http://www.vox.com/2014/5/13/571137...zed-pot-sales-revenue-is-up-and-crime-is-down
To me this is a DUH! thing but there are some deniers around.
To me this is a DUH! thing but there are some deniers around.
http://www.vox.com/2014/5/13/571137...zed-pot-sales-revenue-is-up-and-crime-is-down
To me this is a DUH! thing but there are some deniers around.
It would be nice to have multi-year trends of crime rates for comparison.
... doing so requires a complete ignorance of what's been going on for decades in other parts of the world.
Yeah. The United States will suddenly discover this fact too, and will once again be the beacon of freedom in the world ::wavesflag::It would be nice to have multi-year trends of crime rates for comparison.
Good thing there's other countries that have had legalized drugs for years then; they all show pretty much the same effect over many years: a significant reduction in ancillary crimes as a result of legalization or tolerance practices. On this side of the pond, the correlation was already well established to the point of being incontrovertible back in the early 90's. There's really no reason to expect colorado to somehow being the exception to the rule and imagine there's no connection between its new drug policies and reduction in ancillary crime; doing so requires a complete ignorance of what's been going on for decades in other parts of the world.
Isn't that what being an American is all about?
It would be nice to have multi-year trends of crime rates for comparison.
Good thing there's other countries that have had legalized drugs for years then; they all show pretty much the same effect over many years: a significant reduction in ancillary crimes as a result of legalization or tolerance practices. On this side of the pond, the correlation was already well established to the point of being incontrovertible back in the early 90's. There's really no reason to expect colorado to somehow being the exception to the rule and imagine there's no connection between its new drug policies and reduction in ancillary crime; doing so requires a complete ignorance of what's been going on for decades in other parts of the world.
Look, I'm not saying that legalising drugs doesn't cause a reduction in crime (and I'm incidentally on the same side of the Atlantic as you). What I'm saying is that the data presented isn't good enough to show that it does. And that's a fact. Just because the link is real doesn't change that fact either.
Look, I'm not saying that legalising drugs doesn't cause a reduction in crime (and I'm incidentally on the same side of the Atlantic as you). What I'm saying is that the data presented isn't good enough to show that it does. And that's a fact. Just because the link is real doesn't change that fact either.
Uhm, do you mean the data presented in the case of Colorado? <snip>
Look, I'm not saying that legalising drugs doesn't cause a reduction in crime (and I'm incidentally on the same side of the Atlantic as you). What I'm saying is that the data presented isn't good enough to show that it does. And that's a fact. Just because the link is real doesn't change that fact either.
Uhm, do you mean the data presented in the case of Colorado? <snip>
Yes. And indeed, this thread is about Colorado. And no, just because we happen to know, from other data, that the correlation presented very likely indeed reflects a causal relation doesn't change the fact that it is in itself insufficient to show such.
Look, I'm not saying that legalising drugs doesn't cause a reduction in crime (and I'm incidentally on the same side of the Atlantic as you). What I'm saying is that the data presented isn't good enough to show that it does. And that's a fact. Just because the link is real doesn't change that fact either.
Uhm, do you mean the data presented in the case of Colorado? <snip>
Yes. And indeed, this thread is about Colorado. And no, just because we happen to know, from other data, that the correlation presented very likely indeed reflects a causal relation doesn't change the fact that it is in itself insufficient to show such.
So, if we've observed that the sun rises in the morning-time and sets in the evening time 364 days of the year, and on each day we've done the math necessary to show that this has something to do with the earth's orbit around the sun; we don't have sufficient evidence to declare that the sun rising and setting on the 365th day has something to do with the earth's orbit without first doing the math? Huh?![]()
It would be nice to have multi-year trends of crime rates for comparison.
Good thing there's other countries that have had legalized drugs for years then; they all show pretty much the same effect over many years: a significant reduction in ancillary crimes as a result of legalization or tolerance practices. On this side of the pond, the correlation was already well established to the point of being incontrovertible back in the early 90's. There's really no reason to expect colorado to somehow being the exception to the rule and imagine there's no connection between its new drug policies and reduction in ancillary crime; doing so requires a complete ignorance of what's been going on for decades in other parts of the world.
Look, I'm not saying that legalising drugs doesn't cause a reduction in crime (and I'm incidentally on the same side of the Atlantic as you). What I'm saying is that the data presented isn't good enough to show that it does. And that's a fact. Just because the link is real doesn't change that fact either.
By definition when you reduce the things that you call a crime you are going to reduce crime.
If you eliminated all criminal statutes you would eliminate all legally recognized crime. It would be sort of like expanding the rational behind the fantasy of the free market to all of the interactions between the members of society. Get government out of our lives completely. Reduce regulation. You know, crazy talk.
... doing so requires a complete ignorance of what's been going on for decades in other parts of the world.
Isn't that what being an American is all about?