It's Time to Rethink Marijuana Laws

Philadelphia Enquirer ^ | July 9, 2007 | Kathleen Parker

[Eric Blair 2084]

WASHINGTON -- News that Al Gore's 24-year-old son, Al Gore III, was busted for pot and assorted prescription pills has unleashed a torrent of mirth in certain quarters.

Gore-phobes on the Internet apparently view the son's arrest and incarceration as comeuppance for the father's shortcomings. Especially rich was the fact that young Al was driving a Toyota Prius when he was pulled over for going 100 mph -- just as Papa Gore was set to preside over concerts during a 24-hour, seven-continent Live Earth celebration to raise awareness about global warming.

Whatever one may feel about the former vice president's environmental obsessions, his son's problems are no one's cause for celebration. The younger Gore's high-profile arrest does, however, offer Americans an opportunity to get real about drug prohibition, and especially about marijuana laws.

For the record, I have no interest in marijuana except as a public policy matter. My personal drug of choice is a heavenly elixir made from crushed grapes. But it is, alas, a drug.

Tasty, attractive and highly ritualized in our culture, wine and other alcoholic beverages are approved for responsible use despite the fact that alcoholism and attendant problems are a plague, while responsible use of a weed that, at worst, makes people boring and hungry, is criminal.

Pot smokers might revolt if they weren't so mellow.

Efforts over the past few decades to relax marijuana laws have been moderately successful. Twelve states have decriminalized marijuana, which usually means no prison or criminal record for first-time possession of small amounts for personal consumption. (Those states are: Alabama, California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio and Oregon.)

[A CA Guy]

I don’t think politicians empower themselves directly by enforcing various drug laws.
I sure don’t think law enforcement likes having officers killed now and then by recreational drug producers or users either.
That is kind of a stretch in thinking IMO on this topic.

I think you can make the case you want to regarding potential indoctrination in public schools. There you have political motivation and actual evidence daily for your statement, but not with recreational drugs.

[A CA Guy]

Conservatives don’t consider a message of saying no to recreational drugs as being moronic, in fact others backing recreational drugs are referred to as the jokers around here.
Look at all the referenced to pot smoking libertarians all over FR and see if the comments are respectful of them...
Guess what, they are jokes and they have zero respect among the main body of conservatives (who also probably don’t use).

:-) Good Day!

[bajabaja]

You don’t believe even a Harvard School of Public Health Study of actual patients?

That is your position then, and you are certainly entitled to believe whatever you believe is justified. But it seems there is no study anywhere that you will believe. (You dismissed a statistical study based on morbidity data, then when given an actual study conducted by Harvard University, you dismissed that too. Apparently these studies are “media makeovers.”) I posted studies from three sources, one Canadian and two American. Medical researchers at Harvard and in Canada are lying? I would be happy to see your sources, if you have such. Otherwise the other readers of this interesting article and thread have all the data they need to come to a reasonable conclusion.

[Just another Joe]

You don’t believe even a Harvard School of Public Health Study of actual patients?

Show me the study. What you linked to is not a study and there is no link there to a study.

I want the STUDY, not the press release of what the study supposedly says.

To give you an example, an increase from an RR of 1.00 (No statistical evidence) to an RR of 1.5 can be touted as a 50% increase in whatever they are studying.
What they don't tell you in the press release is that an RR of 1.50 is STILL no statistical evidence.
Before drawing a link between whatever is being studied and a cause, valid research calls for, at least, an RR of 2.00 and most legitimate researchers like to see an RR of 3.00.

Press releases can be disastrously misleading.

[Just another Joe]

And if you want the results of studies,

Here's a list of studies and their associated risk findings.

Keep in mind that most epidemialogical studies discount a risk percent if it is lower than 2.00.
I count 94 studies that have statistics associated and 14 that have a risk of 2.00 or more.

