Yeah I guess I came off as kind of harsh. The media shouldn't be totally passed up I suppose, as that's how we all at least initially learn about an issue. When I hear about something about drugs, or the environment or something of interest, I usually go look into it farther. I hit up the internet, try to find academic studies if I can, and draw my own conclusions. I rarely take something at face value, but I think a lot of people do (and that's what the problem is). That's why it bothers me when someone cites ONE source, and tries to make is sound like it's legit or 100% correct or convincing.

There are a lot of scientists out there who aren't real scientists at all...For example (im using this cause it's something close to all of our hearts) the DEA's info about marijuana. They have a whole PDF file on their website about negative cannabis 'facts'. Read it for yourself, and as I'm sure you already know, they aren't "facts" at all. They are statements made by paid-off "scientists". I did a lot of digging into this because I wrote a paper on Cannabis last semester...the only studies I could find that were truly anti-cannabis happened to be funded by some other anti-drug organization (i cant remember who at the moment). Do you see what I'm getting at? I guess I should have elaborated earlier...