Posted on 06/18/2006 9:22:25 AM PDT by SittinYonder
A scientific study is one thing. This is a mathematical model containing a "truth-telling" component using accurate-looking constants like .73. Not .7. But .73.
It like doing your federal income taxes -- you don't enter $400. for "donations". You enter $474. Looks better.
Not the ONDCP:
"Cautious evaluation of this data is necessary because the NHSDA cannot accurately measure rare or stigmatized drug use, relying as it does on self-reporting and on people residing in households. In alternate research, the number of hardcore* users of heroin in 1998 was estimated to be 980,000,"
"Estimates of heroin use from the NHSDA are considered very conservative due to the probable underreporting and undercoverage of the population of heroin users." ________________________________________
Nor Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey:
"For example, numbers like heroin addiction. You can find numbers that go from 255,000 up to the one I'm currently using, 980,000, if I remember the last time we updated it, and those are all valid scientific studies."
paulsen:But when KenH want to inflate the heroin and cocaine statistics to make a point, he switches to the ONDCP numbers. I don't think even he believes them, but hey, there they are!
You are calling our Drug Warriors liars!
We would have to deal with druggies as we do now with drunks. Some druggies function well just as some drunks function well right now. The rest have to go to a drying facility...and if that fails, they go onto the streets. They used to go to hospitals and sanatoriums until the libs declared that holding drunks in those kinds of places was somehow a violation of their rights. So they live on the streets.
I don't think that there would be so many people doing drugs after legalization as many think. I don't know one person who would go out and do a line of cocaine if it suddenly became legal, and I bet most people here don't know anyone who would either.
Quit calling the ones running the WOD liars! I am not going to stand by and listen while you bad mouth the United States of America!
For the third, and last, time. In response to your post #264, I stated in my post #266 that the recent rise in marijuana use was due to "lax enforcement (marijuana arrests lowest priority), the move towards decriminalization, and the recent medical marijuana laws. All of these changes are lowering the perceived risk of marijuana ...".
You took my statement and tried to counter it by choosing one area, marijuana arrests, and saying there was no correlation.
(God, this is turning into a tpaine post.)
I defined what I meant by "recent" -- the last ten years (1996 - 2006). You took that literally. Whatever. In 1996, the arrest rate was 6% of users (641/10M). In 2005, the arrest rate dropped to 5% (771/14M).
Now, you want to make a different point, be my guest. You want to go back to 1970, be my guest. I'll be happy to discuss that.
But this? This I'm done with.
Whoa there hotshot. Not so fast.
What ARE we spending and where? I mean, go ahead and add $8 billion or so for all the federal drug inmates if that floats your boat. There you go. A nice, big, fat, round $20 billion. In a $3 trillion budget.
What do you think the federal government is spending? Where do you get your numbers? Let's see that before we go ranting on about $120 billion, shall we? You'd think this is DU, for crying out loud.
"Just think of the benefits to the Correctional Officers Association!"
Screw 'em. I'm in favor of scrapping our prisons, state and federal, and paying Mexico to house them. Offer the Mexican government $10-20 thousand per prisoner per year and we'd both make money.
Visitation? Get a passport and buy a bus ticket to Nuevo Laredo.
"But that's from the ONDCP that you've already admitted uses bogus numbers."
No. These are NSDUH numbers.
1. We were discussing mj arrests and use. 2. I showed that there was indeed a positive correlation: more arrests positively correlates with more use.
Now, let's use your numbers from 1996-2004: there is still a positive correlation between more arrests and more mj use.
No, they'd live on the streets until the bleeding-heart liberals declared it was a violation of their rights and moved them to taxpayer-funded (ie., you and me) hospitals and sanatoriums. And then declare that they should get their drugs for free so they won't steal to fund their habit.
"I don't know one person who would go out and do a line of cocaine if it suddenly became legal, and I bet most people here don't know anyone who would either."
There are many people in Hollywood who didn't know anybody who voted for Reagan.
More arrests? Yes. A higher percentage? No.
With a public policy of marijuana arrests as the lowest priority (and the percentage of arrests did drop), there is a perception of a lower perceived risk. The number of users increased. The number of arrests increased, yes, but did not keep pace.
More arrests? Yes. A higher percentage? No.
Well, here's a correlation between more arrests, more demand, AND an increase in the percentage of arrests: from 1991-2004, arrests for mj were up over 150%, past-month demand was up 40%.* (that's also a failure to control demand during ONDCP's watch)
And dont forget this correlation from 1979-1991: Arrests declined by 25%, past-month usage declined to a multi-year low*.
Remember the Nixon Drug War? From 1970-1979, demand for mj and arrests for mj show a positive correlation.
*See post #270 on this thread for source.
Rio Linda summary-- There is at least as good a statistical case for the proposition that more arrests lead to more mj demand, as there is for the proposition that more arrests lead to less mj demand. I gave several time periods where the former relationship holds.
I made no claims for the period 1991-2004 (what's the significance?), the period 1979-1991 (again, what's the significance?), or the period 1970-1979 (again, what's the significance?).
You pull these out for no reason -- other than you selectively picked certain times where my statement wouldn't appply.
If I made the statement, "The stock market has gone down in the last five years, I'd fully expect you to post, "Uh, no, you're wrong. It went up three years ago on June 18, last November from the 14th to the 15th, and just last month it rose again! So you're wrong."
Two of those show a positive correlation, for periods ranging from 9 to 13 years, between increased arrests and increased demand for mj. The other shows a positive correlation between decreased arrests and decreased demand from 1979-1991. Given those correlations, one can't very well make a case for saying increased enforcement efforts caused a reduction in demand.
You pull these out for no reason -- other than you selectively picked certain times where my statement wouldn't appply.
You meant to show causality with your figures, correct? If so, then the examples I gave tend to refute your claim.
Yes, but not with just arrests. That was your idea and I stupidly played along. No more.
"Office of National Drug Control Policy, Draft — What America's Users Spend on Illegal Drugs, 1988-1998, pp. 9-11. As with cocaine, estimates for the size of the hardcore heroin using population are derived from mathematical models rather than probability-based population survey estimates."
RTI International is an independent, nonprofit, 501(c)(3) corporation, commissioned by the government to actually do the survey. Nothing sinister there. I mean, if you have a source with more accurate numbers, I'd really like to see it.
If not, well, you know what to do.
Quote the law.
[crickets]
That's insane! You are so liberally blatant in wanting to control somebody elses life that you are willing to kill? You sound like Kim Jong Il to me!
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.