But that's not the only way to reduce the impact of confounding factors. That's the "ideal", but several mathematical tools been developed to maximize the accuracy of other kind of statistical studies.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.
Holy crap Teenagers really should not smoke weed
- Thread starter shadyspace
- Start date
- Status
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
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 success.
Nicely put.
DocTarHeel
Member
Who in this thread has said this?
Corronchilejano
Member
You can access the study right there from the article. Ill check it out tonight.
DocTarHeel
Member
Unfortunately you have to pay for the full article unless you are a subscriber, or your school gives you access.
You're being deliberately obtuse, aren't you? I was talking about laboratory tests on the effects of weed. The study used the accomplishments of the people as evidence.
Going around in circle. Yawn.
You can just sign up for free, I'm looking at it right now.
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
woops. nvm. Reading now.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
Its almost impossible to establish direct causality in cohort studies in humans. But that doesn't call for an immediate dismissal of a study. It was shown long before it was even understood why (the actual causes of lung cancer among are still being studied btw) it occurred, that cigarette smoking was a risk factor for lung cancer. Why in the hell would someone flippantly dismiss epidemiological studies without giving a reason other than saying "correlation does not equal causation"?
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
As a teen who smoked weed... I actually don't disagree.
I've reached equilibrium with smoking weed. I can take it or leave it, and if I have some, it's in the evening. It cannot possibly interfere with my adult responsibilities. What weed is to my life now? I love it. I think it's harmless.
But not so when I was a teen. Not only was I an excessive little pothead, but all my friends were too. Teen potheads are always encouraging each other to smoke early and often, and in megadose amounts. 15 minute break before math class? Blunt time. It's hard enough to concentrate as an immature teen, but then throw a pot haze over that period of life and good luck. I'm not surprised you see diminished results.
That said, I turned out fine. Well, I guess. I was a pretty bright student but I didn't finish my school on schedule. I was late finishing high school through an upgrade school, and then late into college, and my early years of college were me struggling against myself to learn concentration skills I probably should have learned I grade school... I can't say it was the weed, but it probably didn't help.
I've reached equilibrium with smoking weed. I can take it or leave it, and if I have some, it's in the evening. It cannot possibly interfere with my adult responsibilities. What weed is to my life now? I love it. I think it's harmless.
But not so when I was a teen. Not only was I an excessive little pothead, but all my friends were too. Teen potheads are always encouraging each other to smoke early and often, and in megadose amounts. 15 minute break before math class? Blunt time. It's hard enough to concentrate as an immature teen, but then throw a pot haze over that period of life and good luck. I'm not surprised you see diminished results.
That said, I turned out fine. Well, I guess. I was a pretty bright student but I didn't finish my school on schedule. I was late finishing high school through an upgrade school, and then late into college, and my early years of college were me struggling against myself to learn concentration skills I probably should have learned I grade school... I can't say it was the weed, but it probably didn't help.
There's a lot of smokers that get to live long, healthy lives until 80+. How do we know that they are toxic? Why does it affect people differently? That's why an epidemiology study was the one who settled the tobacco as a significant risk factor for cancer. Sadly, we can't reduce everything to formal sciences. :S
Edit: Bulbo Urethral Baggins said it more eloquently.
DocTarHeel
Member
I'd argue accomplishments are a better outcome measurement than lab tests.
This 1000x
The amount of rabble rousing from both sides is both hilarious and sad
except for the part where cancer isnt a behaviour.....
unless you're suggesting cancer can potentially be psychologically motivated?
You can argue all you want, it's not scientific. All it says is that if people start picking up bad habits, they might accomplish less in life.
A behavior occurring is just as valid a criteria as cancer appearing. Or are you suggesting that cancer is only caused by smoking?
DocTarHeel
Member
I hate to be blunt, but I don't think you know what you are talking about. Just because an end-outcome isn't a lab measurement doesn't mean it's not scientific.
There are most certainly hundreds of studies done every year with relation to factors such as money, culture, etc. It's not like people are specifically focusing on cannabis as the reason for school issues. All avenues of possibility should be researched when it comes to finding an answer, and this study proves that the use of pot is definitely one such useful avenue.
