SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Meta at Science News reports on a new study (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1516648113) still paywalled at PNAS:
Marijuana is used more than any other recreational drug, with recent trends toward greater social and legal acceptance in some regions. Concerns remain, however, about a possible causal relationship suggested in scientific studies between marijuana use and decline in IQ.
A new study from two longitudinal studies of twins, examine the link between marijuana use and IQ using data from more than three thousand individuals from Southern California and Minnesota.
The study by scientists from UCLA and the University of Minnesota focused on three criteria they proposed as measures for evidence of a direct causal relationship between marijuana use and cognitive decline.
- If marijuana use causes IQ decline, as opposed to merely being associated, then poor cognition scores should only be evident after use begins, and not before.
- If a causal link exists, a dose-response relationship would be expected.– that is, higher decline with heavier marijuana use.
- finally, if the relationship is causal, then the association of marijuana use and IQ decline should remain, even after accounting for genetic and social factors.
In tests of abstract reasoning and problem solving associated (called "fluid intelligence") showed no significant differences between uses and non users.
[more]
The study did find decreases in ability among marijuana users compared to non-users in the ability to use previously learned knowledge. (Vocabulary and Information retrieval, or so called "crystallized intelligence".)
The authors noted, however, that the baseline IQ scores of eventual users were already significantly lower in the affected areas.
Here, marijuana use does not precede cognitive decline, and they point out prior evidence that suggests other factors such as behavioral disinhibition and conduct disorder that may predispose individuals to both lower IQ and substance use.
(So criteria 1 above was not met).
The study also found no relationship between heavier or more frequent marijuana use and the magnitude of IQ decline.
(Criteria 2 was not met).
Finally, the authors examined the effects of outside factors associated with IQ decline. They found the decrease in Vocabulary scores was reduced in one study and "completely eliminated" in the other when adjusted for participants who self-reported binge drinking and use of other drugs.
(Criteria 3 also failed).
The authors conclude that taken together, the results provide "little evidence to suggest that adolescent marijuana use has any direct effect on intellectual decline".
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Wednesday January 20 2016, @03:35AM
the fact that you find discussions to be "disrespectful and controlling" is because you fail to acknowledge that this is not a universally agreed upon concept.
I still consider such people to be acting disrespectfully and to be controlling, even if they don't agree that they are.
what you have stated is that anyone that does not agree with your point of view on this issue is being disrespectful and controlling before you even meet them. there is name for that, prejudice.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by jdavidb on Wednesday January 20 2016, @01:37PM
what you have stated is that anyone that does not agree with your point of view on this issue is being disrespectful and controlling before you even meet them. there is name for that, prejudice.
Some people believe that those who want to use marijuana should be controlled and forbidden from doing so. That is the very definition of controlling. I used to be open to that sort of viewpoint but after serious consideration I have rejected it. Furthermore I see this is why political discussions cannot be respectful: one or both sides want the other to be forced to submit to their point of view.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Wednesday January 20 2016, @05:05PM
what should be allowed and what should be prohibited is a matter of what is good for the general welfare. you have to remember that everyone is part of an interconnected society, so if what one person does infringes upon what is good for the general welfare, it's where your rights end. your particular issue is not unique but rather of a type because the same argument could easily be used by anti-vaxxers, tax dodgers, cult leaders and all sorts of people doing crazy things that are bad for the general welfare. you decided that regardless of the consequences of doing so, people should be able to use marijuana and anyone who thought otherwise was automatically controlling and disrespectful. the general welfare should always be considered when speaking of personal liberties... unless you are an anarchist.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday January 20 2016, @05:29PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Thursday January 21 2016, @01:35AM
well then, only thing you have accomplishes here is proving you are both a fool and a hypocrite.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 21 2016, @05:52PM
A fool I can understand, but not "hypocrite".
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday January 21 2016, @05:48PM
what should be allowed and what should be prohibited is a matter of what is good for the general welfare
Never heard of individual liberties, then? Personally, I'm not a fan of tyranny of the majority, so I will have to disagree. If you seek to control what other people are allowed to put into their own bodies, you are nothing but a moral thug and should be treated with nothing but absolute contempt. Since I am not a coward who favors safety over liberty, such authoritarians are my enemies.
