I don't think so. The JAMA article http://archinte.jamanetwork.co... does look at longitudinal effects but the 25% figure comes from comparing states with and without. From the abstract:
States with medical cannabis laws had a 24.8% lower mean annual opioid overdose mortality rate (95% CI, 37.5% to 9.5%; P=.003) compared with states without medical cannabis laws.
The common way to statistically analyse the effect of one variable is to model as many variables as the data allows and run a regression to isolate the effect of the target variable.
It may be that there are other problems with the study (e.g. correlations between the variables assumed to be independent) but this isn't one of them.
s/cognitive dissonance/confirmation bias/
42% in 2011
In the UK they pay closer to 20% sales tax and 60% in income tax.
Added to this: low-income people are generally low-income because they don't save their money, but live hand-to-mouth.
May I suggest that causation could be the other way around: Low income people generally live hand-to-mouth and don't save their money because they're low-income people.
actually less tests:
This is reported from an Australian perspective - we have had the plague of standardised tests descend on the Australian system.
Here is a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eolas.
It refers to #5838906 and #7599985
Even more impressive is that UV radiation is the spectrum from 10 nm to 400 nm, with extreme UV down the 10nm end. So this at most 2 wavelengths.* It barely gets waving.
* TFA didn't have wavelength data.
1. Allow free speech in advertising claims. (as above)
2. Every claim is understood to have an implicit footnote "This is probably a lie"*
* except for those that claim to be a lie, which are only there to annoy logicians
** This is probably a lie
per day, per month, per year, per lifetime? The question says "unlimited" so I'm guessing the last.
Gravity doesn't pull. At least get your pedantry right.