I presented a link to a number of posts (which include responses to and refutations of your #65 and other posts, so I didn't have to "mention" or "omit" anything) so that people who read the thread and are interested, may see your tendency to present your theories as correlations and/or implied causations (possible correlation that strongly implies and is passed as causation, without which theories and correlations are coincidental and meaningless). I didn't feel the need to continue that "conversation" on that thread or graft it into this one.
Based on your posts, I think you are sincere in your confusion and not quite understanding the importance of the differences between these concepts (rather than "not understanding" it because it's convenient "not to understand" it) but it may confuse other people (as it's often designed to do, especially in politics or finance, some examples of which I have provided) and it makes difficult to have an intelligent argument with you without getting into all kinds of tangents and having useless "endless threads" and being called, in effect, a liar, i.e., "dishonest / distort / deliberate deceit / omit" etc., which is irresponsible and is often used in debates as a "shut up" or "yo' mama" or "change the subject" tactic.
I think it's safe to say that you haven't met the burden of proof on your theory of "highway deaths" related to "fewer Americans are drinking and driving; more are using drugs" and leave it at that. tactic.
Yes you did. I can't read your mind, so I can only speculate as to the reason for your dishonesty. I personally think it's calculated to distract from the point that nearly 20 years of looser pot laws have not resulted in deadlier highways.
You thought you had a nice 'gotcha' with this article and someone came along and spoiled your party.