3 ms·

So they write about the limitations of their study about how marijuana use is subject to the real use frequency, but they simply throw all other considerations

So they write about the limitations of their study about how marijuana use is subject to the real use frequency, but they simply throw all other considerations out the window. I take issue with trials like these. They barely do any reasonable trial research and try to spin: "The persons who habitually smoke marijuana have been shown to have higher blood pressure levels when compared to the general population" -into- "Smoking marijuana in itself causes higher blood pressure" No doubt pharmaceutical companies have their hands in this, if I may say, bullshit. They stand to lose money if people have a drug that helps their symptoms that they can simply grow in the back yard. Replace "Internet of Things" with "Internet of Non-Critical Thinkers" and you get a recipe in which todays society may be influenced due to their lack of understanding of scientific principles in a world ever increasing in scientific constructs. EDIT: jetlagged english

obsurveyor 9y ago
> "The persons who habitually smoke marijuana have been shown to have higher blood pressure levels when compared to the general population" It's not even this, it reads as if it was a simple "Have you ever smoked marijuana?" and that's what the conclusion was drawn from. "Yankey said were limitations in the way marijuana use was assessed -- including that researchers could not be sure whether people had used the drug continuously since they first tried it." That would be like asking "Have you ever intentionally hurt someone's feelings?" and concluding that people were three times likely to be anti-social.
- John_Cena 9y ago
  True. It is such an absurd jump of logic. Either the writer of the piece is trying to make bank (views) off of the polarizing subject matter (legal marijuana use) or someone who stands to lose bank ($$$) upset about the possibility someone can grow a remedy to their symptoms for a fraction of the price they charge over the counter.

obsurveyor 9y ago

> "The persons who habitually smoke marijuana have been shown to have higher blood pressure levels when compared to the general population" It's not even this, it reads as if it was a simple "Have you ever smoked marijuana?" and that's what the conclusion was drawn from. "Yankey said were limitations in the way marijuana use was assessed -- including that researchers could not be sure whether people had used the drug continuously since they first tried it." That would be like asking "Have you ever intentionally hurt someone's feelings?" and concluding that people were three times likely to be anti-social.

John_Cena 9y ago
True. It is such an absurd jump of logic. Either the writer of the piece is trying to make bank (views) off of the polarizing subject matter (legal marijuana use) or someone who stands to lose bank ($$$) upset about the possibility someone can grow a remedy to their symptoms for a fraction of the price they charge over the counter.