“I won’t go schizo, will I?”
“It’s a distinct possibility.”
Posted on 07/16/2014 4:44:01 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
“I won’t go schizo, will I?”
“It’s a distinct possibility.”
So? You did *not* refute the fact that making the activity illegal did not stop it, which is the point I have been making all along. Its corollary is that making an activity legal causes it to increase. All you are telling me is that a high chance of getting caught doesn't even stop people from committing a crime. I'm glad you finally figured out that I am talking about the incidence of the activity, and not its nature.
To claim that the "war on drugs" failed because drug abuse has not disappeared despite it being illegal
Who claimed that?
That was the claim in post #38 of this thread. Furthermore, I have seen legalized drug advocates make this claim many times...to the point where it seems to be their *only* argument in favor of legalized drug abuse.
Probably true for some definition of "regular and prolonged" (including alcohol use) - a definition that many users don't meet.
Actually, I would say that if they are using regularly, they meet the definition.
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.
Then the bit about "all enemies, foreign and domestic" must have been in the oath I took when I joined the military.
I'm not talking about the Federalist papers, I'm talking about the Constitution, which is a legally binding document. The general welfare clause is one of the justifications for a number of agencies dedicated to protection of health--FDA, CDC, USDA, etc. I know that a lot of libertarians would love to see all of those agencies disbanded, and allow anyone to sell anything regardless of safety...from everything you've written, I think you are probably one of them.
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?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=marijuana+brain+effects
Yep, urban legend.
So? You did *not* refute the fact that making the activity illegal did not stop it, which is the point I have been making all along.
I never claimed nor argued otherwise.
Its corollary is that making an activity legal causes it to increase.
No, that's not its corollary - its corollary would be that making an activity legal doesn't bring it into existence.
All you are telling me is that a high chance of getting caught doesn't even stop people from committing a crime. I'm glad you finally figured out that I am talking about the incidence of the activity, and not its nature.
You should be - as I've shown, the effect on its incidence of its legality is strongly influenced by its nature.
To claim that the "war on drugs" failed because drug abuse has not disappeared despite it being illegal
Who claimed that?
That was the claim in post #38 of this thread.
That post says only that it has not worked well.
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.
Actually, I would say that if they are using regularly, they meet the definition.
Possibly true for some definition of "regular" - but, again, that's a definition that many users don't meet. There are such persons as nonaddicted users and non-harming addicts - and it's immoral to punish them for the harms some addicts do.
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.
Then the bit about "all enemies, foreign and domestic" must have been in the oath I took when I joined the military.
Such protection must occur within the bounds of lawful Constitution authority.
I'm not talking about the Federalist papers, I'm talking about the Constitution, which is a legally binding document. The general welfare clause is one of the justifications for a number of agencies dedicated to protection of health--FDA, CDC, USDA, etc.
It's the rationalization for many liberal big-government programs - one that is flatly contradicted by the father of the Constitution, James Madison, in Federalist 41.
I know that a lot of libertarians would love to see all of those agencies disbanded, and allow anyone to sell anything regardless of safety...from everything you've written, I think you are probably one of them.
The federal government has broad Constitutional authority over commerce between states, and states have even broader authority over commerce within their borders. Talk of "anyone selling anything regardless of safety" is textbook liberal hysterics.
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?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=marijuana+brain+effects
The term "violence" occurs nowhere on that page. Adding that term to the search string narrows the result list to four - two of which don't actually mention violence, one of which is about treating aggression, and one of which makes no mention of changes to the physical structure of the brain.
Still sounds like urban legend.
