|
Even if the the cases are mostly related to something else, it's still interesting to ask why that stat would increase, especially by such a large margin. My guess is decriminalization/increased societal acceptance of marijuana use makes people more likely to admit that they had been smoking marijuana when something happened. Similar to statistics on virgin births, I would guess that it has little to do with the actual rate of marijuana use, but I don't think it's an ignorable metric either. Also yeah, presumably any time you mention you were smoking in the ER it's going in your medical record - it would be pretty irresponsible for a doctor to discount it. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Jun 27, 2014 |
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 16:52 |
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Why the hell are people being admitted to the emergency room for "cannabis-related" anything? They aren't. They're being admitted for other things that are totally unrelated, and the doctor happens to note they are high. Under DAWN, this has to be reported. It's like if you made a law saying every car accident involving a minority has to be reported. Then the IIHS could publish ridiculous papers that seem to imply that car accidents are caused by being black, but are still technically factual.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
KillHour posted:They aren't. They're being admitted for other things that are totally unrelated, and the doctor happens to note they are high. Under DAWN, this has to be reported. Ahh yes, because a doctor noting what medications you are on when you visit the ER is exactly the same as noting your race when you get in a car accident, yep, mmhmm. Lets see if anyone can spot the difference in the two examples. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Jun 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
KillHour posted:They aren't. They're being admitted for other things that are totally unrelated, and the doctor happens to note they are high. Under DAWN, this has to be reported. Don't you think there's a reason why we try to accrue data? Studies have suggested correlation to psychological disorders, and while they're inconclusive and lack causality, it's enough to warrant more research. The more data we collect the better we understand how it effects us collectively, individually, and interacts with other drugs. Maybe it's just me, but I'd like to know a little more about the poo poo I put in my body. My best, highly uneducated guess is that, much like everything else on this planet save for maybe water and oxygen, weed is for some people and not for others. a digital orc fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Jun 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
This is drug law. Regardless of whether there might be a good reason for the government to do something, that is never the reason they actually do it. They do it because they hate drugs or they make a lot of money pretending they hate drugs. They do it because hating drugs is an easy way to keep the black man and the hispanics down. They do it because they see people taking drugs as a threat to their power base, what with the role of drugs in the counterculture. The reason they accrue the data, especially considering the way they accrue the data, isn't because they care about what it says. Government's regularly throw out and hide actual legitimate drug research, usually in favour of garbage that says what they want it to, because the point of this data isn't to discover, it's to justify. Although actually this study doesn't seem that bad, it's basic number crunching, but it's the sort of thing that if it gets attention at all will get that attention because it serves a narrative, not because someone actually wants to learn something from. :/ GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Jun 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
no, hating drugs is not the primary reason why your ER doctor wants to know what drugs you've taken, good lord
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:no, hating drugs is not the primary reason why your ER doctor wants to know what drugs you've taken, good lord Well, it's certainly the reason my (former) PCP asks, that's for sure (she makes it pretty clear she will never write a prescription for anyone who has given into the evils of illicit drugs, and in fact refuses to write me prescriptions because I looked like I was high when I came in one time after having suffered such intense pain for days that I hadn't slept in three nights, which convinced her that under no circumstances should she prescribe me painkillers) Also, you're apparently kind of dumb, but it's okay. I wasn't saying poo poo about doctors asking what drugs you were taking, because doing so makes sense. Organizations pulling that data together and politicians offering up sketchy interpretations of the data was what I was talking about. We're talking about the Drug Abuse Warning Network, not the ER. It's the reporting requirement that is, at most, being criticized, not the doctors noting or asking. Because KillHour, for example, didn't say poo poo about doctors asking you what drugs you took, only about the reporting requirements that go along with it. And yeah, "hating drugs" is probably a good part of the reason why that reporting is required, even if they'd want to find out if you'd been taking drugs anyway. (In many cases, they will actually record the race of the patient as well, after all. There's health concerns that might be relevant to. It's just not legally required to be reported, I don't think) GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Jun 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
