Clayton Cramer is expounding at length on why pot should not be legalized. He cites a government funded study. In the comments I found this:
13. Roux's Papa:
Well - having used pot twice in my life and the second time experiencing a debilitating effect that would truly alarm a vibrant young man and exactly at the wrong time. So, I got religion and prayed that everything would be alright and my deal with GOD was that I would never use it again. GOD kept his end of the bargain and I kept mine. The point of this story that happened almost 45 years ago is that I am not a user or purveyor of the substance. However, I strongly favor legalization and as for the STUDIES? Hey, you offer grants to study something - My life depends on continuing research grants - I love money - I want to please you - tell me the desired results that you are seeking - deliver money and I will deliver the desired results.
After the Global Warming fiasco, I find it extremely pathetic that members of the general public would continue to fund,with their tax dollars, and believe scientists. The Scientific Community ranks alongside Politicians, Lawyers and Ponzi Schemers in trustworthiness. Any test or study can be manipulated to deliver desired results. The results in this article are like all other Scientific?!!? research??!!?? another desired result produced for $$$$$$$$. In all things SEEK THE TRUTH by following the $$$$$$ MONEY $$$$$$ TRAIL !!$$$$$$
So climate scientists aren't the only corrupters of science. This is good to know.
Note that Eric has also taken a look at the "scientific" report cited from a slightly different point of view. Have a read.
The question is not so much whether the science is accurate, but whether it should be used as the basis for legislation. Scientific studies show a link between bad diet and heart disease, and the information (whether accurate or not) ought to be read and taken into account by people who care about their health in deciding what to eat. Same with pot studies.
But the more the government relies on scientific studies to create legislation, the more corrupted science becomes, and the less people trust science.
I trust science--a rarer commodity than many would believe. I distrust scientists (and other intellectuals)--they are too eager to elevate their prejudices into universal moral principles.
An observation for the leftist intelligentsia: Not all academics are scientists, and scientists aren't necessarily academics.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
Congratulations on the Times link.
The question is not so much whether the science is accurate, but whether it should be used as the basis for legislation. Scientific studies show a link between bad diet and heart disease, and the information (whether accurate or not) ought to be read and taken into account by people who care about their health in deciding what to eat. Same with pot studies.
But the more the government relies on scientific studies to create legislation, the more corrupted science becomes, and the less people trust science.