Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

whaletacochamp t1_j2s2bxn wrote

Well this ought to be a calm and productive thread.

125

SemperFuu t1_j2ubcjd wrote

I found heavy cream thanks to r/Burlington , it’ll be alright

3

sneakpeekbot t1_j2ubdtr wrote

Here's a sneak peek of /r/burlington using the top posts of the year!

#1: Found a diamond ring in my creme brulee
#2: Hey! They made some sauce to pair well with the boots you all like to lick in this sub! | 135 comments
#3: Snow Squall on 2/27/22 | 16 comments

^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^Contact ^^| ^^Info ^^| ^^Opt-out ^^| ^^GitHub

2

sound_of_apocalypto t1_j2sit5c wrote

But if you look at murders statewide over time the numbers are virtually unchanged over the past 20 years.

67

feistygerbils t1_j2slo1f wrote

There you go again with your rational use of data instead of focusing on random short-term deviations.

76

SemperFuu t1_j2ubqz7 wrote

Long term, humans have been in this region for 12,000 to 100,000 years ago, so murder is way down. Ancient Apocalypse, I’m here!

2

_foxmotron_ t1_j2s8wsb wrote

Statistical anomaly until we have more data in the future.

35

Hulk_Runs t1_j2t3d0a wrote

There were zero murders the prior two years and averaging 1 a year for many years before that. Brushing it off as a statistical anomaly is exactly what researchers do when presented with information that doesn’t conform to their views.

If there were 20 murders would you also just call that a statistical anomaly? What type of data do you require?

Edit: god I forgot how awful the people on this sub are. Truly bottom the barrel.

−10

_foxmotron_ t1_j2t52t7 wrote

Hypothetically- On Monday you find a dollar on the ground. Tuesday you find nothing. Wednesday you find a dollar. Thursday you find nothing. Friday you find nothing. Saturday you find a twenty.

What’s the likely outcome for Sunday? It’s entirely possible that every day after you find a twenty, but the data you have suggests that MOST LIKELY you find nothing, and that Saturday was a statistical anomaly.

You can’t assume the worst, because of hypotheticals. You have to use the actual data available at the moment, and adjust when new data becomes available.

17

Hulk_Runs t1_j2t879u wrote

I haven’t assumed anything. Brushing it off as a statistic anomaly is lazy, as well as avoiding my questions. Your analogy is poor as it uses value rather than occurrences. A better, albeit still shitty one, is finding a dollar in the ground and then finding 5 separate dollars on the ground the next day. It’s still a bad comparison as a lot less goes into someone dropping money than murder. If there were 100 murders last year, saying “let’s see if there are 100 murders next year to know if something is different here” I think we can agree would be quite moronic.

−11

_foxmotron_ t1_j2t9fuv wrote

You understand that making up huge numbers doesn’t prove your point right?

I did answer the question. Based on the actual data available 5 murders is a statistical anomaly. When more data is available then trends can be identified.

3

Hulk_Runs t1_j2to4c6 wrote

Why doesn’t it prove my point? Are there numbers that don’t qualify as statistic anomalies? What data are you referring to? More years? This isn’t a hard question you’re avoiding.

−1

_foxmotron_ t1_j2tsl2w wrote

It doesn’t prove your point, because we know the actual number, and I based my statement on that. Making me defend that statement based on different numbers is the definition of a straw man argument.

I haven’t avoided the question once. I didn’t think this needed to be clarified. The data we’re dealing with is “number of murders per year.” Unless that number stays the same, or goes up over several years then a trend can be identified. Until then it’s a statistical anomaly.

8

Hulk_Runs t1_j2txm3n wrote

Forcing you to apply your own logic to other scenarios is strawman? You’ve got to be kidding me. There’s no magic to the number 5. You either apply statistical anomalies consistently or it’s a catchphrase you like throwing around for any number of reasons.

Does your statistical anomaly definition (which seems to get more amorphous as this conversation continues) apply to hate crimes? So if hate crimes went up 500% in a year woild your response be “more data needed to determine if statistical anomaly or not”?

0

VTHockey11 t1_j2uc8z8 wrote

No offense, but it seems like the argument has gone over your head.

Yes, if crime went up 500% in one year it would be a statistical anomaly. The argument is that you can't draw conclusions from a single years worth of data. If next year there are again 5 murders or even more then we can gain confidence that this is a trend, but again, we'd need more data.

A statistical anomaly is simply a number that is much greater than normal. If it becomes the norm (I. E. Over the years this rate of murder becomes typical) then it would no longer be an anomaly.

Another example that may help is football. Let's say the Pats score 17 points per game, on average, over the first ten games of the season and then score 45 in week 11. Do you assume that they will continue scoring 45 or similarly high scores moving forward? Or do you assume it's a blip?

My assumption here is that you would assume it's a blip BUT if the Pats continues to score that much week-after-week you could determine that something has changed. You simply can't assume that because murders were high in one year that it will continue, especially when historically murders are low or non-existent. It's an outlier.

I'm not sure what exactly your argument is but it doesn't make sense from a scientific standpoint. You may be confident this is the new norm in Burlington but until the data backs that up with multiple years of a similar trend all you are doing is jumping to conclusions.

I don't understand why you don't get that, but hopefully this helped a bit.

6

Hulk_Runs t1_j2uqgm0 wrote

I appreciate what you’re saying and I even more appreciate your honest attempt at talking through it, so thank you for that. I promise I understand that viewpoint 100%.

There’s a number of issues I took with the initial statement:

  • you could just as easily argue it’s not a statistical anomaly until you have future years of data. The same way we cannot state it’s a trend is the exact same reason you cannot treat it as an anomaly.

  • I say “you could just as easily argue…” as it’s a very general term with a lot of meanings depending on how broadly one applies it. “Anomalies are patterns in data that do not conform to a well defined notion of normal behavior” is one definition I found. Just because there is a trend upward over the next few years doesn’t actually mean it’s not an anomaly either over a much broader period. If the trend continues for 3 years then recedes, one could still say define that period as a statistical anomaly over a broader time frame.

  • the framing of statistical anomaly was also used selectively as it applies to the city. How does the trend match up against the state, the country, with crime in those places, with drug use? A trend could easily already well be there. Even the time frame is selective. Again, the application was so general it renders it nearly meaningless.

  • this culminates to my ultimate point that it was an incredibly crass and dismissive statement about murder in the state. If that exact same statement were made about an increase in hate crimes every one of you would loose your collective shit and I strongly suspect it would have never been said. The comment was not helpful and only seemingly accurate in the blandest definition.

Given this, what was the point of the statement? I have guesses but they’re beside the point. Ultimately it only serves to shut down conversation about what is driving the murders and treat them as statistics rather than understanding causes.

1

_foxmotron_ t1_j2tzcl2 wrote

Really setting up the straw men now aren’t we?

3

Hulk_Runs t1_j2u6ekx wrote

No it’s not. So we’re clear, your definition of statistic anomalies does not apply to murders over 5 or hate crimes?

0

_foxmotron_ t1_j2u8lla wrote

They don’t pertain to what we’re talking about.

3

TheTowerBard t1_j2taoyi wrote

Honestly you are both fools. According to FBI data there are somewhere between 25-50 active serial killers in the United States at any given time. Based on the stereotypical profile of serial killers and the fact that Vermont is the second whitest state in the country, it is highly likely there is at least one active serial killer in Vermont. Considering we are unaware of this hypothetical person and their hypothetical crimes, it stands to reason that the murder rate could be much much higher than we know. EVERYONE PANIC!!!!

Sarcasm aside, Foxmotron absolutely answered your question/issue properly and I'm sorry you are too immature to see that. Keep calm and panic on, my friend.

2

Hulk_Runs t1_j2tot55 wrote

You say they answered my question. Please quote me where they answered what type of data is required and if 20 murders can also be considered a statistical anomaly - because I’m not seeing it. I’m pressing on this because seeing a bump in stats and just calling it a statistical anomaly is not how statistics work - it’s laziness and ignorance dressed as pseudo intellectualism.

