4 ms·
The guy doesn't have a great record of being trustworthy. See https://www.drugpolicy.org/resource/letter-scholars-and-clinicians-who-oppose-junk-science-about-m
by pen2l 6y ago
The guy doesn't have a great record of being trustworthy. See https://www.drugpolicy.org/resource/letter-scholars-and-clinicians-who-oppose-junk-science-about-marijuana https://www.drugpolicy.org/resource/letter-scholars-and-clin... -- a letter signed by over 100 scholars and researchers strongly condemning his previous book which says that marijuana is the culprit behind violence
- np_tedious 6y agoThat's an interesting article. I think I'd like to take a look first hand. Perhaps I'll buy some of his books so I can decide for myself. Where are they available?
- jki275 6y agoAnd that's the rub.
- itsoktocry 6y agoThe arguments against his book in that post are not particularly damning. More like par-for-the-course for pop science. And it's not like academia is immune to this. Selection bias? Claims of causation? I bet half of the researchers on this list could have their work criticized in a similar manner. >"marijuana makes young black people mentally ill and violent." Interesting framing of his quoted passage. He doesn't say it makes "black people" mentally ill and violent, he says it makes all people mentally ill and violent. Whether or not that's true (I don't believe it is), that's a bad faith interpretation of his argument.
- jki275 6y agoThat linked article is a really great example of how not to credibly criticize someone's work. There's a ton of straw man argument going on in there.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jki275 6y agoAnd fortunately those researchers are free to present their arguments to argue against his.