pot bad for kids
- Started
- Last post
- 30 Responses
- dbloc0
uh ohh
- utopian0
duuuuuuddddeeeeee....
- qoob0
- prophetone0
- pretty sure.. that isnt potautoflavour
- Dem skaggy pillz there mate, innit, eh ? Do you 2 for 8's. 3 for a tenner, go on, mate, they're Blitzies, rushy as fuck, mmate.mikotondria3
- bath saltssublocked
- HAHAHA mikomoldero
- SrSamaurai0
I don't understand the article
- utopian0
Sup bud, chillin...
- wagshaft0
oops
- fooler0
- haha why blur out the face?? "Hey I recognise that baby, yeah no hair, 2 bottom teeth and chubby cheeks!. Arrest the pot smoking lawbreaker!!"Projectile
- smoking lawbreaker!"Projectile
- blurred due to recognisable tattoo on face?vivid
- uuuuuu0
I call bullshit. A scientific study based on IQ results is fundamentally flawed. The article and "study" is a classic case of subjective bias and scientific slight of hand. The article ends with,
"There are a lot of clinical and educational anecdotal reports that cannabis users tend to be less successful in their educational achievement, marriages and occupations. It is of course part of folklore among young people that some heavy users of cannabis seem to gradually lose their abilities and end up achieving much less than one would have anticipated. This study provides one explanation as to why this might be the case."
There are A LOT of "clinical and educational anecdotal reports" to state the complete opposite, so now what? This just ain't science.
- Cannabis has no toxins and has never been show to cause actual brain damage. It doesn't matter how old you are.uuuuuu
- A study showing actual brain damage would show something... this shows NOTHINGuuuuuu
- They basically just admitted its about a prejudice right at the end. It really depends on who you ask for these 'anecdotal reports'uuuuuu
- ...reports.'uuuuuu
- IQ tests simply are not scientific.uuuuuu
- uuuuuu0
Let me put it this way, you have a bunch of people who are more likely to achieve good IQ scores because of natural ability AND experience in logical questions, occupation and mathematical education etc. You have another bunch of people who are inclined towards conceptual, creative and abstract thinking who generally do less well on IQ tests but aren't stupid, and very able in other fields like design, law and business etc. just like some of the most brilliant and successful people in the world... what group is more likely to smoke pot while a youth?
- qoob0
An 8 point IQ drop is no joke.
Considering that IQ only ranges about 30-40 points generally.
- qoob0
OK, maybe it's not perfect but then how do you test intelligence?
Is there any way to test?
- There are so many types of intelligence, and so much is untestable in a clinical setting. People are too diverse.mikotondria3
- there is no good way at present. Intelligence is subjective and relative to environment, subject etc.Amicus
- There are lots of ways to test intelligence but its not quantifiable and exact. Its like ... are you smart or stupid?uuuuuu
- set0
Fear mongering non-conclusive bull shite
- _niko0
IQ tests are designed equally for right and left brain people. there are just as many questions pertaining to analytical thought as there is to Visual-Spatial ability.
although it's true creativity is subjective and can never truly be tested or scored.
- IQ tests are more aptitude than intelligence... if you know what I meanuuuuuu
- elahon0
Maybe some of the test subjects were just plain old garden-variety morons.
- uuuuuu0
I know IQ tests are meant to be well rounded but you can make any number of tests that would get different results, these results by themselves are not real scientific data. Real data is measurable and verifiable UNIVERSALLY. We're talking significant, re-creatable evidence. Therefore this 'study' isn't even properly scientific, it will never be taken seriously.
- They would have to demonstrate some physical damage or neurological deficiency in the test subjects. They did not at all.uuuuuu
- sublocked0
Damn...so I really did make myself more stupid by smoking pot at age 16.
- uuuuuu0
I'd like to see this "research" get a comprehensive peer review... it would be laughed at. Instead you get a professor of a dead science pat them on the back in a newspaper article and call for an ad campaign.