Cannabis really can trigger paranoia

The Guardian (UK) ^ | Wednesday 16 July 2014 | Daniel Freeman and Jason Freeman

[AustralianConservative]

*The largest ever study of the effects of the main psychoactive component of cannabis suggests that it can cause paranoia in vulnerable individuals*

To discover whether cannabis really does cause paranoia in vulnerable individuals, we carried out the largest ever study of the effects of THC (∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the drug’s principal psychoactive ingredient). We recruited 121 volunteers, all of whom had taken cannabis at least once before, and all of whom reported having experienced paranoid thoughts in the previous month (which is typical of half the population). None had been diagnosed with a mental illness. The volunteers were randomly chosen to receive an intravenous 1.5mg dose of either THC (the equivalent of a strong joint) or a placebo (saline). To track the effects of these substances, we used the most extensive form of assessment yet deployed to test paranoia, including a virtual-reality scenario, a real-life social situation, self-administered questionnaires, and expert interviewer assessments.

The results were clear: THC caused paranoid thoughts. Half of those given THC experienced paranoia, compared with 30% of the placebo group: that is, one in five had an increase in paranoia that was directly attributable to the THC. (Interestingly, the placebo produced extraordinary effects in certain individuals. They were convinced they were stoned, and acted accordingly. Because at the time we didn’t know who had been given the drug, we assumed they were high too.)

THC also produced other unsettling psychological effects, such as anxiety, worry, lowered mood, and negative thoughts about the self. Short-term memory was impaired. And the THC sparked a range of what psychologists call “anomalous experiences”: sounds seemed louder than usual and colours brighter; thoughts appeared to echo in the individuals’ minds; and time seemed to be distorted.

[Ken H]

Pot laws have dramatically loosened all across the US in the last 20 years, yet crime has plunged and highway death rates are at record lows.

CA, for example, defacto legalized when they voted for medical mj in 1996. Violent crime has fallen by half in CA since then.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/cacrime.htm

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

[exDemMom]

So... we should be keeping people with criminal minds stoned all the time, because pot has the well-known effect of inhibiting initiative?

What I see in the graph is not a correlation between pot legalization and crime, but a clear relationship between the lax attitudes on crime that began in the 1960s and the more strict measures that started being implemented in the 1990s when people were concerned over high crime rates.

You have to be careful when looking for a causative relationship between correlated observations. Unless a causative mechanism can be established, you might be looking at things that aren’t even connected to each other.

[ConservingFreedom]

(Interestingly, the placebo produced extraordinary effects in certain individuals. They were convinced they were stoned, and acted accordingly. Because at the time we didn’t know who had been given the drug, we assumed they were high too.)

That is very interesting. The value of double blind studies is to eliminate bias by preventing everyone involved from knowing which is the study group and which is the control. I would have thought that in a study of a psychoactive drug, it would be immediately apparent which group had received the placebo.

This is yet more evidence that marijuana is not as harmless as its legalization advocates have claimed.

ROTFL! Seriously?! Real marijuana is harmful because fake marijuana makes some people think they're stoned?!?

No.

OK. Thanks for the clarification - I thought your second paragraph was meant to relate to your first.

Marijuana, like alcohol, is certainly not harmless; product harms should be made known to adult consumers, who in a free society should then be left to choose for themselves.

[ConservingFreedom]

Robbing banks is illegal, yet people still rob banks.

Bank robberies are detected 100% of the time, potential victims take all manner of preventive measures beforehand, and actual victims cooperate in investigations afterward. The vast majority of illegal drug transactions go undetected, and those involved actively seek out those transactions and strive to avoid investigation. Laws against consensual acts are, by the nature of the act, doomed to futilty.

[Ken H]

What I see in the graph is not a correlation between pot legalization and crime,...

There is indeed a correlation between the two. Crime has plunged while pot laws have loosened. There are now 23 states and DC with medical mj laws. It does not necessarily mean there is causality, but there is definitely a strong correlation.

...but a clear relationship between the lax attitudes on crime that began in the 1960s and the more strict measures that started being implemented in the 1990s when people were concerned over high crime rates.

The strict attitudes on crime, especially drug crimes, began in the early 1980s. It wasn't until the 1990s that drug laws began to loosen. The correlation is weaker. Other correlations are present as well, including strengthening of gun rights and widespread use of the internet. I suspect those have contributed, as well.

