“As I predicted: you are not interested in any of the evidence, and very dismissive of it once you see it.”
Your fallacy machine is in overdrive again. Your “evidence”was read & fully considered. It also doesn’t say what you claim it says. In fact you’re evidence supports my perspective & not yours.
Science is about what the conclusion in one of those studies rightly stated: “More long term studies are needed”. Not my words, the words in the conclusion of one of the reports YOU posted a link for all to read.
“You very cleverly put a stipulation that you would only believe research that is not done by professionals, so you have a built-in excuse not to believe any bona-fide research.”
Blatant falsehood. I’ve said clearly I support 3rd party research. Not prohibitionist supported research & not cannabis supported research. As I posted earlier, you are not credible or believable, exDemMom. Not at all.
“BTW, your many spelling and grammatical errors do not help to make your case that marijuana is essentially harmless, either.”
You end with another logical fallacy. How appropriate.
And the fact that more studies (both short and long term) are needed refutes anything I've said, because.....? I'm a scientist; I have both seen that caveat and used it so many times that it is almost invisible to me. More studies are *always* needed. 1) No study ever reveals the entire story, and 2) how else do you think we scientists guarantee job security?
“You very cleverly put a stipulation that you would only believe research that is not done by professionals, so you have a built-in excuse not to believe any bona-fide research.”
Blatant falsehood. I’ve said clearly I support 3rd party research. Not prohibitionist supported research & not cannabis supported research. As I posted earlier, you are not credible or believable, exDemMom. Not at all.
Trying to discredit me by proving my point--was that your intent? Just who are these "3rd party researchers"? What are their scientific qualifications? Who, exactly, is paying for their research? I suspect your "3rd party researchers" are something like the stories about abundant "renewable fuels"... the hydrogen fuel cell... perpetual motion... in other words, they don't exist. So you set up an impossibility as the only proof that you will accept of the harms of marijuana use, while rejecting (not very skillfully) the conclusions of legitimate research.
Do you seriously think I've never run across aficionados of pseudoscience before? Do you really think you are any different, even as you prove my predictions about you based on my previous encounters with fans of pseudoscience?
“BTW, your many spelling and grammatical errors do not help to make your case that marijuana is essentially harmless, either.”
You end with another logical fallacy. How appropriate.
If you are trying to claim that marijuana has no effect on brain function, and then post a screed full of grammatical and spelling errors, you undermine your own argument. I did notice fewer mistakes in your post this time around, though.