−2

VTHockey11 t1_j2ud3h6 wrote

Statistical anomalies and understanding the difference between an anomaly, a trend, etc. Is how statistics work. It's exactly how they work. I've already said this once, but I don't get your argument. It sounds like you are saying we should assume this is the new normal even though we just have one year's worth of data. That isn't how statistics work, and any scientist or data analyst or anyone else with a background in data would tell you that you are incorrectly jumping to conclusions.

5

_foxmotron_ t1_j2ttxhb wrote

Seeing a one time bump in stats after the stats have remained consistent for X years is the definition of a statistical anomaly. My initial comment literally said “Statistical anomaly until WE HAVE MORE DATA IN THE FUTURE.”

3

somedudevt t1_j2urzy0 wrote

But who cares if it’s an anomaly today? You are pretending that we shouldn’t act till we have more data. You must work in some corporate job where they just look at data and take no action.

January 6th 2021 had multiple people die in the transfer of power in the US. This was the first time in US history this happened. Statistically that’s an anomaly. But I bet you would agree that there is a problem with our democracy when that happens? Similarly these murders are a symptom of an issue and calling them an anomaly and writing them off is shortsighted and ignoring reality. Everyone sees the issue and anyone who pretends we don’t have data to say there is an issue is trying to avoid the truth.

The issue in a nutshell is drugs, poverty, and police who are afraid of being labeled biased or racist for doing the proactive policing and community outreach needed to reduce the crime.

1

_foxmotron_ t1_j2us9ie wrote

Care to show where I said we should take no action?

1

somedudevt t1_j2ut38d wrote

You said it’s an anomaly till we have more data. That is saying that we should wait for data before we think it’s worth addressing. It’s implied in the statement. Gathering more data is inaction. I can’t be alone in recognizing that the entire world is broken… nobody trusts instinct and observation any longer. Everything is crippled by waiting for data, which is then argued over. Look at the world warming and species dying while people argue over data. This is another case of that. It’s an anomaly we don’t need to act. Nobody wants to make a decision and take an action.

0

_foxmotron_ t1_j2utw2q wrote

That’s you making assumptions about my intent. I’m not responsible for your assumptions.

0

somedudevt t1_j2uu5ga wrote

So let’s be clear:

Do you believe that there is an issue in need of addressing?

0

_foxmotron_ t1_j2uuvpw wrote

Do I think that there’s an issue that will lead to a trend in rising murder rates? Probably not. Do I think issues that exist that by solving would probably lower the crime rate in general? One hundred percent.

2

Hulk_Runs t1_j2txs6v wrote

How many years?

−1

_foxmotron_ t1_j2u38km wrote

However many it takes to see a trend.

“Burlington had more murders in 2022”, and, “There’s no indication that murder rates are on the rise in Burlington” can both be true statements.

2

Background-Ad114 t1_j2tq1vm wrote

> What type of data do you require?

At least as much data as you have for "many years before that."

4

Hulk_Runs t1_j2txxsn wrote

Okay, so we need 10 years to determine if we should be concerned about this or not?

1

Background-Ad114 t1_j2u1qx0 wrote

"Concerned", I always have a high degree of situational awareness so 5 murders or 5000 murders I'm going to be the same person. But if you want to be able to say that something isn't an anomaly you're going to need more data.

But let's assume that you are 1000% correct in whatever you are assuming, what is the solution? If you know how to stop crime from growing I'm sure you will find yourself quite wealthy.

1

Loudergood t1_j2u3jno wrote

Odds are, all your math teachers are crying right now.

4

Hulk_Runs t1_j2u6raf wrote

That thought came into your head and you actively went ahead and posted it. Impressive.

−9

username802 t1_j2upz4l wrote

He’s saying you need future data points to put this year into context before being able to say if 2022 is an anomaly or the beginning of an upward trend. It has nothing to do with belief, it’s just math.

3

Hulk_Runs t1_j2uuejw wrote

You need future data to know if it’s an anomaly.

