Drug Scheduling is Ridiculous

yes, we know that but, furthermore...

Why are cigarettes not Schedule I, at least, according to the legal definition (as best I can find it, correct me if I'm wrong, because I was finding the DEA site to be fairly tricky)?

I understand that the 'reason' they are mostly legal is because of the money that the tobacco industry has, and therefore would not let that completely be changed overnight, but if we are going to have any semblance of legal system with reason, wouldn't it be a nice notion if carried that reason across the board?

As best I could find, the three criteria for a drug to be classified as Schedule I (the highest category, meaning the worst drugs, meaning most restrictions, basically completely illegal) are:

1. The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
   
2. The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
3. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

I don't think anyone will argue that cigarettes, by containing nicotine are physically addicting (1), and have no accepted medical use that I know of (2). I am not completely clear on what (3) means. I think it refers to whether or not a drug that may be addicting and not have medical use, while under medical supervision it could be used safely? That sentence doesn't even seem to be written properly or logically, because it refers to "or other substance" and I'm not really sure why.

I don't necessarily believe we should take away "smoker's rights," thought I do disagree with that term. "Smoker's" don't have rights at an entity, they have human libertarian rights to do with their bodies whatever they want as long as that does not interfere with what someone else wants to do with her or his body. I am not writing this to take a hard stance on the current status of cigarette legislation or taxes. Cigarettes, which I believe have only been argued from a libretarian point of view, and never claiming a medical benefit in modern times, are legal, in ones own home, as long as it does not harm anyone else, while marijuana and MDMA, just as two examples, are Schedule I when the medical argument has not only been made, but in many cases proven.
I am just continually perplexed by the drug laws in this country, and what is deemed legal and illegal, and how we pretend to write legal code that goes along with the policies that are enacted.