>> Use among 15-24 year olds fell throughout the decade,
>This implies that use among other groups than 15-24 year old had not fell throughout the decade.
Within the context of logic, that is not an implication.
>This implies that use among other groups than 15-24 year old had not fell throughout the decade.
Within the context of logic, that is not an implication.
If a pull quote or headline shows a good statistic for one cohort, it's a fair bet that other cohorts didn't show such a positive result, or else the touting would have been something like "overall" rather than "15–24".
Does the article have anything to say about general population?
> "While drug use during individual lifetimes among the general population appeared to increase in the decade following reform,"
Perhaps it was unchanged meaningfully / statistically significant enough to comment?
No, because they aren’t uninterested, unbiased observers just reporting the facts. The entire linked article is pushing very specific policy, and it is only expected that they will only raise arguments in favor of the policy they are proposing.
> Perhaps it was unchanged meaningfully / statistically significant enough to comment?
No. I looked at the data, and reported it accurately. Drug use went up overall, and if you disregard drop in heroin use (though only among young people, it also went up among those 35+), use increased significantly. Drop in heroin use among youth has offset the growth in use of other drugs.
You were asked for sources. Instead, you pointed to the article someone else linked, and asserted that it’s biased reporting so the data that they didn’t show backs up what you say.
You still haven’t provided any sources for your ongoing assertions.