I, too, enjoy my whisky, beer, and wine. Indeed, I partake of booze far more often than I do the ganja. I know how dangerous booze is, but I make an informed decision to use it.
Professor Nutt is a well respected researcher. (It is too bad he got the sack for telling the truth about cannabis)
One problem with categorical data (i.e. non-numerical data, where often you rank items by number), is when using these rank values in calculations. For example, what does a mean value of 2.7 on a flavour scale, or a 3.4 on restaurant-appeal scale mean? AND how would this be useful in making valid comparisons?. The “social harms” variables, mentioned previously, are the obvious analogy. To make matters worse, the 3 “social harm” variables are then aggregated into one “social harm” mean, further obfuscating it meaning.
Also, how do they separate the “social harms” for the various individual substances, from the social harms due to all substances? To complicate matters further, my experience in this field indicates that many folks are cross addicted (i.e. have simultaneous addictions to multiple substances). How then do they separate the harms into the various categories of substances. This area of research is fraught with many chinks in its armour.
The rankings do take into account new evidence that specially cultivated "skunk" varieties of cannabis available now are two to three times stronger than traditional cannabis resin.
The “high THC levels causes psychosis” argument is complete BUNK. They can easily be refuted by several means, which I will outline, below. Essentially the arguments fall into two categories. A) Rational arguments, which merely require an intelligent mind and no further knowledge of research method and B) methodological/statistical arguments.
A) Rational arguments, where only an rational and intelligent mind is required to follow the argument and no knowledge of research methodology or statistical analysis is required of the participant..
In this vein two issues are explored:
1) Consider the, supposed, High THC levels directly
Marijuana, is, mainly, comprised of the dried cannabis flowers. The cannabinoids (what gets you high) in weed are located in the resin, which is comprised of the trichome glands. (That is, ultimately the cannabinoids are located in the trichomes, which, in turn is what comprises the resin.).
Hashish which is comprised of the resin (and a small varying degree of cannabis plant matter, depending on the method of its preparation), will always be “stronger” than marijuana, since it is a purified form, of cannabis. (It is mainly resin with little plant matter as opposed to weed which has considerably more plant matter by weight.).
(i) People have smoked/consumed hashish for thousands of years with no resulting psychosis. Thus , the “higher THC (i.e “killer skunk”) causes psychosis arguement is BUNKUM! Rather it is old-school reefer madness propaganda, once again raring it ugly head!
(ii) Now, let us consider hash oil. Even shit-grade low quality hash oil would have THC levels upwards of 70%, by weight. Hash oil, has been smoked/consumed for at least 50 years now, and again, without causing any psychosis. Hence, again, the “higher THC (i.e “killer skunk”) causes psychosis arguement is BUNKUM!
2) Dose Titration
The media always forgets about dose titration and this is a huge mistake!
Dose titration means that altering the dosage based on potency.
Spirits, (i.e whisky, rum, vodka, etc.) are typically, about 8 times more potent than beer. If you drink booze, and you drank two 12 ounce bottles of beer, then that would be equivalent to drinking 3 ounces of spirits. People account for this when drinking, and do NOT typically down 24 ounces of whisky and expect the same level of impairment as the 24 ounces of beer. (People may not consciously calculate the values they down to the liquid ounce required for the buzz they require, but they do know that they will get pretty fucked up (or die) by downing 24 ounces of spirits, but will only have a mild buzz by downing 24 ounces of beer.)
Why does the media (or other prohibitionists) think that people would NOT behave in a similar manner when consuming other substances? (My answer: for the propaganda effect (eg Reefer Madness revisited., once again. Do these people think that we are so stupid as to not alter dosages? Maybe, but I think that they publish this shit to scare less intelligent people into fearing cannabis.)
B) Arguments based on research methodology, statistical analysis, and related methods.
These arguments are many a varied, but I’ll not go into detail, because that would take forever. Anyone familiar with research methodology/statistics will understand this, but those not familiar can read books on this matter. (AND I have made these arguments countless numbers of times on this board, and other places, so I am tired of having to repeat, in minute detail, every last item.)
The so called “studies” into the “Skunk caused psychosis” all fail miserably in their study design and methodology.
1) Improperly designed experiments, poor knowledge of valid statistical method, and invalid conclusions drawn.
They do not start with randomized study samples, which control for extraneous variables, and do not follow valid research procedures. Rather they examine individuals who have experienced mental illness and then they look for a linkage between their mental illness and prior cannabis usage. (Given the above, any analytical thinker, should now be saying “YIKES!!!”…and what is worse is that these studies actually get funded and are occasionally peer reviewed……this is VERY SCARY to a statistician/researcher!)
These publications should not have been used as toilet paper let alone as research papers. )
Furthermore, they draw conclusions which are far beyond the scope of the experiment and/or otherwise inconsistent with proper methodology
NOTE: It is easy to hit a target, dead-center, every time, whilst blindfolded, provided that you draw the target AFTER you throw the object!
2) Correlation does NOT imply causation!!!
Second, and, a very important consideration is the fact that:
Correlation does NOT imply causation!!!
The above line is a cannon in statistics and any researcher who does NOT get this would/should have their work torn to shreds during the peer-review process.
One could argue that while correlation does NOT imply causation, it might give researchers some ideas as to what to investigate further. I have no problem with that argument, but then that is what study’s conclusion should state. Then the next study they do should be a well-controlled proper statistically valid experiment investigating the correlations. Unfortunately, they never go this route.
).