Wait, if I'm not mistaken, HIPAA has a specific section that defines how medical records can be de-identified and then privately/publicly disclosed. If that's true, it means that research organizations of all types (public, private, for profit, non profit, etc) are getting their hands on that data. So even if there is some political agenda behind it, it's still being put to good use elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
Doctors can be poo poo and some aren't poo poo. If a doctor is poo poo, please leave that doctor knocked out in their mercedes on a 100 degree day to stew, because moralistic doctors are often entirely useless and delinquent in my experience. Also they wear cowboy boots.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 22:29
|
|
Jeffrey posted:no, hating drugs is not the primary reason why your ER doctor wants to know what drugs you've taken, good lord This. Jesus Christ people, when an ER doctor asks "What drugs have you been taking?" they want to know everything, prescriptions, OTC and illegal. They want to know because when someone needs treatment even drugs that are seen as utterly benign by the public at large often aren't. They want to know because of fun stuff like drug interactions that could kill you. They want to know because it's required by law and they can get sued into oblivion if something bad happens and they didn't. loving Advil would be marked down just the same as heroin would.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:This. Jesus Christ people, when an ER doctor asks "What drugs have you been taking?" they want to know everything, prescriptions, OTC and illegal. They want to know because when someone needs treatment even drugs that are seen as utterly benign by the public at large often aren't. They want to know because of fun stuff like drug interactions that could kill you. They want to know because it's required by law and they can get sued into oblivion if something bad happens and they didn't. loving Advil would be marked down just the same as heroin would. I think the what people are taking issue here is not doctors asking what you're on, but ideologically driven people using that to create misleading statistics about the "widespread drug abuse".
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 22:54
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:I think the what people are taking issue here is not doctors asking what you're on, but ideologically driven people using that to create misleading statistics about the "widespread drug abuse". People were on about there being laws requiring that doctors ask what drugs you've been taking, implying that the only reason these laws exist at all is because the evil doktors want to rat YOU out to the pig cops and ruin your life.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:I think the what people are taking issue here is not doctors asking what you're on, but ideologically driven people using that to create misleading statistics about the "widespread drug abuse". Or they can use them to create true statistics that represent something real, even if that something is not "marijuana causes you to go to the hospital". Regardless of what that number in any given year represents, what does it mean for it to have gone up so much? I already gave my thoughts on that earlier, but it's not misleading and seems pretty worthwhile to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:People were on about there being laws requiring that doctors ask what drugs you've been taking, implying that the only reason these laws exist at all is because the evil doktors want to rat YOU out to the pig cops and ruin your life. Keep in mind even the fear of this happening is what keeps people from calling 911 and leaving someone who has overdosed to die out of fear of guilt by association. It's a real issue not to be dismissed out of hand.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:People were on about there being laws requiring that doctors ask what drugs you've been taking, implying that the only reason these laws exist at all is because the evil doktors want to rat YOU out to the pig cops and ruin your life. Keep pretending there is no discrimination in the ED http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-013-2516-z
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:00
|
|
KingEup posted:Keep pretending there is no discrimination in the ED http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-013-2516-z Show me where I said that there is no discrimination at all.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:People were on about there being laws requiring that doctors ask what drugs you've been taking, implying that the only reason these laws exist at all is because the evil doktors want to rat YOU out to the pig cops and ruin your life. I assume you're referring to me, and that is not true. I was, in fact, on about the requirement that all illicit drug use has to be reported by doctors to a group whose explicit purpose is to crack down on illicit drug use. And that they then use those reports to publish misleading statistics that have absolutely no relevance. Nowhere did I say that doctors shouldn't know what's in your system when you go to the ER. Jeffrey posted:Ahh yes, because a doctor noting what medications you are on when you visit the ER is exactly the same as noting your race when you get in a car accident, yep, mmhmm. Read it again. I said nothing about the doctor noting what you're on other than that it happens (and I furthermore said nothing positive or negative about this fact). What I did say was that these reports are being used to make statistics that are deliberately created to mislead. Saying that any emergency room visit where someone is under the influence of pot is "marijuana related" is functionally the same as saying any car crash involving an African American is "black related." I chose that because it illustrates how little sense the concept makes and how the implication is obviously a non sequitur. Since that wasn't as obvious as I had intended, how about I use a real example: Gay-Related Immune Deficiency. It says the same thing - "We're not claiming that [being gay/using pot/being black] causes [AIDS/ER visits/car crashes], we're just saying they're (circumstantially) related and letting you come to that conclusion yourself." It's a classic logical fallacy, and it works on laymen who just read a headline and draw conclusions. It's also blatantly obvious that it's being done on purpose. Edit: Reworded to be less insulting. KillHour fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Jun 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:44
