The stats are describing only crimes related to that specific drug as related to that drug’s introduction.
This means the ancillary issues, secondary factors and causes, that follow the drug aren’t properly tied.
It like a casino goes into a nice quiet place with low crime, and crime shoots up. The casino wasn’t robbed, so no crime increase is attributed to the gambling. However, prostitution, drugs, theft, rape—these all went up . Why? Because there are activities that follow activities and attempt to take advantage of the “opportunities.”
It’s as plain as day.
Has it already been established in the case at hand (i.e., the legalization of marijuana at the state-level in certain states) that any putative subsequent increases in crime are, in fact, ultimately attributable to said legalization?
Regards,
///The stats are describing only crimes related to that specific drug as related to that drug’s introduction.///
That is not what your article states. It simply states crime went up after weed was legalized. This is like saying the sun came up because the rooster crowed. Correlation.
The crime rate could have increased due to an influx of illegals, drought in the ski areas, who knows. Any number of theories could relate to the cause. Causation is a rigorous statistical measure to weight which theory is more probable.
You have not introduced any studies which could explain the cause of the crime rate increase.
Your example of the casino is more correlative theory. It might be plain as day to you but I reserve judgment until I see actual evidence.
You might not realize it but you are using the same arguments environmental alarmists and evolutionists use to support their theories.
I’ll let the Denver Police have the final word.
“Crime is up,” said Denver police spokesman Sonny Jackson, “ but I don’t know if you can relate it to marijuana.”