4 ms·

It's sad to see such a brigade of hate/insecurity around any pot study. It's a shame. Every time there is some inkling of negativity the panic sets in, they cri

It's sad to see such a brigade of hate/insecurity around any pot study. It's a shame. Every time there is some inkling of negativity the panic sets in, they criticize the study (which is valid, but how often is the criticism valid), they bring up how alcohol is worse, when this wasn't even a comparison to alcohol. Marijuana should absolutely be legalized. But we can't just ignore its effects. I get it-weed helps a lot of people out, and it isn't that bad of a drug. But you can't just simply dismiss everything that you don't like that comes out.

43224gg252 9y ago
>Every time there is some inkling of negativity the panic sets in, they criticize the study Source? Is there any empirical evidence that this is happening or is this just what you're telling your self? IMHO, it's quite the opposite -- anytime cannabinoids are shown to have medical value people claim "correlation does not imply causation" and "we need more studies" and "this only works in a lab!!1".
- linkregister 9y ago
  I think the parent poster is just referring to negativity in this thread, not claiming a statistically significant sentiment trend in comments sections about marijuana studies. I agree that among policy makers, unfounded anti-cannabis bias is predominant, despite the studies you mention.
- mejari 9y ago
  >Source? The bottom half-dozen comments on this article?
- weberc2 9y ago
  Seems like you're only supporting his point, mate.
tommynicholas 9y ago
Once weed is legalized, as it should (obviously), these kinds of studies will be less political. Until then, you can't blame people.
- inpdx 9y ago
  I live in Oregon where it's legal, and if reddit posters on /r/portland are any example, legalization doesn't (at least instantaneously) stop this instinctive bias against anything negative. You'll see minimization, denial, and "it's better than alcohol" on every thread whenever a study even hints marijuana isn't a 100% universally beneficial, no-side-effects, perfect drug. It's fascinating to behold.
  - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
    It's not technically legal in any US State, since it's still illegal at a federal level, and so exists at the discretion of the current federal governtment.
snuxoll 9y ago
I mean, who would have thought a distraction would affect grades? Video games, alcohol, parties, weed, whatever - you think any of these benefit your grades? Of course not. The results of this study aren't surprising, but the potential for it to be used as political ammo rightfully annoys pro-marijuana advocates. Personally, I'm all for legal weed - but trying to shuffle this study under the deck doesn't benefit anyone, we just need comparative studies on the effects of other activities because chances are it's little to no worse than any of them when it comes to impact on GPA (and if it is, then deal with it).
- ntsplnkv2 9y ago
  It's a study. It should be released regardless of agendas or politics or if it didn't agree with someone's worldview. If there are any negative effects from weed, I (and everyone) should want to know about it first or as soon as possible. We need more studies on everything to expand our knowledge. But this study compared people who smoked pot and people who didn't. I imagine many of them played video games, partied, or were drinkers. Yes, everything should be studied, but just because something else is bad, doesn't make everything else okay, and this is my main concern with this line of thinking. My main point is that highly politicized issues cloud science and fact. Another example is climate change. It's just frustrating to see both sides of this argument use anecdotes, logical fallacies, etc, just because something somewhat threatens their worldview.
  - ouid 9y ago
    It's not their worldview that's being threatened in the case of climate change...
  - owebmaster 9y ago
    > It's a study. It should be released regardless of agendas or politics or if it didn't agree with someone's worldview Not if the study is politics itself and a weapon to support someone's agenda. Studies and researchs don't grow wild in nature, you know.
    - 9y ago
rconti 9y ago
I'm surprised in the sense that I wouldn't think excluding access to one intoxicant would have such a big impact when it can be readily substituted for other legal substances.
K0SM0S 9y ago
Honestly, the major problem when talking about "weed" is that considering the amazingly wide array of effects, depending on the variety/strain and dosage (from mild relaxant to big high, passing by stone and huge social-bubble alteration), any point based on the generalization of "weed" as a single substance/effect is pretty much moot from the get go. Most studies and discussions focus on the "high"/"stone", which are already two vastly differing effects, the former may help one work/socialize at low dosage, whereas the latter would generally hinder these activities. Conversely, most people who speak of a positive experience with regular weed consumption refer to milder effects usually based on the genetics of the strain they use and the kind of dosage they apply to themselves. Apples and carrots... Then there's the matter of whether students or any party-going demographics is better off smoking weed or drinking alcohol, as a matter of public health, when discussing the legalization of these substances. Considering that alcohol is the #1 death factor in the world, not even counting collateral damage (e.g. most violence/abuse done to women and children happen correlatingly to alcohol use; most alcoholics suffer from dire social issues), I, for one, am pretty sure legalizing weed makes sense to a large degree, if we're gonna have other, more dangerous drugs such as alcohol, legal still. The negative effects of weed, as any drug, are also better contained through education and public health infrastructures rather than morality (subjective) or justice (punitive).

