Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Scientific study shows students that smoke cannabis have lower grades and higher fail
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
So scientists have proved what we all knew already, smoking cannabis will affect your intelligence and education.
Not sure the "study" does show that actually. They were not just denied the drug for example, they were also barred entirely from the cafes where they were having it. In other words what they lost was not just the drug but their social outlet of choice.
So it is equally possible the falling away of their main social outlet influenced the time and energy they had to turn to studies instead. I suspect you would find a similar effect if you went to cork and banned all college students under the age of 22 from bars and night clubs for example. The sudden loss of the social outlet where they spend the majority of their time is not going to leave their grades and academic application unaffected.
This is further exacerbated by the fact the study is about the one group of students who would be MOST reliant on such social outlets. The ban was not across the board, but solely on students who were non-nationals and non-local. Where LOCALS would have other social outlets to fall back on, existing circles of friends and the like, foreigners are less likely to have that.
So I would warn against the correlation-causation effect there in the same way I would warn against it with cannabis in Amsterdam. There are more variables in play there than merely their loss of access to pot. Repeat the same experiment on LOCAL students who are Nationals and thus not subject to the ban and my prediction is you will find a MUCH smaller (though not non-existent) effect of the policy than shown here.How will the legalise cannabis brigade defend this?
I see nothing to defend, even without the problems I identify with relying on the study above. At best, and even this is a stretch, it is an argument for slightly raising the minimum age for access to the drug.
But I do not see the fact SOME people use a given drug poorly, and to the detriment of their success in other areas of life, as an argument against legalization of the drug or for making it illegal. We should by all means INFORM them that if they use the drug they risk harming their grades or life earning potential and so forth. But if they choose to do it anyway, what business is that of ours?
So basically even if the claims you want the paper to be making were magically shown to be 100% entirely true........... then so what? What is your point here?It's a very dangerous nercotic with strong links to mental illness.
No, not really it is not. Very often, in fact just about every time someone brings it up, it is a drug linked with EXACERBATING ALREADY EXISTING mental illness. Which is a much different statement to make than yours. Also with an underground illegal product one has to query whether any mental effects are due to the core drug, or the other crap they cut into it to elevate their profit margins.It's dangerous and should not be easily excessible to young people.
It is ALREADY accessible easily to young people in our country. I am not in Ireland now but drop me into Cork Galway Sligo Wicklow or Dublin when I am next there and I will be able to get you enough of the drug to have a good party with 20 people within an hour.
The problem is in many places in the world that with that ease of access comes ALSO the ease of access to a criminal record and ease of access to poor quality and harmful product that is cut badly, at a dangerous concentration, or cut with other chemicals that are harmful.
So then the question becomes do you want easy of access to an illegal and potentially harmful product, or the potential of ease of access to a legal, regulated, industry standard and quality assured one that a legal regulated product could afford.Come on man. Students will do much worse if they smoke cannabis, yes that's obvious, but now there's a study to prove it.
The same can be said about alcohol and computer gaming, so what is your point? ANY inordinate amount of time put into one social outlet, at the expense of ones studies, is going to have an effect on those studies. THAT is what is "obvious" and it is not something that is magically the purview of cannabis.Giving an anti cannabis opinion carries a backlash of person digs
I trust you will find no such thing in my post however.People that do smoke it, would you like your child's teacher to use this drug, or your doctor, or even your child to smoke cannabis?
I would very much not care if they do, on the sole assumption they are not doing so WHILE working. But I would say the same about alcohol and cigarettes and Television Soap Operas too to be honest.tomwaterford wrote: »Because those shady Guys would just stop??
Maybe. I remember a time when there was not one but multiple guys shadily selling cheap off market cigarettes on Henry Street and areas off Grafton street in dublin. Now I do not see them any more.
Where did they go? I doubt they are gone entirely but clearly their trade is not what it was. Why?
I suspect IN PART it is due to the fact that many consumers prefer a regulated and somewhat quality assured (though with cigs the industry is still allowed get away with putting things into them I think they should not) product even at a significantly higher price than shady dealings for products that could contain any old crap cut into them.
So if we had a legal over the counter product I would SUSPECT that they would stop yes. And not because they WANT to do so.Sure your brain hasn't fully developed until you turn 18, of course smoking cannabis would be detrimental to your studies...
Bit of an assumption that. What exactly is "not developed" in a brain at 18 that is at 28 for example? List the developments still to be done.
Then having generated such a list, show what effects (if any) cannabis actually has on the further development of them.
This "Their brain is not developed yet" mantra is trotted out on every thread from Drugs to After Hours threads about older men going out with younger girls. Yet I have not see one person reaching for that mantra explain exactly what it is still in development, and the relevance of those things to the thread at hand.Look at what Big Alcohol/ Big Tobacco did? What would Big Cannabis do?
