[robertpaulsen]

"Has the old fact currently under discussion been replaced by a contrary new fact?"

Are you asking me to summarize the debate for you, or is it that you simply don't understand what's going on? Ol' Whack-A-Mole pops up into the debate without a clue. Again.

The poster cut-and-pasted a list of 14 studies, editorials and opinions going back to 1894 from a pro-marijuana blog in a lame attempt to show that marijuana was harmless.

I would say that the Siler Commission, Panama Canal Zone Report of 1930, for example, stating that "cannabis use was harmless, and, having subjected to medico-scientific clinical monitoring, heavy cannabis smoking produced no effect upon motivation or performance", would qualify as an answer to your question.

You disagree?

[Know your rights]

I would say that the Siler Commission, Panama Canal Zone Report of 1930, for example, stating that "cannabis use was harmless, and, having subjected to medico-scientific clinical monitoring, heavy cannabis smoking produced no effect upon motivation or performance", would qualify as an answer to your question.

Half an answer ... what's the contrary new fact?