Quote:
|
Originally Posted by towny
I think you're mincing words a little here ... surely calling this evidence an 'interesting statistical correlation' is not dissimilar to a newspaper printing a 'clarification' because it doesn't like to use the word 'correction'?
Evidence is evidence. Some evidence is deeply impressive and conclusive all by itself, other evidence is effective as part of a greater body of information. Perhaps the subject does call for further study, but I don't see any justification for attempting to call a spade an earth-moving implement, except to draw attention away from information that contradicts your own point of view.
|
I would have to agree with Dr Wadd analysis. The article has shown a correlation between cannabis use and use of other drugs which does not seem to be caused by genetics. It does not pose any mechanism, and does not take any account of nurture or social circumstances. It that is to be evidence for cannabis playing a role in the subsequent use of hard drugs, than that evidence is to very poor by scientific standards as the mechanism is not understood.
So, if you want to call it evidence, go ahead, but realise that it does not bring us much closer, and as the article suggests, very different policies could be based on it, from stricter to more lenient policies.