RAND Withdraws Questionable Marijuana Dispensary Study That Claimed Crime Goes Down Around L.A. Pot Shops

how to get rid of acne scars

I'm gonna print this out and stick on my room What a valuable post.Thank you very much.

John Sea

Let's Pair down the two shops to ....two?The grammer and spelling police are here.The word Pair mean to collect into groups of two.the word pare means to trim...Please, in the name of role-modeling for others who might look to the printed word in the LA Weekly asan authority of the proper use of language (or at least spelling),look it up (a seemingly little known tactic of the time-honoredart of journalism.)No wha'I meen?

Bs Detector

Please do not let facts interfere with your media programmed assumptions.

Guest

Of course it would reduce crime.

Marijuana has a sedative impact. That is, a person under its influence just wants to relax and enjoy the drug's pleasurable effect.

It routinely takes the place of alcohol which promotes a host of anti-social behaviors. Yes, people routinely drink because of the unavailability of quality marijuana.

Most people are less negatively reactive under the influence of marijuana. Further, they are less restless.

When available the desire for the drug's pleasurable effect routinely displaces the desire for money and material things. Consequently, it lessens criminal motivation.

The fact that so many people would react with surprise that marijuana availability would reduce crime evidences the low intelligence of the general population.

Zachary Granger Moldof

I think the biggest problem here is that the author is not reporting ont he facts. The author is reporting his agenda. With a rhetoric that can be summed up as "OF COURSE there isn't a drop in crime around 'pot shops," there should be no question as to what the intentions of this article are.

Whlle you claim that you aren't "anti-pot" Mr. Romero, you are supporting the long-running prohibition of cannabis which has never been anything more than fetishized racism. Regardless of what Rand's studies may say, if you look at the facts the prohibition of cannabis is unfounded, and therefore any argument in support of cannabis prohibition is flawed. Any argument in support of cannabis prohibition presupposes that cannabis is harmful--which it isn't. The facts today--just like the facts of the 1920's that Harry Anslinger first ignored when he began with an exorbitant tax on all doctors who prescribed cannabis--show us that cannabis has an overwhelming range of medical applications. Further it has no adverse side-affects, and it is physically impossible to overdose on cannabis and die. Thus, if there is no danger to be protected from, why has our government made cannabis a schedule 1 drug and imprisoned millions of Americans for simply possessing and consuming cannabis?

This Rand study was never about the truth, and if you thought it was they've got you fooled into believing. The entire issue of cannabis in this country is not about the truth, it is about pushing racist and classist agendas which target specific people. The FBI's own numbers don't lie. 26.53% of ALL arrests in this nation last year were males between 10 and 24 arrested for cannabis possession. This is not about the truth Mr. Romero. This is about an agenda, one which you yourself are on the shit end of, simply because of your name, and your skin. No objective interpretation of these statistics could ever speak of truth. If you think there is any truth to behold in the struggle to control cannabis, then I can only conclude that you believe that vile old white people with thin lips and thin hair should control the world.

Michael Larsen

Dennis, you are right and have done great reporting on this issue. Rand did shoddy work here, that's why they pulled it. Period. Thanks for being one of the very few journalists that actually understand this farce called "medical marijuana" in California and are not afraid to call BS on it.For every sophomoric idiot who posts here, there are thousands who appreciate your work. Keep it up.

Saml75

Thanks for your sophmoric way to view the issue. We do have this thing called "higher law" which has value over all other lesser law(s), and this higher law says all intoxicants shall be as legal as alcohol is. They have two bill of rights amendments that have the key words "intoxicating" and "liquor" enumerated within them. Then there is the original law, "the enumeration in the constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." When you plug into that the certain right of the intoxicant liquor, you can NOT make assuptions that prohibition is a valid welfare program for pigs behind badges that seem to have taken an oath to uphold that highest law.Prohibition is the issue, not medical use of intoxicants. By the way, marijuana is non-toxic.

pfroehlich2004

I wonder when the FBI will withdraw their questionable Uniform Crime Report. According to the data published on their website, California's violent crime rate dropped 45%, while the property crime rate fell 37% in the first thirteen years after Proposition 215 passed.

