Struggle4Bucks

Don't worrie... the average person would only notice a decline when he hits the 85...

On a serious nuanced note: decline is something different then putting yourself in a day to day situation were you won't be able to reach your full potential. I heard a lot of: "I function best when i'm high" but i also at the same time saw a lot of those people not functioning at all. Recreational use is something different.

Regarding to the link:

"No, marijuana use doesn?t lower your IQ" is a premature statement!!!!

"Although it would be too strong to say that the results have been discredited, the methodology is flawed and the causal inference drawn from the results premature," it concluded."

"Premature results" means something completely different then incorrect/false results.
But i guess everyone wants to read what suits them best.

Further:

"Other researchers questioned the findings almost immediately: Columbia University's Carl Hart noted the very small sample of heavy users (38) in the study, leading him to question how generalizable the results were."

Now read carefully... because interpreting is science too: So in fact there were samples of lower IQ after use of cannabis!!! The only thing that raised questions was the size of the group that showed IQ decline, so the question that raised was how generalizable the results were.


Further:

Now, a new study out from the University College of London provides even stronger evidence that the Duke findings were flawed. The study draws on a considerably larger sample of adolescents than the Duke research - 2,612 children born in the Bristol area of the U.K. in 1991 and 1992. Researchers examined children's IQ scores at age 8 and again at age 15, and found "no relationship between cannabis use and lower IQ at age 15,"

I cannot read anywhere how many of those 2,612 children were actually pot-smokers. All 2,612 were tested at the age of 8... but however smart scientests are... it's not possible to forsee how many of those 2,612 kids would smoke pot in their later years. So... is this another example of a "to small of a group" to claim generalizable results? I cannot find anywhere how many of those 2,612 turned out to be pot-smokers.

Another thing is... i find the conclusion very premature... How long have these 15 year old kids that actually smoked pot, have been smoking pot and how much? Wouldn't it be better to test them again at the age of 30 before making ridicoulous premature claims?

I find that hilarious too in 98% of the cases

__________________
Half troll half amazing!