Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess there's some slim difference between 'drug source city' and 'drug origin city' that I'm just not privy to. Perhaps massnative could give his definition of drug source city and put us all back on the same page.
Both New Bedford and Fall River are part of the Providence Metropolitan Statistical Area. So is Attleboro, East Providence, Newport, Warwick, Central Falls, and Pawtucket, etc. Fall River and New Bedford combine for 183,000 people and Providence has about 179,000 according to the latest estimates. FR/NB Combine for around the same population as the city of Providence. The metro area as a whole is 1.6 million people. I'd wager that drug activity in Providence is on-par with Fall River/New Bedford combined at best. When you factor in the other smaller cities in the metro area, there's a good probability that the actually city of Providence doesn't constitute the majority of drug activity for the metro area. Fall River and New Bedford are a major part of any metro Providence statistic and they drive the areas stats down in almost every category other than total metro population. They are, without a doubt, a huge contributor to any Metro Providence drug statistic.
Yes but I was referring to Providence as being a source city. Of course there is huge activity in FR, NB, Taunton, Wareham, Barnstable, etc. but Providence is where it primarily comes from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ormari
Let's parse that out, shall we?
"Providence/Fall River area": Not Providence proper per se. Not Fall River proper per se. The Providence/Fall River metro area...
"Secondary": not primary, of less importance than a primary center.
"Supplies Cape Cod". Cape Cod has a population of 200,000.
They don't call Providence a major drug source city. They say that Providence/Fall River is a secondary distribution center. Secondary center on the New England regional scale that is, and not the whole East Coast.
Fall River, New Bedford, etc. are part of the Providence MSA.
They don't seem to be saying that Providence metro is a producer of drugs. They seem to be saying they come in from elsewhere, probably by highway if they come from NYC. Since the Providence/Fall River MSA is supplying Cape Cod, meet up points could just as well be in Fall River, New Bedford, or a parking lot on Rte 6 as Providence.
Of course at that point, you weren't talking Providence metro, but merely Providence, though it doesn't really matter because either way it is a ludicrous statement.
Your assertion that Providence is one of the "East Coast's major drug source cities" indicates Providence must command a large portion of the East Coast Drug market. What's your guess, massnative71? Top 3 supplier to the whole East Coast? Top 5? Top 10? Top 20? What percentage of the east coast drug market is Cape Cod's again?
Probably in the top 10, easily in the top 20. Providence supplies an area far wider than Cape Cod (once again), it's basically all of RI and everything in MA south of Boston (as well as the city itself sometimes, yes Boston is NOT a source city). It is a widely known fact, arguing against that is ridiculous.
I wish I could find a copy online of the DEA report that came out over this past summer (the one I posted is from 2014 I believe), it is far more descriptive of Providence's role in the regional drug trade. I guess we will have to wait till it is available.
Yes but I was referring to Providence as being a source city. Of course there is huge activity in FR, NB, Taunton, Wareham, Barnstable, etc. but Providence is where it primarily comes from.
Everything I read in the report you linked to talks in terms of metro areas, not principal cities. For example:
Quote:
The Providence (RI)/Fall River (MA) area is a secondary distribution center that supplies Cape Cod
So where does it say that Providence proper is where it comes from and the other cities (particularly Fall River and New Bedford) just have "huge activity?" Fall River and New Bedford play a very big part in sourcing drugs out to Bristol County. Combined they have a greater population than Providence and without looking at statistics, I'd wager that drug use is more pervasive in the Fall River/New Bedford population than Providence. I'd wager that they are equally responsible, if not more, for drug distribution in the region. Nothing in that report indicated otherwise.
Location: Earth, a nice neighborhood in the Milky Way
3,778 posts, read 2,693,466 times
Reputation: 1609
Quote:
Originally Posted by massnative71
Probably in the top 10, easily in the top 20. Providence supplies an area far wider than Cape Cod (once again), it's basically all of RI and everything in MA south of Boston (as well as the city itself sometimes, yes Boston is NOT a source city). It is a widely known fact, arguing against that is ridiculous.