These statistics must be faulty, since everyone knows marijuana dispensaries cause crime. The LA City Attorney's office had better get on top of this.

Anyone who wants to confirm the above-cited figures can google "FBI UCR data tool".

Blandiegan

Mr. Romero: The study does not say that it looked at dispensaries in Beverly Hills. On page 12 of the report, it says that the researchers considered areas within 3 miles of each dispensary. It seems likely that parts of Beverly Hills (which borders Los Angeles) would fall within that zone, since there are points in BH that are within 3 miles of an LA dispensary. Thus, this was not a problem with the study, but with your interpretation of it.

Dennis Romero

Read it again. It does say the looked at shops in Beverly Hills.

Blandiegan

Thanks for sharing that excerpt from the press release. It seems to contradict what the researchers say in the study itself and I can understand the confusion. And now that I think of it, why do they call Hollywood (not WeHo) a "surrounding community" of Los Angeles?

But boundary issues aside, I still think that if they "counted" dispensaries in Beverly Hills and the count was zero, it shouldn't really affect the study results. For what it's worth, the map (Figure 1) doesn't seem to show any dispensaries counted in Beverly Hills, although it is hard to tell without visible city boundaries. Again, this does not seem to be a problem with the study. The press office may have implied it, but the researchers themselves never "claimed to have looked at pot shops in Beverly Hills."

Dennis Romero

This is coming from RAND, man, in black and white. If they made a mistake in characterizing their own research, then that's just another reason to doubt their conclusions.

Blandiegan

No, the study does not say that it looked at shops in Beverly Hills. All it says about Beverly Hills is that crime levels were studied there: "For each dispensary, we collected data on the number of crimes (overall and by type) reported per block in the City of Los Angeles and surrounding communities, such as Hollywood, Beverly Hills, and unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County." In this case Beverly Hills is a "surrounding community." Think about it this way: if you draw a three-mile radius around each LA dispensary, some of those zones will spill over into Beverly Hills.

Dennis Romero

Ah, here you go. RAND's own words. Maybe they summarized their own work wrong. You'd have to talk to them. But then again they pulled the study:

"also collected details about crime during the same period near dispensaries that did not close and dispensaries in surrounding communities such as West Hollywood, Beverly Hills and unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County."

Dennis Romero

Blandiegan:

That's your interpretation. The wording you cite, "reported per block in the City of Los Angeles and surrounding communities, such as Hollywood, Beverly Hills," says otherwise.

Also a press summary, if I remember correctly, says shops in Beverly Hills were examined. It's all down now so I can't refer to it. But I'm sticking with my take.

Lies, Lies and More Lies

Why can't Eric Holder get these guys to write a report saying that he had nothing to do with running guns for the Cartels? That should clear the air better than trying to frame Iran for hiring our Cartel buddies to take out the Saudis, right? Mrs. Clinton, you lie through your teeth.

chowster

The only reason cannabis is illegal is the economic threat it posed/poses to (Big Phrma, DuPont, oil, textile, paper/Hearst/timber).... corporate owned American government. Hearst owned American government then, and corporations STILL own and run America's government and people.... http://www.druglibrary.org/sch...

DOJ, IRS, DEA, ONDCP ... STOP persecuting peaceful Americans over a non toxic PLANT:https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/pe...

Fascism in American government perpetuated by both corporate owned red and blue party's... Someone please explain the similarities.....http://www.rense.com/general37/char.h...

Usmjp Vermont

Hurry! Sign the online White House petition to END MARIJUANA PROHIBITION http://wh.gov/gP1

TavDoo

Dude really is not making a lot of sense at all man.anon-toolz.url-Go.com

Gracie10934550

my best friend's mom makes $77 an hour on the computer. She has been out of job for 9 months but last month her check was $7487 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read about it here MakeCash7 .com

Gracie10934550

rdiac

At what point did RAND become a 'respected think tank' as opposed to a dodgy dirty-work contractor?

