All drugs should be legal, and why

Danger

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
10,033
Likes
1,350
#81
bradd80 said:
No the studies all conclude that ALL of Levitt`s methodology is incorrect and that he messed up. What he did with his second study is the same as what he did with his first, which is fudge the numbers and interpret them in a way which all the experts agree was wrong.

In addition, a 2008 study by criminologist James Alan Fox showed homicides by blacks between the ages of 14 and 17 had jumped 34 percent in the last 15 to 20 years.

http://www.jfox.neu.edu/Documents/Fox Swatt Homicide Report Dec 29 2008.pdf

The number of crimes for white people in the same age range did not increase.

Levitt claimed in his study that legalizing abortion led to a major drop in murder and other violent crimes in the 1980s and 1990s. He theorized that the babies who were victimized by abortion would have been more likely to commit crimes.

But Fox’s study showed that violent crime in the black community had actually gone up in the last decade — not down.

Yet, if Levitt’s hypothesis was true, crime should have gone down significantly in the black community because of a higher abortion rate.

This is the last time I`m going to say this: Levitt fvcked up his study, all the experts disagree with him, and no matter how many times he tries to fudge his numbers and redo his study he will still be wrong.

The research done after Donohue and Levitt’s article was published in 2001 actually disproves the abortion-crime theory and casts much doubt on whether even a minor link exists at all.

Bottom line is, Levitt is free to interpret his statistics any way he wants, and of course he is going to do it in a way which either makes him money or saves his career.

But the holes in his study, reinforced by the opinions of expert economists and statisticians, as well as the admissions of Levitt himself, show that his study is full of mistakes and no longer carries any degree of credibility.

Next time Danger, research the studies you use in your arguments and make sure that (a) most experts don`t disagree with it and (b) the author himself did not admit to making lots of mistakes in conducting his study.

Fox's study does not refute Levitt's new study whatsover. Instead it cherry picks individual datapoints, missing the overall trend.

Pay particular attention to chart 3 and chart 4 on page 12 in Fox's study that you just linked. They actually buttress Levitt's data and conclusion, especially when violent crime per 100,000 plummets in the early 90's all the way to today. The rise in crime in the late 2000's you cite is barely noticeable on the chart compared to the previous 18 years. Look at the forest, not the tree.

I repeat again, Levitt made a mistake in his initial study, but he addressed it after the fact here.

I do notice that you continue your defamation campaign though with the "Fudging" comments I bolded above. I'm not surprised.

Of course, if you read Levitt's update, you would further know that he addressed the issues and the conclusion came up the same. The link you just posted only supports the Levitt's theory.

I do know that you won't bother repeating yourself with more character assassination attempts, it's not working. Until your next post, I will patiently wait for the link you have that discredits Levitt's updated dataset, not the first one.
 

Danger

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
10,033
Likes
1,350
#82
bradd80 said:
LMAO :crackup:

Danger you`re too funny dude you need to move on and get on with your life it`s just the internet haha

Hey at least you finally bothered to read one of the studies I posted, which is an accomplishment I guess..

Anyway, stop trying to revive this argument every three days in an attempt to win, it`s YOUR fault you chose to rely on a study that all the experts have concluded is wrong, that the AUTHOR HIMSELF has agreed is full of mistakes, and that a 2008 study actually disproved Levitt`s entire hypothesis.

So best of luck I hope you`re able to pick up the pieces of your life after this thread lmao

Insults and more insults. Is that really all you have cupcake?

Still no answers to this. And after I just kicked your @ss on the last link you posted.

That's now three posts in a row by you that has insults in it, when every response of mine has nothing of the sort.

I think that tells more about you than anything else in this thread.
 

Danger

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
10,033
Likes
1,350
#83
bradd80 said:
Really? This is what you said a couple of pages ago in this very same thread:



^^hmm i think we both know who`s name-calling and getting desperate here cupcake ;)

Every time I see you come back here to bang your head in the wall over and over again, it makes me look bad too just for participating and watching you do this to yourself. At first it was funny, but now I`m starting to get a little concerned.

All the experts have concluded Levitt`s theory is wrong, Levitt HIMSELF has agreed his study is full of mistakes, and a 2008 study actually disproved Levitt`s entire hypothesis. Not just one or two points or not even just his methodology BUT HIS ENTIRE HYPOTHESIS.

Again, in the last three posts you have, you insulted me, whereas my responses to those posts were reasonable. I could go back several pages and find plenty of insults by both of us. Yet here I decided not to insult you in response to your derogatory statements and focused on asking for the data.

You refused to provide it and instead insulted me. Not once, not twice, but in three seperate posts. Your only link showed data that fully supports Levitt.

I have refuted all of your points, as has Levitt's updated analysis. Your strategy now is to obfuscate the argument, which is exactly what you keep trying to do by posting garbage that I have already refuted.

Now, find something that takes issue with Levitt's latest study. Or are you going to keep trying to obfuscate?
 

Danger

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
10,033
Likes
1,350
#84
bradd80 said:
Are you just not reading my posts at all?

All the experts have concluded Levitt`s theory is wrong, Levitt HIMSELF has agreed his study is full of mistakes, and a 2008 study actually disproved Levitt`s entire hypothesis. Not just one or two points or not even just his methodology BUT HIS ENTIRE HYPOTHESIS.



Actually, by focusing on that one chart YOU are the one looking at the tree instead of the forest. The study concludes that homicides in the black community went up 34% which is a VERY SIGNIFICANT INCREASE, and directly disproves Levitt`s theory, which predicted that increased abortion would cause decreased crime.
He agreed his ORIGINAL study had mistakes, which is why he did this update, that you keep ignoring.

Look again at these charts you provided on page 12, since the early 90's (when Roe V Wade would truly start to take effect) violent crime dropped from 230 per 100,000 to 60 per 100,000 in 2002, for a 74% drop. Then, over the next four years, there was a rise in crime to 80 per 100,000 which equates to 33%.

However, you will note, that from 230 even down to 80 (the violent crime rate after that "crime wave" you reference) is still an ENORMOUS drop of 65%. This is why that "blip" in crime is meaningless to the hypothesis. Your argument is that the hypothesis is wrong because violent crime did not go down in perpetuity. That argument simply does not make sense.
 

