First off, only TWO of your cites even contain the word "Cancer" in the title; and of those two, one (Marijuana Use and Cancer Incidence) states clearly in it's abstract that there IS NO RELATIONSHIP between Marijuana use and Cancer.
And while trying to find a non-paywalls version of the other study you cited that seemed reasonably on-point ((paraphrasing the title, because mobile slashdot ate my first attempt) "Marijuana and Cancer: Harmful or Helpful?"), I never did find that study thI could read without paying; but, along the way, I ran into this WONDERFUL study on an NIH site that I DARE you to reasonably and factually Rebut:
From the Cancer portion of that 42-page study/report:
Cannabinoids and Cancer
Possibly the greatest harm-reducing potential afforded by cannabinoids comes from their use by cancer patients. Cannabinoids possess numerous pharmacological properties that are often beneficial to cancer patients. Many people are aware of the anti-emetic and appetite stimulating effects of cannabinoids . A systemic study designed to quantify the efficacy of cannabinoids as an anti-emetic agent examined data from 30 randomized controlled studies that were published between 1975 and 1997 and included 1366 patients who were administered non-smoked cannabis . For patients requiring a medium level of control, cannabinoids were the preferred treatment (between 38% and 90%). This preference was lost for patients requiring a low or a high level of control. Sedation and euphoria were noted as beneficial side effects, whereas dizziness, dysphoria, hallucinations, and arterial hypotension were identified as harmful side effects.
The cancer cell killing  and pain relieving properties of cannabinoids are less well known to the general public. Cannabinoids may prove to be useful chemotherapeutic agents . Numerous cancer types are killed in cell cultures and in animals by cannabinoids. For example, cannabinoids kill the cancer cells of various lymphoblastic malignancies such as leukemia and lymphoma , skin cancer , glioma , breast and prostate cancer , pheochromocytoma , thyroid cancer , and colorectal cancer. Since 2002 THC has been used in a clinical trial in Spain for the treatment of glioma . However, not all cancers are the same, and cannabinoid-induced biochemical modifications, while effective in killing the cells of some cancers, as indicated above, can have the opposite effect on the cells of other types of cancer. For example, recent work has shown that the synthetic cannabinoid, methanandamide, can promote the growth of lung cancer cells by a receptor independent pathway that involves the up-regulation of COX2 . Although much has been learned about the therapeutic value of cannabinoid agonists and antagonists in different situations, scientific understanding of how to appropriately modulate the endocannabinoid pathways remains preliminary, with much remaining to be learned.
The rest of the report is equally enlightening (and enlightened), and I double-dog dare you to read it objectively and not come to the conclusion that you've been misled by all the fervent anti-Marijuana propaganda.
But, I feel I may be giving you too much credit. Feel free to prove that my opinion of you is incorrect, and that you can let facts "in", at least once in awhile, even when it means you have to reconsider something you have simply "decided" is true.
Here is the very first hit Google returned with the search term What do pot tests measure?: From that search, the second paragraph contained the text Unlike alcohol, for which impairment can be reasonably measured using a breathalyser (and confirmed with a blood alcohol content measurement), valid detection for cannabis is time-consuming, and tests cannot determine an approximate degree of impairment. The lack of suitable tests and agreed-upon intoxication levels is an issue in the legality of cannabis debate, especially regarding intoxicated driving.
So, that's one point I have rebutted.Do I have to even cite a source for the fact that any study ostensibly focused on impaired DRIVING that includes statistics for impaired PASSENGERS is pretty much void ab initio when proffered for that purpose?
Although, I think too many pot smokers read too much into the scant studies (non-RTC) about the effects of THC on tumor growth - it does NOT cure cancer or prevent tumors.
1. Citation, please, for your "not curing cancer, and for the not preventing tumors"?
2. It may not cure cancer, and it may not prevent tumors, but there is evidence to show that marijuana smokers have cancer rates as low, and possibly lower than those who smoke nothing, including tobacco.
So, until you can show a definitive causal relationship between smoking marijuana and increased rates of cancer, you can STUFF your dire warnings based on bias and conjecture, rather than facts.
