NationStates Jolt Archive

This kind of applies only to the US, but from 1985 to 1990, there was a huge upsurge in crack use in the cities, resulting in higher murder rates, homelessness, etc. So my question is, why did it stop in 1990?

This kind of applies only to the US, but from 1985 to 1990, there was a huge upsurge in crack use in the cities, resulting in higher murder rates, homelessness, etc. So my question is, why did it stop in 1990?

Maybe all of the crack users died after using it so much.

Or, the authorities finally put a stop to their supply lines.

It hasn't. Apparently you don't live near the Bay Area.

It hasn't. Apparently you don't live near the Bay Area.
I don't, but I do live near NYC, and now it's much safer.

Interesting question. Has the crack epidemic stopped;or, are just hearing less about it in the news. In my neck of the woods meth has taken over much drug activity. It is cheaper and lasts longer then crack. I think it part crack use has slowed down some and other drugs have filled in the gaps.

Interesting question. Has the crack epidemic stopped;or, are just hearing less about it in the news. In my neck of the woods meth has taken over much drug activity. It is cheaper and lasts longer then crack. I think it part crack use has slowed down some and other drugs have filled in the gaps.
Good enough. But murder rates are down, for one thing, so I think it has to be something more than other drugs.

I read somewhere that the crime rate went down due to abortion. I dunno, might be true, might not, it makes some sense I guess.

Good enough. But murder rates are down, for one thing, so I think it has to be something more than other drugs.

I agree that crack use is down. I think in part some of the worst gang members have been put in jail, banging is not such a fad activity anymore and the cops have better tactics in dealing with gangs. And perhaps gangs have learned that murder is bad for business.

Espresso stoped it.

Espresso stoped it.

Yes, espresso would do that wouldn't it.

It didn't stop- it never happened. Reagan's failed "trickle down economics" is to blame for the upswing in poverty and crime. But "The Great Destroyer" i.e. crack, was a nice scapegoat because it fell in line with The War on Drugs.

Poverty, child abuse, divorce, crime- all these things are blamed on drug use even today. But it wasn't always crack and pot that got the blame. These same arguments were for opium and before that- alcohol, which, in 1914 was called, (coincidentally, of course) "The Great Destroyer".

Blame societies ills on the evil drugs or evil alcohol. It's in page one of the politicians manual.

During the debate over prohibition, a 1914 Congressional record states "Liquor traffic is responsible for 25% of the poverty, 37% of the pauperism, 45.8% of child misery, 25% of insanity, 19.5% of divorces, and 50% of the crime. These are grave charges, and their truth has not been denied." Not long after, alcohol became "completely and forever banned, wherever Old Glory flies above the United States and all her possessions, including the Philippines, Cuba, and Guam". Of course, that failed miserably, so the shift went to blaming opium. Then a few years later, marijuana. After that, LSD, then coke, then crack, and today meth.

Once again, the parent state has succeeded- you believe that crack was to blame.

Propoganda 1 Freedom 0

http://stopthedrugwar.org/index.shtml
http://www.druglibrary.org/SCHAFFER/people/hobson/captain_hobson.htm

I read somewhere that the crime rate went down due to abortion. I dunno, might be true, might not, it makes some sense I guess.

Freakonomics?

Yes, espresso would do that wouldn't it.
Strabucks thinks so.

Its simple. Whitney stopped sharing.

It was a new drug, lots of independant operators sprang up. Then the drug dealers expanded and consolidated. But unlike with legal businesses instead of gaining market share through advertising and discounts, they got it by gunning down their competitors and quite a few innocent people that happened to be standing in the way. Once the business matured and territories had finished expanding the violence died down. Their was also a decrease in crack use once people saw what long term use did to you. Nowadays a lot of crack users are almost middle aged. It's just not as popular amoung the kids as it used to be.

Yes, espresso would do that wouldn't it.
Premium coffee beats cocaine hands-down.

Premium coffee beats cocaine hands-down.

Now if we could just corner the market in coffee we could get rich.:)

Premium coffee beats cocaine hands-down.
I wonder what would happen if you used coffee to shoot up..

