No, didn't know the details

Post #385,663 by drook 1/22/14 3:44:57 PM Reply	No, didn't know the details Unfortunately, it's still an "n = 1" test, not enough to prove causation in a general population. I guess I'll have to dissect this frog ... What is the average number of accidents caused per mile driven among sober drivers? What is the number among drunk drivers? Among stoned drivers? Pick any other effect -- not altered brain chemistry or physiology, external effect -- and do a similar comparison. People have been demonizing weed for decades, yet I haven't seen statistics showing any category where pot shows as worse than alcohol. And for the president's statement to be wrong, you'd need more than a single dimension where pot compares unfavorably; you'd need to show the totality of negative effects to be worse. -- Drew
Post #385,668 by mmoffitt 1/22/14 4:45:54 PM Reply	Familiar with Copi? And for the president's statement to be wrong, you'd need more than a single dimension where pot compares unfavorably; you'd need to show the totality of negative effects to be worse. Um, not exactly, Red Ranger. To discredit a claim I do not need to prove the converse of the claim. I just need a counter-example. The President's claim was p and q are equal wrt ill effects. All I really need to show the President's claim is invalid is to find a negative attribute of p that is not an attribute of q. That's what I did. Here is a study of p that demonstrates an attribute of p that is not an attribute of q. Reasonable minds can differ, but it's hard for me to imagine the equivalence of two substances when only one of them can cause permanent brain damage after only light, occasional use for a short period of time and the other shows no such effect. I think you're reading something in my letter that isn't there. I am not making the claim that "pot is worse than alcohol." I made no affirmative claim. The President made an affirmative claim which is demonstrably false without any justification whatever. The proof of the falsity of the President's claim requires nothing more than one exception - and I provided it. The President should have provided some objective, scientific evidence of the accuracy of his claim prior to making his comments. He didn't. So, this is just YAN of this President making an unsupported claim. Not his first. Won't be his last. And unfortunately as regards his false, misleading or unjustified claims, this one was minor in comparison.
Post #385,674 by Another Scott 1/22/14 5:31:44 PM Reply	Let's see the quote again. http://www.newyorker...k?currentPage=all When I asked Obama about another area of shifting public opinionÂthe legalization of marijuanaÂhe seemed even less eager to evolve with any dispatch and get in front of the issue. ÂAs has been well documented, I smoked pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life. I donÂt think it is more dangerous than alcohol.Â Is it less dangerous? I asked. Obama leaned back and let a moment go by. ThatÂs one of his moves. When he is interviewed, particularly for print, he has the habit of slowing himself down, and the result is a spool of cautious lucidity. He speaks in paragraphs and with moments of revision. Sometimes he will stop in the middle of a sentence and say, ÂScratch that,Â or, ÂI think the grammar was all screwed up in that sentence, so let me start again.Â [Why the paraphrase at the start of the next paragraph??] Less dangerous, he said, Âin terms of its impact on the individual consumer. ItÂs not something I encourage, and IÂve told my daughters I think itÂs a bad idea, a waste of time, not very healthy.Â What clearly does trouble him is the radically disproportionate arrests and incarcerations for marijuana among minorities. ÂMiddle-class kids donÂt get locked up for smoking pot, and poor kids do,Â he said. ÂAnd African-American kids and Latino kids are more likely to be poor and less likely to have the resources and the support to avoid unduly harsh penalties.Â But, he said, Âwe should not be locking up kids or individual users for long stretches of jail time when some of the folks who are writing those laws have probably done the same thing.Â Accordingly, he said of the legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington that ÂitÂs important for it to go forward because itÂs important for society not to have a situation in which a large portion of people have at one time or another broken the law and only a select few get punished.