0

blE3p_bl00p t1_j2yu5ob wrote

yes that's how math works. You can't say it's a trend until you can define the trend.... right now it's an anomaly - sorry the math upsets you

1

Hulk_Runs t1_j2z18yd wrote

I’m not saying it’s a trend though. I’m saying the same reason you can’t know it’s a trend is the same reason you don’t know it’s an anomaly.

0

blE3p_bl00p t1_j348n3l wrote

So what do you want to call it if the term anomaly bothers you so much?

Without more data, it IS an anomaly, and it COULD potentially become a trend but for now it is anomalous as we don't have more data... that's the word for it.

Sorry words bug you so much...kinda funny though, snowflakey thing to want to argue about.

2

ChocolateDiligent t1_j2t0bkw wrote

What are the causes of this?

Material conditions like wealth inequality, cost of living, drug addiction, mental health issues, etc. Most likely an anomaly, as seeing that previous years nothing has drastically happened to change the material conditions of residents that I listed above. If anything 2020-21 were also anomalies as well given Covid restrictions and the impact that had on society overall.

22

Hulk_Runs t1_j2t3w2m wrote

Let’s add the return of the McRib as a reason since we’re just saying anything that could potentially stick.

−1

EffectiveSwitch4 t1_j2s6vc8 wrote

What happened in 1960?

16

SkiingAway t1_j2ta77m wrote

> Department records suggest the five homicides reported this year and in 1960 could be the most ever, Acting Police Chief Jon Murad said in an email. Because the department's older records are incomplete, he said he couldn't be sure.

So pretty much the most since we started keeping accurate records.

8

No-Ganache7168 t1_j2sh7qu wrote

I do t think this has anything to do with police force cuts. All of the accused murderers and victims are from the same demographic. Newspapers have reported that their communities are working to address the issues that led to the violence to prevent it from happening again.

I would say that releasing drug dealers is going to result in more people using drugs and committing crimes to support their habit. Releasing people arrested for violent acts ensures we’ll see more violence.

15

BoringAccountName78 OP t1_j2vjsr7 wrote

If we're going to do a comparison, here are some other cities in the area we can compare Burlington to:

​

Burlington, VT, 5 murders, murder rate: 11.2/100,000

NYC, 419 murders, murder rate: 4.8/100,000

Boston, 41 murders, murder rate: 6.1/100,000

​

Here's a list of more rates around New England:

​

https://www.city-data.com/forum/city-vs-city/3328958-city-metro-homicides-2022-a-246.html

​

Once again, this could just be a statistical anomaly. But if we're going to compare cities, we should look at the rates, not just the totals.

10

Embracing_life t1_j2wsozw wrote

Meanwhile, in my neck of the woods (family in Vermont though):

Baltimore: Homicide Rate: 56/100k Shooting Rate: 167/100k

2

SemperFuu t1_j2ucddf wrote

We need a Taco Bell

8

blE3p_bl00p t1_j2uej7c wrote

wasn't the answer something very stupid... 'affiliate groups' but definitely not gangs.. Pretty sure the papers already solved that one.

6

MRCHEEZETACO t1_j2soj0e wrote

Not to be this guy but 5 isn’t alot. Unfortunately these things happen sometimes.

4

Hulk_Runs t1_j2t3xss wrote

Sure dude. Whatever you say.

−9

MRCHEEZETACO t1_j2tie0p wrote

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/murder-rate-by-state

4

Hulk_Runs t1_j2tp5c6 wrote

Is your point that a lot of murders happen elsewhere in higher crime areas so it doesn’t matter even though they historically haven’t happened here? What is the amount of murders you should see in Burlington before it’s no longer “these things happen sometimes”?

4

CheesusCheesus t1_j2uk0yq wrote

"murder" is a really strong term.

From now on, can we call it "assisted unliving"?

4

Comfortable-Job-6236 t1_j2t5804 wrote

We just had the 24th murder of 2022 in St. Johnsbury last week! All drug related.

