DM> She pulls a Harvard report that says pot is
DM> bad, I pull six that say it isn't.
LL>I'm a little lost where this statement is concerned.
LL>What do you mean by "she pulls a Harvard report.." ?
LL>and "I pull six that say it isn't" ?
       She dredges up negative reports all the time.  There are some studies 
that draw odd conclusions, but almost without fail they're based on bad 
science.  You can tell who funds either positive or negative reports by their 
conclusion wording, such as the vague phrases that researchers use when 
they've been commissioned to find something bad and couldn't.  The only 
selection criteria I use when I do research for this echo is that the science 
employed sticks to first principles.  If it reports something bad, well - 
that's life.  So far there aren't too many negative reports regarding pot 
that are worth a tinker's damn.
       I post references to other reports that negate her claims.
LL>Can I obtain the information you have ?
       Hang around a bit.  It'll come 'round on the geetar again.
       If you want a starting point, drop by your local library and pull 
index listings for Scientific American.  The articles cross reference other 
publications, which articles cross reference other publications, which...etc. 
 Emperor is OK too, but it's a little too loose for my liking.  (The Emperor 
Wears No Clothes, by Jack Herer).
--- Ezycom V1.10
---------------