Ramses, you are correct to a point, but in the long run, it's a fact that tobacco has far, far more additives than pot. In cigarette manufacturing, the nasty stuff comes in after the crop is harvested (post farmer-applied pesticides, etc).

Also, in general pot growers do use some degree of chemical, but I know what most of them use (I've seen enough grow-ops) and in fact for pesticides, the majority use nothing more than Safers brand bug-killer (the kind for use on vegetables) because its cheap and effective and in central Canada, the only bug to worry about for the most part is spider-mites, easilly killed with Safers. They do use chemical fertilizer, but the greenhouse tomato growers use the same stuff.

There really is very little chemical used in pot growing. True, the growers are all about profit, and thats why so little is used; the biggest expense, and the biggest growth benefits, all come from more lighting and better ventilation.

What I can pull from this is that 70% of men smoke the weed. This in part is a more likely option in my opinion. Of course the study group is two small and ignores things like diet and environment to be conclusive

Like a wise man once said.

There are three kinds of mistruths, lies, dammed lies, and statistics

Just look at all those old hippies who have been smoking everyday and every moment these last 4 to 5 decades. Where's the cancer ?

If the association between marijuana use and health deterioration was true, it could easily be identified in North West California. That has not occurred and not for the lack of trying to prove the weed is indeed evil.

The evil rest with the law that encourages marijuana seekers to associate with a population that may encourage other and truly dangerous drugs and association with possibly dangerous people.

Drug prohibitions have an outstanding history of failure unless you are ready to get brutal like Red China killing addicts.