The bottom line is that the drug warriors who screamed about rampant crime have been proven wrong. Loose marijuana laws have not led to an increase in crime.

[PlasticMan]

I am beginning to think that Reefer Madness was not as over-the-top sensationalist as I thought when I first saw it, that it may actually be based on real observations of marijuana users.

That's like thinking that Plan Nine From Outer Space is based on real observations of space aliens.

[KSCITYBOY]

I have seen people become very paranoid from getting high.

[tacticalogic]

Cannabis really can trigger paranoia

The word, or the substance?

[exDemMom]

Bank robberies are detected 100% of the time, potential victims take all manner of preventive measures beforehand, and actual victims cooperate in investigations afterward. The vast majority of illegal drug transactions go undetected, and those involved actively seek out those transactions and strive to avoid investigation. Laws against consensual acts are, by the nature of the act, doomed to futilty.

What happens when drug addicts become so addled that they can no longer hold down a job? Some of them turn to various forms of crime to feed their addiction; others become homeless bums and beg to feed their addictions. If these people had families that loved them, they cause untold pain to those families who must watch them descend into living hell. Some drug addicts turn violent and physically harm or even kill others. Drug abuse is hardly a victimless crime. It may not be as overt as a bank robbery, but the damage it causes is far more pervasive and causes more long-term collateral damage.

I have an uncle who has been in prison since the 1970s for a horrific murder he committed while under the influence of illicit drugs. You cannot convince me that drug abuse is a victimless crime, or that it should be legalized.

[exDemMom]

Once again, you are attributing a causative effect to a correlation where no causative mechanism exists.

The drug laws were strict since the early 1900s, and crime was low until the permissive attitudes of the 1960s became widespread. In the 1960s, prison sentences were reduced because very vocal activists started blaming everyone but the criminal for crimes committed, and pushed strongly for lenient sentencing and alternatives to prison, like attendance at group therapy. This is also the time when crime started to explode. In the 1990s, as a result of widespread criminal behavior, people started pushing back against the anti-prison activists. They voted for 3 strikes laws and minimum prison sentences for crimes were enacted.

I should also point out that in the 1960s, one could go to prison in CA for possession of marijuana. That changed sometime in the late 1960s/early 1970s, so that by the end of the 1970s, possession of less than a gram of marijuana was a misdemeanor, not a felony. If more lenient marijuana laws can really cause a drop in criminal behavior, then why did crime rates keep going up after marijuana laws were “liberalized” in the 1970s?

To attribute the drop in crime to legalization of marijuana is to completely ignore the proactive anti-crime laws that were enacted at the time.

[exDemMom]

That's like thinking that Plan Nine From Outer Space is based on real observations of space aliens.

As I recall, the movie "Reefer Madness" showed a normal young man who became delusional and paranoid as a result of marijuana use.

Current research is showing that marijuana use causes brain damage that may very well be permanent. Users become paranoid (and this effect was well-known among users back in the 1970s). People's short-term memory is wiped out. Although these effects are quite noticeable during the period of intoxication, there is evidence that these effects--especially the loss of memory and lack of initiative--linger long after the "high" has dissipated. Marijuana triggers psychotic disorder (whether it causes it has not been determined) in people whose brains are still developing (brain development is complete around age 25). It physically changes the structure of the brain.

As I said before, it looks more and more like Reefer Madness may have been a bit exaggerated, but it wasn't that far off from the truth.

[Ken H]

Once again, you are attributing a causative effect to a correlation where no causative mechanism exists.

No, I am not. I said in my prior post => "It does not necessarily mean there is causality, but there is definitely a strong correlation." In reading your comments, I'm not sure you get the distinction between correlation and causation.

You don't have much of a correlation on the "push back" theory of falling crime, either.(see chart below) From the mid-70s to the mid-90s, crime rose right along with incarceration. That's about 2 decades of positive correlation between rising crime and rising incarceration rates, and 2 decades of negative correlation.

The 3 factors I mentioned - loosening mj laws, the internet and armed citizens - have a much better correlation with the fall in crime.

[exDemMom]

No, I am not. I said in my prior post => "It does not necessarily mean there is causality, but there is definitely a strong correlation." In reading your comments, I'm not sure you get the distinction between correlation and causation.

Actually, people who automatically assume that a correlation must mean causation are one of my pet peeves, which is why we are having this discussion. You may have stuck in the disclaimer that there is not necessarily a causative relationship, but then you talk about it as if it is fact established by stringent studies and observation that there *is* a causative relationship. Without characterizing a causative mechanism, a correlation is nothing more than an interesting coincidence, like this spurious correlation at the link.

