|
Chapter 3 - (2nd Edition) CENSORED MEDICAL STUDIES |
|
|---|
CITY OF LOS ANGELES SUCCESSFULLY CENSORS CANNABIS STUDY:
PART 2
1.1 – THE RAND STUDY: -- CENSORSHIP, WHY?
As a precursor on the subject; It is a fact that the city of Los Angeles was harassing, raiding Cannabis dispensaries, making arrests, bring to Trial, etc. etc. Their logic (or at least their publicly stated logic) was that these Medical Cannabis Dispensaries (while legal on State Law) were a source of and a magnet for crime.
Thus one can see how all hell broke out when the Rand Corporation (a non profit think tank) came out with a study disproving this theory. In fact the Rand Study said the opposite, that crime (in the immediate area) actually INCREASED AFTER the city had shut down a dispensary.
Even the L.A. Times (Newspaper) had to issue a public correction:
For The Record
Los Angeles Times, Sept. 22, 2011 Home Edition Main News Part-A Pg4
Correction
Marijuana dispensaries: In the Sept. 21 LAT Extra section, the headline on an article about a study of crime near marijuana dispensaries said that less crime was found near L.A. dispensaries. In fact, the study found that after hundreds of dispensaries were required to close last summer, crime increased nearby.
THE RAND STUDY --- A QUICK SUMMERY
A Rand Corporation researcher, using data from CrimeReports [5] conducted a statistical study of reported crimes immediately-before and immediately-after the City of Los Angeles ordered the closing down of some 638 Medical cannabis Dispensaries or about 70%. This was to take effect on June 7, 2010. Crime statistics for a ten-day period of time (May 28, 2010 –June 7, 2010) just prior to the ordered closures were compared to the ten-day period (June 7, 2010 --June 17, 2010) and a noticeable SPIKE in crime (in the areas immediately adjacent to the closed dispensaries) was observed. Thus challenging the L.A.P.D./Attorney’s office logic or reasons for closing them down in the first place.
The study ONLY made use of crime statistics dealing with:
- THEFT – Which includes “General theft, theft from a vehicle, and theft of a vehicle.
- BREAKING AND ENTERING –
- ASSAULT – Which includes “Assault with a deadly weapon, General assault (we assume that means rape, etc.).
The study subdivided or defined the immediate area (surrounding a closed Cannabis Dispensary) as being: (A) An area with a radius of 1,554 feet , (B) An area with a radius of 3,168 feet , (C) An area with a radius of 7,920 feet . . . . + others. Note, the statistics showed that crime did spike immediately after a dispensary was closed, BUT only in the immediate area surrounding a dispensary. That the further away you got from the closed dispensary the more the crime statistics remained the same. Example - At 1.5 miles out, there is no perceptible change in crime.
All and All, the study found that Crime may have spiked or increased up to 60 percent.
The study acknowledges that the actual reasons for this spike increase is unknown, but gives the following possible reasons:
- That the Medical Cannabis dispensaries in operation may have reduced crime by providing additional on-site security.
- That operating Medical Cannabis dispensaries may reduce crime by increasing local foot traffic and “eyes on the street.
- That closing Medical Cannabis dispensaries does not eliminate the need for Medical Cannabis. To the extent that illicit suppliers try to move in to fill the new void, this could generate other crime, etc.
- That the effect may be explained by police presence. If police anticipated higher crime connected with marijuana dispensaries, they may have patrolled the areas around dispensaries more intensively, thereby reducing street crime.
- That the effect might be explained by some other police-related efforts in connection with the efforts to close the clinics. Perhaps the police stepped up local enforcement efforts in order to encourage dispensaries to close. Once the clinics closed, police went elsewhere and crime surged.
PROBLEMS WITH THE REPORT There are several problems with the report that the museum has noted.
- The author may not have been an uninterested third party. A quick background check appears to show that she may have pro-Cannabis feelings.
- The Study makes use of (lots and lots) of PHD Gobble-Goop, which the average person simply can’t understand. Example: A footnote used to justify the 60 percent increase in crime reads as follows: “The 60 percent figure is calculated by dividing the mean change in total crimes post-closure, 0.013, from Table 5 by the mean of 0.022 total daily crimes within 0.3 miles reported in Table 4.” Only the given tables make references to equations that only a PHD in math can interpret.
