What Happened to Our Country?

When people reminisce about what America used to be like, some act scornfully toward us. They say living in a Donna Reed world was great for a few, but that there were many suffering souls. The way our country is today makes some of us long for those days which seemed so innocent compared to the harsh, cruel, coarse, and sometimes murderous days we exist in today.

Yet most would argue that there were still injustices when we were growing up fifty years ago. Black people who had been freed a century before were still not treated equally in most parts of the country. Many women were limited in their businesses, political, and professional opportunities. And if they did enter any of those careers, they were capped as to what they could achieve. Few would want a return to those aspects of days past. Yet they would seem almost welcome compared to the experiences we have had in Newtown, Aurora and Tucson.

Even though now more than a month has passed, the pain of what happened in Sandy Hook Elementary school stills burns deeply in our hearts. There were some who started assigning blame for what happened within days which was clearly indecent during a national mourning period. Yes, we need to find paths to resolve the deep divisions that trouble this country. But will that really take us back to a simpler time? After all, the residents of Newtown likely lived there to avoid all this cultural degradation and live a “Leave It to Beaver” life where the biggest challenges were errant children chewing gum in class.

A yearning exists for the days when children rode their bikes to schools, which were open with flowing green fields where they frolicked under minimal supervision. Now children are escorted by grownups to their schools, which are fenced in and then locked down. Remember even at Sandy Hook the school was locked down at 9:30 each morning, just as almost all elementary schools are today.

What does it say to the children of our country that they have to be escorted everywhere they go? Are they left to think that wherever they go there are people in uniforms providing security and their parents are on a constant vigil watching them? What kind of country have we passed to them?

That we cannot as the grownups in this society come to some agreement of how to resolve this only makes matters worse. With every single massacre, we instantaneously divide into two camps. There are those who immediately shriek that it was the gun at fault, completely ignoring the other societal factors that brought a deranged madman to execute an unfathomable act. Then there are those who argue that there exists nothing that we can do to keep the means of mass murder out of the hands of these freaks.

Come on folks, we can do something about this, but the suggestion by Wayne LaPierre of the NRA to put armed guards on all campuses seems so distasteful. Already an estimated third of our children go to schools that have armed guards. We should not unreasonably restrict our Second Amendment rights because of these maniacs, but putting our kids on lock down would just make matters so much more obscene.

We have not yet had a coherent conversation about how to move forward. The people who want more gun control lurch into nonsensical talk about bazookas or tanks with very little knowledge of guns or how they function. People like the editor of the Journal News (Westchester area of New York), who listed the names and addresses of local gun owners in the newspaper, display to what extent the left will go to restrict gun ownership. They are scary as their actions are reminiscent of command and control countries that totally restrict gun rights.

Some people do not understand that there is a difference regarding gun owners. It is not like obtaining a driver’s license. That is a privilege. The right to own a gun is embedded in our Constitution. It is there for a reason. The unrepentant Caryn A. McBride, Editor of the Journal News which listed the home addresses of prison guards and district attorneys in her cause to restrict gun ownership, scares us and should scare you. It brings into question the rationale for a federal gun registry when ownership is a right not a privilege.

Yet, there are things that are just not going right. We have lost sight of the faith, family, and community that built this country. Our government has become too big yet cannot even confront the truly mentally ill among us. As Charles Murray taught us in his most recent book, Coming Apart, even our rock solid middle-class communities are falling apart. The amount of children being raised without proper parenting is just appalling. And when people do get married, far too many are getting divorced for their own selfish reasons while thinking their children will be just fine. Boys need fathers and not just as appendages.

Never being a fan of video games, we would just as soon trash them, but that would be a First Amendment problem. Yet, when politicians decry weapons, they should really assault the culture vultures who sell these games that desensitize young males. Our President booted this issue to be studied in his recent proposal. That means zero will happen on this aspect of the problem. Why do we have to hear this nonsense that only protects these products? Moral suasion still works as has been effective with cigarette smoking, so why can’t we do the same with these disgusting games? Why do parents acquiesce to allow the constant devolution of young male minds?

You may wonder why so many people bemoan our current culture and hark back to happier times. Maybe it is not as bucolic as we paint it, but our children certainly lived a more innocent existence. What our goal should be is to bring all children to those wonderful times instead of bringing every child down to the lowest common denominator. The innocence of childhood can never be devalued. It can only be lost. Let’s not have the innocence of another group of youngsters lost like we have at Sandy Hook. Let’s show some leadership.

