Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
T
The motivation part is not proven.
Northwestern study: Marijuana users have abnormal brain structure and poor memory
- Thread starter godkiller
- Start date
Why do weed users try to go at alcohol when defending weed?
You know if they re criminalize alcohol it makes legalisation of weed way more harder right.
Shoot yourselves in the foot brehs.
I made that point to illustrate that the State endorses the consumption of poison all the time. Sugar, corn and dairy are highly subsidized by the government. I'm positive that being fat is worse than some memory loss. Prescription drugs cause overdoses and suicide. Tobacco is addictive and causes cancer. We need to be free from demagoguery to make informed decisions.
Blackout
just your usual nerdy brotha
Sounds like a misuse issue. I thought the issue was on legalization?
What does misuse have to do with legalization of weed?
Is it being legalized for teenagers?
Blackout
just your usual nerdy brotha
Should they make sugar, corn and dairy illegal for teenagers?
Last edited:
If you want to combat censorship, you have to accept all the facts and argue from there. I see similar denialist behavior from the video game community when they try and argue that there's no correlation whatsoever between exposure to violent media and real life violence, despite all the biggest studies on the subject showing a modest one. Usually, the negative effects of things like weed or violent media only manifest long term after repeated, high amounts of exposure, a la people playing violent videogames and watching violent tv/movies every day for many years, or people smoking several times daily for 10 years straight, and both also involve predispositions that are specific to individuals that determine to what extent they are affected or not. It doesn't hurt the anti-censorship/criminalization argument to acknowledge that those cases exist, but it does hurt you if you pretend it doesn't. Then you just end up appearing unreasonable and make it easier for the unreasonable arguments for censorhip/criminalization look justified, when they aren't.
Last edited:
No. Adults should be allowed to make choices that are negative for them. We don't lock up drinkers, cigarette smokers or fat people. Instead we educate them, and regulate (within reason) the industries that produce toxic products.
Blackout
just your usual nerdy brotha
Well that would be a better way to put it instead of trying to promote making alcohol illegal.
Put that gun down and stop trying to shoot your foot.
godkiller
"We are the Fury"
I agree that these measures would have helped to add clarity but their main aim was to see what the brain looked like after prolonged weed use. In that sense brain imaging has value on its own. There are usually time and funding constraints in studies so researchers can't measure everything. Not always is it even necessary to do so.
I'll read the study and get back to you on this point. But at first glance 4 out of 5 amounts to smoking 80% of the week. I don't see this fact as a real oversight if that's what the marijuana users did. I'd like to see the correlation coefficient for the aforementioned brain changes against controls for the N=100. I agree that more participants are needed to further clarify things but your criticism could just be trivial noise (i.e they didn't do crack all the time, just most of the time, how can you say blah blah)
Are you saying it can't be done or that it's difficult to do? Statistical regression is "difficult to do" as well and yet practically every researcher does it. Noise is not so much an issue with the imaging as with other factors.
Absolutely but there were some built-in controls for the lack of repetitive brain imaging. One of them being that the subjects (supposedly) only smoked weed. However the results represent a particular susceptibility to weed for some people. Still that's a concern
Virtually all major studies on particular issues are funded by government departments. To assert that this study is wrong or biased because the government funds it is to assert that all government studies are wrong merely because the government has a policy for or against whatever is being studied. Researchers are sometimes biased and have an agenda, so too are funders, but let's not assume all studies funded by the government are wrong because they aren't.
This study shold make sense...its about TEENAGERS.
The average brain doesn't stop changing until like 22-25 anyways.
Thats why prohibition alcohol consumption until you're at least 21 is a good idea.
Show me a longitudinal study of adults and then i'll be impressed.
Fair enough.
The study just isn't comprehensive enough to even come to a conclusion. they basically just admit that more studying is needed. this gov organization has a history of exaggeration and in some cases, deliberate misinformation. They're not letting the data speak for itself, they started this study searching for a specific outcome and found a "casual" relationship all the while saying they need to do more studies to find out definitively. Especially for a study like this you have to control for alcohol use, cigarette use and other intoxicants that people were also taking and doing during their life. These studies just create headlines on the internet for a few days and then are ironically, forgotten.
godkiller
"We are the Fury"
The study just isn't comprehensive enough to even come to a conclusion. they basically just admit that more studying is needed. this gov organization has a history of exaggeration and in some cases, deliberate misinformation. They're not letting the data speak for itself, they started this study searching for a specific outcome and found a "casual" relationship all the while saying they need to do more studies to find out definitively. Especially for a study like this you have to control for alcohol use, cigarette use and other intoxicants that people were also taking and doing during their life. These studies just create headlines on the internet for a few days and then are ironically, forgotten.
Well if the researchers compared normal brain scans to weed smokers' brain scans, and the shyt looks different, why can't researchers come to a conclusion so far as that finding is concerned? What about the cognitive comparison where weed smokers score lower too? Obviously nothing is set in stone. You'll notice the researchers never closed the book on further research. They reported their findings, with perhaps some unnecessary speculation but that's par for course with research reported in the media.
As for the government organization, they just provide the money in this case. I don't know that they were the ones who did the actual research. I agree that there was noise in potential alcohol, cigarette, etc use but the researchers tried to control for such by asking participants if they did any drugs. However we all know dudes lie and smoking/drinking is a big thing.
ThaRealness
Superstar
I mean weed affects everyone differently... Some people can smoke and be productive, some cant
the cac mamba
Veteran
does anyone deny this though? i dont think anyone would deny that weed is harmful. its certainly not helpful
i dont burn anymore but the shyt isnt illegal because the government cares about your health
ill just leave it at that
i dont burn anymore but the shyt isnt illegal because the government cares about your health
ill just leave it at that
