Smoke And Mirrors

There’s something we all know about the radical Reich Wing. They lie. Yes, we all know they lie about Bush, Cheney, Obama, Socialism, Marxism, Communism, Democrats, Liberalism, and everything else in the political spectrum. They also lie about other things. And they go to great lengths to propagate those lies. Here’s an entertaining, well for me anyway, exchange with one of them. I dearly love exposing their lies and they really hate it when I do just that.

On July 29, our friend the Gun Toting Liberal posted a video clip he called, "SHOCKING VIDEO: President Obama Smoking On Gulf Coast Beach With [Former] BP CEO Tony Hayward."
It was a “funny” animated clip of Obama tossing a cigarette on BP’s oil, destroying the world. Our old radical right wing adversary who calls himself F&B was highly amused, and left an idiosyncratic teleprompter reference in his comment.

I couldn’t resist taking him out for a spin.

Note: Forgive my omission of all the links. My points were explained and his were debunked. You can find all of F&B's referenced articles if you want to waste the time.

---
F&B:
Dang. LMAO. According to Obama’s teleprompter, it’s still all Bush’s fault.
---
DD:
Ah, but that was Bush’s teleprompter Obama inherited. No wonder it malfunctions…

I’m surprised conservatives are not happy with Obama smoking. That means more money goes to the republicans’ tobacco lobby. And this brings up a question. Do more Americans die from terrorism or tobacco?
---
F&B:
“Do more Americans die from terrorism or tobacco?” — The question is irrelevant. People can choose to smoke or not, but those who died from terrorism did not make a decision to do so.
Tobacco provides income to many low income farmers. In some cases, tobacco is the only crop they can grow. It provides a large share of support to many regions in this country. It has a downside, obviously, but it also has an upside.
Terrorism has no upside.
---
DD:
Ah, the cold heart of an authoritarian speaks. American deaths from tobacco are irrelevant. Tell that to the families.So it would also provide good jobs to grow weed and opium, too, right? Are Americans entitled to pick their own poison or should government decide for them?

"Terrorism has no upside" Oh come on, how do you think Bush/Cheney frightened enough voters to re-elect them? Terror, terror, terror. You'll die from terrorism if you vote for democrats. Do you really think we have no memory?? Cheney said, "If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again -- that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States. And then we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mindset, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us."

Terrorism was very good for the Republicans. They had no qualms of using such scare tactics for divisive vote pandering.United we stand, my ass.
---
F&B:
Sure Dubya, and you go ahead and tell the families who lost loved ones in the 9-11 attack that their deaths are no different than someone who dies from tobacco use. You really are heartless, aren’t you.
Well, y’see, tobacco is legal. Opium and pot aren’t. If they were then yes, growing them legally would provide jobs and income to the farmers. And again, yes, the people should decide what drugs are legal and which are not. We have a system in place to handle that sort of thing.
Correct, I said that Terrorism has no upside. If you think it does, that’s your issue, not mine.
Bush and Cheney may have frightened you, but they never frightened me. I was not unhappy with their administration. I did very well during the Bush years. (And the Clinton years, and Bush 41, and Reagan, but not Carter, and I’m hoping I survive the Obama Regime, time will tell.) (It sounds like your family isn’t doing all that well under the Obama Regime. How did you do under Bush, Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, Carter (if you’re old enough to remember)). I don’t mean to be callous, but that is a fact you have shared with the internets. I deal with what is, not what I want to be.
You really need to do something about your BDS, it clouds your judgement. … Oh, I almost forgot … you’re a TRUTHER! You actually think Bush and Cheney were involved in the 9-11 attack. That explains a lot. I have to remember that you’re not just a closet liberal progressive, you’re also a Truther
---
DD:
Poor F&B seems sleep deprived. I asked a simple question that can be answered with reasonable estimates in numbers. He decides the question is irrelevant and proclaims, “Terrorism has no upside”. So far, he only displays a little confusion.