You don't have much of a correlation on the "push back" theory of falling crime, either.(see chart below) From the mid-70s to the mid-90s, crime rose right along with incarceration. That's about 2 decades of positive correlation between rising crime and rising incarceration rates, and 2 decades of negative correlation.

Actually, your graph shows extremely well what I would expect to see if the tougher laws and mandatory sentencing requirements that have been enacted since the 1990s have been having the effect of reducing crime. As laws are made tougher, the incarceration rate goes up. As the incarceration rate increases, fewer criminals are out on the streets where they can commit crimes. The crime rate drops. Hence a *negative* correlation. Measures such as tougher laws never have an instantaneous effect since it takes time for a majority of the population to learn that crime *will* be punished. Therefore, a lagging indicator would be a drop in incarceration rate, which would begin to appear when increasing numbers of people decide not to commit crime in the first place. Your graph shows that, as well, with the peak incarceration rate occurring around 2007, a decade or so after 3 strikes laws started sweeping the country. In this case, there is a strong causative mechanism in place that accounts for the drop in crime--unlike the rather weak correlation you keep stressing between liberalized marijuana laws and drop in crime. I already pointed out that criminality has risen and fallen regardless of whether marijuana laws were strict or weak. I should also point out that because one effect of the brain damage caused by marijuana use is to *permanently* decrease a person's initiative to do anything, their ability to commit crime (which takes initiative) is also impaired. So I would *not* actually expect to see property or personal crimes to increase as a result of more potheads.

Also, the graph you posted has a horrible title. I would expect the incarceration rate of inmates to be 100% under all circumstances.

[ConservingFreedom]

Robbing banks is illegal, yet people still rob banks. So maybe we should just give up and make bank robbery legal.

Bank robberies are detected 100% of the time, potential victims take all manner of preventive measures beforehand, and actual victims cooperate in investigations afterward. The vast majority of illegal drug transactions go undetected, and those involved actively seek out those transactions and strive to avoid investigation. Laws against consensual acts are, by the nature of the act, doomed to futilty.

Before we go off on your latest tangent, let's note that it is a tangent from the above question: whether bank robbery refutes the anti-War-on-Drugs argument that the WoD is failing. As I showed, it is apples-and-oranges so not a refutation.

What happens when drug addicts become so addled that they can no longer hold down a job? Some of them turn to various forms of crime to feed their addiction; others become homeless bums and beg to feed their addictions. If these people had families that loved them, they cause untold pain to those families who must watch them descend into living hell. Some drug addicts turn violent and physically harm or even kill others.

And some don't - in fact, the majority of users don't become addicted at all. It is immoral to punish non-harming addicts and nonaddicted users for what some addicts do (in general, and particularly the noncriminal harms of being homeless and begging).

Drug abuse is hardly a victimless crime. It may not be as overt as a bank robbery, but the damage it causes is far more pervasive and causes more long-term collateral damage.

Government - especially the federal government of strictly enumerated Constitutional limits - has no general mandate to prevent "damage" ... much less to do so by violating the liberties of non-damagers.

And the relevant damage comparison isn't all addcition versus bank robbery anyway - it's to the direct and collateral damage done by the futile, failing War on Drugs versus any increase in drug addiction and its damages. It has yet to be shown that large numbers of adults are champing at the bit to use drugs; if one is not deterred by their inherent risks one is unlikely to be deterred by their illegality and is already using.

I have an uncle who has been in prison since the 1970s for a horrific murder he committed while under the influence of illicit drugs.

Blaming the drugs is like blaming the gun. Broadly based investigations show that most of those vicious/crazy on drugs were already vicious/crazy off drugs. And note that anti-drug laws did not prevent your uncle from getting those drugs.

[Ken H]

Actually, people who automatically assume that a correlation must mean causation are one of my pet peeves, which is why we are having this discussion.

No, we are having this discussion because you insist on mischaracterizing my argument as equating correlation with causation.

Actually, your graph shows extremely well what I would expect to see if the tougher laws and mandatory sentencing requirements that have been enacted since the 1990s have been having the effect of reducing crime.

The graph does not support your contention. You continue to ignore the fact that the push back began in the mid-1970s. Incarceration rates rose while crime rose for nearly 20 years afterwards. You have a poor case for even a correlation, let alone causation.

