Says the guy that won't post any links.

It wasn't a personal attack. If I had the name of the papers you cited I wouldn't need a DOI. Your tactics are so absurd and mindless its comical. You have been asked nicely to produce the proof of the claims you have made. You have not presented links, you have lied repeatedly about providing the names (DOI's) of the alleged reviews. You refuse to give them now. Your just some guy who lives on these forums in an attempt to give your life the purpose. You derive pleasure from talking nonsense. I was starting to get irritated by your bile, but I realized it is a cry for help. I'm sorry your life sucks, but trying to build yourself up by acting the way you do will not make your life complete. It is only amusing to you. Everyone else subjected to it is just irritated or, like myself, feels sorry for you. I wont bother to ask you to back up your nonsense again. Oh, and you really should think about getting a new chair.

Accusation after false accusation! You’re rather predictable. I don’t flamebait; I don’t troll; I’m not breaking the rules by following best practice (the very idea was absurd) and I can provide DOIs for everything posted.

I’ve just bothered to undertake literature review techniques and you haven’t. It has ensured that you’re incapable of mustering a valid reply.

__________________
I was angry with my friend: I told my wrath, my wrath did end. I was angry with my foe: I told it not, my wrath did grow. And I watered it in fears, Night and morning with my tears; And I sunnèd it with smiles, And with soft deceitful wiles. And it grew both day and night, Till it bore an apple bright; And my foe beheld it shine, And he knew that it was mine, And into my garden stole, When the night had veiled the pole: In the morning glad I see; My foe outstretched beneath the tree.

You’ve given numerous personal attacks. I can understand your frustration. You’ve started a thread over a subject that you couldn’t be bothered to research.

I’ve cited several dozen. You have access to them all. You won’t be referring to them as you won’t be reading them. You’ve shown zero interest in backing your stance up with peer reviewed published evidence. The explanation for that is obvious. Any attempt to adopt sound literature review techniques will lead you to accept a disagreeable conclusion: every aspect of my argument is supported by theoretical and empirical evidence. Given I was originally a pro-legaliser, I haven’t allowed personal bias to get in the way of research methodology. I’ve been able to review all available sources and construct a rational response.

That I’ve given DOIs is a matter of fact. That I can give a DOI to every paper referenced is also a matter of fact. That I won’t scroll back and do that for every previous citation is a matter of rationality. However, if you’re struggling to find any journal article please let me know. I’ll provide a link in a matter of seconds, demonstrating just how poor your literature review technique really is.

The rest of your post was more inane personal attack. You really should go on that creative writing class, just to induce a level of entertainment in your humph. I expect to be insulted with a level of class!

__________________
I was angry with my friend: I told my wrath, my wrath did end. I was angry with my foe: I told it not, my wrath did grow. And I watered it in fears, Night and morning with my tears; And I sunnèd it with smiles, And with soft deceitful wiles. And it grew both day and night, Till it bore an apple bright; And my foe beheld it shine, And he knew that it was mine, And into my garden stole, When the night had veiled the pole: In the morning glad I see; My foe outstretched beneath the tree.

Are you a professional in the field of economics?

As much as you glorify the peer review process for economic journals just about means you have to be.

Surely you must realize that people that don't get access to these journals through work resources must pay money to view any more than an abstract, which mostly consists of a statement of intention with no mention of results, methods or resources.

I tried for about an hour earlier to look up a paper you had cited. The majority of your sources can not be viewed for free by anyone who isn't a professional in a select few fields. I would register on one site and get a link to what it said would be the article for free and it would redirect me to another site.

I am over you telling me I have access to them all. If it was as easy to find them as you are acting, I would have read them (and discredited most of them) by now.

I am tired of dealing with your short sightedness on this issue. We can do 1 of 2 things. We can start over and you can give links and discuss my sources like a normal person, or you can continue try and poorly communicate all this info you seem to think is rock solid fact.

Although, I have seen change on the horizon with you now being "sick of (my) petty accusations" which is a pretty big change from post #789 when I was amusing you.

Perhaps you will soon realize that my "petty accusations" will stop only after you post links to some literature I can actually review without registering and paying money.

Then also to Antidote....

When you have more time, I would love to hear a more in depth analysis of the link I posted for you to peruse.

Nope. I employ economists but that's it.

I do have a PhD and I do know how to reference. I follow best practice. There's no debate in that. I realise that you might have experience in literature review techniques. Fair enough. However, that provides no excuse for your quite ridiculous reaction to my ability to suitably defend my argument.

You should be able to gain access via local libraries. However, given time costs, I've always been willing to provide all relevant information. Questions about data, empirical methodology and robustness checks are suitably answered.

I have access via my firm. The subscription costs for these journals isn't surprising, particularly with the cost of the quality control processes. That's no excuse for limiting sources to poor internet offering. Quality control is paramount.

