The data that backs this story up has been replicated and published for a long time. This is one family's experience, a transformative one for every member of the family. It's written not to provide scientific evidence but to communicate to those people who may still oppose marijuana liberalization and who don't even care about the data, which is clear cut and unmistakeable at this point.

Calling this propaganda is the height of ridiculousness.

Yet none of that data is presented in the article. That it exists doesn't improve the journalism here.

> Calling this propaganda is the height of ridiculousness.

You must have a poor imagination. There are cookies for that though.

This is published under opinions. Empirical evidence is usually more than enough for this section of 'journalism'.

I know it is fashionable to label articles propaganda, but the term gets thrown around lightly.

propaganda: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

In what way is the article biased or misleading? It is clearly labeled 'Opinion'.

Not every article in a newspaper needs to meet the standards for an article in a peer-reviewed journal. There is a place for human-interest stories too.

Unfortunately, it's the heart string-tugging anecdotes that make policies happen in the US, not data.

After 80 years of ignoring the data, I do not know how else one would effect change other than employing the same tactics. Empirical data is available, anecdotal data is available, historical harm has accrued for non-violent "offenders". The rarely spoken facets of the hemp plant's superiority to pulp derived paper and cotton fabrics have been ignored for almost a century. Before "reefer madness" was invented, the aforementioned products couldn't compete, hemp was common and priduced superior products. The reasons for demonizing hemp, not marijuana, were economic forces and lobbyists pushing their agendas at any cost.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger#The_campaig...

Storytelling probably wins over data everywhere there are people, and that probably can't be changed, barring genetic modification.

You might fight wars with data, but you win or lose them with propaganda. If the defenders wish to win the war on drugs, they must be willing to use at least as much propaganda as the attackers have used.

What data would this woman's experiment have produced that would improve this article in a meaningful way?

Propaganda is kind of a strong word.

I think your dismissal of the article as "propaganda" is nothing but trolling. Why do you think Cannabis should be illegal? Countless anecdotes have shown that cannabis works where other medicines don't. At what point should we drop this charade of a "war on drugs" and just accept that this plant has medicinal properties like no other?

Plainly I don't think it should be illegal, I was a medicinal marijuana patient for many years, as I said elsewhere in these comments. I don't think that a mother making cannabis cookies and eating bits of them to observe the effects, determine strain and dosage for her child is appropriate. Frankly that's embarrassing behavior for a college professor, somebody who ought to know better. If you're going to give a 9 year-old an MMJ recommendation/prescription, everything besides dose delivery should be managed exclusively by a doctor.

Outright prohibition isn't the answer, but the scatter shot of substitutes aren't correct either. Don't look for me to recommend the solution, I simply took issue with the Washington Post carrying this opinion piece which, frankly, glamorizes dangerous behavior.

And it's bullshit that you put words in my mouth. I never said cannabis should be illegal. "Trolling", really? Is that a byword for disagreement now? Please go harangue your DEA strawman somewhere else.

Perhaps you ought to reread the definition of the word you're confusing this opinion article with.