Of course I didn't read the whole paper! I stopped reading the paper when I recognized the fundamental flaws: 1) the hypotheses examined were very narrowly fr

Of course I didn't read the whole paper! I stopped reading the paper when I recognized the fundamental flaws: 1) the hypotheses examined were very narrowly framed 2) Footnotes 9 and 13 admit that drug-related offenders may in fact be present in the statistics as 'violent crime', yet the paper does not consider this further. After that I skim-read to ensure there flaws weren't addressed. If I missed the place where these flaws are addressed, I would appreciate your pointing it out. I am glad you read the whole paper, but I would caution you against believing you got any closer to the whole truth by doing so.