Teens have access to vastly more potent cannabis than their parents had at their age. Parents need to understand the risks, including psychosis
Teens have access to vastly more potent cannabis than their parents had at their age. Parents need to understand the risks, including psychosis
Wow they fail basic science. Correlation does not equal causation. More gateway drug scare in its modern form.
And cutting and pasting isn’t a reasoned argument, either.
Without correlation, there is no causation. So correlation can be taken to be an an indication that causation is not ruled out.
No, they don’t “fail basic science”. They point out that there is a correlation and we need better studies, but the mere existence of the correlation is worrying, especially considering a lot of recent studies are confirming the link between cannabis and teen psychosis. A lot of the early studies on the harm of cigarettes started similarly. Correlation between lung cancer and smoking tobacco doesn’t imply causation, but it’s one hell of an alarm bell.
The author of the article themselves doesn’t say cannabis is a gateway drug and even recognizes that asking people to just not use it isn’t realistic.
They fail to explore systemic correlations and hyperfocus on cannabis. I am claiming they are repeating reactionary history instead of systemic analysis. Focusing on what is wrong with the individual rather than the system that bore them.
The article is an opinion as stated at the bottom.
Maybe the issue isn’t individual, but societal. Brave New World had vacation pills, interestingly named Soma. The current people don’t even want you to have a mind vaycay.
My concern is another Reefer Madness type of propaganda campaign. We need legit, replicable and replicated studies. I don’t indulge anymore, for several reasons. Most were practical but also unrelated to health/employment.
That’s a political, not a scientific concern, and with the present maladministration, a possibly legitimate one.
I completely agree. More fact-based decision making is sorely need on this and many other questions.
deleted by creator
Hell yeah. Correlation studies are useless guys! I know very much science.
Anecdotal stories aren’t evidence, take your first year science class over.
Hey thank you! I thought Lemmy could never have the full Reddit experience, but there’s completely lazy and misinformed comments here too.
Try reading the article next time.
Why though?
The same reason abstinence only sex ed doesn’t work.
And alcohol prohibition
I mean (most) humans are naturally driven to have sex, but no such instinct exists for weed.
I’d argue an instinct for getting high does exist.
Which may have scientific or medical reasons that the user isn’t even aware of. Which can be just fine, too. Enjoy! Not everyone has to become a scientist. Just if it’s important enough to you, or because you have to defend from the army of “Just Say No” types. They aren’t speaking about any of the benefits of marijuana. Pure ignorance or worse.
I’m more thinking socialism evolution over hundreds of thousands of years, than a personal preference.
I mean, I believe that where my personal preference came from, to be accurate.
I contend that Neanderthals were smarter, but didn’t get high, and due to hominids at that time (and still) being rather easily aggravated into (even mortal) fights, I dare say getting high while meeting up with new people would definitely be an advantage to a species. Which the Neanderthals didn’t have, and thus dies out while the h sapienses were out getting high and fucking
I mean, sure. Really! I’ve never thought of that. Interesting stuff.
A psychiatrist once asked if I have Eastern European Jewish ancestry. He said it explains the lack chemicals. 🤷♂️
From a Medical Marijuana Educational Guide (full disclosure, it’s connected to a dispensary):
*Also note: it uses “Medical Marijuana” language because it’s from a state where only medical is legal, not recreational.
Medical Marijuana works by impacting the Endocannabinoid System we all have in our bodies.
“Your body already makes Medical Marijuana-like chemicals that affect pain, inflammation, sleep and many other processes. It mimics those naturally occurring compounds in the body, and can produce therapeutic effects.” -Laura Borgelt, PharmD, University of Colorado
There’s no such instinct for weed in particular, but almost everyone seeks out psychoactive substances in one form or another.
Uh… What?
Based on what exactly?
Humans have found creative ways to get fucked up for millennia.
And that in no way implies that they’re all good for us. In fact, we know many that aren’t.
Alcohol, then. Prohibition didn’t work and a lot of people died making and selling their own moonshine.
I mean part of that was because of how idiotic the application of prohibition was, because on the other hand I can think of one very successful prohibition campaign.
Instinct for pleasure does.
History proves this correct. It’s never worked. They’ve even gone so far as to jail people. Maybe others should learn something from this instead of constantly beating the marijuana bad drum.
Jailing people is the whole point
Okay let’s be clear that no matter where you ultimately stand on abstinence the war on drugs was a massively idiotic affair. Also given global downward trends in smoking I’d say there’s merit to the idea of anti-drug education/propaganda, with hopefully fewer bullets than the war on drugs.
I’m having trouble following some of the last parts of your comment. Are you saying that it’s worth it for the anti-smoking angle, like for health benefits? There are other methods for taking marijuana that have nothing to do with inhalation. Additionally, children can be prescribed CBD, to be taken through digestion or sublingually. This is a proven treatment for controlling seizures.
If you want to address smoking, I think there’s much to be said. But making it all about smoking is a distortion. And until others prove otherwise, to me it’s deliberate. Vaping isn’t seen today as harmful like combustion is. I’m sure there’s more to learn there, but all of these things are positive developments, that should be spoken about along with the negatives folks simply want to focus on.
I’m trying to say that if there turn out to be significant health issues caused by cannabis (which seems likely given the data in the article), then an anti-cannabis campaign should be viable and at least partially successful, in the same way anti-tobacco campaigns have been successful in reducing tobacco use. Drug use isn’t some force of nature that can’t be stopped if we have a good reason to stop it; the war on drugs failed to stop it because the war on drugs was stupid.
Right, only if you are speaking about children. The proof I use is the massive demand for it, along with the no massive damage to people or society over all these years. And, this is in the face of illegality and jail time. So other than some focused study on the effects of youth that result in an appropriate response, you can get out of here with your junk science and reefer madness. Alcohol is much more damaging on the brain. Look it up!
Well that just got a lot less coherent. Mind rewording the first half so I can understand what you’re talking about?
What makes you think I have anything other than disdain for alcohol?
You’re gonna get tired of repeating this in about, oh, 20 years.
I’m speaking from experience.
You’re entirely correct, just to be clear. You’re just gonna get tired of repeating it.