- The time frame (only 10 days before and 10 days after) is simply too short. It’s good enough to show a spike, but 100 days (before and after) would have been better.
- In some (not very many cases, but some) a closed dispensary was located a short distance from one that remained open. Thus causing some statistical anomalies.
- The study seems to have just drawn a circle around a closed dispensary and did not seem to take geographic factors such as hills, public parks, major traveled streets, etc., into account.
JUSTIFICATION FOR CENSORSHIP:
As the City of Los Angeles (in all their public statements) was making the claim that the Cannabis dispensaries were the cause of crime and thus their (public) justification for making arrest and close them down? Obviously it didn’t take them too long to figure that one out and quickly started a public barrage against the study.
According to an L.A. Times article [3][4] , the following were given as official reasons by the L.A.P.D./Attorneys Office to justification their demands that the Rand Corporation pull or censor their study from public view:
[1] Researchers failed to use "available crime statistics, which cover considerably more offenses” than were charted.None of which make much sense. Let us look at these four allegations one by one.
[2] Researchers did not acquire data from the Los Angeles Police Department that you claim could be charted city block by city block.”
[3] To our knowledge, no comprehensive effort was ever made by anyone, including the Rand Corporation, to track and record the precise openings and closings."
[4] Questions were raised dealing with the study's time frame, saying, "We were also terribly troubled by your suggestion that a 10-day period of statistical review constitutes a relevant crime trend."
[1] That researchers failed to use "available crime statistics, which cover considerably more offenses” than were charted.Specifically, according to Steve Whitmore, (a spokesman for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department), who strenuously disagreed with the report's: [6]
"Every time we shut down a dispensary, the crime and the disorder decrease," he said. The report looks at such crimes as assaults and thefts, but not "disorder," nuisances such as loitering, double parking, loud noises and graffiti “Which technically is true, but makes no sense to anyone. Why should such a report take double parking statistics into account? Hypothetically put, if one is doing a study on armed robberies, one is expected to use only arm robbery statistics and ignore all others.
[2] Researchers did not acquire data from the Los Angeles Police Department that you claim could be charted city block by city block.”True but so what? The statistics provided by “Crime Reports” are good enough. A few feet one way or the other is not going to make that much difference.
[3] To our knowledge, no comprehensive effort was ever made by anyone, including the Rand Corporation, to track and record the precise openings and closings."Actually, this is not technically true, according to the study:
“On June 7, 2010, dispensaries that were not operating legally were to cease operations. The city sent “courtesy notices” to the 439 dispensaries that were being ordered to shut their doors. Early reports indicated that most dispensaries ordered to close did so; the City Attorney’s Office estimated that 20 to 30 stores were still open illegally, and the LAPD conducted raids on at least four defiant stores “Which (using 439 closed dispensaries) and the cities own statistics, gives us an error factor of between 4.6 to 7%. Or using the higher (actual) number of 638 closed dispensaries, an error factor of between 3.2 to 4.7%. Seeing how the increase in crime was calculated at 60% (ah, what is that expression), I can live with that.
[4] That questions were raised dealing with the study's time frame, saying, "We were also terribly troubled by your suggestion that a 10-day period of statistical review constitutes a relevant crime trend."True as charged, the study should have been longer or taken more data into account. HOWEVER, it does show what it was meant to do. The immediate effects of closing a Cannabis dispensary and it’s effect on crime in the local community.
All in all, none of these allegations by the City of Los Angeles seem to hold any water, let alone justify the act of CENSORSHIP. Which implies that the city might have an ulterior motive for actually doing so.
[ NOTE – Although many of these dispensaries did close, they illegally reopened some time later -- creating a factor that may effect future statistics.]
[MUSEUM CONCLUSIONS]
CENSORSHIP IS ALIVE AND WELL IN THE CITY OF L.A.
Let us face facts, this museum is NOT itself an uninterested third party. However, if you look through our websites, you will see sections (even whole chapters) devoted to Quack Cannabis Medicines, and even some Cannabis Medicines that are so embarrassing that we all wished they had never been made. As a museum, while being pro-Medical Cannabis, we’ve always tried to use Logic and Reason in our analysis of situations. Medically speaking Cannabis works and it’s safe to use thus logic and reason demand that we do so.
