Thread for Things That Made You Frown Today

[Fallen]

All recreational marijuana laws passed so far call for 21 and up, a fact you conveniently ignore. You also ignore how it's been shown its easier in many areas to get pot than alchohol, but yeah, you're the poor misunderstood soul here. Your tiny increase in chance of schizophrenia that you bang on about would be drastically reduced without the inclusion of those using under 21.

It drives me nuts how you people will go to any lengths to find confounding factors for linking marijuana use to schizophrenia, even ones that have been expressly ruled out, but when it comes to finding confounding factors for linking marijuana use to something good you're suddenly powerless.

And you do the exact opposite, ignoring any and all benefits marijuana might have, even to the point of refusing to acknowledge the absurdity of it being schedule 1.

Looks like you also skipped da cap'n's post where she quoted the paper you're drawing from stating that the argument isn't as clear cut as you love to make it out.

Wow. Zammit specifically controls for that.

To date, I think i've seen one wide-scale study that attempts to control for that variable.

Hmm. That's one study, maybe that's the one I was referring to.

[Allereli]

stuck sneezes

and client just said I sound like Rudolph

[Latrinsorm]

All recreational marijuana laws passed so far call for 21 and up, a fact you conveniently ignore.

I try very hard to ignore things that are irrelevant to the topic at hand. We were talking about the legalization movement, so I didn't say anything about laws. If you want to talk about laws, we can do that too! As it happens you are correct that Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska set the age at 21, but DC set it at 18. I don't know if you count that as passed or not. Ohio's age is also 18, although it is medical rather than recreational.

You also ignore how it's been shown its easier in many areas to get pot than alchohol, but yeah, you're the poor misunderstood soul here.

I don't recall claiming to be misunderstood. Misunderstanding implies inaction. What's going on here is people actively refusing to consider the information I provide, especially when it is the specific information they asked for. WB requested I link marijuana to a specific disease, when I did he decided it wasn't really linked because nobody had cut open the patients' skulls to do cellular pathology on their brains. Many requested I control for family history, when I did they decided the study's age was objectionable. You requested a link between casual use and side effects, when I did you decided you didn't have to bother reading the study at all. Meanwhile I requested two things. (1) A cohort study that DIDN'T show marijuana linked to schizophrenia. (2) A currently legal drug (besides tobacco) that presented an equal or greater increased risk. You are very happy to tell me how tiny the increased risk of marijuana is, but you absolutely refuse to provide a legal one whose risk is any bigger.

I answer all of your complaints, you answer none of mine. You don't even try. Why would you? You know you're right. That's the difference between me and you, and that's why I'm the one who's changed my mind, as can be verified on this very forum.

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. Neither do you: this is just the latest rationalization you've happened upon. If I dig through the New Zealand studies and find out it isn't, you'll just come up with another one. I mean, I'll probably do it anyway. But still.

[Latrinsorm]

And you do the exact opposite, ignoring any and all benefits marijuana might have, even to the point of refusing to acknowledge the absurdity of it being schedule 1.

In fact, I have explicitly stated how plausible it is that marijuana would have benefits, and am happy to do so again. If it can destroy the parts of the brain that we have deemed useful, it stands to reason it can destroy the parts of the brain that we have deemed harmful, because brain is brain.

Looks like you also skipped da cap'n's post where she quoted the paper you're drawing from stating that the argument isn't as clear cut as you love to make it out.

I read it (and thought it was Ker_Thwap, oops!). What specifically do you think that quote says that disagrees with what I'm saying?

Hmm.

No, bro. Zammit doesn't "attempt". Zammit controls for exactly the variable you say you want controlled, and when that happens your conclusion is still "It's all silly". Hall lists ten other studies controlling for the same variable, btw. I posted a list of them before, I could dig it up but there's no point.

[Fallen]

Just as I could post, yet again, you're ignoring that the vast majority of this risk is attributed to those who use drugs that are 1. Under the age of 21 and genetically predisposed, and 2. None of the legalization laws in the US allow for the legal sale to minors and 3. Teens find getting pot easier than alcohol or cigarettes.