Danger

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
10,033
Likes
1,350
#85
bradd80 said:
Ok now I know what the problem is, and why you keep banging your head into the wall.

Levitt's hypothesis was that increased abortion causes a decrease in crime. In the black community, increased abortion did not decrease crime, in fact violent crime increased by 34%. Therefore, his hypothesis is incorrect and there must be some other reason for this reduction in crime.

Are you starting to understand why his hypothesis is incorrect?
I already refuted this. The enactment of Roe v Wade reduced crime by 74%, I just pointed that out, per your own link.


bradd80 said:
My theory is that increased law enforcement and improved drug education might help better explain why violent crime and murder as a whole gradually went down so much and why the number of drug abusers has been cut by 50% despite a correspondingly large increase in population starting right in the early 1970s - not 20 years later as would be explained by the abortion-crime effect.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13799616

Your new link bolsters the Levitt argument, showing that violent crime peaked in the early 90's and then began a sharp decline, right in line with the removal of "unwanted high-risk people".

Besides, in this link you will see there has been considerably increased drug usage throughout the 90's. Which of course blows a hole in your theory since violent crime has dropped drastically during that same time period.

bradd80 said:
That is why I won this argument over you, because my theory makes more sense, whereas yours has actually been PROVEN TO BE WRONG. Plus the fact that Levitt made so many mistakes in his study to begin with means he has no credibility at all. Keep in mind, it took 4 years for expert statisticians to reveal his first errors, and this is why experts don't pay attention to his theory any more no matter how many times he tries to modify his study to suit his conclusion.

You didn't win anything, you just keep avoiding the issue. And now I have refuted your second attempt to deflect the issue. Drug use has risen dramatically during the 80's and 90's, yet once the 90's hit, violent crime plummeted. We already know the reasons, you just refuse to accept it.

You have proven nothing, only that you refuse to acknowledge Levitt's new study. You keep trying to defame Levitt when he addressed every one of the issues raised here. Continual repeating of those issues does not matter simply because he addressed them.
 

How This "Nice Guy" Steals Women from Jerks

Did you know a woman can be totally UN-ATTRACTED to you...

And she'll still sleep with you?

If you've ever seen a girl go home with some asshole she didn't even LIKE, you know this is true.

But how is this possible?

Because deep inside her brain, sexual desire has nothing to do with what you LOOK like...

And everything to do with how you make her FEEL.

Matt Cook knows this all too well.

Matt is a nice guy... but he steals women from JERKS all the time.

In this free video training below, he'll show you how he does it:

How to Control Her Emotions and Make Her Chase You

Danger

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
10,033
Likes
1,350
#86
Bradd,

Follow me for a second here.

You posted this link, dated in June of 2011, that directly references Levitt....shown in the quote below.

5. There is a controversial theory put forward by economist Steven Levitt that the increased availability of legal abortion after the Supreme Court ruling in 1973 on Roe v Wade meant that fewer children were born to young, poor, single mothers. This, says the theory, stopped unwanted babies in the 1970s and 80s from becoming adolescent criminals in the decades that followed. But some of his peers have questioned whether the evidence really supports the theory.
So in the quote above from your source, there is a link that points to a December 1st 2005 article which references the shortfall of Levitt's study. Fair enough.



But, and here is the important part that you keep avoiding, Levitt addressed those concerns here in this link dated December 5th 2005.

So, once again, your link, despite being dated in 2011, references OLD DATA. They are still talking about an old point that was addressed and the addressing of those concerns actually proved the theory to be even stronger.

The rest of your post is continued character assassination attmempts as lawyers are wont to do when they no have facts or data on their side.
 

Danger

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
10,033
Likes
1,350
#87
Brad,

I'm not sure why you are so angry. My recent comment clearly detailed why your post was wrong, even detailing the dates posted and showing why that was irrelevant if they were referencing the original data sets and not the updated study. All of yoru links only point to the original dataset, not the updated one.

And now you are raising an issue I already put to rest in this previous post of mine (#136).....

Danger said:
Look again at these charts you provided on page 12, since the early 90's (when Roe V Wade would truly start to take effect) violent crime dropped from 230 per 100,000 to 60 per 100,000 in 2002, for a 74% drop. Then, over the next four years, there was a rise in crime to 80 per 100,000 which equates to 33%.

However, you will note, that from 230 even down to 80 (the violent crime rate after that "crime wave" you reference) is still an ENORMOUS drop of 65%. This is why that "blip" in crime is meaningless to the hypothesis. Your argument is that the hypothesis is wrong because violent crime did not go down in perpetuity. That argument simply does not make sense.
Clearly on page 12 you can see how far black crime began plummeting in the early 90's (even as drug use doubled), from the very link that you provided, not rising 34% percent per your claim.

And I already refuted your drug theory with this chart, which shows how drug use doubled during the 90's.....precisely as violent crime dropped.


EDIT: I see what you are missing here. You are quoting crime increases in the early to mid 2000's, well after the rise of abortions had taken effect on crime. This is exactly why crime never rose up to it's "pre-abortion effect" levels. In fact, overall crime was still down 65% when compared to prelegalized abortion levels.
 
Last edited:

Danger

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
10,033
Likes
1,350
#88
Bradd,

You are referring to page 13 and 14, those are the weekday/weekend numbers. Go up to page 12 and you will see the chart I am talking about.

And violent crime peaked in 1993, exactly when you would expect it too if related to historical abortion rates.

Your problem is that you are focused on the data in 2000 when looking at Foxx's data. Foxx can't control for the effect of abortion because his data is for all babies that were "wanted". You are comparing apples to oranges in your hope to obfuscate the argument.

The reason Levitt's dataset is better is because he can relate the data directly to abortion using time-frames when it was legal and was not.

And again, the rest of your post is little more than character assassination.
 

