radioactivity)
o E.A. Martel, "Alpha Radiation Dose at Bronchial Bifurcations From Indoor Exposure to Radon Progeny", Proceeds of the National Academy of Science, Vol. 80, pp. 1285-1289, March 1983.
o Naoimi H. Harley, Beverly S. Cohen, and T.C. Tso, "Polonium 210:
A Questionable Risk Factor in Smoking Related Carcingenisis."
o "Radioactivity: the New-Found Danger in Cigarettes," Reader's
Digest, March 1986.
o "Would You Still Rather Fight Than Switch?," Whole Life Times,
Mid-April/May 1985.

(secret ingredients)

o "What Goes Up In Smoke?," Nation, December 23, 1991.

(marijuana)

o "The Emperor Wears No Clothes," Jack Herer, HEMP/Queen of Clubs
Publishing, 1992

More Research

Winters-TH, Franza-JR, Radioactivity in Cigarette Smoke,
New England Journal of Medicine, 1982;
306(6): 364-365 (reproduced w/o permission)

[The Industriallist]

Ok, simple fact stated even in all your sources:
The radioactivity comes from contaminants. Radium and polonium are not intentional or unavoidable ingredients of any fertilizer. Thus, it is not a result of 'phospher compounds', which contain only light atoms, that you have radioactive cigarettes, it's a result of the manufacturers of those fertilizers making a product that also contains radioactive gasses and heavy metals.

Not to say that cigarette companies, the government, and the people who smoke the stupid things aren't at fault to.

[ephiroll]

Radium is naturally absorbed from the ground and <i>also</i> is added to certain fertilizers, as clearly stated in in the article, lead 210 and polonium 210 are daughter isotopes released when radium breaks down, so if the ground the tobacco plant is grown in has radium present, it won't matter one way or another if the fertilizer does, the effect is the same.

This is a partial list of chemicals added by manufactures, I can't find a full list anywhere but these are the most common.

Known carcinogens:

Dimethylnitrosamine
Ethylmethylnitrosamine
Nitrosopyrrolidine
Hydrazine
Vinyl Chloride
Urethane
Formaldehyde

Other Toxic Agents:

Carbon Monoxide
Hydrogen Cyanide
Acrolein
Acetadehyde
Nitrogen oxides
Ammonia
Pyridine
Nitric acid
Mathylamine
Hydrogen cyanide
Indole
3-hydroxypyridine
3-vinylpyridine
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
1,3-Butadiene, mg
Nitrous acid
isoquioline
Isoamylamine
3-Cyanopyridine


This is a list of chemicals in second hand smoke and how much more of each that is in second hand smoke as compared to inhaled smoke.

Polonium-210--1 to 4 times
Benzo[a]pyrene--2.5 to 3.5 times
Hydrazine--3 times
1,3 butadiene--3 to 6 times
Benzene--5 to 10 times
N-nitrosopyrrolidine--6 to 30 times
Cadmium--7.2 times
Nickel--13 to 30 times
N-nitrosodimenthylamine--20 to 100 times
Aniline--30 times
2-Naphthylamine--30 times
4-Aminobiphenyl--31 times
N-nitrodiethylamine--up to 40 times

[ephiroll]

On a different note, here is a petition to have marijuana legalized that I ran across in all this research I'm doing today.

www.petitionspot.com/petitions/Legalizeit/signatures

[The Industriallist]

Radium is naturally absorbed from the ground and <i>also</i> is added to certain fertilizers, as clearly stated in in the article, lead 210 and polonium 210 are daughter isotopes released when radium breaks down, so if the ground the tobacco plant is grown in has radium present, it won't matter one way or another if the fertilizer does, the effect is the same.

I refer you to (from your own research):

Lives could be saved by simply changing fertilizers, they say... Almost 95% of the Lung Cancer caused by Cigarettes are allegedly the result of using calcium phosphate fertilizer to grow the Tobacco. The resulting Cigarettes bearing a combination of local Radon gasses and radioactive Polonium from the Tobacco leaves deposit a small dose of radioactive isotopes directly into a smoker's lungs as they smoke (or breath smoke laden air)!

The alpha emitters polonium-210 and lead-210 are highly concentrated on tobacco trichomes and insoluble particles in cigarette smoke (1). The major source of the polonium is phosphate fertilizer, which is used in growing tobacco. The trichomes of the leaves concentrate the polonium, which persists when tobacco is dried and processed.

I think it's quite clear where your sources fall on the problem of radioactive tobacco.

For bonus points:

About the only problem with Mr. Malmo-Levine's article is that the rise of the use of Calcium Phosphate Fertilizer among Mexican, South American and Hawaiian Marijuana growers is starting to cause a rise in Lung Cancer among Marijuana users that correlates with the statistical increase of CPF's use. But he makes an interesting point, because prior to the increased use of CPF by "pot growers", Lung Cancer from it's use was almost non-existent. This 'non-scientific' observation does make a serious point about Polonium's contribution.