Steve Elliott ~alapoet~

Maybe it would have been a good idea to check with Americans for Safe Access about their studies and numbers before attacking this study.

ASA says their numbers back up the original conclusions of the RAND study.

Dennis Romero

Check with a pro-pot group to confirm that a flawed study was pro-dispensary? Really?

Duncan Wallace

Well you take the word of people who are wholly biased against medicinal cannabis. It's easily provable that your sources have told many a tall tale, lots of hysterical rhetoric, and even a pack of bald faced lies. Where's the evidence that ASA has done the same?

If you're not willing to listen to an organization on one side of the table because they're "biased" it's nothing less than hypocritical to quote equally biased organizations on the other side of the table.

shanny lammy

Quite a bit doesn't smell right in this situation aside from the flaws or lack of them in the study design. He said check THEIR research, not their assessment of RAND's. For that you can check their uploaded copy of the original PDF. Nothing personal against you, Mr. Romero, I'm just anti-bullshit.

shanny lammy

I'll repeat my response to you as close to exactly as I can. I cannot copy/paste as I did not save a copy. I've never experienced this sort problem issue VVM publications (note: my experience is limited to Toke of the Town and Denver Westword,) unlike with more mainstream ones (Washington Post comes to mind and ironically on a closely related subject, but ) Therefore, I did not think it necessary. I'd come to think of VVM publications as censorship-free zones.

Until this discussion, I have known LA Weekly only in passing and did not recognize your name. I imagine I will recognize it in the future, though.

Either someone is censoring this discussion or your comment system was and/or is experiencing difficulties. Also something I've never encountered with VVM, but just as "none are immune to the actions of the federal government," none are immune glitches of the internet.

I hope you ask tech support to look into it as I'm sure you don't want to miss feedback. Also as a media consumer, having my keystrokes vanish into thin air makes me want to spend my time elsewhere in the future. Good eve to you Mr. Romero and here is what I said:

~Idon't know that pressure from the city attorney's office is what prompted RANDto take this study down. I assumed it was as much my own breakdown of theproblems with the research (I questioned things that later appeared in a cityattorney's letter, it seems) that inspired the think tank to take this action.”

Howdid you know the study was removed at all unless you read this?http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2...Or this after Stevehimself tipped John Hoeffel? http://www.latimes.com/news/lo...

Let me guess, the spokesman called you personally when he “contactedthe press?” For someone who is anti-bullshit, you sure do look full of justthat right now~

shanny lammy

I was told my comment needed to be "approved by a moderator" after being required to solve a captcha, unlike the first. In fact, no comments did until Lies and Lies' newest showed up 2 hours ago, prompting me to make my last one. I apologize if I jumped to an erroneous conclusion. I'll repeat my response to you as close to exactly as I can. I cannot copy/paste as I did not save a copy. I've never experienced this sort problem issue VVM publications (note: my experience is limited to Toke of the Town and Denver Westword,) unlike with more mainstream ones (Washington Post comes to mind and ironically on a closely related subject, but ) Therefore, I did not think it necessary. I'd come to think of VVM publications as censorship-free zones.Until this discussion, I have known LA Weekly only in passing and did not recognize your name. I imagine I will recognize it in the future, though.Either someone is censoring this discussion or your comment system was and/or is experiencing difficulties. Also something I've never encountered with VVM, but just as "none are immune to the actions of the federal government," none are immune glitches of the internet. I hope you ask tech support to look into it as I'm sure you don't want to miss feedback. Also as a media consumer, having my keystrokes vanish into thin air makes me want to spend my time elsewhere in the future. Good eve to you Mr. Romero and here is what I said:~I don't know that pressure from the city attorney's office is what prompted RAND to take this study down. I assumed it was as much my own breakdown of the problems with the research (I questioned things that later appeared in a city attorney's letter, it seems) that inspired the think tank to take this action.”How did you know the study was removed at all unless you read this?http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2... this after Steve himself tipped John Hoeffel? http://www.latimes.com/news/lo... me guess, the spokesman called you personally when he “contacted the press?” For someone who is anti-bullshit, you sure do look full of just that right now~

