until cannabis is fully legalized and is not a politically incorrect issue, I will not believe most of the mainstream studies.
I thought you said you were done with this topic? Guess not.
Anyway, this is a bunch of silly-talk.
You don't trust "most of the mainstream studies" on cannabis? OK. . .which "non-mainstream" studies WILL you trust? Can you cite any of those?
Yeah, I thought not.
Despite your posturing, its pretty obvious that you don't read medical journals, and you aren't conversant with the medical literature on cannabis. You cited one study, didn't understand what it meant, and then after I pointed out that it said the exact opposite of what you claimed it said, now you're claiming you don't trust the medical literature (ie that you yourself posted). It took me all of ten seconds to find 3-4 studies that directly contradicted your bulls@#t assertions that "there is no evidence" that cannabis use is associated with chronic bronchitis and other lung diseases.
If you truly don't believe "the mainstream studies",
then why did you cite one? Were you deliberately being intellectually dishonest, or did you simply change your mind about cannabis studies, after you realized that most of them show actual medical risk from smoking cannabis?
Either way, since you clearly aren't reading the medical literature then you haven't earned the right to determine that "most" of this literature is good or no good, let alone comment on which studies are mainstream and which are not. Its perfectly fine to have "opinions", but if your opinions are based on nothing more than wishful thinking or misinterpretation, they're not going to be particularly valuable, are they?
Next, by your logic, its impossible to trust any medical literature published on any illegal drug: heroin, crack, etc. Again, this is just more silly talk. The fact that a particular drug may or may not be illegal doesn't by itself mean that every researcher studying it is biased or intellectually dishonest, let alone that their collective research findings are invalid.
In case you haven't noticed (and I know you haven't. . .see above), *MANY* of the individuals doing research on cannabis are actually PRO-cannabis. Does that mean we CAN trust them? What if the openly PRO-cannabis researchers find the same findings as the anti-cannabis ones?
One your next point, cannabis effectively is a legal prescription drug RIGHT NOW in more than a dozen US States, and actual doctors prescribe it EVERY DAY to sick people. Its also of varying legal status all over the world. So there are plenty of good reasons for actual researchers of good intent to do real objective research on the medical effects of cannabis as a drug, just to see what the risks/benefits are to their own patients.
Like any recreational drug, cannabis is ALWAYS going to be controversial. If you're waiting for there to be a universal consensus on the value of cannabis before you trust the literature, you're never going to be able to trust ANY "mainstream" study on cannabis, ever! In fact, the WHOLE POINT of research is to try and resolve controversy. If all the safety profiles of cannabis were established beyond any doubt, nobody would be doing any new research in that area, would they?
and as you should already know, there is no such thing as a simple yes or no answer from me. I believe that it depends on the person and what they as an individual need and how they as an individual use and react to the cannabis.
Yeah, clearly you're full of "nuance".
I'll keep going and going if I have to, its not like I'm trying to convince YOU.
Well, you have convinced me that you're full of hot air, so that's something.
At least you've admitted that vaporizers can offer health benefits in comparison to smoking.
What else are you trying to accomplish with your spinning?
