CharonY

Again researchers are those writing those papers, they do not need a stripped list of unknowns... they are already working on it.

Exactly. Even with increased use, cannabis-related events are nowhere near alcohol-related ones. Another comparison with a legal drug could be tobacco. Highly addictive, not a lot of acute events, little social burden, but very high long-term health burden. A reason why despite legal status there are efforts to restrict use of tobacco. Despite consumed similarly tobacco health risks are also much higher than for cannabis. But I remember that we also had a thread discussing the numerous risks associated with cannabis. Perhaps interestingly, many adverse events involving cannabis, often also involve alcohol, further highlighting how prevalent the latter is. Especially among youths, tobacco and alcohol are the most common gateway drugs which are associated with cannabis and other drug consumption later in life.

In addition to what StringJunky said, health trajectories are worse for alcohol addicts compared to cannabis addicts. While neither is great, the latter is less likely to cause death or other severe health effects. Also alcoholics are already in the more extreme area of substance harm. Regular heavy drinking, even without the hall marks of alcohol addiction has been associated with significant more lives lost than equivalent cannabis use. In Canada for males the alcohol-attributable fraction of deaths is around 7, while prevalence of alcohol use disorder or alcohol dependency is lower in Canada (8 vs 13.9 and 4.1 vs 7.7, respectively). You could make the argument then that with cannabis becoming more common you'll like also to have fewer folks having a cannabis use disorder. After all, limited social use is likely going to dilute the severe cases.

Meanwhile, even before legalization cannabis-related crimes were mostly related to possession and import. After legalization obviously those rates dropped. While impaired driving under drug but no alcohol influence increased a bit, it is still only 8% of the rate of alcohol-related impaired driving. And in contrast to alcohol there are no robust associations with violence or other crimes connected to cannabis. I.e. if one wanted to allow only one drug, it would be safer to keep cannabis and ditch alcohol. This is likely also going to be the case for things like psilocybin. It is clear that the case for legalizing only alcohol is not (entirely) based on risk, public health or similar assessments.

I think unknown is commonly used to re-iterate aspects that are under investigations. I often use this the highlight the specific aspect that I want to illuminate more in the manuscript (but then I am a fairly boring writer). So you often see a structure such as: "while the association between x and y is well documented, the underlying mechanism is still unknown/remains elusive. Here, we provide evidence that z plays an important role by ..." I agree that "mystery" and "baffled" is rarely used, if at all. Actually what I might think OP is getting at is compiling these unknowns for folks that are not well read in a field. The big issue I see here is that it misses out on context that are clear to folks in the field (who are the target audience). Generally speaking, big picture reviews are better sources for that purpose rather than taking snippets (which is a rather ineffective way to read science IMO).

I am not entirely sure what you are getting at, to be honest. Researchers working in a particular field read up on what is known and identify thereby knowledge gaps. Ultimately, there is virtually an unlimited number of things that remain unknown but usually researchers focus on particular unknowns which are extension of parts that are known (or being researched). Many unknowns will pan out to be irrelevant, for example.

That is already happening (well manslaughter) https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brittany-poolaw-manslaughter-miscarriage-pregnancy/

They actually thought about that, too. Of course it is unclear what is going to happen, but clearly folks are working on closing that access, too.

That actually is fairly way documented and not just some fringe opinion that you may think it is. Or to be more specific, many drug laws were enacted as part of racial panic. It is reflected especially heavily in its enforcement, where e.g. black drug abusers are far more likely to face charges for possession than their white counterpart, despite white folks having higher drug consumption. There many books written on the subject and not all of them by lazy academics. See here an article on the link between the ban of cannabis and anti-immigrant sentiments: https://time.com/5572691/420-marijuana-mexican-immigration/ Likewise the disparity in the laws and sentencing of crack and cocaine is related to the the association of crack with black people and was discussed extensively, a report on this issue can be found here https://www.vox.com/2016/3/22/11278760/war-on-drugs-racism-nixon, which includes a controversial quote from an Nixon aide: I will also add that these laws are often at the intersection of class and race. Folks generally agree to more severe punishments for things that they see themselves less likely to be involved in, but where they see others (i.e. their lessers) being associated with.

I think it is also the same in the prairies. If I compare prices with Europe, especially wine, it seems somewhat extreme. A part is of course the need for importing them, but prices were easily triple and more.

Two things. First, legalized does not mean that it super easy obtained. There are levels of availability. In parts of Canada, for example alcohol can only by bought at licensed stores and not in regular supermarkets. Moreover, taxes make them extremely expensive. Not sure whether that limitation has any effect. But more to the point, cannabis is legal in Canada since 2018, and is closely monitored, in case you don't know. Unless we don't (see alcohol) for example. The most common gateway drug remains alcohol. As long as that is easily available I do not see the argument as particularly strong. It should also be noted that there is no compelling data that shows that there is a gateway drug in the first place. Rather, there is a decent correlation between alcohol, cannabis and other drug abuses, but correlation is not causation. I.e. folks that are at risk to to hard drug abuse may start with what is easily available. Conversely, folks that occasionally use drugs recreationally (such as tobacco, alcohol, cannabis etc.) do not seem to be necessarily more susceptible to hard drug abuse (i.e. a lot of folks drink, but do not become heroin addicts, for example). I am pretty sure that this cannot be correct. From I am fairly certain that I have read that the US had rather high levels of alcohol dependency, even among Western countries. I checked out the WHO report https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241565639 From there the US has a 7.7 prevalence of alcohol dependence (compared to Canada 4.1, UK 1.4, Australia, 1.5, Russia 9.3 for example).

