I tend to put relatively little faith in anything from a Cannabis research foundation, NORML, and a shrink who apparently forgot his oncology degree. Which is typically the trend with the people who say that there's no conclusive evidence regarding the cancer-causing characterestics of cannabis. (ALLITERATION IS GO!)
You'll pardon the source but it was the best (and fastest) example i could provide that plays to both sides of the issue. If you'd like me to get one-sided about it, here:
http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/60640.html
Existing studies do not support a link between the use of cannabis and heart disease, the leading cause of death in many Western countries, he adds. Furthermore, cannabis does not contain nicotine, a chemical contained in tobacco that is addicting and contributes to the risk of heart disease.
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_info3.shtml
The cancer risk in the most part comes from the smoke, not from the cannabinoids. This is an artifact of the delivery system, not the drug (it comes from burning the plant material, not the cannabinoids).
I found the tables in that link quite enlightening.
http://www.webmd.com/news/20000508/marijuana-unlikely-to-cause-cancer
lol
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html
lol some more.
http://safeaccessnow.org/downloads/cancer_brochure.pdf
PDF-love, get some. If the topic matters to you, read it.
I could go on... I also love how marijuana supposedly causes more cancer and makes cancer related illnesses worse when they use the shit as..... wait for it......
A theraputic drug for cancer and other terminally ill patients.
Chemo got you blowing mud and not holding anything down? Hit this.
Srsly.
I've done this dance before numerous times. I'm not all that interested in playing 'my god is better than your god' about it. Based on the bias on both sides of the information you can find on it i say with full certainty that it's completely inconclusive.
As a response to your actual post:
That's funny because i tend to put relatively little stock in to medical studies initiated and funded by a government that makes more money off of minor drug charges than murder/rape/abuse/etc charges combined.
As i said, everything in moderation. However there is no holy grail of fact on the topic. I was simply illustrating that there's more than enough credible information out there that plays to both sides of the debate.
I mean, you say 'that gives you cancer' ... Well no shit, what doesn't? As stated breathing is potentially cancerous. Cancer strikes down non-smokers and non-drug-users as well and quite often. Hell, coffee causes cancer too but you don't see me heckling you about it.
While i agree there's no point in making things worse for yourself i also leave room for that bus that's about to plow through your living room or some other random thing (like cancer, heart disease, etc) that just up and happen to people who lead otherwise healthy lives all the time.
Something's going to get you anyway, why not enjoy your time here a little if you've got the scrotum for it?
That is to say, you scold the drug user but not say... the adrenaline junky. Why, exactly is taking the risk steadily over time by burning one any different then flinging myself from a moving plane? Why is one more socially acceptable than another? Both are calculated risks.
The correct answer is: Only one is a cultural taboo.
Anyone who claims there are
no ill effects of substance use are retarded. I'm not trying to make the claim at all. Conversely anyone who tells you they don't use any form of intoxicant at all is either flat out lying or amish.
It's not that i disagree, it's that i'm skewed a little more towards the big picture than most of you. The last thing i want is a pissing match over the topic, which is why i made an attempt at showing a reference that illustrated both sides of the conversation as incredibly moot.
Bad for you is bad for you, there really shouldn't be a distinction or a designation of 'acceptable' bad things for you. IMO if you can drink, smoke cigarettes, pump the air you breathe full of noxious chemicals and whatnot, and eat pesticides there's really no reason you shouldn't be able to burn one.
Regardless (and on topic): It's still a shite sight better than pumping your gut full of cough syrup/tablets/powdered DXM. At least the medical community can tell you exactly what that crap does without omitting any mitigating information or pandoring to it's financers..
Edit:
Celvantes said:
If the air is so bad, RoM, why throw even more chemicals into your body when you can help it?
And even if outdoor air is the leading cause of respiratory problems, I guarantee you that smoking anything causes more cancer than pollution. Between the two, I'd rather have asthma
http://www.canceriq.org/causes.html
A fine question you pose. The answer, based on my limited research this afternoon, appears to be that modern industrialized nations living in the brilliant warmth of the age of enlightenment all but require you to poison yourself based on the services and products produced. It makes things more convinient.