well fuck me. that's a hell of a study. while it confirms that (particular sample of) cannabis is not devoid of harmful compounds, it also proves that much more study is needed to examine several variables. it's a real shame that it's so difficult for our greatest minds to explore this stuff. there are tons of questions i have after reading that that are illegal to find the answer to. (i have read that statement about 20 times and i have no idea how to make it grammatically correct

)i'd like to know more about how the cultivation method could affect such results. the study only briefly touched on the possibility that the fertilizers could have skewed such and such.the cannabis sample may or may not have been what we would call "cured". all we know is the end moisture content was 10%. it would be very interesting to see how much difference could be measured in the smoke itself based on the dry/cure method used.arsenic and lead were missing from the cannabis. this is good.weed had more ammonia, but it was noted that the sample was grown hydroponically with chemical ferts. much more study needed here.due to cannabinoids and other assorted whatnots, comparing the presence of certain compounds proved quite difficult. the method and temperature of combustion also needs a lot more study.i still feel a lot better about smoking my own weed than i do about smoking butts. its a lot less poisonous and the study doesn't refute it.