Kasz216 said:
All of them. They are just have different definitions of light, moderate and heavy. For example, one study that says it isn't as bad, compares someone who smokes pot 3 times a month, with someone who smokes 20 cigarretes a day. However said report also notes that extreme users suddenly face a sharp increase in cancer. Lamenting the fact that they couldn't find more prominent users. Moderate users were listed as smoking Marijuana 3 times a month. What do you think the increase of cancer would be for someone who smokes 6-9 cigarretes a month? (assuming 2-3 joints unless your a lightweight.) In general 3 times a month seems way to light to me. 2-3 times a week seems more common to me... and I know a decent number of people who smoke every day usually after work or right before bed, and more people that would if they could afford it/weren't beholden to "drug dealer time". (I imagine people who use it medically do so?) I imagine once legalized it would cheapen up quite a bit even with the federal tax, since the stuff is cheap as hell to grow and if you taxed it too high you'd defeat half the purpose of legalizing it. For Heavy use to be 4 times a month and higher... is there really any wonder such studies wouldn't find much cancer risk anyware? I wouldn't even consider someone who smokes 4 times a month to actually be a regular user. More a social user, like someone who only drinks 3-4 times a month with friends, Or a guy who only smokes when he's at bars. |
Ok I get that now. Still, effectively there's still a far lower health risk since most people don't smoke that much seeing as that study didn't find many "extreme" users. But I see what you're saying. Now that I think about it, the use of roaches instead of filters in joints means you're inhaling more smoke than you would with a cig, so 1 joint could be the equivalent to a couple cigs or something in terms of carcinogens inhaled.
But don't you think that we would have some solid evidence on this by now? If it does in fact significantly increase the risk of lung cancer why wouldn't, for example, the DEA be all over this with conclusive proof?
