| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
| Locked on 07/27/2007 1:48:23 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason: |
Posted on 07/27/2007 7:13:44 AM PDT by stm
LONDON — Using marijuana seems to increase the chance of becoming psychotic, researchers report in an analysis of past research that reignites the issue of whether pot is dangerous.
The new review suggests that even infrequent use could raise the small but real risk of this serious mental illness by 40 percent.
Doctors have long suspected a connection and say the latest findings underline the need to highlight marijuana's long-term risks. The research, paid for by the British Health Department, is being published Friday in medical journal The Lancet.
"The available evidence now suggests that cannabis is not as harmless as many people think," said Dr. Stanley Zammit, one of the study's authors and a lecturer in the department of psychological medicine at Cardiff University.
Marijuana is the most frequently used illegal substance in many countries, including the United Kingdom and the United States. About 20 percent of young adults report using it at least once a week, according to government statistics.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
100% of people that have never smoked pot will die.
This statistic may be sad, but it is absolutely true.
The legal issue.
if the 40% finding is correct
The 40% number seemed completely made up to me, so I discounted it. They basically cherry picked information from 35 unrelated studies (From 1 year to 27 years! Science!) to glean the information they needed to make the point they set out to make.
examined 35 studies that tracked tens of thousands of people for periods ranging from one year to 27 years to examine the effect of marijuana on mental health.
They even admit that ”they couldn't prove that marijuana use itself increases the risk of psychosis” - they just imaginated formulas that produced that scientificky number.
And you could selectively pull information from 35 different unrelated studies to show that eating bacon makes you crazy too.
Most medical studies of this type are statistical in nature and can only 'suggest' things, they can't 'prove' things.
That’s why I discount “most medical studies of this type.”
Scientists should do real science with hypothesis and experiments and measured results. Not statistical data manipulation with an agenda. That’s for politicians and baseball player’s agents.
If “Cops” taught me anything, it’s taught me that a man without a shirt on is ten times more likely to be arrested than a properly dressed man.
I wish they’d arrest the guy walking around my neighborhood for shirtlessness ... either that or make his walking partner take her shirt off.
It's the main finding of the study. Perhaps you should read the study before discounting it. (The above article is not the study. It's a mainstream media article about the study.)
They basically cherry picked information from 35 unrelated studies (From 1 year to 27 years! Science!) to glean the information they needed to make the point they set out to make.
How do you know they set out to make this point?
I'm not a huge fan of "meta-analysis" either, but you haven't really provided an actual criticism of their methodology.
There's no need to be so defensive, either. A 40% increase of incidence of a condition that is already quite rare is, like, no big deal. (Is it?) I mean, just imagine that this study is exactly correct. Does that mean "therefore it's right and proper to ban marijuana"? No, it does not, not in my book. Banning use of a substance just because it (might) increase the onset (slightly) of a (rare) condition, taking nothing else into consideration - including the costs - makes no sense whatsoever.
This study, even if perfectly true, is simply no threat whatsoever to the potheadiest pot-head out there. Is it?
They even admit that ”they couldn't prove that marijuana use itself increases the risk of psychosis” - they just imaginated formulas that produced that scientificky number.
They didn't imaginate formulas. They pulled together data and found a correlation. (You might think there's something wrong with the methodology, but you haven't stated what.) I guess they found a correlation without knowing what the biological cause might be. So that's where we are. I agree that this is a modest finding - and they're perfectly honest about that. What's the problem?
And you could selectively pull information from 35 different unrelated studies to show that eating bacon makes you crazy too.
I could? I don't think I could. Let's see you do it.
Me too! I discount them an appropriate amount. Like if they show a correlation, I think, "ok, so there's a correlation". And correlations only go so far.
Scientists should do real science with hypothesis and experiments and measured results.
I'm just guessing but I suppose their 'hypothesis' was - marijuana use has no measurable effect on psychosis rates.
The 'experiment' was - collect known data from other experiments where peoples' marijuana status, and psychosis status, were written down.
The 'result' was the 40% number.
This may not be impressive/sexy science, nor is the "meta-analysis" data collection method without its pitfalls, but it is science.
Not statistical data manipulation with an agenda
All science requires some statistical data manipulation. Otherwise you just collect numbers that are gibberish without being able to discern a meaning.
Of course, if they really had an 'agenda', and that influenced their results, that's a problem. What's your evidence for that?
