When did you start smoking with your kids?

Venus55

Well-Known Member
I’m actually calm. I’m mostly frustrated at how horribly things can be miscommunicated here.

Firstly, I realize “proof” is nescience. Science “proves” nothing. You don’t have to explain that concept to me. All I’m saying is that science is supportive of my assertion, whereas Venus is drawing inspiration from 80 years of Drug Warrior rhetoric and confused emotions.

That said, I’m not upset with her. I am annoyed because you guys got upset and then started projecting your issues onto me, despite respectfully trying to explain to you why your opinion doesn’t hold water. The fact is, this biased and unscientific idea that cannabis causes ANY long term damage is just not true, and it’s a mentality we, as cannabis users and enthusiasts, are obligated and bound by responsibility to put to bed.
To quote myself “So even tho it may not pose any long term risk on the brain,”.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
If I've followed the conversation correctly, ODG first referred to "new research" to inform Venus55 her opinion on how to raise her child was wrong. He didn't cite this new research. Rather, he got on an intellectual highhorse, and unilaterally deemed her wrong . . . and his theory correct . . . based on absolutely nothing, other than his personal experience.

To top it off, ODG asserts, with no evidence, that children will be better academically if they are under the influence of cannabis.

In response, Venus55 rightly said she'd use her common sense. And that "recent studies" back her opinion up. She offered to link them if he wanted. Unlike ODG, who did not offer to back up his "new research" claims.

If I understand ODG correctly, you could take 30 children, and have them be stoned on cannabis for . . . let's say, 1st thru 12th grade. Every day. High. And they would perform better academically than 30 children who were not.

But the underlying theme ODG parrots is that ANY failure of a child is ipso facto, 100% caused by a failure of the parent. "Pay attention to your kid, that simple". That is patently absurd. You know it is.
The burden of proof is always on the one(s) making the assertion. When making a scientific claim, the way to do this is to provide an unambiguous reference to an article in the peer-reviewed literature. While I do not agree with or support ODG's assertions, I maintain that both parties need to be held to the same standard of attribution when advancing an argument from a third party.


~snip~ My beautiful nephew who’s usually so full of energetic life is forced to take them and I could near cry when I come in to see him staring at a screen but his eyes aren’t moving n his mouth hanging open looking like a god damn zombie. I don’t believe in messing with developing brains. And there’s A LOT of research out there to suggest the cons of smoking pot “regularly” pre 17-18yo. If he was to puff on a joint or smoke a bowl at a party here n there so what that’s what teenagers do I def did. But he will never hear “it’s ok” from my mouth as long as he is still in school.
It’s the same deal for alcohol too not just weed.
~snip~
There are numerous “recent” studies to back up my opinion and I’ll link them if ur interested. ~snip~
Venus needs to attribute her sources just as ODG does.

As for not citing the study? I just thought if you cared enough to look it up, you’d look it up your damned selves in an attempt to prove me wrong. Clearly you’re egotistical, but not self-motivated.

Fuck, I tried to remain respectful and have proper discourse.

Just so we’re clear, I’m directing this at Pablo and Venus.
It does not work this way. When presenting an argument, it is always on the presenter to do and show the research. There is Net information on many things at ALL levels of reliability, so providing a reference to a trusted source (and in science, this specifies peer-reviewed professional journals) is a necessary adjunct to advancing an argument.
 

Olive Drab Green

Well-Known Member
The burden of proof is always on the one(s) making the assertion. When making a scientific claim, the way to do this is to provide an unambiguous reference to an article in the peer-reviewed literature. While I do not agree with or support ODG's assertions, I maintain that both parties need to be held to the same standard of attribution when advancing an argument from a third party.




Venus needs to attribute her sources just as ODG does.



It does not work this way. When presenting an argument, it is always on the presenter to do and show the research. There is Net information on many things at ALL levels of reliability, so providing a reference to a trusted source (and in science, this specifies peer-reviewed professional journals) is a necessary adjunct to advancing an argument.
Well, as above, my sources are from the AMA, published in JAMA Psychiatry (peer-reviewed medical journal.) If the AMA is endorsing a positive Cannabis study, that says something.
 
Last edited:

Venus55

Well-Known Member
The burden of proof is always on the one(s) making the assertion. When making a scientific claim, the way to do this is to provide an unambiguous reference to an article in the peer-reviewed literature. While I do not agree with or support ODG's assertions, I maintain that both parties need to be held to the same standard of attribution when advancing an argument from a third party.




Venus needs to attribute her sources just as ODG does.



It does not work this way. When presenting an argument, it is always on the presenter to do and show the research. There is Net information on many things at ALL levels of reliability, so providing a reference to a trusted source (and in science, this specifies peer-reviewed professional journals) is a necessary adjunct to advancing an argument.
https://theconversation.com/marijuana-at-school-loss-of-concentration-risk-of-psychosis-90374

http://www.newsweek.com/weed-affects-teen-brain-marijuana-study-895407

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3931635/

Granted the last link is 2013, less recent.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
The first source is an excellent example of why peer reviewed primary sources matter.
theconversation.com is not a peer-reviewed scientific forum, and the author is a "Research Associate in Education". This makes him less likely to have the necessary scientific literacy to discuss this topic, a situation he proves and celebrates with the statement "Busting the “Weed Myths” should not be left to doctors and health practitioners. Pursuing research-based, evidence-informed policy and practice means getting behind those on the front lines of high school education."
Yeah THAT's the ticket! Get rid of those doctors and other people with their annoying numbers! We'll get MUCH better results using people with MY sort of education!"
To find something resembling a fact, I had to dig to the third layer to find this.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4162686/

The second citation is from Newsweek, definitely not a primary source, with the references stripped out and the content filtered through a journalist's perceptions. Another unreviewed synopsis whose collateral aim is to take science out of the hands of scientists.

