A long article well worth the read, particularly with some of the gun arguments going on. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline Here are some highlights:
Pretty interesting stuff. The Freakanomics guys did a similar study with abortion and found that there was a near perfect correlation between legalization of abortion and a drop in a crime about 20 years later (theory being that unwanted babies that would grow up to be criminals got aborted). I wonder what each study would say about the other?
There is a passing reference to it in the middle of all that stuff: One thing that seems odd to me about this 23 year delay is that it would put your average criminal in his late 20s, when people are at the top of their crime curve in their late teens and early 20s. Still, interesting stuff to consider.
So, you don't agree with the scientific studies mentioned? Or is it that you think it's against Conservative principles to clean up lead? Or perhaps you think lead should still be in our gasoline? What exactly is biased and what do you not agree with?
Yet you immediately assumed it was biased. Summary for the lazy: Lead is bad and there is a close correlation between lead levels and crime; so close that it is the only theory that answers many of the questions about crime rates.
Not entirely convinced. Lead is bad, but other things like war/inflation/cocaine could explain crime rate surge.
Nothing else comes close to matching up with the crime rates from the 1950's through today except the amount of lead.
And abortion laws, if you believe the Freakanomics people. They claimed to do the same analysis where they looked at different states as they legalized abortion and saw the same correlations that each state's crime dropped something like 20 years after the change in that particular state. Very odd that the data fits both of these things.
When you add in racial tension (riots, white flight, etc) from the civil rights movement, I think it works into a useful explanation. The same lead argument has been used (rather unsuccesfully) to explain the decline of the Roman Empire. To show corrolary without causation, I think the blue line in the chart matches up well with Texas oil production, which peaked in 1971. I wish Drum had stated more information about his sources, because some of the writing is perhaps purposefully mismanaged.
The article seems a little eager and forced at times (Brought to you by the MotherJones Lead Clean Up Co.?) , and I don't know if any real causality is here, but the correlation is interesting enough to warrant a closer look.
I am surprised by this comment. IMO, it was a much safer world in the 80's than the world that we are living in today. In the 80's when I was going to college, I always stayed in the library until midnight then walked home without a second thought, listening to my walkman along the way. I wouldn't do that today though. Does anyone else feel the same way?
When I attended UH, I had classes/studying that would last sometimes until 10PM. I would walk from the campus to the Eastwood transit center - along the way through an empty parking lot and underneath the freeway. Felt a greater danger from being hit by a car than violent crime. Of course, I am often ignorant and arrogant of my surroundings.
Overall violence has decreased because police spending has increased exponentially. Violent crime has increased in the inner city due to the war on drugs. There, saved you hours.
I hear this from people all the time, especially parents who had freedom to run around when they were kids, but now deem it unsafe to let their own kids do likewise. The statistics say it's less dangerous now; it's just that awareness is higher and the culture is different.