No such longitudinal studies have been done.

Then the quote you posted abotu hte strong relationship wasn’t given based on studies?

The quote, not posted by me, was based on studies that were not longitudinal and so don't know whether the symptoms followed or preceded the marijuana use.

Wrong - the strength of the relationship is the size of the correlation coefficient, which has nothing to do with the magnitude of the effect.

Now wer’e talking abotu hte magnitude of psychotic events?

No, the magnitude of the increase in frequency - remember you claimed the results showed that the events were not rare.

It’s hard following you because hte goal post seems to keep moving-

No, you keep trying to impose your incorrect preconceptions on what I'm saying.

if people who tend ot experriencve psychotic events infrequently take drugs, and experience the events mroe frequently

Again, no such longitudinal studies have been done - the results under discussion compared one set of people who used marijuana to a different set of people who didn't.

[[The quote, not posted by me,]]

Sorery- I’m answerign sweveral threads at once- I assuemd you had posted it-

[[were not longitudinal and so don’t know whether the symptoms followed or preceded the marijuana use.]]

Huh? They take hte drugs, an increase in events is recorded, and they can’t tell if it folows or not? That just doesn’t make sense- Are you claiming th reserchers or study group leaders saw phsychotic events takign place, and simpyl wodnered whetrher the recent use of drugs was to blame or not? or did they actually record that a person with few events who later took drugs experienced more events, then later quit druigs and experienced less again?

[[No, the magnitude of the increase in frequency - remember you claimed the results showed that the events were not rare.]]

no, I claimed, based o nthe article that was posted- that the study showed that there was a strong connection

[[No, the magnitude of the increase in frequency]]

That isn’t what the statement says- it clearly says the magnititude of the EFFECT- not the magnitude of the events of the effect-

[[Again, no such longitudinal studies have been done]]

you keep sayign that hte study cited was not longitudinal, what is your evidnce that it wasn’t? (Note, I’m not doubting you- I’m simpyl askign if you know that they were unable to link the two- it woudl appear fro mthe article that they ifnact were able to link the two (drug use and increase in frequency)

[[the results under discussion compared one set of people who used marijuana to a different set of people who didn’t.]]

That may be true, however, to be an ethical test, it had to also take into concideration that hte peopel usign hte drugs had fewer eventss when not using, and more when using ‘compared with peopel not usign drugs ever-’ (Again, I don’t know the technicalities with hte case- but I’m sure ther researchers were brilliant enough to know that you can’t just make claims without doign VERY CAREFUL studies- the wiki site’s arguments are really only applicable to ‘studies’ doen by unethical evaluators who care nothignm abotu scientific integrity- so if we’re goign to make this claim abotu the research cited, then that’s a pretty serious accusation to make- it’s akin to makign an accusation of ethical violations and itnentional deciet (Unless of course they made it perfectly clear that they did NOT study thsoe folsk both before and after drug use and noted the results)

Anyways- as I aid, I’m not famiklair with the case- if you have evidence that they didn’t study the drug users both before and after, I’d be itnerested to see it-

were not longitudinal and so don’t know whether the symptoms followed or preceded the marijuana use.

Huh? They take hte drugs, an increase in events is recorded

As I've explained, that's not the research that was done.

No, the magnitude of the increase in frequency - remember you claimed the results showed that the events were not rare.

no, I claimed, based o nthe article that was posted- that the study showed that there was a strong connection

As I've explained, the strength of the relationship is the size of the correlation coefficient, which has nothing to do with the magnitude of the increase in frequency. If all test subjects who take chemical Z grow in height by exactly 0.001 inches, that's a maximum strength of relationship but a low magnitude of increase.

No, the magnitude of the increase in frequency

That isn’t what the statement says- it clearly says the magnititude of the EFFECT- not the magnitude of the events of the effect-

"Effect" was not the researchers' term but mine, in an apparently futile attempt to dispel one of your many misunderstandings about scientific analysis and findings.

you keep sayign that hte study cited was not longitudinal, what is your evidnce that it wasn’t? (Note, I’m not doubting you- I’m simpyl askign if you know that they were unable to link the two

Whether a study is longitudinal has nothing to do with whether it establishes a link.

the results under discussion compared one set of people who used marijuana to a different set of people who didn’t.

I’m sure ther researchers were brilliant enough to know that you can’t just make claims without doign VERY CAREFUL studies- the wiki site’s arguments are really only applicable to ‘studies’ doen by unethical evaluators who care nothignm abotu scientific integrity

No, the Wikipedia article simply explains what can and can't be concluded from a strong correlation - which is why the researchers never claimed to have established a cause-and-effect connection. That false claim is yours and yours alone.