"There is always an easy solution to every human problem - neat, plausible, and wrong" - H. L. Mencken
"If facts conflict with a theory, either the theory must be changed or the facts" - Baruch Spinoza
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!" - 'Homer Simpson'
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics" - Benjamin Disraeli / Mark Twain
"Cum/post hoc ergo propter hoc" | "With/after this therefore because of this" - logical fallacy
"Data is not information. Information is not knowledge. Knowledge is not understanding. Understanding is not wisdom. Wisdom is not the truth"
"Eliminate the impossible; whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" - 'Sherlock Holmes'
Re data in provided http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm - United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2012 :
1. If you are a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail. Only looking at any unrelated data through the prism of marijuana laws and consumption can someone make any assumptions — let alone conclusions — from the statistical data table that you provided in this link. Marijuana is not part of the data, so there is no correlation — forget about causation — between marijuana and the national crime statistics in that table.
Someone who is hung up on and is looking at everything through the prism / filter of "income or wealth inequality" could very easily "prove" from the same data that, as income or wealth "inequality" grew wider, the crime rate per capita dropped (i.e., the correlation of "inequality" and national crime rate) - so, it's a wonderful thing, except there is really no correlation, direct or reverse, between the two.
How about illegal immigration and crime rate? There has been unarguably more illegal immigration while the crime rate ostensibly dropped. Conclusions?
The per capita consumption of nicotine has decreased around the same time span. Conclusion — reduction of smoking directly correlates to the reduction in crime rates?
We know that alcohol is not a likely culprit: Gallup: U.S. Drinking Rate Edges Up Slightly to 25-Year High
Here is a good one, though I don't claim to "divine" it from that data - how about demographics and population aging, i.e., elderly commit fewer crimes?
How about increase in gun ownership? Increases in minimum wage (include states as well)? Or increase/decrease in incarceration rate? Or incarceration rate among certain income/race/political party/whatchamacallit groups?
Given enough creativity and time one can come up with any number of similar "correlations" — as long as no actual data in the statistics incorporates the variable - that's just Statistics 101. Also, let's keep in mind that societal changes (that includes crime rates) are long-term events and the shifts don't usually happen in a year or less. Enough imagination, and one can "prove" both direct and reverse correlation, shifted by only a few years, since there is no data filter in the table.
Of course, the nature (and definitions and classifications) of many crimes also changed in the last 50 or 100 years (for example, cyber-crime was nearly non-existent then) — as well as increased difficulty and lower viability of profit motive for committing many of the crimes — not due to societal changes but due to technological changes (and corresponding changes in the monetary value of some goods and services) — i.e., things or services that were very valuable 25-50 years ago are simply not worth stealing today or not worth enough effort. A very thoughtful article on this subject: What Will Crooks Do When Crime Doesn't Pay? - BLV, by Megan McArdle, 2014-07-14
Please do not use this irrelevant data to prove anything re marijuana - it's a meaningless statistical sophistry and would only serve to deliberately confuse yourself and countless others who are not proficient in elementary statistics... unless that's exactly the point of the exercise.
2. The premise seems to rely on holding two contradictory ideas at the same time - a) that the "War on drugs" failed (BTW, how can you quantify and qualify that, or is that just a good old standard statement, to "convince" the sceptics) and b) at the same time that the "War on drugs" has not really been waged (i.e., the entire premise of the marijuana laws having been relaxed or simply unenforced in certain areas). Have to pick one or the other, but I guess claiming them both at the same time is the only way to justify the conclusions based on the national crime data.
3. The so-called "War on drugs" is not just a "War on marijuana" (and is happening not only in the USA, but in the most countries.) So, regarding the desire to stop the "War on drugs" — does that extend to all illicit drugs like meth, cocaine and opioids, ecstasy/MDMA, synthetics or just to marijuana? If marijuana is decriminalized, would you say "Mission accomplished" or all other drugs should be legalized as well?
Or is the answer the good old standby — meaningless and easily refuted comparisons of THC to caffeine**, nicotine*** or "drug" alcohol — "If they are legal, then everything should be legal"?
Before answering, please see these references - there is no point making these posts even longer, repeating same ole':
Golden Gate Park pot party a major mess [San Francisco] - FR, post #33, 2013 April 21
Golden Gate Park pot party a major mess [San Francisco] - FR, post #39, 2013 April 21
____________________
** Caffeine, in pure form, is deadly in relatively small doses. There has been an increasing number of deaths recently of people overdosing on pure caffeine.