Danger

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
10,033
Likes
1,350
#89
bradd80 said:
Again, you are referring to page numbers that don't exist. The pages in this part of the study are not numbered. You can't even list the table or figure as I have asked. Like I said, trying to muddy the waters like this is not helping your case.
Bradd,

Adobe has a page function. If you type in 12 in the text box at the top of the pdf file and select 12, it will take you to the page with the chart I am speaking about. Violent crime by year and race through the 80's and 90's.


bradd80 said:
Violent crime peaked in 1993 due to the crack wars, which was at its height in the black community.. the one that had the highest rate of abortion. This fact directly disproves the hypothesis of your theory, which states that an INCREASE in abortion would lead to a DECREASE in crime.

This was my whole point.

Brad, you have to understand the hypothesis first. You are equating the abortion rate of 1993 to the crime rate of 1993. That makes no sense, babies don't murder people. Subtract 18 years and that takes you back to 1975, when women started taking advantage of the new laws to not have unwanted babies. That translates to the steep decline in crime of the 90's.

The hypothesis is that unwanted babies turn into criminals. So the reason that crime began it's steep decline in the early 90's was because the effects of legal abortion now had the opportunity (almost 20 years later) to really start taking effect.


bradd80 said:
Figure 4, the chart I focused on, does not look at data in 2000 at all. It looked at black homicide rates throughout the 1980s and 1990s.

Exactly! Because that is the focal point for seeing society's response via criminal activity to abortion being legalized in the early 70's. You would naturally see the crime rate shift as society no longer had to deal with the unwanted babies who grew up into criminals.

To put it simply, the violent young adult criminal in 1988 was the child that could not be aborted in 1970. Fast forward a few years, and then you remove unwanted babies, and......crime rates deteroriate rapidly 18-20 years later, starting right in 1993.



bradd80 said:
No, Levitt's dataset is NOT better. Only in his and your head is it better. The leading experts all disagree with him, and they all conclude that Levitt messed up on his study (which Levitt admitted to), and Levitt never corrected his subsequent modifications. That's why no expert takes him seriously.
They disagreed with one portion of his first study, but had no issue with his second, updated study. I've pointed that out to you multiple times in this thread (12 times at your last count). That is why Levitt updated his study here. To date, no economist has taken note with Levitt's response and updated study. Only you have taken issue with it, with no data to back it up.


bradd80 said:
Levitt calls himself a "rogue economist" - this is not my characterization. And now you see why he calls himself this.

I have revealed all of the mistakes you made in misreading charts and figures. You did not address any of these concerns, you merely changed the subject to something totally different.

There is no point in me debating this topic with you if you can't read the tables and charts correctly.

These are just more character assassination and insults by you. Your mistake is outlined by me above in that you are comparing 1990 abortion rates to 1990 crime rates. That makes little sense as infants are not violent criminals. But if they are unwanted infants, then probabilities greatly increase that they become those violent criminals of the future.

Levitt's data, and the charts you and I both reference, show that to be a very strong case. Which is why you see violent crime peak ~18-20 years after abortion was legalized......only to see it plummet as abortions (removal of unwanted children) go up in the mid to late 70's.
 

Danger

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
10,033
Likes
1,350
#90
bradd80 said:
Danger, murders peaked in the 1980s and 1990s because of the crack wars in black communities, these are the communities that had the highest abortion rates yet, contrary to Levitt`s theory, also experienced the highest crime rates as well.

I already addressed this. The effects of abortion would not have begun until the early 90's. Why would you expect it to happen earlier?

Per your chart here, on page 12 (using the adobe page function), violent crime peaked in the black community in 1993. Just as those unwanted babies in the mid 70's started disappearing from the streets.

No matter how you try and bend and twist reality, it does not change that fact.


bradd80 said:
The murder rate went back to its similar rate in the 1980s because the crack wars ended. If it had been due to the abortion theory, this murder rate would have remained level instead of spiking again in the early 2000`s. Abortion did not just happen for five years in the 1970s and then just stop, just as the murders occurred during the crack wars and then tapered down.
A rise in crime 30+ years after abortion was legalized does not not prove anything about unwanted babies and crime. Because, as I pointed out earlier, there was no control for abortion when measuring in the 2000's. All of the unwanted babies weren't there to compare against.


bradd80 said:
In addition, the Fox Report proves that

1. Although Levitt claimed that abortion would lead to a decrease in crime

2. In the black community, which had the highest rates of abortion, there was actually a huge (34%) increase in crime.

3. Therefore Levitt`s entire hypothesis is wrong.

I just showed you why this assumption is wrong, because you are looking at data for only the 2000's. You have no control for the abortion variable in that data-set. With no control for that dataset that means you have a new baseline, which makes youre assumptions wrong.

bradd80 said:
On top of all this, all the experts disagree with Levitt and his methodology, and he never fixed the problem. Oh wait he did, but only as much as it obtained the conclusion he originally wanted (big surprise here).

BOTTOM LINE: in your comment number 143, you tried to pass off a study of teen drug users as proof that drug use in the U.S. went down overall. This shows that you either (1) have a habit of incorrectly using charts to prove a point or (2) that you are trying to pull a fast one on all of us here hoping we won`t notice, much as Levitt did with his study.

Either way, there`s no point in me arguing with you since you obviously have a habit of reading all of your data and statistics incorrectly, just like Levitt was discovered to do with his study by the experts.

I said teen drug use ROSE! Here is my exact quote.

Danger said:
Brad,

I'm not sure why you are so angry. My recent comment clearly detailed why your post was wrong, even detailing the dates posted and showing why that was irrelevant if they were referencing the original data sets and not the updated study. All of yoru links only point to the original dataset, not the updated one.

And now you are raising an issue I already put to rest in this previous post of mine (#136).....



Clearly on page 12 you can see how far black crime began plummeting in the early 90's (even as drug use doubled), from the very link that you provided, not rising 34% percent per your claim.

And I already refuted your drug theory with this chart, which shows how drug use doubled during the 90's.....precisely as violent crime dropped.


EDIT: I see what you are missing here. You are quoting crime increases in the early to mid 2000's, well after the rise of abortions had taken effect on crime. This is exactly why crime never rose up to it's "pre-abortion effect" levels. In fact, overall crime was still down 65% when compared to prelegalized abortion levels.
 
Read the 22 Rules for Massive Success with Women. Everything you need to know to become a huge success with women. And it's free!

