> The study may have flaws (as all do) This isn't "a flaw", it's a fatal flaw that invalidates the study. You're missing the point; saying marijuana-related ac

> The study may have flaws (as all do) This isn't "a flaw", it's a fatal flaw that invalidates the study. You're missing the point; saying marijuana-related accidents is itself an invalid statement as there is not way to quantify that correctly. You can therefore not conclude anything from marijuana-related anything other than people who want to control other people are happy to use invalid statistics to try and impose their will where it isn't welcome. > Why try and encourage something that is clearly dangerous and irresponsible? Because it is not dangerous and irresponsible, that's your assumption, it is not a fact in evidence.