You presumptuous (((Behar))).

I don't care if you read "my" links or not.  You are not my professor, editor, judge, superior, or confessor. You are welcome to remain as haughty in your ignorance as you choose.

I have read all of them in their entirety.  A few are from the MJ advocacy organization NORML, but most are peer-reviewed and highly vetted (though that is no assurance of perfection). The studies are all the more remarkable because institutional medicine has, until recently, fiercely resisted MJ.

I have not done a deep dive on the MJ science since 2011. I have had no need. These days there are fewer ignoranuses on the matter.

Truly, I do not care to change your mind.  I am content to demonstrate to any fence-sitters that, like the damned rabbis, you will accept no amount of evidence inconvenient to your opinion.

Incidentally, did I mention that I am a… [gasp]… sedevacantist?

What's a "Behar?"

I will read some of them. Why did you have to post so many? I will consider the evidence.

Some of us have had personal experience with potheads. I recall seeing a bumper sticker when I was a teen in the '70's. It said...."Are you stoned, or just stupid?"

I don't think that pot is as benign and wonderful as you make it out to be. It still takes one away from reality. So does alcohol. If someone needs that, then fine. But they shouldn't pretend that it's just for "medical" reasons.

Great—Reefer Madness bumper stickers and a pothead brother. Gee, you are qualified to run the CDC.

My biblio is representative of the state of the literature in 2011. We have another decade of research that is confirmatory (though I have not done, nor will I do, a deep dive).

In my media appearances, articles, and public debates, one of my summations points was:

"The enemies pf marijuana insist we need more research. OK, fine. More research is good, but understand this: Marijuana is more studied than ANY compound on your pharmacies' shelves, including Tylenol and aspirin, and those studies show that marijuana is safer than ANY drug on the pharmacy shelf."

I stood by that publicly then and I stand by it now.

How much are the side effects studied? Do you believe that side effects are negligible? A preliminary peruse of your links shows that side effects were not a great concern.

I found a link (not listed by you) which shows the side effects of pot on mental health:

6 Worst Side Effects of Medical Marijuana on Mental Health (rtor.org)

I stood by that publicly then and I stand by it now.

So, share your public statements, profession, etc, so we may ascertain whether or not your livelihood is (notably) dependent upon government grants, etc. 

I think the problem with this discussion is that pot, like cows milk, is totally different than it was 50+ years ago.  Is milk healthy?  Not anymore.  Not after it was pasteurized and its cows were pumped full of estrogen and given corn, instead of grazing on pasture.

Is pot healthy?  I think a lot of it has synthetic additives and most modern strains have "ramped up" the drug effect, with much danger.  I've heard many baby boomer hippies say "this isn't the weed we grew up on in the 70s".  So did it USED to be healthy/mild?  probably, in moderation.  But now?  You'd have to know what you're smoking.  Most of it is laced with God-knows-what.  People who smoke weed and have hallucinations...that's just not normal nor explainable.

What part of "more studied than ANY compound on your pharmacies' shelves" don't you understand?

Studied in terms of the benefits, not the side effects, from what I can tell. You would be able to provide a good analysis of the side effects, if you actually studied it. But I don't think you did. 

Studied in terms of the benefits, not the side effects, from what I can tell. You would be able to provide a good analysis of the side effects, if you actually studied it. But I don't think you did.

What a $%^& idiot!

You gloss the title of a couple articles and then, like your charism of reading interior dispositions, magically absorb the full content of VOLUMES of study.

Go figure. 

I think the problem with this discussion is that pot, like cows milk, is totally different than it was 50+ years ago.  Is milk healthy?  Not anymore.  Not after it was pasteurized and its cows were pumped full of estrogen and given corn, instead of grazing on pasture.

Is pot healthy?  I think a lot of it has synthetic additives and most modern strains have "ramped up" the drug effect, with much danger.  I've heard many baby boomer hippies say "this isn't the weed we grew up on in the 70s".  So did it USED to be healthy/mild?  probably, in moderation.  But now?  You'd have to know what you're smoking.  Most of it is laced with God-knows-what.  People who smoke weed and have hallucinations...that's just not normal nor explainable.

Sane observations and legitimate questions.

There are dozens of phytocannabinoids and hundreds of terpenes, flavinoids, and other substances in the plant product that contribute to the medical (and psychotropic) effect. For convenience, people often assess potency by the THC content. It's very rough and quite imperfect, but it's done. If you look at the studies, the valued strains of the 60's probably peaked out at about 5-6% THC and "street weed" was typically 2-3% THC. Just checking online, our state dispensaries have leaf hybrids with ~20% THC. Yes, much more potent, but most (certainly not all) patients report ingesting much smaller quantities (a puff instead of a whole "joint").

Adulteration is primarily a problem with the black-market product (primarily pesticides).  The advocacy community is intensely vigilant (as are the control-freaks of .gov/.zog) and so both legal and illegal products are routinely submitted for testing of contaminants and pathogens (especially Aspergillus). 

Especially since some brands of the hydroponic fertilizers were discovered to have heavy metal contamination, "outdoor organic" is prized. _IF_ someone qualified (favorable risk/benefit) asked me, I would recommend pathogen-tested, outdoor organic with a relative balance of THC and CBD, say 7%/7% roughly. 

To my thinking this is the rub—Almost everyone focuses on THC and CBD, but I think it is clear that all the chemicals of the natural product work in concert, so I think even the flavonoids and terpenes are important. In toto, so much depends upon genetics ("strain"), growing conditions, timing of harvest, manner and duration of drying/curing, and storage, it is difficult to expect uniformity and repeatability.

Do we imagine otherwise for synthetic pharmaceuticals? Last year (2020) Zantac™/ranitidine was recalled because they discovered carcinogens—a problem that had gone on for 20 years.

Barring any unique contraindications, I'd estimate that the risk is less than the risk of driving to the grocery store.

I find it curious that someone thought he needed to reveal a member's alleged MJ use.

Objectively, was there really a "need" to reveal this,  to supposedly "warn" others?

It's part of being on a forum to figure out if posts are correct or incorrect. And we can probably also determine if the poster was baked or plastered at the time he wrote the post. And if not, then it's just another post, no?

Is this what got Stanley banned?

I have to say I agree with Dingbat and Bodeens.

It's Matthew's call.  I get that.  

I just don't see the kind of disrespect here that calls for him to get banned.  No bad words or name calling anyway.

I didn't agree with Stanley's take on some things but I appreciated the evidence he brought to the table.