I thought that the Keele University Medical School study conclusively disproved the Harvard (and previous) study(ies). Or course you are entitled to your opinion, despite facts to the contrary. As I'm not allodoxaphobic your opinion doesn't bother me and on a more serious note I really doubt that inhaling smoke from burning pretty much anything can be good for you long term.
I'm not surprised that LA has their own spelling for things considering the cognitive dissonance that goes on there.
I've reviewed the conclusions made by the Keele study and am not impressed.
The Keele study basic claim is that during a 10 year period during which pot use by the general population allegedly soared in the UK, that no increase in psychotic outcomes by the general population was noted.
There are so many things that could be wrong with this study.
- The claim that UK pot use soared? Who really has accurate data on the use of an illegal drug in England during this time?
- There may be other factors going on in the general population. Pot is not the only cause of psychotic episodes, so many other factors could be masking the impact of pot use.
- Changes in national mental health policy could be impacting the reporting.
- Improvements in mental health diagnostics could result in a decrease in episodes.
- Improvements in treatment could result in a decrease in episodes.
- Inavailability of access to health care due to socialized medicine may result in a decrease in reporting.
The Harvard study showed definite brain damage in long-term pot users. That seems to me to be a level of specificity that is orders of magnitude better than this general societal trend analysis by Keele.