Your marijuana seems to have the same problem, eh?

This is a partial list of chemicals added by manufactures, I can't find a full list anywhere but these are the most common.

Known carcinogens:

Dimethylnitrosamine
Ethylmethylnitrosamine
Nitrosopyrrolidine
Hydrazine
Vinyl Chloride
Urethane
Formaldehyde

Other Toxic Agents:

Carbon Monoxide
Hydrogen Cyanide
Acrolein
Acetadehyde
Nitrogen oxides
Ammonia
Pyridine
Nitric acid
Mathylamine
Hydrogen cyanide
Indole
3-hydroxypyridine
3-vinylpyridine
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
1,3-Butadiene, mg
Nitrous acid
isoquioline
Isoamylamine
3-Cyanopyridine

Funny, back here:

on't bother, cigs from Europe are no better then then stateside cigs, the reason: Fertilizer used during the growing of the tobacco plant leaves residue in the leaves, when burned there's a chemical reaction that produces a short lived radioactive isotobe that you inhale with everything else into your lungs. It's the way that tobacco is grown that makes it so bad, the chemicals added by the companies don't help, but they aren't the entire story either and I seriously doubt there's enough of a difference to justify ordering cigs from another country.

You clearly denegrate the idea of worrying about chemical additives. Ought to be consistant about that. Basically, you're throwing everything you can find, contradictory or not, to say "tobacco bad, pot good". Even if that's correct, which I doubt, your debating methods make your arguement less convincing.

This is a list of chemicals in second hand smoke and how much more of each that is in second hand smoke as compared to inhaled smoke.

Polonium-210--1 to 4 times
Benzo[a]pyrene--2.5 to 3.5 times
Hydrazine--3 times
1,3 butadiene--3 to 6 times
Benzene--5 to 10 times
N-nitrosopyrrolidine--6 to 30 times
Cadmium--7.2 times
Nickel--13 to 30 times
N-nitrosodimenthylamine--20 to 100 times
Aniline--30 times
2-Naphthylamine--30 times
4-Aminobiphenyl--31 times
N-nitrodiethylamine--up to 40 times

And of course, that means that most of the chemical released goes into the air, rather than the smoker or the cigarette. Any given second-hand smoke inhaler will only take in a small portion of that.

Just to be clear...I don't think cigarettes have any good uses, nor do I think they are safe. What I think is that 'people' should stop throwing deceptive statistics and skipping all the facts they don't like.

[Revanael]

Here's a good answer:

Tobacco bad, Weed bad.

[ephiroll]

Radium is naturally absorbed from the ground and <i>also</i> is added to certain fertilizers, as clearly stated in in the article, lead 210 and polonium 210 are daughter isotopes released when radium breaks down, so if the ground the tobacco plant is grown in has radium present, it won't matter one way or another if the fertilizer does, the effect is the same.

I refer you to (from your own research):

Lives could be saved by simply changing fertilizers, they say... Almost 95% of the Lung Cancer caused by Cigarettes are allegedly the result of using calcium phosphate fertilizer to grow the Tobacco. The resulting Cigarettes bearing a combination of local Radon gasses and radioactive Polonium from the Tobacco leaves deposit a small dose of radioactive isotopes directly into a smoker's lungs as they smoke (or breath smoke laden air)!

The alpha emitters polonium-210 and lead-210 are highly concentrated on tobacco trichomes and insoluble particles in cigarette smoke (1). The major source of the polonium is phosphate fertilizer, which is used in growing tobacco. The trichomes of the leaves concentrate the polonium, which persists when tobacco is dried and processed.

I think it's quite clear where your sources fall on the problem of radioactive tobacco.

I fail to see what point you're trying to make here, tobacco contains radioactive substances, period.

For bonus points:

About the only problem with Mr. Malmo-Levine's article is that the rise of the use of Calcium Phosphate Fertilizer among Mexican, South American and Hawaiian Marijuana growers is starting to cause a rise in Lung Cancer among Marijuana users that correlates with the statistical increase of CPF's use. But he makes an interesting point, because prior to the increased use of CPF by "pot growers", Lung Cancer from it's use was almost non-existent. This 'non-scientific' observation does make a serious point about Polonium's contribution.

Your marijuana seems to have the same problem, eh?

Depends on where it comes from, all the weed in the US doesn't come from mexico, South america and hawaii. <i>Every</i> plant soaks up radium from the ground if present, and any plant can soak up any residue fertilizers present, we get a does of the same stuff anytime we eat vegetables.

This is a partial list of chemicals added by manufactures, I can't find a full list anywhere but these are the most common.

