I feel like it’s more of a culture thing. You spend time with people who talk a certain way because of X reason and then you pick up their way of talking over time. This sounds like someone’s half assed attempt at a disertation for their graduate degree
Would be interesting to see a study comparing «lifestyle stoners» who surround themself with the culture and other smokers, to people who use cannabis, but does not identify with the stoner culture. (Although I suspect this might be an oversimplified dichotomy)
Many SWEs are casual users of cannabis, and you'd be hard-pressed to pick them out of a crowd.
Wow, is it really normal to publish results from such small sample sizes? This feels like tossing dice and publishing the result.
Yeah. There are other tricks to make a tiny n seem more relevant, like making the relevant (tiny) n a subset of a bigger sample, taking many separate samples from different populations and looking for correlations in them separately, and so on. Trust the science.* *Whereas science is defined as getting a certain score in an abstract statistics game.
What I find most problematic is that there is clearly a mix of difference incentives at play. At the one hand, scientists are not getting tired of waving the scientific method about to the uninitiated. Claiming science has no agenda and is only interested in hard data. But on the other hand, it is rather clear that the career of individual scientists depends on how much they publish. Yes, there is peer review, but no, that doesnt help, because people form networks and have friends and allies. So, how do we ensure that the common people trust science more? I think we should start by ridiculing publications like this, if the scientific community by itself is not capable of filtering such noise out.
Federal legislation is far from finished. Who knows what we end up with. I for one would prefer to pay rehabilitation therapy rather than supporting the ludicrous enforcement apparatus we have now. If someone wants to burn away their brain cells, let them do it. Why involve police and the justice system? Why throw them in jail, where they have even less chance of rehabilitating themselves? I don't need to retread the…
I don't use it, nor do I drink alcohol, smoke tobacco (or vape), and I don't use any other drugs at all. I haven't, for decades. I'm no fun at all. That's because I burned through my quota by the time I was eighteen. As far as I'm concerned, they should totally legalize it, to the same extent as booze (which, if discovered today, would easily be classified as a Schedule IV narcotic). Here in New York, we had the Rock…
> Here in New York, we had the Rockefeller sentencing laws in the 1970s. There's people still in jail, today, for offenses that would get a slap on the wrist, these days.
That's so sad. Lives were ruined and society not only pays to to ruin their lives by keeping them in prison, but also basically destroys any means of rehabilitation. We really have to rethink our justice system when it comes to drug abuse.
This is the sort of response that makes me wonder: dude, what have you been smoking? Let's start with the whole notion of organizing our society based on some perceived need to compete with a country half the world away. That's the sort of paranoia combined with hazy connections that I'd expect from somebody who was a bad kind of high. And then there's the concern about addiction. Marijuana is way down the list of ad…
> And let's not forget sugar, the white powder that causes enormous medical harm and that whole industries work to hook our children on!!1! > Jokes aside You don't think sugar causes enormous medical harm, or that the industry is geared towards addiction of their users? Walk into any supermarket, it's everywhere. It's even in wide display in the checkout area, their last chance before you leave, along with cigarettes…
oh, I agree. But most people are so far from seeing it that I'm just going to joke about it. It's way easier for people to see the addictions of others than their own addictions.