I've tried my best to explain these matters to you, to little avail. It's frankly not my job to educate you on scientific analysis and findings - so until and unless you post something that indicates you've bothered to educate yourself, I will make no further posts in this exchange.

[[correlation coefficient, which has nothing to do with the magnitude of the increase in frequency. If all test subjects who take chemical Z grow in height by exactly 0.001 inches, that’s a maximum strength of relationship but a low magnitude of increase.]]

I understand htis, but again, where’s the evidence that the frequency of events wasn’t icnreased whn on the drugs? if 50% or even 40% had icnreased events, then the magnitude was infact strong- We went from saying there wasn’t a sginifcant increase, to ‘the frequency of the icnrease wasn’t very large (which basically is sayign hte same hting-)

[[remember you claimed the results showed that the events were not rare. ]]

Again, the cited source states that htere is a strong connection- I’m goign b y what the article says- if there’s a strong connectio nthen that correctly implies that there must have ben an icnrease in events i norder to come up with hte ‘strong connection’ clasim- if only a few peopel in the study showed an increase, I don’t beleive the researchers would have stated a strong connection and woudl have infact stated the opposite- Generally thsoe who do testign are unbiased or do so in an unbiased way because their careers and reputations are o nthe line

you are saying that “As I’ve explained, the strength of the relationship is the size of the correlation coefficient, which has nothing to do with the magnitude of the increase in frequency.”

I’m goign to have to tackle this after my nap- my mind is tired right now- but basically the one can’t happen without hte other- if there’s a ‘strong relationship between use of drugs and increased events, then it must be true that the researchers foudn a strong increase in the frequency of events

[[Whether a study is longitudinal has nothing to do with whether it establishes a link.]]

Egads, your previosu post made mention of the fact that it wasn’t a logitudinal study, therefore it wasn’t vaslid- basically was the claim-

[[No, the Wikipedia article simply explains what can and can’t be concluded from a strong correlation - which is why the researchers never claimed to have established a cause-and-effect connection. That false claim is yours and yours alone.]]

Good golly- Statign that htere is a strong connection is makign hte claim that the one causes anm increase in frequency-

[[I’ve tried my best to explain these matters to you, to little avail. It’s frankly not my job to educate you on scientific analysis and findings - so until and unless you post something that indicates you’ve bothered to educate yourself, I will make no further posts in this exchange.
]]

Mmmm yes, you’re arguign in circles- and changign hte goalpost from psot to post- I’ve asked several tiems now for soem kidn of evidence that using drugs didn’t icnrease the frequency of events- such as you claiemd at the beginnign of the argument- and yo’ure goign round and round avoiding providing any evidence and simpyl restatign claims on wiki that has nothign to do the findings- there’s a strong cennection- I didn’t make hte claim- the article cited did- if you have evidenece that usign drugs doesn’t correrlate to increase in frequency, I’d be itnerested i nseeing it- but talkign in cuircles and then claiming I am ‘uneducated’ and runnming away isn’t really very polite- I’ve kept it civil- and have asked a simpel question and have not received an answer yet-

[[As I’ve explained, the strength of the relationship is the size of the correlation coefficient, which has nothing to do with the magnitude of the increase in frequency. If all test subjects who take chemical Z grow in height by exactly 0.001 inches, that’s a maximum strength of relationship but a low magnitude of increase.]]

Where the heck does thsi fit into the argument? Do you have evidence that only .01% of drug takers had icnrease i nfrequency? or are you simply just guessing? I didn’t read any such thing- I read that there was a ‘strong connection’

If you don’t have evidence as to how many actually had increased frequencies, that’s fine- just say so- but the report is indicating a ‘Strong connection’ between the two- Common sense tells you thatr a strong connection shows that it’s much more than .01% icnrease in events- (or whateverl ow figure you want to throw out urnealted to the article)

[[I will make no further posts in this exchange.]]

