Baltimore getting "progressive"

[WorldofWarcraft]

The poorest, meth-infested trailer parks in the US don't have a fraction of the homicide rateand gun play that goes on in Baltimore, DC, Chicago

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

He objected to trans fats, for whatever reasons. My first thought was, fine, if you want to quibble we can talk about cigarettes and cancer. Then I remembered his sources for scientific information might balk at that as well. Basically, given who he uses as sources on scientific topics, we pretty much won't agree on acid rain, the ozone layer, lead, cigarettes, etc. I could be wrong about Keith in this instance but I'm not wrong about his sources.

I'm sure you can find the book... somewhere. It is not, however, open access. Quite fascinating. Oreskes is a historian of science and many years ago wrote a very nice book on how the scientific consensus emerged regarding plate tectonics. It was not at all according to some Popperian ideal, instead it was via weight of evidence.

Remembering that book always makes me laugh when I see climate change "skeptics" hold themselves out as being in the right versus the weight of the scientific community. They're actually the old, stodgy, geologists that denied plate tectonics until retirement.

I see. Personally I do agree that some reservation of doubt is wise when it comes to dietary science. I'm alreay on board with climate change consensus so reading the book would be like preaching to an uneducated choir.

 

[Rod1]

People get addicted to heroin the 1st time they use it because of dope sickness. Has that ever happened with alcohol? It also happens with meth.

Also most people drink and dont have a problem, I doubt there are many social or periodic heroin and meth users.

I can't even imagine either of those 2 being legal or sold in stores. So the comparisons to alcohol should be limited. Alcohol compared to a non addicting drug like pot or even cocaine would make more sense

Certainly these hard drugs should have limited availability but focus should be made on minimizing the criminal costs of such vices, i would be for the government providing these hard drugs free of charge in special crackhouses where you can control what the junkies do and you can inform them of treatment possibilities.

 

[Rod1]

But much fewer, right?

I'm sure there is a correlation with the slow creep of anti-smoking laws and the fact that fewer and fewer people smoke every year.

Or maybe its because smoking has been treated as a health problem, not a criminal one.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I see. Personally I do agree that some reservation of doubt is wise when it comes to dietary science. I'm alreay on board with climate change consensus so reading the book would be like preaching to an uneducated choir.

The book isn't about climate change, instead it is about how corporations and ideologues have manipulated public perception of scientific issues over the last 60ish years. It all basically stems from hyper pro-business, anti-communist rocket scientists (not kidding) who decided that they would attack any research that threatened corporate interests.

The majority of the book focuses on how these individuals worked with and for the tobacco companies to generate doubt about published research documenting the negative health effects of smoking, even decades after internal tobacco company research demonstrated these links. It then goes on to show how these rocket scientists, and the think tanks they worked in, were then employed for pretty much every other public health and environmental issue.

Ultimately a very successful playbook was developed and you can see it being expertly used on every issue out there, most notably climate change.

Even Denter's (sarcastic?) comment about DDT can be traced to these groups.

The book documents a genius strategy, albeit horrific and corrupt.


Keep in mind also that it is a very well researched and thoroughly sourced academic work, not some anti-capitalistic screed.

 

[panamaican]

I don't think your assumptions are solid. I'd bet the majority of "dealers" are part-timers who got involved because of their own usage and decided to make a business of it after hooking up too many friends and friend's friends. I'm sure it's totally different with weed vs. coke since anybody can and does grow weed but coca plants not so much. Until you have some reliable demographics I doubt your speculation hits the mark.

This doesn't address my demographics point. The majority of people persecuted/incarcerated for drug dealing are not people taking breaks from middle class jobs. They are generally low income/unemployed dealers.

I know where you stand on the issue so you should know these numbers better than I do. The vast majority of people arrested for drug dealing are street level dealers. So those are people who are actually impacted by the legality of drugs, not people who sell a little here and there. But this was my earlier point - people focus on the people who are unlikely to be arrested and ignoring the people most likely to be incarcerated.

Since hardly anybody rises out of poverty via drug dealing I doubt it's going to be terribly hard for them to replace that income. I think it was Freakonomics that argued only a handful of dudes at the top really made bank in the drug trade.

That was actually a big part of my reasoning. Most drug dealers aren't making a great living as is - yet you're sure that they'll go make money doing something else? What exactly are their income substitutes? If the income substitutes are readily available - why are these people dealing drugs? You're not even remotely addressing the economic questions related to low level dealers.

Just a simple thought here to undermine your entire point. The act of dealing drugs is a market activity that almost always involves two parties happy with the transaction. That's no the case with theft or most other crimes. To think that an individual operating outside the law in a black market would turn to any old crime to make money (after choosing not to get a job in the newly legalized market) doesn't stand up to any sort of reasonable scrutiny. It's like saying that because Kevorkian assisted suicides that he'd turn to murder for hire if euthanasia was no longer a crime.