The list would be far too long. Even during my time (which is not that long) I have seen female scientists getting shafted. Of course it is not exclusively them, though I'd say disproportionately so. Some of the arguments I have heard was along the line that they are likely going to have kids someday whereas the other guy (who did nothing) could have a brilliant career with more first authorships using her data. Such overt things are slowly dying out, but there are other more subtle ways.

As I mentioned, they do to some degree. And moreover many of those drugs are unlikely to be used in such a large scale, even if legalized (as Canada has shown with cannabis). So that is another part of it: availability and concentration. So from a health perspective it is undoubtedly that sugar and alcohol is harmful the way we use it. Conversely, the use of cannabis so far has a lower health burden than assumed (and certainly way lower than either alcohol or sugar). I think the bigger point is that criminalization has virtually no benefit to in terms of addressing harm of substances. The only question that remains is then really whether legalization increases the harm. For certain substances that could be the case, specifically those with a high potential for addiction. However, here we make an cultural exception because the Western world apparently cannot do without. But using the same logic, drugs used in in other cultures should also be allowed. There is nothing in alcohol that makes it categorically different from the other drugs, other than our familiarity with it (which in itself might be harm-promoting characteristic). As such it would make sense to at least put those less dangerous drugs (which are less addictive and toxic) with cultural history at least on the same level as alcohol.

Question is then why you are in favour banning substances that are clearly less dangerous than alcohol? Because data shows that it is not happening. Portugal to have high levels of drug related deaths. After decriminalization in 2001 the levels dropped significantly and Portugal has remained way lower than the European average throughout. As a comparison, in Scotland the death rates are 50x that of Portugal. So in other words, legalizing drugs do not increase deaths. Likewise, cannabis is legal in Canada for a few years and not much has changed in terms of usage and cannabis-related health incidences. I do not follow that argument at all. Why would one consider banning it? They have fairly low toxicity and it is very difficult to overdose on it. On the same note psilocybin has a lower toxicity than caffeine. If we say coffee is fine, why not also certain mushrooms? Again, this sounds fairly inconsistent to me, and may be based on faulty risk assessment.

I fail to see how this is the middle-ground. At best, it is inconsistent. We know that alcohol does great harm and we gave up on banning due to combination of cultural reasons, law enforcement challenges (including criminalizing large swathes of the population) and the realization that drug addiction are more effectively treated by health intervention rather than by legal enforcement. The opioid crisis which was not limited to the "fringes" of society anymore but also affected "good suburban" folks, further reinforced these findings. But for some reasons, we should just accept alcohol (which, again results in more deaths than any other drugs, education or not) because society accepts it? That sounds like circular logic, really.

No, the values are normalized, otherwise they would not make sense. Also, it is more of a rank score. They used multiple factors, such as mortality, dependence, impairment of cognitive functioning, etc. and the idea was to create scores that reflect their relative relationship to each other. I.e. a drug with double the mortality would receive double the score on that metric. For some, data are more lacking than others and also are shifting. Depending on what you look out for, cannabis has been shifting up and down over the years and depending on cohorts, for example. Long-term data are going to be quite interesting in that regard. That being said, certain harms could increase once the use increases. However, that is not always the case. For example, legalization of cannabis did increase hospitalizations in certain regions, but it was not an universal effect and the trend stabilized within a relatively short time frame. Conversely, if alcohol was not such an accepted social drug, harms, especially those to others, would be massively mitigated. These types of rankings are therefore somewhat tricky, but almost every way folks look at it, it is clear that the top spot belongs to alcohol by a fair margin.

Problem is that anti-abortion sentiments are not entirely party specific. In the 70s most folks were only for abortions being legal in certain cases, with little difference between Reps and Dems. In fact, the support for abortion was slightly higher among Reps and highest among Independents (if we sum up legal support with and without restrictions). The support among Reps for legal under any circumstance really dropped of starting in the 90s when conversely the support among Dems increased. https://news.gallup.com/poll/246278/abortion-trends-party.aspx So for the longest time it was a bit of a split issue, and while I think there were attempts to enshrine abortion as a right, it just had insufficient support.

A leaked draft of the majority opinion shows that in SCOTUS is set to overturn Row vs. Wade, which was a landmark decision which effectively allowed abortions. Effectively conservative states are poised to make abortions impossible, which is like going to cause a significant public health problem.