3

mrbohannon0 t1_j2sspik wrote

honest answer?? or the answer the politicians will tell you?

1

Live-Vermicelli-8771 t1_j2w66o0 wrote

Funny how 60s had a similar political climate to nowadays and both rival each other for highest murder rates👍

1

[deleted] t1_j2ryg2b wrote

[deleted]

0

[deleted] t1_j2s1kv1 wrote

Dude its only 5. That would be a "good weekend" for any other major city.

0

canadacorriendo785 t1_j2sgl46 wrote

That's more murders in a year than Holyoke, Mass with almost exactly the same population as Burlington, has recorded since 2005.

10

mattgm1995 t1_j2uhv0c wrote

But Burlington isn’t a major city lol. There’s like 2 major streets and 40k people lol. It would be considered a medium sized town in any state with an actual major city

9

[deleted] t1_j2uul00 wrote

What is the major city in Vermont if not this one

1

mattgm1995 t1_j2uv5yx wrote

It is a “city” but you referenced it to ‘this would be a good weekend in any other major city’. Boston has 20x the population of Burlington. New York has 200x the population of Burlington. Burlington is absolutely not a major city lol. It has the same population as Salem MA, where the which trials were. It’s ⅓ the size of Manchester NH, also not a major city. Its a tiny city.

2

[deleted] t1_j2woedn wrote

What's your answer then

0

mattgm1995 t1_j2wsatu wrote

You didn’t qualify that it was within Vermont, you referred to Burlington in the same lens as much larger cities where 5 murders a weekend would be a nice break lol. Sure, Burlington is the major city of Vermont. It is absolutely not a major city

1

[deleted] t1_j2wzh8g wrote

[removed]

0

mattgm1995 t1_j2x06bm wrote

I’m sorry you’re so sheltered in VT that you think Burlington is comparable to NYC, Chicago, La, Houston, hell even a medium sized city like Boston.

2

[deleted] t1_j2x2g99 wrote

I lived in New York City for 15 years.

What type of autistic are you? Trains? Elevators? Guns?

​

[edit] ok i looked its guns. please don't shoot me

1

mattgm1995 t1_j2x2tv8 wrote

I’m sorry that that’s your response in 2023.

2

[deleted] t1_j2x4o0y wrote

(rainman voice) I’m sorry that that’s your response in 2023.

1

Walnut2001 t1_j2syvyn wrote

I don’t think you have ever been to a real city if you think Burlington is a “major city” most towns have higher population than our “city”

7

[deleted] t1_j2t4a3r wrote

I lived in Manhattan for 10 years but tell me more about cities.

−5

Walnut2001 t1_j2t5h1p wrote

Then why tf would u call Burlington a major city 😂

6

thisoneisnotasbad t1_j2ucy8p wrote

I got downvoted a bunch a while back for pointing this out. The UN and a bunch of other international organizations got together to define what a “city” was. The general consensus was at least 50k people. Burlington doesn’t even qualify.

>The degree of urbanization is a modern metric to help define what comprises a city: "a population of at least 50,000 inhabitants in contiguous dense grid cells (>1,500 inhabitants per square kilometer)".[19] This metric was "devised over years by the European Commission, OECD, World Bank and others, and endorsed in March [2021] by the United Nations... largely for the purpose of international statistical comparison".[20]

https://blogs.worldbank.org/sustainablecities/how-do-we-define-cities-towns-and-rural-areas

5

[deleted] t1_j2t868n wrote

Is it not a major city of Vermont?

−4

Walnut2001 t1_j2t8mlx wrote

Yeah but that’s not the point. You were trying to compare the “5 murders this year” statistic to actually major cities. NYC has a population of 8.468 million, Burlington’s population is 44,781...

5

[deleted] t1_j2tb9ui wrote

There were only 5 people killed there.

−5

inthepines3000 t1_j2sj751 wrote

Any other major city? Burlington is a neighborhood in a major city.

5

Corey307 t1_j2saof0 wrote

What you’re saying is extremely disingenuous, the Burlington murder rate was higher than the city of Los Angeles murder rate in 2021 adjusting for population. It’s like saying that big cities have way more total car thefts than Burlington when Burlington is quite competitive for number of car thefts adjusting to population.

