If I were to link scientific literature, you would say either that it is cherry-picked, or that it was "government research." Since I choose instead to tell you exactly how to find the information yourself, you show no desire to find out for yourself, and see the actual data, unfiltered by anything I might say or choose to present. I can't say I'm surprised by your reaction: I expected it.
We see “research” on a variety of things that turns out to be pure crap after you look at the actual data.
What kinds of research are you referring to? If it is sociological "research" then it is almost certainly bogus. If it is solid hypothesis-driven and carefully designed medical research, then it is almost certain spot-on. If you have any understanding of the scientific method, you can determine for yourself whether something is an opinion disguised as a research finding, or whether it is solid science.
I do not know of any government researchers who dabble in anything other than hypothesis-driven research. As I said, scientific training is pretty much the same regardless of where the scientist eventually ends up working.
Anyway, let me know if you find any legitimate scientific research articles that show that marijuana use is completely benign. Honestly, I'd be surprised if you even looked for any.
“Look, it is very clear that you are completely in denial and unwilling to look at any evidence that contradicts your beliefs. “
Logical fallacy...I’ve lost track of what number this one is.
“I have dealt with enough anti-science zealots to predict how the reaction to any attempt to introduce scientific evidence into the conversation will go.”
Never saw someone destroy any vestiges of credibility they might have like you have in this sentence.
I feel sorry for you exDemMom. You remind me more of Jake Tapper than a “mostly libertarian”.
“Honestly, I’d be surprised if you even looked for any.”
And you end with a personal attack. As I stated above I feel sorry for you exDemMom.