because it's still inhaling burned shit into your lungs, yet a bunch of people swear up and down that it's true and present a slew of High Times articles assuring us that this is so, tied to hypothetical reasons why pot isn't appreciably carcinogenic when burned and sucked in the lungs (including the base radioactivity of soil that tobacco is planted in).
And then more studies come out saying the exact opposite.
Seriously, I could understand some small disparity in study conclusions but this is a veritable empirical gulf.
Cannabis bigger cancer risk than cigarettes: study - Yahoo! News
This wont end any debates, and probably start many more.
I'm tired of how often this argument flip-flops. I swear it makes no sense when you have studies like the above vs. studies like this:
Pot Smoking Not Linked to Lung Cancer
because it's still inhaling burned shit into your lungs, yet a bunch of people swear up and down that it's true and present a slew of High Times articles assuring us that this is so, tied to hypothetical reasons why pot isn't appreciably carcinogenic when burned and sucked in the lungs (including the base radioactivity of soil that tobacco is planted in).
And then more studies come out saying the exact opposite.
Seriously, I could understand some small disparity in study conclusions but this is a veritable empirical gulf.