Well in terms of Cannabis there are ways to use the drug (I think one word is nebulizer but there are ways to burn it in the middle of the room so you get a "mist/haze" substance in the room rather than smoking it directly) that make it a loss less harmful to deliver into your body that smoking cigarettes. One can also, for example, eat it. I also once met a band of the same name in Galway who used a version called "Charis" which was a black gloopey stuff they burned in what looked like a kind of "genie lamp" in the middle of the room.
So to answer your question one thing it will do is give people a drug they can deliver into their system in much cleaner and safer ways than your "big Tobacco" does.Zubeneschamali wrote: »No, we will all mock the OP for a few days, start arguing with each other, get infractions and then all ragequit the thread.
Then it'll be over.
You forgot the bit where Nozzferrahhtoo arrives late to the party, partly because he is slow and partly because he insists on READING the entire study when something like this thread happens.......... and then he proceeds to retrospectively reply to pretty much everyone in the thread in one big go.
That ALWAYS happens before the bit you describe, the arrogant annoying wordy ass. Oh wait..................
eddiervp20 wrote: »Don't smoke weed but I'm sure like most drugs it will affect your concentration.
It does but "affect" is a loaded term that many people automatically assume is negative. Quite often the opposite can be true. Large quantities of sugar can "affect your concentration". Varying your quantity of water intake every day can "affect your concentration". The phrase, in isolation, is as suggestive as it is misleading. It needs unpacking.
Though I myself am an anecdote of ONE so I should be treated thus, it is still very interesting to me...........
I was not a drug user in college really. VERY rarely. But I did occasionally smoke a joint or two when I was studying something in my course I simply could not get my head around.
Affect my concentration it did, but it made me think about things and look at things in a way skewed from my norm. With the effect that smoking it when I was hitting a mental brick wall had me have a Eureka moment where I could move forward and make the mental connections I was not making before.
The trick then was to write down my conclusions and realizations in a way that I could understand when I "sobered" up of course But nearly every time I could do that. Though at least once that I recall I read my notes with a clear head and had absolutely NO IDEA what I had been on about.
Abuse of it will of course have negative effects on concentration. Controlled and targeted use of it can too however, but in a very positive and beneficial way.Solomon Pleasant wrote: »I've witnessed the effects first hand of what excessive cannabis consumption can do to an individual.
I have witnessed first hand what a single peanut CAN do to an individual too. Not sure what your point is really
but what a peanut can POTENTIALLY do to one single individual does not have me saying "peanuts are considerably more destructive and damaging than what people consider them to be." off the back of that one individual.Solomon Pleasant wrote: »This drug can and does destroy lives when used excessively.
I am struggling to think of that many things in this world AT ALL that do not destroy lives when used "excessively". In other words when someone says "X can destroy lives when used excessively" the locus of the problem is in the LAST word in that sentence, not in whatever the FIRST word happens to be.
Hell you could destroy (in fact end) your life right now by using WATER excessively. Which renders your point so universal as to be essentially moot. A point that pedantically applies to everything functionally applies to nothing.Solomon Pleasant wrote: »The majority of the people who consumed it were, for want of a better word, wasters.
Of course the interesting question to ask there, at a study level I mean not at the level of someones subjective childhood memories, is whether people are wasters because they are smoking the drug............ or are they more prone to smoking the drug because they are wasters.
It is an important question, and not one I would ever accept an anecdotal subjective personal experienced opinion on as being even remotely relevant.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Yourself isit wrote: »You want to legalise something and then put warnings on it? Not sure how that works.
I suggest you go buy a packet of cigarettes and look at the packing then. You should be a first hand expert on "how that works" then because this is EXACTLY what we do there.
If you are still unsure how it operates I would then suggest you go get a packet of Soluble Solpedine from the chemist and reading the packing and internal leaflets there too.
If somehow at this point you are still not sure how the process works, go buy a bottle of fizzy water and read the labels about re-use of the bottle that most of them carry.
If, inexplicably, you are somehow still in that dark at this point then go and get a coffee which will not only stimulate your mind with caffeine, but you can read the eternally comical "warning contains hot liquid" that is on the cups 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I suggest you go buy a packet of cigarettes and look at the packing then. You should be a first hand expert on "how that works" then because this is EXACTLY what we do there.
If you are still unsure how it operates I would then suggest you go get a packet of Soluble Solpedine from the chemist and reading the packing and internal leaflets there too.
If somehow at this point you are still not sure how the process works, go buy a bottle of fizzy water and read the labels about re-use of the bottle that most of them carry.
If, inexplicably, you are somehow still in that dark at this point then go and get a coffee which will not only stimulate your mind with caffeine, but you can read the eternally comical "warning contains hot liquid" that is on the cups
Don't be glib. The point of the warnings on tobacco is to discourage use. Another way is to ban the dangerous substance, as we do many drugs. Making a drug legal and then warning about the severe consequences doesnt make much sense.0 -
-
-
-
-
How do they know those college students didn't just buy their weed illegally?
