I agree with you that we don't have unbiased studies and that there's a lot of hearsay around regarding cannabis since next to no testing has been done. We have pages and pages of links here on this site about its wonders as a medical substance, but they're not solid or large-scale studies, most of them, and they're largely completely biased. The links themselves are mostly to the abstracts, not the complete study data. What studies have been done have largely been done with isolates of cannabis compounds. Like isolated THC and isolated CBD, not whole cannabis. So the vast majority of those studies don't reflect what happens with inhaled whole cannabis; they more often report what happens when lab mice ingest or receive injections of cannabis isolates. Mice studies with cannabis isolates don't translate directly to how whole smoke of different strains affects humans. What's rarely pointed out is that for every pro-cannabis link people share here, there are just as many studies and abstracts out in cyberspace that say the opposing things.

Now to basic pulmonary physiology. You need to do some serious reading in a number of places and do your own legwork on finding the bibliographical references that will satisfy you. Go to the NORML site and read medical studies there. Go to Erowid and read there. Find as many links as you can to the Tashkin pulmonary studies at UCLA. Get yourself the Saunders Textbook of Medical Physiology and an MD-PhD medical professor at any accredited medical school to teach you how respiration physiology works. It's standard information that you can satisfy yourself with. Then visit any pulmonary study lab in academic medicine. You can literally go to any medical school in the country (Denver and St. Louis are particularly good places for pulmonary medicine) and watch someone in a lab demonstrate a respiration device/artificial lung with air, oxygen, and smoke of any kind, including pollution. You'll see how and when the gas-exchange occurs and how, with smoke or particulate of any kind, an extended or deliberately delayed inspiration allows more time for tars, particulate and combustion by-product chemicals to settle into contact with the surface areas of the alveoli and bronchioles.

You're not going to get a bibliographical source on this site every time people say things. We're not an academic site and will not be becoming one in the future. If you're hearing things from people whom you doubt, you might want to check their profiles for more information about them or look at their post history to see if, for instance in the case of growing, they have considerable experience in that area. In the case of inspiration/respiration and smoke inhalation physiology and damage, that's some of the most fundamental information that's been studied since cigarettes first began to be recognized as a harmful substance in the 40s and 50s, when spirometry studies were first done (and when pollution in the 60s and 70s began to be studied, too). It's available in standard physiology and medical pathology books. If you have a problem with interpreting things as "sounding childish" and unfounded, you should open your mind long enough to realize that information worded in a basic, comprehensible fashion is going to be far more understandable to our audience here than sentences full of anatomical and medical physiological terms. Any problem you're having with childish terminology is an indication of prejudice in your own interpretation, not a problem with what's actually being said.

I don't have a problem with your being a doubter or a questioner or someone who wants solid facts and references. You're quite in sympathy with me there. I do have a problem with the fact that, as a relatively new member here, you've seemed to often be far more quick to criticize than to open your mind and take in information, consider the credibility of the source whoâ??s speaking, then do your own research to confirm it.