*** Nicotine is a drug that has been proven to make people smarter (Smarter: The New Science of Building Brain Power - B, by Dan Hurley, 275 pages, 2013 February 01) and has beneficial cardiovascular properties (used by some athletes) - though smoking or chewing tobacco leaves is an addictive, stupid and very harmful method of nicotine delivery, instead of applying patches.
To say two things are correlated is not to say that one or the other variable is causal =>
_______________________________________________________________
"Correlation does not imply causation is a phrase in science and statistics that emphasizes that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
_______________________________________________________________
CutePuppy: How about illegal immigration and crime rate? There has been unarguably more illegal immigration while the crime rate ostensibly dropped. Conclusions?
Same as with the pot laws => 1. There's been a positive correlation between the two since the mid-1990s. 2. You cannot say there is a causal relationship. 3. Further investigation is needed to draw any conlusions.
Do you agree?
_______________________________________________________________
Now, I'll be glad to discuss other points you raised, such as causes of falling crime and what drug policy should be. But first, I want to get cleared up what should be a simple point => When I say there a correlation, I am not making the case for causation. I am making a case against the claim legalizing pot would cause crime to rise significantly. With CA's violent crime rate falling by half since 1996, it seems a highly dubious proposition.
1. There's been a positive correlation between the two [immigration and falling crime] since the mid-1990s.
oy
1. Yes, that's essentially what the logical fallacy Cum hoc ergo propter hoc describes.
In other words, if you can't prove causation, your entire argument falls apart, i.e., correlation without causation is coincidental, meaningless and irrelevant, as I have shown in many examples in my previous post.
2. Your argument doesn't even show correlation, because there is nothing in the data set of crime statistics that has a variable that says "marijuana." It's as simple as that. Straight line from point a to point b has no correlation to straight line from point x to point y.
Otherwise, I can make thousands of statements that "correlate" to the crime data which have no relationship to the crime data, except in my imagination - see few examples in my first post.
Really, check the statistics books/blogs on this, because you are confused on what correlation means, let alone why causation is essential for your premise to be even marginally arguable.
And, just for yourself, check again the technology change argument (though I don't claim causation) which has been much more relevant and important in crime statistics than whether the MJ laws have been relaxed (which is destroying the first argument that the "War on Drugs" has failed) or not - they are simply not present in the data (i.e., not a variable in the data, which it can be correlated with).
Maybe this resource on validity and variables can help: Research Methods
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
Yes it does. By definition, if two variables move in the same direction over a given time period, there is a positive correlation between the two during that time period.
For example, the sharp increase in popularity of poker has, in and of itself, no correlation to drop in national crime statistics.
Yes it does.
Your conclusions regarding correlation of "medical" marijuana and CA crime stats are just as faulty as correlation with the national stats.
My conclusions are 1) there is a correlation, 2) you cannot say whether there is a causal relationship, and 3) it is unlikely that legalizing pot causes violent crime to rise significantly.
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.
You have correlation, but not necessarily causation. Further study/debate is warranted, yes?
___________________________________________________________________
Ken H (me): Personally, I would put 1) the internet and 2) the increase in right-to-carry and increase in gun ownership, as major causative factors.
You: Another cum hoc ergo propter hoc opinion, without supporting facts.
No it isn't. It is simply a personal opinion on causation. I did not claim it to be fact, nor did I give a reason for arriving at that opinion.
That was dishonest on your part.
"The lush traffic in alcohol beverages during the violent years of 1920 to 1933 had laid the base of organization for a number of criminal gangs. The termination of the ban on liquor deprived these gangs of their most lucrative source of money" - Special Committee to Investigate Organized Crime in Interstate Commerce
a pure political statement by a political body with a political agenda
What was the agenda of that committee?
Essentially, after the re-legalization all they did was to rename the "criminal gangs" into "distributors" and therefore the formerly "criminal" gangs (who could now use legal distribution to finance their other illegal activities) were no longer "criminal" - presto-change-o, I do declare, the problem of "illegality" is magically solved!
