[QUOTE=catbarf;39231625]When you figure out what part of 'the sample size is a little small to draw useful conclusions' equals 'Cannabis effects not to blame for IQ loss', let me know.[/QUOTE]
I'm not even sure what you're asking me here. Read that sentence out loud to yourself.
I've never once claimed that Cannabis does [b]not[/b] affect IQ loss throughout this thread.
There are flaws in the study, and yes, the sample size of middle class children was likely too small to draw any relevant conclusions from.
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;39231699]Luckily you don't have to smoke to get high, you can vaporise or use it in cooking.[/QUOTE]
Which isn't practical for many recreational users, because of the extra cost.
[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39231813]Which isn't practical for many recreational users, because of the extra cost.[/QUOTE]
Using a bong cuts the major issues with smoking too, and those are pretty standard fare.
[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39231813]Which isn't practical for many recreational users, because of the extra cost.[/QUOTE]
Cooking with cannabis isn‘t more expensive, in fact i would say you‘re getting more effects from a smaller amount from the proper decarboxylation of the cannabinolic acid. And a vapouriser is a one time cost, which can be less expensive than an average glass peice.
[QUOTE=TamTamJam;39232337]Cooking with cannabis isn‘t more expensive, in fact i would say you‘re getting more effects from a smaller amount from the proper decarboxylation of the cannabinolic acid. And a vapouriser is a one time cost, which can be less expensive than an average glass peice.[/QUOTE]
Too much effort for most smokers
[QUOTE=Strider*;39232416]Too much effort for most smokers[/QUOTE]
As someone who knows a ton of smokers I can definitely call bullshit on that one.
[QUOTE=Gekkosan;39226024]I don't think anyone cares about ad hominems anymore.
It's like "Hey, you did this thing called [i]ad hominem[/i], ur not even good enough to argue with me so thx bye."[/QUOTE]
It's not "You're not going enough to argue with me," it's "You didn't present anything resembling an argument so your statements will be ignored." Ad hominem is like saying "I don't think the Earth is round because watermelons." There's nothing to address.
I don't think Marijuana is necessarily hurtful when you're a well-functioning person otherwise. Many people are not, though, and I know people who was high half the time. In combination with other factors, I think it can be hurtful. I think we should have laws like they have in Holland - let people enjoy it responsibly, and take the profit away from the gangs.
I really can't bothered to look up a thousand different studies right now, but there's my two cents.
[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39230042]I find it funny that people tout weed a some sort of medical miracle, when most of the people pushing for legalization, and MMJ, are just looking to get high without getting arrested. Honestly, after smoking weed for over 4 years now, the net effect on me has been negative. My anxiety is worsened and now I have issues with my stomach that are aggravated by weed.[/QUOTE]
is wanting to get high without getting arrested a bad thing?
[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39230042]I find it funny that people tout weed a some sort of medical miracle, when most of the people pushing for legalization, and MMJ, are just looking to get high without getting arrested. Honestly, after smoking weed for over 4 years now, the net effect on me has been negative. My anxiety is worsened and now I have issues with my stomach that are aggravated by weed.[/QUOTE]
You think people should get arrested/fined/jailed for smoking weed?
[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39230042]after smoking weed for over 4 years now, the net effect on me has been negative. My anxiety is worsened and now I have issues with my stomach that are aggravated by weed.[/QUOTE]
Just because the net effect was negative for you does not mean that it's been negative for me.
No one is forcing you to smoke, and your own personal regret shouldn't be cause for you to criticize other users.
I know this was probably covered by the guys that did the study, but seeing as how I saw no mention of it in the article I figured to be on the safe side I'd ask the question anyway:
Did the researchers conducting this study take into account that EVERYONE'S IQ drops as they get older? People keep scoring higher and higher on the same IQ tests as time goes by and because IQ is a sliding scale with 100 being defined as the average as time goes on and the average goes 'up', it has to be reajusted by moving the entire scale down again (meaning that you could be scoring like 130 when you're 10 years old, but when you're 30 you might 'only' be scoring 124 on the same test).
Fucking Flynn effect, man.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
