The Opiod epidemic vs the Crack epidemic: America’s double standard approach
- Thread starter KyokushinKarateMan
- Start date
Shorty ethered them with Dandara powers 
:jbnice:
:jbnice:
There most likely will be none, unless black folks came together in large numbers and demanded that from our elected officials. That really is the only way.
Bottom line is people lack empathy for those that don’t look like them. White people make up the majority in this country and will always vote in the perceived interests of their kind. That’s why during the crack era black people were jailed and the opioid era people are getting treatment.
filial_piety
Banned
can't fully agree with her…as someone who lived during the crack era, the big difference was the violence associated with it, which led to a different type of enforcement.
nyc back in 1990 had like 2200+ homicides because of crack; today it has like 250 with the opioid epidemic. If we saw high rates of homicides, robberies, burglaries etc…we might get a police state again.
But a lot of the social services in place today that cleaned the place up were because of the crack era. A lot of money and organizing was done to get it to this point.
nyc back in 1990 had like 2200+ homicides because of crack; today it has like 250 with the opioid epidemic. If we saw high rates of homicides, robberies, burglaries etc…we might get a police state again.
But a lot of the social services in place today that cleaned the place up were because of the crack era. A lot of money and organizing was done to get it to this point.
Facts every major cities had high homicides rates
KyokushinKarateMan
Train hard, fight easy
So the opiod epidemic hasn’t increased violence and crime in the white communities?
Field Marshall Bradley
Veteran
Doesn't have shyt to do with her main premise.... your major cities were already ultra-violent before crack even hit the scene... her point is the over criminilization of crack addicts as opposed to opiod users who are treated as someone with an "illness"
filial_piety
Banned
not sure, enlighten me.
I haven't noticed anything where I live….atleast not to the levels of the crack era
KyokushinKarateMan
Train hard, fight easy
Aside from common sense...
Why the opioid epidemic may have fueled America’s murder spike
A researcher explains the potential link between the two crises.
- By German Lopez
- on February 6, 2018 10:30 am
:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/58589805/814922210.jpg.0.jpg)
Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Over the past few years, America saw its murder rate rise — in 2015, 2016, and, according to the most recent data, the first half of 2017. Meanwhile, an opioid epidemic has led to the deadliest drug overdose crisis in US history — with nearly 64,000 drug overdose deaths in 2016 (at least two-thirds of which were linked to opioids), up more than 20 percent from the more than 52,000 drug overdose deaths in 2015.
Now, a prominent criminal justice expert says that these two crises may be related.
The connection isn’t totally obvious at first glance. Drug and opioid overdoses have been increasing for decades, while the recent increase in the murder rate has been going on for only a few years (following a decades-long drop in murder and violent crime in general across America). So how can the decades-old opioid epidemic cause part of the only years-long rise in murders?
The potential answer, according to Richard Rosenfeld of the University of Missouri in St. Louis, is a recent shift in the opioid crisis.
For much of the epidemic, the big cause of the rise in overdose deaths was opioid painkillers. These opioids were first obtained legally, with a doctor prescribing them and a pharmacy dispensing the drugs. They could be and often were diverted — by teens rummaging through their parents’ medicine cabinets, by patients giving or selling the pills to others, and so on — but generally, the drugs were initially prescribed to a patient. Until 2015, the biggest cause of drug overdose deaths was prescribed painkillers.
Recently, however, the opioid epidemic began to shift toward illicit drugs. Starting around 2011, opioid painkiller overdose deaths began to level off, and heroin overdose deaths began to increase. Then, starting in 2014, illicit fentanyloverdose deaths began to skyrocket — to the point that synthetic opioids like fentanyl are now linked to more overdoses than any other drug, including opioid painkillers.
It’s this transition to the illicit market that Rosenfeld says may have helped cause a rise in murders: Since illegal drug markets tend to be much more violent than legal drug markets, the greater use of illicit opioids came with more violence.
“As demand for illicit drugs increases, people enter the underground drug market to purchase the drug,” Rosenfeld told me. “Those underground markets tend to be relatively volatile and sometimes violent places, so I’m suggesting that what we’re seeing here is a spike in drug-related homicides associated with drug transactions that become violent.”
The theory gets at a big gap in our knowledge: We just don’t know why the murder rate spiked, according to FBI data, by 11 percent in 2015, 8 percent in 2016, and 1.5 percent in the first half of 2017 after a decades-long decline. The opioid crisis may provide part of, although not all of, the answer.
Although he cautions that it’s preliminary, Rosenfeld has unearthed some data that backs up this possibility. If true, it has big implications: The opioid epidemic is already the deadliest drug overdose crisis in US history. That the crisis also might be tied to a rise in murders is alarming.
