So uh this appeared

[DarkMonotone]

In school paper.

 

"Big News in a Small Box"

 

New reports say that heavy marijuana use by teens under 18 can permanently lower their IQs. One study tracked 1,000 people for 25 years to monitor how smoking pot affected them later in life. Teens who smoked at least four times a week while their brains were still developing saw dramatically lower IQ scores. Even if they stopped smoking, their intelligence failed to return to its natural level, apparently because the pot had changed the way their brains developed. Older smokers suffered no such permanent losses.

 

All I have to say is this chick is an IDIOT for signing this as something she wrote.

[Rudabaga]

[YOUTUBE]cmHkzRb90D8[/YOUTUBE]

[ToXiC.]

It wassnt "dramaticly" lower it was like 7 points lower....

[LazaHorse]

Why are you upset she wrote this in a school paper? Unless she copied it word for word from the original source at which point you should seek to have her suspended for plagiarism. And IQ's aren't supposed to change... ever... so 7 points (in the eyes of a statistician) show "significant difference."

[DarkMonotone]

Why are you upset she wrote this in a school paper? Unless she copied it word for word from the original source at which point you should seek to have her suspended for plagiarism. And IQ's aren't supposed to change... ever... so 7 points (in the eyes of a statistician) show "significant difference."

I'm upset because it's STUPID. Like without any credible facts and absolutely no science to back it up. It's like a Creationist saying the Earth is 6,000 years old.

[ToXiC.]

I'm upset because it's STUPID. Like without any credible facts and absolutely no science to back it up. It's like a Creationist saying the Earth is 6,000 years old.

 

that is not true at all.... they have proof they did a study on a significant number of people... the study is sound....

 

 

and laz i guess that's true.

[enigma#]

Before this ablazes, there are actually some creationists who do believe in it. They're called Young Earth Creationists (5700+ years ago).

 

Umm, I wouldn't doubt that THC can alter the mind negatively. It's like any drug, it has negative and positive benefits as well as 'side effects'. THC is no exception.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_cannabis#Memory_and_intelligence

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19372456

http://www.livescience.com/22711-smoking-marijuana-lowers-iq.html

[Mark]

Atleast we have proof that smoking over 18 makes you cooler

[LazaHorse]

I'm upset because it's STUPID. Like without any credible facts and absolutely no science to back it up. It's like a Creationist saying the Earth is 6,000 years old.

 

She cited a study. I'm familiar with the study she's talking about (I think another pothead in HG made a thread about it). Something you learn in Political Science is that you can make ANY result come about by changing the way you (1) take, (2) interpret, (3) or represent data. They presented a fair case and had the numbers to back it up (though the numbers were as Magic said less boisterous than anti-marijuana advocates would like).

 

For the creationist thing to say there is "no science" to back it up is false. There are some credible scientific evidences creationists use to argue for the Biblical depiction of the origin of the Earth. However, there are admittedly (I am a creationist... imagine that a Physics major creationist XD) far more scientifically backed explanations and evidences (i.e. Big Bang, "random certainty", etc). If the case against Creationism was so blatant, there wouldn't be any creationists. Same reason why there aren't people anymore who legitimately believe the world is flat. Finding a theory implausible and finding it false are two very different things.

 

tl;dr: All science is inconclusive. That is why the only acceptable theories are ones that are falsifiable (have some means of proving them wrong). Neither Creationism nor any other theory of origin is falsifiable (cannot recreate them), though one is admittedly much more plausible.

Edited September 7, 2012 by enigma#
ENGRISH LAZARUS Dx

[DarkMonotone]

She cited a study. I'm familiar with the study she's talking about (I think another pothead in HG made a thread about it). Something you learn in Political Science is that you can make ANY result come about by changing the way you (1) take, (2) interpret, (3) or represent data. They presented a fair case and had the numbers to back it up (though the numbers were as Magic said less boisterous than anti-marijuana advocates would like).

 

For the creationist thing to say there is "no science" to back it up is false. There are some credible scientific evidences creationists use to argue for the Biblical depiction of the origin of the Earth. However, there are admittedly (I am a creationist... imagine that a Physics major creationist XD) far more scientifically backed explanations and evidences (i.e. Big Bang, "random certainty", etc). If the case against Creationism was so blatant, there wouldn't be any creationists. Same reason why there aren't people anymore who legitimately believe the world is flat. Finding a theory implausible and finding it false are two very different things.

 

tl;dr: All science is inconclusive. That is why the only acceptable theories are ones that are falsifiable (have some means of proving them wrong). Neither Creationism nor any other theory of origin is falsifiable (cannot recreate them), though one is admittedly much more plausible.

