[JimmyBiscuit]

I havent seen anything about frequency in the article. Unless they control for that it doesnt feel like you should claim that weed is somehow safer. Of course you will have less damage from smoking a few joints a day (which would be very heavy use) vs the standart amount of cigarettes a cigarette smoker smokes.

[consp]

Isn't the "natural" reduction in frequency a factor which should not be accounted for as it might actually be the driving force behind it?

[mandmandam]

There is a long-standing tradition in cannabis research of confusing the dose.

See: Rodent studies using insane super-doses injected directly with the equivalent of 140 joints+ every day, Marinol vs cannabis, claiming 5% THC cannabis as "high dose" in research, studies citing 'potency increase' as proof of increasing risk without controlling for dose adjustments, driving impairment studies using blood levels as measurement, etc.

[bdavbdav]

Is this not a similar argument to condoms / birth control effectiveness? Condoms are 100% effective if used properly and they don’t burst. The failure proportion is primarily misuse. You build in the misuse / other factors into the effectiveness rate.

[AStonesThrow]

You'd be surprised about artificial contraception. Sure, when used they can be highly effective to prevent pregnancy, but they also train people to do risky behavior.

It's sort of like giving away free parachutes and plane rides to everyone. Sure, that support will encourage lots of skydiving. But eventually, isn't someone going to go up without a parachute, say "YOLO" and dive out anyway?

The same thing happens with contracepting, promiscuous men and women: they become accustomed to using one another as objects and free, easy access to sex whenever. But when that contraception isn't readily available at hand, they're going ahead anyway. They're going to do it regardless, because it's the habit they're accustomed to now.

So on balance, it's really been found that free access to artificial contraception tends to encourage and increase unplanned/unwanted pregnancies. And that's exactly why it's so plentiful, because the goal is the opposite of what you may think...

[bdavbdav]

I’m not quite sure that was the point I was trying to make… more that the effectiveness figures often have “normal use” and other effects built in.

To your point, people were promiscuous before contraception, and we are now in a much better situation unwanted pregnancy / STD wise since its advent. I’m not convinced by the reasoning whatsoever.

[SavinMyLungz]

This is a nonsense slippery slope fallacy, with a healthy side of the naturalism fallacy. Giving people access to contraception is proven over and over again to be the solution to STDs and unwanted pregnancy, and the "natural" methods of abstinence education and the rhythm method prove over and over to be ineffective. (If you have religious convictions such that the rhythm method is the only one acceptable to you, that's fine, live out your convictions, but it is what it is and it's not a prescription for society at large. A friend of mine once told me about going to a rhythm method workshop, taught by someone with 12 kids.)

> But when that contraception isn't readily available at hand, they're going ahead anyway.

They have been doing it anyway since the dawn of time, whether they ever had access to contraception or not. Sex is normal and healthy. The solution is to give them ready access to contraception.

[crtasm]

You're saying it's a contraception conspiracy? Any sources for these findings would be appreciated.

[AStonesThrow]

https://naturalwomanhood.org/interview-abby-johnson-planned-...

Abby Johnson: You can find different studies that say different things. One in Colorado said you give women contraception and abortion rates go down; other studies say that’s not true. What we do know for sure, according to Guttmacher themselves, Planned Parenthood’s own research arm, is that 54% of women who are having abortions are using contraception at the time when they get pregnant. So the idea that contraception is working for women and that it’s preventing abortion is not true. If it were, that number would not be 54%.

> Sex is normal and healthy

So is pregnancy and childbirth. Why administer drugs to disrupt normal, healthy biological processes? Absurd!

[SavinMyLungz]

Because people have a right to bodily autonomy. It's not absurd at all. What's absurd is the naturalism fallacy. You could say the same thing about building skyscrapers or treating cancer. Dying of cancer is a natural process of the body, why should anyone disrupt it? Absurd!

It shouldn't surprise anyone that many people seeking abortions are using contraceptives - they didn't want to get pregnant, after all. Contraceptives are reliable but not infallible. Abortion happens everyday in a society of hundreds of millions, but contraceptives failing is rare. It's not really any more surprising than a handful of people getting struck by lightning every year, even if it's more morally and politically charged.

[dttze]

> She is also author of Unplanned: The Dramatic True Story of a Former Planned Parenthood Leader’s Eye-Opening Journey across the Life Line and founder of And Then There Were None, an organization that assists abortion-clinic workers seeking to transition out of the industry.

Thanks for quoting some culture warrior clown, but they asked for real sources.

[crtasm]

That's a claim made on a website that doesn't give me the impression it does much fact checking, not a source.

[bdavbdav]

Because people are free to make choices about said processes. Some people don’t want children, STDs, …

[const_cast]

> https://naturalwomanhood.org

Now come on now.

[eru]

If you want an even starker examples: abstinence is 100% effective, if 'used' according to protocol.