Then I had to think. If terrorism really had no upside, why would it exist? Somebody must think they benefit from it. Who? First I think maybe some terrorists (apart from the suiciders) gain some popularity with fringe members and possibly financial support. They it occurs to me there are some American mercenaries who are getting very rich on our tax dollars because of terrorism. Perhaps there are a few other corporate war profiteers as well. Then it occurred to me, wait a minute. Didn’t one certain American political party frequently invoke the words associated with terrorism during an election? Wouldn’t it frighten someone to hear the Vice President warning us about the danger we’ll get hit again if we don’t vote for him? You know, it sure does look like terrorism had an upside for certain cultural, economic and political interests. Yes, I would say so.

So, anyway, all I did was point this out to F&B, and he concludes I want to tell 9-11 families some crazy “heartless” nonsense from F&B’s wild imagination. Then we are reassured by F&B that he was never frightened by his Big Dick’s talking points.

Quickly he changes to one of his favorite subjects, money. We’re happy F&B has done well since Reagan, apart from his sad misfortunes (that were not his fault) in the Carter years. I’d like to thank F&B for kindly asking me how I did through the past years. I’m happy to say I was lucky enough to see steady employment since before Reagan. In fact I got a nice job back in the Carter era. I’m sure F&B would have done as well if he had maybe only worked a little bit harder. Some of us found our “bootstraps” before Reagan urged us to pull them up.

But then the dark days of George W. Bush came over the land. We were caught with someone sleeping at the switch. We were attacked AFTER being warned by a Presidents Daily Brief in August of 2001. More darkness followed. The Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, the Warner Defense Authorization Act all clamped down on our civil liberties and Bill of Rights. Wars were launched. One was initiated by fear mongering through terrorizing words from Bush and his Big Dick. WMD’s and scary “nukular” aluminum tubes were falsely linked to Saddam and al-Qaeda. Very frightening images of mushroom clouds were seeded into the public’s anxieties.
Then the economy was devastated by labor and market manipulation, a Big Money casino mentality, and financial shell games. My wife saw her job go to Asia. The Bush era was very bad, but not as bad for us as for the uncounted thousands of human beings lost in their war for power and profit.

So here we are, trying to recover from the devastation brought upon us by the Bush era.
This is how we “deal with what is”. And unfortunately “what is” has nothing whatsoever to do with F&B’s next wild delusion. Poor F&B leaps to the conclusion (from what, I cannot tell) that I “actually think Bush and Cheney were involved in the 9-11 attack”.

I guess somehow F&B is disturbed so deeply about what I said about his Big Dick, that he needs to rush to protect his Big Dick from what he calls a “closet liberal progressive”. Please take your meds and get some rest, F&B. I hope you feel better in the morning.
----
F&B:
Don't worry about me Dubya, I feel great. I do regret that anyone has to suffer the paranoid delusions that you exhibit Dubya. But I'm sure that explains why you attack me for saying things that I didn't say. More voices in your head, eh? Too bad.
I could be wrong about Terrorism having no upside. If people with your mentality were in charge, Terrorists would be able to gain a great deal of control by frightening them. I am thankful that is not the case.
Just a couple of little hints Dubya, in spite of what your BDS forces you to think you believe, the economic issues that led to the current financial situation did not just manifest themselves during or as a result of the Bush Administration. You have to look deeper, farther back, like try the Carter years. Very important note: The President does not pass legislation, he can only approve or veto the bills sent to him by Congress. The current recession is not just a U.S. problem, it is global (not entirely, but I don't want this to get too complicated for you to follow). Another hint: President Bush had little to do with European economic policies, and their recession is worse than ours. I could go on, but I won't. I know these facts don't fit neatly into your BDS mentality, but they are facts nonetheless.
We've been down the Truther path before Dubya. Just admit who you are. You have revealed yourself as a Truther before, and you are again now. For you, everything leads back to your Bush Derangement Syndrome. Admit who you are and maybe you can begin the slow path to recovery.
If you want to equate Terorism and tobacco in your little world, that's your issue, as I said before. It is a foolish assessment, but it is your assessment. Don't be such a coward. Own up to what you said without trying to backpedal and change the subject as soon as someone challenges it.
---
DD:
Now there you go again with that famous right wing projection. Of course you feel “great” and want to project delusions unto me. Those mood swings have their highs, don’t they?