Â As is his habit, he nimbly argued the other side. ÂHaving said all that, those who argue that legalizing marijuana is a panacea and it solves all these social problems I think are probably overstating the case. There is a lot of hair on that policy. And the experiment thatÂs going to be taking place in Colorado and Washington is going to be, I think, a challenge.Â He noted the slippery-slope arguments that might arise. ÂI also think that, when it comes to harder drugs, the harm done to the user is profound and the social costs are profound. And you do start getting into some difficult line-drawing issues. If marijuana is fully legalized and at some point folks say, Well, we can come up with a negotiated dose of cocaine that we can show is not any more harmful than vodka, are we open to that? If somebody says, WeÂve got a finely calibrated dose of meth, it isnÂt going to kill you or rot your teeth, are we O.K. with that?Â He's giving his opinion about it. He's not wanting to jump out in front and lead the charge for legalization. He sees the "hair" and nuance in the issue. He's most concerned about the legal aspects of it. Sure, push back on whether its more or less or equally dangerous as alcohol. What exactly did he mean by "in terms of its impact on the individual consumer"? Long term health? Likelihood of a car accident? Casual use vs drunks and stoners? High school kids experimenting vs 50 year olds as regular users? Hard to say, it seems to me. He said he's told his kids to avoid it, so that's obviously part of his thinking. He may even agree with you that there is science that says that it can be worse than alcohol. I think most everyone agrees that there can be different effects at different stages of life. But from a legal policy standpoint, which clearly seems to be his major concern, I think he's saying that we have had the balance wrong for a long time. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #385,697 by mmoffitt 1/23/14 10:11:51 AM Reply	Wow. ...itÂs important for society not to have a situation in which a large portion of people have at one time or another broken the law and only a select few get punished. Where does he live? When, exactly, in our history has that not been the case? I'm reminded of the old Soviet saying, "In America, you are innocent until proven broke."
Post #385,729 by Ashton 1/23/14 5:43:18 PM Reply	Soviet-sooth-sayers say sententious Stuff! [stolen, swiftly]
Post #385,682 by drook 1/22/14 6:49:05 PM Reply	Horrible abuse of Boolean logic So if pot is worse than alcohol in one aspect, it is worse. But if alcohol is worse than pot in one aspect, then alcohol must be worse. So they're both worse? -- Drew
Post #385,698 by mmoffitt 1/23/14 10:13:38 AM Reply	Who knows? Nobody, I'd say (again) knows if one or the other is worse. That's why it is imprudent to say, "One is no more dangerous than the other." That is not known at this point.
Post #385,702 by drook 1/23/14 10:41:05 AM Reply	"not known" != "not true" -- Drew
Post #385,703 by mmoffitt 1/23/14 10:47:45 AM Reply	Huh? If something is unknown, an affirmative claim to the contrary (i.e. that it is known) is untrue.
Post #385,705 by drook 1/23/14 10:57:11 AM Reply	I don't think so This is really torturing Boole, now. If A is unknown, then 'not A' is also unknown. The assertion that A is in fact known is a different premise than A, as is the assertion that A is unknown. You are asserting that A (~ this is no worse than that) is unknown. Even if I agree with that, that isn't the same as agreeing that A is untrue. -- Drew
Post #385,712 by mmoffitt 1/23/14 2:04:25 PM Reply	Back at you. If A is unknown then the statement "A is known" is false. I'm not asserting "not A". Look, the Prez said, "A is no worse than B." I did NOT assert "A is worse than B". I pointed out actual evidence that would suggest the truth of "A is worse than B", but I did NOT claim I had provided proof of this latter statement. I did, however, demonstrate to all but the most myopic of minds that there was insufficient grounds to determine the truth of "A is no worse than B". Consequently, making the statement, "A is no worse than B" is unfounded and has no basis in fact.
