This is because we understand very well the harmful chemicals found in tobacco and cigarettes. We know that it is strongly physically addictive, and that it is the direct cause of hundreds of diseases millions of people die from every year. We even know very well its effects from second-hand smoke.
On the other hand, cannabis is not physically addictive. The chemicals it contains have been found helpful in treating several health conditions. Most importantly: there are very few, if any, deaths directly linked to cannabis use in all of recorded human history. This is not just many orders of magnitude less than currently legal drugs; it is within the margins of a statistical error.
Cannabis is not some miracle drug, of course. We desperately need more research into it, which has historically been difficult. But to compare it to tobacco is simply insane given what we know today.
As for the study mentioned in TFA, it's not clear whether the cancer link is due to smoke inhalation or cannabinoids. I did find the other mentioned study[1] that links certain cannabinoids to tumor growth more concerning. I'm glad that more research is coming out.
[1]: https://aacrjournals.org/clincancerres/article/26/11/2693/33...
https://mcwell.nd.edu/your-well-being/physical-well-being/dr...
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-medica...
The difference with tobacco is that nicotine is one of the most addictive chemicals on Earth, and it is toxic to humans. Cigarettes have been engineered to make them even more addicting, by boosting the amount of nicotine and adding many other harmful chemicals. The comparison to cannabis and THC is laughable in that sense.
The usage amount is also highly relevant. Even "heavy" cannabis users don't smoke more than a handful of joints a day. Meanwhile heavy tobacco use can mean smoking several packs a day. The difference in the average amount of tobacco vs cannabis consumption is staggering.
Besides, is THC itself addictive? What about other cannabinoids? There are many non-toxic components of cannabis that people have been benefiting from for centuries. In comparison, there are few, if any, such components and benefits from tobacco. More research is definitely needed, but to address the original post: this is why people are against tobacco smoke. There is a world of difference between these plants, and equating them is further promoting the myths about cannabis we've been fed for decades.
It's interesting that everyone acknowledges just how physically addictive alcohol is, and yet sugar, which is so closely related, is treated like an innocuous substance.
- I wonder if anyone considers smoking pot "totally healthy", or if this is just a straw man.
- Being exposed to second hand smoke is involuntary, whereas smoking weed is a personal choice. Probably makes a huge difference in how these are perceived.
- Tobacco contains tar and many other chemicals that are not present in weed and are mostly responsible for the harmful effects of smoking.
- Your comment is very polemic: "faintest second hand", "totally healthy". Not the best way to discuss the topic.
My concerns are very similar to my concerns over alcohol and tobacco. It likely has benefits in small infrequent quantities but widespread regular use ("abuse" in any other drug) is a serious negative for society.
I do think it should be available but for use in private, with penalties for public consumption, DUI, child abandonment, and supplying children, that include losing retail access.
And for consistency, I do think tobacco smoking and drunkenness in public impinges on others' rights to go about their business. I'm far from a libertarian but I'm not against people doing their own thing as long as they're not putting others at risk.
Most people won't use enough for this to be a problem, but no doubt it'll be used to push prohibition.
Meanwhile, alcohol and tobacco are at least as bad, but nobody's pushing to make those illegal any more.
As far as I'm concerned people have a right to be defensive when others want to make their personal life choices illegal.
1) Understanding the full impact marijuana use in its various forms has on one's health.
2) Deriving that understanding 100% from high quality evidence, because that is the only way we can form an accurate opinion.
3) There is no 3).
We don't figure out the right dose by wringing our hands over bad policy decisions in the 1930s. Or over anything else, really, if that thing isn't good medical evidence.
The problem with this pro-MJ bro brigade online is when any evidence which comes up that's even remotely critical of marijuana usage, they pile on and ruin the signal to noise ratio of the discussion. These guys are losers who detract from the goal of being dispassionate and objective and understanding how to be healthy. I mean I've been pro legalization my entire life, I'm cautiously pro both recreational and medicinal usage, but I hate these guys because they're clearly not interested in talking about evidence and being healthy, they're interested in justifying their habit to other people.