Unfortunately your thinking is still quite detached from reality. You see, you can’t reasonably accuse poor Carter of all your past woes along with the present financial picture. Really, that is quite a symptom of paranoia.

Hint: I know corporate dems are also responsible for the mess we’re in. You’re not telling me anything I don’t already know. Another hint: Unlike poor Americans, not one European is bankrupted by health care costs. I imagine you are proud of the fact that not only do we pay more for pharmaceuticals; we have more bankruptcies due to medical conditions. That is the stunning measure of success for your beloved insurance corporations. We do know whose side you are on.

I understand when we give factual information, your duty is to deny such facts and launch into accusations and reframe the issues completely out of perspective. Hench, you call me a truther and imply I am so frightened of terrorism I will give them “control” and somehow I “equate” terrorism with tobacco. This is either pure fabrication or mental illness. It matters not, because it’s the cult indoctrination that is important. Instead of simply calling you a liar, I leave open the option you are brainwashed.

Final hint: If tobacco was “equated” with terrorism, we would be seeing politicians telling us the tobacco corporations win unless we invade the South. Or I would be demanding the imprisonment of tobacco farmers. I’m not, of course, but you will likely want to accuse me of that, anyway, so go ahead. Make your accusations. I know it makes you feel better. You cannot admit more Americans die from tobacco than from terrorism. Go ahead. I dare you. Bet you can’t.
---
F&B:
You can't admit that people who use tobacco make a conscious choice to do so, but those who have died in terrorist attacks did not. For this reason alone, they cannot be compared in the manner in which you want to compare them.
But go ahead, indulge yourself, tell us what the numbers are. Try to make the (nanny state) case that you believe tobacco is worse than terrorism.
And again, you still can't manage to read what is actually written. You always try to spin everything. It is sad really that you are incapable of conversing without inserting this very disturbed aspect of your "personality". I'll clarify, and I will try to use small words for you. I did not blame Carter. I said the policies go back to Carter. That means policies that have been in place for over 30 years. Even with your full blown BDS you can't blame President Bush for policies enacted 25 years before he was elected.
Hint: Correct on Europeans not being bankrupted by their own health costs. They are bankrupted by the expense (taxes) of paying for everyone else's health care costs.
---
DD:
It goes without saying people who use tobacco make a conscious choice to do so. See I can admit it. I have no problem agreeing with reality. You still cannot admit the true fact that Tobacco kills more Americans than terrorism. That must be against your programming somehow. Maybe you can get permission to make an exception.

You may avert your eyes for a minute, because here comes some truth that you refuse to acknowledge. Here are facts from the CDC: “Tobacco use is the single most preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the United States. Each year, an estimated 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, and another 8.6 million have a serious illness caused by smoking.”

Now for a couple of your lies:
“Try to make the (nanny state) case that you believe tobacco is worse than terrorism.” - Done
“You always try to spin everything.” - Nope. Just giving you the facts.
“They are bankrupted by the expense (taxes) of paying for everyone else's health care costs.” – Nope again. If they can pay taxes they are not bankrupt.

Tobacco kills more Americans than terrorism. Fact, Deal with it, bub, I am right and you refuse to admit it. I repeat. You cannot admit more Americans die from tobacco than from terrorism. Go ahead. I dare you. Bet you can’t.
---
F&B:
It isn't a matter of admitting that tobacco contributes to more deaths than are caused by terrorism, but I have no problem acknowleding it. It is still like comparing apples and oranges. In the case of tobacco deaths, they are willing participants - i.e. they know the risks of tobacco but use it anyway. In the case of terrorism, they are not willing participants.
bub.
---
DD:
The issue becomes making those deaths preventable or aggravating them. It is possible in both cases. Bush/Cheney manipulated fears of terrorism into a war that has needlessly killed thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of civilians. Just sayin. Unfortunately certain corporate profits are enhanced by those deaths. That is the tie in to this “apples and oranges” thing. Human life is human life, and dead people are dead people.
---
F&B:
On a slightly different subject, Dubya... You often whine about legalizing marijuana so it can be taxed, etc. Not the governments business, blah, blah, blah. Here's a couple of little factoids you can roll up in your next doobie. There are more carcinogenic chemicals in pot smoke than in tobacco smoke. If legalized, it is probable that deaths from marijuana would eventually surpass deaths from cigarettes. And yet, in your blind hatred and ignorance, you want pot legalized and tobacco to be made illegal. You are one serious piece of work, bub.
---
DD:
There you go again with the “blind hatred and ignorance” projection. Just because what I say upsets you, it does not mean it is out of hatred.

