Infrastructure Reforms

[ladajo]

You really do not understand the purpose of a lit review. It is meant to help frame the research to be conducted. It is not a research project in itself.
You also do not understand the point of a position paper.

The fun thing about reading these types of papers is the follow on chain of references. Sometimes you find circular hearsay (like Rossi's claims), other times you find a chain of re-quotes that eventually leads to an actual study. In any event, once you do find a study to look at, then yes, as you noted before you can deconstruct it on your own terms and decide if it presents anything valid. Or you can even take its raw, and re-interpret it using your own methodologies.
Given that you are a pharmacist, I am guessing that you have little to no exposure to actual qualitative studies or theory. Yes, I can see that you would tend to be a numbers guy. But, you can not remove the non-numbers when dealing with thinking beings. You can bin thought tendancies, but at the end of it, you need to get at the why. Numbers will not tell you why. They can hint at it, but not define it.

[Blankbeard]

You really do not understand the purpose of a lit review. It is meant to help frame the research to be conducted. It is not a research project in itself.

I am fully aware of the purpose of reviewing literature. If you prefer to refer to "review articles" I don't object. I've conducted literature reviews as an undergrad to determine whether a line of research was worth the time. I've also conducted them to answer questions, including from patients. See the term "Systematic Review" for more information.

You also do not understand the point of a position paper.

I don't? Enlighten me then.

The fun thing about reading these types of papers is the follow on chain of references. Sometimes you find circular hearsay (like Rossi's claims), other times you find a chain of re-quotes that eventually leads to an actual study. In any event, once you do find a study to look at, then yes, as you noted before you can deconstruct it on your own terms and decide if it presents anything valid. Or you can even take its raw, and re-interpret it using your own methodologies.

Why throw up a smoke screen of news articles, statements of understanding, and official positions? You've made reference to having "unfiltered reference access" at times. I'm not sure if you're referring to having paid journal access or filtered internet or something else. In the end, it doesn't really matter. Google Scholar and Pubmed are two very good sources for finding primary research. Both are free. I understand if you have connection limits but you have to have some level of access to one or both of those free sources.

And to be honest, no, I am not going to read through a pile of position papers looking for a handful of primary studies. I did so the first time you posted the DEA link. If you're going to make an argument, it's your responsibility to support it, not mine. If you support it with poor evidence or with evidence that doesn't actually support your argument, I will point that out.

Given that you are a pharmacist, I am guessing that you have little to no exposure to actual qualitative studies or theory. Yes, I can see that you would tend to be a numbers guy.

Let's stick to the arguments please. I don't know you and you don't know me. This sounds like you're trying to talk down to me and you're not in any position to do so. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh but this seems to be a recurring pattern here. It's always a danger with internet discussions. In any case, I hope I have misconstrued your statements. Focusing on the arguments should help keep that from happening again.

It doesn't really matter if I'm a numbers guy or not. What matters are the quality of the arguments I use. I am not claiming to be an authority, judge, flawless (I made a doozy the other day on the news board.) or anything but a person presenting arguments and supporting them as best I can.

But, you can not remove the non-numbers when dealing with thinking beings. You can bin thought tendancies, but at the end of it, you need to get at the why. Numbers will not tell you why. They can hint at it, but not define it.

That's a fairly anti-science statement. It's also not representative of what I've tried to do. I've made moral arguments and harm based arguments as well as arguments based on simple kindness. So you're off base here.

Again, some of these questions have qualitative answers. How do you answer a qualitative question? You have to base your answers on something. Tradition, feelings, opinions from others. These are all useful but evidence based worldviews have had more success than any other. Evidence based worldviews have produced peace, prosperity, and long life where ever they have been adopted. How's that for a qualitative argument?

So, you didn't like it when I pointed out the moral failings of our current drug policy and you don't like quantitative arguments. Would you prefer I post pictures of the dead in Central America from the drug war? Shall I point out that we can't even control drug diversion in solitary confinement?

Whether a given drug is medically useful or not or connected to the course of a condition are questions to be answered by researchers. Whether a particular drug is best for a patient is a matter for that patient and their healthcare team. That is morally correct as well as the kindest and most empowering solution yet. It also happens to be the one with the best outcomes.

But our drug policy is decided by people who have no experience in research or medicine and do not have the well-being of patients at heart (or even in view).