Deep Dish

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
2,114
Likes
100
#91
Malice:
Obama has already said he will change the drug war in his second term.
PairPlusRoyalFlush:
youre stuck on election year propaganda sadly.
I agree Obama's "coming out" to Rolling Stone magazine with the suggestion of a second term evolution, along with featuring Harold & Kumar at the Democratic convention, was probably intended as a publicity stunt. It should also be noted that when Obama talks about changing the drug war, he's actually talking about budget priorities and strategic balances. In other words, to keep the drug war going. His drug czar, Gil K., says the drug war is over because they don't call it that anymore, but meanwhile, the budget balances between interdiction/incarceration and treatment has remained exactly the same. The shift is rhetorical.

It's true that Obama's administration has been the most hostile towards marijuana, with more raids, threats of asset forteiture, and IRS agents, but it's plausible that it didn't come from Obama himself. The president is involved only on a few issues and other issues are delegated to lower-level staff. His administration is chock full of prohibitionist hard-line ****roaches, especially from law enforcement and the Department of Justice. I have speculation from Ethan Nadelmann, citing insider beltway connections, the pressure for the crackdown came from law enforcement and the US Attorneys (source - scroll to 1:10:30). When Obama appointed the clueless Michelle Leonhart as DEA adminstrator, it's plausible there were no senior White House advisors on the issue. In other words, Obama was sleep walking on autopilot.
So the federal policy has been very mixed with some of the federal U.S. attorneys being very aggressive in places like Montana and California and trying to shut everybody down, and other states like New Mexico or Maine or other parts of New England really holding back, right. And then you look at a place like Colorado which legalized medical marijuana back in 2000 and then adopted a statewide regulatory approach a few years ago -- through the legislature, signed by the governor. And even there you have hundreds of dispensaries operating above ground, being taxed, regulated, law enforcement, government officials oversee them. There's a medical marijuana enforcement division. So you have in Colorado a very good model for regulating above ground marijuana. And you have in Washington state and some other states a very good model for regulating alcohol above ground.

So I'm very curious to see what the White House and the Justice Department do. You know, two years ago when the marijuana legalization issue was on the ballot in California in 2010, a month before the election, Holder, the Attorney General, said to Californians, "You better watch out because if you do this the Feds are not gonna allow this." This time in 2012, Holder did not say a word, notwithstanding the fact that all the former heads of the DEA and the former heads of the drug czars office all banded together appealing him. But I think what happened was the White House and other people in those states looked at the polling, they saw, for example, Colorado was a swing state. They saw this issue was very popular, especially with young voters and independents who could be swing voters in this election, and they decided the better course of action was not to say anything.

You also have the fact that the governors and attorneys general of these two states, Colorado and Washington, are saying, "Look, we want to implement the will of the people in good faith." I mean, you have the fact that the Colorado legalization initiative got more votes on election day than Obama did. And in Washington state the initiative got more votes than either of the candidates who became -- or got elected governor and attorney general. You have -- and all of them are saying they want to implement these initiatives in good faith. You also have the fact that Obama has in his private discussions with people about drug policy, both with foreign presidents and with wealthy democratic donors and key political people, all of whom I've spoken with -- they all say that Obama and Biden are indicating a willingness to move in a somewhat new direction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4h732OBUGTY
Colorado and Washington has changed the game.

Despite all the posturing of federal supremacy, the feds don't actually have clear unambiguous authority. It's noteworthy that the feds have never directly challenged any medical marijuana law, even though there is no medical exemption to the Controlled Substances Act. It's also noteworthy that the Controlled Substances Act does not fully "occupy the field." "Perhaps because it's not just that the feds can't force states to criminalize drug possession... It's also the case that they probably can't directly force the states to criminalize sales either. The Controlled Substances Act in fact leans against federal preemption of state drug policy, as pointed out in a law professors brief on preemption submitted in a California case this year... Raich established that federal police agencies can use their powers in medical marijuana states to continue to criminalize marijuana federally, justified by the Interstate Commerce Clause. But that is not the same as having the power to forbid states from granting exceptions to the states' own anti-marijuana sales laws, which in legal terms is what the regulatory frameworks do, and plenty of smart lawyers are skeptical that they can do that. This is not a slam dunk either way." (source).

I'm predicting federal prohibition of marijuana will be down within 4-6 years. Any aggressive action against the will of the people will be incredibly unpopular and unwise. We may have three or four more states by 2016 and it may only take a few states for the whole charade to collapse. When people think a rule is absolute, they rationalize how it's a good thing, but when they think the rules can be changed, they are motivated to fight.
 

Bible_Belt

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
15,274
Likes
3,446
Age
42
Location
midwestern cow field 40
#92
Obama had a rather Clintonian answer when asked about why he went back on his promise to end the med pot raids. He said, "Well that's the law and I don't have any other choice." And the TV news interviewer just dropped it there. And then they cut away to an ad for a prescription drug.

The interviewer failed to point out that there are thousands more Federal laws than can possibly be enforced. It's illegal to tear the tag off a mattress, too, but I don't see any swat team raids over that. There are also states like Illinois who have passed a med pot law long ago, but the state police simply refuse to recognize it. Arizona just recently passed a med pot law, and the state government is doing everything they can to ignore it.

All law enforcement is very selective, and there are policy goals behind which laws we enforce and which ones we don't. "Just doing my job" is bs excuse.
 

Danger

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
10,033
Likes
1,350
#93
bradd80 said:
Here, allow me to simplify, and show how you continue to misread the data because you either

(1) don't understand it or

(2) are trying to pull a fast one hoping no one will notice.

The data by Fox reveals that nearly 60% of the decline in murder since 1990 involved perpetrators ages 25 and older—individuals who would have been born prior to the landmark abortion decision.

As shown in the figure here: http://www.lifenews.com/2011/06/02/freakonomics-claim-abortion-drops-crime-rates-refuted-again/ there were substantial reductions during the 1990s in homicides committed by older age groups, especially those in the 25-34 year-old age range.
Finally, you produce real evidence, but that still does not rule out my point. Which is that reducing unwanted babies also reduces crime.


bradd80 said:
The abortion-crime link also cannot account for the transient surge in youth homicide during the late 1980s, if not for which the 1990s would not have witnessed such a sizable decline. The rise and then fall in youth homicide before and then after 1990 has much more to do with fast changing patterns of drug trade, gang activity and illegal gun supply (ie the crack wars) than a sudden shift in abortion policy.