“Deaths from marijuana?” Hoo, boy. That sounds like old fashioned “reefer madness” fear mongering. You guys do love to fear monger. So what tobacco/liquor funded study did you get those “factoids” from? Or did you just pull that one out from where you pull your other crap like, I want “tobacco to be made illegal”? I never said that, now did I, You made that part up and only wish I said it.

I certainly would never advocate for anyone to smoke anything, except maybe a peace pipe, but you authoritarians don’t particularly care much for peace.

I have a request. Why don’t you show us medical evidence of all those “deaths from marijuana”? It won’t be easy, since marijuana is the safest drug in the world. But have fun! In the meantime here’s something for any reader interested in the reality based world.

From Web MD: Pot Smoking Not Linked to Lung Cancer
Study Shows No Increased Risk for Even the Heaviest Marijuana Smokers

From Drug Policy Alliance:
Myth: Marijuana is More Damaging to the Lungs Than Tobacco. Marijuana smokers are at a high risk of developing lung cancer, bronchitis, and emphysema.
Fact: Moderate smoking of marijuana appears to pose minimal danger to the lungs. Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains a number of irritants and carcinogens. But marijuana users typically smoke much less often than tobacco smokers, and over time, inhale much less smoke. As a result, the risk of serious lung damage should be lower in marijuana smokers. There have been no reports of lung cancer related solely to marijuana, and in a large study presented to the American Thoracic Society in 2006, even heavy users of smoked marijuana were found not to have any increased risk of lung cancer. Unlike heavy tobacco smokers, heavy marijuana smokers exhibit no obstruction of the lung's small airway. That indicates that people will not develop emphysema from smoking marijuana.

And, gasp! This one is from your favorite propaganda source, FOX:

I wonder what motivates a person to so passionately deny the truth as much as you Righties do. I think our pal Weaseldog is onto something when he calls you a paid shill. Yes, I am “one serious piece of work” if you say so yourself. Isn’t it interesting how pot smokers like Willie Nelson are so much more grounded in reality than people in your cult?

---
F&B:
As I have said here many times before, Dubya, but you are just too dense to comprehend, I am not opposed to the legalization of marijuana.
That being said, you constantly dig up whatever data you can find to support your idiotic opinions, regardless of the plethora of contradictory evidence that is staring you right in your contorted little face. You present obsolete, outdated information and expect me to believe it? Get real dude.
"Marijuana Smoke Linked to Cancer" This is a NEWER article in WebMD, from 2009, contradicting the 2006 article you quoted from.
In addition, marijuana smoke has beenn added to Califormia's Proposition 65 list of known carcinogens. "A California state board called marijuana smoke a health hazard and has added it to the state's list of environmental hazards, placing the drug alongside other carcinogens like arsenic, asbestos, and DDT, the San Jose Mercury News

'Nuff said bub.
---
DD:
Yes, F&B, you’ve said “nuff”.
Your about.com article was unsourced. Your webmd article says, “"These results provide evidence for the DNA-damaging potential of cannabis smoke," the researchers write, "implying that the consumption of cannabis cigarettes may be detrimental to human health with the possibility to initiate cancer development." Notice the words “potential” and “may be detrimental”. Is this your conclusive “evidence”?

