Medical Marijuana

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that enjoys cooking.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Yes, That would be correct.

But I did go back and read your post again. I am not sure I "get it". Maybe you can explain?

This is the post I'm referring to:

A basic principle of scientific investigation is that correlation does not equal causation.

You see a correlation between two things, but now you need evidence to prove that one caused the other.

Example: I woke up this morning. Did you? You did?! Wow! Did my waking cause yours, or did your waking cause mine? Or are they unrelated?

This explains it better than I can. See #2: http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html#false_cause_anchor
 
Thanks for the link, but I still do not understand what it has to do with anything in this thread.
Maybe you could elaborate?
Just because one thing happens and then something else happens, doesn't mean that there is any correlation between the two things.

Here's another example. There was an asbestos mining town. Many of the people who had really big TV antennas got cancer. People started to worry that the TV antennas were causing cancer. Someone looked at the statistics. Turns out that really big TV antennas are expensive. The majority of the people who had them were miners who had been putting in a lot of overtime hours. So, did the TV antennas cause cancer or was it all those extra hours inhaling asbestos particles, a known cancer cause? Or even something completely different?
 
Last edited:
Just because one thing happens and then something else happens, doesn't mean that there is any correlation between the two things.

Here's another example. There was an asbestos mining town. Many of the people who had really big TV antennas got cancer. People started to worry that the TV antennas were causing cancer. Someone looked at the statistics. Turns out that really big TV antennas are expensive. The majority of the people who had them were miners who had been putting in a lot of overtime hours. So, did the TV antennas cause cancer or was it all those extra hours inhaling asbestos particles, a known cancer cause? Or even something completely different?

How about an example with subject matter from this discussion. Then maybe I can see what you are trying to convey.
 
You were the one who already supplied that example Roll_Bones. You gave the correlation that pot, alcohol, opiate, get you high and they they are all used for pain relief therefore it must be the high that is causing the pain relief.
 
Well, I remember people used to say that smoking pot led to heroin use, since a majority of heroin users had smoked pot before using heroin. The standard reply to that was then drinking mother's milk or going to school must be what leads to heroin use.
 
That one went way over my head, Taxlady.
The point being that correlation does not equal proof. Yes many people who used heroine also used pot, but that does not mean that it was the pot that caused them to use heroine. Heroine users also probably drank their mothers milk, or went to school, but no one would ever say that going to school causes heroine use.

Same with RB's statement that pot gets you high as do opiates and alcohol and since those things ease pain then it must be the the high that is doing it. Correlation does not equal causation.
 
That one went way over my head, Taxlady.
Well, most of the people who use heroin, not only smoked pot before they used heroin, they drank mother's milk when they were babies and they went to school as children. So, it would make just as much sense to say that mother's milk or going to school leads to heroin as saying that pot leads to heroin use. Those things happened and then later, the person used heroin.
 
You were the one who already supplied that example Roll_Bones. You gave the correlation that pot, alcohol, opiate, get you high and they they are all used for pain relief therefore it must be the high that is causing the pain relief.

I see the obvious now.

Well, I remember people used to say that smoking pot led to heroin use, since a majority of heroin users had smoked pot before using heroin. The standard reply to that was then drinking mother's milk or going to school must be what leads to heroin use.

I will remember this for the next time I hear someone say M leads to hard drugs.

Thanks, TL and GB, for explaining this further. Does it make sense now, RB?

Thanks to you to GG and the rest.
It seems we have similar feelings, but I sometimes have a hard time putting my thinking into text.
 
Not to mention, how does a store owner know an individual is low income. Is it tatooed on their foreheads? Do they provide tax returns?
 
Not to mention, how does a store owner know an individual is low income. Is it tatooed on their foreheads? Do they provide tax returns?

Good question. From the article.

"The rule defines low income as medical marijuana patients who make at most half the area's median annual income, or $32,000 or less for an individual or $46,000 for a family of four".

$32,000 in SC a year for one person would disqualify them from any free service including Medicaid.
Must be a very high income society they got there.
 
Good question. From the article.

"The rule defines low income as medical marijuana patients who make at most half the area's median annual income, or $32,000 or less for an individual or $46,000 for a family of four".

$32,000 in SC a year for one person would disqualify them from any free service including Medicaid.
Must be a very high income society they got there.


Yes, I read that definition. How does a potential low income person walk into a store and prove to the store clerk that he qualifies according to that definition?
 
I am all for MM, hell, even recreational cannabis, and I LOVE California, but man, do they come up with some crazy laws out there.

I am with you, Andy. I mean, are they going to have to go in with w2's or something?
 
Back
Top Bottom