[RunawayJim]

Originally Posted by Guineas

I don't think it's religion or lack of religion. I think the common denominator is the lack of meaningful jobs for young people. This is true in both Vermont and the Deep South or Plains.

The US has seen a hollowing out of manufacturing jobs in the last 3 decades. What's replacing them are either retail sales jobs or very exclusive technology or finance jobs. Not much in the middle.

We have an economy designed to manage the world's factories, but only 10-20% of our labor pool is remotely qualified to do so, and this number is actually declining in recent years. The outlook isn't good.

Would you say lack of meaningful jobs or lack of education (though I suppose VT has a high percentage of educated people when compared to the south and midwest)?

[Missionsix]

Originally Posted by delmioquartiere

Post number 94 best post of the thread!

Vermont is beautiful. Drugs are everywhere. Make the best of it...So true

Appreciate it! I spent 5 years in the Hartford/Quechee area and left but 2 months ago. I miss it everyday. I met the good, the bad and the ugly. From the Berlin Mall to Church street. To the streets of Brat and Montpelier. To all the Country stores and their owners and fishing under multiple covered bridges. My beer freezing on my deck at -20 to sweating to disbelief at 99% humidity before a gorgeous Thunderstorm sucks it back into the sky. I met some bad people... I met some people that changed my life. But all in all, back in CA traffic looking at all the women who feel they have to do 2 hours worth of makeup just go to the grocery store, I can't help but to day dream all day of my 5 years in Vermont.

I could vent and rant for days so I'll leave it at those 7 lines.

[Missionsix]

All in all, some of the most real, hard working people you'll ever meet live in Northern New England. I guess they are everywhere, but in capita, I have to say Vemont takes the cake. And i've spent time in 40 of 50 states.

[68vette]

There isn't just one reason drugs or any other problem in this state or in the country is the cause. Part of the fault in this thinking is we always look for 'the' problem, because solving one or two problems is much easier than multiple. Religion could be a cause, I have no doubt. Just like family life is another problem in the state. With both parents working long hours or multiple jobs, this leaves kids making poor decisions or doing things they shouldn't when they are without a parent around. The data the government collected shows us the problem is worst with younger people. Anyone on this forum who is old enough to have kids in high school know this without the government having to say anything. When I was in high school, the worst thing you saw was pot smoking and maybe a few kids who experimented with coke. My son has told me that drug use is widespread in school. This is not just in the Burlington area. He attended school in Central Vermont for most of his life. There are kids snorting/shooting heroin, poping pills, huffing, etc.

The drug use I'm refering to are the drugs that cause lifelong damage or problems. Drug use is everywhere, but to say drugs are everywhere and that's life, doesn't do anything to solve the problem. I and others won't change everyones minds on this subject. I thought the same thing. I don't do drugs, so as long as I keep myself away from it, it won't effect me. Wrong! Maybe when someone walks up to you on a beautiful fall day in picture perfect Vermont and puts a gun to your head and tells you that if you don't give them what they want, they are going to kill both you and your child, then you might think a little different. As I said before, these addictive drugs cause lifelong damage to themselves and the people in our communities. A previous post I made was deleted (rightfully so) because it was a response to a foul reply to this thread. I made a reference to a recent tragedy related to heroin that was very real and related to this topic. All I will say is, RIP Philip Seymour Hoffman.

[Jay F]

Originally Posted by Guineas

I don't think it's religion or lack of religion. I think the common denominator is the lack of meaningful jobs for young people. This is true in both Vermont and the Deep South or Plains.

The US has seen a hollowing out of manufacturing jobs in the last 3 decades. What's replacing them are either retail sales jobs or very exclusive technology or finance jobs. Not much in the middle.

We have an economy designed to manage the world's factories, but only 10-20% of our labor pool is remotely qualified to do so, and this number is actually declining in recent years. The outlook isn't good.

There doesn't seem to be as much correlation between a bleak economic situation and heroin as there is with other drugs such as crack and meth. Heroin is a problem throughout the socioeconomic spectrum. Over the weekend actor Philip Seymour Hoffman was found dead with a needle in his arm. He was reported to have had a $10,000 a month heroin addiction.

I don't think it's economics as much as it is morals. Heroin junkies are bad people. That used to be common knowledge but now is extrememly taboo to say.I will say it anyway.

[Jay F]

Originally Posted by OhBeeHave

Based on a random sample of 174, 699 adults in all 50 states over the course of a year. Of those, only 508 were from Vermont.
Gallup then weighted the polls based on region, population density, gender, age, race, ethnicity, landline vs. Cell phone, etc.