Did you know your “plethora of contradictory evidence” comes from one, and only one, “study” that artificially created conditions in a lab where a chemical common to both marijuana and tobacco damaged a piece of lung tissue. Then you added the utterly hysterical comparison made by a “California state board” that marijuana is similar to toxins like arsenic, asbestos, and DDT. You failed totally in providing any conclusive medical evidence.

Now just for argument’s sake, because you know I love to argue, if marijuana was legal, it would be cheap enough for people to eat or vaporize. So even if it were actually dangerous to smoke, there would be no need for smoking it at all.

So get real dude, you can’t come up with one human case of cancer, let alone one fatality, from marijuana. I asked, “Why don’t you show us medical evidence of all those “deaths from marijuana”? You failed completely, pal.

Not only did you fail in showing one death from marijuana, you pronounced a plague of deaths to come, “probable that deaths from marijuana would eventually surpass deaths from cigarettes.” Wow. And then you cold bloodedly seemed to not care about those deaths by saying you are “not opposed to the legalization of marijuana”. Trying to have it both ways again, eh? Nothing new there.

I may be dense, but nowhere near dense enough to fall for your wild accusations, shoddy reasoning and factually impaired arguments. I wonder if anyone else notices the pattern where after I totally debunk your claims you quickly change subjects. You really do fit the pattern of right-wing discourse. First you lie or make an outrageous claim, then you throw unfounded accusations at your adversary after they counter it with facts, and finally you change the topic to further muddy up the discussion. We see this formula at work throughout all these exchanges.
Well done, my little right wing propagandist. You do your job quite well. I wonder how much you are paid for pushing this BS.
__

F&B:
The about.com article was written by a physician and peer reviewed by 12 other doctors before being published.
The WebMD article was from the same source that you cited but is 3 years more recent. WebMD was willing to modify their position based on new information. Something that you, sadly, are unable to do Dubya. Your article focused on a group of people from the LA area who had consumed varying amounts of pot during their lives, many of whom had not smoked for decades. The study was not controlled. The article was written by a WebMD reporter, not by a doctor. Etc.
Bandolier (a group of Oxford University scientists) - “6 studies with 494 participants undergoing bronchoscopy” – “Increase in abnormal and precancerous findings in marijuana smokers compared with tobacco smokers. Surrogate markers for lung malignancy more often found in marijuana smokers”
“ScienceDaily (June 15, 2009) — Using a highly sensitive new test, scientists in Europe are reporting "convincing evidence" that marijuana smoke damages the genetic material DNA in ways that could increase the risk of cancer.” … “Cannabis smoke contains 400 compounds including 60 cannabinoids. However, because of its lower combustibility it contains 50% more carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons including naphthalene, benzanthracene, and benzopyrene, than tobacco smoke.” … “The smoking of 3-4 cannabis cigarettes a day is associated with the same degree of damage to bronchial mucus membranes as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day”
Reuters: “The researchers interviewed 79 lung cancer patients and sought to identify the main risk factors for the disease, such as smoking, family history and occupation. The patients were questioned about alcohol and cannabis consumption. In this high-exposure group, lung cancer risk rose by 5.7 times for patients who smoked more than a joint a day for 10 years, or two joints a day for 5 years, after adjusting for other variables, including cigarette smoking.”
There is much more available, thus constituting a “plethora”. And the most recent evidence (as long as you avoid studies sponsored by High Times magazine) indicates serious health effects, including various cancers, from marijuana use.
So, Dubya, this is your idea of “marijuana is the safest drug in the world”?
Dubya’s psychotic personality actually allows him to ASSume that I am against legalization and he clumsily tries to call me out on that in one comment. Then after I explain that I am not opposed to legalization he tries to spin that to mean I don’t care if people die from smoking pot, even while claiming that marijuana is the “safest drug in the world”. Dude, get help, before the neighborhood dogs start talking to you.
Dubya said “…it would be cheap enough for people to eat or vaporize” – Not the same thing, when it is smoked, a “freebase” form of THC is inhaled and absorbed directly into the blood through the lungs. It is a different “high” than obtained from ingesting pot, e.g. pot brownies contain THC but not the extremely reactive freebase form. This is similar to the reason why Nicotine gum or pills do not really satisfy a cigarette smoker’s craving for the freebase nicotine obtained from smoking.
---
DD:
So, which way do you want it, Prohibition leading to destruction of civil liberties, or legalization leading to tax revenue and your imaginary “deaths from marijuana would eventually surpass deaths from cigarettes”? For someone so politically impassioned against something you don’t seem to mind all the “deaths from marijuana”. You still have NOT shown one case of cancer from weed. You have failed again.

