|
Post by nolaxride on Sept 3, 2014 17:49:11 GMT -5
"127 kids between the ages of 14-19 does not make pot physically addictive. It makes the study way to small to have any significance." What did I tell you folks? The study "Shall Be Flawed." The only part you missed was the "98% Peer-Reviewed Scientific Consensus" part sport. Modern Day Liberalism. Modern Day Liberal Pot Smoking Maggots. "127 kids between the ages of 14-19 does not make pot physically addictive. It makes the study way to small to have any significance." What did I tell you folks? The study "Shall Be Flawed." The only part you missed was the "98% Peer-Reviewed Scientific Consensus" part sport. Modern Day Liberalism. Modern Day Liberal Pot Smoking Maggots. actually, as I review what you predicted, that wasn't part of your list. peer reviewed doesn't mean the study was flawed, and using a limited statistical sample doesn't mean it was flawed either. what it means is that the sample is too small to reach a meaningful hypotesis about whether or not marijuana is addictive.
|
|
|
Post by evilconempire on Sept 3, 2014 18:17:04 GMT -5
"127 kids between the ages of 14-19 does not make pot physically addictive. It makes the study way to small to have any significance." What did I tell you folks? The study "Shall Be Flawed." The only part you missed was the "98% Peer-Reviewed Scientific Consensus" part sport. Modern Day Liberalism. Modern Day Liberal Pot Smoking Maggots. "127 kids between the ages of 14-19 does not make pot physically addictive. It makes the study way to small to have any significance." What did I tell you folks? The study "Shall Be Flawed." The only part you missed was the "98% Peer-Reviewed Scientific Consensus" part sport. Modern Day Liberalism. Modern Day Liberal Pot Smoking Maggots. actually, as I review what you predicted, that wasn't part of your list. peer reviewed doesn't mean the study was flawed, and using a limited statistical sample doesn't mean it was flawed either. what it means is that the sample is too small to reach a meaningful hypotesis about whether or not marijuana is addictive. Also, these were a"dolescents receiving outpatient treatment for substance use disorder" already. Where's the control group?
|
|
|
Post by nolaxride on Sept 3, 2014 18:23:02 GMT -5
actually, as I review what you predicted, that wasn't part of your list. peer reviewed doesn't mean the study was flawed, and using a limited statistical sample doesn't mean it was flawed either. what it means is that the sample is too small to reach a meaningful hypotesis about whether or not marijuana is addictive. Also, these were a"dolescents receiving outpatient treatment for substance use disorder" already. Where's the control group? lol... control group was the extra shovel...
|
|
|
Post by antisteroidforce on Sept 4, 2014 6:07:37 GMT -5
"Limited statistical sample." "The sample is too small." "Too small to reach a meaningful hypothesis." "Control group."
And the predictable folly continues folks.
People addicted to Pot will advance any argument to get their addiction legalized, while smearing anyone and anything that stands in the way.
What's next Pot Smoking Maggots, "uneducated and scientifically illiterate KNUCKLE-DRAGGERS? File complaints with ProBoards to silence those eviscerating you on a daily basis?
You cannot win this or any other debate on this board.
Modern Day Liberalism. Modern Day Liberal Pot Smoking Maggots.
|
|
|
Post by antisteroidforce on Sept 4, 2014 7:08:04 GMT -5
Gee I wonder of Max will come here to "Demolish" ASF in this thread too.
Modern Day Liberalism.
|
|
|
Post by maxwell on Sept 4, 2014 14:45:26 GMT -5
Gee I wonder of Max will come here to "Demolish" ASF in this thread too. Modern Day Liberalism. This isn't worth it to me, because your opinion vs my real life experience isn't going to change anything & with "addiction" there are too many variables to be concrete one way or the other, although the scales re tipped much more in favor of cannibis being a non addictive substance. The other topic though, where I gave you concrete facts as you continued digging a hole for yourself was quite fun especially as I handed your ass on a silver platter. L-O-L.
|
|
|
Post by antisteroidforce on Sept 4, 2014 15:07:53 GMT -5
Demolished here?
No.
Demolished elsewhere?
Nope.
Keep laughing out loud sport.
|
|
|
Post by maxwell on Sept 4, 2014 15:13:07 GMT -5
Demolished here? No. Demolished elsewhere? Nope. Keep laughing out loud sport. Keep denying it. It doesn't change facts. But it amuses me.
|
|
|
Post by evilconempire on Sept 4, 2014 15:18:43 GMT -5
Beatne down then? Destroyed? Perhaps humiliated? Pwnd? Oh I know, eviscerated. That's the one.
rotflmao
|
|
|
Post by shaniqua on Sept 4, 2014 17:27:17 GMT -5
Anybody have some smoke?
|
|