Chaos on the streets

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by njbiodude

https://www.axios.com/local/san-dieg...-homelessness#

There’s some global truth for you.

CA has by far the most unsheltered homeless.

Many cities in CA don’t prosecute open air drug use.

https://abc7.com/amp/george-gascon-l...rimes/8674095/

LA has largely replaced imprisonment for hard drug use with tactics like these

https://www.bscc.ca.gov/s_prop47ladoor/

I guess you are serious

You post two (unverifiable) personal observations of drug abuse and infer that California cities are somehow among the worst places for illegal drug use.

I follow with a verifiable link from Center for Disease Control that verifiably presents contemporaneous statistics demonstrating that California is roughly middle of pack for drugs in the 50 states.

You return to rebut with: “but California has the most unsheltered homeless! … and “doesn’t prosecute open air drug use!”

… which are both non sequiturs.

The statistics win, my friend. California’s drug problem isn’t any worse than average across the nation.

[njbiodude]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

I guess you are serious

You post two (unverifiable) personal observations of drug abuse and infer that California cities are somehow among the worst places for illegal drug use.

I follow with a verifiable link from Center for Disease Control that verifiably presents contemporaneous statistics demonstrating that California is roughly middle of pack for drugs in the 50 states.

You return to rebut with: “but California has the most unsheltered homeless! … and “doesn’t prosecute open air drug use!”

… which are both non sequiturs.

The statistics win, my friend. California’s drug problem isn’t any worse than average across the nation.

California cities may have statistically an “average” drug overdose rate but other cities have fewer people laying on their he streets high or dying. And San Francisco has been in the top 10 overdose rates for a while. How many US cities can you see people overdosing in broad daylight? Especially in über expensive areas. Many US cities you can be arrested for loitering or drug paraphernalia/possession charges if you’re laying on the sidewalk high passed out.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...omeless-people

Using a “data driven” source we also find that CA has by far the highest per capita homeless and the highest unsheltered homeless rate in the U.S. so I have no doubt that plays a role. That means fewer dying in their homes.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by njbiodude

California cities may have statistically an “average” drug overdose rate but other cities have fewer people laying on their he streets high or dying. And San Francisco has been in the top 10 overdose rates for a while. How many US cities can you see people overdosing in broad daylight? Especially in über expensive areas. Many US cities you can be arrested for loitering or drug paraphernalia/possession charges if you’re laying on the sidewalk high passed out.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...omeless-people

Using a “data driven” source we also find that CA has by far the highest per capita homeless and the highest unsheltered homeless rate in the U.S. so I have no doubt that plays a role. That means fewer dying in their homes.

Please just stop. Stop digging your misinformation hole.

Among other things, San Francisco ranks about 12th among big cities … which, while unfortunate, does not place it in any leading role as you started this conversation asserting.

Here’s a scholarly research ranking of the top 35 “Big Cities”.

https://drexel.edu/uhc/resources/bri...ug%20Overdose/

Not even close to Baltimore, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Columbus, Louisville, Detroit … et al.

You can see people overdosing lots of places. Your two unverifiable anecdotes don’t represent position in the nation.

Neither does California’s unhoused population draw the direct parallel you are claiming. Your personal “no doubts” notwithstanding.

“Fewer dying in their homes”?? What the hell does that have to do with anything? (Rhetorical … no need to respond.)

[mattja]

Originally Posted by wac_432

If fentanyl is a deadly epidemic, will it follow the pattern of other epidemics; peaking and then fading away as it kills off the addicts?

That would be the natural progression, but now that Narcan is ubiquitous, addicts can escape death and live to overdose again. Over and over again.

[wac_432]

Originally Posted by mattja

That would be the natural progression, but now that Narcan is ubiquitous, addicts can escape death and live to overdose again. Over and over again.

I dunno, would it? I guess it depends on whether the pipeline in of new addict creation is wider than the pipeline out of overdose deaths.

Narcan narrows the out pipe, but eventually you fall through that crack as well, when you OD in a riverbed or alone in an alleyway or room and nobody notices to call the paramedics in time.

[RayHammer]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

More ‘California hyperbole.’ It’s “so bad” in every city and state. California doesn’t even rank middle of pack really. Here’s a CDC map and list link for you:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/s..._poisoning.htm

A few things could skew the data here. The map shows only deaths per 100k population. It doesn't tell us anything about overall usage (although deaths could be considered a proxy measurement).

It's also possible that usage in other states is happening in more rural areas where first responders are less likely to save someone overdosing.

