Personally, I think it's "spin" to try and set up the surgeon question as the only basis by which the determination of "dangerous" is made. Denying the "mind altering" qualities of tobacco essential attempts to dismiss what are arguably the most dangerous aspects of it. I don't recommend either one, but trying to downplay one in order to demonize the other is simply pushing an agenda.
It's not demonizing to call a spade a spade. What agenda, pray tell, do I have? Do you think I'm anti-legalization? Do you think I am against you smoking dope? I'm not.
But the thing is, I have smoked a considerable amount of dope in my life and I know for a fact from my own experience that we're not talking about 'mind altering' so much as we are discussing 'diminished capacity'. If a person were constantly stoned (just as if they were constantly drunk) there would be a very wide range of normal activities that it would not be safe for that person to do/perform. Things like driving, working with power tools, doctoring/nursing all manner of things. There are very few examples where the same argument can be made for cigarettes. Tobacco smokers- demonstrably- carry out all sorts of complex tasks every minute of the day. We don't have to stick to the surgeon example. Pick anything that requires a great deal of skill and concentration. Air Traffic Controller. Who do you want pushing the tin you're flying in- a Marlboro junkie or a guy who just smoked a joint? Pilots. Ambulance drivers. SWAT team member. Soldier. Working on an aircraft carrier flight deck. Crane operator. The list just goes on and on.
The surgeon question isn't the only basis at all and to me this is perfectly clear. I would no more want someone who was stoned (or as I said- F--ked Up) to be doing any of these things than I would somebody who had been drinking. Smoking cigarettes isn't even on the same scale in this regard.
I'm not against you smoking dope though. Toke away. No agenda at all. I would suggest that someone who is defending the argument that 'it's ok for a surgeon to toke up before cutting on me' is promoting an agenda and one that doesn't make that much common sense at that.
For me, defining dangerous has to do with whether the person in question can perform normal activities or not. Driving is a dangerous but normal activity. Drinking alcohol is inherently more dangerous than smoking because a person who just drank a six pack is more impaired than a person who just chain smoked half a pack of cigarettes. Same with smoking pot.
Let's say, you're a parent and for whatever reason, your spouse is not home. Something grave happens to your child and you have no way to call an ambulance and it becomes necessary for you to physically drive your child to the hospital yourself. Odds are, you're going to make it whether you've had a few joints, beers or whatever. But the risks go up with every toke or beer that you might be involved in an accident while driving to the hospital because you were impaired. This is a normal situation where you placed your child at more risk because you were high or drunk. Smoking cigarettes has different dangers but I can't see where the normal activity of getting your child to the hospital would be impaired at all by tobacco.
This is what's being discussed here. Not this situation per se, but the fact that something that impairs you logically raises risks for lots of normal things- therefore making it more dangerous than something that does not similarly impair you.
Again, it's not called 'Getting F--ked up' for no reason.