Sure, causality runs both ways. My point is that the idea that crack use is a rational decision predicts that crack use will be higher when the odds of dying or of spending much of your life in prison are higher. And that is what we see. It’s a falsifiable test, and the idea passes the test.
Are there studies of behavior changes for terminally ill people? That wouldn’t probe changes in financial behavior—winning the lottery isn’t useful to someone with pancreatic cancer. Do we see recreational drug use rise?
“Crack use is high in neighborhoods where people are not just poor, but have a high probability of dying or ending up in prison.”
Are you entirely certain you have the arrow of causality pointing in the right direction? This question is rhetorical.
Sure, causality runs both ways. My point is that the idea that crack use is a rational decision predicts that crack use will be higher when the odds of dying or of spending much of your life in prison are higher. And that is what we see. It’s a falsifiable test, and the idea passes the test.
Are there studies of behavior changes for terminally ill people? That wouldn’t probe changes in financial behavior—winning the lottery isn’t useful to someone with pancreatic cancer. Do we see recreational drug use rise?