And I can throw the same line back to you. Shrug.
No, you can't.
But it doesn't, really. Kids who are inclined to smoke weed every day are probably already inclined to slack off in school.
DocTarHeel
Member
What does that even mean? I'm not saying lab measurements aren't scientific. I'm saying outcomes like accomplishments and achievements are more clinically significant than a number measured in a lab going up or down.
Head of Vengarl
Banned
I'm mixed on weed. I have never used it but pretty much all of my friends do. I used to be totally pro-marijuana because it's a mild drug and it has obvious medical uses. But then later on in college I started seeing the darker side of weed. Mainly that it can be a real ambition killer. Some of my friends just smoked way too much weed, and it had a noticeable effect on their lives. That's where the mildness of weed kind of backfires, because a lot of people don't seem to notice the downsides. I still think it should see a lot more medical use and legitimacy (my sister has epilepsy and it really helps with the side effects of her medication) but also people need to stop seeing it as this miracle plant that has only upsides and zero negative effects.
It really does, that would be an excellent use of the study. If we could use pot use as an indicator for kids who are inclined to slack off, we could enroll them into special programs that might help them succeed better.
Again, the study says nothing about pot being bad or causing any of this.
This study present strong evidence that is a big risk factor on that, though.
We have to take the results of scientific research, even if they aren't conductive to each one's preferred political agenda.
BTW, I'm pro legalization, but not because I deem it's use safe, but because I strongly believe that the negative social effects of it's prohibition far exceed the health hazards that it entails.
Then, why do many smokers get to live up to 80 or more?
Then you don't know what you're talking about.
I have the same regret as well.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
Fair enough. There needs to be more studies like this, and as I mentioned, NIH is starting a study following 10,000 kids for 10 years and will be analyzing their brains.
DocTarHeel
Member
To be fair, the OP is the only one I've seen that has said such a thing directly. I hope your aren't painting all of criticizing the "correlation=/causation" with such a broad brush, because that's not what I'm arguing at all.
Wait, what? Your saying we should just let kids fail because you don't want to put effort into them? Or do you mean you don't want to take efforts towards fixing the problem because they might be unsuccessful?
Anyways, that says nothing about the study being useful or not.
entremet
Member
Everyone reacts to drugs differently.
DocTarHeel
Member
Holy shit dude. What do you think the phrase "clinical significance" even means?
X
Xpike
Unconfirmed Member
man, i sure hope the cure for cancer is not created by someone in his kitchen while trying to get a beer, imagine the travesty of not using the correct scientific methods!
umop_3pisdn
Member
Exactly. When I was doing it daily I was self medicating for depression.
Maybe you should try to understand what "correlation does not imply causation" means first.
Useless, random insults that adds nothing.
What the heck does that have to do with clinical significance at all?
EDIT:
Useless, random insults? Your joking at this point, right? You can't just deflect a valid point by calling it an insult.
Do you know the meaning of "clinical significance"? (I would like a good explanation too, my formation is theory heavy).
DocTarHeel
Member
Nothing. He's just arguing for the sake of arguing now and not being coherent at all.
Foxy Fox 39
Banned
Uh huh. Good way to keep your head in the sand. Read the article.
You've ignored the points made by me and others and keep throwing insults like "you don't know shit". What's there to argue about?
Using your line of thinking you can justify their Russian study too.
DocTarHeel
Member
It's basically a way to determine the practicality of an intervention. For example a new blood pressure medication may show a reduction in a person's blood pressure by 1 point and be very statistically significant, however that 1 point reduction in blood pressure isn't likely to change more important outcomes like heart attacks, strokes, or death, and thus isn't very clinically significant.
Zoe
Member
What. That's ridiculous. If we have the capacity to help people, we should at least try.
World Renowned Clinical Researcher Barrack Obama.
Those studies go beyond what this study has done.
DocTarHeel
Member
What line of thinking? I've just been arguing that people shouldn't dismiss this study with a blanket "causation=/correlation."
And when you make baseless statements like accomplishments and achievements aren't scientific end-outcomes or clinically significant, then yes, it makes me think you don't know what you are talking about.
- Status