Crime up

dapearl9 wrote: The connection between a bad economy and increased crime is thrown around a lot while historical evidence actually contradicts it. For example there were higher crime rates in the 1920s than during the 1930s.

The crime rate does tend to increase during economic downturns, but it takes years to set in. It is certantly not something that happens overnight. BTW, crime, at least homicides, actually did increase during the 1930's.

Homicide Rates in "Large Cities"



-Source: http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/00492/Crime_Rate.htm

I'm a big fan of the changing demographic theory, ie, when the population becomes more affluent and better educated, the purchase of drugs goes down. As the demand decreases, drug dealers have to expand their turf to keep sales up. Given that the amount of turf is limited, inevitably turf fights break out, the result being shootings.
KWAC and Paraderest, any thoughts on this theory?

You would think with the neighborhoiod rapidly changing, there would be less drug dealing, unfortunately theres a huge section of gentrifiers who still patronize the local weed dealers. Granted theres very few pioneers smoking crack, but it appears the so called "victimless" weed business is booming!

King without a crown wrote: You would think with the neighborhoiod rapidly changing, there would be less drug dealing, unfortunately theres a huge section of gentrifiers who still patronize the local weed dealers. Granted theres very few pioneers smoking crack, but it appears the so called "victimless" weed business is booming!

Yea, I get that crack is a "ghetto" drug, not for gentrifiers. But the weed use makes me wonder, were these guys smoking weed in their old n'hood, or is this a new habit they acquired since moving to the 'hood? I lived in PS for 25 years and never noticed much blatant weed use. In CH it is pretty open on the street. I wonder if the novelty of having ganja so handy will wear off.....

as we get older, most of us smoke less weed. Cheech and Chong being exceptions, of course.

Park Slope is a long established middle class neighborhood, full of oldish established people. I think of PH and Crown Heights as an "emerging neighborhood". We'll get old here too, assuming we bought a place.

...It seems we won't be able to flip all those condos we just bought for quite sometime.

cccc wrote: [quote=dapearl9] The connection between a bad economy and increased crime is thrown around a lot while historical evidence actually contradicts it. For example there were higher crime rates in the 1920s than during the 1930s.

The crime rate does tend to increase during economic downturns, but it takes years to set in. It is certantly not something that happens overnight. BTW, crime, at least homicides, actually did increase during the 1930's.

Homicide Rates in "Large Cities"



-Source: http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/00492/Crime_Rate.htm

You'll notice that homicide began to decrease after 1933, with the end of Prohibition (and well before the end of the Great Depression).

Capt. Planet wrote: [quote=King without a crown]You would think with the neighborhoiod rapidly changing, there would be less drug dealing, unfortunately theres a huge section of gentrifiers who still patronize the local weed dealers. Granted theres very few pioneers smoking crack, but it appears the so called "victimless" weed business is booming!

Yea, I get that crack is a "ghetto" drug, not for gentrifiers. But the weed use makes me wonder, were these guys smoking weed in their old n'hood, or is this a new habit they acquired since moving to the 'hood? I lived in PS for 25 years and never noticed much blatant weed use. In CH it is pretty open on the street. I wonder if the novelty of having ganja so handy will wear off.....

I think there is as much if not more weed smoking in PS as there is here. The difference is that people do it indoors in the privacy of their own homes, not on street corners and in schoolyards. Twenty years ago I was invited to a friends house for dinner and while we were listening to music in his room, he lit up a joint while his parents were in the next room. I must have been gaping because he told me they smoked all the time and didn't care if he did, so long as he didn't try to raid their stash. Meanwhile at home in Bed-Stuy, my parents would have beat me within an inch of my life if I had thought about undertaking ANY vices under their roof.

I'd hazard a guess that there are a lot of parents of teens and young adults like that who permit it or even partake of in their homes, not that people move around black folks and get a sudden urge to start getting faded on a regular.

ONE family in PS 20 years ago permits their child to smoke weed indoors.
ONE family in BS 20 years ago does not permit their child to smoke weed indoors.
Therefore, "there is as much, if not more, weed smoking in PS as there is here".

Super logic there.

Jack Krohn wrote: ONE family in PS 20 years ago permits their child to smoke weed indoors.
ONE family in BS 20 years ago does not permit their child to smoke weed indoors.
Therefore, "there is as much, if not more, weed smoking in PS as there is here".

Super logic there.

Homeowner's main argument seems to me to be that there is as much smoking in PS as in other nabes - just that it is done out of public view.

I would agree - not all of the dope bought and consumed in this city is in poorer neighborhoods - there's plenty of partying going on in Brooklyn Heights and the Village and Upper East Side and so on.

The anecdote about the friend is just a story suporting that theory - not the genesis behind the theory.

That's my read on it anyway, Master Logician

King without a crown wrote: You would think with the neighborhoiod rapidly changing, there would be less drug dealing, unfortunately theres a huge section of gentrifiers who still patronize the local weed dealers. Granted theres very few pioneers smoking crack, but it appears the so called "victimless" weed business is booming!

You would know better than us, but are people really dying over weed?

I know your duty is to uphold the law and not question it...

But honestly... would you rather have a bunch of working hipsters smoking weed... or a bunch of unemployed crackheads?

Carnivore wrote: [quote=cccc][quote=dapearl9] The connection between a bad economy and increased crime is thrown around a lot while historical evidence actually contradicts it. For example there were higher crime rates in the 1920s than during the 1930s.

The crime rate does tend to increase during economic downturns, but it takes years to set in. It is certantly not something that happens overnight. BTW, crime, at least homicides, actually did increase during the 1930's.

Homicide Rates in "Large Cities"



-Source: http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/00492/Crime_Rate.htm

You'll notice that homicide began to decrease after 1933, with the end of Prohibition (and well before the end of the Great Depression).

I'm not saying that the economy has everything to do with crime rates, but it is one of the factors that plats a part. There are certantly other causes including, in this case, the prohibition.

Secondly, in 1934 the umemployment rate started to decline.

Cool The Kid wrote: [quote=King without a crown]You would think with the neighborhoiod rapidly changing, there would be less drug dealing, unfortunately theres a huge section of gentrifiers who still patronize the local weed dealers. Granted theres very few pioneers smoking crack, but it appears the so called "victimless" weed business is booming!

You would know better than us, but are people really dying over weed?

I know your duty is to uphold the law and not question it...

But honestly... would you rather have a bunch of working hipsters smoking weed... or a bunch of unemployed crackheads?

I would much rather deal with working hipsters smoking pot, than unemployed crackheads, however the danger in weed usage lies in the illegal drug trade, not the endless amount of dorito consumption depleting our cornfields.

King without a crown wrote: I would much rather deal with working hipsters smoking pot, than unemployed crackheads, however the danger in weed usage lies in the illegal drug trade, not the endless amount of dorito consumption depleting our cornfields.

You mean the illegal drug trade that's a direct result of drug prohibition?

King without a crown wrote: [quote=Cool The Kid][quote=King without a crown]You would think with the neighborhoiod rapidly changing, there would be less drug dealing, unfortunately theres a huge section of gentrifiers who still patronize the local weed dealers. Granted theres very few pioneers smoking crack, but it appears the so called "victimless" weed business is booming!

You would know better than us, but are people really dying over weed?

I know your duty is to uphold the law and not question it...

But honestly... would you rather have a bunch of working hipsters smoking weed... or a bunch of unemployed crackheads?

I would much rather deal with working hipsters smoking pot, than unemployed crackheads, however the danger in weed usage lies in the illegal drug trade, not the endless amount of dorito consumption depleting our cornfields.

awe, he likes us afterall!

Subject: You can always tell a sloper...

Im a sloper wrote: 30 Homicides this year and still counting. Your right, Crown Heights is such a "civil" neighborhood. I never lived there but worked in that shithole for 10 years. No one knows more than me of the carnage in that neighborhood. Half of the things that go on there, don't even make the news. You have no idea. Keep living in your fantasy land. On that note, I'm out of here. I couldn't expect anyone that lives there to actually see the type of people that live and hang out there. The statistics don't lie. Believe what you want.

You just can't tell them much.

Am I the only one who wants to start a collection to move this guy to Jersey?

H