This is a copy/paste from my latest blog post:

The latest headline from the British 'Daily Mail' tells us that 'cannabis is making teenagers impotent'.

I had originally intended to post some facts about impotence on this post in relation to marijuana and prescription drugs. However, I have always believed that the British Daily Mail has a serious bias against cannabis and anyone who might question that bias. So I did an experiment.

First, I posted a comment about the above article in the negative:

Has this new finding been reported in any medical journals? Has it been confirmed that cannabis use IS causing impotence in teenagers?
How many is 'most' in terms of a history of heavy cannabis use?
All I've seen in this article is conjecture. Terms like 'potential', 'potentially', and 'possibly'. Then we have a professor stating that she doesn't know if any research has been done on the subject, yet the professor is touted as one of the 'leading experts on male reproduction'!
Surely someone with those accolades would be aware of any research done on the subject.
It appears to me that this is just another propaganda piece designed to scare mums and dads into thinking their progeny could become infertile from smoking the 'evil weed'.

I then posted another comment in their version of a positive:

I am shocked at this finding. However, it doesn't surprise me in the least really. Marihuana has long been known to cause brain damage in people, so it's no surprise really that it can also make young people impotent. It's about time this drug was reclassified to a Class B drug. It is insidious in the way it works on peoples' minds. No wonder pot heads sit around all day doing nothing, they have no desire to do anything constructive, even procreate.

Both comments were posted using different names that are readily identifiable to me. Guess which one made the cut and got published and which one didn't. Check the comments here.

I have attempted to post critical comments about the Daily Mail's inaccurate reporting when it comes to cannabis before and have never seen these comments published. So, after this experiment I think I'd be justified in saying that they are biased against anything that might expose their shoddy, negative reporting about marijuana.

__________________

It's Medicine Jim

Gryphonn nice try at impersonating the mindset of a Daily Mail reader with that 2nd post. It got off to a good start with the whole 'brain damage' thing but you give yourself away by using words like 'insidious' and 'procreate' (compare the the poster above you who calls it 'reproducing themselves'). If you'd really wanted to appear genuine, you should have claimed MJ use was also linked to illegal immigration/terrorism/falling house prices or any other non-related issue - I guarantee you would not have been asked for any kind of proof or evidence.