Zulu
Well-Known Member
Don't ya know CJ has a black wife ?!?!?!
I knew this was going to happen!
- Thread starter Scat
- Start date
Don't ya know CJ has a black wife ?!?!?!
Well...you know what they say about people with black wives, right?
GVC
Well-Known Member
Not really.
1. They don't use data from states that have legalized marijuana, since their data covers 1999-2010.
2. Fatal accidents decreased over the 1999-2010 period.
3. The study doesn't even attempt to address causality (why have fatal accidents decreased?). The authors also don't give any indication of the rates of use in the general population.
This "study" effectively presents a few summary statistics without providing any story (plausible or not). Pretty ****ing worthless.
GVC
Well-Known Member
It's pretty easy to construct a story about cannabis use decreasing fatal accidents with their statistics fwiw.
They report fatal accidents for the periods 1999-2002, 2003-2006 and 2007-2010. Over those 3 periods, dead drivers tested positive for alcohol at a more or less constant rate overall (the rate for BAC >= .08 increased over the 3 periods), tested at an increasing rate for cannabinol, narcotics, depressants and "other". Positive tests for stimulant use went up from the first period to the second period, and then down from the second period to third period.
Fatal accidents (where the dead drivers were tested, using data from only 6 states) went up 14% from the first period to the second period (7667 to 8764), and then down 18% from the second period to the third (8764 to 7159).
Suppose that there is a subset of the population that is both on average more reckless in their driving (and/or in general) AND more likely to consume drugs (a pretty plausible story...there are few crazies who aren't ****ed up whenever possible). Suppose that this subset of people substituted their stimulants with weed between the second and third periods, perhaps, at least in part, due to medicinal laws. One could conclude (not that they should, of course) that this substitution led to the decrease in fatal accidents...
These authors would get eaten alive presenting this garbage to an audience with even a half decent empirical background. The standard for publication in medical journals seems to be ridiculously low.
They report fatal accidents for the periods 1999-2002, 2003-2006 and 2007-2010. Over those 3 periods, dead drivers tested positive for alcohol at a more or less constant rate overall (the rate for BAC >= .08 increased over the 3 periods), tested at an increasing rate for cannabinol, narcotics, depressants and "other". Positive tests for stimulant use went up from the first period to the second period, and then down from the second period to third period.
Fatal accidents (where the dead drivers were tested, using data from only 6 states) went up 14% from the first period to the second period (7667 to 8764), and then down 18% from the second period to the third (8764 to 7159).
Suppose that there is a subset of the population that is both on average more reckless in their driving (and/or in general) AND more likely to consume drugs (a pretty plausible story...there are few crazies who aren't ****ed up whenever possible). Suppose that this subset of people substituted their stimulants with weed between the second and third periods, perhaps, at least in part, due to medicinal laws. One could conclude (not that they should, of course) that this substitution led to the decrease in fatal accidents...
These authors would get eaten alive presenting this garbage to an audience with even a half decent empirical background. The standard for publication in medical journals seems to be ridiculously low.
Why would you be scared? Have you ever flown in a plane or been outside your state in your life?
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
....actually, I rarely fly...maybe once or twice a year. What I'm more concerned about is all those pot smoking pilots crashing planes into my house!!!
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
GVC
Well-Known Member
The paper was written by two academics from Columbia University, and published in a mediocre public health journal. How is this relevant? Have you read the paper? Do you know anything about the standards of public health journals?
So that's why there's Braille on the steering wheel!!!!
That's not Braille, it's just to help drivers identify things tactilely. (If it were Braille, it would be the word "jg", which makes no sense.)
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
^objective on the subject.
The risk of death of your family members when there is a gun in the house is more than when there is not a gun in house.
Let's ban all guns in homes.
Let's ban all guns in homes.
GVC
Well-Known Member
I'd rather be knowledgeable and biased than ignorant and cynical.
Do you have an actual response to what I posted? Anything of any value to contribute?
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
Well, this is the American Journal of Epidemiology we're talking about (IF= ~5). The standard is just more diverse, as there are way more journals than there used to be. Would something like this **** ever be found in Nature, or Science?
You're not too familiar with the current-realm of acadaemia and journal-publishing, are you?
Looks like you've beaten me to the punch.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
As someone who was never smoked weed before, or gotten a 'high' off any drug, I can easily conclude that this article is pure garbage, and there are no reasonable conclusions to be made from it. There's a reason that it was published by America's 6th best epidemiology journal, despite reporting on a topic that is hotly-contested, and popular as of right now.
Zulu
Well-Known Member
![[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]](/data/avatars/m/2/2497.jpg?1511131091){kind=avatar}
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Well-Known Member
So that blind people can be driven to the bank for 24-hour access to their account. Next question.