If you can’t answer the question I aske,d then fine- because All I’m gettign fro myou is an irrelevent argument to apaprently prove thigns that were not stated i nthe article-

Not sure why you’re gettign bent over by the simple question? Is there evidence that icnreased use doesn’t correlate to increased events? The study seems to indicate there is a connection between the two-

[[in an apparently futile attempt to dispel one of your many misunderstandings about scientific analysis and findings.]]

ou know, you can claim anythign you like- it doesn’t make it so- if you want to get nasty without providing any answers to back up your claims, then whatever, I tried to keep this civil, but your trying to drag this into the gutter with petty insults- You’ve faield to ansdwer the simpel question- and you’re accusing me of failing to ‘udnerstand’? whatever dude- if you don’t know the answer to the simpel quesiton, there’s no neded to get nasty about it=-

[[Marijuana use may speed psychosis Using marijuana, or cannabis, may cause psychosis to develop sooner in patients already predisposed to developing it, and in other patients the drug may even cause psychosis, according to a new study published in the Archives of General Psychiatry.]]

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/07/marijuana-use-may-speed-psychosis/

[[March 1, 2011 — Adolescents and young adults who smoke marijuana have an increased risk for experiencing psychotic symptoms, according to a new study.

The new findings appear online in the journal BMJ.

Researchers assessed marijuana use during a 10-year study of 1,923 participants aged 14 to 24 in Germany.

Those participants who had no psychotic symptoms and had never tried marijuana when the study began and then started using marijuana had nearly double the risk of experiencing psychotic symptoms in the future.

And those who used marijuana before start of the study and who continued use over the study period had an increased risk of persistent psychotic symptoms, the study shows.

“Our study confirmed cannabis as an environmental risk factor, impacting on the risk of psychosis by increasing the risk of incident psychotic experiences and if use continues over time, increasing the risk of persistent psychotic experiences,” ]]

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20110301/marijuana-use-linked-to-risk-of-psychotic-symptoms

All these symantics abotu the ‘increase of magnitude frequency’ seem to me to be a rabbit trail mneant to veer off the main issue of whether or not pot use can cause more frequent psychotic events- and accordign ot hter studies and researchers in the abovel inks, they seem to indicate pot use may infact be a direct cause- it has certainyl been shown to be a direct cause of more frequent events as several studies show-

And let’s now go back to the oringinal statement you cited:

[[“With higher doses and with certain unstable or susceptible individuals, marijuana can produce extreme euphoria, hilarity, and overtalkativeness, but it can also produce intense anxiety and depression as well as delusions, hallucination, and other psychotic-like experiences]]

You do know that ‘produce’ means to ‘cause to exist, or yeild,’ right?

Then you first say “Again, no such longitudinal studies have been done - the results under discussion compared one set of people who used marijuana to a different set of people who didn’t. “

But in the next breath say “Whether a study is longitudinal has nothing to do with whether it establishes a link.”

do you see why it’s hard to try to follow what you’re thinking and saying? First you imply that no link can be made between drug use and increassed pscho events because htere were no ‘longitudinal studies done’- then in another post say that longitudial studies have nothign to do with establishign a link?

Then we go off onto another rabbit trail talking about the “the strength of the relationship is the size of the correlation coefficient, which has nothing to do with the magnitude of the effect.”

Now we’re apaprently discussing ‘magnitude of effect’ or rather how strogn an effect is? Then we go to ‘Magnitude of increase in frequency’? Which point are you arguing?

[[As I’ve explained, the strength of the relationship is the size of the correlation coefficient, which has nothing to do with the magnitude of the increase in frequency.]]

Then you state [[If all test subjects who take chemical Z grow in height by exactly 0.001 inches, that’s a maximum strength of relationship but a low magnitude of increase.]]

I’ll ask it again- where does the study indicate that magnitude of increase was so low? (not that stregth of ibncrease is not what the study is even about- the study was about increased episodes- not the stregth of htose episodes-

[[It’s frankly not my job to educate you on scientific analysis and findings]]

I’m not askign you to- I’m simpyl askign you to provide soem evidence that the events are rare liek you claiemd i nthe first place, when the study does NOT indicate any such hting?

[[I will make no further posts in this exchange.]]

Perhaps it’s best you don’t because you’ve goen down so many damn rabbit trails that the original claim and quesitons have been lsot in all the confusion caused by your tryign to introduce issues that have nothign to do with hwat was beign discussed and asked- just like the aqrguments on wiki’s site have nothign to do with copntrolled studies- to imply that peopel claiming they wake with headaches after wearign shoes to bed somehow is a valid comparison to a cotnrolled study where all the variables are known and accoutned for, is simply assinine- Their informal examples throws in a ‘gotcha’ at the end by now introducign the idea that hte people ‘could have been drunk’ and hterefore thsi must be taken itno concideration too- so the other conclusio ncan not be made with any amount of reasonable certainty There were no ‘gotchas’ i nthe studies on pot and psychotic events- the variables were known and accoutned for- and a reasoanble conclusio nwas that there IS a strogn conenction between pot and drug use and icnreased psychotic events REGARDLESS of how strogn the events were- you can’t just try to wiggle otu of it by changign hte discussion to the strength of events

correlation coefficient, which has nothing to do with the magnitude of the increase in frequency. If all test subjects who take chemical Z grow in height by exactly 0.001 inches, that’s a maximum strength of relationship but a low magnitude of increase.

