[angkor]

Many young people are simply not aware that smoking cannabis may put them at increased risk of respiratory cancers and infections .

Not that I'm advocating anything relating to pot smoking, but it humorous that not a single shred of evidence is presented in this story - not even a hint at fact - to back the assertions of the headline or of the story itself.

So we have a bunch of pols, a physician, a reporter, and the BBC itself fabricating a story on the basis of precisely nothing.

[Dimensio]

Well, an argument could be made that tobacco is usually filtered while a joint is not. Of course, they wouldn't want to mention that because it reveals that it's the method of intake that is the problem and not the chemicals taken. Also, I've heard that a water based filter (read: bong) is the best way to smoke the stuff, as it greatly reduces the toxins in the lungs.

I don't smoke the stuff, so I can't say for certain.

[TheOtherOne]

I loved the last paragraph:

"As a respiratory consultant physician, I see the devastating consequences of smoking-related lung diseases, such as emphysema and chronic obstructive airways diseases, every day and I am fearful that long-term cannabis smoking may be linked to similar conditions."

[SheLion]

So we have a bunch of pols, a physician, a reporter, and the BBC itself fabricating a story on the basis of precisely nothing.

Isn't that how most Editorials read today? Half-truths and bogus studies. And they hope the general public will believe it all.

[skeeter]

So we have a bunch of pols, a physician, a reporter, and the BBC itself fabricating a story on the basis of precisely nothing.

Sounds like someone involved with the report, which hasn't yet been completed, is giving reporters a summary preview.

I do agree with SheLion. I expect any evidence of the deleterious effects of pot to be met with thundering silence by the tobacco nazis.

[Kerberos]

"Not that I'm advocating anything relating to pot smoking, but it humorous that not a single shred of evidence is presented in this story - not even a hint at fact - to back the assertions of the headline or of the story itself. "

That would be because there is none. This line of attack was debunked years ago.