I have said multiple times that I'm not arguing causation between loosening pot laws and falling crime, and it is dishonest of you characterize my argument as such.
Once again - is this the 3rd or 4th time? - the point of bringing up the CA stats is to show how questionable is the claim that legalizing pot will cause crime to rise significantly. When you defacto legalize pot in a state, and the violent crime rate goes on to fall by half despite that, it's a strong argument against the claim that legalizing pot will cause crime to rise significantly.
Personally, I would put 1) the internet and 2) the increase in right-to-carry and increase in gun ownership, as major causative factors.
Now please stop mischaracterizing my argument.
My first sentence => ‘of’ should be ‘if’
Just because two unrelated events happened at the same time or over the same period of time doesn't make them "correlated" — that's basic and shouldn't be complicated.
For example, the sharp increase in popularity of poker has, in and of itself, no correlation to drop in national crime statistics. Same goes for sharp drop in the price of carpenter's tools or children's toys and number of other things over the same period of time.
Your conclusions regarding correlation of "medical" marijuana and CA crime stats are just as faulty as correlation with the national stats. Check out the number of municipalities in CA that have banned the dispensaries precisely due to increased crime, nuisance and costs (policing, legal, medical etc.) — please refer again to the posts #33 and #39 in the links to FR thread in my first post. Now, maybe that action by the CA municipalities and communities is a contributing factor to overall reduction in CA crime rates, but that would be just an assumption since I don't have the actual stats per municipality.
Personally, I would put 1) the internet and 2) the increase in right-to-carry and increase in gun ownership, as major causative factors.
Another cum hoc ergo propter hoc opinion, without supporting facts.
Now please stop mischaracterizing my argument.
I did not... I argued your misuse of certain statistics and basic statistical concepts, and your offering an opinion without foundation as a fact.
"You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts" - Bernard Baruch
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored" - Aldous Huxley
"You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality" - Ayn Rand