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.....)