I wish I could find a copy online of the DEA report that came out over this past summer (the one I posted is from 2014 I believe), it is far more descriptive of Providence's role in the regional drug trade. I guess we will have to wait till it is available.
I wish you could too.
You're really going to double down on this again?
You haven't posted anything that has backed up your assertion so far. My guess is that your recollection of a report which backs you up is nothing more than a pipe dream.
But if it is a widely known fact, then you should not have to rely on finding that needle in a haystack to prove your assertion. The information would be out there on the websites of any one of the relevant federal authorities. It would be covered in the media. It would pop up in a google search. It would be easy to find. But it isn't. Because if it were easy to find, you might have found it.
It seems to me that there are many things wrong with your argument. And as yet, you haven't managed to find a source to back it up. But even if one were to grant that "Providence" somehow does supply the area South of Boston (say 1/3 of the Boston MSA), consider the following simple analysis in that case:
Population of greater Providence MSA....1,600,000 people
Population of Cape Cod:.........................200,000 people
Population of 1/3 Boston MSA:.............1,500,000 people
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total "served" by Providence/Fall River:...3.3 million people.
Entire population of the East Coast:.....112 million people.
What percentage of the East Coast would that be? Let's do the math, shall we:
...3.3 million
------------- = 2.9 % of the population of the East Coast.
112.0 million
Is a supplier of 3% of a market "Major"?
That is ~1/33rd the population of the East Coast. Major drug source city on the East Coast? That's not major by anybody's standards but yours. And again, that is giving your argument the benefit of the doubt, but the reports you cited don't back you up.
But then, there's this National Drug Threat Assessment Summary from the DEA for 2015. It doesn't mention Providence even a single time in the report. The only mention of Rhode Island is in reference to a physician with offices in greater Boston and Rhode Island who was overbilling medicare. But the report does reference Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Miami, Washington DC, New Jersey, Baltimore, Atlanta, etc. Who else do they mention? Portland, Maine! They called out Portland Maine, but not Providence! That should tell you something.
The law enforcement agencies tasked with drug control, those drug "warriors", justify their paychecks by calling out major drug problems. If Providence were a major problem, they would say so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlfieBoy
Now, you can stomp your galoshes all day long, but you are wrong.
Keep digging for that needle, massnative71...
Last edited by ormari; 01-12-2016 at 07:59 PM..
Reason: correct geographical reference
Everything I read in the report you linked to talks in terms of metro areas, not principal cities. For example:
So where does it say that Providence proper is where it comes from and the other cities (particularly Fall River and New Bedford) just have "huge activity?" Fall River and New Bedford play a very big part in sourcing drugs out to Bristol County. Combined they have a greater population than Providence and without looking at statistics, I'd wager that drug use is more pervasive in the Fall River/New Bedford population than Providence. I'd wager that they are equally responsible, if not more, for drug distribution in the region. Nothing in that report indicated otherwise.
As I just posted, the more recent report gives details like that; mentioning specific places (such as the Hartford Projects in Providence) that supply particular drugs to the region. It makes total sense, given PVD's central location (and the fact that it's not Boston). Distribution branches out to the smaller cities like FR, NB and Brockton. Sure many "dealers" are based in those cities, but the big boys are in Providence. For that matter, you could say NYC supplies PVD for many narcotics (many of which are re-routed up I-195, etc.). But Providence is THE official source city for Southern New England.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ormari
I wish you could too.
You're really going to double down on this again?
You haven't posted anything that has backed up your assertion so far. My guess is that your recollection of a report which backs you up is nothing more than a pipe dream.
The latest NEHIDTA report is obviously not available to the public yet. I apparently have access to data you do not, so I'm gonna leave it at that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ormari
But if it is a widely known fact, then you should not have to rely on finding that needle in a haystack to prove your assertion. The information would be out there on the websites of any one of the relevant federal authorities. It would be covered in the media. It would pop up in a google search. It would be easy to find. But it isn't. Because if it were easy to find, you might have found it.
