From the information I have found, the link between marijuana smoke and cancer isn't particularly strong. There aren't a plethora of studies, but what information is available is either mixed or weak.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/327230#Misinformation-a-threat-to-public-health

As for the fact that it impairs your ability to use a vehicle, I mean yeah. I don't think anyone would deny that. But so does alcohol, so that isn't exactly a nail in the coffin.

There are also numerous medicinal uses for marijuana which have thus far gone unmentioned.

Anything that you inhale that contains particulates causes cancer, there is certainly a strong link, this is a daily hazard I contend with.

There are also medical uses for Alcohol... Doesn't mean it should be used daily/relied upon.

Citation needed.

I actually drive better high than sober.  I am more cautious of other drivers and I don't drive as fast as I do sober.  I'm pretty aware driver always expecting other drivers to do something stupid because there are a lot of terrible drivers in Texas.  Sure it might make others worse but those drivers probably aren't too aware even sober or they are newbie drivers/smokers.  Sometimes there are just terrible drivers especially these days when everyone is looking/texting on their phone (study actually shows texting while driving is worse than being drunk because at least the drunks are looking at the road).  Also, THC stays in system days if not weeks (for heavy smokers) so just because someone got in bad wreck and possibly died and tested positive for THC doesn't mean they were high at the time.  So the data can be misleading since it isn't like testing for alcohol where alcohol can be out of your system within a few hours or no longer than a day. 

I wouldn't recommend it to anyone or praise driving while high but you can ask any of my friends if they would rather ride with me high or sober and I bet they would rather me be stoned because I get a little riled up when sober.  Do people get in wrecks while high?  I'm sure all the time but sober people do too.  It depends on the person.  Some people just suck at driving.

Other than the fact I am a firefighter and have intimate training and exposure to particulates and it's effect on the body, not just in the short term, but long term as well?

https://theconversation.com/how-does-bushfire-smoke-affect-our-health-6-things-you-need-to-know-130126
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0083938
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1277837/
https://adai.uw.edu/marijuana/factsheets/respiratoryeffects.htm
https://www.lung.org/quit-smoking/smoking-facts/health-effects/marijuana-and-lung-health

"While cannabis smoke has been implicated in respiratory dysfunction, including the conversion of respiratory cells to what appears to be a pre-cancerous state"

All smoke is unhealthy... And there is a reason for it.

But you have your citations. Have fun!

I agree that police would be much less eager to pull out a gun if not everyone and their grandma can carry them,this was clearly an overreaction but i do think it can be better avoided when those god awfull gunlaws change.

There is such a wide range of lesser extreme options to deal with situations but looks like cops in the US tend to jump from giving a direct command to pulling out a gun very very fast,i'm really interested in seeing the kind of training they get because it seems like such a semi millitary behaviour.

"While" is an interesting word. It is similar to the word "but", in that it implies that while something is true, the results of that thing may not be as expected. As such, it is tremendously suspicious to include a quote from an article with the word "while", however not include the full sentence.

Now, that sentence fragment you quoted is from an article titled:

Cannabis and tobacco smoke are not equally carcinogenic

Interesting. That almost sounds like this article is saying exactly what I was arguing, but lets dig a little deeper:

"While cannabis smoke has been implicated in respiratory dysfunction, including the conversion of respiratory cells to what appears to be a pre-cancerous state [5], it has not been causally linked with tobacco related cancers [6] such as lung, colon or rectal cancers. Recently, Hashibe et al [7] carried out an epidemiological analysis of marijuana smoking and cancer. A connection between marijuana smoking and lung or colorectal cancer was not observed. These conclusions are reinforced by the recent work of Tashkin and coworkers [8] who were unable to demonstrate a cannabis smoke and lung cancer link, despite clearly demonstrating cannabis smoke-induced cellular damage."

Huh, the quote you selected is stating that Marijuana smoke has not been causally linked to cancer, and the paragraph goes on to cite several sources for that claim. Interesting that you would cut out the second half of that sentence.

The article goes on to provide an explanation for this difference (these are just two passages of many):

"Furthermore, compounds found in cannabis have been shown to kill numerous cancer types including: lung cancer [9], breast and prostate [10], leukemia and lymphoma [11], glioma [12], skin cancer [13], and pheochromocytoma [14]."

"Recent work by Roth et al. demonstrates that THC treatment of murine hepatoma cells caused a dose dependent increase in CYP1A1 gene transcription, while at the same time directly inhibiting the enzymatic activity of the gene product [23]. Thus, despite potentially higher levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons found in cannabis smoke compared to tobacco smoke (dependent on what part of the plant is smoked), the THC present in cannabis smoke should exert a protective effect against pro-carcinogens that require activation. "

Basically, this article is stating that while Cannabis smoke does contain some dangerous compounds, it also contains many compounds which work against these dangerous compounds, which results in very different outcomes in relation to cancer.

