That article does a terribly job of reporting the actual study. You can find the full thing, plus a file of supplementary data, on this page:
http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/recent(at least, I can: it may be that I'm silently getting past a paywall by virtue of being at work. If so I won't distribute copies, as that would be illegal, but I'm happy to look up the answers to questions.)
Thanks ColinsMum, that seems like a good way to walk the line.
So my burning question is - how many people over 130 were included?
also
How much drug use was needed to be 'drug+' documented? Personally I'd be much more upset if a child grows up to be a daily user than a less than once every 2 weeks user. I'm hoping for 'zero' by age 30, but then, I'm hoping for zero by age 30 for alcohol too, and most people don't think that's 'normal.'
How much increased was the risk of the over 130 group to the next lower group?
I wonder how good a job they did of controlling for SES. At my workplace everyone gets a drug test when they are hired, (although not routinely) but most people with my occupation never get a drug test - so I'm sensitive to the 'people with IQ under 107' are much more likely to have jobs with routine drug tests which means that Alcohol is much more favorable than Pot. (Is it still current thinking that from a medical point of view Pot and Alcohol are quite similar? It's been so long since I've followed this question!) My personal impression is that 'daily either' doesn't look good on people, although some tolerate it better than others.
I wonder if I can get funding to study how IQ correlates with Drug testing at work?
Actually I'm more curious about the difference in alcohol and drug use with ADHD plus IQ. My guess would be that the 2e folks would be at both edges, and the 'only high IQ' folks would be more in the middle.
Smiles,
Grinity