Even supposing it was the same people (for which you posted no evidence) there were concrere benefits to moving the trade out of the black market - such as regulatability and nonviolent dispute resolution.
2. This already flawed example further confuses and deliberately tries to equate the economics and science of 1920s with the economics of 2000s, and the production and distribution economics, chemistry and biochemistry of cannabis with "drug alcohol"
Just pointing out differences doesn't refute the comparison - those differences must be shown to be relevant to the point of the comparison. You could have noted that alcohol is a liquid whereas marijuana is a solid ... but I suspect you realized that nobody could possibly mistake that for a relevant difference.
For example, there were very few countries in the early 20th century to ever prohibit production and consumption of alcohol (Canada provinces 1901-1924; some territories in Australia 1910-1928; Sweden, Finland, Norway had versions of Dry Law in 1910s and repealed in 1920s; USA was pretty much late to the Prohibition show in 1919 and nearly alone before its repeal in 1933) and less than a dozen Muslim countries which are members of Organization of Islamic Cooperation who currently have Prohibition on alcohol. By contrast, there are very few countries where marijuana or hashish is legal or de facto legal (Cambodia, Egypt don't enforce the laws; North Korea doesn't have laws against marijuana), only few countries have decriminalized it and are still struggling with the consequences of "tolerance" policy.
The relevance is suspect at best; there is no evidence on the table that the majority of Prohibition alcohol was imported despite its legality abroad, and a great deal of today's drugs, including marijuana, are imported despite their illegality abroad.
Did you know that 75% of Dutch-sold marijuana is home-grown within the Netherlands?
By "home-grown" do you merely mean "within the Netherlands"? If not, evidence is required (the link from your previous post is broken, and similar text at http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2012/11/dutch_to_classify_super_strong.php doesn't support your claim); if so, that doesn't support your subsequent claim that 'this home-grown and the marijuana sold in "coffee shops" are not grown by "criminal gangs"'.
Since there are no statistics or empirical examples of marijuana "real legalization", where does the notion that it would bring a drastic reduction in prices
During Prohibition, alcohol was 270% to 700% more expensive than when it was legal (http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa157.pdf).
to stigmatize alcohol by associating it with illicit drugs [...] is a deceptive tactic
Checked the link - Dr. Hanson provides no evidence that this association is deceptive.
Toxicologists emphasize that "the dosage makes the poison." [...] Calling alcohol a poison is misleading and deceptive.
More people fatally poison themselves with alcohol than with marijuana - in fact, for the latter the figure appears to be zero.
Another outfit, La Conte's Clone Bar & Dispensary, formed a partnership with another marijuana firm to share some costs. But it produced a profit margin of only 6%
That's legal growing - little relevance to black market profit margins. But thanks for the source, which reports, "Prices for pot, meanwhile, have plummeted, in large part because of growing competition. [...] Still, a hearty group of weed producers are coming out of the woodwork—or their basements, where they used to grow pot—to have a go at it."
No doubt there are some people on this site whose conservative views cause "psychological harm" to their Obamabot friends and reliatives; by your argument, their accounts ought to be cancelled so that they can be "forcibly removed" from continuing to inflict this "harm".
That turns out not to be the case -- alcohol use and abuse actually increased during alcohol prohibition (do you propose to reinstate that, BTW?) and fell afterward as the "forbidden fruit" allure went away.
If you do not mean to imply that changes in marijuana laws have anything to do with overall crime rates, then why did you bring it up in such a way as to suggest that you think they are connected?
No! You just misapprehended the meaning of correlation - again. Correlations do not ‘result’ in something. Causations ‘result’ in something.
