It doesn't matter because you can't do a double blind study on pot. Double blind -> the patient doesn't know what they got. "Hmm did I get cannabis or oregano? I just can't tell". :)

You can still do a randomized trial and that's the one that wouldn't pass the IRB.

Heh. Can one eliminate the high from THC without removing its other impacts? This would be akin to taking pills preventing alcohol inebriation.

(Or, use high school freshman for the study and really convincing upperclassmen as actors to convince them it is a real bag.)

It's a great question. You can get high CBD strains now (it's getting dubbed "type 3") and you get the body relaxation and calming effects but none of the mental impact.

There aren't many studies on what are the real impacts of CBD.

> Can one eliminate the high from THC without removing its other impacts?

Are we to presume that the high itself isn't potentially a causative factor?

I’m not calling for double blind study here, I’m not even sure how that would be possible.

Sometimes we’re stuck with “I don’t know” and recognizing that is IMO important.

People who don’t smoke also have psychotic episodes, so no you don’t know you assume.

My Bayesian prior has been sufficiently updated to effectively know: I don't know a single mother with a restraining order for a son who doesn't smoke too much weed. I have met a bunch of mothers and sons in my life. In a Popperian sense we can all only assume so stop splitting hairs.

Clearly, smoking a shit ton is bad for people with marginal mental health or marginal emotional health.

According to Scott Alexander, I only hate the grey tribe outgroup ergo with enough e-risk paperclip minimization, we can drop p(doom) with lowered replacement fertility levels via lethargy from cannabis consumption, meaning marijuana is a hedon machine and positively utilitarian. Legalizing marijuana is effectively altruistic.

Clearly, weed is good

Couching it in pseudo-scientific babble doesn't change the fact that it's an isolated data point, and you're vying for the olympic goal for jumping to conclusions.

he's being ironic

https://i.rdrama.net/images/17204020385384521.webp

So you agree as Bayesian prior’s are literally assumptions.

Anecdata.

> Some drunks drink more as they approach bottom. Is it the booze? Is it being the sort of person who becomes a drunk? Does it matter? More booze ain't helping.

I mean, it kind of does. If you want to design intervention, it helps to know which causes the other to a greater degree.

"My friend, I see your life is falling apart but don't put down the bottle" is something no rational person says.

If it's severe enough, quitting alcohol cold turkey can be life-threatening. And for some, they don't take longer than a day from drinking to realize they're on the path to delirium tremens.

Of course not.

But, should we (the gov) spend 10 million dollars on social services to prevent people's lives from going to hell, should we spend 10 million dollars on anti-alcohol addiction services or should we spend it half and half, are questions we as a society need answers to.