Let me just clear this up, since Winfield seems confused: I was the one who made the paper cut analogy, not PiT.
There are various findings on this issue, and the harmful effects of marijuana use cannot be dismissed simply because of conflicting findings.
Nor should we ban things (or, in this case, continue to ban something) if there are conflicting findings.
What if I conducted a study that found that yogurt caused cancer? Should we outlaw yogurt? Or will you dismiss the harmful effects of yogurt simply because of conflicting findings? Or will you let people make their own decisions whether they want to risk eating yogurt or not?
Again, Leinad you can't keep using this argument when the case is specifically about Marijuana- a drug that clearly has very high short term effects on the brain, and thus should face at the least the same regulation as alcohol