Hi'ya Dennis,
Dennis Mummert wrote in a message to Les Lemke:
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" ?
DM>        She dredges up negative reports all the time.  There
DM> are some studies that draw odd conclusions, but almost
DM> without fail they're based on bad science.  You can tell who
DM> funds either positive or negative reports by their
DM> conclusion wording, such as the vague phrases that
DM> researchers use when they've been commissioned to find
DM> something bad and couldn't.
yeah. There's also the source of the funding to look at. If it's a
government funded study you can almost bet that the conclusion
they end up with will be negative.
DM> The only selection criteria I
DM> use when I do research for this echo is that the science
DM> employed sticks to first principles.  If it reports
DM> something bad, well - that's life.
And THAT is PURE science - not looking for a "yes" or "no",
a "positive" or "negative"....just THE results.
Good man!
DM> So far there aren't too
DM> many negative reports regarding pot that are worth a
DM> tinker's damn.
Yup.
DM> I post references to other reports that negate her claims.
LL>Can I obtain the information you have ?
DM> Hang around a bit.  It'll come 'round on the geetar again.
>> Ok...
DM>        If you want a starting point, drop by your local
DM> library and pull index listings for Scientific American. 
DM> The articles cross reference other publications, which
DM> articles cross reference other publications, which...etc. 
DM> Emperor is OK too, but it's a little too loose for my
DM> liking.  (The Emperor Wears No Clothes, by Jack Herer).
Ok...got'cha.
Thanks for the info Dennis.
  Les
---
---------------