TABLE I

EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES RELATING TO LUNG CANCER
AMONG NONSMOKERS MARRIED TO SMOKERS

Author	Year	Location	Sex of the subject	Number of lung cancers	Average Relative Risk	Relative Risk fluctuation (min/max) (95% confidence interval)
Garfinkel 1	1981	USA	F	153	1.18	(0.90 - 1.54)
Chan	1982	Hong Kong	F	84	0.75	(0.43 - 1.30)
Correa	1983	USA	F M	22 8	2.07 1.97	(0.81 - 5.25) (0.38-10.32)
Trichopoulos	1983	Greece	F	77	2.08	(1.20-3.59)
Buffler	1984	USA	F M	41 11	0.80 0.51	(0.34-1.90) (0.14-1.79)
Hiramaya	1984	Japan	F M	200 64	1.45 2.24	(1.02-2.08) (1.19-4.22)
Kabat 1	1984	USA	F M	24 12	0.79 1.00	(0.25-2.45) (0.20-5.07)
Garfinkel 2	1985	USA	F	134	1.23	(0.81-1.87)
Lam W	1985	Hong Kong	F	60	2.01	(1.09-3.72)
Wu	1985	USA	F	29	1.20	(0.50-3.30)
Akiba	1986	Japan	F M	94 19	1.50 1.80	(0.90-2.80) (0.40-7.00)
Lee	1986	UK	F M	32 15	1.00 1.30	(0.37-2.71) (0.38-4.39)
Brownson 1	1987	USA	F	19	1.68	(0.39-6.90)
Gao	1987	China	F	246	1.19	(0.82-1.73)
Humble	1987	USA	F M	20 8	2.20 4.82	(0.80-6.60) (0.63-36.56)
Koo	1987	Hong Kong	F	86	1.64	(0.87-3.09)
Lam T	1987	Hong Kong	F	199	1.65	(1.16-2.35)
Pershagen	1987	Sweden	F	70	1.20	(0.70-2.10)
Butler	1988	USA	F	8	2.02	(0.48-8.56)
Geng	1988	China	F	54	2.16	(1.08-4.29)
Inoue	1988	Japan	F	22	2.25	(0.80-8.80)
Shimizu	1988	Japan	F	90	1.08	(0.64-1.82)
Choi	1989	Korea	F M	75 13	1.63 2.73	(0.92-2.87) (0.49-15.21)
Hole	1989	Scotland	F M	6 3	1.89 3.52	(0.22-16.12) (0.32-38.65)
Svensson	1989	Sweden	F	34	1.26	(0.57-2.81)
Janeric	1990	USA	F M	144 44	0.75 0.75	(0.47-1.20) (0.31-1.78)
Kalandidi	1990	Greece	F	90	2.11	(1.09-4.08)
Sobue	1990	Japan	F	144	1.13	(0.78-1.63)
Wu-Williams	1990	China	F	417	0.70	(0.60-0.90)
Liu Z	1991	China	F	54	0.77	(0.30-1.96)
Brownson 2	1992	USA	F	431	1.00	(0.80-1.20)
Stockwell	1992	USA	F	62	1.60	(0.80-3.00)
Liu Q	1993	China	F	38	1.66	(0.73-3.78)
Du	1993	China	F	75	1.09	(0.64-1.85)
Fontham	1994	USA	F	651	1.29	(1.04-1.60)
Layard	1994	USA	F M	39 21	0.58 1.47	(0.30-1.13) (0.55-3.94)
Zaridze	1994	Russia	F	162	1.66	(1.12-2.46)
Kabat 2	1995	USA	F M	67 39	1.08 1.60	(0.60-1.94) (0.67-3.82)
Schwartz	1996	USA	F M	185 72	1.10 1.10	(0.72-1.68) (0.60-2.03)
Sun	1996	China	F	230	1.16	(0.80-1.69)
Wang S-Y	1996	China	F	82	2.53	(1.26-5.10)
Wang T-J	1996	China	F	135	1.11	(0.67-1.84)
Cardenas	1997	USA	F M	150 97	1.20 1.10	(0.80-1.60) (0.60-1.80)
Jöckel-BIPS	1997	Germany	F M	53 18	1.58 1.58	(0.74-3.38) (0.52-4.81)
Jöckel-GSF	1997	Germany	F M	242 62	0.93 0.93	(0.66-1.31) (0.52-1.67)
Ko	1997	Taiwan	F	105	1.30	(0.70-2.50)
Nyberg	1997	Sweden	F M	89 35	1.20 1.20	(0.74-1.94) (0.57-2.55)

The data in this table were obtained from the studies listed. In the Swartz (1996), Jöckel-BIPS (1997) and Nyberg (1997) studies, relative risk and confidence interval data were reported for the sexes combined. These data were separated based on the respective number of cases by sex, assuming the same relative risk for each sex.