Then provide evidence to the contrary, otherwise you are wasting your time. If you know something, spit it out. Otherwise, I suggest you quit debating those in the know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ormari
It seems to me that there are many things wrong with your argument. And as yet, you haven't managed to find a source to back it up. But even if one were to grant that "Providence" somehow does supply the area South of Boston (say 1/3 of the Boston MSA), consider the following simple analysis in that case:
Population of greater Providence MSA....1,600,000 people
Population of Cape Cod:.........................200,000 people
Population of 1/3 Boston MSA:.............1,500,000 people
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total "served" by Providence/Fall River:...3.3 million people.
Entire population of the East Coast:.....112 million people.
What percentage of the East Coast would that be? Let's do the math, shall we:
...3.3 million
------------- = 2.9 % of the population of the East Coast.
112.0 million
Is a supplier of 3% of a market "Major"?
That is ~1/33rd the population of the East Coast. Major drug source city on the East Coast? That's not major by anybody's standards but yours. And again, that is giving your argument the benefit of the doubt, but the reports you cited don't back you up.
Where did you get that 112 million figure? And I would guess most of the source cities/areas are not much different in size to Providence (ie. Hartford, Lowell/Lawrence, Fort Lauderdale, Newport News , etc.). The numbers are skewed by the sheer size of NYC, Baltimore/Philly..., doesn't make the 2nd tier places "not major". Your attitude isn't making your case any stronger (whatever that may be).
Location: Earth, a nice neighborhood in the Milky Way
3,778 posts, read 2,693,466 times
Reputation: 1609
Quote:
Originally Posted by massnative71
Quote:
Originally Posted by ormari
But if it is a widely known fact, then you should not have to rely on finding that needle in a haystack to prove your assertion. The information would be out there on the websites of any one of the relevant federal authorities. It would be covered in the media. It would pop up in a google search. It would be easy to find. But it isn't. Because if it were easy to find, you might have found it.
Then provide evidence to the contrary, otherwise you are wasting your time.
As evidence, I present the lack of citations from you. You searched, didn't you? But now you've made it an oxymoron: widely known facts known only by a privileged few, with whom one should not debate...
As I just posted, the more recent report gives details like that; mentioning specific places (such as the Hartford Projects in Providence) that supply particular drugs to the region.
The latest NEHIDTA report is obviously not available to the public yet. I apparently have access to data you do not, so I'm gonna leave it at that.
Ok, so we'll just take your word for it. You know better than us. You can't find the "widely known" data, and you have other privileged information that we can't look at to verify on our own. The stuff we CAN see doesn't really align with what you're saying, but it's from all the way back in the dark ages of 2014, so it's not longer remotely relevant. I wish all of arguments I've lost had such convenient excuses. In elementary school I had some solid ones: "I know what [insert dirty word/phrase means] but I'm not telling you!" But not anymore, unfortunately.
The tradition of the Providence police department underreporting and underclassifying
crime in the city is well-known to those who know. This has been done to buff
statistics for appearance in national surveys.
Sorry if you thought otherwise.
The tradition of the Providence police department underreporting and underclassifying
crime in the city is well-known to those who know. This has been done to buff
statistics for appearance in national surveys.
Sorry if you thought otherwise.
I have literally never lived in a metropolitan area where the police weren't commonly accused of doing this. And maybe they do, but if so, they're doing it everywhere.
When you google "police departments that underreport crime," here's what cities are mentioned on the first page of results:
I have literally never lived in a metropolitan area where the police weren't commonly accused of doing this. And maybe they do, but if so, they're doing it everywhere.
When you google "police departments that underreport crime," here's what cities are mentioned on the first page of results:
Los Angeles
New York
Milwaukee
Phoenix
Chicago
Sounds like legit analysis
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
