4 ms·

> While our study did not differentiate between methods of cannabis consumption That's one way of saying your study was useless.

Spastche 2y ago
I'm reminded of some study about this that was using joints mixed with tobacco.
- ugh123 2y ago
  I think that's called a "popper"
  - mrweiner 2y ago
    We always called them spliffs
    - Loughla 2y ago
      Neat. We always called really small one hitters splifs. Did you ever make a tube full of dryer sheets to blow smoke through to eliminate the smell? What did you call those? We called them smurfers. I like regional slang a lot.
      - andelink 2y ago
        Those are called a sploof. They were essential!
      - code_duck 2y ago
        I always heard those called “sploofs”. Also, exhaling through dryer sheets and filling a room with that fragrance is a pretty horrific idea. It also doesn’t really work… parents or whoever would come in and be uh, why does the room smell like a ton of dryer sheets?
      - birdsink 2y ago
        lol in college I heard them called silencers
      - ugh123 2y ago
        > Did you ever make a tube full of dryer sheets to blow smoke through to eliminate the smell? What did you call those? We called them smurfers. Those were a staple of the college dorm but didn't have a name for it until now!
ImaCake 2y ago
No it is not. By not distinguishing consumption methods the authors likely gained a huge increase in sample size which helps them have more confidence in their statistics. There are trade offs here which are not obvious without understanding how quantity can be a quality all of its own.
- quesera 2y ago
  We have plenty of evidence that the inhalation of combustion products will have negative health effects. If that's all the study says, then it does not add to existing knowledge, and really isn't about cannabis at all. That's a kind of uselessness. So why was the study conducted (this way), and why does CNN consider it newsworthy? The answers to those questions might be more interesting than the study itself.

Spastche 2y ago

I'm reminded of some study about this that was using joints mixed with tobacco.

ugh123 2y ago
I think that's called a "popper"
- mrweiner 2y ago
  We always called them spliffs
  - Loughla 2y ago
    Neat. We always called really small one hitters splifs. Did you ever make a tube full of dryer sheets to blow smoke through to eliminate the smell? What did you call those? We called them smurfers. I like regional slang a lot.
    - andelink 2y ago
      Those are called a sploof. They were essential!
    - code_duck 2y ago
      I always heard those called “sploofs”. Also, exhaling through dryer sheets and filling a room with that fragrance is a pretty horrific idea. It also doesn’t really work… parents or whoever would come in and be uh, why does the room smell like a ton of dryer sheets?
    - birdsink 2y ago
      lol in college I heard them called silencers
    - ugh123 2y ago
      > Did you ever make a tube full of dryer sheets to blow smoke through to eliminate the smell? What did you call those? We called them smurfers. Those were a staple of the college dorm but didn't have a name for it until now!

ImaCake 2y ago

No it is not. By not distinguishing consumption methods the authors likely gained a huge increase in sample size which helps them have more confidence in their statistics. There are trade offs here which are not obvious without understanding how quantity can be a quality all of its own.

quesera 2y ago
We have plenty of evidence that the inhalation of combustion products will have negative health effects. If that's all the study says, then it does not add to existing knowledge, and really isn't about cannabis at all. That's a kind of uselessness. So why was the study conducted (this way), and why does CNN consider it newsworthy? The answers to those questions might be more interesting than the study itself.