Studies have shown marijuana use in teens hasn't gone up despite legalization, but you'd hand wave that away as anecdotal. If the main argument is prohibition must be in place in order to stop vulnerable teens from using marijuana, someone should tell that to Portugal.

http://healthland.time.com/2010/11/2...-was-a-success

Even the studies attempting to prove a causal link clearly state efforts should best be spent in the attempt at getting weed out of the hands of the youth. They also often state the pointlessness of a call for absolute prohibition.

[Methais]

All recreational marijuana laws passed so far call for 21 and up, a fact you conveniently ignore. You also ignore how it's been shown its easier in many areas to get pot than alchohol, but yeah, you're the poor misunderstood soul here. Your tiny increase in chance of schizophrenia that you bang on about would be drastically reduced without the inclusion of those using under 21.



And you do the exact opposite, ignoring any and all benefits marijuana might have, even to the point of refusing to acknowledge the absurdity of it being schedule 1.

Looks like you also skipped da cap'n's post where she quoted the paper you're drawing from stating that the argument isn't as clear cut as you love to make it out.



Hmm. That's one study, maybe that's the one I was referring to.

DaCap'n is a she?

HOL33T SHIT!!!!!1

[Fallen]

DaCap'n is a she?

HOL33T SHIT!!!!!1

I thought for some reason that was the case.

[Latrinsorm]

Just as I could post, yet again, you're ignoring that the vast majority of this risk is attributed to those who use drugs that are 1. Under the age of 21 and genetically predisposed,

This makes sense the more I think about it. I have given you (at your request!) a study that specifically demonstrates that the risk exists regardless of genetic predisposition. When I point out that you are ignoring this study, you tell me I'm ignoring the claim that I've explicitly addressed with that study... but you're ignoring that study, so I guess from your point of view it IS like I never addressed the issue at all. WB can smirk at it as many times as he likes, but marijuana still causes an increased risk for schizophrenia regardless of family history.

As for the age factor, you went from potential to definitive awfully quickly. Care to cite anything?

2. None of the legalization laws in the US allow for the legal sale to minors

This point has never been mentioned before, how could I be ignoring it?

3. Teens find getting pot easier than alcohol or cigarettes.

Our absolute prohibition of marijuana for teens should be more like our absolute prohibition of alcohol for teens, then. I say scrap them all and go with universal surveillance, myself.

Studies have shown marijuana use in teens hasn't gone up despite legalization, but you'd hand wave that away as anecdotal.

No. I'd point out (again) that you have to look at any potential cause in context. As your article states: "The changes in teen drug use were complex: throughout Europe, teen drug use rose sharply during the period in which Portugal decriminalized and then fell — the same trend was seen in Portugal but the fall was steeper." Without actual numbers anywhere I don't see how you can conclude anything from that, and I don't have access to the BJC. I have found it good practice to never take a newspaperman's word for what a scientist said. Apparently use was rising during decriminalization. Was it rising before? For how long after? Did anything else happen between decriminalization and peak usage that could plausibly have caused the decline?

Even the studies attempting to prove a causal link clearly state efforts should best be spent in the attempt at getting weed out of the hands of the youth. They also often state the pointlessness of a call for absolute prohibition.

None of the studies I've cited (with the possible exception of Hall) say anything about prohibition's effectiveness, because their scope is specifically the health risks of marijuana. If we can't establish that, what's the point in talking about prohibition? Of course, none of the studies I've cited attempt to do anything, they prove the causal link "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the words of Dr. Hammond. (For WB, please note that Dr. Hammond could not possibly be referring to population studies because the rate of lung cancer did not peak for another forty years after he made his statements.)

[Fallen]

This point has never been mentioned before, how could I be ignoring it?

uh...I made it in a post you've already previously replied to. What is wrong with you?

As for the age factor, you went from potential to definitive awfully quickly. Care to cite anything?

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.

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.

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?

[Tenlaar]

This thread is now making me frown. Keep your never ending argument in your never ending thread.