Other states might not be so keen on providing life-saving measures, either due to not wanting to spend money on the resources, or simply preferring that the addicts just die (which is my preference) so that they are no longer a burden.

It's also possible that California's drug inventory is simply less lethal.

Another possibility is that because California attracts druggies from other areas due to a combination of handouts and lax enforcement of open-air drug use, that the population there is more experienced which can lead to either having greater levels of tolerance, or being more aware of amounts that could lead to an overdose (likely both).

The CDC map also only shows data BY THE STATE, but tells us nothing about what is happening in third or fourth tier geographies. A more accurate picture would break things down by county, or if possible, by zip code. This is similar to the problem with crime rates where states like Louisiana indeed have a high rate of crime, but virtually all of it is concentrated in New Orleans, Baton Rouge and Shreveport. A similar situation arises in Ohio where the vast majority of crime happens in Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Toledo with a little around Columbus. Granted, drug use in Ohio is likely just as heavy in Appalachia (the southeast of that state) as it is in the cities and may even be higher per capita in the rural areas. So everything is very nuanced and really needs to be explored locality by locality.

Originally Posted by njbiodude

For public overdoses in broad daylight?

Keep dreaming. I haven’t seen that anywhere else

The visibility of it is what bothers me. If you can somehow be a functioning addict and it only affects you inside of your own home then the libertarian side of me says that that's your personal choice.

My problem is when it affects society as a whole. The presence of these people alone drags down the "vibe" of an area, which affects businesses, property values, tourism, and overall quality of life, just like litter or broken down cars or boarded up houses (and obviously these things cycle into and feed off each other). The lower quality of life actually attracts criminals and crime, and that crime in turn leads to further lowering quality of life.

[gizmo980]

"Chaos on the streets" - um, okay. I thought you were gonna tell us a much more interesting story.

[Mikala43]

Well, first, you have no idea what they were on, they could have been drunk, ketamine or whatnot.

Second, drug overdoses in general are way higher in other states (per capita). All drug overdoses are part of the problem. Fentanyl is highlighted because use and deaths have been on a steep rise.

But for the states with the most drug deaths per capita, the top are:

West Virginia
DC
Tennessee
Louisiana
Kentucky


The lowest are:

Nebraska
Iowa
Texas
North Dakota
Hawaii

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ose-in-the-us/

It's for 2021, but I don't think things have changed dramatically. West Virginia has had it's problem for a very long time.

[bad debt]

Originally Posted by njbiodude

For public overdoses in broad daylight?

Keep dreaming. I haven’t seen that anywhere else

Have you been to other major cities?

[bad debt]

Originally Posted by RayHammer

A few things could skew the data here. The map shows only deaths per 100k population. It doesn't tell us anything about overall usage (although deaths could be considered a proxy measurement).

It's also possible that usage in other states is happening in more rural areas where first responders are less likely to save someone overdosing.

Other states might not be so keen on providing life-saving measures, either due to not wanting to spend money on the resources, or simply preferring that the addicts just die (which is my preference) so that they are no longer a burden.

It's also possible that California's drug inventory is simply less lethal.

Another possibility is that because California attracts druggies from other areas due to a combination of handouts and lax enforcement of open-air drug use, that the population there is more experienced which can lead to either having greater levels of tolerance, or being more aware of amounts that could lead to an overdose (likely both).

The CDC map also only shows data BY THE STATE, but tells us nothing about what is happening in third or fourth tier geographies. A more accurate picture would break things down by county, or if possible, by zip code. This is similar to the problem with crime rates where states like Louisiana indeed have a high rate of crime, but virtually all of it is concentrated in New Orleans, Baton Rouge and Shreveport. A similar situation arises in Ohio where the vast majority of crime happens in Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Toledo with a little around Columbus. Granted, drug use in Ohio is likely just as heavy in Appalachia (the southeast of that state) as it is in the cities and may even be higher per capita in the rural areas. So everything is very nuanced and really needs to be explored locality by locality.





The visibility of it is what bothers me. If you can somehow be a functioning addict and it only affects you inside of your own home then the libertarian side of me says that that's your personal choice.

My problem is when it affects society as a whole. The presence of these people alone drags down the "vibe" of an area, which affects businesses, property values, tourism, and overall quality of life, just like litter or broken down cars or boarded up houses (and obviously these things cycle into and feed off each other). The lower quality of life actually attracts criminals and crime, and that crime in turn leads to further lowering quality of life.

What you're describing is the broken window phenomenon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory