From what i've seen, most of that "research" comes from people with agendas. They start out trying to prove the stuff is beneficial
What have you seen that leads you to this conclusion?
Six years of people posting similar articles. [...] They aren't "researchers" per se, they are specifically POT researchers
So by "researchers" you mean people posting articles, not scientists. I think the latter are what BuckeyeTexan was talking about.
You cannot hardly tell the differences anymore. There are plenty of scientists that will "research" anything they are paid to research. The tobacco companies used to have scads of them proving tobacco was harmless.
It is a pain in the @ss trying to figure out if a report is from a legitimate researcher, or someone specifically researching to prove pot is good for you.
Take this lot in Spain. I've already spent more time on it than I liked, and I've found out d@mn little about them. I don't know who is funding them, where they did their research, and whether they were researching cancer specifically, or pot's application to cancer. Judging by the article it sounds as if they started out with Pot in mind.
I found one reference that they also tested capsaicin, and that lends them a bit of credibility in my mind, but most of what I found is Canabanoids and THC.
The internet is stuffed full of references to these (Spanish) people and Canabanoids, and virtually every pro-drug source on the internet links their work. Valid work (if any) is drowned in a sea of references from Pro-Drug sources. Negative or detrimental results are not so widely propagandized, though I have seen such studies.