I really do not understand the defensiveness here. Honestly, the study doesn't claim anything all that earth-shattering in the first place.
There's no need to be so defensive, either… What's the problem?
Are you sure you’re posting to the right guy? I haven’t been defensive about anything.
I just generally don’t like government-sponsored “studies” that prove the official government position that they need to interfere in people’s lives some more, whether they do it about pot, or SUVs, or global warming, or coffee, or bacon, or whatever.
You’re right, I don’t have this actual study in front of me, and I’m not an expert on meta-analysis either. I was merely noting I trend I have observed about government sponsored studies.
Any defensiveness you observed was manufactured in your own brain.
I really do not understand the defensiveness here.
Again with the “defensiveness” charge? What posts are you reading? Defensive about what? I’m defensive about the “defensiveness” accusation, I guess, so you got me there.
Funny but true!
First, it's bad science to like/dislike studies because of what they prove. Facts are facts. Again, if there's something wrong with the methodology etc., by all means, criticize the study's finding. But you haven't done so, or even tried.
Second, this study doesn't "prove" the government needs to interfere at all. Some people might make that argument, but I would argue with them. I think they are wrong.
That's what I mean by defensive, you've assumed this study proves the government position and then reacted against the study on that basis - you feel the need to defend against what you've assumed it proves. But it doesn't! Don't give in so easily! It most certainly does not prove the government position! Anyone says that, I'll argue with them. You should too, instead of just reacting to the study because you "don't like" it.
If you are having sex with 14 year-olds when you are 14, that’s almost understandable. But you should know better when you get older. Unless you are living in a state with really lax marijuana laws, it’s time to quit. Watch Cops sometime.
If you waste your time watching Cops, you're definitely messed up in the head.
Again, if there’s something wrong with the methodology etc., by all means, criticize the study’s finding.
___________
OK. Here is what I do not care for as it relates to the methodology of the study. By their own admission, they did not take into account the marijuana users other drug use. That is a flaw in the methodology, wouldn’t you agree?
Are you saying that this correlation may be due to some other underlying cause, like that the marijuana users were also using some other drug(s), and it's that other drug(s) that leads to psychosis?
Yes, that's a possibility.
I thought it raised the risk of raping white women and listening to negro jazz music....
Unless you're qualified in the medical field, and I'll readily admit that I'm not, yours is nothing more than another opinion.
Not that this is a huge qualification (it's not), but it happens that I've been working in the medical field 4+ years as a researcher and in the clinic. I've read, reviewed and written published papers. If I did a statistical study like this, and it showed a correlation, you bet I'd put in words like "suggests", and (like I said) I'd be skeptical of the claims of people who didn't.
My opinion is that if such studies can't prove anything then I consider them a waste of time
You're more or less correct here, perhaps; the more something is "proven", the more stock you should place in it. This study establishes something pretty weak, and you're right to discount it. I'm just saying you shouldn't read too much into word usage like "suggests". Let's put it this way: this study establishes a weak statistical correlation, and using words like "suggests" is perfectly appropriate when presenting such results. You can fairly look at the word "suggests" and conclude that, indeed, they didn't find a HARD link between anything, but I don't agree that you can look at that word and conclude that the study is "claptrap". There's a big difference between "weak, but accurate results" and "claptrap".
For all you or I know, the study is perfectly correct, so far as it goes. (It doesn't go very far.)
and nothing more than propaganda meant to demonize anyone who smokes marijuana.
Propaganda is all about how facts/info are used. I have no reason to believe that the dudes who did this research and wrote this paper have anything against marijuana. Do you? Heck they may all be pot-smokers for all I know. I guess what bothers me is you're attacking the motives of people you know nothing about, based purely on the fact that you don't like what (you assume) the ramifications of the study might be.
That attitude is just as bad for science as when science is used for propaganda purposes.
To their credit, the researchers of this report probably did not claim a causal relationship, only a correlation. The sensationalist news media, being as ignorant as they are of science and statistics, probably took the correlation described in this report and ran with it as proving causation.
“If “Cops” taught me anything, it’s taught me that a man without a shirt on is ten times more likely to be arrested than a properly dressed man.”
Also, if you’ve got a car or pockets full of pot, you should probably leave your marijuana leaf hat/shirt/pendant/belt buckle at home. For some reason cops tend to suspect people with such items of possession of MJ. That goes double if you’re smuggling a whole damn trunkload of the stuff.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.