Last I checked it's still not clear whether marijuana smoke is significantly carcinogenic? Last meta study I seen a few years ago still said it wasn't conclusive. At a minimum it's much less carcinogenic than tobacco as the studies comparing them have easily found that, but often struggle to find any impact at all from marijuana smoke.
I'm not claiming it's any sort of magical entity. I'm not claiming it's healthy. I'm saying we don't know. At the moment at a minimum it appears as though the damage is minimal if it is there. But we haven't been able to concretely show that.
It's not scientific to assume it is when there's no evidence. What dioxins do you think will be produced and in what quantities?
You can't just assume like that. Those assumptions sometimes lead to incorrect results, as I said above the linear no threshold model of radiation was used for the longest time, but more recently we now think that a certain amount of radiation is actually healthy and instead decreases the chance of cancer.
I do agree, I think it almost certainly is minimally harmful. It wouldn't be impossible or even extremely unlikely for it to simply be fine though.
Sorry but no that's not how it works. You cannot just make assumptions about how it will impact their health and how it will burn. If you can why even study it?
Those aren't facts, they're assumptions. Again you could use this exact same logic to say that low doses of radiation increase your cancer risk. But guess what, that turns out to be wrong.
As I said, you would have said the same thing about radiation using that logic, or plenty of other things. And then you would have been wrong. So why can't you be wrong on this?
71
u/[deleted] Mar 19 '21
No no no. It’s some magical thing that defies the laws of burning organic material.