Evolution, in the Darwinian sense, is a select form of adaptation. Actually, Darwin never uses the term evolution in his writings-- he favors natural selection. What you call adaptation, I call evolution. We're talking about the same thing.

As for the razor blade thing: granted, weed isn't going to be good for your lungs, but comparing it to hacking away at your lungs like a razor blade is the kind of sensationalistic propaganda that one tends to see from the likes of Harry J Anslinger and other DEA cronies.

Also, I didn't say that you run out of phlegm-- however, the more you smoke, the more phlegm you cough up, and since your body only produces phlegm at a certain rate, the more you smoke, the longer you go having an inadequate amount of phlegm to protect your lungs. Smoking doesn't cause you to run out of phlegm, it just uses the phlegm quickly, leaving your lungs exposed to infection.

As to the weed preventing cancer, check out this article:
http://www.counterpunch.org/gardner07022005.html
If you read it, you'll find that marijuana smokers had less occurrence of cancer than even the control group. If you read this article:
http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread4900.shtml
you will find that THC is an effective treatment for brain tumors.

Finally, not a single case of lung cancer has been linked to weed and weed alone.

So you've been studying this stuff at a university level, but don't know the difference between evolution and natural selection, and provide your in-depth, science-based rebuttals in terms of "cancer units?"
Goodman3eb Reviewed by Goodman3eb on . Pot not a major cancer risk NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Although both marijuana and tobacco smoke are packed with cancer-causing chemicals, other qualities of marijuana seem to keep it from promoting lung cancer, according to a new report. The difference rests in the often opposing actions of the nicotine in tobacco and the active ingredient, THC, in marijuana, says Dr. Robert Melamede of the University of Colorado in Colorado Springs. He reviewed the scientific evidence supporting this contention in a recent Rating: 5