The third one is published in Substance Abuse Rehabilitation whose title displays no anti-drug bias at all. The first listed name is a postdoc and the second listed is a psychiatrist working for HM Government.

Best not let @Singlemalt see these. He is not only good at dismembering flawed "studies" but also enjoys doing it. He'll damn them more comprehensively than I am inclined to. That is the benefit of getting a science education in an actual science.

This is an abstract of what looks like a review of research. I don't think it says anything to support giving or withholding weed to/from your kids. This is not a study but a literature review. Since I cannot check which cognitive deficits were tracked and how, I cannot judge the quality of the work. I would not draw hard
 

Olive Drab Green

Well-Known Member
The first source is an excellent example of why peer reviewed primary sources matter.
theconversation.com is not a peer-reviewed scientific forum, and the author is a "Research Associate in Education". This makes him less likely to have the necessary scientific literacy to discuss this topic, a situation he proves and celebrates with the statement "Busting the “Weed Myths” should not be left to doctors and health practitioners. Pursuing research-based, evidence-informed policy and practice means getting behind those on the front lines of high school education."
Yeah THAT's the ticket! Get rid of those doctors and other people with their annoying numbers! We'll get MUCH better results using people with MY sort of education!"
To find something resembling a fact, I had to dig to the third layer to find this.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4162686/

The second citation is from Newsweek, definitely not a primary source, with the references stripped out and the content filtered through a journalist's perceptions. Another unreviewed synopsis whose collateral aim is to take science out of the hands of scientists.

The third one is published in Substance Abuse Rehabilitation whose title displays no anti-drug bias at all. The first listed name is a postdoc and the second listed is a psychiatrist working for HM Government.

Best not let @Singlemalt see these. He is not only good at dismembering flawed "studies" but also enjoys doing it. He'll damn them more comprehensively than I am inclined to. That is the benefit of getting a science education in an actual science.



This is an abstract of what looks like a review of research. I don't think it says anything to support giving or withholding weed to/from your kids. This is not a study but a literature review. Since I cannot check which cognitive deficits were tracked and how, I cannot judge the quality of the work. I would not draw hard
The CNN article explains it more in detail. Read what they say about it and tell me what you deduce from it, if you will.
 

Singlemalt

Well-Known Member
The CNN article explains it more in detail. Read what they say about it and tell me what you deduce from it, if you will.
I began reading it and zero'd in on Kevin Sabet: his vitae is suspect when co-joined with his titles leaving a mistaken impression. He is not science educated: his doctorate is in Social Policy; not science or medicine. I zero'd in when he is named assistant adjunct prof at yale medicine, and he didn't cite any studies supporting is anti position, effectively just saying 'there are lots of studies showing it's harmful'. Assistant Adjunct Profs are actually part time lecturers, non tenure track. He does no science and gives no citations to support his view. As well he is a leading proponent against legalization and been involved in Drug Policy with 3 administrations. A vital reason citations are important is to see the design/methods/materials of the experiment/research.
In essence the CNN article is ok because it has reps from both points of view but that's all it is.
 

Olive Drab Green

Well-Known Member
I began reading it and zero'd in on Kevin Sabet: his vitae is suspect when co-joined with his titles leaving a mistaken impression. He is not science educated: his doctorate is in Social Policy; not science or medicine. I zero'd in when he is named assistant adjunct prof at yale medicine, and he didn't cite any studies supporting is anti position, effectively just saying 'there are lots of studies showing it's harmful'. Assistant Adjunct Profs are actually part time lecturers, non tenure track. He does no science and gives no citations to support his view. As well he is a leading proponent against legalization and been involved in Drug Policy with 3 administrations. A vital reason citations are important is to see the design/methods/materials of the experiment/research.
In essence the CNN article is ok because it has reps from both points of view but that's all it is.
Why would Kevin Sabet, the head of SAM, want any studies asserting no long-term effects released?

The study essentially found that there were no noticeable cognitive differences after 72 hours between even chronic adolescent smokers and nonsmokers, and cognitive deficits were no less than a third of a standard deviation (easily in normal range.)
 
Last edited:

whitebb2727

Well-Known Member
Def don’t think you’re judging. I don’t agree with Xanax or seroquel for teens either. I also don’t agree with the shit they give kids for ADD and ADHD. My beautiful nephew who’s usually so full of energetic life is forced to take them and I could near cry when I come in to see him staring at a screen but his eyes aren’t moving n his mouth hanging open looking like a god damn zombie. I don’t believe in messing with developing brains. And there’s A LOT of research out there to suggest the cons of smoking pot “regularly” pre 17-18yo. If he was to puff on a joint or smoke a bowl at a party here n there so what that’s what teenagers do I def did. But he will never hear “it’s ok” from my mouth as long as he is still in school.
It’s the same deal for alcohol too not just weed.
My son has ADHD. We refused to medicate him.

I think more research into different cannabinoids would do a world of good for things like ADHD.
 
Top