No offense but what jobs are there going to be? We have legalization in multiple states right now - how many of those dispensaries are located in low income urban or rural areas?

I may be reading it wrong but your entire analysis of the drug industry seems based off the college dealer archetype. The person for whom dealing is a secondary occupation. It's completely devoid of any analysis of the people for whom dealing is the primary source of income due to a lack of meaningful alternatives. The person dealing because the only legal work they can find is part-time, minimum wage work that isn't enough to cover their rent. That person will still need additional income and you're not addressing that point, except saying that they'll just find new jobs. If new jobs were easy to find - they wouldn't be dealing in the first place.

Drug dealers are not dealing drugs because it's a job where both parties are satisfied (To be frank, assassination is a crime where both parties are happy with the transaction. All crimes have 2 happy parties at the end.). Drug dealers are dealing drugs to make money. Absent drug dealing, they still need to make money. Until that issue is answered, I consider the analysis incomplete.

 

[James Keith]

If you want to quibble, fine, cigarettes.

Oh wait, you take scientific advice from people that question the links between cigarettes and cancer.

No idea what you're talking about. Though some of the second-hand smoke stuff that gets put out does sound silly.

So the League of Shadows takes a contrarian view on the popular carbs versus fat simple-mindedness as well? You're hopping all over the place but I seemed to miss that one in the list. Wouldn't the evil corporate overlords prefer we put our trust in refined carbs?

 

[clmetal]

I know Nancy Reagan told you that but it isn't necessarily true.


There are social coke users because it was socially acceptable (and still is) in some circles. Your point is not evidence of those drugs being especially addictive.


I think you're rather unclear on addiction.

Your nancy reagan dig is one of the more pathetic ive seen in a long time. So you know recreational users of these 2 drugs that dont have an addiction to them?

Addicts say this. The few ive spoken to and certainly people on the show intervention say thay.

Coke doesn't strike me as especially addictive and I didnt say it was. I said heroin and meth.

 

[Denter]

Or maybe its because smoking has been treated as a health problem, not a criminal one.

You honestly think as many people would smoke if it were illegal?

In this case, legislation worked to reduce smoking- health warnings, bans on where you can smoke, very high taxes- but I bet much fewer people would smoke if it were illegal and punishable by jail time.

Legalization of some substances may make sense within a legal framework which expresses social disapproval of the practice, but let's not pretend that it would reduce use. It may make use safer and be worth the tradeoff, but its unlikely to actually reduce it. People like drugs for a reason.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Your nancy reagan dig is one of the more pathetic ive seen in a long time.

Seems appropriate.

 

[Lord Coke]

There has been a theory in criminal justice circles which posits that aggressive policing lowers crime but it has not really been possible to test until now. With the police officers charged in Baltimore there is now a reluctance to aggressively enforce the law. I am not addressing the issue of bad cops, which of course there are some and unlike in most professions they usually get sussed out, disciplined, and fired as they should. Rather I am addressing the vast majority of good cops who aren't robots and respond to incentives and disincentives like everyone else. If they think they are going to get hung out to dry for aggressively policing, by making an honest mistake or by showing a presence in areas where the population is hostile to cops they are going to be (and have been in Baltimore) much less aggressive about enforcing the law. A hostile public, ignorant of the law and police procedures, that thinks it can judge accurately after the fact, watching video from the safety of their homes, and through the group think of social media is a strong disincentive to do a risky job that requires split second judgment and inevitably involves mistakes. Investigative and arrest authority is discretionary and in Baltimore the police have decided that the personal risks of being aggressive outweigh the public benefit. Now we know the consequences of not policing and the theory has been validated.

Baltimore killings soar to a level unseen in 43 years
July's homicide total was the worst since the city recorded 45 killings in August 1972


Baltimore reached a grim milestone on Friday, three months after protests erupted in response to the death of Freddie Gray in police custody: With 43 homicides in July, the city has seen more bloodshed in a single month than it has in 43 years.

The 43rd recorded homicide was Jermaine Miller, 18, who was shot in the head just before noon Thursday.

With his death on Friday, this year's total homicides reached 187, far outpacing the 119 killings by July's end in 2014. Non-fatal shootings have soared to 366, compared to 200 by the same date last year. July's total was the worst since the city recorded 45 killings in August 1972, according to The Baltimore Sun.

 

[panamaican]

There has been a theory in criminal justice circles which posits that aggressive policing lowers crime but it has not really been possible to test until now. With the police officers charged in Baltimore there is now a reluctance to aggressively enforce the law. I am not addressing the issue of bad cops, which of course there are some and unlike in most professions they usually get sussed out, disciplined, and fired as they should. Rather I am addressing the vast majority of good cops who aren't robots and respond to incentives and disincentives like everyone else. If they think they are going to get hung out to dry for aggressively policing, by making an honest mistake or by showing a presence in areas where the population is hostile to cops they are going to be (and have been in Baltimore) much less aggressive about enforcing the law. A hostile public, ignorant of the law and police procedures, that thinks it can judge accurately after the fact, watching video from the safety of their homes, and through the group think of social media is a strong disincentive to do a risky job that requires split second judgment and inevitably involves mistakes. Investigative and arrest authority is discretionary and in Baltimore the police have decided that the personal risks of being aggressive outweigh the public benefit. Now we know the consequences of not policing and the theory has been validated.

