I don't know if we have to go reaching for lead as the reason.
If the effects of chemical substances on the brain are indeed a factor... and yes, they probably are. Then there is probably a far more simple explanation.
Drugs.
Instead of police being faced with impoverished young men of the 70s, 80s and 90s who are hyped up on cocaine, crack or pcp and trolling for their next hit. They are dealing with the impoverished young men of today, high on pot and trolling for snacks. That is, they would be trolling for snacks if the munchies are ever able to override their desire to keep playing whatever video game.
If we consider the issue in a rational fashion for a moment, it's not terribly surprising that Rodney King was hyped up on PCP and trolling for another hit, whereas Trayvon Martin was high on pot and trolling for snacks.
And, again, when one tries to consider the matter rationally, these two people represent two fundamentally different elements. With predictable impact on statistics when their stories are "writ large" in a society.
If your crime is coming from demographic groups like this... then your crime will probably change with the changing drug use pattern.
It's not a popular notion, because it smacks of "evil"... but drugs really can be used to determine and direct the course of a society.
I don't know if we have to go reaching for lead as the reason.
Reaching???
There was strong evidence that lead caused widespread and permanent damage to children's brains. Therefore the USA spent billions to remove it from our environment. After it is removed, asking whether this made a difference IS NOT a reach.
PARTICULARLY NOT when compared to a hypothesis of differences in drug use over time that you've provided no evidence for.
Is there some evidence somewhere that brain damage causes robbery? It's entirely reasonable to say that the lead explanation is "reaching," although it may turn out to be true.
>asking whether this made a difference
You're equivocating here, intentionally. The question is whether it made a difference in crime, not whether it "made a difference."
It's entirely reasonable to say that the lead explanation is "reaching," although it may turn out to be true.
My standard is that I don't use phrases like "reaching" unless I either am quite positive of what I will say, or am somewhat certain then did a Google search to verify.
You're equivocating here, intentionally. The question is whether it made a difference in crime, not whether it "made a difference."
I assure you that any equivocation was absolutely unintentional. I have been aware for years from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07... and other articles that the correlation between lead exposure and criminal statistics has been examined and proved very strong. And, of course, we have the known causal links between lead exposure and behavioral problems that could potentially lead to criminal acts.
Thus we have strong evidence of both correlation and causation between lead poisoning in childhood and criminal behavior decades later.
> They are dealing with the impoverished young men of today, high on pot and trolling for snacks. That is, they would be trolling for snacks if the munchies are ever able to override their desire to keep playing whatever video game.
Downvoted for being hilarious while talking out of your ass. FYI, pot has a (very) mellowing and relaxing effect. The idea of the munchies as some sort of dangerous rampage in search of food is hilarious; it usually involves more sitting on the couch and putting some Pink Floyd on (or Flying Lotus if you like rap, whatever), than presenting menaces to racially prejudiced vigilantes.
PCP is a dissociative anaesthetic. You aren't going to be very dangerous on it. More like dizzy, and confused, and very clumsy. Hardly killer stuff, for others at least.
Now, what's funny is the drugs you don't mention. Some people on cocaine, or alcohol, usually white Wall Street guys and other posh denizens, can behave like assholes. The kind of people who'll be self-aggrandizing, selfish douches, and hit you on the neck from behind if they get angry. But, since neighborhood watchers don't kill white drunkards, there's no need to rationalize retroactively our racism with those drugs.
Dude, your missing his point entirely. He's saying that young males are smoking weed instead of doing hard drugs and therefore less likely to commit violent crimes. It may or may not be true, but it's an interesting thought.
It's slightly more than just interesting. It's been a fairly long-held belief that, at least in New York City, their continued and constant drop in crime was largely attributable to the fall in popularity of crack and cocaine usage.
I'm not sure why he's been downvoted to gray. I don't know that his ideas extend well to areas outside of NYC, but there's at least one (fairly large) data point lending credence to his notions.
Did you get your drug folklore/knowledge from "Reefer Madness"? Can you cite any credible evidence that pot use is even remotely associated with violent behavior?
I read an interesting theory about "Leave It To Beaver" leading to more social problems than truly violent television; the premise is that the sanitized depiction of family life and the easy resolution of problems set a false standard in very young children that left them unable to cope with real problems, eventually leading to more violent behavior.
I wonder if marijuana used by teenagers could sometimes have a similiar effect; the actual payload is peaceful and gentle, but seen as part of the broader system of someone's emotional development, there might be a net-negative effect of antisocial behavior. (Hippies may smoke pot, but so do violent gangsters.)
I'm not reflexively pot-negative; it's absolutely nothing compared to alcohol, and should not be illegal (among other things, street dealers don't ask for ID). But like you, I'd be very interested to see the data.
If the effects of chemical substances on the brain are indeed a factor... and yes, they probably are. Then there is probably a far more simple explanation.
Drugs.
Instead of police being faced with impoverished young men of the 70s, 80s and 90s who are hyped up on cocaine, crack or pcp and trolling for their next hit. They are dealing with the impoverished young men of today, high on pot and trolling for snacks. That is, they would be trolling for snacks if the munchies are ever able to override their desire to keep playing whatever video game.
If we consider the issue in a rational fashion for a moment, it's not terribly surprising that Rodney King was hyped up on PCP and trolling for another hit, whereas Trayvon Martin was high on pot and trolling for snacks.
And, again, when one tries to consider the matter rationally, these two people represent two fundamentally different elements. With predictable impact on statistics when their stories are "writ large" in a society.
If your crime is coming from demographic groups like this... then your crime will probably change with the changing drug use pattern.
It's not a popular notion, because it smacks of "evil"... but drugs really can be used to determine and direct the course of a society.