These are “studies” sponsored by agenda driven factions.

Bandolier is not a medical journal. They are clearly biased: Note the terms they use.
“So our starting point is to expect marijuana smoking to cause cancer, by simple analogy... ...This allows us to be even more certain of a probable link between marijuana smoking and lung cancer, and not to be too hung up about wanting more evidence.” Sounds like FOX’s fair and balanced “Obama hates white people” BS. No need to be “too hung up about wanting more evidence”. Now there’s real science, eh?

Science Daily was the same “study” from the first article. Why do you keep referencing the same study for your “plethora”? And again, here’s their agenda, “"The data obtained from this study suggesting the DNA damaging potential of cannabis smoke highlight the need for stringent regulation of the consumption of cannabis cigarettes...”

Again, did you know your “plethora of contradictory evidence” comes from one, and only one, “study” that artificially created conditions in a lab where a chemical common to both marijuana and tobacco smoke damaged a piece of lung tissue. Did you read this the first time? This is not a human medical study, it is lab conditions. Again, NOT a medical journal.

The Reuters article was about a New Zealand “study” that was by Richard Beasley and funded by GlaxoSmithKline pharmaceuticals. Not exactly a void of conflict of interest there. Interestingly that same study showed cannabis to be less likely to cause emphysema than tobacco.

And this bit, “Dubya said “…it would be cheap enough for people to eat or vaporize” – Not the same thing, when it is smoked, a “freebase” form of THC is inhaled and absorbed directly into the blood through the lungs. It is a different “high” than obtained from ingesting pot, e.g. pot brownies contain THC but not the extremely reactive freebase form. This is similar to the reason why Nicotine gum or pills do not really satisfy a cigarette smoker’s craving for the freebase nicotine obtained from smoking.” This is proof you don’t know what you are talking about. Many cancer patients get relief from vaporizing and eating it, and those who smoke it know it will not give them the cancer they already have.

You like to show off stats like this: “The smoking of 3-4 cannabis cigarettes a day is associated with the same degree of damage to bronchial mucus membranes as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day”, but you CANNOT show me ONE person with cancer caused by weed. Why do you insist on fighting the truth with your fringe agenda driven studies? What is your agenda? Is it just to prove me wrong? You can’t. Nice try.

Do you even read this crap? I asked you to find real cases of humans with cancer caused by marijuana. You failed.

This is like debating someone who STILL believes Dick Cheney and George Bush about WMD’s, “nukular” aluminum tubes, and Saddam’s connections with al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Oh...That’s right. You ARE a true believer. Your mind is made up. Well, there you go. The neighborhood dogs are starting to make a lot more sense than you.

---
Note:
By this point F&B is completely frustrated and fires his last salvo of lies. Instead of posting his tirade first and adding my response, I'll just fill in my replies line by line.
---
DD and F&B:

Okay, here’s one last quick summation just for you.

Frankly, Dubya, I don't care what you believe. And there you go again, trying to change the subject to emphyzema.

(LIE. Topic was always about smoking and health hazards. Death in particular from F&B. Emphysema has lead to death.)

Notice how Dubya accuses me of trying to change the subject, then he tries to change it in his next post. Lame.

