| Andrespetmonkey said: 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? |
"It can give you cancer just like cigarretes" isn't the most closed door victory arguement" The research and arguements are out there on that end too.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-146853/Why-cannabis-greater-cancer-risk-tobacco.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/29/us-cancer-cannabis-idUSHKG10478820080129
It's just the whole thing is a "mudfight" on terminology that makes the whole thing look shakey on either end, so why bother with it, when you can use the other means they use.
The "Gateway" drug arguement... while a bs correlation vs causation trick, is a much better arguement... as far as convincing people anyway.
