New York Times Writer Can’t Read

Dan Hurley’s article tomorrow in the New York times is a strange, unbalanced article about medical marijuana, giving a lot of space to opponents, and then claiming there isn’t enough “clinical” evidence to support medical marijuana.
The problem is that he can’t even read his own article.
Take a look first at some of the “problems” he mentions (or quotes):

Yet there remains much confusion over whether marijuana in fact has any significant medical effect. … But the reality is, we don’t know. …While little scientific evidence supports such a lifesaving role for marijuana … There’s not been a randomized, controlled trial demonstrating that marijuana or any cannabinoid is any more effective in controlled seizures than a placebo … We have a product that has been legitimized without any evidence of efficacy. … researchers said that the results should be interpreted cautiously, because the study had been intended to test only short-term benefits … Showing clinical benefit in humans has been an elusive beast. … But the clinical studies just aren’t there. …

Boy, you’d really get the notion that clinical studies haven’t supported medical marijuana, wouldn’t you. But then he says:

In 1997, Dr. Donald Abrams, an oncologist and assistant director of the Positive Health Program at the University of California at San Francisco, became the first doctor authorized by the National Institute of Drug Abuse to receive marijuana to conduct research to determine if it provided medical benefits.

Now more than a dozen California researchers are studying it under the auspices of the University of California’s Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research. [emphasis added]

Isn’t the big story here why the federal government has restricted studies? Can’t you read your own article, Dan?
There are plenty of problems with this ignorant article, including presenting the questionable (and controversial) schizophrenia study without noting that the study did not, in fact, diagnose any schizophrenia or psychosis.
Come on, you can do better than that, NYT.