43224gg252 9y ago

>Every time there is some inkling of negativity the panic sets in, they criticize the study Source? Is there any empirical evidence that this is happening or is this just what you're telling your self? IMHO, it's quite the opposite -- anytime cannabinoids are shown to have medical value people claim "correlation does not imply causation" and "we need more studies" and "this only works in a lab!!1".

linkregister 9y ago
I think the parent poster is just referring to negativity in this thread, not claiming a statistically significant sentiment trend in comments sections about marijuana studies. I agree that among policy makers, unfounded anti-cannabis bias is predominant, despite the studies you mention.
mejari 9y ago
>Source? The bottom half-dozen comments on this article?
weberc2 9y ago
Seems like you're only supporting his point, mate.

tommynicholas 9y ago

Once weed is legalized, as it should (obviously), these kinds of studies will be less political. Until then, you can't blame people.

inpdx 9y ago
I live in Oregon where it's legal, and if reddit posters on /r/portland are any example, legalization doesn't (at least instantaneously) stop this instinctive bias against anything negative. You'll see minimization, denial, and "it's better than alcohol" on every thread whenever a study even hints marijuana isn't a 100% universally beneficial, no-side-effects, perfect drug. It's fascinating to behold.
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  It's not technically legal in any US State, since it's still illegal at a federal level, and so exists at the discretion of the current federal governtment.

snuxoll 9y ago

I mean, who would have thought a distraction would affect grades? Video games, alcohol, parties, weed, whatever - you think any of these benefit your grades? Of course not. The results of this study aren't surprising, but the potential for it to be used as political ammo rightfully annoys pro-marijuana advocates. Personally, I'm all for legal weed - but trying to shuffle this study under the deck doesn't benefit anyone, we just need comparative studies on the effects of other activities because chances are it's little to no worse than any of them when it comes to impact on GPA (and if it is, then deal with it).

ntsplnkv2 9y ago
It's a study. It should be released regardless of agendas or politics or if it didn't agree with someone's worldview. If there are any negative effects from weed, I (and everyone) should want to know about it first or as soon as possible. We need more studies on everything to expand our knowledge. But this study compared people who smoked pot and people who didn't. I imagine many of them played video games, partied, or were drinkers. Yes, everything should be studied, but just because something else is bad, doesn't make everything else okay, and this is my main concern with this line of thinking. My main point is that highly politicized issues cloud science and fact. Another example is climate change. It's just frustrating to see both sides of this argument use anecdotes, logical fallacies, etc, just because something somewhat threatens their worldview.
- ouid 9y ago
  It's not their worldview that's being threatened in the case of climate change...
- owebmaster 9y ago
  > It's a study. It should be released regardless of agendas or politics or if it didn't agree with someone's worldview Not if the study is politics itself and a weapon to support someone's agenda. Studies and researchs don't grow wild in nature, you know.
  - 9y ago

rconti 9y ago

I'm surprised in the sense that I wouldn't think excluding access to one intoxicant would have such a big impact when it can be readily substituted for other legal substances.

K0SM0S 9y ago

Honestly, the major problem when talking about "weed" is that considering the amazingly wide array of effects, depending on the variety/strain and dosage (from mild relaxant to big high, passing by stone and huge social-bubble alteration), any point based on the generalization of "weed" as a single substance/effect is pretty much moot from the get go. Most studies and discussions focus on the "high"/"stone", which are already two vastly differing effects, the former may help one work/socialize at low dosage, whereas the latter would generally hinder these activities. Conversely, most people who speak of a positive experience with regular weed consumption refer to milder effects usually based on the genetics of the strain they use and the kind of dosage they apply to themselves. Apples and carrots... Then there's the matter of whether students or any party-going demographics is better off smoking weed or drinking alcohol, as a matter of public health, when discussing the legalization of these substances. Considering that alcohol is the #1 death factor in the world, not even counting collateral damage (e.g. most violence/abuse done to women and children happen correlatingly to alcohol use; most alcoholics suffer from dire social issues), I, for one, am pretty sure legalizing weed makes sense to a large degree, if we're gonna have other, more dangerous drugs such as alcohol, legal still. The negative effects of weed, as any drug, are also better contained through education and public health infrastructures rather than morality (subjective) or justice (punitive).