As for the fact that other smokes like bushfires may be carcinogenic, I don't doubt that, but not all smokes are the same.

Now, lets quickly run through your other citations in relation to cannabis:

https://adai.uw.edu/marijuana/factsheets/respiratoryeffects.htm

"The association between smoking marijuana and lung cancer remains unclear. "

"several well-designed and large-scale studies, including one in Washington State (Rosenblatt et al, 2004), have failed to find any increased risk of lung or upper airway cancer in people who have smoked marijuana (Mehra et al, 2006; Tashkin, 2013), and studies assessing the association between marijuana use and cancer risk have many limitations, including concomitant tobacco use and the relatively small number of long-term heavy users – particularly older users. "

https://www.lung.org/quit-smoking/smoking-facts/health-effects/marijuana-and-lung-health

-Doesn't contain a single mention of "cancer"-

Your citations have done the opposite of proving your point, sir.

Supposedly we're supposed to treasure our right to carry guns because it's to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. The problem is that tyranny is a lot more subjective than people will admit. Three weeks ago people were showing up in force at the Michigan State Capitol with guns to protest the coronavirus "lockdown." Many of those same people are now calling for a full-throated military response to the protests, which are being carried out largely by people who think the police are out of control. Many of the same people who wanted to overthrow Obama for perceived tyranny are now threatening to go to civil war to protect Trump. And vice versa. Breonna Taylor was killed because police targeted her house in error after the subject of the warrant had already been apprehended, the police were in plain clothes and failed to identify themselves, and her boyfriend grabbed his gun and started shooting in an attempt to defend his home from intruders. He was charged with attempted murder of a police officer, which would have put him behind bars for decades if convicted. Thankfully, the charges were dropped, but he still spent time in jail. And now the Louisville Police Department is angry because the mayor is looking into investigating the whole department, even though they clearly need to be investigated. And Breonna Taylor is still dead, regardless of whatever else happens.

Many police officers are military veterans and and police forces actively recruit veterans. Veterans receive veterans' preference when applying for government jobs, which means a significant point boost over civilians who were never in the military. However, most law enforcement jobs require an Honorable Discharge. A General, Under Honorable Conditions Discharge will make getting hired a tougher sell unless you can have it upgraded, and that's difficult to do. Anything worse than a General Discharge is a hard "no." So a lot of them do carry their military behavior over into civilian law enforcement agencies.  My wife served three years in the Army and then went on to be a sheriff's deputy for the following ten years until she said she was getting too paranoid and afraid she was going to hurt somebody. 

The USA has more guns per capita than allot of nations and this thing is a larger issue over there (The current situation being a perfect example), clearly that isn't a pause for concern for American police.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country

Clearly more guns isn't the solution when other countries have removed guns and reduce these kinds of transgressions.

Unless you are being sarcastic? Hard to tell.

It says that cells enter a pre-cancerous state, doesn't mean it becomes cancer, doesn't mean it doesn't, but the article states that marijuana creates abnormal cells within the body.

If it's a High-grade dysplasia, then the chances for them to progress to cancer increases.

https://www.bmc.org/gastroenterology/high-grade-dysplasia

Which backs up my argument. That dangerous compounds aren't healthy. All smoke is unhealthy, all smoke is dangerous.

And you are correct, not all smoke is the same, the smoke from a house burning is infinitely more toxic than a bushfire, both are bad for you.
Just because something is "less toxic" than something else, doesn't equate to it being intrinsically healthy.

They do actually. And your nitpicked quotes even back me up.

Need to believe such a thing fundamentally exists first.

I didn't think it needed to be said (because it has already been said), but I am speaking specifically about your claim that cannabis smoke causes cancer. Not about whether the smoke is "healthy" or whether there are any negative health impacts. I am not discussing that at this time. You claimed that cannabis smoke causes cancer and have now doubled down on that claim several times. I said you needed to provide sources. You provide sources which said that a causal link has not been established. These are your sources and that is the best you can do. Huge red flag.

Now you have the gall to accuse me of nitpicking quotes when you deliberately cut a sentence in half in the way which conveniently didn't include the bit which said research has established no causal link. Pre-cancerous cells are not cancer cells, and they often do not become cancer cells. You throwing out another "if" statement without demonstrating that this "if" is actually true does not change this fact. This was completely, 100% selective and dishonest editing on your part. I would perhaps forgive the mistake if the rest of the sentence and the rest of the paper didn't demonstrate that you were full of shit.

I feel like I have a pretty high amount of patience for good faith bad takes, but this has gone past the point of "good faith"...