I don't want to digress this topic away from what it really is, but that was aimed at Young Earth Creationists, not Old Earth and I have no idea why my statement was even pondered for any moment at all it was a great example and everyone is trying to digress this topic. With that being said, I don't trust the credibility of this study merely because there's no chemicals in pot that should cause any damage to the brain and it's a subject that is heavily plagued by media propaganda.

[Guest teh_g]

Why are you upset she wrote this in a school paper? Unless she copied it word for word from the original source at which point you should seek to have her suspended for plagiarism. And IQ's aren't supposed to change... ever... so 7 points (in the eyes of a statistician) show "significant difference."

 

IQ can change over your lifetime.

[Guest teh_g]

I don't want to digress this topic away from what it really is, but that was aimed at Young Earth Creationists, not Old Earth and I have no idea why my statement was even pondered for any moment at all it was a great example and everyone is trying to digress this topic. With that being said, I don't trust the credibility of this study merely because there's no chemicals in pot that should cause any damage to the brain and it's a subject that is heavily plagued by media propaganda.

 

Are you a neuroscientist? Have you done studies on chemical effects in the brain?

[LazaHorse]

I don't want to digress this topic away from what it really is, but that was aimed at Young Earth Creationists, not Old Earth and I have no idea why my statement was even pondered for any moment at all it was a great example and everyone is trying to digress this topic. With that being said, I don't trust the credibility of this study merely because there's no chemicals in pot that should cause any damage to the brain and it's a subject that is heavily plagued by media propaganda.

 

The argument for why the phenomenon occurs (it does occur btw, and the evidence of the study is pretty sound) is that ANYTHING that alters the normal cognitive thought of your brain leaves some "residue" when repeated over time. It's like how people who play a game or watch a TV show too often start to say catch phrases from that game/show with others. Continued exposure to anything that affects cognitive work can lead to side-effects. Just so happens that because marijuana's effects are in altering reality and IQ is a measure of one's ability to "reason," consistent marijuana use is thought to lower IQ.

 

IQ can change over your lifetime.

 

I mis-wrote, thanks for catching that. IQ can deviate during your life, but in comparison with others your age (as the IQ test is usually administered), that change is usually not drastic. In other words, if you scored a 90 at age 12, you are likely be anywhere from 85-95 at age 18. Of course there are exceptions, but this is the general trend.

[enigma#]

You don't need to trust it.

 

When you research the information yourself and think through it, I'm pretty sure everyone can make their own conclusion about it.

 

Being a former patient of a psych ward, I haven't seen an extravagant amount of support for any nootropics like THC.

 

I think organisations like MAPS should be able to shed some light if there is [any] (or what) therapeutic benefits that do not outweigh the risks of certain drugs.

[ttaM]

Pretty obvious everyone here loves dick.

[Mathematik]

I'm going to break down what Dark is trying to say, as if I were my college English professor. I'm not looking to be a pot advocate, just want to point out how horrible this article is and give Dark some free ammunition to take to school.

 

New reports say...

What reports? Who did these reports? Where were these reports from? Any scientist name you can state on record? Too Vague.

 

that heavy marijuana use by teens under 18 can permanently lower their IQs.

These numbers are unsubstantiated without source of where they came from outside of vague "new reports".

 

One study tracked 1,000 people for 25 years to monitor how smoking pot affected them later in life.

Is this a different study than the one vaguely mentioned at the top of the article? Again, What study, by who, where? Too Vague.

 

Teens who smoked at least four times a week while their brains were still developing saw dramatically lower IQ scores. Even if they stopped smoking, their intelligence failed to return to its natural level, apparently because the pot had changed the way their brains developed. Older smokers suffered no such permanent losses.

 

The term "teens" is too vague, needs to show what age the test subjects were at, if from age 13 to 19, please state. If followed for 25 years, they would end up being 38-43 at the end of the study, please expand on the control group's findings to show deviation. Older smokers too vague, be more specific on age.

 

In the end it's just a load of unsubstantiated crap that should be shown to the Newsletter supervisor/teacher's attention, because it's not teaching the students anything on the quality of writing or journalism. In regards to any validity of the article, besides it's fallacies of logic and reason, smoking pot at a young age and a deviation in IQ or test scores has way too many other variables surrounding it to make this a key logical step. The obvious next questions should be: How much were the subjects studying? How much sleep were they getting? How involved were the subject's families in their school work? Did the kid goof off in class? If this was an actual study, I'm sure those questions would have answers. Without trying to be overarching with my summation of a 15 year old pot smoker, from personal experience kids of that age who smoke pot are less intelligent due to a lack of drive to succeed rather than the chemical impeding their learning process. After 18 though, if you want to smoke Pot, fuck it, its your body and you're considered an adult. Before 18, I don't see pot as a benefit in any way, shape, or form.

