[gedy]

Sure, though what I find annoying is many of the same people are rabidly against tobacco smoking, even the faintest second hand smoke or vaping is treated like it's this deadly killer, but smoking farmed pot is this totally healthy thing in their eyes.

[karmakurtisaani]

So there's a few things going on here:

- 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.

[tourmalinetaco]

I think a lot of people have this funny belief that pot is somehow not just healthier than alternatives but they’re healthier for using it in general.

[imiric]

> Sure, though what I find annoying is many of the same people are rabidly against tobacco smoking

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...

[pclmulqdq]

Cannabis is physically addictive. The scholarship on this has advanced in the past 10 years, but it is clear.

https://mcwell.nd.edu/your-well-being/physical-well-being/dr...

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-medica...

[imiric]

By that definition, any substance is physically addictive. Quitting sugar and carbohydrates has withdrawal symptoms.

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.

[pclmulqdq]

Tobacco is up there with heroin, yes. Caffeine is probably also worse than THC. That doesn't mean that THC isn't addictive, though. It just means that it's less addictive.

[imiric]

Sure, but there are orders of magnitude of addictiveness between these. If THC is as addictive as sugar, we may as well consider it nonaddictive. But the narrative of the articles you linked to, and even from people experiencing THC withdrawal symptoms, is equating these levels, which is ludicrous.

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.

[cykros]

THC isn't nearly as addictive as sugar. That's not to say it's not addictive, but more to point out that people seem to frequently underestimate just how insidious particularly refined sugar products can be -- mostly because most people have never taken the time to actually completely give up sugar for awhile to see the experience.

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.