I never claimed that it wasn't addictive, I deserve a better mockery than this.
No, but the person you're coming in agreeing with and saying is "absolutely right"
DID make that argument and it was that which was being argued against.
You talking about studies you have mentioned in the past are just as anecdotical to me. The difference is that I clearly presented an opinion, I stay well away from telling others what to believe.
You don't seem to know what "anecdotal" means.
The studies CC are referencing, which are in the threads link on in this thread, are not "anecdotal" evidence. They are actual studies showing evidence that is tested and verifiable and used to make reasonable conclusions.
LA saying that he's driven while high all the time and never wrecked and therefore its perfectly safe to drive while high IS anecdotal because it speaks ONLY to his own personal actions.
You stating you've never hallucinated in 15 years of smoking is anecdotal because it speaks ONLY to yourself.
That's were you are wrong, personal experience does count, it's just that we don't base scientific studies on the experience of one person. Opinion vs evidence, I thought it was pretty clear I presented the former.
Personal experience does count, but it can also be wrong, and it doesn't count greater than anythign else. If someone goes "My grandfather smoked till he was 99 and didn't get lung cancer so smoking doesn't cause lung cancer" the fact he's using personal experience doesn't necessarily not count....it just doesn't disprove or trump scientifically studied and verified information. Nor does it lead to the absolute conclussion he made.
Opinions CAN be wrong, despite what you may've been told in school.
Here's the difference....
On one side you have CC and myself, with actual scientific evidence, that is stating that marijuana does have addictive qualities, can have withdrawl symptoms, and can have adverse affects on an individual that are potentially severe. We have stated this does not mean it affects everyone the same way, that they manifest in everyone, or that they're worse than alcohol. All of these things are verified by scientific tests.
On the other side you have LA, that says its not addictive, there's no withdrawl symptomns, there's nothing bad about it, and its perfectly safe to drive while high all based on his own experiences.
One of those is "anecdotal", one isn't. One of those is worthless and "doesn't matter" because its taking an extremely small sample size and using it to make absolute statements about the entire population.
There are countless studies on the subject, with a wide variety in quality. I have read numerous and came to my conviction. I wonder how that works for you, do you gather all the evidence first before you form an opinion? Do you hold any convictions that can't be proven? Step further, do you hold any convictions of which you know there is evidence against it? Personally, I realise that I'm severely limited when it comes to storing all the evidence, then again I am a habitual MJ smoker.
Why would he form an opinion before hand. He's already stated he comes from this as someone that thinks it should be legalized. If it really was 100% not addictive, 100% completely safe, 100% no withdrawl symptoms, 100% not impairing to things like driving why would he not go into it wanting that if his desire is legalization? That makes no sense to even accuse. What's more likely is CC actually went into it without bias and simply wanting the truth, not just to find something to excuse his own personal actions.
I never have to prove my opinion and my beliefs
Of course you can't.
You can just expect your opinion to be viewed as it is, worthless, and your beliefs to be viewed as they are, foolish, until such a point that you actually back it up with anything that is worth while and shows it to be anything but ignorance based on bias.