I'm literally showing you the very source of the statistics. Which you're just refusing to accept, because presumably you're incapable of going "oh, my mistake, I was wrong."

That's the scientists explaining — in detail — how the data was collected and where from. I also went into the sources of that study. Did you actually log into the Lancet and read the article, or open, see you need an account and go "oh whatever"?

You've several times now, asked "do you know the LD50 of cannabis" and "how exactly is cannabis killing people". Straight up refusing to accept that I've explained in detail the difference between drug related and drug specific mortality and how both stats can have things in them without anyone having claimed that a person died of too much cannabis in their system.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that people SMOKE cannabis and smoking causes a higher mortality rate? I said that before reading the studies, but now that I have done they also explicitly state that, like I KNEW they would.

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=50ba3efb0204557af6b762141f94c9a68cb9e291

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert-Gable/publication/14984972_Toward_a_Comparative_Overview_of_Dependence_Potential_and_Acute_Toxicity_of_Psychoactive_Substances_Used_Nonmedically/links/557613d908aeb6d8c01aea8d/Toward-a-Comparative-Overview-of-Dependence-Potential-and-Acute-Toxicity-of-Psychoactive-Substances-Used-Nonmedically.pdf

Both of these quantify deaths from cannabis, but explicitly state the actual LD50 to be unknown, as there's fewer than three reports of people having died and those can't be ascertained to be because of cannabis. So they get the LD50 from animals and extrapolate it to humans based on fancy maths. And explicitly state that. Both of them give substances safety ratings. The rating for heroin is 6. Alcohol 10. MDMA 16. The study concludes that they show that MDMA's dangers have been exaggerated, and it's inline with cocaine and meth etc. The number for cannabis, you're asking? They rate it as >1000.

No-one is claiming people are dying of cannabis overdoses, and now that we're this deep in this thread, there's no way you're gonna back on that childish assumption. So I await more bullshit sealioning and excuses despite me linking the methods and sources of all the fucking data from the economist article that you pretend you were too incapable of Googling yourself.

Like what more can you want then the sources for all citations in that study, and the study explaining this in length:

During the decision conference participants assessed weights within each cluster of criteria. The criterion within a cluster judged to be associated with the largest swing weight was assigned an arbitrary score of 100. Then, each swing on the remaining criteria in the cluster was judged by the group compared with the 100 score, in terms of a ratio. For example, in the cluster of four criteria under the category physical harm to users, the swing weight for drug-related mortality was judged to be the largest difference of the four, so it was given a weight of 100. The group judged the next largest swing in harm to be in drug-specific mortality, which was 80% as great as for drug-related mortality, so it was given a weight of 80. Thus, the computer multiplied the scores for all the drugs on the drug-related mortality scale by 0·8, with the result that the weighted harm of heroin on this scale became 80 as compared with heroin's score of 100 on drug-specific mortality. Next, the 100-weighted swings in each cluster were compared with each other, with the most harmful drug on the most harmful criterion to users compared with the most harmful drug on the most harmful criterion to others. The result of assessing these weights was that the units of harm on all scales were equated. A final normalisation preserved the ratios of all weights, but ensured that the weights on the criteria summed to 1·0. The weighting process enabled harm scores to be combined within any grouping simply by adding their weighted scores. Dodgson and colleagues3 provide further guidance on swing weighting. Scores and weights were input to the Hiview computer program, which calculated the weighted scores, provided displays of the results, and enabled sensitivity analyses to be done.

You want the individual data points from all the related studies? All the names and addresses of the people who died and their coroners reports? That's not how science works, ffs

I've explained in detail and with the actual data where the mortality figures come from. You can't accept it, because it would mean admitting to how silly you were. Like a teenager who's just discovered cannabis; "you can't die of cannabis, this study is fake news!"

Everyone here can see that you're avoiding answering whether you even logged in to the Lancet to read the study. You didn't. People here can also see that you're STILL IGNORING THE THING IVE REPEATED DOZENS OF TIMES; smoking is a popular way of using cannabis and smoking causes cancer.

