I’m extrapolating this advanced hunch from the fact that cannabis-related studies have for a long time been funded primarily by the century-old anti-cannabis lo

I’m extrapolating this advanced hunch from the fact that cannabis-related studies have for a long time been funded primarily by the century-old anti-cannabis lobby. The relatively young pro-cannabis lobby has much less prestige, money and power behind it, and thus the incentives to intentionally produce bunk science lay mostly on the anti-cannabis side. Then there’s the matter of public perception: even obvious falsehoods against cannabis are tolerated in the press when the source is ”scientists”. This is likely due to the falsehoods being in support of opinions entrenched by decades of similar falsehoods being passed as shocking truths. Obviously, pro-cannabis publications suffer the reverse: any falsehoods would get picked apart by the public; hell, even the truths regarding cannabis often get trainwrecked by people who just know better because someone told them a story. It is absolutely implausible that falsified pro-cannabis articles would outnumber falsified anti-cannabis articles. The monetary incentives and intellectual lenience are not there.