As far as your references go, they sure look pretty, but sorry Charlie, when it comes to the subject of drugs (from pot to heroin), they have indeed been influenced by the ONDCP. Do you know anything about the ONDCP's activities in your country? Just because you read the "brochure" doesn't mean a thing. Sure when it comes to main stream medical issues, I'd likely find some interesting and valid articles at your internet sources. But what you don't realize is the depth of the propaganda in your country.
I'll bet you were not even aware that the ONCDP actually cuts a cheque for any production company that produces "anti-drug oriented plots, and/or scripts" for air on television or in the movie theatre. That's just one example. So, do you honestly think that Portland Press, or some internet publisher out of Bethesda isn't being influenced by the AMA which has already been influenced over the last 50 freakin years by your governing bodies? Guess what buddy? THAT INFLUENCE IS VERY WELL DOCUMENTED! No journals, organizations, or research bodies in the USA that wanted to maintain any funding, or subsidies it had would EVER consider publishing a marijuana friendly study. Since the Canadian Senate KNOWS this, they discarded alot/most of what came out of, OR WAS FILTERED (as in the case of your references), by organizations south of the 49th parallel.
You think these piss poor references are valid just cause they have some valid documentation on secondary liver cancer from S. Africa, or something? Without actually looking, I'll bet you couldn't dig up an unedited version of the WHO report from any of those references (maaaaaaaaayyyyyybe the last one, but it wouldn't be coming off a server from any medical institution in the USA). My God, you just don't seem to get it do you? It's not a conspiricy theory, it's been incorporated into the medical culture in the states. It took about 50 years, but it's been done contrary to the actual evidence. You can't even do research in the u.s.a. because the govt. won't allow anyone to get legally thier hands on marijuana for the purposes of research. You have to basically state in your proposal that your findings will be against the use of recreational drugs to even be considered, and then you'll likely get turned down anyway. Hell your country doesn't even RECOGNIZE some of the medical benefits of marijuana! My God man, what does that tell you. Any idiot knows that if you're taking a zillion AIDS drugs that deplete appetite, and cause naseua that smoking, or eating (much preferred due to obvious issues with inhalation) will reduce the sick feelings and restore appetite. Your govt. says this is not the case... There are afflicted elderly people out there that despite following the same line as you for their whole lives, now believe in marijuana's medical benefits and are baffled by the govt.'s dismissal of it's medical value.
All that should at least point at taking a HARD look at some of the preconcieved notions regarding the imapairment while on marijuana.
You say "I have been tryin to state that AAS are MANY times safer than rec drugs because they have NO effect on their user which makes them a threat to society, unlike even the mildest of rec drugs (ex. marijuana) ---- So, being as that I used one of your own 'studies' to prove that AAS is safter than marijuana, your right in saying that we can stop arguing now because we don't want one of us looking like a fucking moron"
Well if you read back, it's clear that your argument has now 'softened' and you've managed to whittle it down to look like you've argued your case effectively...lol, you're not a woman are you (seriously, I don't know)?
However there are still flaws in this argument that I've seen a million times over. Have you ever even tried smoking a joint? Were you aware that HOW you experience the effects of THC is dependant on the idividual? Which in turn affects how much motor control function is impaired. Further, what about people who do take AAS and it affects their mood swinging them towards "roid rage"? How's that not detrimental to society? I'm being a bit facitious with that argument, but it holds about as much water as your own.
Earlier I believe you mentioned (or someone did) the idea of the "social ills" that marijuana (and other rec drugs) caused on our society. Of course there is crime and poverty associated with it's use. The stuff is illegal, which in turn creates this crime and the poor use the drugs as a means of escape (as well as the rich - who have better lawyers). If rec drugs were legal, there would first off be virtually NO MARKET for them anymore. Where there was a market, such as Amsterdam, it would be in a modest and more respectable setting (as it is in Amsterdam). Despite the new move to re-criminalize marijuan in Amsterdam (which they admitted came from US pressure), they also have admitted that there are almost no instances of crime, or other troubles that stem directly from the fact that marijuana is legal there. Member of their own government have admitted on record that the move towards recriminalization is a matter of optics and not a matter of practical fact. Both the DEA and ONDCP, and other agencies of the united states are currently involved in efforts to convince other countries to take a harder stance on marijuana. All this DESPITE the reduction in crime and social troubles which follows the legalization of marijuana (albiet there is an initial period following the legalization which of course everyone gets a little nutty, then it calms drastically). Your solution is of laws ("but making the laws to match wipes out the crime.") is about as informed as my believing that Pop Rocks and Coke will kill you. Go talk to a criminologist (not a cop, an academic criminologist). They will tell you that making laws does NOT in fact wipe out crime and as a deterrent laws rarely work. Jesus man, you guys have the freakin DEATH PENALTY and you STILL have people behaving like idiots. Fat lot of good that law did huh? (you lost your money cause it's not even close to 99%).
This can be boiled down to the fact that marijuana use, and AAS use are BOTH victimless crimes. As is the case with most victimless crimes, it's more a matter of moral entepeneurism than any practical rationale.
You want to talk about impairment? I'll bet you you could take a REGULAR user of marijuana, get them high, sit the two of you in a room together and you wouldn't be able to tell if they were high or not even if you were doing tasks that measured motor skills. Sure if they guy sat down and smoked joint after joint, he'd be just fucked and you'd likely notice. But you get that guy to smoke a half a joint or a joint of regular non-ditch weed dope, and you'd think he was as normal as the guy pumped full of AAS.
You want the last word on this? You're not going to get it until you provide something sound. Something with some logic. We can whip out reference after reference influenced or not until the cows come home (there are as many studies showing marijuana is a petty and essentially harmless drug and their are studies showing the opposite, just as we can whip out study after study showing AAS is just as bad, or not). But give me a SOUND argument man!
The best arguement i've heard yet is "I will disagree with anybody that compares a Bodybuilder with a Basehead... Two different worlds man!" But to include weed in that is RIDICULOUS!
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
and you feel as though you need to talk to me in a condescending manner I'm going to suggest something to you. Maybe, just maybe, the majority of Americans aren't as smart as you are or as level headed. Did you ever consider this as a possibility? Maybe most people can't handle the addictive nature of the harder REC drugs as well as you could. Not everyone is superman like yourself.
