Correlation is not causation. Maybe violent people smoke weed. Maybe it even chills them out partially, and they commit less violent acts than they would have otherwise? The study doesn't address this.Like it or not, there is an observable statistical correlation between instances of domestic violence and prolonged marijuana use.
This is all your personal experience. Not to take anything away from that, but it is only one data point. It is not relevant to the study, which tries to show that a trend exists society-wide.People don't get high and get violent, but I have seen many pot smokers become extremely aggressive when they're NOT high. Violent outbursts are not uncommon for pot-heads, contrary to what you might like to believe. Stoners might be totally mellow when they're stoned, but if you back them into a paranoid corner they can snap. And if you take away their weed, they are capable of anything.
Not representative of the general populace.Data were obtained from 9,421 adolescents
Very rough data coding scheme, categorizing those who used once in the past year with those who smoked daily.Marijuana use was measured in the past year at each wave and participants were categorized as “users” or “nonusers.”
Using self-reports? People are highly likely to want to lie about such violence.Partner violence was constructed using six items (three pertaining to victimization and three concerning perpetration) from Wave 4 (2007-200.
Here, "consistent use" seems to cover those that used it once each year.Consistent use of marijuana during adolescence was most predictive of intimate partner violence (OR = 2.08, p < .001).
Much weaker link here. There is a 5% chance that these results are not actually significant.Consistent marijuana use (OR = 1.85, p < .05) was related to an increased risk of intimate partner violence perpetration.
Come now, silly.Your mom is probably a rapist.
Semantics = meaning.Pedantry and semantics aside
Confirmation bias. You believed the connection existed, and so when you found the article, you felt supported and justified.I cited the article as evidence of something I have observed both in myself and in others.
Again, if you want to say that you have seen it, nobody here is going to deny it.Marijuana addiction causes violence. I've seen it many many times.
Hard to compare cannabis addiction and heroin addiction.You can say, "You don't often hear about people smoking a joint then attacking each other," and think that it means something. Yet you don't often hear the same logic in defense of heroin. "You don't often see people injecting heroin then attacking each other." A junky doesn't rob his grandmother when he's nodding. He does it in an act of desperation.
Too bad. I was interested.I don't have the time or inclination to debate the validity of articles.
That is not really a very scientific approach. Not that it is not valid, at least for you, in your mind. But there is a big difference between telling us that you have observed a trend and saying that there is solid scientific evidence for a correlation.I am aware that cross-referencing is required. I have cross-referenced my observations.
It seems to me that being certain is one of the greatest mistakes a scientist, or any thinker, can make.I am certain. There is a direct relationship between violence and marijuana.
If your point is only that cannabis is linked to violence, then the comparison with alcohol is meaningless.You might argue that alcohol is "more violent", but as I said: that is neither here nor there.
Semantics = meaning
You believed the connection existed, and so when you found the article, you felt supported and justified.
Hard to compare cannabis addiction and heroin addiction. Heroin is a very different drug than cannabis. Users have a different profile. Withdrawals are very different. Maybe caffeine addiction would be a better comparison? If I don't get my daily dose of caffeine, I get a headache, and get in a pretty bad mood. But I don't run around shooting or kicking people.
That is not really a very scientific approach. Not that it is not valid, at least for you, in your mind. But there is a big difference between telling us that you have observed a trend and saying that there is solid scientific evidence for a correlation.
It seems to me that being certain is one of the greatest mistakes a scientist, or any thinker, can make.
Being certain means closing the minds' openness to other possibilities. Many scientists and other thinkers actually do this, but I would argue that keeping an open mind is one key to practicing science / philosophy in an ideal manner.
If your point is only that cannabis is linked to violence, then the comparison with alcohol is meaningless.
However, the focus of this thread is a comparison of the two (see the original article, for example), and so I would say that it is quite relevant.
"Marijuana parents aren’t perfect, but they’re far less imperfect than parents who use alcohol irresponsibly."
"Cannabis can influence people to be nicer to one another."
My apologies. I assumed this, based on how I probably would have felt.Don't tell me how I felt, dude. I felt nothing upon finding the article.
That is because coffee is legal and socially accepted.Heroin is closer than caffeine. I've never heard of anyone resorting to petty crime in order to buy a cup of coffee.
On the one hand, I completely agree that statistics are over-rated. But they can be useful as well.statistics are over-rated. Observation is key. I'm telling you I've seen something. I'm not lying. I'm not insane.
I am not sure I am getting what you are saying here.I don't think recreational drugs can be established as better or worse than each other. Whether or not alcohol is more or less violent than marijuana, is - therefore - neither here nor there. It is not generally irrelevant. Just irrelevant in the greater context of this discussion. Specifically, my chain of reasoning. If the article was specifically about violence, then it would be relevant. But, it's not. So we might as well debate whether or not marijuana is more or less demotivational than alcohol. Or which one is more likely to cause your head to explode.
I understand now. But I am still not convinced...I was simply attempting to illustrate the inaccuracy of the, "Alcohol causes violence and marijuana doesn't," argument.
I agree that there is a trend of people believing that weed is harmless, and that this is a big mistake.The blind insistence that marijuana is harmless, causes people pain. It is best to be honest and admit to new users that all drugs are harmful. Marijuana is not harmless. It is not comparable to coffee. It causes serious problems. I've seen it fuck up people's entire lives.
It seems to me that being certain is one of the greatest mistakes a scientist, or any thinker, can make... I feel certain that you bring a lot to life in general.
Sugar gives people diabetes