Young cannabis smokers run risk of lower IQ, report claims
339 replies, posted
And it's still not as bad for you as alcohol and cigarettes.
I smoke every now and then, and I'm doing really well at school. Still though, knowing this I'm probably going to do it less.
[QUOTE=cyanidem;37444454]And it's still not as bad for you as alcohol and cigarettes.[/QUOTE]
Can we seriously stop doing this people, the 3 drugs are entirely different beasts.
[QUOTE=Bumbanut;37444302]You could be right there, but why that one certain area? Why couldn't they conduct this study all over the world in different regions and environments? You could conduct the same study in my school and say that 90% of the students in Canada are drug addicts.[/QUOTE]
because it's bloody expensive and time-consuming. do you have any idea how much work went into this study? how much money? some of the scientists that worked on this have their [B]entire career[/B] riding on it. be happy that the study is as good as it is. grant committees are fickle things, and politicians generally don't have science funding high on their priority list.
When does recreational become chronic?
They say in the article they meant four times a week but it must vary a lot
[QUOTE=Bumbanut;37441726]After my careful study of scout1's replies and arguments, I can conclude that everyone in this thread is at risk of a significant and permanent IQ decrease.[/QUOTE]
A post you made on the second page of the thread:
[QUOTE=Bumbanut;37434657]I am 100% sure that cannabis is not the direct factor of the IQ decrease, but rather the subjects' lack of desire to learn and apply their knowledge (due to cannabis). Basically, I don't think cannabis itself lowers the IQ, but rather the subject allowing themselves to 'slack off' due to their usage.
Edit: Essentially, this study suggests that people with weak willpower will slack off when using cannabis.[/QUOTE]
Yup, we should all listen to Bumbanut's examination of this thread and its contents. Clearly he has great respect for science and actually reads the study, as opposed to assuming a peer reviewed study performed over a 20 year period with almost 1000 participants did not control for one of the most common claims made by pot advocates.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37445995]because it's bloody expensive and time-consuming. do you have any idea how much work went into this study? how much money? some of the scientists that worked on this have their [B]entire career[/B] riding on it. be happy that the study is as good as it is. grant committees are fickle things, and politicians generally don't have science funding high on their priority list.[/QUOTE]That is true, and that is why this study could be considered partially invalid. I am not saying that it is, but the results could be misleading. Anyway, my original point was completely different and we have derailed from it a long time ago.
It's just when you see the full picture, you may think about it a bit differently - this is a heavily biased article written on a partially inaccurate study. Simply assuming that the general population of teenagers is at risk of IQ decrease is quite stupid.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;37446337]Yup, we should all listen to Bumbanut's examination of this thread and its contents. Clearly he has great respect for science and actually reads the study, as opposed to assuming a peer reviewed study performed over a 20 year period with almost 1000 participants did not control for one of the most common claims made by pot advocates.[/QUOTE]I actually apologized for my first post, since I sounded more sure than I actually was. I didn't mean to say that, I meant to state my opinion.
Around the time I started smoking weed, my test scores increased a lot compared to what I had last time. I've noticed that pot has a different effect on me than most people. I can function a lot more normally than most can on it. Also I can't understand how 18 just HAPPENS to be the age where you can suddenly be immune to the IQ decreasing effect of pot. All that I've gathered from my experience is that it will make your short term memory a bit worse, but it varies from person to person. It also reduces your lung capacity slightly if you smoke a lot, but it is only temporary. I have only seen improvements in my intelligence since the time I started smoking. Overall I can say that it has made my life a little better. I'm not saying I disagree with the test results, but I just don't feel like I've gotten dumber. I recently turned 17 by the way.
[QUOTE=Bumbanut;37446405]That is true, and that is why this study could be considered partially invalid. I am not saying that it is, but the results could be misleading. Anyway, my original point was completely different and we have derailed from it a long time ago.[/quote]
no
it isn't
this study is considered [B]well above average[/B] in comparison to similar studies. a lot of scientists would [I]kill[/I] to have n=1000 to work with, especially over such a long time period.
if your standards of evidence are this high then you should revise your confidence in almost [B]every scientific study[/B] downward. there is such a thing as too much skepticism.
[quote]It's just when you see the full picture, you may think about it a bit differently - this is a heavily biased article written on a partially inaccurate study. Simply assuming that the general population of teenagers is at risk of IQ decrease is quite stupid.[/quote]
show me where the bias is.
[editline]28th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=SilverBullet;37446524]Also I can't understand how 18 just HAPPENS to be the age where you can suddenly be immune to the IQ decreasing effect of pot.[/QUOTE]
They aren't saying there's a strict dividing line. Among the population, there'll be a distribution of safe ages to smoke pot, and the average happens to be at 18. If you have no other information than this, and just go with the expected value, you have a 50% chance of being okay. Depending on how wide the spread is, you might want to push it up to 19 or 20 or 21 just to be on the safe side.