|
|
KillHour posted:I assume you're referring to me, and that is not true. I was, in fact, on about the requirement that all illicit drug use has to be reported by doctors to a group whose explicit purpose is to crack down on illicit drug use. And that they then use those reports to publish misleading statistics that have absolutely no relevance. Nowhere did I say that doctors shouldn't know what's in your system when you go to the ER. Can you show that DAWN's explicit purpose is to crack down on illicit drug use? Because according to what I have been able to find: "DAWN collects detailed drug data, including illegal drugs of abuse, prescription and over-the-counter medications, dietary supplements, and non-pharmaceutical inhalants." Oh, hey, it looks like they are about collecting data, and that they collect data about way more than just illicit drug use! Also: "The federal DAWN report itself notes that reports of marijuana do not mean people are going to the hospital for a marijuana overdose, it only means that people going to the hospital mention marijuana as a drug they use" in reference to the Wisconsin DOJ misusing the DAWN data. Looks like DAWN thinks that their data is being misused too! In fact: "DAWN has recently clarified their use of the term "drug mention" in methodology because of this erroneous claim." Lastly: "The data is collected by a systematic and confidential review of patients' medical records." so it's not like this is used to report people to cops either.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Can you show that DAWN's explicit purpose is to crack down on illicit drug use? Because according to what I have been able to find: "DAWN collects detailed drug data, including illegal drugs of abuse, prescription and over-the-counter medications, dietary supplements, and non-pharmaceutical inhalants." quote:In 1974, DAWN was designed and developed by the scientific staff of the DEA's Office of Science and Technology. It was jointly funded with the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA). Yep, no ulterior motives, here. No Siree. Edit: Also, congratulations on finding a straw man to attack instead of addressing my original point. Which makes me wonder why the hell you're even debating this (I mean obviously besides this being the debate forum). Are you white-knighting the DEA here, or just trying to prove me wrong? Because if you'll remember, my original point was that people aren't being admitted to the ER for smoking pot and that claiming they are is misleading (which you appear to agree with). I'm not trying to argue that DAWN is run by Snidely Whiplash, and I'm certainly not trying to play King of Pedant Hill, here. KillHour fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Jun 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
Way to quote about the part about it being funded by HHS for the last 22 years... Though in fairness, SAMSHA's goal is to cut down on substance abuse, including alcohol.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Way to quote about the part about it being funded by HHS for the last 22 years... Also, it's run and managed by a private corporation whose Wiki article reads like it was written by their PR department. Who the hell knows what their motives are other than to convince Uncle Sam to keep paying them to crunch numbers? It still has nothing to do with my original point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Are you saying that drug abuse does not exist and that there is no point in trying to prevent or mitigate it? Because that is what I am seeing from you. All you seem to have here is allusions to insidious ulterior motives, on the other hand we have the DAWN themselves criticizing other organizations for misusing their data. Tell me, what part does DAWN saying "Hey, that data does not mean what you guys are saying it means." play in their evil quest to imprison every person who uses weed? What part does DAWN's collection of data regarding prescription, OTC and supplement abuse play in their nefarious plot?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Are you saying that drug abuse does not exist and that there is no point in trying to prevent or mitigate it? Because that is what I am seeing from you. All you seem to have here is allusions to insidious ulterior motives, on the other hand we have the DAWN themselves criticizing other organizations for misusing their data. Tell me, what part does DAWN saying "Hey, that data does not mean what you guys are saying it means." play in their evil quest to imprison every person who uses weed? What part does DAWN's collection of data regarding prescription, OTC and supplement abuse play in their nefarious plot? You sure do love straw men, because I never said any of that. I merely stated that their reporting is inherently misleading, which you then agreed with and proceeded to argue with me anyways. Go ahead, tell me what part of this isn't misleading. Then remind me what the gently caress we were arguing about, because I must have forgotten.  quote:In 2011, there were 402.0 ED visits that involved illicit drugs for each 100,000 persons in the U.S. population (Table 5). The highest rates were found for cocaine involvement (162.1 ED visits per 100,000 population) and marijuana (146.2 visits)...