TABLE II

EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES RELATING TO LUNG CANCER AMONG
NONSMOKERS REPORTEDLY EXPOSED TO ETS IN THE WORKPLACE

Author	Year	Location	Sex of the subject	Average Relative Risk	Relative Risk fluctuation (min/max) (95% confidence interval)
Kabat 1	1984	USA	F M	0.68 3.27	(0.32-1.47) (1.01-10.62)
Garfinkel 2	1985	USA	F	0.93	(0.55-1.55)
Wu	1985	USA	F	1.30	(0.50-3.30)
Lee	1986	UK	F M	0.63 1.61	(0.17-2.33) (0.39-6.60)
Koo	1987	Hong Kong	F	1.19	(0.48-2.95)
Shimizu	1988	Japan	F	1.18	(0.70-2.01)
Janerich	1990	USA	F & M	0.91	(0.80-1.04)
Kalandidi	1990	Greece	F	1.70	(0.69-4.18)
Wu-Williams	1990	China	F	1.10	(0.90-1.60)
Brownson 2	1992	USA	F	0.79	(0.61-1.03)
Stockwell	1992	USA	F	no statistically	significant association
Fontham	1994	USA	F	1.39	(1.11-1.74)
Zaridze	1994	Russia	F	1.23	(0.74-2.06)
Kabat 2	1995	USA	F M	1.15 1.02	(0.62-2.13) (0.50-2.09)
Schwartz	1996	USA	F & M	1.50	(1.00-2.20)
Sun	1996	China	F	1.38	(0.94-2.04)
Wang T-J	1996	China	F	0.89	(0.46-1.73)
Jöckel-BIPS	1997	Germany	F & M	2.37	(1.02-5.48)
Jöckel-GSF	1997	Germany	F & M	1.51	(0.95-2.40)
Ko	1997	Taiwan	F	1.10	(0.40-3.00)
Nyberg	1997	Sweden	F & M	1.60	(0.90-2.90)

The data in this table were obtained from the studies listed.

TABLE III

EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES RELATING TO LUNG CANCER AMONG
NON-SMOKERS REPORTEDLY EXPOSED TO ETS IN CHILDHOOD

Author	Year	Location	Sex of the subject	Average Relative Risk	Relative Risk fluctuation (min/max) (95% confidence interval)
Correa	1983	USA	F	no statistically	significant association
Garfinkel 2	1985	USA	F	0.91	(0.74-1.12)
Wu	1985	USA	F	0.60	(0.20-1.12)
Akiba	1986	Japan	F & M	no statistically	significant association
Gao	1987	China	F	1.10	(0.70-1.70)
Koo	1987	Hong Kong	F	0.55	(0.17-1.77)
Pershagen	1987	Sweden	F	1.00	(0.40-2.30)
Svenson	1989	Sweden	F	3.30	(0.50-18.80)
Janarich	1990	USA	F & M	1.30	(0.85-2.00)
Sobue	1990	Japan	F	1.28	(0.71-2.31)
Wu-Williams	1990	China	F	0.85	(0.65-1.12)
Brownson 2	1992	USA	F	0.80	(0.60-1.10)
Stockwell	1992	USA	F	1.70	(1.00-2.90)
Fontham	1994	USA	F	0.89	(0.72-1.10)
Zaridze	1994	Russia	F	0.98	(0.66-1.45)
Kabat 2	1995	USA	F	1.63	(0.91-2.92)
Sun	1996	China	F	2.29	(1.56-3.37)
Wang T-J	1996	China	F	0.91	(0.56-1.48)
Jöckel-BIPS	1997	Germany	F & M	1.05	(0.50-2.22)
Jöckel-GSF	1997	Germany	F & M	0.95	(0.64-1.40)
Ko	1997	Taiwan	F	0.80	(0.40-1.60)

The data in this table were obtained from the studies listed.

