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 "Radiactivity: 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 Reasearch
Winters-TH, Franza-JR, Radioactivity in Cigarette Smoke,
New England Journal of Medicine, 1982;
306(6): 364-365 (reproduced w/o permission)
To the Editor: During the 17 years since the Surgeon General's first report on smoking, intense research activity has been focused on the carcinogenic potential of the tar component of cigarette smoke. Only one definite chmical carcinogen -- benzopyrene --
(typist note: He was later corrected on this "fact")
has been found. Conspicuous because of its absence is research
into the role of the radioactive component of cigarette smoke.
The alpha emitters polonium-210 and lead-210 are highly con-
centrated 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 con- centrate
the polonium, which persists when tobacco is dried and processed.
Levels of Po-210 were measured in cigarette smoke
by Radford and Hunt (2) and in the bronchial epithelium of smokers and
nonsmokers by Little et al. (3) After inhalation, ciliary action
causes the insoluble radioactive particles to accumulate at the bifurcation
of segmental bronchi, a common site of origin of bronchogenic carcinomas.
In a person smoking 1 1/2 packs of cigarettes per
day, the radia-tion dose to the bronchial epithelium in areas of bifurcation
is 8000 mrem per year -- the equivalent of the dose to the skin from 300
x-ray films of the chest per year. This figure is comparable to total-
body exposure to natural background radiation containing 80 mrem per year
in someone living in the Boston area.
It is a common practive to assume that the exposure
received from a radiation source is distributed throughout a tissue.
In this way, a high level of exposure in a localized region -- e.g. bronchial
epithelium -- is averaged out over the entire tissue mass, suggest- ing
a low level of exposure. However, alpha particles have a range of
only 40 um in the body. A cell nucleus of 5 to 6 um that is traversed
by a single alpha particle receives a dose of 1000 rems. Thus, although
the total tissue dose might be considered negligible, cells close to an
alpha source receive high doses. The Po-210 alpha activity of cigarette
smoke may be a very effective carcinogen if a multiple mutation mechanism
is involved.
Radford and Hunt have determined that 75 per cent
of the alpha activity of cigarette smoke enters the ambient air and is
unab- sorbed by the smoker, (2) making it available for deposit in the
lungs of others. Little et al. have measured levels of Po-210 in
the lungs of nonsmokers that may not be accounted for on the basis of natural
exposure to this isotope. The detrimental effects of tobacco
smoke have been considerably underestimated, making it less likely that
chemical carcinogens alone are responsible for the observed incidence of
tobacco-related carcinoma. Alpha emitters in cigarette smoke result
in appreciable radiation exposure to the bronchial epithelium of smokers
and probably secondhand smokers. Alpha radiation is a possible etio-
logic factor in tobacco-related carcinoma, and it deserves further study.
Thomas H. Winters, M.D.
Joseph R. Di Franza, M.D.
University of Massachesetts
Worcester, Ma 01605
Medical Center
1. Mertell EA. Radioactivity of tobacco trichomes and insoluble
cigarette
smoke particles. Nature. 1974; 249:215-7.
2. Radford EP Jr, Hunt VR. Polonum-210: a volatile radioelement
in cig-
arettes. Science. 1964; 143:247-9
3. Little JB, Radford EP Jr, McCombs HL, Hunt VR. Distribution
of po-
lonium-210 in pulmonary tissues of cigarette smokers.
N Engl J Med.
1965; 273:1343-51.
This letter was followed up by 5 letters which appear to support Winters and Di Franza and 2 letters which appear to not support them. I'm not about to type all those in along with the author's rebuttal, however. Check out NEJM 307(5):309-313.
--
Lamont Granquist
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brief Prepared by UMASS CANNABIS verdant@titan.ucs.umass.edu
This page was originally archived in the Hyperreal Drug Archives. Hosted by Erowid as of Oct 1999.