Tar from cannabis?

 
Hey man if you want to dwell in your denial, it's your body and mind, not mine. But I think that your opinion is very silly, saying that smoking something doesn't cause a negative impact on the lungs...

 

 
From your 'study'
 
The association between smoking marijuana and lung cancer remains unclear.
have not been definitively linked to marijuana smoke
 
in case you don't know much about research; theoretical laboratory studies that prove inconclusive are inferior to longitudinal studies of real people. 

 

 
... but all the science says otherwise... who is in denial here?

 

 
We are not just discussing lung cancer here, we're discussing all potential ailments of the lungs. Also that was not a study, but a report created from cites.

 

 
"All the science" says other wise, while all of the common sense and knowledge says that smoke negatively effects human lungs.

 

Another common theme I see with all of this "No negative effect from cannabis smoke on lungs" bullshit is the whole "moderate usage" claim. Moderate usage is the equivalent of up to 1 joint per day. That could be 1 joint a day or 1 joint a month or 1 joint a year. 1 joint a month might be enough time for the tar to clear out of the lungs. How about the pro cannabis community stops arguing highly variable semantics and actually produces some cut and dry, clear as day research and facts, not reports weaving in and out of facts, hypothesis, and variables.

 

 
I really don't know how else to say it. The conclusions of multiple longitudinal studies funded by the united states government was that smoking cannabis has no appreciable detriment to lung function. I agree, it's counter intuitive, sometimes science is counter intuitive, but unless you can provide a credible source that proves otherwise (like a longitudinal study of marijuana smokers, not pure conjecture) I'll go with the people with degrees in medicine over some random dude on the internet. Have a good day.

 

 
You may want to take a look out for the "moderate usage" disclaimer, it's a kicker.

 

 
You think that one joint a day is not moderate usage? 

 

 
One joint a day is moderate usage, but who is to say that it is one joint a day that is smoked or one joint a month? And which would produce more favorable results for a pro-pot argument?
 
Most of your holy studies ride on the "moderate usage is safe" claim. And most of those study rely on the testimony of the participants. 

 

This guy's a regular with a bone to pick. He won't look at anyone's evidence but his own. A wolf in sheep's clothing. We've had this discussion before...

 

 
The "moderate usage" claim is just an example of how the pro pot argument can not produce clear cut data for their arguments, the pro pot argument is mostly all variables that produce a good report for the pro pot argument.

 

 
I look at the pro-pot evidence believe me I do. And what do I read in all of that "evidence?" This is what I read from those so called studies. "A study that surveyed a few people reports that moderate usage of cannabis does not impair lung function somehow, I don't know Jim, it must be magic."

 

 
I don't really understand what you're trying to say... ? The researchers looked at the amount people smoked and figured out that it would be equivalent to the amount of smoke ingested by someone who smoked one joint per day. They can't clinically administer one joint a day to someone for 20 years, that's just not how research works.
 
You really should just save your energy though because unless you want to provide a valid study that shows decrease in lung function with cannabis-smokers, you're just wasting time trying to somehow claim you have more credibility than the American Medical Association. 

 

 
The researchers did not look at any amount that people smoke, they go on what people report to them

 

 
Yes, the scientific community doesn't know why it doesn't, all the know now is that, it doesn't. This was a really recent study, more research will be done to ascertain why this is the case.
 
Astronomers don't know why the expansion rate of the universe is accelerating, all the know is that it is, does that make all those astrophysicists wrong? 

 

You clearly don't remember it very well, his lung capacity went down 3%, no significant but still....and that's one test

 

 
Smoke and tar in the lungs does degrade lung function, there is no possible way that it can not.

 

 
Yes, that's how research works. Where did you get your medical degree?

 

 
I don't have one, where did you get yours? Those studies are based on the verbal report of the participant to the research body.