dopetalk does not endorse any advertised product nor does it accept any liability for it's use or misuse

This website has run out of funding so feel free to contribute if you can afford it (see footer)

Author Topic: How the cell phone helped reduce drug-related gang deaths  (Read 148 times)

Offline Chip (OP)

  • Server Admin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Join Date: Dec 2014
  • Location: Australia
  • Posts: 6502
  • Reputation Power: 0
  • Chip has hidden their reputation power
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:September 15, 2021, 10:58:57 AM
  • Deeply Confused Learner
  • Profession: IT Engineer
How the cell phone helped reduce drug-related gang deaths
« on: June 01, 2019, 03:33:09 PM »
source: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-the-cell-phone-helped-reduce-drug-related-gang-deaths-2019-05-29

How the cell phone helped reduce drug-related gang deaths

May 29, 2019

Quote
When users had cell phones, they didn?t have to buy on the corner
, study co-author Lena Edlund said.

The increased use of cell phones reduced U.S. homicide rates in the 1990s, according to new research distributed by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

The popularity of cell phones undermined the turf-based business model for illegal drug dealing, a co-author of the study suggests. That, in turn, may have undercut street gangs’ drug profits.

The researchers found the link between mainstreamed cell-phone service and the reduction in 1990s homicide rates after analyzing data from 1970 to 2009. Homicides declined by about 10,000 between 1990 and 2000, they found.

The study, entitled “It’s the Phone, Stupid: Mobiles and Murder,” estimated that roughly 1,900 to 2,900 of that decrease could be explained by the mainstreaming of cell phones.

Cell phones may have been behind the decline in violent crime in the 1990s by reducing drug-related deaths, said co-author Lena Edlund, an associate professor of economics at Columbia University. “When users had cell phones, they didn’t have to buy on the corner,” Edlund told MarketWatch. “The street market for drugs became less important.”

Edlund and co-author Cecilia Machado, an assistant professor at the Getulio Vargas Foundation in Rio de Janeiro, propose that the cell phone effectively cut out the middleman. Phones also allowed parties to handle payment and delivery separately, they said, potentially reducing the likelihood of an altercation.

“A move away from turf-based dealing may have reduced the ability to cartelize drug sales, dented profits, and dulled the allure of gang life,” the authors added.

‘A move away from turf-based dealing may have reduced the ability to cartelize drug sales, dented profits, and dulled the allure of gang life.’
—’It’s the Phone, Stupid: Mobiles and Murder.’
Edlund and Machado examined county-level mortality data from the vital statistics system and mortality data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s supplementary homicide reports (SHR), using the density of antenna structures (like towers) as a proxy for cell-phone service expansion.

The researchers found stronger effects among male black or Hispanic victims. They also saw stronger effects for homicide categories more closely linked with drugs and gangs (“Narcotics-gang,” “Argument” and “Theft”) and observed concentrated effects in urban counties, where turf wars tend to play out. And there was no effect on “wife killings,” they wrote, “consistent with gang members or drug dealers not being the marrying kind.”

As for more recent year-over-year increases in violent crime — the U.S. murder rate increased in 2015 and 2016, for example — Edlund and Machado pointed out that homicide rates had remained relatively low, suggesting a “fundamental regime shift” overall.

“This research suggests that no, they’re not going back up again,” Edlund said. “The market for drugs has changed, and we’re not going back to the street business model.”
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
I do not condone or support any illegal activities. All information is for theoretical discussion and wonder.
All activities discussed are considered fictional and hypothetical. Information of all discussion has been derived from online research and in the spirit of personal Freedom.

Tags:
 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
4400 Views
Last post December 02, 2015, 04:48:55 AM
by DeadCat
4 Replies
3595 Views
Last post December 05, 2015, 11:27:42 PM
by corlene
0 Replies
2412 Views
Last post September 07, 2016, 05:18:25 PM
by Chip
5 Replies
894 Views
Last post June 06, 2017, 07:44:30 AM
by Z
6 Replies
4724 Views
Last post July 02, 2017, 06:27:56 AM
by FreedomOrBust
0 Replies
1623 Views
Last post May 02, 2018, 05:51:00 PM
by Chip
0 Replies
967 Views
Last post June 01, 2019, 03:04:52 PM
by Chip
0 Replies
1240 Views
Last post June 30, 2019, 08:48:07 AM
by Chip
0 Replies
1249 Views
Last post September 06, 2019, 07:11:38 AM
by Chip
0 Replies
4047 Views
Last post November 30, 2019, 03:36:28 AM
by Chip


dopetalk does not endorse any advertised product nor does it accept any liability for it's use or misuse





TERMS AND CONDITIONS

In no event will d&u or any person involved in creating, producing, or distributing site information be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, punitive, special or consequential damages arising out of the use of or inability to use d&u. You agree to indemnify and hold harmless d&u, its domain founders, sponsors, maintainers, server administrators, volunteers and contributors from and against all liability, claims, damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from the use of any part of the d&u site.


TO USE THIS WEBSITE YOU MUST AGREE TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ABOVE


Founded December 2014
SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal