How many people are actually killed by drugs?

Actually I dont smoke......But hey If you want to buy into one or two vague studies without much hard evidence thats fine. (I've weighed and measured human lungs as well afflicted by many diseases its a prerequisite generally speaking of any anatomy courses.....it doesnt give you special experience, anyone can get the same looking up the information...) Here's the problem you claim a smokers lung and a smog exposed one are "totally different" however you fail to see that you can't possibly know what that person was exposed to in what amounts actually. (ask your dad's boss the chief coroner about that one, It's exactly like those tests you quoted, assumption and supposition). You can't always tell a smokers lung either thats total bs and I've heard it from so many doctors (and respiratory therapists of which one of my best friends is in charge of in kingston and he's anal about any smoke...but he's still logical about statistics and gathering of information). Not all smokers have big grey or blackish brownish etc etc lungs. If you'de like we can exchange personal information and I can send you my own mothers chest tests....who has chain smoked since age 13. Here's the problem not one doctor or specialist she's been too can tell she's a smoker by the condition of her lungs.....Guess she's a freak of nature. But oh wait theres thousands of cases like her out there. But hey you can always tell a smokers lungs (nothing in medicine is absolute im surprised your father never told you that). Age makes a difference with any organ as well....come on.....claiming it makes no difference....really....come on.

Also the Mayo Clinic isnt special to me theyr'e like any other american funded organization biased to science that opposes their governments views(as it directly affects their funding look at what the bush admin has done to pro pot groups and studies...just stopped funding anyone coming out with positives)....which would explain some of the things on their "marijuana" page. They put just enough actual scientific information but then went vague at the end as to a conclusion. (so as I imagine to not offend their "overlords").

If we commit murder together but you blame me and get away scot free....yeah im the scapegoat so yes they are scapegoats(however you added the poor I dont feel pity for them and I never suggested anyone should...)

And if you dont know what adds up look at the stats. Cigarrette's are not these magical cancer giving sticks. If you look at the laws of physics and biology and chemistry as a whole and look at the stats it just doesnt add up at all. It's like the whole religion thing. They just use god to explain anything they cant. Just like we blame tobacco as its convenient (we do know it has certain cancer causing agents etc). But ignoring those 50 factories overall by counting them against all cigarrette's one at a time is as I said farcical. There is more chemicals in the air itself than cigarrette's. Not to mention as I've said before time of exposure. Your ALWAYS exposed to pollution.

None of these factors even came into these studies....and they do not mention the type of study either is....This is why I subscribe to medical journals and in fact any scientific journal I can afford. They always tell you exactly what kind of test what number of subjects and the formula used in the hypothesis. Sorry vague assumptions that arent backed by the scientific theories we know (nor are even really plausible), don't really strike me as factual things to get my "bun in a knot" about type thing.

The AMA still says Cannabis is bad, yet 70 years ago they were the most vocal opponents of stripping it of its legal ability....guess they must have discovered something really bad about it eh.....As does any american medical association directly funded by the government....Gee I wonder why that is...(see above).

Speaking of which does anyone remember if eggs are bad or good for you right now?(it changes so often.....):rolleyes:

The AMA still says Cannabis is bad, yet 70 years ago they were the most vocal opponents of stripping it of its legal ability....guess they must have discovered something really bad about it eh.....As does any american medical association directly funded by the government....Gee I wonder why that is...(see above).

I agree with you. We are on the same side here...BUT
the issue of my post was NOT is smoking worse than smog..... the issue is that the evidence presented to date by more than one nation says tobacco, alcohol, etc..is more harmful than cannabis

It makes no sense to me that weed is illegal and tobacco is not....

That was the point of the post so why come in defending tobacco?

as I pointed out in the first sentence of my first post, It was because I have a problem with the factual improbability of tobacco being the #1 killer on the planet (however if they said alcohol I might buy that considering its effects and contributions to driving accidents, Ie: the statistics can be supported by a vast array of hard evidence). Otherwise I agree 99% with the other things you said. Which I also already stated in said post.

Natural Tobacco with no additives is nowhere near as bad the stuff companies sell us now. Thats another good point.

Basically it all comes down to ALL of them are guilty equally yet tobacco gets blamed. That is my point. Were avoiding a more serious issue by just accepting those stats and ignoring the greater harm of widespread worldwide pollution. A smoker doesnt produce enough tonnage even in a year of chain smoking compared to most cars after a week even. It's really no surprise when you think about it. Smoking is limited by human breathing, vehicular and industrial by product pollution isnt limited by anything other than fuel(as they are so widespread at any given time thousands if not millions are going at any one time).

Thats my whole point, just expounding upon my disagreement with your one statistic thats all. I'm not opposing legalization etc or anything of such a sort. Just the greater problem of people ignoring the overall issues and instead blaming tobacco for any lung issues. It just bothers me like I mentioned about religion , instead of fixing the problem they're basically just sweeping it under the rug and putting their fingers in their ears saying "lalallalalalala". (like religious people when confronted about their religions origins, ie: what other religion it was actually based on for example christianity has roots in babylonian egyptian sumerian mythology etc.)

I like Panacea's not Placebo's hope that clears up my point.

Basically it all comes down to exposing one fraud while not seeing the larger one connected. (usually the things people get labelled as "wingnuts" or tinfoil hat wearer's etc), The word conspiracy no longer conjures up images of people actually planning others harm for most it conjures up the image of the loner who's a bit wacko. Unfortunately in no way shape or form do they not exist. After all many government officials are convicted (never the important ones of course) as well as commercial exec's in trying to cover up certain things.

Heck some people still dont believe in aliens despite NASA and over 50% of astronaut's going public over the years , not to mention declassified files exposed by the freedom of information act. But hey facts have no place in the real world these days

(most of that rant wasnt aimed in anyway at ya blue, I just tend to ramble when baked going off on tangents and such)