In the latest chapter of the human disaster that is Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, his lawyer has come out with a not-that-convincing defense to the mayor's crack-smoking allegations: he could have been smoking something other than crack in that pipe.  "No one is going to approach the media with a video saying he's smoking tobacco or marijuana — it's not salacious enough," Dennis Morris is quoted as saying in CBC News. "I urge the police chief to state under oath that he has seen a video of the mayor smoking crack cocaine," Morris added. 

On the scale of "Defenses You Could Use When Someone Accuses You of Smoking Crack", is saying that it could be anything in that pipe better than staying silent? Is admitting to a pipe the best option? It's not that clear. It got me thinking of all the possibilities that you could put in a pipe, some of which are more salacious than crack. A brief list (no, we do not condone any illegal activity): 

So Ford could be smoking tobacco, sure. But if you're going with that possibility, you could also be doing some damage and opening a potential floodgate of meth and the greatest scourge in North America, "herbal incense."