There is a big difference between a peer reviewed scientific study and a person who wrote a paper and called it a "study"...totally misrepresenting facts and creating "data" to suit their agenda. But, I imagine you knew that.

I assumed that making the intentionally false statement about me was to illicit a response. Maybe I give you too much credit.

What's your position on the vast majority of peer-reviewed studies on climate change/global warming?

_

Wife's hospital has been using MJ (pill form) on the psycho geriatric unit and with patients requiring heavy pain meds for over 3 years with outstanding results.

For some reason your comment reminded me of my favorite bumper sticker from the sixties: "Reality is For People Who Can't Handle Drugs".

Which of course reminded me of my favorite from the seventies: "Nixon Has a Staff Infection" (this one could probably be revised and reprinted to some level of popular effect today).

Sorry (well, almost) for the slight derail ...

_

Most were based on the same climate data that we later found out was altered. In others, the models were adjusted to provide the desired outcome. Proof (emails) showing that there was collusion to alter the data and the review discredited many of them.

As far as I have seen, the studies I cite have not received similar professional critique.

Likely due to reporting this morning that:

"Attorney General Jeff Sessions has rescinded several Obama-era directives that discouraged enforcement of federal marijuana laws in states that had legalized the substance.

In a memo sent to U.S. attorneys Thursday, Sessions noted that federal law prohibits the possession and sale of marijuana, and he undid four previous Obama administration memos that advised against bringing weed prosecutions in states where it was legal to use for recreational or medical purposes. Sessions said prosecutors should use their own discretion — taking into consideration the department’s limited resources, the seriousness of the crime, and the deterrent effect that they could impose — in weighing whether charges were appropriate.

“It is the mission of the Department of Justice to enforce the laws of the United States, and the previous issuance of guidance undermines the rule of law and the ability of our local, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement partners to carry out this mission,” Sessions said in a statement. “Therefore, today’s memo on federal marijuana enforcement simply directs all U.S. Attorneys to use previously established prosecutorial principles that provide them all the necessary tools to disrupt criminal organizations, tackle the growing drug crisis, and thwart violent crime across our country.”"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-is-rescinding-obama-era-directive-for-feds-to-back-off-marijuana-enforcement-in-states-with-legal-pot/2018/01/04/b1a42746-f157-11e7-b3bf-ab90a706e175_story.html?utm_term=.e3dd34c4d09b

From just yesterday:

Dronabinol

I don't agree with his direction. I support his decision to actually follow federal laws.

Good for Jeff.

Why have they crippled the efforts against Oxy though :(? In my little city, there were 300 ODs and 17 deaths last year...(Oxy/heroin...one leads to the other...), it's just a freakin' explosion...and Sessions is preoccupied with pot :(?

Yeah, I'm down $50 large this morning as well.

Not overly concerned since I'm still up 3x's that overall over the last month.

Knee jerk reaction, it'll pass.

Thanks Jeff Sessions for continuing to make your party less relevant. Since a majority of both dems and repubs support legalization this can only hurt the repubs in the long run, maybe event the short term if we are lucky.

A majority support legalization in the national Pew survey...but highly populated states where Republicans do not win (like CA, Co, etc where it is already legal) skew the numbers...as does the fact that the survey question does not differentiate between medical and recreational marijuana. So, no real impact. Try again.

It is good to have an Administration that wants to follow the Constitution and does not believe they should make laws...but rather, Congress. If Congress wants to change the law...they can. Otherwise, the President's job is to enforce the law (unlike the previous corrupt administration that case not to).

The record $25K Dow seems to be keeping the administration/party relevant to most normal humans.

Whether he wants to do so or not is irrelevant. He is not King (nor was Obama). Congress creates the law...and the President enforces it.