On 18 Apr 2014, at 16:13, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 3:36 PM, <ghib...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, April 18, 2014 1:36:43 PM UTC+1, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
wrote:
The "causes schizophrenia" is correlation based conjecture.
That is the question, I think.
I think you are probably contextualizing this matter wrong. It isn't
a matter fundamental causation. That's really another matter
entirely. If someone has x probability of developing schizophrenia
all being equal, but 2*x probability if they happen to smoke a lot
of pot. That's causation in the meaningful sense here.
You cannot infer causation because it could be reverse causation or
there could be a hidden variable. In the reverse causation
hypothesis, early schizophrenia traits would cause people to be more
interested in smoking cannabis. In the hidden variable hypothesis,
some other trigger (e.g environmental or genetic) would cause both a
propensity for schizophrenia and to smoking cannabis. In both these
scenarios, abstaining from cannabis would not improve your chances
of not developing schizophrenia.
This is the same mistake as concluding that playing basketball makes
you taller.
All our beliefs, relative to a possible reality, are correlation based
conjectures. All, from the beliefs in parents, earth, moons, bosons,
galaxies, as well as numbers, programs.
The question is only if the correlation is made correctly.
Some people argue that cannabis is a gate way drug, because they
believe that 70% of the heroin users have begun with
cannabis. In this case the correlation is used in a non valid way.
To measure if cannabis leads to heroin, you have to compare the subset
of heroin user included in the set of cannabis user, with the subset
of heroin user in non-cannabis users. Not the subset of cannabis user
in the set of heroin user.
That can strikes the eyes, as you can answer that 100% of the heroin
user have begun with milk, making milk into a terrible gate way drug!
You can argue that we should put all babies in jail directly, as it
has been shown that 100% of the great criminals have begun by being
baby! May be we should forbid love!
That error is really a confusion between p=>q and q=>p, or between (A
included-in B) and (B included-in A).
It is used by the demagogs, the manipulators, the racists and
xenophobes.
For schizophrenia, the controversy is unclear to me. The question is
only "is cannabis good or bad medication for schizophrenia. From what
I read, the answer is that it depends on other factors. For paranoia,
it is a very bad medication, although they might be exceptions.
I'm not throwing a definite claim out, but so far as I am aware,
there is a significant connection with pot smoking. Correlation is
good enough for here.
But it's apparently not good enough for alcohol, nicotine and
caffeine:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3181622/
Interesting. But all is in the self-moderation, which is helped when
you get information, instead of misinformation.
Who cares - and who knows - what the fundamental cause is, if
cannabis is a high risk for triggering it, where there are few other
triggers likely to have come in its place. That's a problem. Maybe
society thinks its an acceptable statistic. Maybe not.
What society thinks has nothing to do with it, because weak
correlation-based scientific evidence is used selectively to create
laws that were desired a priori by some interest group.
Yes, and we know all the details. The prohibition of marijuana started
from a deception, a trickery, an hocus-pocus, a fraud (as Google
suggests for the french "supercherie").
The cannabis case is a symptom of something graver, which is that,
democracies are not immune against propaganda.
Legalizing marijuana is not enough. We must find ways to avoid
repeating similar errors.
But it's the same problem in practical terms as if cannabis did
cause it. Same problem adjusted for whatever numbers.
Not strongly convincing, because I bet all the subjects consumed
sugar and were involved in variety of other behaviors and
consumptions. People don't live in test tube and the results of
questionnaires and tests of this sort should be taken with a large
grain of salt. It's just easy science to make money with and get
funds for, from appropriate interests. To be able to single out that
it was the Cannabis in all these people's lives as exclusive cause,
and not merely trigger of latent tendency, is too strong. You can
say "we suppose, correlation, because reason x, sample size y". A
lot of things can precipitate psychosis in patients that already
have some preisposition
PGC you're an interesting arty author guy, to my eye anyway. But
being truthful, I don't see a lot of content here. You're asking to
smooth and normalize, and perhaps there's an argument that hey if we
make people wear trousers what are we going to force on them next.
It's much more arguable this would sit in the case-by-case bracket.
I think I would also have to question your use of correlation vs
causation type argument. The correlate is the major component in
scientific statistics. A correlate is not nothing PGC.
We can infer validly from evidences indeed. The cannabis file is
almost a treasury containing all possible sort of invalid inference,
but only in media, not in the papers, except when funded by the
governments (indeed).
The situation is unclear to me for schizophrenia/cannabis relation.
There are no population statistics, so it seems to me only
speculation, but if people has good references on this.
We're talking poison, so ghibbsa, you're barking up the wrong tree
if you're claiming that some people claim it "innocent". But you're
right: it's more the world that people live in than the poison
itself. If your perspective is a dead end job of being mechanically
exploited and underpaid below ability to survive and make a living,
and no exit is palpable, then you have increased poison use; without
that, I think we'd see more breakdowns, psychosis, and crimes
happening. It is asking too much to expect that segment of society
to function "properly" while being shafted. PGC
I don't disagree.
Me neither. I agree actually.
I had added that there wouldn't likely be enough to go one way or
another on cannabis. But again, I don't have a clear sense of the
distinctiveness of what you say here. The effects of drugs at the
lower strata of society, is or should be one of the major
considerations. Because it's there that we see community collapse,
intractable criminality and violence, and other serious problems,
much of which is related to drugs.
Well, only because of prohibition of drugs. To prohibit a drug is ipso
facto an offer of a market to criminals, who will target the kids and
the sick/weak. The violence follows, but again, only because the
product is illegal.
I know only one drug which leads to violence (with the correlation
measured in the right direction), it is alcohol.
Very addictive drugs can then lead to violence, but only because they
are artificially made non disposable. Such drug with high potency
exists sometimes only because of prohibition, and if legal, would
require a medical prescription.
To make a drug illegal is a total nonsense. It makes the minor drug
problem into ... well even a war.
Like a cops says(*) : there is no jail in the entire world where drugs
does not come in. If you can't control it in a jail, there is no hope
to control it outside, unless ...you legalize it.
It makes no sense to make natural products illegal. It makes only
sense to regulate them. That adds a key partial control.
Bruno
Guy in the dead end job possibly not so much.......sadly people in
that sort of life seem to manage to keep their desperation behind
their bedsitter door.
OK sure, part of my story...a long way back in childhood sees me
sensitized to segments of society that probably you are not, or are
less so. That alright, but it isn't a legitimate line of argument
that alone. If you don't think it matters...why don't you? If you
think the damage is reasonable, what do you know about it? If you
think society isn't paying a hefty price...really? What do you
actually know about this matter?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