Maybe they were just dumber to begin with?
[QUOTE=Remscar;37446659]Maybe they were just dumber to begin with?[/QUOTE]
They measured how far IQs dropped from a test taken before they smoked pot.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37446615]you might want to push it up to 19 or 20 or 21 just to be on the safe side.[/QUOTE]
I've decided that smoking has made my life better so I don't really feel there's much of a legit reason why I should stop smoking.
It just makes everything better you know?
[sp]420blazeitfaggot[/sp]
[QUOTE=SilverBullet;37447658]I've decided that smoking has made my life better so I don't really feel there's much of a legit reason why I should stop smoking.
It just makes everything better you know?
[sp]420blazeitfaggot[/sp][/QUOTE]
oh of course, if it works for you then it works for you, it just can't hurt to be able to make a better informed decision.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;37435208]tbh that sounds more like some sort of social anxiety disorder than side effects of weed[/QUOTE]
that sounds about right :v
[QUOTE=Bumbanut;37444302]You could be right there, but why that one certain area? Why couldn't they conduct this study all over the world in different regions and environments? You could conduct the same study in my school and say that 90% of the students in Canada are drug addicts.[/QUOTE]
Don't you understand that this is not how it works? The study is [I]not[/I] about demographics, for the most part, it doesn't matter the social/economic makeup of the population. It's about examining the effects of a certain drug, after taking into account possible extraneous factors, on humans throughout their lifetime. We are all humans, and as a general population drugs will affect humans over a long period of time the same. You're looking for ways to discredit the study yet your reasoning is wholly flawed.
If you don't make weed your life then you wont get stupid, anyone who isn't 420 get blazed erry'day knows this.
No one would really be bothered if you drunk a lot, it's because weed isn't as socially acceptable as alcohol, despite being arguably less harmful to your body.
[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;37448202]Don't you understand that this is not how it works? The study is [I]not[/I] about demographics, for the most part, it doesn't matter the social/economic makeup of the population. It's about examining the effects of a certain drug, after taking into account possible extraneous factors, on humans throughout their lifetime. We are all humans, and as a general population drugs will affect humans over a long period of time the same. You're looking for ways to discredit the study yet your reasoning is wholly flawed.[/QUOTE]
Education, employment, healthcare etc. opportunities differ markedly. That they say controlled for these and similar factors without providing any detail whatsoever. That's annoying at best. The analysis certainly isn't PNAS level.
Look, long term longitudinal studies in epidemiology are a bit of a publication-padding voodoo. If you take them on their own, you're going to have a bad time. They have their uses, sure, but when you're operating without a causal mechanism, or really any causal basis than 'well we reckon', the results will be of limited value.
Once you've done your due diligence and are looking for some to data to confirm, they *can* be much more useful.
Pretty much, my friend in highschool tried to stop smoking marijuana (succeeded for a while, then went back for whatever reason) he said his grades rose and then as soon as he started again he went back to the D's and F's. I can't really say what changed (or if it was even related) but I always wondered if it really did affect his grades or if it was him personally kinda passing the blame to weed. He truly did not give a shit about school.
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;37445728]Can we seriously stop doing this people, the 3 drugs are entirely different beasts.[/QUOTE]
So why is marijuana placed alongside meth, crack, and pcp then?
because the fucking retarded government
[QUOTE=Bumbanut;37446405]That is true, and that is why this study could be considered partially invalid. I am not saying that it is, but the results could be misleading. Anyway, my original point was completely different and we have derailed from it a long time ago.
It's just when you see the full picture, you may think about it a bit differently - this is a heavily biased article written on a partially inaccurate study. Simply assuming that the general population of teenagers is at risk of IQ decrease is quite stupid.
[/QUOTE]
Why is this study inaccurate, again???
going by your logic every study is inaccurate!
[QUOTE=scout1;37448451]Why is this study inaccurate, again???
going by your logic every study is inaccurate![/QUOTE]
How about taking the time to actually read the posts in this thread, instead of just sputtering unclever, witless sarcastic "humor" like you do in every single post seen in this thread so far.
[QUOTE=Pat4ever;37448488]How about taking the time to actually read the posts in this thread, instead of just sputtering unclever, witless sarcastic "humor" like you do in every single post seen in this thread so far.[/QUOTE]
"This is true and that is why this study could be considered partially invalid"
Look at these weasel words and call me the unclever one. This "oh no the samples suck" shit is retarded when you're harping on one of the best sampled studies I've seen this decade
If he wants to keep crying about how the study is inaccurate (it isn't), and how the sample is wrong (it isn't) he needs to demonstrate what would be a better example and what the possible errors in this one are
[QUOTE=scout1;37448542]"This is true and that is why this study could be considered partially invalid"
Look at these weasel words and call me the unclever one. This "oh no the samples suck" shit is retarded when you're harping on one of the best sampled studies I've seen this decade
If he wants to keep crying about how the study is inaccurate (it isn't), and how the sample is wrong (it isn't) he needs to demonstrate what would be a better example and what the possible errors in this one are[/QUOTE]
Except we've gone over,[B] numerous[/B] times, what would make this study better. And then you bring up the "oh, you're not a researcher, you have no idea what you're talking about" card, as if you have any better jurisdiction in this than we do. I've seen much better samples than this, specifically ones where it's [I]nationwide[/I] so it doesn't just conform to one small demographic.
