they're motivated in a way you may not be accustomed to.
Holy crap Teenagers really should not smoke weed
- Thread starter shadyspace
- Start date
- Status
they're motivated in a way you may not be accustomed to.
Boom.
What makes it funnier is that more than half the people I knew who did weed regularly in high school are already at prestigious universities.
Appeal to authority. Just because Lancet published it doesn't mean it's true. We all have brains and we can read and draw conclusions from what we've read.
Lancet has published highly criticized articles before, including "mass privatization in Russia was correlated with higher mortality rates", which is about as bogus as this one.
More importantly, it is not a MEDICAL study. The study conducted zero scientific experiment on the effects of weed on the human body.
You got it. Like the ridiculously stupid Lancet article I quoted above. Higher mortality rates in Russia is due to alcohol abuse, which is of course helped by having more money to buy alcohol.
But according to some people, it's Lancet, we shouldn't even question it.
DocTarHeel
Member
Did you actually read the article? What are your specific criticisms? What would you have done to change the study?
That's very wrong, sorry.
I feel like I'm fighting a losing battle here.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Why is that the alternative?
How about not establishing a policy until you have better evidence?
YYyyyyyyyuuuuuuup
DocTarHeel
Member
The antiscience in this thread so far is on par with conservative's dismissal of global warming studies.
Sorry, but both of your statements aren't an indication of good understanding of statistics.
This is what I wanted to say. +1
AllIsOneIsNone
Banned
Not just any drug, any and everything in existence. Statistical studies are generally biased, don't account for countless variables, and with a non-controlled environment variables are even less accounted for.
With that said, marijuana still makes people lazy. People don't need statistics to know that. My friend smokes like an 1/8th a day, don't do shit.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Bullshit.
If anything, it's people implying that a study should not be doubted because it was published in a prestigious journal that are antiscience.
The whole "who are you to criticize?" angle is just a bunch of shit.
Or is it that lazy people gravitate to enjoying marijuana frequently? Anecdotal evidence should not be used to make a definitive statement. I guarantee that there are people who are highly motivated and not lazy who also smoke marijuana.
It is a study about lifestyle choices, not the actual effects of weed has on the human body. Is it that hard to understand? All it says is that people who choose to do A are more likely to be B. It doesn't tell you what A does to your body.
It is a logical fallacy.
If anything, people who keep waving Lancet Lancet in our face are the one who behaves like conservatives.
Deified Data
Banned
Anything's worth it to be cool.
DocTarHeel
Member
Again, what did you find wrong with the study? I'm open to have the conversation if have legit complaints other than a blanket "causation=/correlation" statement that conservatives use to dismiss global warming.
I think you quoted the wrong person because you didn't answer my questions.
"The study accounted for 53 confounding factors and still found a strong association."
sonikokaruto
Banned
this discussion is the same as 20 years ago: Nintendo
and that discussion was the same as 20 years before: marihuana and lsd.
and THAT discussion was the same as 20 years before it: probably masturbating to drawings ...
and that discussion was the same as 20 years before: marihuana and lsd.
and THAT discussion was the same as 20 years before it: probably masturbating to drawings ...
I answered your questions. The whole study means nothing. People make choices, and so?
The negative effects of weeds can only be found in a lab, not on a spreadsheet.
Corronchilejano
Member
I dunno man. Here they're basically doing exactly that: they're comparing usage statistics with dropout statistics with no other frame of reference. It does seem that type of study.
DocTarHeel
Member
Even when accounting for confounders, the researcher still found a strong, dose-dependent relationship. I'm not sure how you say that means nothing.
AllIsOneIsNone
Banned
Well, I've known plenty of people, and have known plenty of people that know plenty of other people who were perfectly motivated in their studies/sports/life before they started smoking, and not very much so afterward.
Weed gets you high, when most people are high they get tired and slow down. Personally it makes me really tired for the next 6 hours or so after I smoke it (after the possible initial giddiness). I also don't get very good sleep. Do it a couple times a day and I would be tired all the time.
TheDrizzlerJ11
Member
I wonder if high school dropouts and people who are suicidal are more likely to be honest than others on the topic of when they first tried illegal drugs. Hmmmmm......
Any study about "Why are our kids dropping out?" always makes me laugh. Everyone always wants to pin it on something, but seriously it boils down to mostly that kids just don't wanna go to school because school sucks. And as a kid you don't really weigh your future with your current decisions.
Even then, how are you going to make a convincing argument to a teenager they should continue? "Hey you should continue school because without it you can't go to college, to do more shitty school work while playing a ton in tutition. Then if you're lucky you might get a job to pay off that debt in 10+ years. WELCOME TO THE MACHINE!"
Ya I could see why the dropout rates are what they are.
Even then, how are you going to make a convincing argument to a teenager they should continue? "Hey you should continue school because without it you can't go to college, to do more shitty school work while playing a ton in tutition. Then if you're lucky you might get a job to pay off that debt in 10+ years. WELCOME TO THE MACHINE!"
Ya I could see why the dropout rates are what they are.
But the frame of reference is the dropouts and they control for a myriad of other factors including other drugs, age , gender etc. It doesn't seem like "that type of study" at all.
My goodness people, is it that hard to question your beliefs? Take a look at them and say "Wow, maybe I should look deeper into what this means?" Like people are saying, this anti-science thing is ridiculous. Just because you don't like the results of something doesn't mean you should ignore it. Understand it and discredit it properly if it's discreditable, or accept it if it's not.
