Casual marijuana use may damage your brain

[Sparko]

Which is why I refuse to interact with him ever again.

I still like pap.

[Bill the Cat]

I was just trying to lighten the mood around here. Obviously you have a chip on your shoulder.

Which is why I refuse to interact with him ever again.

[Darth Xena]

That too.

[Cow Poke]

I was thinking of professional...

pot smoker?

[Darth Xena]

I was thinking of professional...

[Teallaura]

Sissy football don't count

Does too.

[Darth Xena]

Sissy football don't count

[Teallaura]

Marijuana does not have to be smoked.

But even if.... So?

The only way to play football is to have people purposefully taking other people down. So?

Actually, you can play football without tackling. And no one plays the original version(s) of football - which is why ER's remain amazingly quiet during football games (the medieval versions didn't involve a lot of rules and little to no sportsmanship )

[Teallaura]

For what this study actually is, the sample size is an addressed issue - and not a huge problem. Were the authors claiming causation, yeah, it'd be a massive problem - but not for correlation and certainly not when properly qualified - which Pep was kind enough to cite. The authors aren't claiming anything that cannot reasonably come from the study as presented and they aren't pretending that the study does anything it really can't. The methodology is acceptable within the study's limits. This is the real world and all studies must balance the methodological ideal against financial and ethical reality. This study doesn't seem to have crossed that line.

The study group showed brain abnormalities where the control did not and it did address co-variants. That's a pretty danged strong correlation and does indeed justify further study. The real question is does it justify a review of policy?


In this instance where policy is being formulated about a regulated substance in order to deregulate it, I think any study that reasonably shows there might be a problem with that deregulation - as in this case - should be considered as a caution and a warrant to further investigate before altering existing policy. It is not itself proof that that policy should be maintained - as long since conceded by its defenders - but it does give sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation before making a policy change that will be difficult to reverse.

[Darth Xena]

Marijuana does not have to be smoked.

But even if.... So?

The only way to play football is to have people purposefully taking other people down. So?

[Catholicity]

Problem...The way to "get high" off a joint is to inhale it until it burns the throat/lungs. That can't be good

[Sparko]

By misrepresentating and dismissing my stance? Sure you were.

Well happy easter.

[Paprika]

I was just trying to lighten the mood around here.

By misrepresentating and dismissing my stance? Sure you were.

[Sparko]

Remember your earlier post to me?

As you say, "what a smug smartasss reply. "

I was just trying to lighten the mood around here. Obviously you have a chip on your shoulder.

[Paprika]

Remember your earlier post to me?

Yeah Paprika, MJ makes you smarter. Let's go with that

As you say, "what a smug smartasss reply. "