As I predicted: you are not interested in any of the evidence, and very dismissive of it once you see it. 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.
BTW, your many spelling and grammatical errors do not help to make your case that marijuana is essentially harmless, either.
“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.