−2

[deleted] t1_j2scpe5 wrote

How much are you paid by the cops to post this shit all day

3

Corey307 t1_j2sfunf wrote

All day is hilarious, I’ve talked about it maybe 2-3 times in the past 2 years. Keep pretending your fake progressive wonderland is going just fine. You don’t know what real progressivism is because your stuck in your bubble.

1

[deleted] t1_j2shidn wrote

Ok maybe i was wrong--you're a bot...

2

Corey307 t1_j2si5q0 wrote

Says the two month old account. People can have opposing viewpoints. I’m all for progressivism regarding how we treat criminals, the prison should focus on helping people instead of punishing them, teaching them real job skills and giving them mental health treatment. but people who commit crimes need to go to prison and the profoundly mentally ill need to be in humane treatment facilities.

1

[deleted] t1_j2sjxve wrote

Your programming is terrible. Dev if you can read this please reboot it

6

beep_check t1_j2s1zys wrote

but Burlington is not a "major city"

the city council cut 33% of the police force with no reallocation of funding for public safety. crime is way up in Burlington as a direct result of this foolish move by amateur politicians.

−11

[deleted] t1_j2s42hd wrote

[deleted]

28

HappilyhiketheHump t1_j2s5n3p wrote

Refunding shows that the city council figured out they screwed up. The bonuses are because the people doing the job quit and said “fuck off” to the pricks who persecuted them as a group for the horrible actions of a couple cops in Minneapolis.

They quit, as is their right. They don’t have to come back for more money. The fact that Burlington isn’t getting tons of applicants given the pay they are offering gives insight into how cops view the leaders of the city.

Who wants to work for bosses who are openly hostile to their employees?

−10

[deleted] t1_j2s93xc wrote

[deleted]

18

HappilyhiketheHump t1_j2stv45 wrote

No one is ignoring that or suggesting we ignore that.

But we can’t ignore the stupid move by the city council either.

You wouldn’t ignore that would you?

Both can issues can and do exist at the same time.

0

[deleted] t1_j2sv332 wrote

[deleted]

3

HappilyhiketheHump t1_j2szvww wrote

So you won’t acknowledge the screwup by the city council. Why not?

2

Corey307 t1_j2sba2o wrote

Burlington had 93 cops before the defund movement took off with a maximum of 100. That number dropped down to 60 at one point, nothing you say can invalidate this. And of course they’re having a hard time hiring when no cash bail means people commit crimes even violent crimes and a right back out on the street within a day to commit more crimes including violent crimes. I’ve talked to some Burlington police about this and they’ve been candid about how it feels to arrest criminals who get released within hours and go commit more crimes. A lot of them do genuinely care about their job and the community beyond they can’t get anything done.

−8

[deleted] t1_j2s32tq wrote

What does that have to do with it? Cops don't prevent murders.

New York City has something like 35,000 uniformed police officers and the city averages almost 2 murders every day.

10

beep_check t1_j2sexxx wrote

they also have 8.8M people as of 2020.

if your numbers on nyc homicide rates are correct that's

2.2 x 365 / 8.8M x 100000

9.1 murders per annum per 100,000 people

while burlington's number is

5 / 44,890 x 100000

11.1

2

VTPeWPeW247 t1_j2sa1r9 wrote

What are the causes of this? Research each of the 5 homicides and see if there is a common thread. It doesn’t interest me, but I already have a hypothesis.

−2

Corey307 t1_j2sai3n wrote

Most were drugs, one was a murder suicide and the suicide doesn’t count toward the five murders last year.

3

VTPeWPeW247 t1_j2sj3ml wrote

Yep, drugs. But that won’t be what gets addressed. A small group of people will rally to take away rights from the rest of us because they are scared and want their Liberal Utopia without the unpleasant consequences.