I understand htis, but again, where’s the evidence that the frequency of events wasn’t icnreased whn on the drugs?

Who said it wasn't increased? The point is your mistaken belief that high correlation implies large magnitude of increase.

remember you claimed the results showed that the events were not rare.

if only a few peopel in the study showed an increase, I don’t beleive the researchers would have stated a strong connection

That's because you still won't understand how scientific analysis is done and reported. What they reported was a "strong relationship" - that is, a relatively high correlation.

if there’s a ‘strong relationship between use of drugs and increased events, then it must be true that the researchers foudn a strong increase in the frequency of events

Simply wrong. Educate yourself.

Whether a study is longitudinal has nothing to do with whether it establishes a link.

Egads, your previosu post made mention of the fact that it wasn’t a logitudinal study, therefore it wasn’t vaslid- basically was the claim-

No, that was yet another of your misunderstandings. Here's what I actually said: "studies that were not longitudinal and so don't know whether the symptoms followed or preceded the marijuana use." Not a word about the validity of the study - just about the falsity of your conclusions.

No, the Wikipedia article simply explains what can and can’t be concluded from a strong correlation - which is why the researchers never claimed to have established a cause-and-effect connection. That false claim is yours and yours alone.

Good golly- Statign that htere is a strong connection is makign hte claim that the one causes anm increase in frequency-

Re-read the wiki - even a large increase in frequency wouldn't establish a cause-and-effect connection.

I’ve tried my best to explain these matters to you, to little avail. It’s frankly not my job to educate you on scientific analysis and findings - so until and unless you post something that indicates you’ve bothered to educate yourself, I will make no further posts in this exchange.

Mmmm yes, you’re arguign in circles- and changign hte goalpost from psot to post-

No, you keep trying to impose your incorrect preconceptions on what I'm saying.

I’ve asked several tiems now for soem kidn of evidence that using drugs didn’t icnrease the frequency of events- such as you claiemd at the beginnign of the argument-

No, I never claimed that.

and simpyl restatign claims on wiki that has nothign to do the findings-

It has everything to do with dispelling your misunderstandings of how scientific analysis is done and reported.

As I’ve explained, the strength of the relationship is the size of the correlation coefficient, which has nothing to do with the magnitude of the increase in frequency. If all test subjects who take chemical Z grow in height by exactly 0.001 inches, that’s a maximum strength of relationship but a low magnitude of increase.

Where the heck does thsi fit into the argument? Do you have evidence that only .01% of drug takers had icnrease i nfrequency?

How it fits is: "strong relationship" does not imply the increase in frequency was large as you keep claiming.

'Marijuana use may speed psychosis Using marijuana, or cannabis, may cause psychosis to develop sooner in patients already predisposed to developing it, and in other patients the drug may even cause psychosis, according to a new study published in the Archives of General Psychiatry.'

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/07/marijuana-use-may-speed-psychosis/

From that link:

'marijuana users experienced psychosis about three years younger than non-users.'

Two different groups of people, not a longitudinal study. Here's what researchers say about what can be concluded:

'experts say the complexity of interaction between genes and environment, and the possibility that cannabis is, in fact, a way to self-medicate when psychotic symptoms arise are not accounted for in this study.

'"It is distinctly possible, in fact likely, that folks who experience initial symptoms turn to cannabis in an effort to control them, then end up having a psychotic break of some sort earlier simply because they had their first symptoms earlier," said Mitch Earleywine, an associate professor of psychology at the State University of New York at Albany, who is also a marijuana policy expert. "This predicament makes it look as if cannabis preceded the psychotic symptoms when, in fact...folks with worse symptoms who are more likely to have an early break might simply be more likely to turn to cannabis."

'Theories about an association between marijuana use and schizophrenia include several – sometimes interrelated - scenarios: The possibility that cannabis causes schizophrenia; that cannabis may cause people vulnerable to schizophrenia to develop symptoms; that cannabis may make schizophrenia symptoms worse; or that people with schizophrenia are more likely to use cannabis, according to the study.'