Actually, I meant "correlation." I should have said, "...resulted in an apparent decrease in crime." When data sets are strongly correlated, then the trends you see in one data set are also contained within the other data set. What I was pointing out was that, despite your claims that there is a correlation between marijuana laws and crime rates, actual examination of the data does not reveal a correlation. In any case, since changing a marijuana law is an infrequent event, you can't really look at a correlation anyway, because a change in law does not generate a data set that can be statistically compared 1 to 1 with the crime rate data set. I suppose one could look at changes in the trend line slope to try to find a correlation. But it's a pointless exercise, anyway. The actual situation about what is going on with marijuana laws and non-marijuana crimes is probably fairly complex.
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.
I graphed the numbers. I acknowledged previously that the graph you posted with the incarceration rates was only a proxy for crime--there are many reasons for this. The graph of the numbers shows what is going on better than a table. First of all, the incidence of crime follows the same pattern, no matter whether you choose "violent crime" or all crime. The magnitude of different kinds of crime varies, but the overall pattern of peaks and troughs is the same. And it still supports my hypothesis that the move towards tougher sentencing laws which began in the early 1990s has had an effect to lower crime, while the move towards lenient laws starting in the 1960s had the overall effect of increased crime. Although you keep trying to say that the strictness of the laws, how well they are enforced, and the crime rates are completely independent of each other, that simply is not the case.
Sorry, but I do not buy that at all. I have yet to see a regular user of any drug that is not addicted... if it weren't for the addiction, why are they even using? Especially when there are so many non-drug related activities to engage in?
The term "violence" occurs nowhere on that page. Adding that term to the search string narrows the result list to four - two of which don't actually mention violence, one of which is about treating aggression, and one of which makes no mention of changes to the physical structure of the brain.
Still sounds like urban legend.
One imaging study: they found physical changes in the structure of the brain.
Another imaging study: memory is impaired in "medical" marijuana users with MS.
Not an imaging study, but a meta analysis of several studies that show that marijuana use in young people is associated with onset of psychotic disorders. FYI, psychotic people are more likely to be violent than the general population, and are over-represented in prison populations.
Anyway, I can reference study after study, but this should be sufficient. The fact is that marijuana use has been observed to cause brain structure changes. One recent study showed behavioral changes persisting for at least 2 years after last use. Another study showed permanent effects on fetuses when their mothers used marijuana. I'm certain that with the recent legalization of marijuana in many jurisdictions, and the resulting ease of doing studies on marijuana use, more deleterious effects will be documented in great detail.
I will point out that searching PubMed is not quite like searching Google. Google is very flexible about search terms, while PubMed requires fairly specific keywords. But if you know how to search PubMed, you can usually find things... but if you fail to find something, that does not mean that there is not at least one publication that discusses what you are looking for.
Correlations do not 'result' in things. - HELLO! - Causations 'result' in things.
Nice foot shot, again.
And it still supports my hypothesis that the move towards tougher sentencing laws which began in the early 1990s has had an effect to lower crime, while the move towards lenient laws starting in the 1960s had the overall effect of increased crime.
Sure, if you ignore the Law and Order sentiment that helped Nixon and Wallace garner 60% of the vote in 1968, the Drug War begun under Nixon in 1971, the Rockefeller laws in 1973, the steady, decades long trend of increasing drug arrests that began in the early 1970s, and the explosion of incarcerated individuals beginning in the mid-1970s.
Other than that, your hypothesis is sound...
Correlations do not 'result' in things. - HELLO! - Causations 'result' in things.
Nice foot shot, again.
Please pay attention.
A correlation is a measure of how closely the numbers from two data sets cluster next to a line on an xy graph. Here is a fairly elementary discussion of correlation. Normally, such graphs also contain a trendline, the line that would be seen if the two data sets had a perfect 1:1 correlation. So, if you are making the claim that x and y are correlated, you are saying that for every change in x, you are seeing an equivalent change in y as determined by the slope equation (y=mx+b) of the trendline, within a certain margin of error. The equation for correlation is also contained on that page; this equation gives a numerical value to the average deviation from the trendline of each point in the data set. The higher the magnitude of the number (it can be positive or negative), the more closely the two data sets match.
