Chris, please provide me with the links to the peer reviewed studies evaluating the relative health risks and consequences of tobacco and cannabis where the outcome is that cannabis causes more harm.

Or were you being sarcastic in the same way that there are physicians, sociologists, psychologists, statisticians, and economists that strongly agree that gun ownership is dangerous, and that there is no place for civilian gun ownership?

First, this is not relevant to the  statement Tom provided.  Second, your question is not relevant either, as what I said has absolutely nothing to do with health risks with tobacco.  It's a matter of the effects of cannabis on individuals.  Strains of pot today are not just to designed and developed to make you sit back, chill, and want to eat white castle.   It's probably one of the more modified plants for growth, potency, and any other effect they want to get out of it.  Drug lords have found interesting ways to make pot produce all kinds of results when smoked.

You can feel free to do your own research on risk taking, violence, and addiction.  There are ties between these three subjects and they are plainly clear.

I've also seen people first hand who are destroyed by pot grown with additives such as LSD into it's grow beds.  The results are not amusing.

.

Relatively speaking, pot is less "damaging" than alcohol and tobacco. The current trend to increase levels of THC is the natural progression in all agricultural endeavors. The higher THC levels may actually decrease some of the risks associated with smoking it (decreased inhalation volumes and shorter "hold" duration; http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0091305789903699) and there is no conclusive evidence that pot is more harmful than tobacco with regards to pulmonary function. (Physiologic data were inconclusive regarding an association between long-term marijuana smoking and airflow obstruction measures; http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=411692). That is not to say it isn't harmful to smoke anything, just that it seems no more problematic than tobacco, therefore trying to prevent its use by making it illegal is illogical when compared with the legal drug tobacco. More recent studies show some pulmonary dysfunction with heavy use but not with occasional use. This study also states that medicinal use "...is likely not harmful to lungs in low cumulative doses..." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24384575) The fact that vaporizing is increasingly becoming the administration route of choice, it would seem that concerns on tar and "resins," and therefore pulmonary sequela would be further minimized. Furthermore, a brand new study, e-published in advance of the print version of Journal of General Internal Medicine, stated "Among adults in primary care who screen positive for any recent illicit or non-medical prescription drug use, we were unable to detect an association between frequency of marijuana use and health, emergency department use, or hospital utilization." (J Gen Intern Med. 2014 Jan;29(1):133-9. doi: 10.1007/s11606-013-2605-z. Epub 2013 Sep 19.)

In addition, THC has been found to be beneficial in many medical therapeutics, including PTSD (Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013 Dec 31. pii: S0376-8716(13)00524-3. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.12.008. [Epub ahead of print]), seizures (Epilepsy Behav. 2013 Dec;29(3):574-7. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2013.08.037.), and cerebral palsy (Rev Neurol Dis. 2007 Spring;4(2):103-6. Review, J Clin Pharmacol. 1981 Aug-Sep;21(8-9 Suppl):413S-416S.). Ongoing research suggest even more benefits could be realized. That is not to say smoking pot is without dangers, but when compared to other legal intoxicants, say alcohol, there is some evidence that it is less likely to be implicated in automobile accidents (J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2014 Jan;75(1):56-64. Drugs and alcohol: their relative crash risk.). There does seem to be a positive correlation with onset of schizophrenia and psychosis, but even those associations are not well understood.

The point is not that pot is harmless, just that it is certainly no more harmful than other intoxicants that we as a society deem legal. That is hypocrisy. The other issue is that as free citizens, adults should be able to choose what to put into their bodies, be it tobacco, alcohol, or pot. The introduction of adulterants that could have adverse affects on someone, especially someone who is unaware of the addition of those substances, is another matter IMHO. It would be like adding LSD to someone's soda and not telling them.

The association between pot and violence and other crimes is most likely related to the circumstances these individuals must live when dealing in black market commodities. You do remember the effects of prohibition, right? 

Is there an association between pot (and other drug use) and addiction? Probably, but does that mean that anyone who tries pot, as Reefer Maddness would suggest, is going to go ape-shit crazy? No. The fact that someone can smoke pot (Obama, Clinton) and use cocaine (Bush 2) and still become president (regardless of how you feel about Obama..) should be clear evidence that it isn't the boogie man the DEA and other government entities would like you to believe.

The bottom line, to me any way, is that it is difficult, and borders on hypocrisy and duplicity, to suggest that on one hand the government needs to get out, and stay out of one's personal life, be it their home or their choice to own firearms on one hand, and then suggest that the government somehow should insert themselves into an individuals life when it comes to the substances a citizen may wish to consume.

The bottom line, to me any way, is that it is difficult, and borders on hypocrisy and duplicity, to suggest that on one hand the government needs to get out, and stay out of one's personal life, be it their home or their choice to own firearms on one hand, and then suggest that the government somehow should insert themselves into an individuals life when it comes to the substances a citizen may wish to consume.

I would leave out the words "borders on". My bottom line is that if one is not provably harming another person, then what one does is no business of the government. I believe individuals retain the right to harm themselves if that harm does not result in measurable significant societal costs. Yes, I favor the individual's right to end their own life in a manner and time as they see fit. (Yeah, I know the cops were just "following the law" when they shot and almost killed that guy in Kona to stop him from committing suicide, but seriously...). I understand that many people want to invoke some morals clause or superior intelligence or knowledge or (divine) wisdom or do-gooderism or whatever to dictate to others what they "should" do, because, well, they said so. And of course they know they are right. Just ask them. ("Why would anyone need a "clip" with more than 10, or 7, or 3 rounds?")

Does anyone really believe that government (the legislators who make laws and the bureaucrats who enforce them, and the statist citizens who advocate for such laws) has demonstrated their expertise and knowledge in such an overwhelmingly benign and insightful manner that you really want to assign your (formerly) personal choices to said bureaucrats? Their ignorance is known and demonstrated far and wide. They make sh*t up. They have "ulterior" motives. They have been known to be less than fully honest and forthcoming. But they want to tell us what we can and cannot legally put into our bodies (food, psychoactive substances, etc.), what we can and cannot legally do with our money (some "gambling" BAD (whatever they dictate and don't get tax revenue from), some gambling GOOD  (state run "lotteries", horse racing, etc.), etc.), and who we legally may do what with (exchange of value between consenting adults for certain activities is a no-no, certain activities in and of themselves are "bad" or "immoral", etc.).

And the justifications are all irrational and logically inconsistent (alcohol: legal, cannabis: illegal, etc.). But they don't care. Just do what they say. Or they'll make you regret it (See: "law enforcement", see also: "selective law enforcement").

Does anyone really believe that government (the legislators who make laws and the bureaucrats who enforce them, and the statist citizens who advocate for such laws) has demonstrated their expertise and knowledge in such an overwhelmingly benign and insightful manner that you really want to assign your (formerly) personal choices to said bureaucrats?

A United States government report in 2006 indicated that Americans lost $198.4 million to Internet fraud in 2006, averaging a loss of $5,100 per incident. 

This is the population you are referring to?? 

    

A United States government report in 2006 indicated that Americans lost $198.4 million to Internet fraud in 2006, averaging a loss of $5,100 per incident. 

This is the population you are referring to?? 

    

I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to. I didn't say that the population in general does not have a significant proportion of people that believe in magical thinking (e.g. getting something really good for almost nothing), or that are incompetent at evaluating evidence for or against a claim, or just don't have the plain mental capacity to solve problems. As is said, "there is no law against stupid". Yet. Which of your personal freedoms and liberties are you willing to consign to the government? Besides your health care and Second Amendment rights...