'March 1, 2011 — Adolescents and young adults who smoke marijuana have an increased risk for experiencing psychotic symptoms, according to a new study.

'The new findings appear online in the journal BMJ.

'Researchers assessed marijuana use during a 10-year study of 1,923 participants aged 14 to 24 in Germany.

'Those participants who had no psychotic symptoms and had never tried marijuana when the study began and then started using marijuana had nearly double the risk of experiencing psychotic symptoms in the future.

Notice that they don't say what the risk was as a percentage with or without marijuana use - just as researchers report a cancer risk from chemical X without mentioning that it increases the risk from (say) one in a billion to two in a billion.

'And those who used marijuana before start of the study and who continued use over the study period had an increased risk of persistent psychotic symptoms, the study shows.

'“Our study confirmed cannabis as an environmental risk factor, impacting on the risk of psychosis by increasing the risk of incident psychotic experiences and if use continues over time, increasing the risk of persistent psychotic experiences,”'

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20110301/marijuana-use-linked-to-risk-of-psychotic-symptoms

This confirms that marijuana use precedes psychotic experiences - but since marijuana use was subject-self-selected rather than randomly assigned by the researchers, it doesn't exclude the possibility that the same people who are predisposed to use marijuana are also predisposed to later psychotic experiences.

“With higher doses and with certain unstable or susceptible individuals, marijuana can produce extreme euphoria, hilarity, and overtalkativeness, but it can also produce intense anxiety and depression as well as delusions, hallucination, and other psychotic-like experiences

You do know that ‘produce’ means to ‘cause to exist, or yeild,’ right?

That passage describes short-term effects. You didn't think marijuana produced long-term persistent euphoria, hilarity, and overtalkativeness, did you?

Then you first say “Again, no such longitudinal studies have been done - the results under discussion compared one set of people who used marijuana to a different set of people who didn’t. “

But in the next breath say “Whether a study is longitudinal has nothing to do with whether it establishes a link.”

No contradiction - a longitudinal study is capable of coming to the conclusion that no link exists.

Then we go off onto another rabbit trail talking about the “the strength of the relationship is the size of the correlation coefficient, which has nothing to do with the magnitude of the effect.”

Now we’re apaprently discussing ‘magnitude of effect’ or rather how strogn an effect is? Then we go to ‘Magnitude of increase in frequency’?

They're all the same thing. The contradiction is only in your mind.

Then you state "If all test subjects who take chemical Z grow in height by exactly 0.001 inches, that’s a maximum strength of relationship but a low magnitude of increase."

I’ll ask it again- where does the study indicate that magnitude of increase was so low?

The point is your incorrect belief that large strength of relationship implies large magnitude of increase.

a cotnrolled study where all the variables are known and accoutned for

Where did the researchers claim that?

[[”Among the 44 percent of teens who admitted to smoking pot, use of the drug at age 16 was linked to the development of psychotic symptoms at age 19. But the researchers also found that where kids began to display signs of psychosis at an early age, they then tended to start using marijuana in their later teens —for them, the psychosis came before the drug use.”]]

This is why words are important-

the study finds But the researchers also found that where kids began to display signs of psychosis at an early age,

How many kids within that group? The article doesn’t mention this- it just indicates that soem kids may have exhibitted signs early on- it is not statign gthat all kids exhibitted signs, but rather that those that did tended to start self medicating early in life- and even here we’re not sure how many of thsoe exhibbiting early signs started self medicating early-

[[”As with previous studies, the researchers weren’t able to establish that marijuana use is directly causing an increased risk of psychosis, or vice versa.]]

Yet other studies are showing a correlation-

on the site [[In some cases, a simpler explanation for the link between marijuana and psychosis]]

In soem cases- Seems liek that article was simply put up to support drug use and wasn’t very careful abotu how it was worded-

Seems liek that article was simply put up to support drug use and wasn’t very careful abotu how it was worded

The first article you posted said the same thing:

[[Re-read the wiki - even a large increase in frequency wouldn’t establish a cause-and-effect connection.]]