I'm not saying that all crime will go away due to getting rid of unwanted babies. Of course having more police officers helps, and of course drugs and such are involved with violent crime.


bradd80 said:
Finally, the abortion-crime hypothesis cannot explain the large drop in murder and other violent crime from the first six months of 2009 to the corresponding months of 2010.

You keep referring to Fox's study as proving Levitt's point. I have no idea on earth how you can misinterpret the data this badly, as Fox is well known for having revealed Levitt's theory as being wrong. Fox's December 2008 study showed a large rise in homicides by black teens in recent years even though black women have the highest abortion rate. The study found homicides by blacks between the ages of 14 and 17 have jumped 34%. The number of crimes for white people in the same age range did not increase.
^^^
I have already refuted this at least five times. I will repeat the refutation on why this is an irrelevant point.

A rise in crime 30+ years after abortion was legalized does not not prove anything about unwanted babies and crime. Because, as I pointed out earlier, there was no control for abortion when measuring in the 2000's. All of the unwanted babies weren't there to compare against.

bradd80 said:
Levitt claimed legalizing abortion led to a major drop in murder and other violent crimes in the 1980s and 1990s. He theorized that the babies who were victimized by abortion would have been more likely to commit crimes. But Fox’s study shows violent crime in the black community has gone up — not down.

Yet, if Levitt’s hypothesis is true, crime should have gone down significantly in the black community because of a higher abortion rate.
It did, but again I will post the refutation.....

A rise in crime 30+ years after abortion was legalized does not not prove anything about unwanted babies and crime. Because, as I pointed out earlier, there was no control for abortion when measuring in the 2000's. All of the unwanted babies weren't there to compare against.

bradd80 said:
An August 2007 study conducted by a researcher at the University of Maryland, found here:

http://www.lifenews.com/2007/08/09/nat-3269/

showed that legalized abortion has led to higher rates of crime and increased murder rates, and that this occurred because a higher percentage of children grew up in single-parent homes during the years following Roe v. Wade.

The findings were published in the April 2007 issue of the academic journal Economic Inquiry and are part of researcher John Lott's work. According to Lott, the Supreme Court's decision ultimately resulted in more out-of-wedlock births, a reduction in the number of children adopted and fewer married parents.

This is more an argument against single motherhood than it is against abortion. Yes, we all know that the children of single mothers are more likely to be criminals. And the unwanted children of single mothers are EVEN MORE likely to be criminals.


bradd80 said:
No, you said that drug use rose, and you gave a chart that only records statistics regarding teens.

I did say that drug use rose, my point is that you lied and posted that I said it declined.

Here, I'll show you.

bradd80 said:
BOTTOM LINE: in your comment number 143, you tried to pass off a study of teen drug users as proof that drug use in the U.S. went down overall. This shows that you either (1) have a habit of incorrectly using charts to prove a point or (2) that you are trying to pull a fast one on all of us here hoping we won`t notice, much as Levitt did with his study.

In post 148 you lied and said I posted that drug use dropped. I never said that, I said that it rose. But your agenda is becoming more clear. More obfuscation attempts by you.

And of course, your standard insults and character assassination attempts I won't respond to. It must be difficult to get out of lawyer mode.
 

Danger

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
10,033
Likes
1,350
#94
bradd80 said:
Hahaha what that "real evidence" does is prove that your hypothesis is wrong, which is what all the experts have been saying all along :)
Of course it doesn't. No more than your saying that "extra police reduce crime, therefore abortion has no effect."

That real evidence only shows what I said and agree with, that not all crime is related to abortion.

Your desperation is amusing though.


bradd80 said:
And your point that reducing unwanted babies also reduces crime was DISPROVED by the Fox Report, which showed that in the black community, which had the highest rates of abortion, there was actually a huge (34%) increase in crime.

THEREFORE YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS WRONG.

You keep ignoring this statement, so I will keep posting it, this time in bold.

A rise in crime 30+ years after abortion was legalized does not not prove anything about unwanted babies and crime. Because, as I pointed out earlier, there was no control for abortion when measuring in the 2000's. All of the unwanted babies weren't there to compare against.

bradd80 said:
And in your comment #143, you claimed that drug use overall increased, yet you used a chart that only reported teen drug use. You are misinterpreting the data and you still don't even realize what you're doing wrong!

Because the abortion study only relates to young adults. There was no misinterpreting there.

But of course, if you are trying to take away from your lie here.....

bradd80 said:
you tried to pass off a study of teen drug users as proof that drug use in the U.S. went down overall
...it won't work.

bradd80 said:
Here, I'll show you, I have underlined the part where you claim drug use doubled:

However, the chart you posted to support this, entitled "Teen Drug Use," shows only teen drug use increased, yet you assume that drug use doubled overall. You made this mistake, and yet you still don't even realize the mistake you made!

Again, because the issue is about abortions and the effect on crime during the 90's. Makes sense to focus on teens unless you are comparing 1993 crime to 1993 abortions like you did for a whole page in this thread.

bradd80 said:
What character insults? What are you talking about? I simply pointed out the mistakes that Levitt made, and that he admitted to. I also pointed out that Levitt calls himself a "rogue economist" and that now you can clearly see why.

Here: http://qhss.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=rsbRDHDZ3VI=&tabid=255&mid=1003

I also pointed out the mistakes that you made in misinterpreting these charts and data, but that you have NOT admitted to.

Because they weren't mistakes, they are more attempts by you to anger me or to take away from my argument.

What is hilarious, is that you are making the same mistake that Joyce did (and which is refuted here in 2010) by focusing on the crack years and using that to extrapolate into a blanket statement that abortion doesn't affect crime.

Just a teaser quote from the start.....since I know you won't read it.

