Of course, I think the issue here is that inhaling burnt particulate into your lungs is generally not wise.

I don't doubt cannabis addiction is a real issue, just like alcoholism. Still, there are safer ways to ingest it, hopefully those will become more popular.

>In particular I expect to see studies demonstrate a link between marijuana smoking and lung cancer, followed by years of denial by marijuana producers and smokers, similar to what happened with cigarettes.

Perhaps you should examine some of the extensive studies that have already been done, so you could base your beliefs on scientific evidence instead of reefer-madness-based conjecture.

https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201212...

Marijuana is not typically physiologically addictive in the sense that you would crawl through a cesspit and inject it into the corner of your eye just to avoid the state of not having any.

There are some withdrawal symptoms from (usually very) heavy marijuana use, but they do not drive people to seek out the drug like nicotine or heroin does, in fact often the user doesn't realise the symptom is related to marijuana. Alcohol is much worse in this regard, both in the harm that comes from heavy use and the severity of withdrawal symptoms.

Dependence is similar to alcohol, so quite a bit less than Tobacco. But it is a lot less harmful than those two because you either smoke it less than tobacco or the damage is less severe than with alcohol.

But smoke is nearly universally bad, it doesn't matter much if it is from someone who heats with wood in the neighborhood, an open fire nearby, smoking marijuana or tobacco.

Luckily there are other ways than smoking to take the drug.

Of course it is addictive, otherwise people wouldn't come back to it after the first try.

And as for harm to lungs – does anyone really think that combustion products (regardless of what's burning) can not be harmful for human body?

> Of course it is addictive, otherwise people wouldn't come back to it after the first try.

So is cheese then. And pens. And fairground rides. And, well, everything.

I'm not disputing that it is addictive, but that reasoning doesn't work. Something can be useful or just enjoyable and people will repeat the experience without that necessarily telling us whether it's addictive.

> otherwise people wouldn't come back to it after the first try.

Just repeating an action a second time doesn't suggest an addiction... am I missing something here?

You're missing that there are plenty of people who want a scapegoat for their lack of personal responsibility, and plenty of people who will enable them because they're already biased against the scapegoat.

A lot of stoners are convinced it reverses the damage or something because "THC cures cancer"

The largest studies to date have found no ties to lung cancer or COPD, however there's still other damage present which can take the form of reduced lung capacity, chronic bronchitis, etc. As for refuting the "THC cures cancer" thing, there's certain forms of testicular cancer which do show slightly increased risk of statistical significance. The lack of worse lung problems is somewhat surprising but I've seen speculation from doctors about other possible causes than a miracle cancer cure.

I'm not much of a pot head, but my country is legalizing in a few weeks so I did some research - Dry leaf vaporizer is absolutely the way to go if you can afford it, full inhalation dose control and speed, no extra shit from flavorings or solvents, far less risk of those lung issues.

And by the way, being an occasional smoker myself, and rather a heavy smoker in the past, I know what I'm talking about, and I know the craving it gives you. Nevertheless I advocate legalisation and find it much less harmful than alcohol, for that matter.

Addictive in the way any form of entertainment can be I guess. It isn’t physically addictive.

Physical addiction (as opposed to psychological) is rarely the one that worries people.

It's not what keeps a drug user dependent for years as their lives unravel. If it was, then a simple detox would "cure" the addiction. We wouldn't have rehab programs and support groups, just hospital beds and observation for a week or two.

The addiction that is hardest to kick is almost always the psychological one. The one that sticks around long after any trace of the substance has gone from your system, and long after any withdrawal symptoms have subsided.

Sorry if I'm picking on your comment, but that phrase "isn't physically addictive" always strikes me as missing the point.

So true.