Also, the graph you posted has a horrible title. I would expect the incarceration rate of inmates to be 100% under all circumstances.

Not surprised you'd find a way to take a swipe at the graph. It shoots your argument right in the butt.

[exDemMom]

Before we go off on your latest tangent, let's note that it is a tangent from the above question: whether bank robbery refutes the anti-War-on-Drugs argument that the WoD is failing. As I showed, it is apples-and-oranges so not a refutation.

Since I was not comparing the act of bank robbery to the act of illicit drug abuse, why do you keep attacking the non-existent comparison? Bank robbery is just one example of an illegal activity that is kept in check but not eliminated by being made illegal, but I could have selected any illegal activity as an example. Rape, murder, tax fraud, speeding--none of these have been eliminated as a result of being made illegal. To claim that the "war on drugs" failed because drug abuse has not disappeared despite it being illegal is equivalent to claiming that the "war on indecent exposure" has been lost because people still illegally expose themselves. You have to come up with a better argument than that.

And some don't - in fact, the majority of users don't become addicted at all. It is immoral to punish non-harming addicts and nonaddicted users for what some addicts do (in general, and particularly the noncriminal harms of being homeless and begging).

Anyone who continues using an illicit substance on a regular and prolonged basis is addicted or well on the way to becoming addicted, regardless of their claims to the contrary. Many illicit drugs cause physical brain changes. One change that occurs is that the person loses their ability to resist the drug, even when they know that the drug is killing them. Why is punishing drug abusers immoral? Maybe being forcibly removed from the harmful effects of drugs is what they need in order to stop destroying their lives. Even in cases where addicts do not become violent and turn to begging rather than crime to feed their addictions, their addiction is still hurting people. The parents of an addict never look at their son or daughter's self-destruction as anything other than a tragedy; no one ever points at a homeless bum and brags, "There's my dad! I want to be just like him!" I would say that the psychological harm suffered by the family of a non-violent drug addict is just as serious and real as the physical or economic harm done by the more violent addicts.

Government - especially the federal government of strictly enumerated Constitutional limits - has no general mandate to prevent "damage" ... much less to do so by violating the liberties of non-damagers.

Sorry, but the Constitution mandates that the government both protect the citizens against all enemies, foreign and domestic--it does not specify that the enemies must be enemy combatants--and that the government provide for the general welfare (which is a synonym for well-being, and has nothing to do with endless handouts).

Blaming the drugs is like blaming the gun. Broadly based investigations show that most of those vicious/crazy on drugs were already vicious/crazy off drugs. And note that anti-drug laws did not prevent your uncle from getting those drugs.

I blame the drugs because of the well-characterized brain damage that drugs cause, and because psychotic behavior is sometimes a component of the "high" that drugs cause. Like it or not, the brain damage that drug abuse causes makes some people violent, an effect which can manifest when they are sober and is exacerbated when they are high. Remember what I said about drugs changing the physical structure of the brain? Violence is one possible outcome of that kind of damage.

I'm surprised that you did not note that anti-murder laws did not prevent my uncle from committing murder. Also, anti-rape laws did not prevent him from committing rape, anti-desertion laws did not prevent him from deserting the Army, and anti-whatever other criminal activity he engaged in did not prevent him from committing those crimes. I suppose the only answer, then, is to make all those activities legal--since, obviously, making them illegal didn't stop them. Besides, it is just so unfair to keep a man locked up for decades just because his favorite activities are illegal (to use your pro-drug legalization argument).

[exDemMom]

No, we are having this discussion because you insist on mischaracterizing my argument as equating correlation with causation.

I would be more inclined to believe that I misunderstood or mischaracterized your argument, if you had not ended your previous post by stating, "The 3 factors I mentioned - loosening mj laws, the internet and armed citizens - have a much better correlation with the fall in crime." The words you choose make it appear that you are indeed trying to equate correlation with causation. If you do not mean to conflate the two, you need to make that very clear--instead of repeating how good the correlation is.

The correlations you claim aren't even that strong. Marijuana has been criminalized to some extent for centuries; in the 1930s, it was more or less prohibited across the US. Yet, according to the graph you posted, incarceration rates (as a proxy for crime rates) remained fairly constant until the 1970s. At that time, some states, including my home state of CA, downgraded marijuana possession/use to a misdemeanor rather than a felony. If the strong correlation you claim between marijuana laws and crime rates existed, then downgrading the laws should have resulted in a decrease in crime--but the graph shows crime starting to climb at that time. I am also unaware of any time in US history when citizens were *not* armed, so trying to find a correlation between the arming of citizens and *any* event is challenging.