Anyone reading this will see just how childish you're being.

It's okay that you were ignorant and completely wrong. It's not a sign of weakness, I promise you. However, childish trying to pretend you didn't make a mistake? Acting like a toddler, because you can't admit to having lost an argument? That is a sign of weakness.

I'm literally showing you the very source of the statistics. Which you're just refusing to accept, because presumably you're incapable of going "oh, my mistake, I was wrong."

That's the scientists explaining — in detail — how the data was collected and where from. I also went into the sources of that study. Did you actually log into the Lancet and read the article, or open, see you need an account and go "oh whatever"?

You've several times now, asked "do you know the LD50 of cannabis" and "how exactly is cannabis killing people". Straight up refusing to accept that I've explained in detail the difference between drug related and drug specific mortality and how both stats can have things in them without anyone having claimed that a person died of too much cannabis in their system.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that people SMOKE cannabis and smoking causes a higher mortality rate? I said that before reading the studies, but now that I have done they also explicitly state that, like I KNEW they would.

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=50ba3efb0204557af6b762141f94c9a68cb9e291

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert-Gable/publication/14984972_Toward_a_Comparative_Overview_of_Dependence_Potential_and_Acute_Toxicity_of_Psychoactive_Substances_Used_Nonmedically/links/557613d908aeb6d8c01aea8d/Toward-a-Comparative-Overview-of-Dependence-Potential-and-Acute-Toxicity-of-Psychoactive-Substances-Used-Nonmedically.pdf

Both of these quantify deaths from cannabis, but explicitly state the actual LD50 to be unknown, as there's fewer than three reports of people having died and those can't be ascertained to be because of cannabis. So they get the LD50 from animals and extrapolate it to humans based on fancy maths. And explicitly state that. Both of them give substances safety ratings. The rating for heroin is 6. Alcohol 10. MDMA 16. The study concludes that they show that MDMA's dangers have been exaggerated, and it's inline with cocaine and meth etc. The number for cannabis, you're asking? They rate it as >1000.

No-one is claiming people are dying of cannabis overdoses, and now that we're this deep in this thread, there's no way you're gonna back on that childish assumption. So I await more bullshit sealioning and excuses despite me linking the methods and sources of all the fucking data from the economist article that you pretend you were too incapable of Googling yourself.

Like what more can you want then the sources for all citations in that study, and the study explaining this in length:

During the decision conference participants assessed weights within each cluster of criteria. The criterion within a cluster judged to be associated with the largest swing weight was assigned an arbitrary score of 100. Then, each swing on the remaining criteria in the cluster was judged by the group compared with the 100 score, in terms of a ratio. For example, in the cluster of four criteria under the category physical harm to users, the swing weight for drug-related mortality was judged to be the largest difference of the four, so it was given a weight of 100. The group judged the next largest swing in harm to be in drug-specific mortality, which was 80% as great as for drug-related mortality, so it was given a weight of 80. Thus, the computer multiplied the scores for all the drugs on the drug-related mortality scale by 0·8, with the result that the weighted harm of heroin on this scale became 80 as compared with heroin's score of 100 on drug-specific mortality. Next, the 100-weighted swings in each cluster were compared with each other, with the most harmful drug on the most harmful criterion to users compared with the most harmful drug on the most harmful criterion to others. The result of assessing these weights was that the units of harm on all scales were equated. A final normalisation preserved the ratios of all weights, but ensured that the weights on the criteria summed to 1·0. The weighting process enabled harm scores to be combined within any grouping simply by adding their weighted scores. Dodgson and colleagues3 provide further guidance on swing weighting. Scores and weights were input to the Hiview computer program, which calculated the weighted scores, provided displays of the results, and enabled sensitivity analyses to be done.

You want the individual data points from all the related studies? All the names and addresses of the people who died and their coroners reports? That's not how science works, ffs