Now, let me reiterate: you claim to see a correlation between marijuana laws and crime. Assuming that you can assign a numerical value to marijuana laws such that they can be graphed and calculated in conjunction with criminal activity, the correlation isn't there. Possession of marijuana was a felony in the early 1960s and was downgraded to a misdemeanor sometime in the 1970s. I remember this because, as I already said, I grew up in the SF Bay Area, the heart of the "counterculture" movement of the 1960s-1970s. Yet, in this environment where possession of less than a gram was no more serious than a traffic ticket, crime rates were increasing (according to the graph I made from that crime table that you linked). Thus, no positive correlation exists between marijuana laws and crime. Crime rates (as graphed from the table) were dropping before backdoor marijuana legalization efforts were being implemented. So, again, whatever relation there might be between the data sets, it is not a correlation.
Please note that I am speaking strictly of mathematical functions, what I expect to see if a specific mathematical function is operant, and that not a single word of this discussion mentions causality or possible mechanisms of causality.
Sure, if you ignore the Law and Order sentiment that helped Nixon and Wallace garner 60% of the vote in 1968, the Drug War begun under Nixon in 1971, the Rockefeller laws in 1973, the steady, decades long trend of increasing drug arrests that began in the early 1970s, and the explosion of incarcerated individuals beginning in the mid-1970s.
I would not know what Nixon's campaign pledges were, since I was a child living in a McGovern household at the time and was not paying attention to politics. But I do know the counterculture, and witnessed how it steadily grew and became more influential from its roots in the 1960s. The counterculture did not like any laws; they believed in psychotherapy for criminals, and blamed society for criminal behavior. And, regardless of Nixon's campaign pledges, the counterculture had a lot of influence in liberalizing the criminal justice system so that in some places, prisons became "revolving doors", letting criminals out almost as soon as they were sentenced. And when this lax enforcement of laws resulted in (caused, because there actually is a mechanism to show how this happened) an explosion in crime rates, only then was there a real push-back among the people, who voted for minimum sentencing and three strikes laws. And only then did crime rates start to go down again. The "how" is very simple: criminals kept locked up in prison commit very little crime, and potential criminals might think twice about committing a crime if they know that punishment consists of more than a slap on the wrist.
As far as any drug arrests go, maybe more people were arrested (that would make sense, because one counterculture feature is a love of drug use/abuse, so that practice was actually increasing during that time), but actually going to prison for drug use? I've never seen that happen, although I am aware of many many cases where drug users/abusers were sent to rehab. As far as I know, drug users in prison are there because of some other crime, not the drug abuse (although drug abuse might have led them to commit the other crimes). Since I am military, I have to be trained yearly in how to recognize drug abuse; of all of the videos we have seen that feature drug abusers talking about their addictions, the one thing they never mention is ever spending time in prison for their abuse. Rehab facilities, yes--prison, no.
And I will point out that your language in this paragraph indicates that you really do believe that changes in the crime rate are caused by drug laws. Only now, you seem to be including all drug laws, not just marijuana laws.
From wiki =>
"Under the Rockefeller drug laws, the penalty for selling two ounces (57 g) or more of heroin, morphine, "raw or prepared opium," cocaine, or cannabis or possessing four ounces (113 g) or more of the same substances, was a minimum of 15 years to life in prison, and a maximum of 25 years to life in prison."
Crime still shot up in NY like it did everywhere else. So much for your argument.
And when this lax enforcement of laws resulted in (caused, because there actually is a mechanism to show how this happened) an explosion in crime rates, only then was there a real push-back among the people, who voted for minimum sentencing and three strikes laws.
As you said, the first 3-strike law was passed in 1993. Another passed the following year, and I'm assuming others were passed in subsequent years.
Crime peaked in '93-'94 and has plunged ever since. You are asking us to believe that such laws had an immediate and profound effect so as to bring this about. And this after 2 decades of skyrocketing incarcerations, and at least 2 Drug Wars failing to put a dent in the crime rate.
In addition, it does not explain the fall in crime in states that didn't pass these laws until well after crime started its plunge, or that never passed such laws in the first place. Your hypothesis is not credible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.