Reefer Madness?

[Paul Mather]

On 27 Jul 2007, at 8:33 PM, vzenv14m wrote:

> Check this out as an example of manipulation of statistics.
>
> Kaduflyer
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19980923/

Hey, that article was pretty tame compared to the one I read earlier  
today.  At least the one you cited didn't include the word "skunk" or  
the phrase "modern super strength varieties" anywhere in it (which  
seem de rigeur in such reportage right now).  (They didn't round up  
the numbers, either.)

Still, you've got to admire the moxie of a headline writer choosing  
to use the word "hike" in this case.  Obviously he or she figures the  
usual gross innumeracy of the general population is a safer bet than  
the chance of developing schizophrenia this finding represents.

It wouldn't be quite as exciting a headline if they wrote something  
like "Boffins discover those smoking doobies increase their long-term  
risk of developing psychosis from half a percent to a whopping almost  
three-quarters of a percent!!!!!  (Further funding required to see if  
the all-important one percent threshold may be crossed.)"

"Evil reefer madness is a mind-eating troll."

;-)

Cheers,

Paul.

e-mail: paul at gromit.dlib.vt.edu

"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production
  deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
         --- Frank Vincent Zappa