I did read the site and hte explanations there are assinine- they are comparing controlled studies to casual observences i nthe uneducated public- they are insinuating htat because soemoen discovers that going to bed with hteir shoes on that they wake with a headache, it can’t be assumed the shoes cause the headache ‘because it’s POSSIBLE the person MAY HAVE BEEN drunk too’

The variables are known within study groups- there aren’t any ‘gotchas’ thrown in later to throw the study for a loop- IF enough peopel were studied who DID NOT DRINK and who got headaches ONLY when wearign shoes to bed, and who had NO heradaches whern not wearign htem to bed, and if the study was large enough to show that hte majority were experiencign increased headaches only when wearign shoes- then of course a strogn relationship is noted- and thel ikely cause of hte icnrease in gheadache incidents is beign caused shoe wearing at bedtime

[[The point is your mistaken belief that high correlation implies large magnitude of increase.]]

You are claiming that it must be low magnitude of increased frequency- Where are you gettign htis data from? A discovery of a strong relationship between drug use and an increase in episodes woudl not be given if only a couple of people per 100 or whatever were expriencing the increase- the ratio of folks experiencing increased events to thsoe who did not woudl be low- not high If the study had meant that the ‘strong connection’ was only referrign to a few individuals, they woudl have been ethically required to mention this- they did not mention it-

you keep inferrign that whiel many might have experienced the icnrease, that hte increase ‘could be low magnitude of icnrease (I assume you mean increase of stregth of the events-) Yuor exampels makes htis clear [[If all test subjects who take chemical Z grow in height by exactly 0.001 inches, that’s a maximum strength of relationship but a low magnitude of increase. ]]- There is nothign i nthe report that I saw that indicates the study was abotu hte STRENGTH of the episodes

[[if there’s a ‘strong relationship between use of drugs and increased events, then it must be true that the researchers foudn a strong increase in the frequency of events

Simply wrong. Educate yourself.]]

There’s nothign to educate myself about- if there wasn’t a strogn increase i nthe frequency of events, they woudl not have said there is a strong relationship between drug use and icnreased events- if only a few peopel experienced icnrease in events, it woudl have been made clear i nthe report- important facts liek that are not left out of responsible studies-

[[No, that was yet another of your misunderstandings. Here’s what I actually said: “studies that were not longitudinal and so don’t know whether the symptoms followed or preceded the marijuana use.” Not a word about the validity of the study - just about the falsity of your conclusions. ]]

You knopw what? Now you’re just playing games- You knw the point was that you began by implying the study wasn’t valid because it wassn’t doen logitudinally, then you later switched to sayign logitudinal studies do not prove anything- You know ful lwell thep oint was that you are sayign one thing in one post, then movign hte goalpost in yoyur next post-

[[It has everything to do with dispelling your misunderstandings of how scientific analysis is done and reported.]]

how is that again? By readign exampels that have nothign to do with actual scientific studies? This is your ‘scientific’ argument? Which exampel shoudl I be looking at aagain? The following one too that has NIOTHING to do with observable results?

Example 2 Young children who sleep with the light on are much more likely to develop myopia in later life. Therefore, sleeping with the light on causes myopia.

What has a long term devlopmentof a condition got to do with an immediately observable and reproducible cause and effect study?

[[How it fits is: “strong relationship” does not imply the increase in frequency]]

It does imply that when the study does not indicate they meant the strogn relationship was only speakign abotu a person or two out of the bunch- IF that had been the case, the study woudl have made that clear- and woudl not have used such a generallized blanket statement-

[[Example 3 As ice cream sales increase, the rate of drowning deaths increases sharply. Therefore, ice cream consumption causes drowning.

Another assinine example that has nothign to do with careful studies- and is badly worded to boot- IF a study had been conducted that showed a strogn relationshiop between eatign icecream (NOT just buying icecream) WHILE swimming, and higher susceptibility to drowning (Not ciecream CAUSING drowning) then the evidence is clear- eatign icecream while swimming caused a higher susceptibility to drowning so there was a strong relationshiop between the two actions and the end result

[[Since the 1950s, both the atmospheric CO2 level and obesity levels have increased sharply. Hence, atmospheric CO2 causes obesity.]]

