As it should, but there was absolutely nothing about fatalities in the article. You ignored it and went on that tangent, without any facts regarding intersecting data sets.
If you are a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.
If your mind is set that everything in the world relates / caused only by drug laws, regulations or absence of them, then you will try to prove it no matter whether there is a causation in the data set or you have to create one out the blue.
Just like some people find that everything revolves around "inequity," "racism," "social [in]justice" or some conspiracy theory and will find the "facts" that "prove" it in any unrelated or only tangentially related study.
Trying to reduce everything to a single factor is bad enough, but using it to statistically or logically prove causation when it's not even a part of the data set is ridiculous.
For example, much safer cars, better highways, car-pooling, drive for re-urbanization with higher utilization of public transportation in major cities (reducing, limiting / one-way, or banning passenger car traffic in certain areas) would have a reasonably high degree of correlation with whether the outcome of accident was fatal or not, and can be statistically verified, though fatalities were not a part the above report.
You've had similar idée fixe before, attempting to "prove" correlation / causation of crime statistics in California relative to assumption of "loosened marijuana laws" when there was no causation and when other "non-loosened" states showed similar or better crime reduction statistics :
Cannabis really can trigger paranoia - FR, posts #64, #68, #71, 2014 July 21
You distorted my posts on that thread and you continue to do so now. You failed to mention #65, which puts lie to everything you just claimed. I bolded the times I made the point that causation does not equal correlation.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
To: CutePuppy
If you accept the premise that marijuana laws have loosened significantly since the mid-1990s, and if you accept the crime figures at the link, then there indeed has been a positive correlation between the two since the mid-1990s. However, you cannot say there is a causal relationship based on such a correlation. Agree with both statements?
To say two things are correlated is not to say that one or the other variable is causal =>
_________________________________________________________________
"Correlation does not imply causation is a phrase in science and statistics that emphasizes that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
_________________________________________________________________
CutePuppy: How about illegal immigration and crime rate? There has been unarguably more illegal immigration while the crime rate ostensibly dropped. Conclusions?
Same as with the pot laws => 1. There's been a positive correlation between the two since the mid-1990s. 2. You cannot say there is a causal relationship. 3. Further investigation is needed to draw any conlusions.
Do you agree?
_______________________________________________________________
Now, I'll be glad to discuss other points you raised, such as causes of falling crime and what drug policy should be. But first, I want to get cleared up what should be a simple point => When I say there a correlation, I am not making the case for causation. I am making a case against the claim legalizing pot would cause crime to rise significantly. With CA's violent crime rate falling by half since 1996, it seems a highly dubious proposition.
65 posted on Tue Jul 22 2014 00:44:03 GMT-0400 (EDT) by Ken H
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
So was it an oversight, or was it a deliberate act of deceit on your part to omit it?