And while on the subject of uninterested third parties, can the same be said about either the L.A.P.D. or the L.A. Attorneys Office? Both of which actively pressured the Rand corporation to Censor their report.
As mentioned previously, these groups have had a long history of bad conduct when it comes to the issue of Medical Marihuana --- Right from the first.
Example: In the words of Joseph F. Taylor, L.A.P.D. Chief of Detectives:
O.W. Wilson, Chief of Police, Wichita, Kansas.Not exactly the most open-minded position, one must admit. But the reader should not be lead to think that such things ONLY took place in the 1930’s. Example: In 1967, then Sheriff (L.A. County) PETER J. PITCHESS, released a statistical study entitled, “MARIJUANA CASE SUMMARIES, ” which contained around 100 examples of “Crimes Committed While Under the Influence of Marihuana” etc., etc. Below we quote the first two examples: [7]
Dear Sir: Referring to your communication of December 6, 1932, regarding the marihuana problem in your state and wherein you request information on our state laws covering same:
We are enclosing a copy of our State Poison Act, which will be self-explanatory concerning the prosecution and punishment of marihuana peddlers.
We have found from long experience and dealing with this type of criminal that marihuana is probably the most dangerous of all our narcotic drugs. In the past, we have had officers of this department shot and killed by marihuana addicts and we have traced the act of murder directly to the influence of marihuana, with no other motive. Numerous assaults have been made upon officers and citizens with intent to kill by marihuana addicts which were directly traceable to the influence of marihuana.
Our Los Angeles Police narcotic Squad makes on an average about fifty arrests a month of peddlers and users of marihuana alone, which will give you some idea of the extent to which this drug is sold and used in a city where enforcement of this particular law is never relaxed. We believe that the peddling of marihuana should, without question, be a felony and the penalty no less than that for which our Narcotic law provides.
If we can be of any further assistance in any way, we will be glad to do so at any time. Very truly yours,
Jos. F. Taylor, Chief of Detectives, Los Angeles, California.
===================================================== CASE #1 2-16-67 File# 4R 4717
EVIDENCE
SEIZED: None
DETAILS: Deputies were called to investigate a violent and boisterous person. Deputies observed suspect to be cut and bleeding about the left ankle and hands. This happened when the suspect kicked the rear window from his own vehicle. He was shouting that he was going to get even with and kill a certain person. He was cursing in the presence of women and small children. While being booked for intoxication, suspect stated, "I have been smoking weed all day".
===================================================== CASE #2 8-12-63 File# Z 931 784
EVIDENCE
HELD: Two ounces of marijuana
DETAILS: Two young- females at a bus stop were offered a ride home by two unknown males. They were driven to a dark spot where the males began attacking them. One female escaped and went for help. The other girl was raped. Investigating officers arrived at the scene and both suspects ran. When approached by deputies they began fighting. A search of their persons revealed that each possessed a small bag of marijuana. Both admitted smoking marijuana just prior to the crime. The case was dismissed because the trial judge held the officers should have waited to search the suspects until they were in the police station.
=====================================================
And more recently, let us look over these headlines, ALL taken from Press Releases as sent out by the L.A. Attorney’s Office. [8]
PRESS RELEASESWhich even you must admit sound like someone with an agenda, one of maintaining the status quo with regards to the anti-Medical Cannabis Laws at all costs. Thus the reason for my letter, a censorship (in this country) is a serious matter. One that strikes at the very core values of Americanism, I am hoping (almost praying) that you can give me a logical reason for your actions. Either that or a statement that such allegations were never made by your office, etc.
OCT. 20, 2011
CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE SUCCESSFULLY SHUTS DOWN SKID ROW MARIJUANA SHOP
FEB. 18, 2010
INJUNCTIONS SOUGHT AGAINST MEDICAL MARIJUANA SHOPS FOR NUISANCE ACTIVITY
JULY 28, 2011
CITY ATTORNEY ENFORCEMENT ACTION EVICTS NORTH HOLLYWOOD MEDICAL MARIJUANA SHOP
MARCH 10, 2011
PERMANENT INJUNCTION ISSUED AGAINST OWNER OF NOTORIOUS MEDICAL MARIJUANA SHOP
AUGUST 11, 2010
MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY HALTS CASE FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST ENFORCEMENT OF CITY ORDINANCE
If however, I am wrong then of-course you have a right to send us a statement, telling us your side of the story. Rest assured that it will be published completely without editorial comments directed against it.
