The 2018 Federal Wide Legalization for the Recreational Use of Cannabis - Canada

[MrTiki]

Steven again they're distinct things:
Schizophrenia can cause people to harm themselves or others.
Heavy cannabis use increases the likelihood of an individual developing schizophrenia or having psychotic episodes.
Terrorists use drugs, including cannabis, for short term highs (in terms of mood) and/or to prevent them thinking about what they're doing.

Saying that they're equivalent is blatantly false. You can replace the word cannabis with alcohol and you'd just have to change schizophrenia to depression, personality disorders or just generally aggression.

I mean technically speaking, if we're talking about actual psychosis induced violence, then they're not actually terrorists, as they're just mentally ill. That being said, we seem to reserve that term for caucasians for some reason.


Edit: I wasn't disputing a correlation, I was simply saying that the Daily Mail jumping to conclusions about causation is not at all scientific or indeed based in any sort of fact.

[StevenChilton]

Steven again they're distinct things:
Schizophrenia can cause people to harm themselves or others.
Heavy cannabis use increases the likelihood of an individual developing schizophrenia or having psychotic episodes.
Terrorists use drugs, including cannabis, for short term highs (in terms of mood) and/or to prevent them thinking about what they're doing.

Saying that they're equivalent is blatantly false. You can replace the word cannabis with alcohol and you'd just have to change schizophrenia to depression, personality disorders or just generally aggression.

Don't understand your argument. Your first two sentences I agree with but when you said 'Terrorists use drugs, including cannabis, for short term highs (in terms of mood) and/or to prevent them thinking about what they're doing' I don't quite get it. Time and again the same story plays out: losers who aren't very religious, have petty criminal records and take drugs suddenly find their faith, get radicalised and blow themselves up. The cannabis comes before they turn to terrorism.

[Phoen!x]

Correlation is what is used to identify trends in such large data sets-how do you think we first discovered the link between lung cancer and smoking? It's perfectly valid and is part of the scientific method.

It shows that there might be something, correct, but no it is not to be used as a replacement of evidence. Then it is not 'perfectly valid and is part of the scientific method'. So either you make a point or you say that you might have a point in 5 years.

As far as I know there have been no studies that suggest cannabis is linked to terrorism. The reverse is also true however, there have been no studies to disprove it either. I dunno if there's anyone out there with an interest in the subject and access to a pot () of grant money but that may be something to investigate.

Correct again. In science if you cant prove a hypothesis nor it's antithesis, you acknowledge that you have clue. If you want to make a point which needs evidence to back it up however, it's on you to prove it and not on me to disprove it. In science, as you know, an active claim is treated with more scepsis in terms of evidence than a passive one and rightly so.

When the correlation is that striking it deserves attention.

Yes in order to find out if there is a link. It can't be used to presuppose one.

[Riddlez]

I mean technically speaking, if we're talking about actual psychosis induced violence, then they're not actually terrorists, as they're just mentally ill. That being said, we seem to reserve that term for caucasians for some reason.

This isn't true, terrorism can be a result of violence instigated by mental illness. The motivation for someone committing a violent act should still be taken into account, whether that person is mentally ill or not. Anders Breivik is mentally ill, but is also a terrorist, because his act was because of political motivation. The fact you are actually capable of comitting such an act is evidence of mental illness.

[StevenChilton]

I didn't claim it was true, I merely stated it was suspiciously highly correlated and should be further investigated. I personally thinks it's more likely than not that cannabis is playing a role but apparently there's no grant money available for someone to look into it. How odd given a) the correlation, and b) the newsworthiness of terrorism and cannabis legalisation.

[Phoen!x]

I didn't claim it was true, I merely stated it was suspiciously highly correlated and should be further investigated. I personally thinks it's more likely than not that cannabis is playing a role but apparently there's no grant money available for someone to look into it. How odd given a) the correlation, and b) the newsworthiness of terrorism and cannabis legalisation.

Well as long as you dont want to pass legislation because of it, everything's fine

[Vincenzo]

I didn't claim it was true, I merely stated it was suspiciously highly correlated and should be further investigated. I personally thinks it's more likely than not that cannabis is playing a role but apparently there's no grant money available for someone to look into it. How odd given a) the correlation, and b) the newsworthiness of terrorism and cannabis legalisation.

I think you really fit to this:
https://www.sciencealert.com/researchers-have-figured-out-what-makes-people-reject-science-and-it-s-not-ignorance

take whatever "facts" you can find online to support the conservative ideas you have in your head. no offence intended.

[StevenChilton]

I didn't claim it was true, I merely stated it was suspiciously highly correlated and should be further investigated. I personally thinks it's more likely than not that cannabis is playing a role but apparently there's no grant money available for someone to look into it. How odd given a) the correlation, and b) the newsworthiness of terrorism and cannabis legalisation.

I think you really fit to this:
https://www.sciencealert.com/researchers-have-figured-out-what-makes-people-reject-science-and-it-s-not-ignorance

take whatever "facts" you can find online to support the conservative ideas you have in your head. no offence intended.