Known carcinogens:

Dimethylnitrosamine
Ethylmethylnitrosamine
Nitrosopyrrolidine
Hydrazine
Vinyl Chloride
Urethane
Formaldehyde

Other Toxic Agents:

Carbon Monoxide
Hydrogen Cyanide
Acrolein
Acetadehyde
Nitrogen oxides
Ammonia
Pyridine
Nitric acid
Mathylamine
Hydrogen cyanide
Indole
3-hydroxypyridine
3-vinylpyridine
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
1,3-Butadiene, mg
Nitrous acid
isoquioline
Isoamylamine
3-Cyanopyridine

Funny, back here:

on't bother, cigs from Europe are no better then then stateside cigs, the reason: Fertilizer used during the growing of the tobacco plant leaves residue in the leaves, when burned there's a chemical reaction that produces a short lived radioactive isotobe that you inhale with everything else into your lungs. It's the way that tobacco is grown that makes it so bad, the chemicals added by the companies don't help, but they aren't the entire story either and I seriously doubt there's enough of a difference to justify ordering cigs from another country.

You clearly denegrate the idea of worrying about chemical additives. Ought to be consistant about that. Basically, you're throwing everything you can find, contradictory or not, to say "tobacco bad, pot good". Even if that's correct, which I doubt, your debating methods make your arguement less convincing.

Now you're making assumptions. The point I was trying to make is that there are so many bad things in tobacco worrying about a few chemicals is pointless. And I've never said "tobacco bad, pot good", what I say is "tobacco bad, pot not <i>as</i> bad".

This is a list of chemicals in second hand smoke and how much more of each that is in second hand smoke as compared to inhaled smoke.

Polonium-210--1 to 4 times
Benzo[a]pyrene--2.5 to 3.5 times
Hydrazine--3 times
1,3 butadiene--3 to 6 times
Benzene--5 to 10 times
N-nitrosopyrrolidine--6 to 30 times
Cadmium--7.2 times
Nickel--13 to 30 times
N-nitrosodimenthylamine--20 to 100 times
Aniline--30 times
2-Naphthylamine--30 times
4-Aminobiphenyl--31 times
N-nitrodiethylamine--up to 40 times

And of course, that means that most of the chemical released goes into the air, rather than the smoker or the cigarette. Any given second-hand smoke inhaler will only take in a small portion of that.

Yeah, most, but someone nearby only needs to inhale a small amount to get the same dose that the smoker gets from sucking down a whole cigarette.

Just to be clear...I don't think cigarettes have any good uses, nor do I think they are safe. What I think is that 'people' should stop throwing deceptive statistics and skipping all the facts they don't like.

Statistics speak for themselves. Millions have died from complications caused from cigarettes, if you can find one case in which pot was directly responsible for a death I'd like to know where to find it.

[The Industriallist]

I fail to see what point you're trying to make here, tobacco contains radioactive substances, period.

The point I'm trying to make here is that that isn't what the sources you've provided say. In fact, that's nearly the opposite. What they say is tobacco farmed with the particular heavy-metal rich fertilizer used can collect certain radioactive isotopes on its surface, and then when burned creates highly radioactive insoluable particles that concentrate the effect.

There is nothing even remotely suggesting that tobacco is inherently radioactive, and I'd be laughing really hard if there was...It's remotely possible to selectively uptake radioactives, but it has no evolutionary use I can imagine and isotopic selectivity is very difficult. And even then it could only be radioactive if it had access to radioisotopes to absorb.

This is a list of chemicals in second hand smoke and how much more of each that is in second hand smoke as compared to inhaled smoke.

Polonium-210--1 to 4 times
Benzo[a]pyrene--2.5 to 3.5 times
Hydrazine--3 times
1,3 butadiene--3 to 6 times
Benzene--5 to 10 times
N-nitrosopyrrolidine--6 to 30 times
Cadmium--7.2 times
Nickel--13 to 30 times
N-nitrosodimenthylamine--20 to 100 times
Aniline--30 times
2-Naphthylamine--30 times
4-Aminobiphenyl--31 times
N-nitrodiethylamine--up to 40 times

And of course, that means that most of the chemical released goes into the air, rather than the smoker or the cigarette. Any given second-hand smoke inhaler will only take in a small portion of that.

Yeah, most, but someone nearby only needs to inhale a small amount to get the same dose that the smoker gets from sucking down a whole cigarette.

Assumptions...what percentage of the smoke released by a cigarette is inhaled by a given person? I think it's less than you think. And the radioactives are only a maximum of 4 times as much released as delivered to the main smoker. I doubt anyone can suck up a quarter of the second-handable smoke.

Just to be clear...I don't think cigarettes have any good uses, nor do I think they are safe. What I think is that 'people' should stop throwing deceptive statistics and skipping all the facts they don't like.

Statistics speak for themselves. Millions have died from complications caused from cigarettes, if you can find one case in which pot was directly responsible for a death I'd like to know where to find it.

OK...again, you ought to read the sources you site better. Your sources actually say (in one case) that pot grown the way tobacco is causes lung cancer! All of them say that by removing the radioactive fertilizers might be enough to nearly eliminate tobacco-related deaths.

I'm much too lazy to look for my own statistics. Bring your own so I can take shots at them.