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.