Cited research again that isn't what it determined ...and yes even if at a 95% confidence interval there is wiggle room to say exactly what i said.

The overall point is that at that level the 95% likelihood of cancer not being caused by mj is telling enough. Why are you arguing that?

There is a likelihood and increases probability of you crashing in a plane resulting in death moreso than a person who never flys.

Its not a point of debate of safey or whether flitght should be allowed

.yws you beought up long term use as a possibile issue.. Sure it could be or i5 could be a pwrsoms latitide when smoking or if they only smoke at nigh5.
The point is define long term use.

Once defined then if cancer occura in research we would ne3e to know amount frequency, and at what point and then can advise the public of that.
People have. Been using mj long term for centuries... we should have some epidemiology to determine something..and yet it hasnt happened.

We have to start determining why or trying to clinically.

The stigma and bogyman though..the false accusations and claim on both sides, like caffeine in lds culture or a myriad of other things..can only be resolved through clinical research and education.