[ladajo]

I will simplify.

I do not just review articles, I review articles to look for references to names dates places. Then that starts a trail to find source material and facts. I have asid this szeveral times already. I really could care less what some reporter says. What he is talking about is what really matters. Who said something, why did they say it, and most importantly for our purposes here, what did they base what they said on?

Position papers are purely political in nature. Period. They are never meant to be primary reference material, unles what you are presenting is related to describing the entities position. What they are good for is starting lit review trails. See above.

I am not throwing up smokescreens of articles. My intention all along has merely been to give you starting points to do your own digging.

The past few months I have been in Peru, Russia, Europe and Turkey. I am now back in my real office. Being abroad, depending on where, creates limitations on web access. You may not fully know this. Also, in my office, I do have full access to the back side of paywalls, as well as deeper depth to other sources I do not always have when on the road.

I do not mean a slight in your profession, I was making an observation on the foundation of your thinking process. You education would indicate it has given a predilection towards numbers based analysis. Discussin gdrugs is more than numbers. They certainly matter, but to speak in full scope the qualitative side must also be measured. It is like when prescribing a drug to a patient, it is not just about whether it works (quantitative), it is about how it works and can the patient's circumstance support that (qualitative). That is what Doctor's consider when considering the treatment plan.

Speaking of the dead in Central America (and South America) from the Drug War. I have been there and seen them myself. Have you? Don't throw out silly things.

If you had been around here for a while you would know that I do not support the current system for drugs. You would also know that I do not profess to have a better answer. You would finally know that I absolutely do not support legalization. What we are doing is not working well. But unfettered access is idiocy. it would be the same as doing away with your profession and allowing folks to go to Walmart and buy whatever medicine they think they need for their perceived ills.
Do you really think that hanging softpacks of morphine next to the gum at the checkout register will go well? How about baggies of 20-30% THC pot? Is that a good idea?

[ladajo]

I spent a little time earlier today re-reading the DEA 2011 position paper and specifically looking at the citations. I veritable goldmine if you will.

http://www.justice.gov/dea/docs/marijua ... n_2011.pdf

I'd refer to it as fool's gold. Out of 287 cites (not references, cites) I count 5 references to primary literature. And that's counting anything that looks like primary literature as if it were and the results of a survey. There's no literature review, nothing to actually convince the skeptical mind that policy is correct, effective, or sane.

Of course, that's not the point of a policy document. If all you want is the DEA's position, this is a gold mine.

By the way, you do not seem to count so well.

Here is something from a random study I pulled from a DEA "article" (actually a Press Release) cite. Did you count it as an article or a study?

It took me one hop to get to.

184 “New Study shows dramatic shifts in substance abuse treatment admissions among states between 1998 and 2008.”
Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration, Office of Applied
Studies. Press Release. December 22, 2010. http://www.samhsa.gov.

http://www.samhsa.gov/newsroom/advisori ... 22500.aspx

http://wwwdasis.samhsa.gov/teds08/teds2k8sweb.pdf

From Page 8 of the study:

Marijuana
• The treatment admission rate for primary marijuana was 31 percent higher in 2008, at 130 per 100,000 population aged 12 and older, than in 1998 (99 per 100,000).
• Marijuana admission rates were between 5 and 67 percent higher in 2008 than in 1998 in each of the nine Census divisions.
• Among individual States and jurisdictions, marijuana admission rates were higher in 2008 than in 1998 in 35 of the 48 reporting in both years, lower in 12, and unchanged in 1.
• From 1998 through 2008, marijuana treatment admission rates were consistently highest in the West North Central and Middle Atlantic divisions [Table 1.5b and Figure 3].

And now, we get to ask "Why?"
Is it related to some sort of shift/increase in actual drug use rates?

Here are some numbers from the National Drug Survey
Ages 12 and up any Illicit drug: (We assume that Marijiuana is a fair enough consistent percentage of drugs used by type because I am too lazy to pull the pot numbers right now form the US Survey itself but pot seems to run about 3/4 or so of "any" drug use)
Year 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
Past Year(%) 11 12.6 14.9 14.7 14.5 14.4 14.5 14.4 14.2 15.1 15.3
Past Month(%)6.3 7.1 8.3 8.2 7.9 8.1 8.3 8 8 8.7 8.9

and from the 2010 World Drug Report Figure 94, Page 124.
US Marijuana use 2000-2008 ages 12 and up
Past Year (%) 8.3 9.3 11.0 10.6 10.6 10.4 10.3 10.1 10.3

So it would appear not to be directly related to numbers of users...

Or is it something else, like availability or perception of risk, or levels of use? Or is it something to do with THC levels? I would be horrified to think that there is a growing percentage of teens susceptible to Mental Disorder or Addiction within the country. Maybe suscepibility is not a factor, maybe it has to do with drug use itself. Although it is also important to note that the admissions increases were primarily in the "Legalize Pot" campaign zones.

And so on.

All that from following up on one cite and then pondering on it.

Fool's Gold indeed.

[williatw]

I
If you had been around here for a while you would know that I do not support the current system for drugs. You would also know that I do not profess to have a better answer. You would finally know that I absolutely do not support legalization. What we are doing is not working well. But unfettered access is idiocy. it would be the same as doing away with your profession and allowing folks to go to Walmart and buy whatever medicine they think they need for their perceived ills.
Do you really think that hanging softpacks of morphine next to the gum at the checkout register will go well? How about baggies of 20-30% THC pot? Is that a good idea?

It would be difficult to picture drugs especially hard drugs ever being "legalized" without extensive regulations. So legalization does not equal "unfettered access". I probably could have scored pot (& probably other drugs with a little more effort) in HS much more easily than say hard liquor which is legal. The 45% or so against the idea of legalization would force the regs on it. Even if just pot is legalized regs on concentration, availability, etc. will inevitably follow. Much stricter regs on concentration, availability, quantity you can buy, where & when, who is allowed etc. for harder drugs. I think it is a straw argument to compare our existing system, acknowledge that it is not working, but say it is better than a hypothetical (but totally unrealistic) legalized system where anything goes.

[ladajo]

My point is that we need to change something, just not blindly legalize all as some here support. My other point is that I do not know what the change should be. It is a wicked complex problem at best.

That said, you do understand that your comments address regulation and control. And in any form, regulation and control will bring pre-meditated attempts to beat the system. And the more regulation applied, the more impetus there is for illicit attempts to make a buck or gain "illegal" access to regulated items.

Yes Virginia, folks still commit crimes for, steal and smuggle cigarettes and alcohol. Yet they are "legal".

Where I went to HS in New Hampshire, it was equally easy to get alcohol or drugs, both just as illegal for teens. I can't count cigarettes, because smoking was legal for kids then. We had a school designated smoking area.

Me personally, I stuck to drinking, I did not see the point to drugs or smoking. Those classmates of mine that did drugs, for the most part are now life fails (non-steady employment, no real career path, low income, etc). The ones that did drugs that have lead "successful" lives have struggled (erratic career paths, divorces, lower than possible potentials).
Those kids that I knew that did no drugs from those days, have for the most part done well in life. And of note, this was not a poor town, but an affluent one with predominantly white collar families. There was also essentially zero ethic mix, although a few families had some American Indian heritage. To also help put things in context, there was as I recall about an 85% direct accession rate into college from my graduating class. I do not have a good number on how many actually finshed or went on to graduate work. But I do have a decent feel that the drops/transfers were more of the drug crowd than not. I am basing this on 3 decades of personally observed data.

[Blankbeard]

I will simplify.

No need to simplify. I understand, I simply think you're going about things in a way that discourages transparency and clarity.

a trail to find source material and facts.

That trail ends with primary literature. So why go through multiple layers of indirection when a simple pubmed search will produce the same papers and more? This is what I'm referring to as a smokescreen. You are going around your rear end to get to your elbow. Why?

Position papers are purely political in nature. Period. They are never meant to be primary reference material, unles what you are presenting is related to describing the entities position. What they are good for is starting lit review trails. See above.

Just as an example, the DEA paper you linked had 287 non-unique cites. Probably at least 200 unique ones. About 5 of them (I could have missed a couple) are direct links to primary literature. There are a few press releases, lots of other position papers, and a bunch of news articles. If I spent 10 minutes on each of those cites, reading tracking down the ones that 404 or otherwise have been moved and did so for 8 hours a day, it would take 6 days for me to work through that single paper. And that's a rather conservative estimate.

Compare this. It took me less than an hour to find the studies behind your articles, find the articles that pointed out problems with them or otherwise find background information to understand what the studies are really showing.

First, why would I put that time into chasing down resources when there is no indication that you have ever done so? Do you know there are papers behind those press releases that are new and high quality? Why not just link to them? I'm not a student and you're not a teacher. It seems like you're trying to give me busy work. And I'm not interested in that. If you don't want to support your arguments, that's your fault, not mine.

I am not throwing up smokescreens of articles. My intention all along has merely been to give you starting points to do your own digging.

Again, why do all of that when a simple pubmed search will do the same thing? You've apparently got better access than I do. That's why I don't understand your reliance on low quality sources.

The past few months I have been in Peru, Russia, Europe and Turkey. I am now back in my real office. Being abroad, depending on where, creates limitations on web access. You may not fully know this. Also, in my office, I do have full access to the back side of paywalls, as well as deeper depth to other sources I do not always have when on the road.

Understood. That's what I alluded to in my last post.

I do not mean a slight in your profession, I was making an observation on the foundation of your thinking process. You education would indicate it has given a predilection towards numbers based analysis.

That makes it sound more like you were slighting me personally. I'll assume that's not your intention though. I've made arguments that you can address. Even if I were an unreliable drunk, it's the quality of my arguments that matters.

Discussin gdrugs is more than numbers. They certainly matter, but to speak in full scope the qualitative side must also be measured. It is like when prescribing a drug to a patient, it is not just about whether it works (quantitative), it is about how it works and can the patient's circumstance support that (qualitative). That is what Doctor's consider when considering the treatment plan.

You are making it sound as if I am saying that judgement plays no role in decision making. I have not done this. I have made it clear that doctors are the final arbiter of what recommendations to make and what options to offer to patients. Patients are the final arbiters of what treatment is undertaken. They use the full range of their experience and knowledge to make these decisions. This is as it should be. Evidence is the single best guide but it is hardly the only guide.

Hopefully you know understand my position and can let this pointless side-argument drop.

Speaking of the dead in Central America (and South America) from the Drug War. I have been there and seen them myself. Have you? Don't throw out silly things.

Tens of thousands of dead are many things. Silly is not one of them.

If you had been around here for a while you would know that I do not support the current system for drugs. You would also know that I do not profess to have a better answer. You would finally know that I absolutely do not support legalization. What we are doing is not working well. But unfettered access is idiocy. it would be the same as doing away with your profession and allowing folks to go to Walmart and buy whatever medicine they think they need for their perceived ills.
Do you really think that hanging softpacks of morphine next to the gum at the checkout register will go well? How about baggies of 20-30% THC pot? Is that a good idea?

Is it a choice between no knock raids by militarized police or family packs of heroin at the Walmart? There is no intermediate position? I've outlined a step that is certainly an intermediate. Move marijuana from schedule I to schedule II. Far more dangerous and addictive drugs are already on schedule II, including cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine.

Second, we need to recognize that we have been unable to fight demand for drugs with our current methods. We need to try something new. This is already happening as the states react to the continuing failure. Central America is also signalling their unwillingness to continue paying the price for American drug use.

As a first idea, decriminalization is one option. I think we need to stop looking at drug use as the problem and start seeing it as a symptom of other troubles. We might look at issues relating to poverty, dependency, and demographics to see what we might address. Economic prosperity isn't a cure-all but eliminating the culture of state dependency and powerlessness that drives people into crime and abuse might help. Even if it doesn't it will have enough good effect on the rest of society. Dig through Levin's argument that prison, even death row, doesn't act as a deterrent to drug gangs because their lifespans are longer and better on death row than on the street. Better lives might lead to better deterrence.

Immigration is another issue tied up with this. We don't seem to be able to stop drugs from crossing the border. It might be easier to do so if we didn't have the level of human traffic coming from Mexico. At least part of . that is on the Mexican government but they're making progress. Making it easier to come here legally (and particularly for seasonal workers to come and return home) we can reduce illegal immigration. Will this work? I don't know. It's hard to see how it could be worse. And it's something we need to do anyway.

There's more. Legal reforms in particular. I don't have a complete plan. That's above my expertise. But attitudes are changing and laws are following suit. It would be nice to have a refocusing onto the cartels themselves and the larger branches of their distribution network. Easier said than done, but it needs to be done. We can't keep our heads in the sands much longer.

