This part of wiki really got me confused I would never have guessed the french to be more pot smoking than the dutch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cannabis_use_among_adults_(aged_15-64).svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_lifetime_cannabis_use_by_country the plus side on that table is, AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!
It's a surprising thing that after the Dutch basically decriminalized cannabis use that the percentage of people using it went down about 5-6%. I guess alot of people smoke just because it's illegal. PAX
except any kind of warfare, or at using proper bathing techniques, or at not acting like a bunch of stuck up jackasses
when you have to point out all the epic fails that are french, it ruins the point of kidding about them being the best. They just teach you about their poor warfare in your 6th grade class?
please accept my apology for ruining your incredibly original joke that must have taken you hours to construct. no, actually. a friend that fought with them in Afganistan taught me that, pal. *laughs @ TheShow's epic fail and attempt at wit* (won't even go into how ironic it is that someone using trendy kiddy online lingo like "epic fail" would attempt to imply immaturity on my part, oh wait I just did, sorry)
I'm told that the french love to smoke cigarettes with hash, if that's the case then they definitely smoke alot of ganja since they are always hackin darts there.
Everything on wikipedia is 100% true. Everyone who smokes weed tells whoever made that map that they smoke weed.
i dont know, i just dont trust the accuracy of it unless they got to every single smoking out there, which is impossible, there is no way to tell
Nah man you don't need to measure the whole population to get a very accurate picture of the population; you just need a sample. On country scales, measuring only 5% of the population gets you 95% accuracy. Statistics is a marvelous thing.
statistics can very easily be corrupted, and manipulated, and are not reliable say you measure 5% of the population, it depends a whole lot on how you are doing it exactly depending, you could measure a portion of the population that is more likely to be doing something (smoking in this case) and get a very inaccurate picture the world is not homogeneous, it would be like testing for percentages of milk in a bowl of cereal by only measuring 5%, if you hit the 5% that happens to be cereal you would get a result of absolutely no milk, where as if you hit a part that happened to be milk, your results would say 100% milk, neither of which are at all accurate to the actual percentages of either in the bowl. kind of a exaggerated example but it gets the point across
yeah I agree.. I deal with stats all the time at university and i think it really sucks.. they make it objective... but a sample can never represent a whole population. sometimes it works... often maybe but then we extend this to say that it works in most cases and thus works in basically all cases.. which is not true. eg, in some of those countries, people might just be a lot more honest, and in other countries, they might be more stoner but less honest... as things are in places where the law is tight. and so, even if 95% of the stats apply... we dont know which are the 5% and we might only actually care about 5 % of statistics... so there is no way of saying whether our 5% is the same 5% we discount in statistical analysis.... and even still... no one EVER does stats of a whole population so we have never had a chance to see if the statistical principles actually hold up 'objectively' i hate statistics bloody easy academia though