TABLE IV

EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES RELATING TO LUNG CANCER AMONG
NON-SMOKERS REPORTEDLY EXPOSED TO ETS IN NON-HOME/NON-WORKPLACE SETTINGS

Author	Year	Location	Sex of the subject	Average Relative Risk	Relative Risk fluctuation (min/max) (95% confidence interval)
Garfinkel 2	1985	USA	F	1.42	(0.75-2.70)
Lee	1986	UK	F M	0.61 1.55	(0.29-1.28) (0.40-6.02)
Janerich	1990	USA	F & M	0.59	(0.43-0.81)
Stockwell	1992	USA	F	no statistically	significant association
Fontham	1994	USA	F	1.50	(1.19-1.89)
Kabat 2	1995	USA	F M	1.22 1.39	(0.69-2.15) (0.67-2.86)

The data in this table were obtained from the studies listed.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

From my post: "Marijuana contains more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke and because marijuana smokers usually inhale deeper and hold the smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers, their lungs are exposed to those carcinogenic properties longer."

I'm well-aware of what was contained in your post. But cigarette smokers also inhale smoke into their lungs deeply, and since the average number of cigarettes smoked by a typical cigarette smokers dwarfs the average number of marijuana cigarettes smoked by a typical marijuana smoker, the amount of cigarette smoke deeply inhaled, over time, and the length that cigarette smoke remains in a cigarette smoker's lungs---cumulatively---is in the stratosphere compared to that of an average marijuana smoker. You simply can't compare the two types of smoking habits in the same way, because cigarette smokers use their product for different reasons than marijuana smokers use their product. For example, "chain smoking" cigarettes is quite common. Chain smoking marijuana cigarettes is quite uncommon, as it is a distinct waste of marijuana.

You also said: " . . . a typical marijuana smoker may smoke a total of one or two marijuana cigarettes per week". Must be nice to be an expert on what the "typical marijuana smoker smokes in a week. Of those who I know that "typically" smoke marijuana one or two per week would be an extremely slow week. So, where do you get your "facts" on the "typical" amount that marijuana smokers use in any given week? I seriously question your claim.

The only time it's nice to be an expert on the habits of a typical marijuana smoker is when a chucklehead like you, who obviously knows very little about the subject, puts forth in a public forum like an expert on it. Because then I am in a perfect position to hand said chucklehead his hat. As one of the few FReepers willing to admit he smokes grass, with a long history of doing so, when it comes to this subject, I do have expert standing. Sorry.

[SoldierDad]

As one of the few FReepers willing to admit he smokes grass, with a long history of doing so, when it comes to this subject, I do have expert standing. Sorry.

You being a user of this "ILLEGAL" drug does not make you an expert on the smoking habits of all marijuana users, sorry. I'm now handing your hat to you, sir. My being a professional psychologist working in the field of mental health and having worked with and around those who use illegal drugs, including marijuana, for the past 11 years probably gives me a little bit of validity on this subject, thanks.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Conservatives don’t consider a message of saying no to recreational drugs as being moronic, in fact others backing recreational drugs are referred to as the jokers around here.

You're so simple sometimes it's downright embarrassing to this forum.

[bajabaja]

Each of your studies referes to NON-SMOKERS according to the headings. That was not what I am talking about. I am talking about the lifetime risk to SMOKERS from smoking tobacco. Where did you think I was talking about non-smokers’ risks (i.e., second hand smoke)?

You seem to be challenging me on the issue of second hand smoke. I never mentioned that, dealing only with actual smokers.

I do not believe there is significant support in the morbidity tables for NON-SMOKER/lung cancer link.

But then, I never even mentioned it.

Please read my posts again to assure yourself that you are talking about the same thing.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

You being a user of this "ILLEGAL" drug does not make you an expert on the smoking habits of all marijuana users, sorry.