The graph does not support your contention. You continue to ignore the fact that the push back began in the mid-1970s. Incarceration rates rose while crime rose for nearly 20 years afterwards. You have a poor case for even a correlation, let alone causation.

The push-back against what, exactly?

That graph is exactly what I would expect to see if lax laws lead to higher crime and strict laws lead to lower crime. In the 1960s, the "free love" generation, people protested against all kinds of things, including the practice of being tough on criminals. I remember this quite well, having grown up in the San Francisco Bay Area, which was "ground zero" for many of the extravagances of the 1960s. The result was that crime rates started to climb in the early 1970s, and continued to climb until they peaked in the early 2000s (using the graph you posted; I could graph the numbers from your earlier links, but do not see the need since the incarceration graph shows the same thing). In the 1990s, people started becoming very vocal about getting tough on crime--the first 3 strikes law was passed in 1993 in WA, and CA's 3 strikes passed a year later. In addition, Bill Clinton ran and won on a platform of getting tough on crime, with the program to put 100,000 more cops on the streets; he was inaugurated in 1993. So the evidence is that the laws to become strict on crime started being instituted in the early 1990s. And the rise in criminality reversed itself and is now trending downwards.

The fact that there is a delay of a few years before the rise in crime following the push to more lax laws, and the drop in crime following the push to more strict laws does not invalidate either the (negative) correlation, or the clear causative relationship. Because it takes time for laws to be enacted and more time for their effects to manifest, I *expect* to see a lag. Remember, although correlation alone does not establish causation, when a mechanism exists that links cause and effect, then a strong correlation (or negative correlation) often results.

Not surprised you'd find a way to take a swipe at the graph. It shoots your argument right in the butt.

The graph actually supports quite well my assertion that lax laws=increased crime, and strict laws=decreased crime. Your rejection of such an obvious relationship is puzzling, to say the least--I am reminded of a time when I started to read a NYT editorial that began with a statement like "Despite record incarceration rates, crime continues to fall." (I paraphrase since I do not remember the exact words.) Since the editorial began with a ludicrous assertion, I did not bother reading the rest of it. The reason that I criticized the title of the graph is that I am a stickler about the correct use of language. Since, by definition, an inmate is incarcerated, it is impossible for the rate of incarceration of inmates to change.

[ConservingFreedom]

Robbing banks is illegal, yet people still rob banks. So maybe we should just give up and make bank robbery legal.

Bank robberies are detected 100% of the time, potential victims take all manner of preventive measures beforehand, and actual victims cooperate in investigations afterward. The vast majority of illegal drug transactions go undetected, and those involved actively seek out those transactions and strive to avoid investigation. Laws against consensual acts are, by the nature of the act, doomed to futility.

Before we go off on your latest tangent, let's note that it is a tangent from the above question: whether bank robbery refutes the anti-War-on-Drugs argument that the WoD is failing. As I showed, it is apples-and-oranges so not a refutation.

Since I was not comparing the act of bank robbery to the act of illicit drug abuse, why do you keep attacking the non-existent comparison? Bank robbery is just one example of an illegal activity that is kept in check but not eliminated by being made illegal,

That's the comparison you made - the non-elimination of bank robbery and of drug use - and I refuted by noting that one is combatted by its victims before and after while the other is assisted by its participants. Two-thirds of murders are solved, and probably an even higher proportion of bank robberies, whereas the percentage of incidents of drug use that are even detected is certainly several orders of magnitude smaller.

To claim that the "war on drugs" failed because drug abuse has not disappeared despite it being illegal

Who claimed that?

And some don't - in fact, the majority of users don't become addicted at all. It is immoral to punish non-harming addicts and nonaddicted users for what some addicts do (in general, and particularly the noncriminal harms of being homeless and begging).

Anyone who continues using an illicit substance on a regular and prolonged basis is addicted or well on the way to becoming addicted, regardless of their claims to the contrary.

Probably true for some definition of "regular and prolonged" (including alcohol use) - a definition that many users don't meet.

Many illicit drugs cause physical brain changes. One change that occurs is that the person loses their ability to resist the drug, even when they know that the drug is killing them.