*thinks*

Freakonomics?
Yeah, I recently read that book. It is sort of interesting really... maybe I need to know more about the issue or something though. Meh, sticking to one view point inspite of all evidence is what makes this country great.:cool: (the US)

the government got tired of trying to opress the black people even more with crack

Maybe the crack epidemic stopped when the meth epidemic took over?

"What stopped the crack epidemic?"

Um ... Leroy's Momma? [ from the cult classic: Surf Nazis Must Die! ] :D

Roe v Wade

A whole lot of people who would have turned 15-17 in 1990 and started lives of crime were never born.

Maybe the crack epidemic stopped when the meth epidemic took over?

The "meth epidemic" has kind of followed poverty's rise under the Shrub, how interesting, no?

When CJ took down Big Smoke and the Ballas.

Crack is whack..


It's all about the P these days kiddies..

.......
Blame societies ills on the evil drugs or evil alcohol. It's in page one of the politicians manual........
.... - page two goes on to blaming anyone who won't talk back. Like the Illegal Trerrorist Aliens. Just as long as there is always an evil enemy.

I wonder what would happen if you used coffee to shoot up..

*thinks*

Depends where exactly you want to shoot up....

http://www.ineedcoffee.com/01/01/enema/


I prefer my coffee in a cup please...

The crack epidemic certainly didn't stop. Come to Canada and walk the streets of Oshawa one day, or check out the drug crime related gang violence that is surging in Toronto over the last couple of years.

Mr. Levitt's theory is that it stopped because of abortion laws - Freakonomics

Some Economists say it is crap: model is too noisy - i dont know havent seen his models or where his data comes from.

Could be true could be false - like everything in Economics.:D

Meth killed crack. :)

This kind of applies only to the US, but from 1985 to 1990, there was a huge upsurge in crack use in the cities, resulting in higher murder rates, homelessness, etc. So my question is, why did it stop in 1990?

Because crack is deemed to be uncool now and everyone realises that weed is much better?

Crack is still in full swing just ask tyrone

http://www.uvasportsfanatic.com/tyrone%20biggums.jpg

This kind of applies only to the US, but from 1985 to 1990, there was a huge upsurge in crack use in the cities, resulting in higher murder rates, homelessness, etc. So my question is, why did it stop in 1990?

every one died...or went broke

The crack epidemic certainly didn't stop. Come to Canada and walk the streets of Oshawa one day, or check out the drug crime related gang violence that is surging in Toronto over the last couple of years.

no one cares about canada

we thought you knew that by now;)

Probably Reagan...After all he stopped communism and all.:rolleyes:

It didn't stop- it never happened. Reagan's failed "trickle down economics" is to blame for the upswing in poverty and crime. But "The Great Destroyer" i.e. crack, was a nice scapegoat because it fell in line with The War on Drugs.

Except the upswing in poverty and crime started long before reagan came to power. In fact most of the problems can be attributed to Johnsons great society and the fact that you had the center of a generation raised on Johnsons programs come into their late teens early twenties in those 5 years, also the prime gangbanging age, oddly enough.

Probably Reagan...After all he stopped communism and all.:rolleyes:

damn right:D

This kind of applies only to the US, but from 1985 to 1990, there was a huge upsurge in crack use in the cities, resulting in higher murder rates, homelessness, etc. So my question is, why did it stop in 1990?

I think if you look at the rise in Meth use over the last 15 years, you will have your answer. Meth is so much cheaper and is cross-addictive with cocaine.

Isn't meth the big thing in the US now?

Isn't meth the big thing in the US now?

it is a growing problem yes

i cant understand why someone who knows how they make meth and what is in it would even put that thing in their system.

damn crazy

That "new toy" appeal to crack wore off. Happens all the time.

it is a growing problem yes

i cant understand why someone who knows how they make meth and what is in it would even put that thing in their system.

damn crazy
They probably don't start to make it until they're already addicted to it.

The crack epidemic stopped? You sure its just not being paid attention to?

The crack epidemic stopped? You sure its just not being paid attention to?

I certainly stopped





























paying attention.

Two easy answers.

1. The Media. The public lost interest in the story, so the mdeia stopped covering it.

2. Meth. Meth is way cheaper than crack.

it is a growing problem yes

i cant understand why someone who knows how they make meth and what is in it would even put that thing in their system.

damn crazy

The only thing in methamphetamine is the chemical itself, along with possibly some inert powder.

While the chemicals used to make meth aren't rather pleasant, the end result isn't matchhead and nail polish remover soup, those are just good sources of the chemicals needed to synthesize the product, not unlike how it's made for commercial sale.

It didn't stop- it never happened. Reagan's failed "trickle down economics" is to blame for the upswing in poverty and crime. But "The Great Destroyer" i.e. crack, was a nice scapegoat because it fell in line with The War on Drugs.

Poverty, child abuse, divorce, crime- all these things are blamed on drug use even today. But it wasn't always crack and pot that got the blame. These same arguments were for opium and before that- alcohol, which, in 1914 was called, (coincidentally, of course) "The Great Destroyer".

Blame societies ills on the evil drugs or evil alcohol. It's in page one of the politicians manual.

During the debate over prohibition, a 1914 Congressional record states "Liquor traffic is responsible for 25% of the poverty, 37% of the pauperism, 45.8% of child misery, 25% of insanity, 19.5% of divorces, and 50% of the crime. These are grave charges, and their truth has not been denied." Not long after, alcohol became "completely and forever banned, wherever Old Glory flies above the United States and all her possessions, including the Philippines, Cuba, and Guam". Of course, that failed miserably, so the shift went to blaming opium. Then a few years later, marijuana. After that, LSD, then coke, then crack, and today meth.

Once again, the parent state has succeeded- you believe that crack was to blame.

Propoganda 1 Freedom 0

http://stopthedrugwar.org/index.shtml
http://www.druglibrary.org/SCHAFFER/people/hobson/captain_hobson.htm
I certainly appreciate your concern, but I don't agree with you. See, in 1990, there were north of 2000 murders in NYC, and right now, that's not the case. It's all in the statistics.

Roe v Wade

A whole lot of people who would have turned 15-17 in 1990 and started lives of crime were never born.
Yes, I believe that's one of the causes. But there has to be something else too...

The crack epidemic certainly didn't stop. Come to Canada and walk the streets of Oshawa one day, or check out the drug crime related gang violence that is surging in Toronto over the last couple of years.
I wouldn't know about Canada, as this applies to the US, but surely it's not as bad as it was say, 18 years ago?

Crack is being brought down by what economists call a substitute. Methamphetamines are cheaper to produce, are produced locally and according to some offer a better effect than crack. The end result is that people will naturally shift away from crack to meth, just as economics predicts.

I think if you look at the rise in Meth use over the last 15 years, you will have your answer. Meth is so much cheaper and is cross-addictive with cocaine.
Ok, but crime rates are down also, which leads me to one of two conclusions: either meth isn't as addictive, or it's not used on the scale that crack was.

Crack is being brought down by what economists call a substitute. Methamphetamines are cheaper to produce, are produced locally and according to some offer a better effect than crack. The end result is that people will naturally shift away from crack to meth, just as economics predicts.
see above.

This kind of applies only to the US, but from 1985 to 1990, there was a huge upsurge in crack use in the cities, resulting in higher murder rates, homelessness, etc. So my question is, why did it stop in 1990?


Because crack is dead. The new drug is CRYSTAL METH.:eek:

Ok, but crime rates are down also, which leads me to one of two conclusions: either meth isn't as addictive, or it's not used on the scale that crack was.

Drug use itself doesn't cause crime. The high price of drugs causes crime.

Meth is vastly cheaper than crack. As such, tweakers don't need to commit as much crime in order to afford meth. Some of then can get by as beggars without resorting to crime at all.

This kind of applies only to the US, but from 1985 to 1990, there was a huge upsurge in crack use in the cities, resulting in higher murder rates, homelessness, etc. So my question is, why did it stop in 1990?

The CIA saw that too many people were following the breadcrumb trail and told Noreaga to stop producing. They themselves refused to continue importing. Once gov't sanction was taken away the only people importing and producing crack were regular smugglers and dealers. They don't have quite the same supply lines available to them.

Also, crack was over-reported (relative to other crimes and disasters) in the 80's and is underreported today making the difference seem greater than it is.

