The lenghts you go to to avoid admitting you said/did something that might be considered silly.

That is the first reply you made. I then explained no-one is saying that cannabis is killing people — admittedly having forgot the mortality stat on the chart. The mortality stat doesn’t mean cannabis is “killing” people.

Then you start your inane sealioning, which you continue up until yesterday, at which point you blame me and @[email protected] of “not reading the study” and it “not having sources”, but you keep referring to Nutt’s study, when it cites it sources, which you clearly haven’t gone and read, which I’ve linked quite a few times now.

What I’m betting you did is read the cover of this link: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61462-6/abstract saying “they don’t say where their numbers are from”. That’s like reading the back-cover of a murder mystery and saying “it’s dumb, they didn’t even resolve the whole murder!”

If you actually log in and read the FULL TEXT, you will see the data.

They source several different studies for different citations. I’ve done the work for you and here’s the most relevant ones.

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

They also explain just how they’ve weighed all the data:

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.

So no matter how much you want to sealion and pretend you weren’t wrong and didn’t say anything silly, I have offered you the data several times. And this all ignores the fact that you keep ADAMANTLY IGNORING a question I’ve put to you more than a dozen times; do you accept that a lot of cannabis use is SMOKING and that SMOKING causes increased mortality?