The author is a social scientist writing for the academic literature, so the idea that he might amend or abridge his results to avoid "muddying the waters" of a policy debate seems extraordinarily dubious to me.
I can accept that, but I think that the opposition to the legalization of drugs will use this as a talking point to keep the laws as they are. And considering that, I think there could be some more clarification.
But yes, science is science because you don't have to accept the results of your research for them to be the truth. I'm actually suggesting adding in more personal opinion to help direct the research in the view of those folks whom will only read the synopsis.
