One more thought on MJ health risks

21Oct09

I thought we had a really good discussion Tuesday about the pros and cons of marijuana legalization from a health effect perspective.

The discussion gave me an opportunity to point out some things about the use of scientific studies in deciding public policy issues.

1) Conflict in scientific studies is the norm, not the exception. It’s to be expected, because of the nature of scientific inquiry. Although some science is “cooked,” most isn’t, and conflicting studies shouldn’t be taken as an indication that scientists are dishonest or that the science is useless.

2) There are a number of policy issues that could be largely determined by science but will never be, because the science required is either too expensive or ethically impermissable. These are called “trans-scientific” issues. The effect of marijuana use on real-world auto drivers is perhaps a decent example.

3) Remember the discussion of curve-fitting? Another way of making that point is to say that no scientific hypothesis is ever entirely “proved” by the data. At best one can say the data may “support” the hypothesis, but there is always that factor of margin of error and confidence level.

The question then becomes: How important is it if we’re wrong. If studies show that such and such is the case 95 percent of the time, what happens if the 5 percent result is the one that happens. Does somebody get a bad case of hives? Or does the world end?

So I would like you to begin thinking about this question — How important is it if you are mistaken about marijuana legalization? What’s at stake there? Is more at stake on one side or the other?

See you Thursday.

Filed under: This 'n' that   |  Leave a Comment