Pretty much everything is going to have some indirect effect on others. That is no excuse to ban something.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Thursday January 21 2016, @07:38PM
If you seek to control what other people are allowed to put into their own bodies, you are nothing but a moral thug
this has nothing to do with morals. if something is proven to lower your IQ or be chemically addictive then it should be banned or heavily regulated because it will have a widespread negative cumulative effect on society. if you think this is wrong, perhaps you should investigate the absurd amount of people that have and will become diabetic.
Pretty much everything is going to have some indirect effect on others. That is no excuse to ban something.
should we allow people to put lead in paint and gasoline? should we let everyone pollute as much as they like? indirect effects are absolutely good enough reasons to ban something.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday January 21 2016, @08:54PM
this has nothing to do with morals.
Of course it does. You're suggesting that it's alright to violate people's fundamental right to control their own bodies in the name of safety. To me, you're no better than those who say we should have mass surveillance to stop the terrorists, or other such things. Even if you don't support mass surveillance simply because you don't think it is effective, you probably would support it if they made it effective, at least judging from what you've said so far. If so, that means you cannot ever be considered to be a real ally when it comes to matters of freedom, as you will abandon everyone's freedoms when you want to increase safety.
if something is proven to lower your IQ or be chemically addictive then it should be banned or heavily regulated because it will have a widespread negative cumulative effect on society.
Science doesn't tell us what we "should" do; it doesn't deal with such questions at all. So even if such proof is found, we could still say that we prefer freedom over a deeply authoritarian society that is more safe. Well, maybe not you, since you seem to think living in padded rooms is okay.
if you think this is wrong, perhaps you should investigate the absurd amount of people that have and will become diabetic.
Freedom is more important than safety, so the number of people who have and will become diabetic is irrelevant to this conversation.
should we allow people to put lead in paint and gasoline? should we let everyone pollute as much as they like?
What I said was that the mere existence of an indirect effect on others is not enough to ban something. You require something more than that. But your thought process appears to be so authoritarian in nature that it seems likely that you would find any given reason to ban something that you don't like to be good enough, so I'm wasting my time.
indirect effects are absolutely good enough reasons to ban something.
Ice skating is unnecessary and dangerous. You could have an accident, get injured, and then the taxpayers might have to foot the bill in some way. Obviously, this is unacceptable and we must ban ice skating or other similar activities that are unnecessary and could indirectly affect others in negative ways.
I'd rather just pay more taxes than live in the tyrannical society you seem to desire. That's an option too.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Thursday January 21 2016, @09:44PM
To me, you're no better than those who say we should have mass surveillance to stop the terrorists
...
you will abandon everyone's freedoms when you want to increase safety.
...
Well, maybe not you, since you seem to think living in padded rooms is okay.
...
But your thought process appears to be so authoritarian in nature that it seems likely that you would find any given reason to ban something that you don't like to be good enough, so I'm wasting my time.
...
I'd rather just pay more taxes than live in the tyrannical society you seem to desire.
"Splitting (also called black and white thinking or all-or-nothing thinking) is the failure in a person's thinking to bring together both positive and negative qualities of the self and others into a cohesive, realistic whole. It is a common defense mechanism used by many people.[1] The individual tends to think in extremes (i.e., an individual's actions and motivations are all good or all bad with no middle ground)."
you are your own problem, not me.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday January 22 2016, @12:05AM
Nice try, but that has nothing to do with the validity of what I said.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Friday January 22 2016, @08:38AM
to be clear, i'm not participating in a flame war, so i'm done discussing the matter with you.
(Score: 2) by rondon on Wednesday January 20 2016, @02:06PM
Please explain to me, Gravis, how prejudice is always a bad thing (I feel that is what your statement implied; if not, please feel free to disregard my request and instead educate me on your actual intent). Is it bad to be prejudiced against murder, for example? I feel like jdavid is simply expressing that he has an extreme prejudice against people who believe they should infringe on the freedoms of others.