Alcohol has the same effect on many people. And many people use illicit drugs and never become addicted.

Why is punishing drug abusers immoral? Maybe being forcibly removed from the harmful effects of drugs is what they need in order to stop destroying their lives. Even in cases where addicts do not become violent and turn to begging rather than crime to feed their addictions, their addiction is still hurting people. The parents of an addict never look at their son or daughter's self-destruction as anything other than a tragedy; no one ever points at a homeless bum and brags, "There's my dad! I want to be just like him!" I would say that the psychological harm suffered by the family of a non-violent drug addict is just as serious and real as the physical or economic harm done by the more violent addicts.

Not government's business - see the following.

Government - especially the federal government of strictly enumerated Constitutional limits - has no general mandate to prevent "damage" ... much less to do so by violating the liberties of non-damagers.

Sorry, but the Constitution mandates that the government both protect the citizens against all enemies, foreign and domestic

No it doesn't - search the text of the Constitution at the following link and you won't find those words: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html.

and that the government provide for the general welfare (which is a synonym for well-being, and has nothing to do with endless handouts).

That's a general statement of purpose, not a grant of authority; it occurs once in the preamble and once just before an enumerated list of congressional powers. Federalist 41 makes this crystal clear.

Blaming the drugs is like blaming the gun. Broadly based investigations show that most of those vicious/crazy on drugs were already vicious/crazy off drugs. And note that anti-drug laws did not prevent your uncle from getting those drugs.

Like it or not, the brain damage that drug abuse causes makes some people violent, an effect which can manifest when they are sober and is exacerbated when they are high. Remember what I said about drugs changing the physical structure of the brain? Violence is one possible outcome of that kind of damage.

Sounds like urban legend to me - have any scientific studies to back that up?

I'm surprised that you did not note that anti-murder laws did not prevent my uncle from committing murder. Also, anti-rape laws did not prevent him from committing rape, anti-desertion laws did not prevent him from deserting the Army, and anti-whatever other criminal activity he engaged in did not prevent him from committing those crimes. I suppose the only answer, then, is to make all those activities legal--since, obviously, making them illegal didn't stop them.

No, because those crimes by their nature are stopped or solved far more often than drug crimes - and, unlike drug crimes, are violations of individual rights.

Besides, it is just so unfair to keep a man locked up for decades just because his favorite activities are illegal (to use your pro-drug legalization argument).

I have never made that argument. My argument is that all drug users shouldn't be punished for what some drug users do.

[Ken H]

I would be more inclined to believe that I misunderstood or mischaracterized your argument, if you had not ended your previous post by stating, "The 3 factors I mentioned - loosening mj laws, the internet and armed citizens - have a much better correlation with the fall in crime." The words you choose make it appear that you are indeed trying to equate correlation with causation.

To say that 3 factors have a better correlation with something than a 4th factor, does not mean the 3 factors are causative. If you want to know what I think are major causative factors, then please have the common courtesy to ask, then we can discuss them. In the meantime, you are not justified in assigning such a meaning to the words you quoted.

If the strong correlation you claim between marijuana laws and crime rates existed, then downgrading the laws should have resulted in a decrease in crime...

No! You just misapprehended the meaning of correlation - again. Correlations do not ‘result’ in something. Causations ‘result’ in something.

Nice foot shot.

The result was that crime rates started to climb in the early 1970s, and continued to climb until they peaked in the early 2000s...

Factually wrong. Violent crime peaked in the early to mid-1990s. By 2000, the violent crime index had fallen by about 30%. It continued to fall throughout the remainder of the decade. Read the numbers again => http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

A word on ‘push back’. This was well underway by the mid-70s. Nixon and Wallace campaigned on 'Law and Order' in 1968, garnering almost 60% of the vote between the two. Nixon would go on to launch a War on Drugs in 1971 => http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=3048 The Rockefeller drug laws in liberal New York state were signed into law in 1973. Despite that, crime continued to rise in NY state, as it did every where else.

Lastly, your claim that the posted graph supports you is yet another example of error in your posts. Look at the US crime table at the 'disaster center' link (earlier in this post) and compare it to the incarceration graph.

Incarceration rose steadily from the mid-70s though 2010. Yet, crime rose right along with incarceration during the first 20 years of that period. You can't just ignore those years, nor can you credibly claim that the 'push back' began in the 90s.

Facts are stubborn things

[Ken H]

Corrected link to crime stats => http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm