Comment: DOUBLED at best, even by their own standards!

(See in situ)


DOUBLED at best, even by their own standards!

No, I don't believe it. Even the information given by Columbia in the Yahoo article makes one skeptical of the claim that the stat has tripled. Certainly I don't think I'm alone in immediately thinking that the stat they are attempting to shine the light on, may appear as such because testing for marijuana toxicity has tripled in the last decade. Any worthy article headlined as such would address that notion. It would also cite as newsworthy, simply the fact that auto accident fatalities that involve marijuana have increased AT ALL, as fatal car crashes overall have decreased more than 20% in the last decade. Just showing that marijuana related fatal crashes have not followed the general trend would be newsworthy. There is nothing revealed that makes the study's numbers mean anything remarkable even if the testing was consistent (not increased). For example they reveal nothing in how they cross-tested or isolated their 4% from their 16% finding or their 12% from their 28% finding. Even if it was all impeccably done, their alarmist claim of "Tripled" is STILL UNTRUE! Using their own stats on easily available data shows that "Fatal Car Crashes Involving Pot Use Have" DOUBLED at best. I don't even believe that to actually be true, but it shows that they LIE! If they are willing to lie merely to increase their claim from "doubled" to "tripled", then at what other points in their "study" are they idiotically irresponsible, trashing the concept of science, and bending the truth toward a particular agenda?

addendum: Say that in the year 2019 car crash fatalities continue to drop as they have - to around 20,000 [66% of what they were in 2009]. Let's imagine marijuana use continues to increase. Say that ALL people involved in those crashes tested positive in 2019 for marijuana toxicity. That would roughly show an 8 fold increase in percentage of those marijuana related, a 5 fold increase of "marijuana related" deaths, yet still a substantial decrease in deaths overall. Sure, this is absurdly hypothetical, but I present it to show how elusive such statistics (true or untrue) actually are in providing insight toward this or that.