Which means almost nothing. Unless you’re a pharmacologist, or a neuroscientist (as I am), please refrain from giving scientific opinions in this field.
Whichever self-proclaimed "expert" spends more money lobbying the government and has more friends in legacy and social media corporations wins I think.
Anyone is allowed to look at numbers and do simple math. You have exclusive license for that.
It's one thing to say "here's how my opinion is educated" and quite another to say "only my opinion matters and those others don't".
Holy cow do you hear yourself? Didn't we just have someone run for US president recently who was famously stupid and ignorant despite being a neurosurgeon? So you're a neuroscientist? Big fucking whoop. I'm sure your mom is proud.
Yes, we had a neurosurgeon run for the Presidency who, according to experts, had some foolish tax policies he wanted to implement. You don’t hear me making pronouncements on tax policy, because I don’t know enough about it. Nor should a “harm reduction counselor” try to make authoritative statements about neurological pharmacokinetics and the like.
Seems like you didn’t quite think that analogy through.
But a real life neurosurgeon did do that stupid thing.
Being educated enough to be accredited in some field does not automatically prove either intelligence or wisdom, let alone character or integrity, even IN that field, and so is merely a data point to consider and not the end of all conversation when they voice an opinion, even in their claimed wheelhouse.
One can be very smart and very informed on a topic, and also be an asshole whose opinions on that topic and most others should be disregarded because their motivations are shit.
But one way you can judge some of those things is by the difference between the two types of statements in my first comment.