−5

Corey307 t1_j2t4dch wrote

Burlington is already trying to pass some gun free zone bullshit which will accomplish nothing because criminals don’t heed no gun signs. I do they’re rare in the state but the few times a business has had a sign I didn’t go in if I was carrying. Likewise I wouldn’t carry on to somebody’s bro, I respect property rights. Criminals obviously do not and it’s not like people are getting prosecuted for crimes.

5

ButterscotchFiend t1_j2smhe4 wrote

yo, enlighten us with your hypothesis

2

VTPeWPeW247 t1_j2son6c wrote

If Reddit wasn’t just an echo chamber for people who only want their views validated not challenged, I would. But Reddit is an echo chamber, so downvote away. Yo.

−3

Background-Ad114 t1_j2toast wrote

> Research each of the 5 homicides and see if there is a common thread.

I don't know if I'd start doing too much research because I wonder what we will find if we continue researching back through time. Especially in a state like Vermont where historically the variety of 'threads' hasn't been that varied lol.

0

timberwolf0122 t1_j2ucupw wrote

So it seems drug use is a big driver. With that in mind I think the state should set up safe injection sites that offer free drugs.

WHAT?!? Are you mad??

No, no, but I’ll feed you baby birds.

Economics. Drug dealers make money from selling drugs, this money is the driver for drug supply violence

People addicted to drugs need money to buy the drugs, this drives various crimes from white collar embezzlement to good old fashioned armed robbery.

Finally drugs bought on the street are not regulated by the FDA, there’s no safety standards and no guarantee that they aren’t laced with something much worse or cut with asbestos. This drives ER visit, visits that aren’t cheap.

So, safe injection sites that initially provide testing for products purchased on the street then a doctors prescription for said drugs (with $0 copay) as the first step towards tackling the addiction Rob’s dealers of revenue, puts addicts in touch with the resources they need, saves them money, reduces crime and ER visits.

Who knows part of th funding could come from the defund the police initiative seeing as that was what that actually meant (sweat to go people who come up with these names need to work ship them first)

−2

Jack_Soul_Brazil t1_j2wgobn wrote

Making drugs free won't stop junkies from doing junkie shit my guy. They still won't be able to hold down jobs or pay bills or take care of their kids. My little town is completely overrun now with drug enthusiasts and on a human level I feel bad for them. For what they've become because of drugs, not because they can't pay for drugs. Guess you'll have to keep stealing catalytic converters.

4

thisoneisnotasbad t1_j2ypaxn wrote

> Making drugs free won't stop junkies from doing junkie shit my guy.

What? It does exactly that. That is the whole basis of replacement therapy which is the most successful method to treat opiate addiction.

5

timberwolf0122 t1_j2wh7jt wrote

It’s not often I see someone refute their own point that quickly without realizing.

Addiction is hard for people to break, I don’t mean couch to 5k hard I mean feeling like you are gonna die because your brain is now wired to need an opioid just to function.

Free drugs won’t stop addict using, that’s not the problem it’s solving, it’s solving 4 other issues.

  1. money funding gangs and associated violence
  2. money needed to buy drugs resulting in catalytic converter thefts
  3. reducing harm from unsanitary injections, ODs and impure drugs
  4. it places drug users within easy access of professional help. Something most dealer don’t provide.
3

raz0rsnak3 t1_j2sbenc wrote

Yeah, I got in a big argument with someone when I made the statement that "Crime is on the increase in Burlington"...

−4

alienwarezftw t1_j2scc8p wrote

So is Vermont anti police it’s really sad to see Burlington cut 33%

−24

[deleted] t1_j2si048 wrote

Stay in Seattle you cop

4

alienwarezftw t1_j2silpx wrote

Haha moving back to east coast near my parents looking for which state in NE I’m living in

−4

[deleted] t1_j2skypn wrote

Maybe they can teach you how to speak English

2

alienwarezftw t1_j2soe4i wrote

Haha I never get people like you so critical on grammar in Reddit post’s obviously don’t have anything good to say back so you talk about my grammar

−5

[deleted] t1_j2sovq1 wrote

You must be the smartest cop at your precinct.

4