[dixiechick2000]

“However, high-dose smokers develop pulmonary symptoms (episodes of acute bronchitis, wheezing, coughing, and increased phlegm), and pulmonary function may be altered, manifested as large airway changes of unknown significance.”

So...maybe you should post the rest of the story. BTW, this is from your link to Merck.

It’s not harmless.

I can’t help but believe that smoking pot isn’t akin to smoking cigarettes, but with a much better mellow.

[dixiechick2000]

isn’t s/b is

[TigersEye]

“However, high-dose smokers develop pulmonary symptoms (episodes of acute bronchitis, wheezing, coughing, and increased phlegm), and pulmonary function may be altered, manifested as large airway changes of unknown significance.”

I guess I'm lucky that after 40 years of smoking pot and cigarettes I haven't developed any of that. But I could so I guess the government should control my behavior. /s

[andyk]

So...maybe you should post the rest of the story. BTW, this is from your link to Merck.

I did not post selectively from the link, as you imply. I posted the first paragraph, which summed up the conclusions. It is considered poor etiquette to post multiple page references. I included the link so others could read the exculpatory evidence they seem to want to think does not exist. I hope you read the entire link and were open to the objective information.

It’s not harmless.

Heh, who said it was?

I can’t help but believe that smoking pot isn’t akin to smoking cigarettes, but with a much better mellow.

If the conclusions in the Merck manual are correct, then it is not akin to smoking cigarettes. To wit:

(Merck) There is no evidence of increased risk of head and neck or airway cancers, as there is with tobacco.

My final point is that if you think your state should outlaw it, fine. If you think that the federal government has the power, under the constitution, to outlaw personal intrastate use of marijuana, well that's too bad.