Lockjaw Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Ok then for the sake of clarity. Still strange. The subtle difference, leelax, is that Spindrift was referring to evidence whereas you are claiming he was referring to facts. He was't talking about the effect of wearing jeans on psychosis; he was talking about the evidence for said effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Just because certain people choose to redifine alcohol it does not make it the proper definition Of course alcohol is a drug. Only a fool would say it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Jeans and trainers - that's where all those psychadelic trips come from. Who needs canabis when you can just put on your favourite pair of Levi and Nike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 I don't make any claims I just don't belive yours. On the contrary, it's all there in black and white. I didn't make any claims and you did. You claimed that canabis is more intoxicating than alcohol But a lot more intoxicating. And causes road traffic accidents I am 100% confident that anyone with a glimmer of common sense would say it is not safe to drive when you have had a joint.;).. You have failed to provide any evidence for either of these claims, and have tried to make out that the onus is on me to disporve what you are saying. If you claimed that canabis causes smokers to grow a second head, would the onus be on me to disprove that as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Correlation does not imply causation - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Correlation does not imply causation - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation Sure the scientists/medics that have published in the British Medical Journal are well aware of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Sure the scientists/medics that have published in the British Medical Journal are well aware of that. Of course they are, an honest study on this issue wouldn't be allowed in, due to legal/ethical reasons. It is a correlation study, there's no evidence here that cannabis use causes psychosis, any more than psychosis (or the early undiagnosed stages of psychosis) causes cannabis use. Maybe both could be true, creating a feedback loop. It could even be an unrelated 3rd factor causing both, maybe lower socio-economic status causes an increased risk of both cannabis use & psychosis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fareast Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 I 'm sure I read all about this years ago-----still, I suppose scientists will continue to do any kind of research if someone is paying for it. The problem is, with all the research about various social problems, followed then by warnings to teenagers et al [ ad nauseum ] about how they should or should not behave, never seems to help in reducing the problems by one iota. Perhaps someone could do some research on the reaction of young people to constant Nannying and endless Good Advice ? I would guess that a lot of teenagers listen to it and ignore it......or listen to it and do the exact opposite. I can 't imagine for one minute a bunch of teenagers out ' on the town ' on a weekend night, just about to have more alcohol or about to smoke a joint.......or about to ' have it away ', thinking, " Oh, God, no I can 't after what I read Prof. Headcase say about it in his University of NNW California report ! " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leelax Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 The subtle difference, leelax, is that Spindrift was referring to evidence whereas you are claiming he was referring to facts. He was't talking about the effect of wearing jeans on psychosis; he was talking about the evidence for said effect. The evidence is provided by the op. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leelax Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 On the contrary, it's all there in black and white. I didn't make any claims and you did. You claimed that canabis is more intoxicating than alcohol And causes road traffic accidents You have failed to provide any evidence for either of these claims, and have tried to make out that the onus is on me to disporve what you are saying. If you claimed that canabis causes smokers to grow a second head, would the onus be on me to disprove that as well? You said I am wrong. put up or shut up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.