[Blankbeard]

That said, you do understand that your comments address regulation and control. And in any form, regulation and control will bring pre-meditated attempts to beat the system. And the more regulation applied, the more impetus there is for illicit attempts to make a buck or gain "illegal" access to regulated items.

Sure. There are no perfect solutions. Welcome to the real world. The saying is "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." All we can do is better.

Yes Virginia, folks still commit crimes for, steal and smuggle cigarettes and alcohol. Yet they are "legal".

Sure, people steal penny candy. We're imperfect. But even the most authoritarian state with draconic laws doesn't become crime-free. And to be perfectly honest, I'm tired of giving up my civil liberties because some crack head causes trouble.

Where I went to HS in New Hampshire, it was equally easy to get alcohol or drugs, both just as illegal for teens. I can't count cigarettes, because smoking was legal for kids then. We had a school designated smoking area.

Same in the South.

Me personally, I stuck to drinking, I did not see the point to drugs or smoking.

I don't smoke, drink, or do drugs. Still, I'd like to remind you of a few things:

1) The plural of anecdote is not data. Not even 3 decades worth.
2) It makes little sense to me to throw jail terms on top of a troubled life.
3) Something like 80% of drug users experience few or no problems.
3.a) Our last 3 presidents have included a pot smoker, an alcoholic/coke fiend, and a man who managed to be a controlling douchebag while under the effects of powerful sedatives. Choom gang indeed.

As I said in an early post, I think drug use is almost always a bad idea. But I also think that we're making our problems worse to satisfy the ideological and financial interests of a powerful minority. That's an even worse idea.

[Blankbeard]

It would be difficult to picture drugs especially hard drugs ever being "legalized" without extensive regulations. So legalization does not equal "unfettered access". I probably could have scored pot (& probably other drugs with a little more effort) in HS much more easily than say hard liquor which is legal. The 45% or so against the idea of legalization would force the regs on it. Even if just pot is legalized regs on concentration, availability, etc. will inevitably follow. Much stricter regs on concentration, availability, quantity you can buy, where & when, who is allowed etc. for harder drugs. I think it is a straw argument to compare our existing system, acknowledge that it is not working, but say it is better than a hypothetical (but totally unrealistic) legalized system where anything goes.

I pitched a limited alternative in an early post. No one saw fit to even consider it. It's two posts back in a bit fuller form. I'm not going to pretend to have all the answers or to know what will definitely work. I know that Central America and the states are moving. The Federal government is facing a real problem. What if they have a drug war and no one comes?

[Blankbeard]

By the way, you do not seem to count so well.

Is this really needed? Can't you just make an argument instead of an insult?

Here is something from a random study I pulled from a DEA "article" (actually a Press Release) cite. Did you count it as an article or a study?

Press Releases Are Not Studies. You're not a teacher assigning homework. It's your job to support your own arguments.

It took me one hop to get to.

Great. Even less reason to not provide it as support for your argument.

184 “New Study shows dramatic shifts in substance abuse treatment admissions among states between 1998 and 2008.”
Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration, Office of Applied
Studies. Press Release. December 22, 2010. http://www.samhsa.gov.

http://www.samhsa.gov/newsroom/advisori ... 22500.aspx

http://wwwdasis.samhsa.gov/teds08/teds2k8sweb.pdf

From Page 8 of the study:

Marijuana
• The treatment admission rate for primary marijuana was 31 percent higher in 2008, at 130 per 100,000 population aged 12 and older, than in 1998 (99 per 100,000).

Let's keep in mind that according to what you post below, the rate of marijuana use in 2008 (Past year) was between 10,100 and 14,200 per 100,000. So between 1 and 2 percent of marijuana users will end up in a treatment program. This also appears to be stable over the study period (1.6% in 1998)

It's also similar to the rate of hospitalization, about 1%. From here
http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb39.jsp

So nearly all pot users will not require medical or psychological treatment. They're very likely to be arrested of course. Doesn't make pot use a great idea, it simply suggests that aside from worrying about the government, most pot users require treatment.

Also, let's remember that a transfer or a readmission counts as a new treatment admission. The number of unique admissions is not known. If certain users are prone to readmission, they might skew the figure higher. Differences in reporting between states could affect figures either way.

• Marijuana admission rates were between 5 and 67 percent higher in 2008 than in 1998 in each of the nine Census divisions.
• Among individual States and jurisdictions, marijuana admission rates were higher in 2008 than in 1998 in 35 of the 48 reporting in both years, lower in 12, and unchanged in 1.
• From 1998 through 2008, marijuana treatment admission rates were consistently highest in the West North Central and Middle Atlantic divisions [Table 1.5b and Figure 3].

And now, we get to ask "Why?"
Is it related to some sort of shift/increase in actual drug use rates?

Here are some numbers from the National Drug Survey
Ages 12 and up any Illicit drug: (We assume that Marijiuana is a fair enough consistent percentage of drugs used by type because I am too lazy to pull the pot numbers right now form the US Survey itself but pot seems to run about 3/4 or so of "any" drug use)
Year 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
Past Year(%) 11 12.6 14.9 14.7 14.5 14.4 14.5 14.4 14.2 15.1 15.3
Past Month(%)6.3 7.1 8.3 8.2 7.9 8.1 8.3 8 8 8.7 8.9

and from the 2010 World Drug Report Figure 94, Page 124.
US Marijuana use 2000-2008 ages 12 and up
Past Year (%) 8.3 9.3 11.0 10.6 10.6 10.4 10.3 10.1 10.3

So it would appear not to be directly related to numbers of users...

How so? The relative rates in each of those three lines for 2000 and 2008 are 1.29, 1.27, and 1.24. The relative rate from 1998 to 2008 in TEDS is 1.3. Admissions rates have scaled almost perfectly with usage rates. Correlation is not causation, of course, but these are some very nice correlations.

So how did you determine TEDS rate increases weren't related to usage increases?

Or is it something else, like availability or perception of risk, or levels of use? Or is it something to do with THC levels? I would be horrified to think that there is a growing percentage of teens susceptible to Mental Disorder or Addiction within the country. Maybe suscepibility is not a factor, maybe it has to do with drug use itself.

Given the similarity of the relative rates, I'm going to say no, no, no reason to be horrified, and no, susceptibility doesn't seem to be a factor.

Although it is also important to note that the admissions increases were primarily in the "Legalize Pot" campaign zones.

Care to actually support that? Wikipedia has a timeline of legalization/decriminalization events by state. The TEDS report on page 20 has individual states with rates by drug and year. I did enough to satisfy me that there were no strong correlations in legal changes and marijuana rates but if you're sure there are, I'd love to see the work. Up to you of course.

And so on.

All that from following up on one cite and then pondering on it.

Fool's Gold indeed.

What exactly is it you think you've demonstrated? That drug rates change?

Look, I don't doubt that there is decent research behind some of these papers. But I'm not going to dig it out for you unless you're willing to pay me a decent research rate (I'll throw the figure of 100 dollars per hour out there to make it worth my while.) This is work you should be doing, not me. I may visit policy sites to find things, but I"m not going to go to the trouble of finding them then give you the policy site and expect you to do it all again.

That's plain rude. But I think I've beaten this horse enough.

[Diogenes]

ladajo, you have the patience of a Saint.

[ladajo]

Sometimes.

Blankbeard,

My counting comment was based on your quip regarding number of studies referenced in the DEA Position Paper. Once again, I have only said that documents like the one I posted can be useful to find studies, nothing more, nothing less. You in turn tried to sarcastically point out (count them on your fingers) few studies were referenced out of 280 odd cites. I merely countered and pointed out that you were not counting things like Press Releases about studies, and that your counting method was suspect. I would like to think I did it in a less sarcastic manner than you. I also took the time to explain that even a news article is useful in that it can help you find studies that it references. While a position paper may cite a politician spouting off about some factoid, the poiint is not what he said, or that the paper referenced a news write-up of his quote. More pertinant is WHERE SAID POLITICIAN GOT THE QUOTE FROM. And normally a news article will give you a clue on that. The quality or validity of the study is not being discussed, simply a means of discovering its location or existence for further review.

Apparently I am a teacher, as you can not grasp that I was pointing out you inadequate argument over the usefulness of looking at the DEA Position Paper Cites to find primary sources. You were(maybe are) ready to dismiss a cite that noted a "Press Release"

Press Releases Are Not Studies.

.
That particular Press Release was about a study being released. You seemed to ignore things like that as valuable.

Great. Even less reason to not provide it as support for your argument.

