The Scientific Method, on the other hand, begins with collection of at least 6,000 observations. The data are organized into categories that are assigned scientific names like "cognitive function" and "pothead". To the trained eye, patterns emerge in the nomenclature, then hypotheses are formed and systematized into a theory.

Shouldn't an economist know that a correlation between cannabis use and lower math scores does not prove that cannabis consumption causes lower math scores? Could it not be that those who are less math-oriented and more reading-oriented are more likely to use cannabis?

If that's not enough, look at this wording: "Those who started smoking marijuana had 15 percent lower scores in math than non-smokers but no difference in the reading test, Pacula said." Notice, she did not say that those who started smoking had lower 12th grade scores than 10th grade scores, nor did she say that the difference between the 10th grade scores and 12th grade scores for non-smokers was greater than the difference between 10th grade scores and 12th grade scores for smokers. Indeed, she neglected to mention any change over time at all, even though this study was clearly designed to measure changes in scores over time. It could very well be that the nonsmokers had lower math scores to begin with, which would suggest a personality trait that distinguishes those who are more likely to smoke cannabis from those less likely to. Of course, we cannot know for sure because this report does not give us all of the facts--only the NIDA approved version.

Then, of course, there is mayan's astute observation that there is no way to know whether the self-reporting of cannabis usage is accurate, thus it must be assumed inaccurate. We cannot say we know something with certainty unless (surprise!) we actually know something with certainty. Basic science.

Go figure that such concepts are lost on this RAND economist.

After all she is an Economist!

I supposed she never met the guys who worked for my company..

We built 1000 homes in a year. 90% of the company on weed @ 110% of the time. And we been doing this for 20 years..

And we were singing!

1 plus 1

equals

Rosalie Pacula!!

After all she is an Economist!

Not!!

pace

A few of these recreational closet cases have had the nerve to try to bum weed from ME at a physics conference and then tell me that they don't care if marijuana remains illegal.

The rest of the crowd in physics, however, tends to see my marijuana activism as a heroic activity on their behalf.

I finished my Ph.D. in physics while a member of the LACRC, and that is a documented fact.

This result is more junk science from the correlation is causation folks.

http://canadaeast.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030619/CPN/24270022&cachetime=15

Breaking Canadian News Online Thursday, June 19, 2003

Dozens smoke pot at Toronto police station flaunting "lawful right" to toke

TORONTO (CP) - Dozens of pot smokers toked in front of Toronto police headquarters at 4:20 p.m. Thursday and were ignored by authorities as they flaunted what cannabis crusader Marc Emery called "the lawful right to possess marijuana."

Emery, a Vancouver resident, had promoted the event on one his Web sites, pot-tv.net, telling fellow pot enthusiasts: "In Ontario, Canada, you can walk the streets freely with your marijuana. You can smoke marijuana anywhere it is legal to smoke tobacco." At Thursday's pot party there was no visible police presence; the revellers were left to smoke their joints, bongs and pipes in peace.

A few cruisers passed by briefly but no officers were seen amongst the crowd. Inside police headquarters, no officers were made available to comment.

Police organizations in Ontario have said they will not lay charges for possession of marijuana under 30 grams until the laws are clarified.