Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Definitely yes.

Leaning towards yes.

Maybe.

Leaning towards no.

Definitely no.

Undecided.

Other.

Don't care. / View poll.

[Neonivek]

Can you really measure 100% cognitive ability without a real measure of what their cognative abilities were before and how it should have developed until then?

Not that I don't believe it, it is just that this is what I'd personally would call: "Fudging the results"

[Sergius]

Can you really measure 100% cognitive ability without a real measure of what their cognative abilities were before and how it should have developed until then?

Not that I don't believe it, it is just that this is what I'd personally would call: "Fudging the results"

Fudging? Seriously? Good thing we don't all use your personal definition of fudging.

"In those studies, some 700 regular marijuana users were compared with 484 non-users on various aspects of brain function -- including reaction time, language and motor skills, reasoning ability, memory, and the ability to learn new information."

They took a sample of regular marijuana users. They took a sample of non-users. They tested both groups.

"I suppose we expected to see some differences in people who were heavy users, but in fact the differences were very minimal."

They compared the results of one group to the results of the other group. They performed more or less the same.

What did you expect? Test them every day starting from birth, wait for them to start using cannabis, test them again?

So unless the group of pot users used to be some sort of geniuses before starting on pot... we can assume they're some sort of average population sample.

[Neonivek]

Fudging? Seriously? Good thing we don't all use your personal definition of fudging

You mean setting up aspects of a study with result being that the information gained will be different?

Or displaying the results of a study in such a way that if fully explained it would say something entirely different?

Yes thank goodness we don't use my definition... Otherwise studies would have to tell the truth or something.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's worth noting at this point:

Definitely yes.
 56 (42.7%)

Definitely no.
 11 (8.4%)

The numbers speak for themselves.

[Sergius]

Fudging? Seriously? Good thing we don't all use your personal definition of fudging

You mean setting up aspects of a study with result being that the information gained will be different?

Or displaying the results of a study in such a way that if fully explained it would say something entirely different?

Yes thank goodness we don't use my definition... Otherwise studies would have to tell the truth or something.

You realize that your definition of fudged is, literally: can it be known with 100% accuracy? looks fudged to me!

Nice how you ignored the rest of the post and replied only the irrelevant part to justify your accusation of fudging.

Basically your reply comes down to: since they tried to measure something that they can (see how people fare after stopping using cannabis) instead of measuring The Truth!, retroactively knowing how smart they "could have (shoulda woulda) been if only they had never touched the stuff", via magic clairvoyance.

[Neonivek]

Nice how you ignored the rest of the post

I didn't ignore the rest of your post. I only responded to the important part of your post as it responds to me which is your accusation of a weak definition.

What in the world do you expect me to say to the rest of your post? "Ok"

I don't quite understand why people just assume I am ignoring their entire post and somehow at the same time also refuting the entire thing by countering one point. Sometimes I do when it relies on one point or when the other points don't come together to form a mass (I don't have to respond to tons of arguements with an equal number of arguements)... but you were just listing how the research was done, which wasn't previously, and thus I didn't think my input was really needed.

[Tsarwash]

I have mixed information actually...

I have just tried doing the maths and it doesn't add up. I think you are right. Smoking in the UK would appear to raise ten billion pounds ish and the NHS costs a hundred billion pounds. Sorry, I was wrong. Still raises a hell of a lot of money though.

[Tsarwash]

Can you really measure 100% cognitive ability without a real measure of what their cognative abilities were before and how it should have developed until then?

Not that I don't believe it, it is just that this is what I'd personally would call: "Fudging the results"

It's not fudging the results in the way that I would define the term. There might be different uses of the term. But you do have a point. Really for any study to be complete, you would have to take a random sample section from people at the age of 14 or so, and then continue to test for over a decade or so. But pretty much all studies have come up with broadly similar results. It has mild effects on your brain and personality which do return to normal after a few months away from the drug. Two of the most sucessful people that I know are total potheads, both smoking at least a quarter a week of skunk. One is an author, and journalist for the BBC and Guardian, and the other is a pretty sucessful businessman, creating and running a chain of restaurants in the Republic or Ireland. (ok, so I don't really know anybody incredibly sucessful, and my bar is set pretty low.)

[Grakelin]

It's worth noting at this point:

Definitely yes.
 56 (42.7%)

Definitely no.
 11 (8.4%)

The numbers speak for themselves.

This forum is mostly made up of young high-scool or college-attending males, which skews the data a bit. This demographic is already known to lean in this direction.

[The Transcendent Tyrant]

This forum is mostly made up of young high-scool or college-attending males, which skews the data a bit. This demographic is already known to lean in this direction.

I suspect it's because they're generally not the sort of people to listen to the usual government bullshit and believe it.

[Criptfeind]

Government bullshit?

Like what?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I would assume he means the bloated and ineffective opressive monster that is the War on Drugs.

[Criptfeind]

Bullshit seems harsh.

[Tsarwash]

I would say that locking up people for five years for selling a relatively harmless drug to willing and informed buyers is pretty bullshit.

[Realmfighter]

Who are you calling bullshit?

The policemen who arrest them for breaking the law? The judges who sentence them for breaking the laws? The Law makers for not Repealing the laws? The public for not agreeing with your viewpoint?