In this paper, we demonstrate that Joyce's failure
to uncover a negative relationship between abortion and crime is a
consequence of his decision to focus almost exclusively on one nonrepresentative
six-year period during the peak of the crack epidemic. We provide
empirical evidence that the crack-cocaine epidemic hit the high-abortion
early-legalizing states earlier and more severely than other states.
When we simply replicate his analyses, but extend the sample to cover the
entire lives of these exact same cohorts, abortion is just as negatively related
to crime as in our original analysis. Joyce's results appear to be
purely an artifact of omitted variable bias due to focusing on the peak
crack years without including adequate controls for crack.
 

Danger

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
10,033
Likes
1,350
#95
bradd80 said:
I should be amazed at your ignorance, but I'm not.

You simply refuse to believe all of the expert evidence that not only uncovered Levitt's mistakes but that also proved his hypothesis is wrong, not by introducing a theory but by introducing actual statistics. You keep talking about Fox's study and the period from 2000 to 2007 but you ignore the fact that black homicide rates rose in the 1980s and 1990s - the very period and in the very community that Levitt hypothesized crime would go down.

I introduced a study which showed that 60% of the decrease in murders was the result of a decrease in murders by an age group that was not affected by abortion at all.

I introduced 8 different expert studies, all of which prove Levitt was wrong.

You didn't introduce a single person who backed Levitt, because no one does.

You misread one chart after another. In comment 143, you claimed that overall drug use went up, and you used a chart that only recorded teen drug users to back your conclusion.

You are the single most hardheaded person I have encountered in my life. I had to sit here and watch you repeat the same mistakes over and over again, misinterpreting one piece of data after another and all the time relying on one study which the author admitted he had made mistakes on and which he never corrected.

I brought up Fox's study, and all you did was talk about how this supported Levitt's theory when everyone in the expert community knows that Fox's record of statistics totally disproves Levitt's theory that abortion leads to a decrease in crime by looking at the black community in the 1980s and 1990s and showing that black homicide rates actually increased in a community which actually had the highest abortion rates.

The evidence cannot be any more clear.

I knew you would ignore my entire post. And I knew you would pepper your own post with all sorts of lies about what I have posted so far.

I refuted all of your evidence, I have now linked to TWO additional studies pointing out the correlation between abortion and violent crime and you refuse to read them.

Add to that, you refuse to acknowledge that ALL OF YOUR LINKS took issue with only the first study in the book, and took no issue with the other two studies I have pointed out.

And you still compare same-year abortion to same-year crime as your defense. Infants don't do violent crime Bradd. You have to wait til the 90's to see the effect of those abortions on violent crime. Not to mention that black violent crime DID GO DOWN in the 90's.

More importantly, none of your data or assumptions controls for the crack epidemic like my last link here does in a 2010 study regarding abortion and crime.

You must be a wreck everytime you lose a case in court.
 
Read the 22 Rules for Massive Success with Women. Everything you need to know to become a huge success with women. And it's free!

Deep Dish

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
2,114
Likes
100
#96
For anyone interested, the Cato Institute released a new report, ”On the Limits of Federal Supremacy: When States Relax (or Abandon) Marijuana Bans”, and one passage struck me as worth sharing:
Moral Obligation to Obey Law. Some people refrain from behavior because they feel morally obliged to obey a legal prohibition. In this sense, people are prone to obey law not because they think it is in their self-interest (narrowly defined) to do so, but because it is the right, the moral thing to do; it is what people should do, even when they disagree with the law. In his seminal work on obedience to law, Tom Tyler found that “[c]itizens who view legal authority as legitimate are generally more likely to comply with the law.” Tyler explains that “citizens may comply with the law because they view the legal authority they are dealing with as having a legitimate right to dictate their behavior; this represents an acceptance by people of the need to bring their behavior into line with the dictates of an external authority.”

In theory, a lawmaking body can draw upon its legitimacy to goad compliance with laws the people (or some portion thereof) deem foolish or unwise. To the extent Congress can oblige people to follow its marijuana ban, it may have more practical (de facto) authority than the story sketched out earlier suggests, for it would not need to hire more federal agents, build more federal prisons, or buy more television ads to curb marijuana use. Indeed, as noted above, some scholars have dismissed state medical marijuana laws as ineffectual and largely symbolic measures because they believe most people are unwilling, on moral grounds, to defy Congress’s ban.

Nonetheless, in spite of the generalized obligation to obey law that many people feel, the obligation to obey the federal marijuana ban is probably quite weak, for two main reasons. First, violations of the ban are commonplace, thus undermining its moral influence. When everyone knows a law is not being observed, the moral obligation to obey that law is weakened and compliance suffers. As Dan Kahan explains:
Most individuals regard compliance with law to be morally appropriate. But most also loathe being taken advantage of. The latter sensibility can easily subvert the former if individuals perceive that those around them are routinely violating a particular law. When others refuse to reciprocate, submission to a burdensome legal duty is likely to feel more servile than moral.​
Congress’s ban may have lost its moral influence because so many people flout it, and federal authorities have done little thus far to punish them. In other words, the lack of enforcement of the federal ban may have undermined not only the deterrent effect of the ban’s sanctions, but also the deterrent effect of the generalized moral obligation to obey the law.

Second, people may feel relieved of the obligation to obey the federal ban because state law permits marijuana use. It is, of course, possible to obey both state and federal law by not using marijuana at all, but citizens may dismiss the obligation to obey federal law when they deem the state—and not Congress—as having the “legitimate right to dictate their behavior” regarding marijuana use. Congress’s perceived right to dictate behavior may be even weaker in the states where medical marijuana laws were passed by voter referenda. In such states, people may see themselves collectively as having the exclusive right to dictate marijuana policy, in which case the federal ban will command very little moral authority.​
Thus, one reason to legalize marijuana is to restore the moral weight of respect for the law of the land.
 

Danger

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
10,033
Likes
1,350
#97
Brad,

You ignored my entire last post, responding to none of my points. This has been your methodology throughout this entire discussion.

It is obvious to anyone that you are not interested in the facts. You continue to cling to character assassination attempts in the hope it will win your "case". A number of people have pointed that out to you in this thread, but "winning" is so important to you, it matters not whether there are any facts to back it up.

In short, you are wrong but you are loathe to admit it. Since I am interested in the facts, I will repost yet again my response.

