7 ms·

>> Use among 15-24 year olds fell throughout the decade, >This implies that use among other groups than 15-24 year old had not fell throughout the decade. Wit

• xyzzyz 5y ago
  No, but it is within context of narrative crafting practices. If it fell across all age groups, they would have said so, instead of restricting their claim to narrow group of youths. To misunderstand it is either sign of extreme naivety, or willful ignorance.
  • onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
    By your same logic, if it rose, they would have said so. They didn't. Perhaps it was unchanged meaningfully / statistically significant enough to comment?
    • xyzzyz 5y ago
      > By your same logic, if it rose, they would have said so. They didn't. No, because they aren’t uninterested, unbiased observers just reporting the facts. The entire linked article is pushing very specific policy, and it is only expected that they will only raise arguments in favor of the policy they are proposing. > Perhaps it was unchanged meaningfully / statistically significant enough to comment? No. I looked at the data, and reported it accurately. Drug use went up overall, and if you disregard drop in heroin use (though only among young people, it also went up among those 35+), use increased significantly. Drop in heroin use among youth has offset the growth in use of other drugs.
      • filoeleven 5y ago
        > No. I looked at the data, and reported it accurately. You were asked for sources. Instead, you pointed to the article someone else linked, and asserted that it’s biased reporting so the data that they didn’t show backs up what you say. You still haven’t provided any sources for your ongoing assertions.
        • krageon 5y ago
          They don't provide solid sources because they don't exist. Their claims are untrue in the spirit in which they were posted: That the results of the policy were uniformly harmful.
          • xyzzyz 5y ago
            Will you apologize to me for implying that I’m lying here about the ground data facts on drug use in Portugal, if I do provide the sources? Or are you just performatively asking me for sources, refusing to extend even a modicum of charity, just to disappear after I spend half an hour digging back up the government documents I remember seeing a few years ago, when I looked into this?
            • krageon 5y ago
              I have done this research already, which is why I can in good faith say that you are wrong and reality doesn't support what you say. I'll charitably offer that it is possible that I was wrong, and if you prove that I will absolutely apologise.
• function_seven 5y ago
  You know what I hear when a product is touted as being "in the top 10"? That it's definitely somewhere between #6 and #10. Because if it was 3rd, it'd be "top 3", and if it was 5th, it would be "in the top 5". If a pull quote or headline shows a good statistic for one cohort, it's a fair bet that other cohorts didn't show such a positive result, or else the touting would have been something like "overall" rather than "15–24".
• friendzis 5y ago
  Within the context of logic, you cannot imply anything about other cohorts from this one statement alone. However, if general population use remained steady or rose, it would definitely imply that fall is attributable to said cohort. Does the article have anything to say about general population? > "While drug use during individual lifetimes among the general population appeared to increase in the decade following reform,"