Slashdot Mirror
Cannabis Smoking Makes Students Less Likely To Pass University Courses
Bruce66423 writes: A large scale European study shows that students who were unable to buy cannabis legally were 5% more likely to pass their University courses. Below-average students with no legal access to pot were 7.6% more likely to pass their courses, and the effect was five times more pronounced when dealing with courses involving math. One of the study's authors said, "We think this newfound effect on productivity from a change in legal access to cannabis is not negligible and should be, at least in the short run, politically relevant for any societal drug legalization and prohibition decision-making. In the bigger picture, our findings also indicate that soft drug consumption behavior is affected by their legal accessibility, which has not been causally demonstrated before. ... Considering the massive impact on cognitive performance high levels of THC have, I think it is reasonable to at least inform young users much more on consequences of consuming such products as compared with that of having a beer or pure vodka."
playing too much unreal took way more than 5% off of my grades.
i didn't start using cannabis regularly until after college, it's vastly superor to alcohol in the "how functional am i at work the next day if i overindulge" department.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Well, had you read the article ...
“The effects we find are large, consistent and statistically very significant,” Marie told the Observer. “For example, we estimate that students who were no longer able to buy cannabis legally were 5% more likely to pass courses. The grade improvement this represents is about the same as having a qualified teacher and, more relevantly, similar to decreases in grades observed from reaching legal drinking age in the US.”
So, about the same.
I thought we already knew the academic impact of canibus use from the documentary Fast Times at Ridgemont High
You missed that they explicitly did not study people who smoked pot versus people who didn't. They measured people that had legal access versus those who did not.
Use, time of use, actual access, demographics, country, region, societal attitudes, and social support all were not accounted for.
Because "social contract" notions are always self serving. Forcing your choices on other people using threats (or implied threats) requires a justification. So "social contract" -- and do what you're told -- or give me the money I did not earn but I want to spend.
Generally, a "contract" is entered into voluntarily, with no force or coercion, or it's not binding.
Studies don't prove things. Studies fail to disprove things. Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it certainly is consistent with a theory of causation. It's also consistent with the theory that the purported effect is actually the cause, and the cause is the effect.