[Jella]

If the case against Creationism was so blatant, there wouldn't be any creationists. Same reason why there aren't people anymore who legitimately believe the world is flat..

I don't think that's true, in regards to people not believe in creationism. Doesn't it come down to religion moreso than anything else? And yes, there are people who still believe the world is flat.

[I Love Lamp]

Same reason why there aren't people anymore who legitimately believe the world is flat.

 

 

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

 

WOW, HOW'S IT FEEL TO BE SO WRONG, LAZARUS?

[LazaHorse]

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

 

WOW, HOW'S IT FEEL TO BE SO WRONG, LAZARUS?

 

To live is Christ and to die is to not have to be around people this ignorant anymore.

 

I don't think that's true, in regards to people not believe in creationism. Doesn't it come down to religion moreso than anything else? And yes, there are people who still believe the world is flat.

 

This is definitely true. Enigma and I were discussing this a while ago. Both the argument for and against creationism are based on religion (or a-religion so to speak), and since both those are unfalsifiable, the debate can't be settled until one or the other proves their original theory correct. I didn't realize that there were still people who thought the world was flat but... I stand corrected. -.- And disappointed.

Edited September 7, 2012 by LazaHorse

[DarkMonotone]

I'm going to break down what Dark is trying to say, as if I were my college English professor. I'm not looking to be a pot advocate, just want to point out how horrible this article is and give Dark some free ammunition to take to school.

 

 

What reports? Who did these reports? Where were these reports from? Any scientist name you can state on record? Too Vague.

 

 

These numbers are unsubstantiated without source of where they came from outside of vague "new reports".

 

 

Is this a different study than the one vaguely mentioned at the top of the article? Again, What study, by who, where? Too Vague.

 

 

 

The term "teens" is too vague, needs to show what age the test subjects were at, if from age 13 to 19, please state. If followed for 25 years, they would end up being 38-43 at the end of the study, please expand on the control group's findings to show deviation. Older smokers too vague, be more specific on age.

 

In the end it's just a load of unsubstantiated crap that should be shown to the Newsletter supervisor/teacher's attention, because it's not teaching the students anything on the quality of writing or journalism. In regards to any validity of the article, besides it's fallacies of logic and reason, smoking pot at a young age and a deviation in IQ or test scores has way too many other variables surrounding it to make this a key logical step. The obvious next questions should be: How much were the subjects studying? How much sleep were they getting? How involved were the subject's families in their school work? Did the kid goof off in class? If this was an actual study, I'm sure those questions would have answers. Without trying to be overarching with my summation of a 15 year old pot smoker, from personal experience kids of that age who smoke pot are less intelligent due to a lack of drive to succeed rather than the chemical impeding their learning process. After 18 though, if you want to smoke Pot, fuck it, its your body and you're considered an adult. Before 18, I don't see pot as a benefit in any way, shape, or form.

Btw, I copied this article from the school paper I'm not that dumb.

 

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

 

WOW, HOW'S IT FEEL TO BE SO WRONG, LAZARUS?

That's a troll society.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

[I Love Lamp]

 

That's a troll society.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

 

It's called satire. I curse the new millennium lexicon.

[LazaHorse]

It's called satire. I curse the new millennium lexicon.

 

But you know there's that one guy who's pale white because the last time he saw sunlight was when N'Sync was still touring who believes everything he's reading there.

[DarkMonotone]

But you know there's that one guy who's pale white because the last time he saw sunlight was when N'Sync was still touring who believes everything he's reading there.

If you're going to insult me, then don't beat around the bush.

[LazaHorse]

If you're going to insult me, then don't beat around the bush.

 

I was insulting the one guy out there who still legitimately thinks the world is flat. Please calm down Belkashif.

[Mathematik]

Btw, I copied this article from the school paper I'm not that dumb.

 

Oh, I know you wouldn't write such a steaming pile of shit. I just wanted to point out all the flaws in that article that looks on par with a 6th grade book report. It frustrates me to see how lax journalistic integrity has become and from such a young age for propaganda speak to start. On top of that, how the school paper supervision could allow that to be published. I would bet money that the article was 100% fabricated as a "Say No To Drugs" propaganda to the kids, which is the absolute wrong way to go about getting kids to not take illicit substances at such a young age. The truth is a much stronger weapon.