(LIE. My “accusation” was”Reframe the issues completely out of perspective”, AFTER he started reframing the issue calling me a “truther”. Next, did I change the subject in my next post? No. Here’s the post:

“It goes without saying people who use tobacco make a conscious choice to do so. See I can admit it. I have no problem agreeing with reality. You still cannot admit the true fact that Tobacco kills more Americans than terrorism. That must be against your programming somehow. Maybe you can get permission to make an exception. You may avert your eyes for a minute, because here comes some truth that you refuse to acknowledge. Here are facts from the CDC: “Tobacco use is the single most preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the United States. Each year, an estimated 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, and another 8.6 million have a serious illness caused by smoking.” Now for a couple of your lies:“Try to make the (nanny state) case that you believe tobacco is worse than terrorism.” - Done“You always try to spin everything.” - Nope. Just giving you the facts.“They are bankrupted by the expense (taxes) of paying for everyone else's health care costs.” – Nope again. If they can pay taxes they are not bankrupt.Tobacco kills more Americans than terrorism. Fact, Deal with it, bub, I am right and you refuse to admit it.I repeat. You cannot admit more Americans die from tobacco than from terrorism. Go ahead. I dare you. Bet you can’t.”

There you have it, TWO LIES from F&B in one sentence.)

Even the link you posted indicates lung damage from smoking pot – And this is what you call “the safest drug in the world?”

(Yes, we know smoke makes you cough, but “lung damage” does NOT mean death. And yes, when eaten or vaporized it is the safest drug in the world. No deaths. Zero. Got a problem with that?)

Wrong Dubya, - the Oxford meta-analysis used 6 studies composed of 464 people, the Science Daily report was from work done by Cancer Biomarkers and Prevention Group, Department of Cancer Studies and Molecular Medicine and Karolinska Institute in Sweden, and the Reuters report came from interviews with 79 lung cancer patients.

(Wrong about what? So? None of this provided ONE CASE of cancer from marijuana. No deaths. Zero. Got a problem with that?)

Face it Dubya, you latched onto one study from 2006 that said what you wanted to hear and you ignored everything else.

(First LIE: Projection. YOU referred to the same lab study using no human beings twice. Second LIE: I “ignored everything else”.)

The Reuters report includes people with lung cancer that appear to have contracted it as a result of smoking pot.

(LIE: No, that’s what you “appear” to see. Note the words: “small group”, “cancer risk”, “could be” and “may see” Not one established case of cancer caused by marijuana was presented.)

"While our study covers a relatively small group, it shows clearly that long-term cannabis smoking increases lung cancer risk," wrote Beaseley." Cannabis use could already be responsible for one in 20 lung cancers diagnosed in New Zealand," he added."In the near future we may see an 'epidemic'.

(Said the man taking a pharmaceutical corporation’s money for his “research”.)

And yet Dubya thinks this is the "safest drug in the world".

(It is the safest drug in the world. No deaths. Zero. Got a problem with that? Zero lung damage when not smoked. Zero. Got a problem with that?)

So, really, there is no debate. It is like arguing with a child who refuses to accept the truth and will counter every argument with groundless denial.

(LIE: It is debated, lopsided as it is. Funny part: If I had made that comment, it would’ve been more truthful and made sense.)

Dubya even stopped trying to offer proof and is relying on lying about my sources and trying to change the subject.

(First LIE: YOU were the one asked for evidence, and you provided sources that FAILED to prove deaths occurred from marijuana. Second LIE: F&B is relying on lying about me relying on lying.)

Dubya again tries to use Alinsky tactics, he just isn't very good at it.

(What does Alinsky have to do with this? Oh, I forgot you’re probably under contract to mention him.)

Lastly Dubya, not giving you what you want hardly constitutes “failure”. But surrendering to the urge to throw a little hissy fit, as you did in your last post, is a sure sign of Failure.

(I agree. Not giving me what I want hardly constitutes failure. Your FAILURE started with your ridiculous claims. After that, your FAILURES were in reasoning, facts, and assumptions. You even FAILED in lying. Nobody believes you.)

As usual, I'll let you take the last jab, otherwise this will go on forever and you are becoming quite, uhhhh, tedious.

(Too bad you find this tedious. I’m still quite amused calling out your lies and watching you lose your temper. Tedious... yet you continue. So, how much are you paid to do this, again?)