My argument is about finding studies and sources. You keep seeming to miss that obvious purpose, even when I have said it.

Let's keep in mind that according to what you post below, the rate of marijuana use in 2008 (Past year) was between 10,100 and 14,200 per 100,000. So between 1 and 2 percent of marijuana users will end up in a treatment program. This also appears to be stable over the study period (1.6% in 1998)

Who cares? What are you talking about here? It is irrelevant to what I said. It is like you trying to misdirect the argument to something unrelated.
The key points I put forward in my simple analysis, (remember this is more about finding primary sources than arguing drug facts) was:
In 2000, 11% of folks reported use of drugs in the past year, while 6.3% reported use in the past month.
In 2008, 14.2% reported use in the last year, with 8% past month.
So there was a (14.2-11) 3.2% total increase in "Past Year" use from 2000 until 2008, and a (8-6.3) 1.7% increase in "Past Month" use in the same period.
For arguments sake I allocate about 75% of total users as pot smokers. (It may be a little higher, but who cares?).
Of interest is that there does seem to be an anomaly in reported use rates to the low side for certain age groupings for the 2008/9 data that may be skewing the totals. But in any event that is neither here nor there. To be a little more averaged, I guess we could take the 2010 data set, and that would be: 15.3% Last Year, 8.9% Last Month for deltas of +4.3% and +3.6% respectively from 2000.
So here we can see a 30% or better increase in usage rates (if you either look at the annual from 2000-08 or 2000-10 data), which seems to corrospond directly to the reported 31% increase in treatment admission rates. What is further interesting is when you look a little deeper at this data you find that the surges in treatment and usage rates are geographically similar to the "Pot Lobby" zones. Coincidence?

But what is interesting is that my hypothesis about 75% is not seemingly correct, as there seems to be more stability of pot usage rates basis in the 2010 World Drug Report for 2000-08. (8.3 to 10.3) which infers a 20% growth, vice the higher 30% from national data. That would imply a non-direct relationship (10% error), and a potentially worse one (ie. greater than unity). A string to pull here would be where the World Report Data came from. I would think it would be the US National Household Survey, which is where my numbers are from. But who really knows until they check.
If the World Report numbers are more accurate, then that means potentially that we are having more (10%) folks susceptible to requiring treatment per user than before. Is this related to THC percentages or other things? Dunno. But worth asking.

Admissions rates have scaled almost perfectly with usage rates.

That is the whole point to consider.

As for Pot Lobby zones, there are several resources to see where/where advertising and campaigning monies were spent. I try not to use Wikipedia as a reference for anything. You need to look closer at the geo breakdowns in the cited study. They have nice colored maps and everything. Look at Colorado and Washington State, as well as California.

Look, I don't doubt that there is decent research behind some of these papers. But I'm not going to dig it out for you unless you're willing to pay me a decent research rate (I'll throw the figure of 100 dollars per hour out there to make it worth my while.) This is work you should be doing, not me. I may visit policy sites to find things, but I"m not going to go to the trouble of finding them then give you the policy site and expect you to do it all again.

I would offer that you are very cheap at $100/hr to do research.
If you want to argue around here, be ready to pull up citations and understand them. If not you will be quickly dismissed.
I, unlike many others, offer references to places you can look to help further your own arguments. You seem to miss that point as well.

The drug war has been going on around here for a number of years courtesy of Msimon. You are a veritable babe in the woods here. Most of your hand waving has been addressed time and time again, with both sides winning and losing the points occasionally. I, like most, lurked here for a while before I joined the fray. So don't think I am being rude or dismissive, normally I take a gentler tone, but of late, I find myself stressed that the same stupid crap keeps coming up over and over. Nothing personal, I am sure you are an argumentive nice guy. So, nothing personal again.

We need more Public Polywell News.

[Blankbeard]

The quality or validity of the study is not being discussed, simply a means of discovering its location or existence for further review.

Ok, if you insist on going through multiple levels of indirection instead of straight to the source, that's your prerogative. I don't understand it, and I don't intend to spend much time following suit.

Apparently I am a teacher,

Not really.

My argument is about finding studies and sources. You keep seeming to miss that obvious purpose, even when I have said it.

