Posted on 05/25/2004 7:16:20 AM PDT by CSM
*yawn* If you're going to stoop to insults, at least be a little creative about it.
There is a huge body of literature indicating pot's harmful impact on adolescent learning and motivation. No, I won't give you cites because (1) it would be like appealing to a "flat earther" and (2) because no amount of studies would ever satisfy you.
What pathetic excuses; clearly you have no studies.
In the meantime, don't expect to defend pot for kids on this site
I don't defend pot for kids; I just point out the flaws in bogus arguments.
and not get trashed. See post 41 for starters.
That juvenile cr*p is no better than yours (although a little more creative).
So, your claim is that there is no emperical evidence of pot's harmful effects on kids. Game, set, match for me.
But that's ok for you, no really it is. Because no one here pays much attention to your posts, whether they be about how pot is harmless to kids or in defense of some racist southern senator's Jew baiting.
So, you can just sit out there on the fringe with that big ol' doobie and zone out!
Because it is inaccurate.
Lancet's website is www.lancet.com.
You can't post the original article from lancet, because that website needs an account and it is just as well to post the lay write up about it, which you did. The problem is your attributed source was wrong. You did link to Reuters and posted the Reuters article, but you atributed the article to the Lancet.
It's a simple matter of accuracy and proper attributation. It's not a quibble. For example Bush gave a speech last night. The speech itself is available at Whitehouse.gov. Reuters also wrote an article about the speech. One would not post the Reuters article about the speech and then attribute the source to the White House or George Bush rather than Reuters.
Only if you produce some evidence ... which you won't.
no one here pays much attention to your posts,
You're hanging on my every word.
whether they be about how pot is harmless to kids
Again, that isn't my position.
So, you can just sit out there on the fringe with that big ol' doobie
More witless insults.
Well whoever it was, we agree that it's dangerous for them to extrapolate one's personal experiences into general rules.
tbird5's the only one who might have been doing so; I'll let him know.
He was relating a personal experience for some reason, trying to make some point with an anecdotal story.
Pot is such a boring drug, in no time the user looks for something else
Thats a totally false statement.
There is no more truth to that than there is to "Milk is the gateway drink of alchoholism"
While it's true that most boozers started out on milk
and most hard core druggies started out on pot
Just because someone smokes pot doesn't mean they will end up using harder drugs.
Not to extrapolate his personal experiences into general rules, but simply to rebut the general claim that "Pot is such a boring drug, in no time the user looks for something else."
Here is the actual abstract of the Lancet article. The source for this is the Lancet.
----
Lancet. 2004 May 15;363(9421):1579-88.
Psychological and social sequelae of cannabis and other illicit drug use by
young people: a systematic review of longitudinal, general population studies.
Macleod J, Oakes R, Copello A, Crome I, Egger M, Hickman M, Oppenkowski T,
Stokes-Lampard H, Davey Smith G.
Department of Primary Care and General Practice, University of Birmingham,
Birmingham, UK.
BACKGROUND: Use of illicit drugs, particularly cannabis, by young people is
widespread and is associated with several types of psychological and social
harm. These relations might not be causal. Causal relations would suggest that
recreational drug use is a substantial public health problem. Non-causal
relations would suggest that harm-reduction policy based on prevention of drug
use is unlikely to produce improvements in public health. Cross-sectional
evidence cannot clarify questions of causality; longitudinal or interventional
evidence is needed. Past reviews have generally been non-systematic, have often
included cross-sectional data, and have underappreciated the extent of
methodological problems associated with interpretation. METHODS: We did a
systematic review of general population longitudinal studies reporting
associations between illicit drug use by young people and psychosocial harm.
FINDINGS: We identified 48 relevant studies, of which 16 were of higher quality
and provided the most robust evidence. Fairly consistent associations were noted
between cannabis use and both lower educational attainment and increased
reported use of other illicit drugs. Less consistent associations were noted
between cannabis use and both psychological health problems and problematic
behaviour. All these associations seemed to be explicable in terms of non-causal
mechanisms. INTERPRETATION: Available evidence does not strongly support an
important causal relation between cannabis use by young people and psychosocial
harm, but cannot exclude the possibility that such a relation exists. The lack
of evidence of robust causal relations prevents the attribution of public health
detriments to illicit drug use. In view of the extent of illicit drug use,
better evidence is needed.
Not necessarily. It can contribute to all that but I also know successful people that have smoked it, do smoke it, and will probably continue to smoke it.
So my answer would be, "Not necessarily."
Quit your stupid games already. You only have so many April monikers and you're going through them like a hot knife through butter.
Isn't that just the Abstract of the study?
Oops. Skipped your intro.
Yes; the claim "all cars are red" is completely rebutted with just one example of a non-red car, without any implied claim that no cars are red.
You skipped a verse... : )
First, he claimed "the" car was red, not "all" cars were red.
Second, you did NOT give one example of a non-red car -- you stated that you, personally, knew of NO red cars.
He did both; had he meant that *one* user looked for something else, he would have said "a" user.
Second, you did NOT give one example of a non-red car
Correct, I gave several; still no implied claim that no cars are red.
High?!
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.