Your two studies (you said three, but one is posted twice)


bradd80 said:
http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/wp/wp2005/wp0515.pdf - ONLY REFERENCES THE FIRST STUDY, DOES NOT RESPOND TO THE UPDATED DATASET.
http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/wp/wp2005/wp0515.pdf - REPEAT OF YOUR FIRST LINK
http://boston.com/community/blogs/cr...a_missing.html - ONLY REFERENCES THE FIRST STUDY, DOES NOT RESPOND TO THE UPDATED DATASET.
My reason for the post on infants is because you keep comparing 1980's crime to 1980's abortion. That makes no sense. Abortion climbed greatly from 1973 to 1980.

Additionally, Fox does not control for abortion at all in his study. Not a single mention of it. Conclusion: Useless for determining if abortion reduces crime.

I have refuted your links again and again, yet you have yet to even read or address my first link, where Levitt addresses the concerns listed.....nor have you read my second link. Both of these I have posted over and over again, and you have ignored over and over again.....and nobody takes issue with either of those studies, except you.
 

Danger

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
10,033
Likes
1,350
#98
bradd80 said:
I didn’t ignore your last point at all, anyone who can read can see that I addressed each point. I also highlighted areas you made up, as you seem to have made a habit out of making up "facts."
Funny you say that, because here you point out how you ignored the whole post. Now you are caught in yet another lie.


bradd80 said:
Of course I ignored that whole post, it was full of BS drivel. Responding to your points in that comment would have been a total waste of my time.

It is important to look at the source of your information, otherwise you will make mistakes such as the one you did when you posted a study in which the author himself admitted to mistakes. The three stooges: you, Deepdish, and your fake lawyer pair plus royal flush continually lost this argument, that’s why you cry “character assassination” every time I post facts which proved you wrong.
Good scientists and statiticians make mistakes. Great one's correct them.

That is exactly what Levitt did. He made a mistake, and corrected it here, which you refuse to acknowledge because it destroys your case.

Instead, you defame him over and over whilst ignoring how he addressed the concerns. Of which nobody has refuted.


bradd80 said:
The three of you have lied about me making certain statements without providing the quotes where I made them. You guys lie about being a lawyer when you’re not. Levitt called himself a “rogue economist,” and there is a very good reason why he calls himself this. It’s because he intentionally likes to argue against the majority of experts in his field, that’s how he makes his money. Kind of like the way you like to intentionally argue even though we have already uncovered the truth long ago in this thread. These are all very relevant to the issue at hand, because if you’re lying about one thing you can be lying about anything.
Who called themself a lawyer? And what does that have to do with me?

You really are reaching.

We already know the truth. Levitt addressed it, yet you refuse to acknowledge it. And of course, there is this whole other study that you ignore as well.

Your WHOLE argument rests on defamation of character. The known tactic of a lawyer with a losing case.


bradd80 said:
You didn’t refute any of my evidence what you did what misinterpret charts and data, just as Levitt did. I showed how you did this several times during this thread. You ignored my points when I did this. You also argued for the sake of arguing, long after you realized you were wrong, but like a 5 year old child screaming and crying this does not automatically mean that you refuted any evidence.
You somehow think that a rise in crime during the crack wars means that abortion has no effect on crime. Externalities do not prove anything Bradd. Crime is not solely dependent on abortion. In fact, in this study the crack wars are controlled for and it demonstrates that abortions effect crime rates.


bradd80 said:
My studies all proved that Levitt`s hypothesis was wrong, that is both of his studies in which he never corrected all his errors. That`s why all the expert opinions are different from Levitt`s.

And you stated that "nobody takes issues with either of those studies except you."

You must suffer from a complete lack of reading comprehensions skills, since every study I have posted completely disagreed with Levitt, as that has been the point of much of this thread.

Here is just one example of the first two experts who disproved Levitt`s theory:

Foote and Goetz wrote: Levitt’s study points out that the crack wave of the late 1980s and early 1990s may have delivered these shocks. Placing these results alongside those from the corrected concluding regressions and our expanded cross-state analysis, we find no compelling evidence that abortion has a selection effect on crime.
And of course, that is because they are only focusing on the crack years and still are not controlling for abortion. It is covered here.

bradd80 said:
Now you see why I don't bother responding to many of your posts – because your desperate attempts to win this argument have forced you to make up facts. But that's ok, every time you did this I reveal them and show just how weak your argument is.

And yet again, you are caught in your lie. Earlier you said that you do respond to them.


bradd80 said:
LMAO I can`t believe you`re this ignorant.. his report is not supposed to mention abortion!

His report is not a hypothetical theory, it is a current factual statistic on black homicide rates, and it shows that homicide rates went drastically up (by 34%) in a community with the highest abortion rates during a time when Levitt hypothesized the rates would go down.

HIS REPORT PROVES THAT LEVITT WAS WRONG

Levitt's hypothesis is that abortion has an impact on crime. That means, if one is going to do an analysis on crime data, they need to control for abortion.

Your hypothesis can be distilled down to "crack causes crime, therefore abortions have no effect on it".

Now, that's a pretty silly argument. But, you won't see me insulting you over it.

bradd80 said:
And his other report, here,

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/06/02/freakonomics-claim-abortion-drops-crime-rates-refuted-again/

shows that 60% of the decline in murder since 1990 involved perpetrators ages 25 and older—individuals who would have been born prior to the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion decision.

I already addressed this. He is referencing the original study and not the updated study. Refuted here and here.

Remember, you can't focus on just one time frame dominated by crack wars, without controlling for abortion, to say that abortion does not affect crime. If you read the links, you would understand.

To reiterate:Your hypothesis can be distilled down to "crack causes crime, therefore abortions have no effect on it". This is a silly argument.

bradd80 said:
So just from this statistic alone, we know that 60% of the decline in murders was DEFINITELY NOT due to abortion.

JUST WITH THIS FACT ALONE, WE CAN CONCLUDE THAT ABORTION WAS NOT THE CAUSE OF THE DRAMATIC DECREASE IN CRIME.