"After alcohol, THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), the active ingredient in marijuana, is the substance most commonly found in the blood of impaired drivers, fatally injured drivers, and motor vehicle crash victims. Studies in several localities have found that approximately 4 to 14 percent of drivers who sustained injury or died in traffic accidents tested positive for THC."
I call Shennanigans.
1. Tests for THC Metabolites (which are ALL that the drug tests measure (rather than the incorrectly-stated delta-9 THC), have ZERO ability to determine whether a person was "high" at the time of the accident). That is because those Metabolites (but NOT the effects of the drug) stay in a typical human's bloodstream for weeks after the last "dose"; so, a statement regarding their presence in traffic accident "participants" has as much to do with establishing a causal relationship as mentioning their shoe size as a contributing factor.
2. The anti-marijuana bias of that "study", and that of the person who propounds it, is transparently p, and laughably, evident by including "motor vehicle crash victims" (other than drivers). So what now? We have a new classification of negligence called "RIDING while high"??? Yeah, those people SURELY should be included in a study if impaired DRIVING...
Thank you for expressing your interest in a position at Microsoft. Unfortunately we are not currently hiring.
There, fixed that for you.
Apple pops up a notification (more annoying than Microsoft actually) that says "install these patches now or later?", and you have to click and open up before you can even see what you're clicking "now" or "later" for. Then it turns out it's just something stupid like itunes. So I ignore it. Then a few days later it repeats. Then a few days after that. And so on. It's basically the apple store window, even though I have zero software anywhere on or in the vicinity of the mac that even saw that store. So yes, I am indeed crawling under that sink to see what shit the plumber left there. At least be glad microsoft isn't merging their updates and patches with their store.
While I must admit I liked the old Software Update system a bit better, overall I still find Microsoft's free-for-all pop ups during boot up to be far more annoying than the Growl-like notifications in OS X. For one thing, OS X NEVER says "I'm rebooting your system in x seconds" like Windows does, leaving you to scramble around to ask PERMISSION from your own computer to DELAY the Reboot.
BTW, Apple isn't "mixing their software updates with the App Store"; they are just using the same secure distribution method. It's not like they dump you at the front door of the App Store, hoping you'll get distracted by teh Shiny and buy something. And frankly, for the few apps I have that I have purchase through the Mac App Store, I kinda like the fact that their updates are announced/distributed in the same way, rather than having the Windows method of having the blizzard of pop ups each time I boot. With the OS X system, it's only ONE pop up, which can simply be dragged off the edge of the screen to dismiss.
By the way, you can customize plenty of things about how Updates and their notifications happen (or don't)
If not, there are a few of the Griffin ones on eBay for $20-30.
When the heat death of the universe comes, that thing will still be tanking along.
Yep. Just like my HP Laserjet 4.
Bought it at a thrift store about 5 years ago for $10. The copy count was 8,000. The engine is conservatively rated at 1,000,000 copies.
So, unless I start printing out and distributing copies of my Manifesto to the entire planet, it will likely outlive me.
That's why real pros backpedal with
Get off my lawn, Whipper-Snapper!
Everybody with REAL experience (and real grey hair) knows that the MOS6510 was a custom variant of the 6502 (actually, not quite; I believe it was missing a couple of upper address lines, IIRC) that was built by Commodore for the C-64 computer (and maybe the VIC-20, too). And the joke of it all was the fact that Commodore didn't even USE the mini-VIA or real-time clock that were the main features of the 6510...
No, REAL programmers (like me, of course!) sit and hand-code machine-code (assembly is for dummies!) MOS6502 programs on their Apple 1 computers...
And I suppose the NSA supplies marketing info to Google, too, right? [/sarcasm]
1. As I said, the Loop Pairs are ALWAYS within direct sight of the light/camera towers, and in relatively close proximity; I'd guess within 1,000 feet, never much more. Certainly within decent "zoom" range.
2. "traffic studies" (remember Bridgegate?) are always short-lived, usually only a week or so, and are (still) characterized by those pneumatic hoses stretched across ALL lanes. And today, they simply do traffic-flow analysis either from the air, or by using those solar-powered ultrasonic or RADAR units that are prominently displayed next to the edge of the highway (the ones that always seem to have a solar panel on them).