Link showing the spike in crime:
Crime, Arrests, and Law Enforcement
——————————————————————————
And this was all found with just a quick Google search. Fbi.gov and DEA links came up as well, just was too lazy to go to them.Any drug epidemic will increase the crime of the community from which it thrives. But if it’s the Black community then it’s imprisonment and amd the creation of disfunctional families, if white, then it’s a crisis and it needs medical intervention.
filial_piety
Banned
Aside from common sense...
Why the opioid epidemic may have fueled America’s murder spike
A researcher explains the potential link between the two crises.
- By German Lopez
- on February 6, 2018 10:30 am
Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Over the past few years, America saw its murder rate rise — in 2015, 2016, and, according to the most recent data, the first half of 2017. Meanwhile, an opioid epidemic has led to the deadliest drug overdose crisis in US history — with nearly 64,000 drug overdose deaths in 2016 (at least two-thirds of which were linked to opioids), up more than 20 percent from the more than 52,000 drug overdose deaths in 2015.
Now, a prominent criminal justice expert says that these two crises may be related.
The connection isn’t totally obvious at first glance. Drug and opioid overdoses have been increasing for decades, while the recent increase in the murder rate has been going on for only a few years (following a decades-long drop in murder and violent crime in general across America). So how can the decades-old opioid epidemic cause part of the only years-long rise in murders?
The potential answer, according to Richard Rosenfeld of the University of Missouri in St. Louis, is a recent shift in the opioid crisis.
For much of the epidemic, the big cause of the rise in overdose deaths was opioid painkillers. These opioids were first obtained legally, with a doctor prescribing them and a pharmacy dispensing the drugs. They could be and often were diverted — by teens rummaging through their parents’ medicine cabinets, by patients giving or selling the pills to others, and so on — but generally, the drugs were initially prescribed to a patient. Until 2015, the biggest cause of drug overdose deaths was prescribed painkillers.
Recently, however, the opioid epidemic began to shift toward illicit drugs. Starting around 2011, opioid painkiller overdose deaths began to level off, and heroin overdose deaths began to increase. Then, starting in 2014, illicit fentanyloverdose deaths began to skyrocket — to the point that synthetic opioids like fentanyl are now linked to more overdoses than any other drug, including opioid painkillers.
It’s this transition to the illicit market that Rosenfeld says may have helped cause a rise in murders: Since illegal drug markets tend to be much more violent than legal drug markets, the greater use of illicit opioids came with more violence.
“As demand for illicit drugs increases, people enter the underground drug market to purchase the drug,” Rosenfeld told me. “Those underground markets tend to be relatively volatile and sometimes violent places, so I’m suggesting that what we’re seeing here is a spike in drug-related homicides associated with drug transactions that become violent.”
The theory gets at a big gap in our knowledge: We just don’t know why the murder rate spiked, according to FBI data, by 11 percent in 2015, 8 percent in 2016, and 1.5 percent in the first half of 2017 after a decades-long decline. The opioid crisis may provide part of, although not all of, the answer.
Although he cautions that it’s preliminary, Rosenfeld has unearthed some data that backs up this possibility. If true, it has big implications: The opioid epidemic is already the deadliest drug overdose crisis in US history. That the crisis also might be tied to a rise in murders is alarming.
Link showing the spike in crime:
Crime, Arrests, and Law Enforcement
Dap fishing at it's finest
As normal when someone disagrees with your analysis you nikkas become hostile as expected…anyway
Crime Trends: 1990-2016
Matthew Friedman, Ames Grawert, James Cullen
April 18, 2017
Crime rates have dropped dramatically and remain near historic lows despite localized increases in some places, according to a new report analyzing data from the last quarter-century.
This report examines crime trends at the national and city level during the last quarter century. It covers the years 1990 through 2016, as crime rates peaked in 1991. It analyzes data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and from police departments from the nation’s 30 largest cities. Data for 2016 are estimated, as full year data was not available at the time of publication.
This report concludes that although there are some troubling increases in crime in specific cities, there is no evidence of a national crime wave. Key findings:
- Overall Trends: Crime has dropped precipitously in the last quarter-century. While crime may fall in some years and rise in others, annual variations are not indicative of long-term trends. While murder rates have increased in some cities, this report finds no evidence that the hard-won public safety gains of the last two and a half decades are being reversed.
- Overall Crime Rate: The national crime rate peaked in 1991 at 5,856 crimes per 100,000 people, and has generally been declining ever since. In 2015, crime fell for the 14th year in a row. Estimates based on preliminary data for 2016 indicate that the overall crime rate will remain stable at 2,857 offenses per 100,000, rising less than 1 percent from 2015. Today’s crime rate is less than half of what it was in 1991.