Another assinine comparison as there was no study done to determien whetrher CO2 causes an icnrease in weight- only an assinine assumption that the two ‘might be connected’ with NO studty to determien anything

Which of these ‘scientific exampels shoudl I be using to compare to the study that was done? You’re using Wiki as your source of argument? Really? And you want me to ‘educate myself’ before we continue with hte discussion? Lol-

[[’”It is distinctly possible, in fact likely, that folks who experience initial symptoms turn to cannabis in an effort to control them,]]

so lemme get thsi straight- You don’t think a person can come to a reasonmable assumption based on a study when arguing a conenction, but you do think assumptions are just fine when assuming htere might be ‘other reasons or factors’ despoite hte evidence showing that thsoe who don’t take drugs experience less events while thsoe that do expeirence more? You also later throwi n an assumption that peopel are predisposed to use pot- throwingi n an unproven wildcard into the mix akin to what wiki does-

The discussion was not abotu whether peopel using drugs experienced events earleir in life, the dicussio nwas abotu whether using drugs whiel beign a psychotic can contribute to increased psychotic events- let’s just stick to that issue-

[[predisposed to use marijuana are also predisposed to later psychotic experiences. -]]

‘predisposed to use pot’? Really? Pot use is a condition? Not a choice?

[[You do know that ‘produce’ means to ‘cause to exist, or yeild,’ right?

-—That passage describes short-term effects.]]

Yeah? So?

[[Now we’re apaprently discussing ‘magnitude of effect’ or rather how strogn an effect is? Then we go to ‘Magnitude of increase in frequency’?

They’re all the same thing. The contradiction is only in your mind.]]

No sir- they are different issues altoghehter- One is how strogn an effect is, the other is how how often an event happens- and has nothign to do with how strogn the effect is while the event is taking place-

Actually you've displayed you'll twist anything your eyes see to suit your purpose. If the statistics of a study show that teens who smoke pot have psychosis, you announce it's evidence for your agenda. When information from the same study reveals teens had psychosis before they ever used pot, you declare it's disinformation from pro-pot sources...yet the statistics come from the same study you cite.

Whether this study proves the evils of pot or is lies spread by pot activists, it appears, changes strictly according to your convenience and the desire to prove your position. Reminds me of global warming...they'll take one page out of a study to support their claims and people who insist on reading the rest of the text are a menace to society.

Whether you like it or not, the study says nothing more than that teens may have psychotic symptoms if they've never taken drugs or if they're taking drugs, and that there's a definite link to people with mental issues seeking relief or oblivion in psychoactive medication. And that's all the study says...and in addition, states specifically that they couldn't prove marijuana directly caused increased incidents of psychosis. Now, in your own private little re-interpretation of reality those scientists might be pro-pot Dutchmen for not supporting your position as much as you'd like, but you can't report one part of the study as being justification for your prohibition campaign and another part of the study as being pot legalization propaganda without looking like a schizophrenic, yourself.

Incidentally, although they cannot scientifically prove marijuana causes psychosis, they can however scientifically, chemically and medically prove that in some individuals caffeine produces a mental disorder called Stimulant Psychosis. So since you're definitely on the prohibition trail for drugs that induce mental dysfunctions, may one presume you'll be petitioning Congress to have all the Starbuck's boarded up, right away? ;^)

Re-read the wiki - even a large increase in frequency wouldn’t establish a cause-and-effect connection.

I did read the site and hte explanations there are assinine- they are comparing controlled studies to casual observences

No, they're using simple examples to make a point about what can and can't be concluded from correlations. Shame you won't understand it.

You are claiming that it must be low magnitude of increased frequency

Wrong.

if there wasn’t a strogn increase i nthe frequency of events, they woudl not have said there is a strong relationship between drug use and icnreased events- if only a few peopel experienced icnrease in events, it woudl have been made clear i nthe report- important facts liek that are not left out of responsible studies-

We have on the table only a one-sentence summary of the study. Did you not notice that?

you began by implying the study wasn’t valid because it wassn’t doen logitudinally,

Wrong.

then you later switched to sayign logitudinal studies do not prove anything

Wrong.

’”It is distinctly possible, in fact likely, that folks who experience initial symptoms turn to cannabis in an effort to control them,

so lemme get thsi straight- You

I just quoted the researchers in the article YOU linked. Shame you shot yourself in the foot by posting a link you didn't fully understand.

don’t think a person can come to a reasonmable assumption based on a study when arguing a conenction,

Your "reasonmable assumption" does not constitute scientific proof.

but you do think assumptions are just fine when assuming htere might be ‘other reasons or factors’

There's no assumption in "might".

You also later throwi n an assumption that peopel are predisposed to use pot

No, I note the possibility.

‘predisposed to use pot’? Really? Pot use is a condition? Not a choice?

False dichotomy. Look up predisposed in a dictionary.

That passage describes short-term effects.

Yeah? So?

So it's irrelevant to the current discussion of longer term effects.

One is how strogn an effect is, the other is how how often an event happens

And the former was only your misunderstanding of what I was saying.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.