EconomistPunter t1_j9znjxy wrote

And, unfortunately, the existence of unintended consequences to laws, as well as ineffective language, means that implementation often falls short of intention.

This is an important study.

Edit: your mindset would have derided follow up studies to Brown versus Board of Education, which almost uniformly found less than expected Black economic progress, because equal access did not imply equal resources. It’s a terrible mindset.


EconomistPunter t1_j9wo77z wrote

Cool study. Does suggest that using a signal to impute quality for consumers can have sizable losses, for those who wouldn’t get a license but would work, and for consumers.

The distributional impact is also important, as higher prices may preclude lower income Americans from performing needed repairs.

Note that this welfare loss does not take into account quality measures of work performed, which would mitigate the losses.


EconomistPunter t1_j9wnuf2 wrote


EconomistPunter t1_j9vkov0 wrote

And some of the early marijuana laws specifically targeted a substitution relationship between opioids and marijuana, which have largely evaporated in more recent studies. That’s certainly harm understatement.

Marijuana research suffers from both attenuation bias and bias that increases the magnitude of results. It’s a glorious mess in the sphere.


EconomistPunter t1_j6lethi wrote

Cannabis and the impact on opioids is one of the more consistent substance use disorder findings from the lit (maybe the one true impact).

Unfortunately, it doesn’t really translate into meaningful reductions (or consistently found reductions) in overdose death rates from opioids. Or admissions to the hospital with opioids detected as a primary substance.

The bigger question is the links between other SUD’s and cannabis, most of which rely on shoddy, preclinical studies.


EconomistPunter t1_iydf25r wrote

Shouldn't be; it corresponds with a lot of the literature on the effectiveness of COVID shutdown policies to COVID cases (reduced it) and deaths (minimal impact).


EconomistPunter t1_iyd5dw8 wrote

Such a weird dichotomy. I have 2 COVID era papers; one was published after 8 months with a 21 page revision. Another is still under review at its 3rd journal.

I would imagine name recognition plays some role (if you couldn’t figure it out I don’t have it) but my experience certainly wasn’t of a faster process. Instead, it was more thorough than regular review.