- Violent Crime: The violent crime rate also peaked in 1991 at 716 violent crimes per 100,000, and now stands at 366, about half that rate. However, the violent crime rate, like rates of murder and overall crime, has risen and fallen during this time. For example, violent crime registered small increases in 2005 and 2006, and then resumed its downward trend. In 2015, violent crime increased by 2.9 percent nationally and by 2.0 percent in the nation’s 30 largest cities. Preliminary data for 2016 also show a greater increase in the national violent crime rate, up 6.3 percent, and a smaller jump in the 30 largest cities, 2.4 percent. Crime is often driven by local factors, so rates in cities may differ from national averages.
- Murder: From 1991 to 2016, the murder rate fell by roughly half, from 9.8 killings per 100,000 to 5.3. The murder rate rose last year by an estimated 7.8 percent. With violence at historic lows, modest increases in the murder rate may appear large in percentage terms. Similarly, murder rates in the 30 largest cities increased by 13.2 percent in 2015 and an estimated 14 percent in 2016. These increases were highly concentrated. More than half of the 2015 urban increase (51.8 percent) was caused by just three cities, Baltimore, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. And Chicago alone was responsible for 43.7 percent of the rise in urban murders in 2016. It is important to remember the relatively small base from which the percentage increases are calculated.
- City-Level Analysis: Appendix A provides detail on crime in each of the nation’s 30 largest cities. The data demonstrate that crime rates and trends vary widely from city to city. In New York, for example, crime remains at all-time lows. Other cities, such as Washington, D.C., have seen murder rise and then fall recently, yet the rate is still lower than it was a decade ago. However, there are a small group of cities, such as Chicago, where murder remains persistently high, even by historical standards.
Source….
Crime Trends: 1990-2016
But like I said, the enforcement back then was different because the street level crime was higher.
From what I remember when the levels peaked in 1989,90,91 etc…there was a zero tolerance approach by community leaders, politicians, cops and the courts in just about every major city. They all worked in conjunction with one another….the opiod crises is mores about overdoses and less so with high crime rates (comparable to previous years)
THe mindset back then is "something...…anything has to be done to stop this NOW." And that gave a green light to a lot of the mass lockups and Rockefeller drug laws.
THe thinking was just different because of the day to day violence…
If you weren't there…then you wouldn't know…and analysis and a better understanding of these things becomes a little easier to digest with some of y'all when you remove your biases and emotions from it.
Field Marshall Bradley
Veteran
This was a white mindset. People wanted the violence to end, but like I said, major cities were violent pre crack. No one wanted their family doing 3 years for being caught with a G of Dope because they was an addict....
KyokushinKarateMan
Train hard, fight easy
I simply posted an article young man, how did you turn around and perceive that as hostility?
What..because it didn’t agree with your misguided idea that the opiod epidemic has not increased crime in the white community?
I lost too much respect for you after that pussified comment to even read your reply any further. Have a nice day sir.
Judge Mathis actually spoke on this on his show earlier this year. It's a clear double standard, money was put up for prisons for the crack epidemic but now money is going towards treatment programs for the opiod epidemic
filial_piety
Banned
It isn't a "white mindset" it's just a mindset that doesn't see it your way. You aren't the arbiter and the final say of what is or isn't "black" anyway. I don't care how many websites and blogs you've listened to and read.
And yes, people wanted violence to end, but pre crack, violence was high, but the crack epidemic highlighted the crimes plus it became much much worse in a 5 year span. Check the stats in the crack era (basically 1985 give or take). THe homicides (using NYC as an example) NEARLY DOUBLED 2600 in 1990. It peaked, and people finally said "enough is enough." 3-4 homicides related to drugs everyday in the news. So yeah, it caught people's attention.
I lived in Philly, dope had always been around, but crack put things into hyper speed. It was new, and people did anything for it, they beat, robbed, burglarized anyone, everyone and at anytime. A lot of people got caught up in the BS with it even if they didn't sell it.
Like I said, if you weren't there to witness--you won't get it.
Addicts are a tricky issue, it isn't as cut and dry as you're making it; actual dealers (unrelated to using) were the real problem, but what defined a "dealer" was anyone in possession and involved in ANY type of sale (hand to hand, third party etc).
Dealers aren't DUMB, once they understood the laws, they set up operations with look outs and sometimes they USED addicts to recruit NEW addicts in promise of getting MORE drugs. Get it?
Crack was so in demand that users would also sale and use their own stash. Dealers in some cases became addicts themselves.
SO the law, from my observation, took all of this into account, and basically swept EVERYONE into the same pile.
Whether you agree with that or not will depend on a lot of factors.