Post #385,713 by drook 1/23/14 2:25:39 PM Reply	How many times can a hair be split? I noted a few well-known negative consequences of alcohol consumption. You noted a single study reporting unspecified long-term brain changes with unspecified impact. People have been alleging serious negative side-effects to marijuana use for a century. It's the dog that didn't bark. Do you know you sound like a climate change denier? "I've known this for decades. Now this one study that kinda-sorta makes my point proves that I've been right all along. (Even though I had no idea the thing mentioned in this study was happening.)" -- Drew
Post #385,717 by mmoffitt 1/23/14 4:17:07 PM Reply	That's just disingenuous. In this thread I listed two - one from this year (January!). There are others and you know it (or maybe you don't, ignorance being bliss and all that). How about this from the Mayo Clinic last summer? The dog isn't just barking, it's howling. There are few studies on the risks and benefits of marijuana use to treat chronic pain in adults, and even less data on the pros and cons of using it to ease chronic pain in adolescents, the researchers say. They recommend that physicians screen teen chronic pain patients for marijuana use. While medical marijuana may help some specific conditions, its adverse effects, even with short-term use, can include fatigue, impaired concentration and slower reaction times, they say. "The consequences may be very, very severe, particularly for adolescents who may get rid of their pain -- or not -- at the expense of the rest of their life," says co-author J. Michael Bostwick, M.D., a Mayo Clinic psychiatrist. The researchers describe the cases of three high school-age patients at Mayo Clinic's pediatric chronic pain clinic who said they used marijuana regularly. Pain worsened for all three despite their marijuana use. None attended school full time; they reported impaired functioning and difficulty becoming more socially active. Excessive doses of marijuana may induce symptoms that many chronic pain patients already experience, including dizziness, anxiety, sedation, fatigue, decreased reflexes, confusion, difficulty concentrating and a lack of motivation, the researchers note. Marijuana use before age 16 has been linked to earlier development of psychosis in susceptible patients; smoking marijuana more than once a week has been connected to persistent cognitive damage in adolescents, the authors say. An estimated 1 in 10 marijuana users becomes addicted, and people under 25 are more susceptible to that, Dr. Bostwick says. http://sciencedaily..../130617090940.htm I know, I know, the Mayo Clinic is full of shit because you know people who used it and are happy, well adjusted folks.
Post #385,718 by drook 1/23/14 4:28:32 PM Reply	I'm out Reading these studies is like reading nutrition studies, with all the same flaws. I don't care enough about it to start digging into the research. -- Drew
Post #385,730 by Ashton 1/23/14 6:32:25 PM Reply	I categorize this exercise with another, here. This is about as-yet Not-seriously-studied Gotchas.. not studied? Studied. some. but the $$ ran out because, nowhere in sight was (say? instant gratification) for some nice, neat black/white Answer re the missing data. SImilar propositions here, re ionizing radiation. a topic I happen to have some decades 'experiencing'. http://forum.iwethey...iwt?postid=376910 In both cases, the Absence of a tidy summing-up is deemed a reasonable rubric for 'doing triage'==on to more pressing matters of the soluble/insoluble ilk. In my case re (all sorts of radiation partaken-of, wittingly or not/by very many and in most populations): I note that Today--as all along--even when you Ask for a rendered-Dose--of the very technicians who are Supposed to speak physics? Frequently they Can't Tell You! This means that: offering the patient that #, for his/her lifetime-accumulating Total Dose (if an Ept patient) IS NOT EVEN on this multi-industries' RADAR. [I have, today to respond to a questionnaire re. a recent X-ray/from the PR-folk at local hosp. Guess what my reply will be like?] I KNOW my Σ RADs/REMs aka pre-'Sieverts' ... for complete Lab history. Comparisons, then: I have observed this phenom since, well the Trinity Test? Willful ignorance is a windmill I will not tilt/waste no (more) time attempting to Educate-the-unwilling. As to the 'brain changes' as a complex function of age, individual-brain-genetics, habits, duration of usage etc. of the (also-varying contents of quite more than THC) One Hopes that research on [what can we Measure.. of these alleged brain Δs??] and like that.. shall persist, however likely funded ... at a pittance. Peter is likely right as to the competition for some solution-like New Info on [n+1000] street-lamps to-look-under--on long lists. The same may apply re cannabis: BOTH cases are about subtle (maybe usually) plus some prospects of severe Badness occurring--on a simply unknowable time-scale. A severe 'there's the Rub', I wot. We nitpickers serve our Purpose: but we may not expect our particular Nits to qualify for itch-scratching until the piles of heaped-dead-bodies become visible (or odoriferous?)

Welcome to IWETHEY!