Thus it can be stated unequivocally that the L.A.P.D. as well as the L.A. Attorneys Office, the two groups that called for the Rand Studies Censorship. ARE NOT unbiased neutral observers, BUT groups that historically have had and have today, a hidden agenda; That being to keep Medicinal Marihuana firmly against the law. Thus anything said by them should be seen firmly in that light.
With that said, our conclusions are as follows:
STATED -- The Rand Study was CENSORED at the demands of the L.A. Attorneys Office.
STATED -- That the Rand Corporation (mostly through fear and intimidation) removed the Study from public View.
STATED -- That unless there is new evidence of hanky-panky or out and out fraud that we are not aware of. That there was no legitimate reason or justification for doing so – granted, the study had a few flaws, but nothing there would legitimize an act of CENSORSHIP.
STATED -- That both the L.A.P.D. AND the L.A. Attorneys Office (the two main groups calling for its censorship), have a nefarious hidden agenda.
STATED -- THAT whether or not, one agrees with the validity of the study is irrelevant. Here the issue is CENSORSHIP.
FINAL CONCLUSION:
Unless there is more evidence that the L.A. Attorneys Office, the L.A.P.D. or anyone else can produce to discredit the report. We call upon the Rand Corporation, to re-release the study, and if funding permits, to update it with as much new data as is logistically possible.
And in case anyone has any doubt that the Attorneys Office has a hidden agenda in this matter. We ask them (as well as those at the Rand corporation), to ask themselves one simple question. Wouldn’t it have been to their advantage to have simply discredited the whole study by conducting their own study? Given the fact that the L.A.P.D. has its own statistics readily available, it wouldn’t have taken someone over there very long (one could use a simple excel file in a matter of an hour or so), to have disproven the whole thing.
Yet this didn’t happened, which can only imply that they DID do their own number crunching and came up snake-eyes. Thus their need for a smear campaign.
PLEASE GIVE PEACE A CHANCE:
Please, we understand that a lot of people out there want to throw rocks, but what good will that do. That’s stupid, instead please use peaceful means to express your protests. If you are able, make sure to register to vote, learn about jury nullification, --your right as a jurist to say NOT GUILTY, for any reason that you want. [9] The Narc’s and those who worship evil, really hate those sort of things. But please, give peace a chance.
============
FOOTNOTES:
[1]—Note this date is in dispute, with some citing much earlier dates, BUT by the museum’s definition, this one is it.
[2]-- While we have no smoking gun, due to the shear fact that there were only so many LAPD Officers that were killed [on or off duty] and as we have checked over every last one of them, we feel that the onus of proof now falls on the narc’s to prove that the Gore Case in Question is real and not a figment of “anti-Medical Marihuana Propaganda.
[3]-- http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/12/local/la-me-pot-study-20111012 – October 12, 2011 By John Hoeffel, Los Angeles Times – NOTE for the sake of readability some changes the quotes were made. Nothing was taken out of context.
[4]— The Attorneys Office was contacted and refused comment, thus we can assume that these quoted factors are factual and used as the official excuse to censor the study. .
[5]- https://www.crimereports.com/ --- If the reader is interested, they can go there and look over the free-stuff. Lots of crime statistics.
[6]— As quoted in the L.A. Times, Sep. 21, 2011 “Study On Pot Shops Has A Twist” http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/21/local/la-me-0928-marijuana-dispensaries-20110921
[7]- See Addendum B for more. If anyone wants more info feel free to ask, we can email it out to you.
[8]- Additional Headlines can be seen in Addendum –A, this section. All headlines taken from their own website http://atty.lacity.org/index.htm :
[9]- Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) is a good place to learn about the subject.
WANT TO KNOW MORE:
=====================
Due to space / download time considerations, only selected materials are displayed. If you would like to obtain more information, feel free to contact the museum. All our material is available (at cost) on CD-Rom format.
CONTACT PAGE
|
Censored Rand Study MAIN PAGE |
 Next SECTION |