Manipulating such a small number (.0008%) of the population of a state is not indicative of the population.

Gallup does this religion survey every year and Vermont is always at the top or near the top of least religious. If sample size was truly an issue Vermont would jump around the chart every year. Also, the three Northern New England states are what Gallup finds are the 3 least religious. That can't be by random chance, it's truly the least religious region.

[RunawayJim]

Originally Posted by Jay F

There doesn't seem to be as much correlation between a bleak economic situation and heroin as there is with other drugs such as crack and meth. Heroin is a problem throughout the socioeconomic spectrum. Over the weekend actor Philip Seymour Hoffman was found dead with a needle in his arm. He was reported to have had a $10,000 a month heroin addiction.

I don't think it's economics as much as it is morals. Heroin junkies are bad people. That used to be common knowledge but now is extrememly taboo to say.I will say it anyway.

Define "bad people". Because while the term "junkie" might conjure up some bad images of people, it doesn't make someone a "bad person" like a serial killer is a bad person. They're people with a problem. People with a disease. Yes, they're junkies, but what about being an addict makes someone a bad person? They made poor choices (perhaps they didn't get the help they needed before they turned to heroin), but there are plenty of addicts who I would call good people. Not every junkie is one who robs their family to pay for their habit. In fact, a lot of them make a boatload of money and just use their riches to feed the habit (see Jerry Garcia, Trey Anastasio, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Janis Joplin, any number of celebrities... some dead because of it, some alive because someone helped them).

[RunawayJim]

Originally Posted by Jay F

Gallup does this religion survey every year and Vermont is always at the top or near the top of least religious. If sample size was truly an issue Vermont would jump around the chart every year. Also, the three Northern New England states are what Gallup finds are the 3 least religious. That can't be by random chance, it's truly the least religious region.

I'm curious what they use for criteria.

Just keep in mind that correlation does not imply causation. If what you're saying is true, then the most religious states would have the fewest drug problems (you can't separate heroin as the only one that gives people that escape like church does).

[OhBeeHave]

Originally Posted by Jay F

Gallup does this religion survey every year and Vermont is always at the top or near the top of least religious. If sample size was truly an issue Vermont would jump around the chart every year. Also, the three Northern New England states are what Gallup finds are the 3 least religious. That can't be by random chance, it's truly the least religious region.

Again, the sample is so small that it needs to be manipulated. My town has 5 different denominational active churches in the immediate village area. All have active congregations. The Gallup sample, .0008% of the state's population surveyed, means a whopping 2.5 people in my town of 3,154 were surveyed. Honestly -- if all you had to go by was 2.5 people, does manipulating the numbers paint an accurate picture?

[68vette]

Originally Posted by RunawayJim

Define "bad people". Because while the term "junkie" might conjure up some bad images of people, it doesn't make someone a "bad person" like a serial killer is a bad person. They're people with a problem. People with a disease. Yes, they're junkies, but what about being an addict makes someone a bad person? They made poor choices (perhaps they didn't get the help they needed before they turned to heroin), but there are plenty of addicts who I would call good people. Not every junkie is one who robs their family to pay for their habit. In fact, a lot of them make a boatload of money and just use their riches to feed the habit (see Jerry Garcia, Trey Anastasio, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Janis Joplin, any number of celebrities... some dead because of it, some alive because someone helped them).

I think it depends on how you look at the person. It is a disease and like some diseases this one is not curable. Phillip Seymour Hoffman was a good example of this. He struggled with the disease for over 20 years. Are all addicts bad people? It depends on what they do to support their habit. Most addicts are not wealthy people or they don't all make enough to support their habit. When they get to the point where they steal, rob or commit other crime because of their disease, doesn't mean they can get a free pass. Sometimes they can simply steal from their family to support their habit or steal and not get caught. If the family is willing to support the addict, try and help or forgive them then that is fine. The victim of any crime is scarred for life. You don't trust people the same way, you constantly have your eye on everyone around you, etc. To the victim, they are bad people.
Just looking at the federal data for drug related crime it is broken down like this. There were 99,426 people that were sentenced prisoners under federal jurisdiction for drug related crimes. Of these 11,688 were for violent offenses, 11,568 were for property offenses and the remainder were for public order which includes 23,700 for immigration offenses, 30,046 for weapons offenses, and 17,633 for "other." The state percentages are almost identical, but of course the numbers are higher. The exception being immigration offences, the states break it down with other listings such as driving under the influence,etc. About a quarter of prisoners in jail for drug related crimes damaged another human being or their family and the other 30,000 with weapons, who knows what they did before they were caught. How you judge an addict depends on what side of the fence you stand on.