Of course it doesn't, but it makes me an expert on the smoking habits of most of them, excepting the edge cases, which, by definition, are extremely atypical. I've seen both ends of the spectrum, from the chronic to the casual.

I'm now handing your hat to you, sir. My being a professional psychologist working in the field of mental health and having worked with and around those who use illegal drugs, including marijuana, for the past 11 years probably gives me a little bit of validity on this subject, thanks.

Allow me to hand you your hat back, my friend. In another life, I was married to a woman whose entire family was in the field in which you labor. Were I to publish what I thought of you and your profession, based on direct, first-hand observation and experienced, I would risk getting banned from this forum. Nothing personal, of course, but by definition you are working with atypical people, so what you see is going to be skewed, decidedly, from the norm.

[Just another Joe]

You're correct, I am using these studies as an example of the type of information that I look for when looking into a study.
If you do searches for these studies you will find abstracts, at least, that give things such as study size, study length, different groupings of participants, what confounders were checked for, results, etc.

All you have linked me to so far are press releases or hypthetical estimates done on hypothetical groupings.

I agree that smoking can be a risk factor for many types of illnesses, including lung cancer.
I haven't seen studies that reliably tell me, with results, that, on average, 10% of all smokers get lung cancer.

[SoldierDad]

Delusions of Grandeur. But then, marijuana use is known to cause delusions.

[bajabaja]

Wait, you are using data on NON-SMOKERS contracting lung cancer to dispute a 10% lifetime risk of lung cancer on the part of SMOKERS?

That is an interesting approach to analysis.

I look forward to data that actually concerns SMOKERS and LUNG CANCER, not what you have posted. (I’ve given mine, but you countered it with irrelevant studies on an unrelated question. If you have relevant studies on the issue, please, by all means, show us.)

Check out the Harvard site again. People don’t get grants if they fabricate data.

Again, for others reading this post, the data and studies show about a 10% lifetime risk of lung cancer for SMOKERS. Poster Just Another Joe sites studies for NON-SMOKER (second hand smoke) cancer risk.

[SoldierDad]

Marijuana Statistics

Marijuana is the most used illegal drug in the United States. Nearly 69 million Americans over the age of 12 have tried marijuana at least once.

Marijuana is California’s largest cash crop.

Today’s marijuana is 10 to 15 times stronger than it was in the 60’s

Reaction time for motor skills, such as driving is reduced by 41% after smoking 1 joint and is reduced 63% after smoking 2 joints.

There have been over 7,000 published scientific and medical studies documenting the damage that marijuana poses. Not one study has shown marijuana to be safe.

Data has shown that people high on marijuana show the same lack of coordination on standard “drunk driver” tests as do people who have had to much to drink.

The daily use of 1 to 3 marijuana joints can produce the same lung damage and potential cancer risk as smoking five times as many cigarettes.

Marijuana is the second most common drug, after alcohol, present in the blood stream of non-fatally and fatally injured persons.

Among teens 12 to 17, the average age of first trying marijuana was 14 years old.

A yearly survey of students in grades 8 to 12 shows that 23% of 8th graders have tried marijuana at least once and by tenth grade, 21% are “current” users. Among 12th graders, nearly 50% have tried marijuana at least once, and about 24% were current users.

Marijuana is a complex material containing 421 chemicals, 60 of which are only found in marijuana

75% of drug-related criminal charges are connected to marijuana.

65% of people arrested for marijuana related crimes are for simple possession.

Approximately 50,000 Canadians are arrested each year for marijuana related crimes.

600,000 Canadians have a criminal record for simple possession of marijuana.

Estimates put the value of the marijuana industry to the British Columbia Economy at anywhere between $2 billion and $10 billion, making it one of British Colombia’s top three industries.

Marijuana Trend Statistics Across the United States

Marijuana trends across the United States are indicators of the rate of Marijuana abuse, Marijuana addiction, domestic violence, and child abuse. The Marijuana trends for each state has a direct correlation to the amount of Marijuana seized by federal authorities. Below are the federal Marijuana seizures for each individual state. These statistics for each state’s federal Marijuana seizures provides current information on which states have the largest Marijuana trafficing problem.

