"They who" question was meant for Bluesman, hehe.
You can't just blindly believe a statement that some research led by Boston, Massachusets or even Alabama university proved something. That's BTW what psychedelic drugs seem to do to us - make us more sceptical to various statements we hear every day in media, governmental news, etc.
"The Buffalo university research" may well be just a credibility hook used every day and every hour nowadays, probably, you've heard about neuro-linguistics programming and you know what I mean, it's the basics.
They say coffee is bad for heart, next day they inform it's good for liver and fights tumors, Surgeon General informs on dangers of smoking, another research states it's cool for due to high content of lithium in cig smoke it may "provide some degree of protection against the brain damage that is characteristic of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, schizophrenia and chronic depression", everybody goes jogging to train their hearts, then scientists find out that joggers have extremely high rate of deaths related to heart problems.
What I want to say is that "the Buffalo university research" means "the Buffalo university research", nothing less and nothing more. It can be right, it can be wrong, there might even be no Buffalo university research at all.
Could you provide more details on the issue? Even better, a link to it?
In the meantime, the only valid info that I have is my own experience and that of the people I know.
My experience includes a perfectly healthy and sound son of 19, whose both parents were heavy smoking rastas for a few years before he was born.
I can't say if my sperm is faster than that of non-smokers - never thought of competing. As for sex appeal - have you ever heard of this problem with MJ smokers in vivo? Me - never. Moreover, my personal experience denies it bluntly.
The flat earth proof does not mean all the research is crap, and I never said it - don't juggle the notions, you abuse my intelligence.
What I mean is that "the Buffalo university research" may be same crap as the US congress commission research taken about 70 years ago.
So, is it or is it not? Provide some data besides the "lower quality" and "they are slow" - give us some data to think upon.
As for your idea of MJ smokers immediately opposing anything that is against their idol - don't be so childish.
Naturally, I may be wrong and you may be right.
Peace.
P.S. If you're really interested in the issue, read something more on it. Jack Herer's "The King Wears No Clothes" is a good option. You will know then that up until end 19'th century 60 to 80% of all pharmaceutical products in USA were based on cannabis, either its oil or THC itself.
There are quite a few documentaries in which renowned US, Canadian, European medics speak on the issue. You'll be amazed with what you hear, trust me. Some of them might even be from this very Boston university, hehe.