Posted on 06/14/2006 6:24:41 PM PDT by paudio
Got data?
No, but even if I did you would not believe me. You have discounted everything anyone has said, moving the target of your proof even as people neared it. I can take you out there if you want, but even that would not convince you.
You are a jester who asks a question but does not listen to the answer.
Your mind was set before this began and you will not offer any ground regardless of evidence prevented.
Of course, I guess I could turn around and badger you for proof of the 15 traffic fatalities a day you earlier claimed were common in some counties.
Sad dodge, you won't have data but I won't believe it anyway. Notice everyone I've discounted presented no data. You're claiming it's an epidemic, you have the burden of proof. I've already been in bad neighborhoods, I've also been in the rest of cities with bad neighborhoods and seen that what blights the neighborhood does not make an epidemic for the rest of the city.
I'm a person pointing out that the people making wild claims have nothing to back them up. I've listened to the answers, listened well enough to know they aren't actually answers. They have no data.
The 15 traffic fatalities was a WAG (wild assed guess), at least I'm willing to admit it. Your 15% is just as big a WAG, gonna admit it.
Sorry, you ask for proof. I showed you. 11,000+ meth labs busted in the four year period of 2000 to 2004 in Missouri alone. 2.5 times the number of traffic fatalities in the state.
But then you criticized the definition of labs.
So, you discounted the proof you asked for.
As you have done with everything presented. You ask that I hit a moving target. That is bull.
Let's say that I find statistics that shows that there was a meth bust in 10% of the residences in Seymour.
Would you accept that as proof?
Jackanape
My sister runs an alternative sentencing program for drug abusers. She says that MOST of her clients are meth heads. She has had some successes, but she also says that the meth heads have the worst time trying to stay straight.
But you couldn't present any data on what size the labs are. 11,000 meth labs isn't like 11,000 cars, a car is a car is a car, meth labs vary from one lone hobiest with a bunson burner to a factory setup running 24/7. There's nothing wrong with pointing out the fact that data is incomplete. But I accepted your later math built from that data that built to a 1.5% meth usage rate in the general population, so my criticism wasn't that intense. But I didn't accept that as evidence of an epidemic because 1.5% of the population doing anything isn't an epidemic. Then you amped up your estimate to 3%, still not an epidemic in my book. Then you just started throwing numbers out there with no form of data to back it up at all.
You've come the closest to actually presenting data of anyone on the thread. But the data you presented was incomplete. I'm not asking that you hit a moving target, I'm asking that you present complete data. At least the average production capacity (I'll even be nice and assume that all the labs were running at full capacity all the time) of the labs is needed to translate the number of labs busted into the number of meth users that represents. You can't just say "there were 11,000 labs busted over a 4 year period in the entire state therefore this particular city in the state has 15% of its population hooked on meth", the conclusion doesn't follow the data. You're sitting here accusing me of being mean because I won't agree that the left side of your equation equals 4, but you won't give me a complete left side of the equation, if you want me to agree the left side of your equation equals 4 then you need to show me a 2+2 (or 8/2 or whatever else you've got that can make 4).
If it's from a reliable source, preferably not somebody that will get a budget increase because their town has a meth problem.
Meth is a heck of a problem....
Moving target. Great. What a reliable source?
That's not a moving target. A reliable source is the same thing a reliable source always is, not a crackpot organization, and not somebody with a vested interest in the city in question having a problem, and somebody with a method of collecting data that looks reasonable and intelligent not built around WAGs.
Then name a reliable source. Otherwise I'm afraid you woul ddiscount any source I give you as unreliable for any number of reasons.
I'm not sure who that would be. Part of the problem with any WOD situation is there's too much money on both sides of the aisle and most organizations working it are just trying to get a bigger piece of the pie. Probably a medical organization who's working the data in a way that's sane, a recovery organization that's not tightly associated with AA (who is famous for cooking data every chance the get). Someone that's got a core of verifiable data that can be extrapolated without resorting to silly math.
So this was just one more way liberals part us from our money?
More tax dollars for the helpers, social workers, non-profits and other riff raff? Yikes!!! We've been had again.
I think that's my final point. Without a firm belief that any data I present will be acceptable, it's not really worth my time and trouble to acquire hard to find data for an internet argument.
If you want to see how bad the meth problem is in Southwest Missouri, you can easily see for yourself by driving through some of the town around Springfield.
This isn't made up by people looking to pad their pockets, it isn't hyped to promote new laws. It isn't being overblown.
But then myself and all the other people who live out here in the midst of it are unreliable sources.
Sorry I live in AZ I don't know which organizations gather useful data about Missouri, you live there, you figure it out. Refusing to present data to back up your point and trying to blame the other person is just chickening out.
I'm not driving through any part of Missouri, and even if I did that would be purely annecdotal and the plural of annecdote is not now nor has it ever been fact.
It is made up by people looking to pad their pockets, it is hyped and that hype HAS promoted new laws. The speed thing gets overblown every few years, this is the fourth time I can remember the news splashing horror stories about meth taking over the country, they were wrong the first three times, the pattern says they're wrong again.
Again the plural of annecdote isn't fact. So you've seen some nasty things in your time, maybe you're just an unlucky person, maybe you're drawn to nasty things. I've seen some nasty things in my time too, I don't assume they're the norm because the data available says they aren't.
Again, why take the time if you won't believe me anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.