Alabama Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 332.6 kgs.

Arizona Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 218,877.8 kgs.

Arkansas Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 2,281.1 kgs.

California Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 217,626.2 kgs.

Colorado Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 455 kgs.

Connecticut Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 42.6 kgs.

Delaware Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 14.0 kgs.

Florida Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 30,185.4 kgs.

Georgia Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 5,283.9 kgs.

Idaho Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 0 kgs.

Illinois Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 30,185.4 kgs.

Indiana Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 391.8 kgs.

Iowa Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 199.9 kgs.

Kansas Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 2,539.4 kgs.

Kentucky Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 436.1 kgs.

Louisiana Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 4, 110.5 kgs.

Maine Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 21.3 kgs.

Maryland Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 118.0 kgs.

Massachusetts Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 862.0 kgs.

Michigan Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 3,571.1 kgs.

Minnesota Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 798.2 kgs.

Mississippi Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 1,143.3 kgs.

Missouri Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 8,739.9 kgs.

Montana Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana:136.4 kgs.

Nebraska Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 437.7 kgs.

Nevada Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 42.8 kgs.

New Hampshire Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 0 kgs.

New Jersey Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 2,196.8 kgs.

New Mexico Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 52,018.0 kgs.

New York Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 2,658.0 kgs.

North Carolina Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 3,826.8 kgs.

North Dakota Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 2.4 kgs.

Ohio Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 2,440.9 kgs.

Oklahoma Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 2,861.4 kgs.

Oregon Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 125.0 kgs.

Pennsylvania Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 377.3 kgs.

Rhode Island Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 8.5 kgs.

South Carolina Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 4,283.8 kgs.

South Dakota Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 2.9 kgs.

Tennessee Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 218.4 kgs.

Texas Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 613,107.3 kgs.

Utah Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 13.1 kgs.

Vermont Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 249.9 kgs.

Virginia Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 110.3 kgs.

Washington Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 4,182.8 kgs.

West Virginia Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 90.5 kgs.

Wisconsin Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 5.2 kgs.

Wyoming Federal Marijuana Seizures: Marijuana: 0 kgs.

[bajabaja]

And if you want the results of studies, Here's a list of studies and their associated risk findings. Keep in mind that most epidemialogical studies discount a risk percent if it is lower than 2.00. I count 94 studies that have statistics associated and 14 that have a risk of 2.00 or more.

Your studies regard SECOND HAND SMOKE, not SMOKER/LUNG CANCER risk. You do not mention that rather relevant distinction at all in your post. Instead you site the studies and correlational numbers, but fail to mention these studies are on a separate question, NON-SMOKER/SECOND HAND SMOKE/CANCER risk. If you have studies that show such poor correlations between SMOKERS and LUNG CANCER, then we are talking about the same thing. I am sure you will post those actually relevant studies -- if they exist.

[Just another Joe]

And if you will look at Post 171 you will see my rationale for showing you those studies.

Once again, all you have linked me to so far are press releases or hypothetical estimates done on hypothetical groupings.

[bajabaja]

The Harvard School of Public Health is conducting a “Lung Cancer Susceptibility and Outcome Study.” That is not a “press release.”

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/lungcancer/#results

You have data showing a similar lack of correlation between SMOKERS/LUNG CANCER then please post it. We know you have data on an unrelated issue: NON-Smokers and Lung Cancer.

[Lord_Baltar]

Amen to that!

[Just another Joe]

Show me a study. One that has the data needed to draw a conclusion.
I don't necessarily believe everything I read, hear, or see without corroborating evidence.

I said that approximately 10% of smokers contract any type of life threatening illness, you wanted proof.

You said that approximately 10% of all smokers contract lung cancer. I ask you for proof.
Not press releases, not hypothetical estimates of hypothetical groups, just studies that I can look at.

I have said that I will attempt to find the study that had the 10% for any life threatening illness.
I can't do so right now because I'm at work without access to my external hard drive.

If you want to swap veiled insults we can do that.

If you want to convince me, show me the studies.

[Just another Joe]

WHAT ARE SOME OF OUR RESULTS?

This section is still under construction. Click here for a list of publications resulting from this study.

So you rely on a study that has no results yet, or won't share their results?

Give me a break.