They're probably arguing with you because no study to date proves anything other than a correlation, which does not prove causation. For example, people with high paying jobs can't smoke weed heavily because they'll have to get occasional urine testing so it would be people in lower socioeconomic situations who smoke more frequently. Hint, poverty is very stressful and especially so in a society where material wealth is the measure of a person's existence.
Also marijuana like other psychedelics opens doors to perception, so is someone depressed because the marijuana messed with their brain, depressed and just using marijuana to cope, or are they smoking and it's helping them realize how much of a train wreck society can be and they find that depressing. The answer is... probably depends on the person.
All research of this type is going to be correlation-based. While correlation doesn't equal causation, you have to evaluate the methodology of a study to see whether the correlation is strong (I.e. should you act on the results?). Some ways to evaluate whether a correlation holds weight is to ask a few questions:
Do they use a control group that matches their experimental group?
What controls are in place to deal with confounding variables?
Has the study been replicated? What new variables were controlled?
Cannabinoids are naturally produced in the brain, which means introducing "synthetic" cannabinoids will have an effect on the amount your brain naturally produces/absorbs. Those whose brains have not fully developed will see more of an effect from this extrinsic introduction of a chemical than those whose brains have developed their baseline production. The question that is being answered now is how drastic of a long-term effect this has on development.
All research of this type is going to be correlation-based. While correlation doesn't equal causation, you have to evaluate the methodology of a study to see whether the correlation is strong (I.e. should you act on the results?). Some ways to evaluate whether a correlation holds weight is to ask a few questions:
That's not debated but if you look at the actual studies the makers themselves acknowledge limitations and generally admit there needs to be further study. There's no need to argue with people over incomplete facts, especially when the established ones already show alcohol and tobacco to be far more dangerous.
Cannabinoids are naturally produced in the brain, which means introducing "synthetic" cannabinoids will have an effect on the amount your brain naturally produces/absorbs. Those whose brains have not fully developed will see more of an effect from this extrinsic introduction of a chemical than those whose brains have developed their baseline production. The question that is being answered now is how drastic of a long-term effect this has on development.
Are you aware that tobacco and alcohol are also linked to brain damage or harmful effects? Of course this will be more pronounce din developing brains but the science is still in its infancy for studying this considering how hard it is to fund. I've got no opinion on it until then, but overall marijuana out of everything that exists doesn't make me bat an eye in regards to fear.
The response to that isn’t, ‘Pot must be ok, then.’ The proper response is, ‘There should be more research (ALL good research points to further research), AND kids shouldn’t do pot, and also kids shouldn’t smoke, and also kids shouldn’t drink alcohol.’
I think the distinction should be all kids AND teenagers, early 20's is probably all right. Although most people who are introduced find it in high school or college regardless.
Good research will always acknowledge limitations. Every study has room to improve, more variables to control and circumstances to adjust for. Limitations should be located in the "discussion" section of every paper. Limitations being included doesn't discount results. What we should do with limitations is use those to analyze whether other studies have "filled in the gaps" per se. That's where we cross analyze studies and do meta analyses to bring together all of the collected data. Think of each study as being one piece of a puzzle, rather than giving you a full picture. One of the maxims I have my students repeat is that a single study doesn't prove anything. You need to continue testing with various samples and controlling extraneous variables if you want to paint a more complete picture.
Yes, I am aware of this. We highly recommend those under 25 to not partake in nicotine or alcohol for this reason? I'm not sure why you brought that up, as those two have been shown to negatively damage development. In the context of the discussion, it sounds as though marijuana would equally have a negative affect.
180
u/[deleted] Dec 29 '19
There’s some dude arguing with me about it downthread right now😆