[QUOTE=scout1;37441497]
I do like how you are harping on the study, though.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=scout1;37448542]This "oh no the samples suck" shit is retarded when you're harping on one of the best sampled studies I've seen this decade [/quote]
Yeah, keep on harping on about harping on. That doesn't get old fast. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Pat4ever;37448612]Except we've gone over,[B] numerous[/B] times, what would make this study better. And then you bring up the "oh, you're not a researcher, you have no idea what you're talking about" card, as if you have any better jurisdiction in this than we do. I've seen much better samples than this, specifically ones where it's [I]nationwide[/I] so it doesn't just conform to one small demographic.
[/QUOTE]
Okay do me a solid then and rename them. Not a wide enough selection of people? 1000 is the upper limit. Not enough diversity? It's covered. Accounting for IQ tests? It's covered.
[QUOTE=scout1;37448669]Okay do me a solid then and rename them. Not a wide enough selection of people? 1000 is the upper limit. Not enough diversity? It's covered. Accounting for IQ tests? It's covered.[/QUOTE]
What methodology did they use to account for those variables?
[QUOTE=scout1;37448669]Okay do me a solid then and rename them. Not a wide enough selection of people? 1000 is the upper limit. Not enough diversity? It's covered. Accounting for IQ tests? It's covered.[/QUOTE]
I'll do better than that. I'll quote my post that I made in response to yours, that you seem to have ignored. I recommend you give it a good read.
[QUOTE=Pat4ever;37441662][QUOTE=scout1;37441497]Oh my argument is invalid because I talked about political science, how nice [/QUOTE]
Well yes, when you try to include a bullshit science in your reasoning, you tend to be wrong.
[QUOTE=scout1;37441497]
I do like how you are harping on the study, though. "Well I don't think they did it right." Yeah, professional researchers with actual experience in the field did it wrong. What is your qualification, exactly? High school diploma? Some college? And these professionals got it wrong because you [B]feel[/B] they didn't take things into account properly. [/QUOTE]
I said that this study needs to be performed more than once, in more than one area, and with more than just one team. By doing this, most of the extraneous factors can be accounted for. But good job by taking the extreme, really puts your point across. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=scout1;37441497]
but they told the truth about their illegal drug use right
Did you even read the article[/QUOTE]
No, I just happened to find quotes randomly that, by coincidence, were related to what I was saying. :downs:
The illegal-ness has nothing to do with it. I don't know you at all, a fact I'm actually proud of, but even a closet nerd would know that many drinkers will lie about the amount they actually drink.
I'm going to make a guess and say that the source of your uptightness originates from a lack of social life/having fun, and I urgently suggest you do something to reverse that. It's your life though, after all.[/QUOTE]
Oh and please do supply what Contag asks. We say the study is invalid; we provide evidence for it. You say it was performed accurately; now it's your time to provide the reasoning for that.
Not really surprised. I just wish it wasn't true. Since I smoke it.
Every...
Day...
But i'm not like "yo bro let's get fucking baaaaaaaaaaaaaked" every day, I'll smoke ONE bowl, and just chillax.
[QUOTE=bull3tmagn3t;37449003]Not really surprised. I just wish it wasn't true. Since I smoke it.
Every...
Day...
But i'm not like "yo bro let's get fucking baaaaaaaaaaaaaked" every day, I'll smoke ONE bowl, and just chillax.[/QUOTE]
don't worry about it dude i smoked quite a bit before i was 18 and i've smoked fuckloads more after 18 and i'm not that fucked and i've done plenty of other drugs too. i doubt a bowl a day would hurt you too much
[editline]29th August 2012[/editline]
i'd reckon the real danger of smoking weed is nothing to do with iq or anything but with self-motivation and of course the dangers you get from inhaling any kind of smoke
[QUOTE=bull3tmagn3t;37449003]Not really surprised. I just wish it wasn't true. Since I smoke it.
Every...
Day...
But i'm not like "yo bro let's get fucking baaaaaaaaaaaaaked" every day, I'll smoke ONE bowl, and just chillax.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/c9X6n.gif[/IMG]
I just remembered something else that this study definitely didn't account for. Certainly the weed used was not standardized, so people must have consumed weed with a higher THC content than those who consumed low quality marijuana. Which means everyone was affected differently. This is something that is impossible to account for unless the study is performed uniformly, like I said.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.