UK - Drugs fuel increase in burglaries

[edgarshade]

Oxford Mail

9:30am Thursday 12th April 2012

By Laura Jones

With reader comments

BURGLARIES of homes in Oxford have risen by almost a third, it was revealed last night. Police figures showed there were 640 reports of break ins during 2010/11, which leapt to 846 in 2011/12 – a rise of 32 per cent. But overall crime in the city fell 4.5 per cent, from 18,243 to 17,419, across the same period.

Oxford police commander, Acting Superintendent Chris Sharp, last night blamed drugs for the burglary spike. He said: “Almost 100 per cent of burglars have class A drug addictions and we know that because we test them when they come in to custody.” He added his officers had noted a rise in burglaries targeting just one room in a home, rather than break-ins where whole houses were ransacked. He said: “These are quick wins to get quick fixes to fund their drug habits.”

Mr Sharp said a specialist early intervention drugs unit had been set up to tackle drug-driven burglaries.

More...
http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/headlines/9643503.Drugs_fuel_increase_in_burglaries/

 

[DroneLore]

Okay, so all burglars are addicts. Does that make every addict a burglar? Not to mention that pissing dirty once is hardly indicative of addiction. This is a clear cut case of confusing correlation and causation, and neglecting the possibility of confounding variables, like poverty.

 

[Vader]

Okay, so all burglars are addicts. Does that make every addict a burglar?

All pro basketball players are men. Does that make every man a pro basketball player?

Not to mention that pissing dirty once is hardly indicative of addiction.

If you get caught burgling a house, and you test positive for, say, crack or heroin, I think it's fair to say that you don't have your usage under control.

This is a clear cut case of confusing correlation and causation, and neglecting the possibility of confounding variables, like poverty.

Well, the burglaries aren't causing the drug addiction, so I don't know how else you'd sensibly interpret the correlation. I'm sure everyone is well aware that these individuals are probably on lower incomes than the average.

 

[DroneLore]

Its entirely possible (very likely, even) that poverty is causing both addiction and burglary. Why not address the root of the problem?

Why don't cigarette smokers or alcoholics rob* as often as crackheads and junkies? Because their DOC is easy to access, and they don't pay ridiculously inflated prices for having them smuggled into the country, or to compensate for the extreme risk every dealer must assume. If heroin were bought and sold on a free market, it would probably be 10 - 100 times cheaper.

Oh yea, ever heard of the WNBA?

*Alcohol, however, is the drug that is most highly coordinated with acts of violence being committed under its influence.

 

[Newbierock]

^ These people are usually poverty stricken BECAUSE they're addicts.

If you've barely got enough to get by on and then go blowing it on drugs. It's your fault, not societys or povertys or whatever.

 

[Vader]

Oh yea, ever heard of the WNBA?

Have I fuck, I'm from the UK! OK, bad example, but you take my point.

Its entirely possible (very likely, even) that poverty is causing both addiction and burglary. Why not address the root of the problem?

I'm not sure to what extent burglary is directly caused by poverty. I accept that impoverished people are more likely to fall into drug addiction, but I don't think that many people are breaking into houses to get money for bread and rent.

Why don't cigarette smokers or alcoholics rob* as often as crackheads and junkies? Because their DOC is easy to access, and they don't pay ridiculously inflated prices for having them smuggled into the country, or to compensate for the extreme risk every dealer must assume. If heroin were bought and sold on a free market, it would probably be 10 - 100 times cheaper.

This is true, of course, but what's the upshot? The Oxford Mail isn't going to turn into the mouthpiece of the legalisation movement, they're just a local paper, reporting on an issue about as well as you could ask them to. I think that editorials about tackling poverty or legalising drugs are beyond the scope of the publication.

 

[DroneLore]

^ These people are usually poverty stricken BECAUSE they're addicts.

If you've barely got enough to get by on and then go blowing it on drugs. It's your fault, not societys or povertys or whatever.

Can you provide any sociological studies to back this up? One could just as easily say they turned to drugs because they were so overwhelmed by the stress that accompanies poverty, and the social stigmas surrounding it. If you're broke, stuck in a dead end job, in debt, and oh may god help you if you're a racial or ethnic minority (or a woman, or gay), it might just seem hopeless enough for you to turn to drugs because its not like sobriety has been working out for you. I am currently in the process of looking up articles, so maybe I am wrong. But I was wondering if you already had some academic information handy.

Or maybe what you say is true of their parents. Is it still their fault if they are emulating the only kind of behavior they've been exposed to, the only way they've been taught to live?

Have I fuck, I'm from the UK! OK, bad example, but you take my point.

I wasn't really sure what your point was! I was just pointing out a logical fallacy in the article that I could have spotted in first grade.

I'm not sure to what extent burglary is directly caused by poverty. I accept that impoverished people are more likely to fall into drug addiction, but I don't think that many people are breaking into houses to get money for bread and rent.

You're probably right. I bet they're more likely to sell drugs!

This is true, of course, but what's the upshot? The Oxford Mail isn't going to turn into the mouthpiece of the legalisation movement, they're just a local paper, reporting on an issue about as well as you could ask them to. I think that editorials about tackling poverty or legalising drugs are beyond the scope of the publication.

I think they have an agenda. Or at least lazy standards of journalism. Granted, the bar isn't set very high by mass media.


I want to make it clear I have no respect for petty thieves. Hell, I just recently had some scumbag try to trade an iPod he STOLE FROM ME for some molly. Luckily the dude he tried to pawn it too was cool, ripped him off and gave it back to me. I am just saying, drugs may be a perfect scapegoat but that doesn't mean they are actually the source of the problem.