If it’s a blind study, they can test it. But you’re correct. Do you trust them?
When patients come in and we don’t know what’s happening to them, we will run a drug screen. Yeah…the doctors are judge and jury at that point, but it’s necessary to find out if they need treatment for drugs or not.
And we don’t do anything for marijuana by the way. There’s nothing you can do except wait it out. We can correct the pH in their blood and treat the labs, but that’s about it.
Something tells me the people doing the test were slighted by the aroma around the computers while they typed. You can skew results pretty much any way you want to.
No detectable increase in health problems or use of health facilities. Or, in the language of the professional narcs: We must not rush into anything! We need more information! More studies! The kind of studies whose outcomes we can be sure of in advance.
Have you done the research to back up your assumptions or are you just makin’ baseless assumptions here?
Additionally, could you point to where it was implied that pot “isn’t at all bad for you”? It’s interesting to me: Whenever it is mentioned that marijuana probably isn’t nearly as bad as some people say it is, there is always someone that has to reply with, “BUT IT IS TOTALLY HARMFUL! A LITTLE! Stop saying it isn’t!” when no one has even implied such a thing.