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Yep, no ulterior motives, here. No Siree. Correct, there are none.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 02:54
|
|
KillHour posted:You sure do love straw men, because I never said any of that. I merely stated that their reporting is inherently misleading, which you then agreed with and proceeded to argue with me anyways. Uhhh, it's not misleading. All it says is that per 100k visits to the ER there were x, y, z, etcetera, number of people who used those drugs, anything else is reading more into that data than it actually says.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Uhhh, it's not misleading. All it says is that per 100k visits to the ER there were x, y, z, etcetera, number of people who used those drugs, anything else is reading more into that data than it actually says. That is completely false. Here's another excerpt: quote:Drug-related ED visit: This category includes any ED visit related to recent drug use. To be a DAWN case, the ED visit must have involved a drug, either as the direct cause of the visit or as a contributing factor. They are specifically claiming that the drug use is a factor in ED admission in all of these cases. Also, I think you need to look up the definition of misleading: quote:Adj. 1. misleading - designed to deceive or mislead either deliberately or inadvertently; "the deceptive calm in the eye of the storm"; "deliberately deceptive packaging"; "a misleading similarity"; "statistics can be presented in ways that are misleading"; "shoddy business practices" If it is easy for someone to "[read] more into that data than it actually says," then it is misleading. It doesn't have to be purposefully deceitful to be misleading. If you can't see how it would be easy to misinterpret that data, then I don't know what to tell you. KillHour fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Jun 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 03:10
|
|
KillHour posted:If it is easy for someone to "[read] more into that data than it actually says," then it is misleading. It doesn't have to be purposefully deceitful to be misleading. Wrong, wrong even according to your own definition. "misleading - designed to deceive or mislead either deliberately or inadvertently" Designed to. Show proof that the data is designed to mislead, not just that it could mislead. Hell, I refuse to accept your definition, how could something be inadvertently designed to mislead? The word "designed" implies a willful act, but inadvertently implies that the act of misleading was not willful, that does not make any sense.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Wrong, wrong even according to your own definition. "misleading - designed to deceive or mislead either deliberately or inadvertently" Designed to. Show proof that the data is designed to mislead, not just that it could mislead. Hell, I refuse to accept your definition, how could something be inadvertently designed to mislead? The word "designed" implies a willful act, but inadvertently implies that the act of misleading was not willful, that does not make any sense. According to websters dictionary 'semantics' means: : the study of the meanings of words and phrases in language : the meanings of words and phrases in a particular context Interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Wrong, wrong even according to your own definition. "misleading - designed to deceive or mislead either deliberately or inadvertently" Designed to. Show proof that the data is designed to mislead, not just that it could mislead. Hell, I refuse to accept your definition, how could something be inadvertently designed to mislead? The word "designed" implies a willful act, but inadvertently implies that the act of misleading was not willful, that does not make any sense. Are you asking him to "prove" that something is misleading? How would you AVeryLargeRadish prove that ANYTHING was misleading? Headline: Blacks commit more crimes then other races.  Well that isn't really misleading is it? I mean whats the big deal, there it is plain as day!
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Wrong, wrong even according to your own definition. "misleading - designed to deceive or mislead either deliberately or inadvertently" Designed to. Show proof that the data is designed to mislead, not just that it could mislead. Hell, I refuse to accept your definition, how could something be inadvertently designed to mislead? The word "designed" implies a willful act, but inadvertently implies that the act of misleading was not willful, that does not make any sense. Okay, now I'm positive you're trolling. That's not even my definition. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/misleading I'm sorry you disagree. Take it up with Princeton and Farlex Inc., I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
Does anyone know what happen to Fiona Apple over her hash charge?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Does anyone know what happen to Fiona Apple over her hash charge? Rich and white? Most likely nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 11:31
|
|
|
D.C. Can Stop Enforcing Pot Laws, Says Rep. Andy Harris Can someone explain this idiot's logic to me?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
Cops and local prosecutors (although DC prosecutions are routed through the US attorneys office, so I'm not sure how this works) have discretion not to arrest or charge people with a crime just because they broke the law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Cops and local prosecutors (although DC prosecutions are routed through the US attorneys office, so I'm not sure how this works) have discretion not to arrest or charge people with a crime just because they broke the law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
KillHour posted:It's like if you made a law saying every car accident involving a minority has to be reported. Then the IIHS could publish ridiculous papers that seem to imply that car accidents are caused by being black, but are still technically factual. Interestingly enough this is actually the same trick MADD uses to inflate drunk driving statistics. They count any accident in which an involved person had consumed alcohol. You're the DD, you have a drunk guy riding shotgun, and get into a fender bender, this counts as a "alcohol related incident".