LegendofLex
Member
Developing a drug habit early, like any other addiction, is probably a compounding factor in limiting this ability, not (strictly) a side effect of it. Lots of people develop their concept of adult responsibility as teens, after all. To use another example, I don't think you'd do a study on teen sexual activity based on factors such as their capacity to give consent. (But I'd imagine consent laws were based on understandings about teen sexual activity.)
Because if I was a student and I spent 8 hours a week high instead of not high, it has a negative effect on my study. Doesn't take a study to figure that out.
You keep bringing up global warming. Global warming studies actually studied the actual effects of human pollution on climate. I suggest they do the same here.
~Devil Trigger~
In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
Daily...
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
Ha ha. Wow. So the risk of developing lung cancer from smoking cigarettes is a meaningless statistic...
OminoMichelin
Member
Weed addiction is mainly psychological, but of course if you over use it there are going to be consequences in the long term. However, it doesn't look like the study correlates effectively marijuana addiction to proficiency in school, as opposed to factors like depression etc. There's a reason why teens start smoking heavily in some cases, and I'd wager it's usually linked to some form of distress in their own school/household that makes the want to try to escape reality.
DocTarHeel
Member
They found a dose-dependent relationship.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
The study itself looks fine at first glance. That's not what I'm criticizing. It's the conclusions that are being made that are problematic.
The reason why smoking cigarettes cause lung cancer was found in a lab, with actual science behind it.
Try again.
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
This was done by various health departments, dude.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(14)70307-4/abstract
yup.
I wish I had full access to the study. Going by the abstract is terrible.
Sorry, Sir Ronald Fisher, but you lost that debate decades ago. And why would the experiment have to account for that? yes, there's always a chance of an unexpected confounding factor, but those chances are increasingly smaller the more controlled your experiment is.
Mechanism and causes of cancer aren't very well understood now, let alone during the mid 1960's.
LegendofLex
Member
What conclusion is being made, exactly? "Teens who smoke weed daily" are more likely to not finish high school. It is the data that says this, not the conclusions. The conclusion is that "there may not be a safe threshold for use" among teens, which given that the data demonstrates that use is a risk factor is a pretty good conclusion, worthy of further investigation.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
So the epidemiology studies mean nothing, right? Never heard of risk factors?
Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
I read that, dude.
They used the method described in the OP which we have already debated so what's your point?
DocTarHeel
Member
These are the results directly from the abstract of the article:
They conclude that:
What is your criticism with that?
Northeastmonk
Gold Member
I always wondered if there is some kind of shame against it. There's some very intelligent people and people who made it very far in life who smoked pot. Hell, our president smoked pot. I think it all depends on who you are. Plus at that age you're building that foundation to your adult life. They should save the pot smoking for when they're out at least.
I don't smoke anymore. I did when I was a teen because it seemed relaxing, enjoyable, and so forth. I can tell you all about the great times smoking with friends. If I didn't have responsibilities or if I was retired then that would be another story. I don't think it's that dangerous because we have people consuming alcohol. The alcohol can become a much more serious problem.
You get some music going, have a group of people (girls and guys), at a nice house, and it makes for a very enjoyable and memorable experience. I think pot like alcohol shouldn't be in the hands of people under 18 or 21. Teens need to know that real life is coming and they can't always be that comfortable and lazy.
ScepticMatt
Member
That's not how it works, you need to think about the counter-conclusion.
Are they smoking because they aren't doing well at school, or is there a common or unrelated other cause?
The way to avoid is to do a randomized controlled experiment. Get a statistically significant population group. Randomly put them in 2 groups. One smoking pot the other not. Note how many people graduate (without knowing if they smoked). Correct for as many confounding factors as you can. At the end of the study, unblind the result.
Ideally you'd do the study double-blind, i.e. give one group 'fake-pot', but I don't know how you could do that
.FriedConsole
Banned
I don't like the results from this study so I will believe the other studies.
Good thing science gives you research that says everything is good and everything is bad so you can just believe whatever you want.
Good thing science gives you research that says everything is good and everything is bad so you can just believe whatever you want.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Because it's implying that the weed caused these things to happen and that reducing or removing the weed element would improve those factors when that is not what the data show.
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
That you are wrong that they didn't take into account the way drugs affect the human brain. I'm not saying this is a spotless study, but I don't see you citing hard evince. I don't have access to the study, so I am not going to make blanket statements about their methods.
But there are an enormous amount of factors and variables in this issue. What if kids who smoke weed are more likely to spend time with their hobby than studying? What if kids with helicopter parents are also more likely to be concerned with grades? What if kids who want to smoke weed think they're too cool to do homework? What if kids who smoke weed are disproportionately male, and thus less likely to do well in school?
What we know is that "kids who smoke weed daily are less likely to succeed in school". That absolutely does not mean "THC use causes a drop in youth intelligence", as many people in this thread seem to think.
Northeastmonk
Gold Member
Obama said the only problem with pot is that, like alcohol, has an addiction problem. Too much use. If you just smoked a joint or a hit.. that goes away very fast. It's pot, it isn't gasoline or cat litter. I think people are scared of it, but hell there's worse medications out there. Pot isn't like pain pills or anxiety medication either.
Teens don't smoke, focus on your education. Let the adults enjoy the munchies.
Yeah, can't really say anything without the full study. I don't think my old campus has access to this journal.
This is a prime example of not understanding what the study even means
This study doesn't say weed is good
This study doesn't say weed is bad
It simply says there's a correlation, and a strong one at that, that people who smoke weed during skill are more likely to drop out.
Neither does it say weed CAUSES the people to drop out (or vise versa)
It's simply a sign that we should investigate the relationship between weed use and scholastic success to see how we might be able to increase the chances of student graduating. Why is this a bad thing?
- Status