You are talking about just "studies on marijuana", I'm not sure that's the way the FDA works.

Let's take a look at the evidence you present:

"A social psychology of marijuana use: longitudinal studies of high school and college youth."
Relevant?

"Psychological studies of marijuana and alcohol in man"
Relevant?

"… /mass spectrometric and nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometric studies of carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in tobacco and marijuana smoke …"
Relevant?

"High-potency marijuana impairs executive function and inhibitory motor control"
Relevant?

"Using full matching to estimate causal effects in nonexperimental studies: examining the relationship between adolescent marijuana use and adult outcomes."
Relevant?

Repeat ad infinitum. I don't think the FDA accepts "but google says there's 240k studies!" when many if not most are not relevant... So yeah... Maybe that's how the FDA works, I don't know. But I really doubt you can get through just with sheer volume of studies even if they are irrelevant.

You don't really think that's true do you?

By the way compare to the top adderall studies...

"Analog classroom assessment of Adderall® in children with ADHD"
"Differential effectiveness of methylphenidate and Adderall® in school-age youths with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder"
"A comparison of Ritalin and Adderall: efficacy and time-course in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder"
"A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of SLI381 (Adderall XR) in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder"

Oh wow they are all actually about studying the effect of the drug directly.

By the way "marijuana" a plant and "adderall" a drug is not a fair comparison.