Baltimore killings soar to a level unseen in 43 years
July's homicide total was the worst since the city recorded 45 killings in August 1972


Baltimore reached a grim milestone on Friday, three months after protests erupted in response to the death of Freddie Gray in police custody: With 43 homicides in July, the city has seen more bloodshed in a single month than it has in 43 years.

The 43rd recorded homicide was Jermaine Miller, 18, who was shot in the head just before noon Thursday.

With his death on Friday, this year's total homicides reached 187, far outpacing the 119 killings by July's end in 2014. Non-fatal shootings have soared to 366, compared to 200 by the same date last year. July's total was the worst since the city recorded 45 killings in August 1972, according to The Baltimore Sun.

I think Baltimore is a poor test case for this subject, precisely because of the publicity of the Freddie Gray incident that led to an escalation of tension in that city. Although I'd be interested in the before and after rates of homicides relative to last year, that would be enlightening.

I think we'd be better served finding a city that reduced policing without an intervening "catastrophic event" and then tracked it over 5+ years. Baltimore's too raw to draw conclusions from.

 

[Rod1]

You honestly think as many people would smoke if it were illegal?

In this case, legislation worked to reduce smoking- health warnings, bans on where you can smoke, very high taxes- but I bet much fewer people would smoke if it were illegal and punishable by jail time.

Legalization of some substances may make sense within a legal framework which expresses social disapproval of the practice, but let's not pretend that it would reduce use. It may make use safer and be worth the tradeoff, but its unlikely to actually reduce it. People like drugs for a reason.

Except that most, if not all drugs usage has gone up since prohibition started, clearly the current strategy is not working, if more people want to fuck themselves up with drugs, i dont have a single issue.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/6331/decades-drug-use-data-from-60s-70s.aspx

The problem is the criminality that tags the illegal drug trade, having some junkie break into your home to get money for drugs or having a spike in homicide as people fight to control the market.

Some drug usage may go up, specially the less harmful drugs, but i certainly do not see people doing IV heroin for shits and giggles.

Legislation works, but its been painfully obvious that a criminal approach is nothing but a complete societal failure.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Except that most, if not all drugs usage has gone up since prohibition started, clearly the current strategy is not working, if more people want to fuck themselves up with drugs, i dont have a single issue.

Clearly the status quo isn't working. The response of even those who agree with that sentiment is to... maintain the status quo. Quite annoying.

 

[Denter]

The poorest, meth-infested trailer parks in the US don't have a fraction of the homicide rate and gun play that goes on in Baltimore, DC, Chicago

That's true. White areas with significant drug problems are less violent.

 

[Denter]

Clearly the status quo isn't working. The response of even those who agree with that sentiment is to... maintain the status quo. Quite annoying.

He seems to be suggesting the prohibition was the cause of it going up, which is ridiculous.

But the core of his point- that drug use is a social phenomenon- is well taken. Presumably there are societies with strong enough shaming mechanisms that no one does drugs, even if they are legal. We are not that society.

 

[panamaican]

Clearly the status quo isn't working. The response of even those who agree with that sentiment is to... maintain the status quo. Quite annoying.

That might be because the issue isn't being phrased very well. Why are we fighting to legalize drugs (any drugs) and does legalization actually accomplish our goals.

From my perspective, people say that they want to reduce crime and reduce unnecessary incarcerations. All goals that I agree with but then no one actually gets into details on reducing crime and/or incarcerations except to assume that people will automatically transfer into legal jobs at better than subsistence rates. But there's nothing presented to support the automatic transfer to jobs theory.

And while I don't want to speak for anyone else, it makes the legalization push seem less well thought out for those goals.

By contrast, if the goal was that people just don't want to be arrested for doing drugs then that argument is at least logically sound but it's lacks the implication of a higher morality (no pun intended) that pro-legalizers seem to crave (okay, a little pun intended).

 

[exjuny]

Wow. City received $1.8 billion in ARRA money (stimulus package)years ago, and these are the results. Now they're begging for FEMA disaster relief money, on account of the riots.

How liberal of them

 

[panamaican]

That's true. White areas with significant drug problems are less violent.

The urban drug market has a "turf" element that suburban and rural drug markets thankfully lack.

 

[Denter]

The urban drug market has a "turf" element that suburban and rural drug markets thankfully lack.

yet sickeningly high fatalities from cow-tipping accidents.