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Rich and white? Most likely nothing. That's the thing, Texas has a mandatory minimum for hash yet there isn't a single news article about her sentencing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
Can anyone explain why so much spent on trying to stop people from using cannabis, and not so much on trying to stop people smoking tobacco? The U.S. government spends 5.5 billion per year[1] enforcing cannabis prohibition (in a touching display of concern for the lives of cannabis users), and comparatively, the barest fraction of that on stemming tobacco use. If I were a tobacco addict, I might be incensed; isn't my life just as worthy of ‘saving’ as that of the illicit cannabis user? You don’t see Uncle Sam spending anywhere near as much on tobacco programs (only 641 million in 2010[2]). Obviously, the life of a ‘stoner’ is vastly more valuable than that of the nicotine fiend, given the amount spent. We should feel exalted, I suppose. 1. http://blumenauer.house.gov/images/stories/2013/The_Path_Forward_Rethinking_Federal_Marijuana_Policy.pdf 2. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6120a3.htm#tab2
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
twodot posted:This is factually true, but it doesn't explain the idiot's logic. The flow is 1) idiot attempts to block decriminalization with the federal congress 2) other idiots protest that this violates self-governance of DC (who cares?) 3) original idiot replies that he's not violating self-governance, he's setting it up such that local authorities have to chose between a) enforcing previous higher penalties or b) not enforcing marijuana laws at all, but they still have that choice. Presumably the original idiot thinks he is calling a bluff, and that local authorities would rather have higher penalties than no penalties at all, but I don't see any justification for that belief. 1) As I understand it, Harris disagrees that his wording would potentially put DC in weed enforcement limbo. He's saying it'll just keep the laws how they are now, but he'll look into cleaning up the language or something. 2) It is a kick in the teeth for DC. As a non-state, we have to put up with stuff that no state does; nobody is threatening to defund Wyoming over whatever rinky-dink legal changes they're making. Worse, it's not just blocking federal funds from being used to change DC weed law, it's even preventing DC from using its own funds to make any changes to the law. Changes to DC law are subject to the congressional Oversight Committee, which has seemed pretty uninterested in blocking our decriminalization bill, but Harris is doing an end-run around the whole system by instead tampering with the budget. Congress did this for a solid 10 years to delay rolling out DC's MMJ program, and has blocked any abortion services in DC through similar amendments. Basically it's a chance for congressmen to enact social change that builds their cred without pissing off any of their own potential voters. 3) I will be endlessly amused if this somehow goes through and the DC gov't reacts by making marijuana enforcement the rock-bottom legal priority in the District. But as it stands, given that Congress is going into recess for the holiday, there's little chance this will get resolved before mid-July when 60-day oversight runs out the clock and DC can enact decriminalization. It's mostly an issue of what this would do to DC's legalization ballot initiative meant to be voted on in November.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 16:52 |
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:1) As I understand it, Harris disagrees that his wording would potentially put DC in weed enforcement limbo. He's saying it'll just keep the laws how they are now, but he'll look into cleaning up the language or something. It seems like it is a huge miscalculation on his part. I'm not familiar with how D.C. government works (i.e. most states have a constitution defining how bills become laws) but I would assume that you can't just change the process by which bills become law so easily. More specifically, Harris's bill can't defund any part of government in a way that would prevent a bill from becoming law. It's already law by virtue of the citizens voting on it and congress not countering it. Other parts of the process such as recording it, educating law enforcement officers/prosecutors, etc. aren't actually required.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 02:27
|
|
