I sought out information in response to people raising justified criticisms of the information I had already obtained, as the OP in this thread demonstrates. Should I have just ignored them? Or accepted them without question? Neither sounds very scientific to me. You find it very easy to criticize what I would hypothetically do, and yet all my claims are backed with quotes and citations. You have yet to even detail what Dr. Jensen said, only that it makes me wrong somehow about everything.The problem isn't that I don't read your (general) information, the problem is that I read
all of it. For example, Fallen links a source that says in part that drug courts are good, but in other parts it says they are bad. I politely point out the latter, and I'm accused of not reading his source. Fallen links a source that says CBD has acceptable side effects during use. I politely point out that the source makes only an offhand comment about withdrawal, and I'm accused of not reading his source. I quote your own sources back to you, and I'm accused of not reading them. How does that make sense?You can just call me a Nazi too. Get it over with. :)Marijuana is made of chemicals, just like tobacco, just like Xanax, just like orange juice. "Chemicals vs. natural" is a very tantalizing distinction, but it is a totally false one. I am glad your personal experience has seen people become healthy through non traditional means. That does not indicate that those means had a causal impact. I have the testimony of a hundred thousand people, rigorously controlled and recorded. You have your own. Why shouldn't I go with the hundred thousand? How does this make me the person thinking in a tiny box, or you the person relying on "real science"?Psychosis.I researched this when Thondalar brought it up, and the history really is quite interesting. The Breathalyzer as we understand it wasn't invented until 1954. Congress forced states to reduce their acceptable BAC levels from .15 to .10 in the 80s (probably
1982), drunk driving went down for about ten years, then stayed constant. Congress forced states to reduce their levels from .10 to .08 in
2000, drunk driving went down for about ten years, and is now leveling off. Congress is rumbling about reducing the limit to .05, when it happens drunk driving will go down again.
Bottom line: laws change, and laws work.