Well, as it turns out there are "First amendment" folks in Canada, but I suspect it is the 20% rule. As in, get any group together and 20% of them are likely to be idiots. The trick is figuring out if you are one of them. I will also say that also in Canada folks are thinking about the issues and connotations with POCs and coloured folks. Mostly as in the past it all non-white were kind of merged and in part because there was some solidarity among those who are officially termed "visible minorities". But differences in experiences, trajectories and increasing desire for individual recognition have soured those terms, independently on whether folks are using it as a slur or not. It is just the way language works. A new generation sees things slightly different (or wants it to be) and one point or another it is reflected in language. Social media. Not sure if it is true, but I am getting old and I increasingly want to blame someone. Can't blame immigrants, so social media it is.

Well, don't forgot to fill out the field trip approval and the risk assessment form. After all, the Uni wants to be covered in case the search ends up with some very satiated bears.

Nope, there were in the post, including the quote. However, while the urls is give, the second link actually seems broken. I am willing to explain the methodology in those papers, provided you are willing to read. If it is going to be a handwaving session again I am honestly not inclined to waste more time. The reason is that even without actually reading the methodology you are already assuming an faulty methodology, whereas you are also assuming to be right without having any data to support your assertion. I.e. you seem to demand work from others which you yourself are unwilling to provide. I.e. I see no value to continue unless you are willing to enter a discussion in good faith. Meanwhile here is the abstract to the second paper.

Fundamentally he starts of with an assumption (weight/power is important for jockey performance) and arrives at the conclusion that therefore male jockeys must have an advantage, without first establishing whether the premise is true. The issue with the approach is quite apparent. I could for example stipulate that having testicles clearly put riders at an disadvantage as certain postures and situations can result in pain. In a sport where every advantage counts clearly this is an issue. Therefore, any study that does not take testicular discomfort into consideration is clearly flawed. I also like that looking at extreme marathon runners we now suddenly are only allowed to look at the single top performers when we talk about gender differences, as clearly only the guy on the top is really representative of male physiology (the others obviously somehow don't count). It baffles me that the issue with that is not immediately evident. I wonder if we used that approach to any other question that does not involve gender would be equally accepted as fact.

Huh? Did you read the papers? They showed that gender did not influence performance in jockeys. If men had a similar benefit as in running for example, this clearly should show, wouldn't it? So strangely men running faster is evidence for a physiological advantage, which I agree with. But now lack of a performance benefit is suddenly no evidence. If that is not a biased way to approach data I don’t know what is. I also note that you counter analyses of data with merely your opinion. If you have data demonstrating how your power ratio effect improves jockey performance you are free to show it. Yes following data is super scary.

No, I do not have a link. However, if you knew me even a little you would know that I have references. No, only if the ratio actually impact the outcome we are investigating. Otherwise you are biasing the analysis by assuming an advantage (after all this is the very question we want to establish in the first place). Especially if other factors, like, say the horse may be more important factors. So what you need to do before assuming that the advantage plays a role, you'll have to look whether the effect is present in the first place and also whether other, potentially more influential confounding factors are present. In other words, you are doing the exact mistake that many are criticizing. Without first establishing whether your factor has an actual effect you just assume it in all and demand that it has to be incorporated into the research design. And again, this is would be a classic example of bias in the study design. Rather, you would need to first figure out what factors influence race horse performance and then look whether gender is among those and how strong it really is, relative to the system we created around this assumption. For example if we have a huge gender difference, just looking at number of wins really only tells us about how many of each gender are participating, and not that whether is a physiological effect. If experience is a huge contributor and for whatever reason one gender does not stick around for the sport, it does not mean that there is a physiological reason either, and so on. So the challenge here is of course that a perfect data set would have exactly the same race conditions (including same horses) just with the gender swapped (and having an otherwise comparable cohort) in exactly the same races . Since there is not such a data set, one way to one needs to adjust external variables (i.e. physiology independent parameters) that may affect for example the likelihood of receiving higher rated mount (or being able to race at all). When adjusting for these factors the conclusion was that https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1527002520975839 Now there are other papers out there looking at the performance of the horse and the impact of the jockey. After all, the horse does the running. And here a fairly recent study suggest that the gender does of the rider does not seem to impact horse performance. In the same paper they also just calculated winning ratios based on UK and Australian data and here they found that in the UK the winning-rate (again, adjusted for the fact that fewer women are competing) to be not significantly different between men and women. In Australia there was a difference but which vanished if one considers the money spots (i.e. top three positions) in the races. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1341860/v1 So if the numbers do not immediately show a strong gender-based difference in outcome if one adjusts for the system (in contrast to sprinting, for example) why would one start off with the assumption of a difference and then try to frame the study from a flawed position? And this exactly is the issue with many of these assumptions. We know there are gender differences, but then we immediately jump to the conclusion they must be pervasive in everything we are looking for. And if we look with these blinders on, unsurprisingly we miss other aspects. This is one of the big reasons why there have been so many studies claiming to show that for some reasons folks with darker skin colour are less intellectual or that in general we only find the effects we are looking for (see the replication crisis) or why we have pervasive myths in the medical field. I.e. we first need to establish that there is an effect, then eliminate potential sources until we find the determining factors. In other words, we need to apply the scientific method also for those questions and should not start with a strong preconceptions.

But to be fair, the Trumps and Epsteins are not the folks who are more likely to end up in jail. Also the link between crime and poverty is quite strong.