So this doesn't look good
U.S. reportedly issuing lifetime travel bans for anyone even remotely connected to Canada's legal cannabis industry
My Canadian relations have always been nudge-nudge, wink-wink about Trudeau's parentage.
I still haven't read the paper ... but in terms of evidence on the effect of cannabis the study is pretty low grade because it's an *observational* study. The people themselves *choose* to use cannabis and a lot of that choice isn't so much about need but about other characteristics - whether they have used it before, how comfortable they are with breaking the law, how connected they are to people who can supply etc.
(Better studies are when people are randomly allocated treatment and better still when they don't know what treatment they are getting.)
I haven't read the study but I suspect there is some reverse causation going on. As the pain gets worse people starting using cannabis rather than cannabis has no effect on bad pain.
I talked to a medical professional who had a close relative die of cancer. This person who died had used cannabis and had said that cannabis did not get rid of the pain but took the edge off it. This person was also on opioids. If that's really what's going on then you'd expect people with the worst pain to be the ones using cannabis the most and also saying it helps.
I was involved in a trial of the effect of blood lowering medication on stroke rates. The doctors were also allowed to prescribe anything else along side that medication so some patients were also on blood thinning medication. The patients on blood thinning medication were more likely to die of a stroke than those not on blood thinning medication. But that's not because blood thinning medication causes stroke but that the people most at risk of stroke got blood thinning medication - their risk of dying of stroke was still higher than those without the medication but not as high as it would have been had they not had the medication.
Mark Richardson said:
"I've worked hard all my life and I've put my nuts on the line. I've tried to optimise every opportunity, I screwed myself to the wall to get into the eastern suburbs of Auckland."
It makes his opinions even less relevant - how can we trust anything he says if his goal is to optimise every opportunity to make money for himself rather than speak from the heart. Who knows what he'll say if the money is right.
Of course a senior administrator and leader is being obstructive if he dumps his minister in the shit repeatedly. He could have done everything in a diplomatic way but he chose to go nuclear.
My immediate reaction was that they are holding back the money until Richard Griffen leaves - 'cause why reward him when he's been particularly obstructive.
In a "This American Life" "act", a woman confronts her (real life) troll to find out why he was so horrible to her. He had put in quite a lot of effort to find a way to hurt her - it wasn't just random nastyness.
In the recording he sounded like he was an ok guy. Mostly he explained it away that she was happy and happy with who she was (which included being fat) while he was alone and unhappy.
Suppose you are driving a car with a child on board and a driver nearly wipes you out and that driver gives you the finger i.e. there was some degree of carelessness or perhaps it was even intentional. Can you make a citizens arrest then?
I have no word but ... it seems like 5 minutes ago we were doing this - what happened to the year.
Actually the older cohorts aren't that well placed either... if they live in Auckland.
See this analysis by Thomas Lumley on Stats Chat
home ownership flattens off from 45 in Auckland (first lot of graphs).
In the third lot of graphs, after about 45ish people in Auckland in the same age cohort are less likely to own a home as they grow older i.e. the lines are sloping down in the first plot of the third lot of graphs, a little but not much for the rest of NZ.