What do you think of this article?

[A Scanner Darkly]

THE MEDICAL DANGERS OF MARIJUANA USE

Hard to tell a bias article from one that really wants to inform on the truth. So how do the facts check up?

A Scanner Darkly Reviewed by A Scanner Darkly on 03-24-2007. What do you think of this article? THE MEDICAL DANGERS OF MARIJUANA USE Hard to tell a bias article from one that really wants to inform on the truth. So how do the facts check up? Rating: 5

[Markass]

hey bro, I've tried a few of the links on the page...dead links. That means the page is old as shit. Old information is no good.

Medical Use - NORML

Updated information about medical marijuana from norml...

[Markass]

That page is from 1999...lot of studies have occurred since then..not sure how the facts check up...that page is very cluttered...and I didn't find any references...You're going to see more truthful information..and it will most likely have a reference indicating where the information has been retrieved from..Anything you see on NORML's website has a reference to where they derived the information.

[A Scanner Darkly]

Thanks. Someone posted this on another message board to counter my article that marijuana doesn't cause brain damage, and I was a bit high at the time, so I didn't want to come to any conclusions on the article or reply back without getting a second opinion at least.

[Markass]

look on NORML and see what you can find on long term effects on the brain..which I believe are no different than those of a non-smoker, but cannot be for sure..

[birdgirl73]

Even though it's not brand new info, that's a fairly accurate article from what I've read about MJ, which over this year has been a lot. We know cannabis is both beneficial and potentially harmful, although those facts are literally a drop in the bucket compared to what we don't know about the whole subject. The article also presents the information in balanced and well-written way. If it were badly written or had a lot of errors or misspellings or grammar problems, that'd indicate it was written by someone with less knowledge rather than more, which would make it less credible scientifically. And that's not the case here.

I have a two big hesitations about it, however. For one thing, it's not presented as sited information. That is, it doesn't list sources for the claims and statements it makes. Serious, fact-based articles always list their sources so readers can check those references and see that what they're talking about is true. This one refers to the Tashkin literature and the Indiana University Prevention Resource Center, but it doesn't footnote or source any of the actual claims and statements it makes in its text. That's suspicious. My other hesitation is this: Serious research and factual information are almost never presented with this sort of "look." That marbleized background and heavy bold font and the other connected links look even more "florid." The combination of the look and the absence of source citations makes me think it was created by a literate, fairly well informed college student who was also having a good time playing with FrontPage. Even though it's maintained in a database of cyber information that's apparently kept by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School, that doesn't necessarily mean these links have been fact-checked by anyone at the Berkman Center or Harvard, so even though the information is consistent with most current general info about cannabis, we can't automatically assume it's credible.

[mrdevious]

It has a somewhat poor grammatical structure at some points, and definately isn't formulated in a way that any science major or professional would have presented it. Overall the information seems mostly accurate, while a few points seem to be based on assumption/popular opinion. There's no sources referrencesd, it's not put together as a proper scientific article, and the terminology is definately not that of someone experienced in medicine or biology. I'd say the the author is non other than the infamous Joe Schmo, the guy who knows pretty much nothing beyond popular opinion.