Quote:
Originally Posted by puckluck
Really? did you read the comment I responded to?
Seems like you imagined what he said.
Detroit was the first city that came to mind. I could have used every single city in Canada and the U.S and my argument would be the same and valid. The economy doesn't effect drug dealers. People that are going to get high are not going to let anything stop them and these are the people that are breaking into cars at night and robbing people in their homes, and I think you know that. You made up an argument and argued with something I never said.
Bottom line is that the current economy doesn't equal less drugs and doesn't equal less crime.
|
I think Valo has pretty much covered most of what I would have said on this topic. I made a very simple statement, overly simple in fact. I suppose I could have gone into greater lengths but the huge spike in crime in Calgary, by seemingly all accounts was gang activity and turf wars over the drug trade which boomed along with the city. The thriving economy saw more people come into large sums of money then they knew what to do with so they blew it on many excesses including booze, drugs and hookers. This boom also saw many transient/non-calgarians come into the city who have since left once the work dried up.
Contrary to what you believe not every person who uses drugs, especially recreationally, is an addict who stop at nothing to get their next fix.
Finally, comparing Detroit to Calgary is idiotic on so many levels. The social problems that Detroit has are rooted in a stratification system that goes back centuries in addition to many other things.