Dennis Romero

Shanny:

I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't moderate these discussions.

shanny lammy

Mr. Romero,I am not Steve, for the purpose of this discussion I am shanny lammy. You'll learn my given name if and when I need to contact VVM, you'll recieve a cc. Now please find and publish my response that you have been "moderating" for the past 4 hours. I'm sure you don't want to participate in the very real problem of media/government censorship facing our country today over a "personal" beef. You are after all a "journalist," no?

Steve Elliott ~alapoet~

Dennis, it is totally laughable for you to claim that the City Attorney's office is not pro- and anti-pot. Do you truly believe that?

Are you aware of YOUR OWN ARTICLE from March 5, 2010, "City Attorney Holds His Line Against Pot Shops"?

http://blogs.laweekly.com/info...

(I reference one of your own stories since you've apparently decided you're the only reliable authority on marijuana.)

The reason I said that pressure from the city attorney's office is what prompted RAND to take the study down is BECAUSE RAND TOLD ME THAT WAS THE REASON.

So, it's a just wee bit disingenuous of you to say "RAND is not saying."

shanny lammy

"I don't know that pressure from the city attorney's office is what prompted RAND to take this study down. I assumed it was as much my own breakdown of the problems with the research (I questioned things that later appeared in a city attorney's letter, it seems) that inspired the think tank to take this action." Well how did you learn it was removed at all without reading this?http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2... this after Steve himself scooped John Hoeffel?http://www.latimes.com/news/lo... me guess, the spokesman called you personally when he "contacted the press?" For someone who is "anti-bullshit" you sure do look full of exactly that right about now.

Dennis Romero

Steve:

I don't know that pressure from the city attorney's office is what prompted RAND to take this study down. I assumed it was as much my own breakdown of the problems with the research (I questioned things that later appeared in a city attorney's letter, it seems) that inspired the think tank to take this action. But we don't know because RAND is not saying, so you're just making assumptions, something you seem to accuse me of doing.

The City Attorney's office is not pro or anti pot, it's simply parsing the legality of City Hall's and California's wishes. Therefore I wouldn't necessarily characterize it as a polar influence in the way that a pro-pot group would be.

Again, I have not problem with pot or even pro-pot groups. But clearly the idea here that pot shops lower crime turned out to be, as predicted, a crock.

Deal with it and stop trying to blame the messenger.

And BTW, I didn't purposefully miss any facts. I didn't know ASA had the study up. Feel free to go there and see all the holes in it that I did.

-Dennis

Steve Elliott ~alapoet~

Well, obviously, Dennis, you seem to be under the impression you already know much more about the issue than do the experts who work every day in the field, so carry on as you were.

Dennis Romero

So Lies (and, if you're so righteous, feel free to use your real name, as I do), the government is anti-pot, and helps to fund RAND (that's the source of your claim that RAND received anti-pot-group money for the study -- I thought you had something more specific instead of a paranoid conspiracy theory), but the study is pretty much pro-pot, except that it has so many holes in it that RAND has to pull it. Okay.

Steve Elliott ~alapoet~

(I had to "reply" to my own comment, since we've reached the comment nesting limit.)

Dennis, the fact that heavy pressure from the City Attorney's office is the reason the study was taken off RAND's site is pretty crucial information, in my opinion. That's politics trumping science.

And that is totally missing from your story -- which is a disservice to the readers who were counting on you for having a complete picture of what's going on here.

Additionally, the fact that you seemed eager to quote the City Attorney's Office (decidedly anti-pot), yet pooh-poohed my suggestion that you talk to ASA (which you sneeringly described as "pro-pot") seems to indicate a little problem with balance and objectivity.

You also entirely missed the fact that the study is still available online at ASA's site -- lots of your readers would have been interested in reading it.