Finally, once Reagan and Bush Senior were taken out of office and the economy started to turn around people had better things to do with their time than smoke crack.

That about covers it.

Not reporting on it as much.

no one cares about canada

we thought you knew that by now;)

*sigh*

Yeah, I know.

*hits the crackpipe*

I wouldn't know about Canada, as this applies to the US, but surely it's not as bad as it was say, 18 years ago?

Canada and the US aren't all that different, despite what many would like to think. And I don't remember it being quite so prevalent that long ago. The last five years in this city, at any rate, have been pretty sad. I don't even want to think of how bad it is out in Vancouver.

I certainly appreciate your concern, but I don't agree with you. See, in 1990, there were north of 2000 murders in NYC, and right now, that's not the case. It's all in the statistics.

And you ignored my point completely. I have government statistics too, and the point is- they lie. To be more accurate- they are misleading.

For instance, I have heard an insurance spokesperson say the number of automobile deaths in Florida last year was around 3000. He then went on to compate that number to the people killed in the 9/11 attacks. He goes on to say that there should be a primary enforcement seat belt law in Florida, because it can save as many lives as were lost in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania that day. But those figures are inaccurate- in most of the 3000 auto deaths, the person WAS wearing their seatbelt. And even if the cops could pull you over just if they spot someone they think isn't wearing a seatbelt- doesn't mean everyone is going to wear one all the time. And making a comparison to 9/11 is just blatant scaremongering.

Likewise, the government blamed homicides, crime, etc on crack, when most were unrelated. Just like how meth gets all sorts of blame today, and in the past pot, LSD, opium, and alcohol were the government scapegoat for society's ills.

edit: Oh, and in the case of the insurance spokesman- the real reason they want primary enforcement seat belt laws is that they can save money- if you are "breaking the law" by not wearing your seatbelt, they can deny you coverage if you are injured in an accident.

And you ignored my point completely. I have government statistics too, and the point is- they lie. To be more accurate- they are misleading.

For instance, I have heard an insurance spokesperson say the number of automobile deaths in Florida last year was around 3000. He then went on to compate that number to the people killed in the 9/11 attacks. He goes on to say that there should be a primary enforcement seat belt law in Florida, because it can save as many lives as were lost in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania that day. But those figures are inaccurate- in most of the 3000 auto deaths, the person WAS wearing their seatbelt. And even if the cops could pull you over just if they spot someone they think isn't wearing a seatbelt- doesn't mean everyone is going to wear one all the time. And making a comparison to 9/11 is just blatant scaremongering.

Likewise, the government blamed homicides, crime, etc on crack, when most were unrelated. Just like how meth gets all sorts of blame today, and in the past pot, LSD, opium, and alcohol were the government scapegoat for society's ills.

edit: Oh, and in the case of the insurance spokesman- the real reason they want primary enforcement seat belt laws is that they can save money- if you are "breaking the law" by not wearing your seatbelt, they can deny you coverage if you are injured in an accident.
Ok, but when crack use declined so did the murders. There's definetely a correlation.

The CIA saw that too many people were following the breadcrumb trail and told Noreaga to stop producing. They themselves refused to continue importing. Once gov't sanction was taken away the only people importing and producing crack were regular smugglers and dealers. They don't have quite the same supply lines available to them.

Also, crack was over-reported (relative to other crimes and disasters) in the 80's and is underreported today making the difference seem greater than it is.

Finally, once Reagan and Bush Senior were taken out of office and the economy started to turn around people had better things to do with their time than smoke crack.

That about covers it.
This is the best explanation I've heard in a while. You, my man, are truly a genius.

Ok, but when crack use declined so did the murders. There's definetely a correlation.

*sigh*

Oh yes, and there is a statistically inverse relationship between global temperature and the number of pirates in the world. :rolleyes:

http://www.venganza.org/images/spreadword/pchart1.jpg

Do you understand yet?

*sigh*

Oh yes, and there is a statistically inverse relationship between global temperature and the number of pirates in the world. :rolleyes:

http://www.venganza.org/images/spreadword/pchart1.jpg

Do you understand yet?

So what you're saying is we should support a plan to repopulate the Caribbean with pirates to reduce global warming?