You're joking surely? You have no means to discredit them. Your innocence of literature review techniques will be replicated in data methods, empirical methodology and the methods to soundly criticise conclusions. You've only advertised that you're prepared to make evaluation without being suitably armed with an understanding of the available literature. That is particularly poor practice!

Given I'm the only one that has bothered to research the literature (actually using that to completely switch stance, the myopia is your end.

You haven't presented any source that I would find acceptable. Even in my secondary school days I referenced better. You need to catch up and accept the quality of my position, with my ability to defend all aspects of my argument. That would then enable you to contribute to the debate, in a similar way that I demonstrated was possible with Pudney's pro-legalisation position

Your innocence amuses me. Your immature accusations do not.

__________________
I was angry with my friend: I told my wrath, my wrath did end. I was angry with my foe: I told it not, my wrath did grow. And I watered it in fears, Night and morning with my tears; And I sunnèd it with smiles, And with soft deceitful wiles. And it grew both day and night, Till it bore an apple bright; And my foe beheld it shine, And he knew that it was mine, And into my garden stole, When the night had veiled the pole: In the morning glad I see; My foe outstretched beneath the tree.

Wrong. I started this thread about the hypocrisy of the U.S. government having a patent on Cannabis's medicinal qualities, yet still keeping Cannabis as a schedule 1 narcotic. You apparently could not even be bothered to research the threads topic before you hijacked it.
What an idiotic statement. I do not even know the names of these studies. How am I supposed to access them?

Its hard to review a document I don't have.

I'm not the one referencing them in my citations. If your going to reference a peer review you should have the name of the review and share it with us all so we might see for ourselves.

So you are clairvoyant now? You can see into peoples minds? See the future?

You have offered no proof of this.

I'm happy for you. It would be nice if we could all review your sources but you refuse to produce them.

Theres 80 pages in this thread. Did you expect me to troll thru them all to find 1 or 2 names?

This has yet to be confirmed.

We've already been down this road. You are a flat out lier. You lied then, you continue to lie now. All anyone has to do is look over the last two pages to see that you are indeed a lier as I had asked you to name some of your reference material and you wont. Who do you think your fooling?

I think you are right to expect to be insulted. You portray a level of indifference to logic that practically demands it. I will venture a guess that any human interaction you receive here is better then what you get in your non-virtual environment.

You're quite welcome to stop responding to me. Indeed, until you finish any creative writing putdown class, I think it would be a grand idea.

Statement of fact. The papers cited are all available in electronic journal format. Your innocence of the available literature, however, was expected.

They're all available online via those DOIs. You won't be reading them as you have a bias that makes objective evaluation of scientific research an impossibility. In contrast, I've achieved it and switched sides.

You won't adopt best practice because you cannot. Even if you could, you'd shy away from it as your position would become unsupportable

Given I know the evidence I know the repercussions of a literature review.

Inane again! Everything I've said has been supported. Scroll back and start accepting good ole reality

Inane again! I've given full references and offered DOIs for any article referenced that you're interested in. All are available online. Clearly you are quite ignorant of what scientific evidence is available. Whilst this might account for your position, its not for me to celebrate that result. I want you to read the material. Get reading.

For those articles that you cannot find let me know. You do seem to need additional help with basic use of the internet. I don't mind though. We all go at our own pace.

Go and try! Find a journal article referenced and I'll provide a DOI

A quite immature response. I'll confirm the reality: if you’re struggling to find any journal article please let me know. I’ll provide a link in a matter of seconds.

Insipid to the nth order. Adopting an argument based on theoretical and empirical support is a celebration of logic. Your reaction reflects your impotence. You haven't read the available literature and therefore you are reduced to silly little playground tactics. I won't replicate that silliness. I want you to participate in the debate and its not for me to suggest that you cannot correct your most basic errors.

__________________
I was angry with my friend: I told my wrath, my wrath did end. I was angry with my foe: I told it not, my wrath did grow. And I watered it in fears, Night and morning with my tears; And I sunnèd it with smiles, And with soft deceitful wiles. And it grew both day and night, Till it bore an apple bright; And my foe beheld it shine, And he knew that it was mine, And into my garden stole, When the night had veiled the pole: In the morning glad I see; My foe outstretched beneath the tree.

Well then you should be discussing these journals with your peers in the field or at your firm. Why waste your time "slumming" it here on the web where there's no quality control? Perhaps a forum that charges a fee to post would be better suited to one such as you. I hate to see you reduced to the level of the common riff-raff here.

I adopt best practice whenever evidence is required. It would be irrational not to

__________________
I was angry with my friend: I told my wrath, my wrath did end. I was angry with my foe: I told it not, my wrath did grow. And I watered it in fears, Night and morning with my tears; And I sunnèd it with smiles, And with soft deceitful wiles. And it grew both day and night, Till it bore an apple bright; And my foe beheld it shine, And he knew that it was mine, And into my garden stole, When the night had veiled the pole: In the morning glad I see; My foe outstretched beneath the tree.