No, it's just that you're using a method that seems designed to waste time. You have access to search engines designed to locate primary research yet you eschew them to go through multiple levels of press releases and other popular media. That's why I made the teacher comment. It reminded me of when the elementary teacher didn't have anything for us to do, she'd give us some busy work just to fill the time.

Who cares? What are you talking about here?

You're focusing on what is at best an issue that might affect 1% of an already small group of users. The other 99% aren't having problems. The following terms are what I'm talking about: Number needed to treat, clinical significance, statistical significance. Compare that number to virtually any other activity and you'll find it's much lower. So why focus on an activity that qualifies as nearly harmless?

So here we can see a 30% or better increase in usage rates (if you either look at the annual from 2000-08 or 2000-10 data), which seems to corrospond directly to the reported 31% increase in treatment admission rates.

Yeah, I agree. You initially said this wasn't the case. I pointed out that it was. And I see you didn't elaborate on why you thought it wasn't. Calculating relative risks is pretty basic stuff.

What is further interesting is when you look a little deeper at this data you find that the surges in treatment and usage rates are geographically similar to the "Pot Lobby" zones. Coincidence?

Maybe. You haven't shown that this is the case. Most of the state wide changes, up or down, in marijuana use are below the level of statistical significance. Meaning we're not sure where they are. But it's probably not a bad assumption that people who support pot use are more likely to use pot.

Also, California and New York are probably centers for the "Pot Lobby" but is the midwest? Ohio, Michigan? The Carolinas, Georgia? Are these "Pot Lobby" strong holds?

Let me give you an alternate hypothesis. Here's a list of the states by highest population:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U. ... population
All of the top 10 most populous states are in those 4 divisions except for Texas. So are you looking at "Pot Lobby" States or are you looking at populous states? You could find heavy concentrations in nearly any demographic and those states will show up near the top.

But what is interesting is that my hypothesis about 75% is not seemingly correct, as there seems to be more stability of pot usage rates basis in the 2010 World Drug Report for 2000-08. (8.3 to 10.3) which infers a 20% growth, vice the higher 30% from national data.

You can't simply combine two data sets that way. You need a meta-analysis or at least an in-depth knowledge of their data collection methods. I doubt if either of us wants to undertake that.

That would imply a non-direct relationship (10% error), and a potentially worse one (ie. greater than unity).

No, that's not what error means. There is a 10% difference but that could be sampling error, different methods of measurement, real differences, or something else.

You need to look closer at the geo breakdowns in the cited study. They have nice colored maps and everything. Look at Colorado and Washington State, as well as California.

I looked at them. I also checked for statistical significance. Did you?

I would offer that you are very cheap at $100/hr to do research.

That's what I get paid to answer questions for patients. It's a living.

If you want to argue around here, be ready to pull up citations and understand them. If not you will be quickly dismissed.

Really? You're telling me this? I've given you direct link to reference after reference.

I, unlike many others, offer references to places you can look to help further your own arguments. You seem to miss that point as well.

I'm supporting my arguments just fine, thank you. Your time should be spent supporting your own arguments.

same stupid crap keeps coming up over and over. Nothing personal, I am sure you are an argumentive nice guy. So, nothing personal again.

We need more Public Polywell News.

If you think I'm posting stupid crap, I really don't know what to tell you. You haven't exactly been making high quality arguments here. You're missing things that are perfectly obvious like alternative explanations and correlations. And your argument rests on these very things.

This is the last of my long responses on this thread. It takes me much more time to properly support my arguments than it does for you to post what you referred to as "stupid crap." If you want to play the forum elder card, fine. It doesn't make you right and it doesn't make up for weak argumentation. I'm sure you're also a stand up guy and a good person and I mean nothing personal in my posts. But your arguments are not measuring up to the level of authority you're claiming. Thank you for your time.

[ladajo]

Stupid crap was not directed at you.

You can combine date when it is the same source (as I suspect it may be, and already stated so.)

Your level of argument is not what you think it is.

You are right in one thing. I have not been applying full attention to my efforts with you. Nothing personal, I am just busy with other stuff. As for my point, again, I do have access to things that you don't. But in that, I am merely (once again) trying to point out to you how to access similar things, or find them when you don't have the high end search engines like I do. If you don't care, then fine. It is not for me, it is for you (and others).

I bet you were a fun student in your time.

[Diogenes]

I bet you were a fun student in your time.

Which I suspect was only a few years ago.