I don't fit to it at all given there's no scientific consensus whatsoever on cannabis and terrorism. Anyway we shouldn't put science on a pedestal and say whatever the consensus is must be the truth and you can't question it. Science often gets it wrong-the whole point is you constantly question everything. Thalidomide used to be considered safe, homosexuality was classed as a disease up until the mid 1970s, the majority of doctors used to smoke...even Bill Nye is having to edit his old shows to remove references to there being only two genders rather than the 69 that exist today. It's pretty much a given that most published scientific research findings are false.

Put science on a pedestal and you end up with this:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470496/

[Phoen!x]

I don't fit to it at all given there's no scientific consensus whatsoever on cannabis and terrorism.

There's no discussion about it as there are no scientist pushing the idea of there being a link with evidence from what I know. You have linked an article from the dailymail, journalists aren't scientists.
[/quote]

Anyway we shouldn't put science on a pedestal and say whatever the consensus is must be the truth and you can't question it. Science often gets it wrong-the whole point is you constantly question everything.

Question everything.
Doesn't mean you can ignore a discrepancy in facts and feel right to do so as you want to be a sceptic. You will always have to believe in one version and it should be the one backed up by scientific evidence. Obviously that doesn't mean you cant question it but everything can always turn to be wrong but we have to take decision nonetheless.

halidomide used to be considered safe, homosexuality was classed as a disease up until the mid 1970s

New knock ledge -> new scientific position, obviously. Same point as above.
Classifications can not be compared to truth claims as they are quite subjetive. There is no concrete line to be cross in order for something to be a disease and not an abnormality.

the majority of doctors used to smoke...

And I drink ~1L coca cola a day knowing it is really bad. Is coca cola healthy or don't I know about it being unhealthy now ? Maybe that's not mutually exclusive...

even Bill Nye is having to edit his old shows to remove references to there being only two genders rather than the 69 that exist today. It's pretty much a given that most published scientific research findings are false.

Don't know why he does it but I'm pretty sure it's about politics and not science.

[Edwin]

I think you really fit to this:
https://www.sciencealert.com/researchers-have-figured-out-what-makes-people-reject-science-and-it-s-not-ignorance

take whatever "facts" you can find online to support the conservative ideas you have in your head. no offence intended.

Some ardently religious conservatives might be ignorant of science, but at least they don't attack it like the other side of the spectrum:

[StevenChilton]

That DM article was guest written by a doctor, but okay.

The point is that there is no consensus, and even if there was it's perfectly valid to question it. A significant number, if not a majority, of terror attacks are carried out by people who are psychotic and with a history of drug use. I first became suspicious after reading an account given by the perpetrator's brother:
https://www.channel4.com/news/leytonstone-attack-accused-had-mental-health-problems

Does this not make you suspicious as to whether there is a link? Does it not make logical sense given everything we already know/are beginning to find out about cannabis and mental health?

[Toffee]

Correlation is not causation Steven. I've said it before and I'll say it again.

[Vincenzo]

If weed makes you an terrorist, why did nobody blow up the netherlands yet? we have 500.000 muslims, cheap legal weed and 0 terrorattacks. oh snap.

[Phoen!x]

That DM article was guest written by a doctor, but okay.

The point is that there is no consensus, and even if there was it's perfectly valid to question it. A significant number, if not a majority, of terror attacks are carried out by people who are psychotic and with a history of drug use. I first became suspicious after reading an account given by the perpetrator's brother:
https://www.channel4.com/news/leytonstone-attack-accused-had-mental-health-problems

Does this not make you suspicious as to whether there is a link? Does it not make logical sense given everything we already know/are beginning to find out about cannabis and mental health?

He wrote a bs article about correlations without actual evidence. That's not enough for me to consider it material of a scientific debate. Might be the reason for other people to start one but nothing more. There is no controversy if there isn't evidence on both sides or at least different approaches to its interpretation. When no one touched the issue then there simply isn't a controversy. If there is no evidence for or against something, the scientific approach is a passive position: you can presuppose there not to be a link but you cannot presuppose a link.

If you don't even want actual evidence for your position anymore but are satisfied with correlation than a discussion becomes quite impossible.

[George385]

What I've found in my observations and also talking to soldiers who have seen combat and been in the houses that Islamic terrorists live in and also been in operations targeting houses of people who are conspiring to commit terrorism is that cannabis use is actually quite rare. There's opium everywhere but cannabis is extremely rare. The climate there makes it borderline impossible to grow the plant. Opium is how they fund themselves (legalize opium and most Islamic terrorist groups will have no money therefore no terror attacks). The fact that cannabis is extremely rare in these places proves that cannabis is not in any way linked to the causation of someone committing a terrorist attack. 90% of terrorists don't use cannabis. Because 90% of them don't have access to cannabis. Cannabis has only ever been proven to trigger schizophrenic episodes, in terms of psychotic effects. I've seen schizophrenics use cannabis it's not pretty. But schizophrenics account for less than 1% of the population. So that's fair to punish the 99.5% of the population so the .5% can't have access to cannabis? What about all the people with Parkinson's? Or the cancer patients dealing with total pain from chemotherapy? The fact that people think that cannabis being illegal is stopping people from getting is simply laughable. Honestly walk outside down a fairly popular street and I can guarantee you that you will see someone who knows how to get you cannabis within 5 minutes of your walk. It's seriously the easiest thing to obtain.