>The finding that crime did not increase mirrors results from other cities, though the decline was less expected and is not fully understood.
>
>Panagiotoglou said police may have stepped up patrols early on, which could help explain why some crime rose briefly before declining.
This was my immediate thought as well. Police are likely to stick around supervised consumption sites if even to serve as a concession to the public for their opening.
Besides this, this article is not particularly insightful. Some areas saw a drop in crime, some saw it stay the same. And there seems to be no clear answer as to why.
I haven’t read the study itself, so that could offer more.
GraveDiggingCynic on
Of course it’s a myth, but society loves nothing better to moralize, and there’s no dog easier to kick that someone with addictions.
Hobojoe- on
The mental shortcut many people take is quite fascinating.
Supervised consumption site –> ??? —> crime.
It’s just lazy thinking.
The_Arachnoshaman on
It’s really upsetting that people don’t just see this as an extension of emergency rooms. It’s there to prevent people from just straight up dying, and it works.
Conservatives think in black and white, they hate ambiguity, so they spin endless bullshit to justify an original position that they have no intention of ever thinking twice about. They never talk about things in a way that seeks truth, they simply want to assert their opinion.
The only reason to oppose safe use sites, is because you want addicts to die as a consequence of drug use.
ontariopiper on
Ford seems to be preoccupied with how safe people FEEL in neighborhoods with safe injection sites rather than how factually safe they ARE in those neighborhoods. Those are not the same metrics.
Macqt on
Is this from the same batch of reports that were all based on a handful of information and deliberately designed to favour the SIS? From groups that advocate for drug users and homeless people?
I’m gonna guess so given that the most recent study ignored several crime metrics (which skyrocketed) to make their claim.
6 Comments
>The finding that crime did not increase mirrors results from other cities, though the decline was less expected and is not fully understood.
>
>Panagiotoglou said police may have stepped up patrols early on, which could help explain why some crime rose briefly before declining.
This was my immediate thought as well. Police are likely to stick around supervised consumption sites if even to serve as a concession to the public for their opening.
Besides this, this article is not particularly insightful. Some areas saw a drop in crime, some saw it stay the same. And there seems to be no clear answer as to why.
I haven’t read the study itself, so that could offer more.
Of course it’s a myth, but society loves nothing better to moralize, and there’s no dog easier to kick that someone with addictions.
The mental shortcut many people take is quite fascinating.
Supervised consumption site –> ??? —> crime.
It’s just lazy thinking.
It’s really upsetting that people don’t just see this as an extension of emergency rooms. It’s there to prevent people from just straight up dying, and it works.
Conservatives think in black and white, they hate ambiguity, so they spin endless bullshit to justify an original position that they have no intention of ever thinking twice about. They never talk about things in a way that seeks truth, they simply want to assert their opinion.
The only reason to oppose safe use sites, is because you want addicts to die as a consequence of drug use.
Ford seems to be preoccupied with how safe people FEEL in neighborhoods with safe injection sites rather than how factually safe they ARE in those neighborhoods. Those are not the same metrics.
Is this from the same batch of reports that were all based on a handful of information and deliberately designed to favour the SIS? From groups that advocate for drug users and homeless people?
I’m gonna guess so given that the most recent study ignored several crime metrics (which skyrocketed) to make their claim.