"being 70% more carcinogenic than tobacco" is just wrong.

Marijuana smoking does not increase a person's risk of developing lung cancer, according to the findings of a new study at the University of California Los Angeles that surprised even the researchers.

They had expected to find that a history of heavy marijuana use, like cigarette smoking, would increase the risk of cancer.

Instead, the study, which compared the lifestyles of 611 Los Angeles County lung cancer patients and 601 patients with head and neck cancers with those of 1,040 people without cancer, found no elevated cancer risk for even the heaviest pot smokers.

It did find a 20-fold increased risk of lung cancer in people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day.

Previous studies showed marijuana tar contained about 50 percent more of the chemicals linked to lung cancer, compared with tobacco tar, Tashkin said. In addition, smoking a marijuana joint deposits four times more tar in the lungs than smoking an equivalent amount of tobacco.

"Marijuana is packed more loosely than tobacco, so there's less filtration through the rod of the cigarette, so more particles will be inhaled," Tashkin said in a statement. "And marijuana smokers typically smoke differently than tobacco smokers -- they hold their breath about four times longer, allowing more time for extra fine particles to deposit in the lung."

He theorized that tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, a chemical in marijuana smoke that produces its psychotropic effect, may encourage aging, damaged cells to die off before they become cancerous

Soft drugs like cannabis should be legalised mainly because there is no logical reason for not legalising it. Drug use will not increase by decriminalizing or legalising it.
In the Netherlands there has been no rise in usage of drugs like cannabis since it was decriminalised and in fact, the use of drugs there is lower than in surrounding European countries and especially lower than in the USA. Crime rates have not gone up either since it was decriminalized.

It is irrelevant whether tobacco or cannabis is more carcinogenic- because you don’t need to smoke cannabis, there are other ways to take it. It should be up to individuals but I must say that I think legalising soft drugs MUST go accompanied by realistic education about these drugs so people are aware exactly of what choices they are making.

I agree with RObert and others, that any drug, whether it's alcohol or softdrugs, should not ever be an excuse for criminal behaviour.

Also, legalising drugs means they can be sold with health warnings, with instructions of use and recommended dosage.

Drug-driving, good point- I believe in Holland they are developing reaction tests.
However, driving under influence of cannabis doesn't seem to be as big an issue as drunk-driving because your sense of 'awareness what you can and can't do' is not being taken away by cannabis, whereas alcohol often gives people false courage. Also, the effects of cannabis wear of much quicker than the effects of alcohol.

When soft drugs are legally available experimenting with hard drugs will be less likely as people will not need to come in contact with drug dealers. This will reduce the risk to be pushed by the dealer.

I do think that the use of cannabis/marijuana/shrooms, when in their natural state, and when use in moderation has no averse effect upon our communities.

I would be more worried if, one day, my kids came home drunk, started smoking or tell me they had joined a cult or religion than if they told me they ate some space cake.

spendocrat,"Dad, it's less dangerous than alcohol you know."

I notice you compare to alcohol and not tobacco. It too is legal but not paricularly beneficial to human health.

I have seen the results of too much dope. It is very sad. For that reason alone,legal or not, I would be concerned that my children would take up the habit. How do we know who is vulnerable to addiction and/or pre-disposed to mental disorder?

'How do we know who is vulnerable to addiction and/or pre-disposed to mental disorder?'

We don't, unfortunately. We also don't know if we're allergic to peanuts until we eat them. We also can't be sure if our cars breaks won't fail tomorrow. It is a fact of life that we must take educated risks and make responsible decisions about our actions. In the case of a child, it is obviously the parent who takes on this responsibility.

My comparison to alcohol was out of convenience. Exchange it with tobacco and the point remains unchanged. I've seen the affects of tobacco. My mum has been diagnosed with emphysema. It's a terrible thing, which is why we hope each individual makes the right decisions in their lives. Of course they won't always do that. An inevitable price of freedom is people being free to make mistakes. To try and prevent these mistakes by means of law and authority - without trying to sound overly dramatic, I believe that's called fascism.

I'm not encouraging people to smoke weed. I'm simply saying people should be free (key word) to make their own choices.

In regards to your childrens safety, remember while marijuana is illegal, the drug dealers thrive - and they're the real danger. Imagine if alcohol were illegal and the industry therefore driven underground - your children could potentially be exposed to unmonitored, low quality booze with all kinds of anti-freeze and whatever else in it. But because it's legal, they can only get it with ID (in theory, of course..it aint perfect), and the product they get is properly tested and monitored, and guaranteed to be of a certain standard.

And remember: in a void, alcohol is a far more dangerous substance regardless. That is a firmly established scientific fact.

If anyone here is trying to deal with a pot addiction, check out this brilliant forum: http://www.uncommonforum.com/viewforum.php?f=10

It's fascinating how we break laws in our society and then whinge when we're punished for it. By all means lobby your Member of Parliament for law changes. But to decriminalise something because a section of society refuses to obey it is not a sound argument.

In order to try marijuana you have to break the law (laced cookies aside). This kind of wilful rebellion should be punished. As I say, no point whinging about someone getting a criminal record for possessing a small amount - they were knowingly breaking a criminal law.

And if you argue that alcohol and tobacco are more serious than marijuana, then maybe you should argue that these substances also be made illegal, rather than that the standard should be lowered.

Finally, it seems hypocritical/disingenuous to argue for a law change when you are in breach of that law. At least have the integrity to obey the law whilst seeking the change.