FOX USED ACTUAL CRIME STATISTICS TO SHOW THAT CRIME INCREASED WHEN LEVITT CLAIMED THEY WOULD DECREASE THAT'S HOW HE PROVED LEVITT WAS WRONG
As I pointed out, Fox focuses on one extreme datapoint in the crack wars and doesn't even control for abortion. Those points are addressed here and here. That does not disprove the effect of abortion on crime.

To reiterate: Your hypothesis can be distilled down to "crack causes crime, therefore abortions have no effect on it". This is a silly argument. And this is exactly why you would need to control for abortion, and even then, it only shows that crack has an impact on crime. It does not mean that abortion has no effect on crime.
 

Deep Dish

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
2,114
Likes
100
#99
Bible_Belt said:
Obama had a rather Clintonian answer when asked about why he went back on his promise to end the med pot raids. He said, "Well that's the law and I don't have any other choice." And the TV news interviewer just dropped it there. And then they cut away to an ad for a prescription drug.

The interviewer failed to point out that there are thousands more Federal laws than can possibly be enforced. It's illegal to tear the tag off a mattress, too, but I don't see any swat team raids over that. There are also states like Illinois who have passed a med pot law long ago, but the state police simply refuse to recognize it. Arizona just recently passed a med pot law, and the state government is doing everything they can to ignore it.

All law enforcement is very selective, and there are policy goals behind which laws we enforce and which ones we don't. "Just doing my job" is bs excuse.
Bill Clinton just appeared in a documentary called Breaking The Taboo and said, "We could have fighting and killing over cigarettes if we made it a felony to sell a cigarette or smoke one, so we legalize them. If all you do is try to find a police or a military solution to the problem, a lot of people die and it doesn't solve the problem." Jimmy Carter has now come out in support of marijuana legalization and this adds a significant dimension to the debate. For years it was only intellectuals who spoke out on the issue, but now we have former presidents of foreign countries, which evolved into sitting presidents of foreign countries, which has now evolved into two former US presidents arguing on our side.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012...nt-carter-favors-states-legalizing-marijuana/
 

Danger

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
10,033
Likes
1,350
bradd80 said:
I did ignore your entire post, the one numbered 156. But as anyone can see, I addressed your relevant points in your comment numbered 158.

This is the problem here, you’re accusing me of lying but you are the one misrepresenting the fact.
I just proved how you were lying. First you don't respond and say that won't, and then you say you do.

Yet here you are now, several pages into this thread with no response to Levitts updated resopnse or the study which takes into account the crack-wars..




bradd80 said:
Levitt never corrected them, and that’s why all the experts disagree with him, and that’s why his entire hypothesis was proven wrong.
For what must be the 50th time in this thread. Those experts disagree with the ORIGINAL ANALYSIS. No comments at all on the updated one, nor the one that specifies the crack wars. I already showed you this.


bradd80 said:
He made mistakes and he made changes, but he didn’t implement the corrections that all the experts agreed he should make. That's why all the experts disagree with him, and that's why his hypothesis was proven to be incorrect.

After several pages of pointing this out to you, you are still not getting this.

Because it's a lie. He did, and I keep posting the links over and over and over again.

bradd80 said:
You know very well who called himself a lawyer in this thread, and you playing stupid is just showing everyone how much you like to pull a fast one on people. And this has everything to do because you believed him. I'll quote: "Never would have thought you were a lawyer Royal!" And now here you are, playing stupid. But I'm glad you showed everybody how you like to play games.

I didn't see him call himself a lawyer, in fact, I see that he denied it. And I never said he was one, I just said I never would have thought he was one. Of course, you're just playing that "twist a word" lawyer game that lawyers without a case do.

Why should I be surprised, nobody else in this thread was when they called you out on it.


bradd80 said:
This is important to point out because this is one of the people you claimed attacked me for making baseless claims about character, and I showed this as a great example of why pointing out character flaws is in fact very important, especially if the people taking part in the debate are liars and they lie about all the their "facts" as you have done in this thread.

I have proven how you lied, you are just twisting words and it's apparent to anyone who reads this.

bradd80 said:
Why do you think Fox didn't include abortion in his study? Do you think you know more than him in the area of statistical mathematics? He didn't include abortion because, as a detailed statistical account of homicide rates, it is NOT SUPPOSED to include abortion. That is the whole point of the study.

I will say it again so maybe it will sink in this time.


To reiterate:Your hypothesis can be distilled down to "crack causes crime, therefore abortions have no effect on it". This is a silly argument.

He showed crime is linked to crack. Does that mean crime isn't linked to marijuana? Does that mean crime is not linked to alcohol? Does that mean crime is not linked to poverty? So how can it mean that crime is not linked to abortion.

This is why you cannot claim that a link between crack and crime means nothing else is linked to crime. It is HUGE faulty assumption that anyone can see.

bradd80 said:
Levitt hypothesized that abortion would lead to a decrease in crime. By creating a chart recording actual crime statistics, Fox proved that not only did crime not decrease, it actually increased by A LOT (34%). He is not supposed to “control” for abortion, as his study is NOT a hypothetical theory, it is an actual factual record of crime statistics.

One more time.

Fox showed crime is linked to crack. Does that mean crime isn't linked to marijuana? Does that mean crime is not linked to alcohol? Does that mean crime is not linked to poverty? So how can it mean that crime is not linked to abortion.

This is why you cannot claim that a link between crack and crime means nothing else is linked to crime. It is HUGE faulty assumption that anyone can see.

bradd80 said:
If you bothered looking at the graph you just criticized, you would see that it is a record of all homicides from 1976 to 2008, and not the crack wars.

This is just another example of how you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about when you look at these charts and graphs.

Gun homicides you mean, not just regular homicides. Besides, that is all addressed here, the study you like to defame.

And again, it's still meaningless as it only shows a correlation between crack and crime. It does not disprove Levitt at all.

One more time.

Fox showed crime is linked to crack. Does that mean crime isn't linked to marijuana? Does that mean crime is not linked to alcohol? Does that mean crime is not linked to poverty? So how can it mean that crime is not linked to abortion.

This is why you cannot claim that a link between crack and crime means nothing else is linked to crime. It is HUGE faulty assumption that anyone can see..
 
Top