Well, um, like, dude... If you don't want to frown... Like, man, dude, never read the thread that is about frowning. Totally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenlaar
Printable View
Well, um, like, dude... If you don't want to frown... Like, man, dude, never read the thread that is about frowning. Totally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenlaar
I see what you did there and it's really harshin my mellow, brah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
No worries. I'm done with him for now.
ya brah bt= i lackk the empthy requiired forit 2 efffect me usualy thwy jus are annnoying n im sooo drnk ritenowQuote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
ps wat unit u serv in mmin si beter faggot u dnt desreve metals
Someone bronze this, stat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenlaar
You said current laws were 21, I said "yes (pretty much)", you said I was ignoring a similar but slightly different point. Again I say yes! I addressed the point you made, not the point you did not make. I'm pretty sure I'm the one doing it right here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fallen
I mean, after all the work I did to find (and get any of you to read) the studies proving my points, it only seems sporting for you to do a little research too. No? I even gave you a head start with the groups doing research in that area, any of the three New Zealand groups should be able to answer that question.Quote:
Are you telling me I need to find you studies where it is stated that adolescents, especially with those already predisposed towards mental illness are most at risk from the potential hazards of marijuana? Are you honestly telling me that if you took this group out of your studies that your numbers wouldn't drop precipitously? It's common sense.
To be clear, though, that adolescents get schizophrenia more is irrelevant in the same way that people with higher genetic susceptibility getting it more is irrelevant. The question you have to ask is WITHIN those groups, whether the INCREASE in risk is the same. Here's what I mean: Group A is at 10% risk, members of group A who use marijuana are at 15% risk. Group B is at 5% risk, members of group B who use marijuana are at 7.5% risk. Group C is at 1% risk, members of group C who use marijuana are at 1.5% risk. Marijuana has the same effect across all groups, yes? The odds ratio is 1.5. Simply pointing out that group A is at higher risk than group C's aggravated risk is meaningless. I'm not sure if that's what you meant by common sense or not, just trying to keep things clear.It doesn't help anyone to acknowledge what has no empirical backing. As I said, it makes no sense to discuss means of prohibition until we've agreed on its target. Of course my studies don't pose solutions. They are written by psychologists, not legal experts or sociologists.Quote:
But it doesn't help your argument to acknowledge that adults aren't even at a risk of a 0.5% increase in the chance of schizophrenia. It doesn't help your argument to acknowledge recreational legalization hasn't lead to a direct increase of teen drug use. Your solution, when pressed, is to fall back on the fact that the very studies your quoting pose no actual solutions. Blind prohibition, even for medical uses, of marijuana is all on you.
I explicitly said I don't know what would happen if that age group was removed. Here are direct quotes:Quote:
From your Zimmer study, which supposedly is the definitive proof...."The cohort consisted of 50 087 Swedish men conscripted for compulsory military training in 1969-1970. More than 98% (49 321) were 18-20 years of age. " and "We are limited in that we have only data regarding use of cannabis before conscription. "
What was that about your numbers not being almost completely dependent on people under 21 using marijuana? What a joke. Why do I keep getting drawn into this fucking shitshow?
"Your tiny increase in chance of schizophrenia that you bang on about would be drastically reduced without the inclusion of those using under 21."
"I don't know if it would or it wouldn't."
See? :) To answer your other question, because you are in general a scientific person. You are not at war with me but with yourself. I provide an easy scapegoat for this dissonance, but I feel that the exercise is useful to you nonetheless and will eventually bring you to the truth. Onward, science soldiers! Marching as to a confidence interval of 95!
Pulis...
...and Gelston.
http://treasure.diylol.com/uploads/p...ine-a09180.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Pulis does achieve victory. Then he gets run out of town.