(11-11-2016, 01:05 AM)Luka Wrote: [*]"it has not been causally linked with tobacco related cancers such as lung, colon or rectal cancers."
Irrelevant. Still contains carcinogens.
(11-11-2016, 01:05 AM)Luka Wrote: [*]"compounds found in cannabis have been shown to kill numerous cancer types including: lung cancer, breast and prostate, leukemia and lymphoma, glioma, skin cancer, and pheochromocytoma"
Also irrelevant. The fact that it kills certain types of cancer doesn't suddenly make it good or not bad. Keep in mind that "kills" in this context is not a synonym for "cures".
(11-11-2016, 01:05 AM)Luka Wrote: [*]"components of cannabis smoke minimize some carcinogenic pathways whereas tobacco smoke enhances some."
Again, irrelevant. Still contains carcinogens.
(11-11-2016, 01:05 AM)Luka Wrote: [*]"current knowledge does not suggest that cannabis smoke will have a carcinogenic potential comparable to that resulting from exposure to tobacco smoke."
For the fourth time, irrelevant. Not once did I say or imply that cannibis was better or worse than tobacco or vice versa. The fact that smoking cigarettes is worse than weed is not justification for legalizing weed. Cigarettes are only legal because tobacco products play a large role in the US economy, not because they're not bad.
(11-11-2016, 01:05 AM)Luka Wrote: [*]"noted that with the development of vaporizers, that use the respiratory route for the delivery of carcinogen-free cannabis vapors, the carcinogenic potential of smoked cannabis has been largely eliminated"
Vaping is already legal, try again. Also take note to the fact that largely eliminated is not the same as completely eliminated.
(11-11-2016, 01:05 AM)Luka Wrote: Still immature as ever, I see.
Still ignorant as ever, I see. By the way, being rude isn't an ad hominem logical fallacy, you should do a little more research before throwing around words and phrases that you just now learned in your 9th grade English class. I also noticed that you disregarded my statement about cannibis's neurological effects and merely attempted to attack my statement about carcinogens. Therefor, even if you did successfully combat my point regarding carcinogens, which you won't be doing based on past observations, you still have the neuroscience to tackle. Good luck.