I was talking to a friend earlier and he implied that smoking marijuana was at least as bad if not worse than smoking tobacco. As a supporter of marijuana deregulation, I thought it was a good time to examine just why my friend's implication was incorrect. Please note that I'm not trying to encourage anyone to do anything. I just feel people should be informed.1. While tobacco smoking is strongly related to lung cancer, there is no link between smoking marijuana and cancer. A while back I posted this article about a large-scale study that shows as much. These researchers from the University of California were expecting to prove a link between heavy cannabis use and cancer, and yet they actually proved the opposite. 2. Marijuana has valuable medical uses, while tobacco does not. This article, written by an emeritus professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, discusses in particular how smoking marijuana is the most effective treatment for peripheral nueropathy available, as well as hitting upon other documented uses for cannabis in a medical sense. It also discusses why smoking marijuana is a good way of administering the drug. 3. It's not true that cigarettes being filtered makes them better to smoke than marijuana. In fact, the idea that tobacco is superior due to filtering is wrong on two fronts. The first of which is that filtering is not as beneficial as it seems. Light cigarettes are actually worse for a person, from a health standpoint, than a regular cigarette. Why? "Because smokers, unlike machines, crave nicotine, they may inhale more deeply; take larger, more rapid, or more frequent puffs; or smoke a few extra cigarettes each day to get enough nicotine to satisfy their craving. This is called compensating, and it means that smokers end up inhaling more tar, nicotine, and other harmful chemicals than the machine-based numbers suggest." Secondly, not all marijuana smokers fail to use filtering techniques. They often use water pipes, otherwise known as bongs, which do filter the smoke to a certain degree. I'm not sure how much benefit this has, though, because there have been no practical studies done on the subject. In fact, the only study I could find on the viability of water filtering compared one hour of smoking a hookah to smoking one cigarette. Hardly a fair comparison, and not really applicable to the situation. 4. People just do not smoke tobacco and marijuana the same way, so head-to-head comparisons are usually very skewed. Many of us who follow the cannabis issue will remember an "Anti-Drug" commercial from a few years ago that stated that one joint contained as many carcinogens as three cigarettes. This article actually inflates the number to four cigarettes. Let's examine why this claim is misleading. For the sake of argument, let us consider a light smoker, one who smokes half a pack a day. That's ten cigarettes. So, according to the claim, a person could smoke two and a half joints a day and still have the same exposure to carcinogens. However, how many marijuana smokers smoke even that much? And for that matter, how many marijuana smokers smoke joints all alone? The stereotype of a "stoner," which would by any means would be a heavy user, is one who smokes a few times a day with several friends. But tobacco smokers will smoke ten cigarettes that they don't share every day without fail lest they start suffering withdraw from the nicotine they are addicted to. A person who smokes marijuana joints with even one other person would have to smoke five joints a day every day, and thus be a very "heavy" user, to keep up with this "light" tobacco smoker. I wish I had more facts to impart, but studies on marijuana are few and far between. Additionally, the ones that have been published some times have to be taken with a grain of salt. As stated in the first article I posted, the researchers involved in the study were expecting to prove ill-health effects of marijuana, which is dangerous to the scientific method. When one sets out to prove a certain hypothesis, it is very easy to ignore or misinterpret data in favor of the conclusion you wish to support. There is a documented history of this happening in studies involving illicit drugs. In particular, there is the case where researchers studying the effects of MDMA (commonly known as ecstasy) released a very damning report on MDMA before noticing that they not only had not used MDMA but methamphetamine, but also used incredibly high doses of methamphetamine. The gap of time between the article's publication and the retraction of the article, one year, was enough for the article to be cited by various sources in favor anti-drug legislation. The researchers set out to prove the dangers of MDMA and ended up becoming more of an example of what science can be in the wrong hands. The most common arguments for not using marijuana I hear are very circular. Why is marijuana bad? Because it's illegal. Why is marijuana illegal? Because it is bad. But the problem is that the facts just don't support this conclusion. I would never advocate a person doing something they were uncomfortable doing or advocate them breaking the law. However, I can understand why someone would choose to do the latter once they took a closer look at the facts.