Dennis Romero

I'm not saying I know more, Steve. You're making this about me. Feel free to face any of the points I made and debate them.

Lies, Lies and More Lies

Well, RAND is currently taking money from an anti pot group to withdraw the study because it does not conform to the establishments (and apparently the author of this blogs) preconceived view on the issue. Therefore, I see no problem with consulting a "pro-pot" group. Dennis did you ever stop and think that they are pro-pot because that is the correct and most logical thing to be? If they could aide the study in any way, why would you dismiss them? Because they don't agree with your point of view is no excuse. Would you not rather have the truth than what makes you comfortable or supports your personal (most likely incorrect) world view? It is easier to stay in the cave and look at the familiar shadows and listen to the decided upon stories for what it all means. But what sort of life is that? At some point people are going to be fed up with being lied to by the people who are "in charge." You are starting to see it with the occupy Wall Street movement. But OWS needs to move on to occupying k street (Washington DC) and Main Street in order to root out all of the corruption and lies. Dennis, you further the injustice and aide in pushing propaganda and misinformation in most of your stories. All for what? You are sucking on the teat of the state for your measly paycheck. You are a pawn and don't even seem to notice it.

Roscoe07

Good article. No agenda, just reporting the facts and pointing out the flaws. Those who assume Rand, an establishment think tand, would be anti-pot haven't really thought this out. The establishment wants us impaired and entertained. Does anyone doubt they run the drug trade. I could be wrong but don't assume they want to take your toys away. Thank you Dennis.

Lies, Lies and More Lies

For Dennis: I did not provide links because your blog blocks them. Here is a little more info on how RAND is funded and why.

Who is paying them to do all this thinking?You and I are. The government pays RAND with our tax dollars to think about our nation's problems. Then, when RAND is done thinking, they give a report to the government that tells the government what they should do about the problem. Who is involved with RAND?The RAND Board of Trustees includes representatives from the media, Wall Street, big corporate law firms, leaders from the medical, defense, real estate, and auto industries, along with the officers of a few other think tanks, and a university professor or two. Some of these people may even have a Masters in Public Administration, which would give them actual knowledge about how the public sector works. Almost all of them are masters in strategic PR. Furthermore, look at some of the major donors from the 2010 RAND Annual Report. They include: Goldman Sachs, Johnson & Johnson, Allstate, ExxonMobil, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Merck, Wal-Mart, Alcoa, Fannie Mae, Kraft Foods, Walt Disney, Dow Chemical and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I am sure each of these organizations donates and has an expectation of something in return. For the pharmaceutical companies, for which cannabis would be detrimental to their ability to push harmful and unnecessary drugs onto people, having RAND pull back this report is just the kind of return they expect. What I see is that RAND was somehow allowed to publish a report with some truth in it without the puppet masters shutting it down. Once the puppet masters found out what truth they had let out, it was necessary to create some theatre to convince people that ending prohibition will not reduce crime. The U.S. government is anti pot. What source do you need me to provide you with for you to understand this? A good number of and likely the most influential donors are also established companies with an economic interest in keeping cannabis illegal. Go look at the RAND report yourself if you do not believe me. Put a link up in the article to the report.

Dennis Romero

Lies:

Actually you're reading too much into my reporting. I'm not anti-pot at all. I am anti-bullshit, and this study didn't make a lot of sense.

And while you're criticizing me for being a pawn, feel free to let the world know wher eyou got information that RAND is getting anti-pot group money. Cite. Source.

What I was saying is that it wouldn't make a lot of sense to go to a source that is known to advocate for pot shops. They obviously have a horse in the race. RAND doesn't and should have done better work.

Laura White

Hi, sweety. Myfriends told me about BlackWhiteFinder– č0 /Μ. She told me it is the best place to meetblack and white singles whoever you want. I have tried. It is fantastic. Youwanna get laid tonight? Come in and give it a shot, you will find someone youlike there. Black or white even guys from different race. Have fun!