Exposure to Cannabis in Popular Music and Cannabis Use among Adolescents
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2881613/?tool=pubmed
The above is a paper showing music which mentions cannabis is associated with cannabis use. Upon reading the title I thought, "No shit Sherlock" and my mind wandered to whether they'd bothered to do the same research on Christian rock music and Christianity.
The author concludes, "This study supports an independent association between exposure to cannabis in popular music and early cannabis use among urban American adolescents."
There's some fascinating stuff in this study.
"A content analysis published by the Office of National Drug Control Policy showed that, of the top 1000 popular songs they studied, 18% referenced illicit drugs, of which cannabis was the most common "
No shit Sherlock. Musicans are creative. Cannabis is the creative drug. Cannabis is associated with schizophrenia as is creativity. Many may use cannabis and other enthogens to boost their schizotypy traits. People sing about stuff they're passionate about and which makes them happy, just like Christian rock music. However the psychiatric movement doesn't have much problem with the system it replaces. There is a significant amount of psychiatric research into cannabis though. Probably as signoificant a body of work as songs with drugs in. Oh bias eh? Boring dicks in suits versus junky musicians. Each has their method of understanding. One gets other people to try the drugs while the other tries the drug.
The research team must have been smoking some fatties. This sample isn't representative. Well, it's representative of Pittsburgh which has a very high black population.
"
Sample
Of the 1198 students who were eligible during the first three years of data collection, 1132 (94%) completed the survey. Of those, 959 had complete exposure data (i.e., they selected as their favorite artist one who had at least one top song over the years 2005-2007). This represented 80% of those eligible. The final sample was 52% female and 55% African-American. The average age was 15.1 years (standard deviation [SD] = 0.9, range 11.5-21.2).
"
It's this paragraph which I have a big problem with:
"Our findings build on those of previous studies suggesting that exposure to specific content in popular music may be a risk factor for adolescent risk-taking behaviour (36,37). Although most studies linking music and behavior have involved sexual behavior, this study extends those findings to the realm of substance use. Whereas previously it had been suggested that overall music exposure (non-content specific) was associated with cannabis use (30), this study suggests that exposure to cannabis-specific content may be particularly potent."
I might be wrong of course but to my lay understanding nothing in this study points at causality. In my opinion this research simply shows...welll not a lot. There is no causation. Only the "No shit Sherlock" result that people who are into stuff listen to music which is about stuff and often written by people who are into that stuff.
The thing is I don't really understand multivariate models and how they're used to prove cause. All I can see here is a correlation but not causation. The Social Cognitive Theory used might predict causation because of exposure but how is this separated from other factors or not an effect rather than a cause, i.e. people who smoke cannabis don't listen to Christian rock music. They listen to music by people who take the drug. Even without the explicit lyrical content it may simply be people on drugs producing music which fits the drug use and effect.
For example acid techno. Surprisingly it's not LSD use which is common in the scene. It's MDMA and sometimes speed. The songs very rarely if ever refer to drugs explicitly. And yet most people who listen or dance to acid techno are taking drugs like MDMA (or alternatives). Probably because the music is written by people who take the drugs and enjoyed by people who take the drugs. Of course this tiny and distorted sample I'm taking from personal experience is about as valid as this paper published in a peer reviewed journal. Funny ain't it. This research got funded. I didn't shit for my time as an acid techno head.
Probably. I'm not expert. Except through experience, I wonder if this researcher team has ever had a joint and listen to some Marley or Hill. It would change their bias pretty quickly I reckon.
And now for some Cypress Hill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qoCq-KsmZU
"
It's this paragraph which I have a big problem with:
"Our findings build on those of previous studies suggesting that exposure to specific content in popular music may be a risk factor for adolescent risk-taking behaviour (36,37). Although most studies linking music and behavior have involved sexual behavior, this study extends those findings to the realm of substance use. Whereas previously it had been suggested that overall music exposure (non-content specific) was associated with cannabis use (30), this study suggests that exposure to cannabis-specific content may be particularly potent."
I might be wrong of course but to my lay understanding nothing in this study points at causality. In my opinion this research simply shows...welll not a lot. There is no causation. Only the "No shit Sherlock" result that people who are into stuff listen to music which is about stuff and often written by people who are into that stuff.
The thing is I don't really understand multivariate models and how they're used to prove cause. All I can see here is a correlation but not causation. The Social Cognitive Theory used might predict causation because of exposure but how is this separated from other factors or not an effect rather than a cause, i.e. people who smoke cannabis don't listen to Christian rock music. They listen to music by people who take the drug. Even without the explicit lyrical content it may simply be people on drugs producing music which fits the drug use and effect.
For example acid techno. Surprisingly it's not LSD use which is common in the scene. It's MDMA and sometimes speed. The songs very rarely if ever refer to drugs explicitly. And yet most people who listen or dance to acid techno are taking drugs like MDMA (or alternatives). Probably because the music is written by people who take the drugs and enjoyed by people who take the drugs. Of course this tiny and distorted sample I'm taking from personal experience is about as valid as this paper published in a peer reviewed journal. Funny ain't it. This research got funded. I didn't shit for my time as an acid techno head.
Probably. I'm not expert. Except through experience, I wonder if this researcher team has ever had a joint and listen to some Marley or Hill. It would change their bias pretty quickly I reckon.
And now for some Cypress Hill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qoCq-KsmZU
No comments:
Post a Comment