- 2,270
- 2,702
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2006
I misconstrued this as you questioning the saying weed negatively affects lung capacity. I see now that you were possibly questioning the notion that almost all athletes use some sort of drugs without any source.Originally Posted by red mpls
So wait, you're saying that you don't believe that weed negatively affects your lungs because you haven't read enough credible research proving its effects... yet you state that "ALMOST ALL ATHLETES ESPECIALLY PROFESSIONALS use some sort of drugs" and anyone who doesn't believe your completely subjective and baseless opinion is "oblivious or naive"?
Sorry, I have nothing but subjective and anecdotal evidence about professional athletes. If actually believe that the majority of our athletes are straight-edge then so be it.
The studies that you posted that supposedly disprove the theory that weed makes you lazier or unmotivated are seriously philosophically and methodologically flawed to the point that I don't see how anyone could conclude that useful information was derived from them at all.
The first study was of college students- those who smoke weed and those who don't. First of all, to compare these populations without accounting for the possibility (indeed, the probability) that less regular weed smokers attend college than non-weed smokers is like comparing the GPAs of Black and White college students as a barometer of success without acknowledging that far less Black folk attend college than White people. Also, weed smokers who attend college, essentially by definition, are likely those who are better able to cope with their habit and handle their business than those who smoke and do not go to college. On the other hand, the study itself even admits that weed smokers were less able to determine career goals or pursue advanced degrees, It also states (and then strangely dismisses-- source?) other studies that have demonstrated that college students who smoke weed have lower GPAs and drop-out more than non-weed smokers. I guess that's not important...
As for the Mendelson Experiment, the Hawthorne Effect essentially invalidates any findings, being that it is extremely likely the subjects' behavior was influenced simply by knowingly participating in a study in a laboratory setting which examined behavior in relation to weed and money. Also, they were earning money and marjuana for performing their tasks... that's like saying crack doesn't affect a crackhead's work ethic because when you offer them crack to do something they will do it. Once again, excuse my "smilie".
The last two "studies" aren't even really worth addressing without having a credible source attached. Also, they once again state that studies in which marijuana is found to negatively affect behavior (in this case educational outcomes), it's not really true, this time because it's too difficult to isolate smoking weed as a causal variable... The pattern of whatever source you're getting this material from appears to be to cite extremely flawed "studies" that "prove" that marijuana doesn't negatively affect people while simply and baselessly discrediting all studies that have found otherwise. OK.
The other random "facts" you cited are simply ridiculous. I mean, what is the methodology for comparing "educational and employment records" of weed smokers and non-weed smokers? That's truly laughable. Also, since weed is smoked on lunch breaks in Jamaica and the people doing it claim that it helps them work more, we are supposed to take this as evidence that weed aids work productivity?
I don't even have to post any evidence to support my arguments because you haven't provided any valid evidence in support of yours.
I'm sorry, I can't believe I forgot to post a link. You're able to so quickly find confounds not thought of by dozens of researchers and hundreds of future authors (most notably from Harvard...) that referenced the study.
http://www.bisdro.uni-bre...er/cannabis/08-zi-mo.pdf
I suggest you look at the link and see what sources & references you're so quickly discrediting, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, and Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences being two of them.
If you're going to just question the methodology of any research article I post then I'm done conversing with you.
And because Michael Phelps smokes or smoked weed this is evidence that more than 50 percent of all professional athletes use drugs? Excuse my "smilie" but. What point are you trying to make? Once again, I never argued the physical effects of smoking green.
No it was evidence that arguably the most enduranced man alive smokes weed and still achieved the greatest success to date. Again, since you dont acknowledge arguing that, it's of no use.
And I definitely don't think I'm better than anyone else; I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. You challenged that people saying that they don't smoke or drink are only sober because they haven't gone to college yet, because when they do they will be influenced to smoke and drink like you and your friends did. I simply gave you my experience as a refutation of your theory, however rare it may be. If you smoke and drink regularly and handle your business, do your thing! I'm not hating at all; I actually wish I had more friends and family that I could say the same about. And I will continue to enjoy my sober life!
Really? You don't know how I came to that conclusion?
You first, told me how you finished college without doing any drug what so ever. Then you called me and my friends "mentally weak" because we made the independent choice to as the free men we are to use drugs.Originally Posted by red mpls
I'm 24 and completed my bachelor's and master's degrees without smoking, drinking, or taking any type of drug whatsoever. The last time I smoked weed was when I was 14. It's funny to me that you entered college with a "straight-edge" mentality yet you quickly succumbed to peer pressure, and then you think that everyone is going to be as mentally weak as you and your teammates.
Yet, you don't see how you come off as being better than anyone else. You know, I'm almost glad your type is completely free of drug use. Makes me think God has a sense of humor.
I will continue to question the methodology of the studies that you cited and will certainly discredit the "report" that you posted thelink to. Just because a study is published in a journal does not mean that it's above criticism or critique, by me or anyone else; I've read manystudies published in peer-review journals with severe philosophical and methodological flaws which essentially nullify the study's "findings." If you believe that these (or any) academic study is beyond criticism, then I'm done conversing with you. I stated my critiques of what I see as fatalflaws in the studies referenced and you provided no refutation of them except that I couldn't possibly have come up with criticisms that others have failedto do. How do you know that no one else has stated these same criticisms of these studies?
As for the "report" that you posted the link to, it's clearly a highly-biased document that borders on propaganda. While it certainly cites someacademic studies, some of which may be very sound (not those on amotivational syndrome in my informed opinion), the way that the report spins and twists factsis (at least in the parts I read) very misleading. For example (other than their dismissive language in the parts that you cited earlier), the article arguesthat marijuana potency hasn't significantly changed since the 1970s; however, thier own table shows a 45 percentincrease in potency from 1981-1993, a mere 12 years. Immediately afterward, they essentially concede that marijuana potency has increased and then attempt tospin that as a positive:
Even if potency had increased slightly since the 1970s, it would not mean that smoking
marijuana had become more dangerous. In fact, since the primary health risk of
marijuana comes from smoking, higher potency products can be less dangerous
because they allow people to achieve the desired effect by inhaling less.
I mean, who can argue with that type of logic?
As for thinking I'm better than others: You and Joseph Camel Jr. were posting in this thread with a sense of arrogance that anyone who hadn't beenthrough a year of college don't have the right to speak on their experiences with drugs and alcohol. You both wrongly assumed that people who go tocollege as non-drinkers and non-weed smokers will be like you were and start drinking and smoking. Then you post criticizing people who don't use thesesubstances because they think that their effects may be harmful. Yours and Joseph Camel Jr's arrogance was what caused me to post what I did becausey'all come off like you think you're some "enlightened" weed smokers who are in on some secret non-smokers are too stupid to be in on. Longstory short, you guys acted like you were better than people who don't smoke weed so I gave you my perspective on what I perceived as your misplacedarrogance.
I honestly don't think I'm better than anyone except people without compassion and hypocrites. However, when I get a sense that someone else thinksthey're better than others, I often feel like taking them down a notch... If that wasn't the case with you, then I apologize.
