Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

quakerboy

(14,799 posts)

16. It wasnt intended to

Reply to RainDog (Reply #11)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 10:04 PM

Dec 2011

A well written roundup article should have included the source links to each of these things it referred to.

It will be interesting to see what their new review comes up with. But I am not certain that I will trust it any more than the original. As others have pointed out, while there may be an issue with the data used, I am not convinced that using LAPD data will bring us closer to the truth. LAPD data will reflect crime being where ever LAPD chooses to enforce the laws. Which is a flawed metric.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

17 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

86 that Rand 420 study: 5th worst of 2011 [View all] RainDog Dec 2011 OP

What evidence does the LA attorney's office provide to prove they "breed" crime? nt killbotfactory Dec 2011 #1

Oh, and also, in what ways would data from the LAPD change their report? nt killbotfactory Dec 2011 #2

we don't know. The LAPD doesn't want the study to be true RainDog Dec 2011 #9

Because marijuana makes you smile and listen to jazz. tridim Dec 2011 #4

the point is that the Rand study assumed it had data that it didn't RainDog Dec 2011 #5

I'm not sure I trust the LAPD/LA Atty about much of anything REP Dec 2011 #3

well, yeah, police depts massage data all the time RainDog Dec 2011 #6

Not saying it was a good study - just think LAPD/atty have an agenda REP Dec 2011 #7

no doubt. they were the ones that looked into the study to question it RainDog Dec 2011 #13

I agree REP Dec 2011 #14

I am willing to bet that crime increased around the dispensaries quakerboy Dec 2011 #8

your bet doesn't look at the issue either RainDog Dec 2011 #11

It wasnt intended to quakerboy Dec 2011 #16

people report crimes RainDog Dec 2011 #17

A fraudulent study is usually a counter-indicator. A flawed study is not. cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #10

exactly n/t RainDog Dec 2011 #12

Dumb studies produce dumb results. nt bemildred Dec 2011 #15