Wouldnt it be really comical if it turned out the illegal weed was stronger than the legal weed and the observed increase in their grades was not due to a lack of weed........ but an increase in the potency of the weed they were now taking
Not likely of course, but it would be side splittingly hilarious if it was Imagine how quickly the OP would simply stop citing or acknowledging the existence of his original links 0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Yourself isit wrote: »Was it going well?
I would say so. Seems more cordial than previous after hours threads on drugs and a few other things I think make the quality of it so far higher.Yourself isit wrote: »Sometimes credentialism matters. Doctors who want to ban tobacco do so because of its harmful effects. The homeless guy would be less qualified.
Not to me it does not. Credentials are meaningless to me. I think it important that people pursue them and get them of course. But when it comes to someone making a claim ALL that matters to me is the content and substantiation for the claim and NEVER who the person making the claim is.
The most qualified intelligent person on the planet can be wrong. The least qualified people on the planet can hit on truth. WHAT is being said is infinitely more important to me than WHO says it. "Argument from authority" is on the list of fallacies for a reason.
But worse, as I said, the straight reply to "many doctors want X" is that "Many doctors want not X" is equally true so AT BEST the appeals to authority merely negate each other.Yourself isit wrote: »Warning labels on cigarettes try to discourage any use.
So you keep saying but I am unsure what your point is or why it is relevant to MY point which you originally replied to. Remember I NEVER at ANY point said the CONTENT of the labels should be the same. I said the PRACTICE of putting warning labels on the product would be the same.
I said the latter, but your responses appear to suggest you are replying as if I said the former. The vast majority of warning and information labels on products are NOT there to discourage use of the product.Yourself isit wrote: »It was admittedly the royal we. However you are engaging in a false dilemma. Neither groups are the best tourists we could get.
Nor did I say they were but I still maintain that as a tourist denomination they are preferable to many others I could think of.Yourself isit wrote: »You are concerned with the contents of my posts. You are debating them.
Not what I meant, and you know it. There is a difference (huge) between concerning yourself with what a person is saying and moaning about HOW they say it. I am more than happy to give and receive the former. The latter will just receive the derision it deserves. Comedy is one of the attributes of our species and I think we can, nay SHOULD, take a subject seriously AND light hearted at the same time. We do not need to all sit down like dour vulcans to discuss even the most serious topic. It is After Hours, we are here for debate and fun in equal measure I believe.Yourself isit wrote: »You seem to be upset at the existence of a different opinion though.
You have invented that entirely out of nowhere really. This would be a truely boring and intolerable forum to be on if all opinions were the same. So I am the exact opposite of "upset" about it. I revel in it and it is why I am here.
But perhaps enough about making it personal and about me now, and back to the topic, perhaps?Yourself isit wrote: »My point is the aim of ever increasing warnings on tobacco is to stop the use of tobacco. Thus legalising a drug (encouraging it) and adding warnings(discouraging it) doesnt make a lot of sense.
But I repeat, no one here except your good self has suggested the labels are for discouraging the use of the product. So you are not only preaching to the choir, but the choir does not even appear to be there.
The warning labels in my opinion would be more geared towards warning about the proper and improper use of the product, which we do very very often. There was a reason I included soluble solepedine in my list, other than your mistaken idea I was merely being glib.
However I would not like to look like I am dodging anything so even though you have taken up my point ENTIRELY wrong, I will partake of the Devils Avocado salad and suggest than maybe it does make sense anyway.
If people are using a drug ANYWAY then it does make sense to have a legal "discouraging label" version of it instead. I do not think it is the CORRECT or RIGHT choice to make, but you did not argue about it being correct or right, you argued about it making "sense". And I think it DOES make sense, given the choice between people using a product without discouragement and one with discouragement..... to choose the path that allows us to deliver that discouragement.
I think it a bad idea, and the wrong choice to make, and it was NOT what I was suggesting in the posts you replied to. But I entirely see the "sense" in it all the same. An idea can make "sense" and still be a bad idea.Yourself isit wrote: »Anyway this isn't going to happen.
You will get no argument from me here, I do not make or entertain any arguments based on crystal balls. I make the arguments for what I think SHOULD happen, so forgive me if I do not join you in talking about whether I expect it ever will or not. I genuinely do not know and perhaps you are entirely correct. But I do know a lot of things I was told 20 years ago would never happen (like gay marriage) has. So I have formed a life long skepticism when someone else repeats it on another topic.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
In 2015, Colorado collected more than $135 million in taxes and fee on medical and recreational marijuana. Sales in the state totaled over $996 millionIn 2016, Colorado’s dispensaries bagged $1.3 billion in recreational and medical cannabis sales,They also show that Colorado brought in about $199 million in tax and fees revenue for the calendar year.
Money.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement