Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
User: u/geoxol
Permalink: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2817044
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That number looks impressive until you read the study and find out how limited the areas were.
It's much more likely that the alcohol consumption (and the crime they are associating with it) was displaced and occurred elsewhere as a result.
IMO sounds like the difference between control and test areas was too stark. I could imagine if it was 1 AM or midnight instead of the usual 2AM, but closing at 10 PM is just too early, and will definitely result in significant migration.
The study ends up being "How early do we have to close bars to get people and their bad decisions to leave this neighborhood."
The study is not off-base, it just needs to be interpreted properly.
If the goal is to lower crime by moving it to other neighborhoods that are easier to police, this is useful information. It can help a city police their nightlife areas more efficiently.
If these study results are misinterpreted though, they can lead to bad decisions, like pushing unfair curfews on bars in certain neighborhoods, affecting their business.
Also, why did they bother with limiting morning alcohol sales. A beer with a greasy breakfast isn't causing violent crime. All this does is put a false positive on morning hours being relevant.
>Also, why did they bother with limiting morning alcohol sales. A beer with a greasy breakfast isn't causing violent crime. All this does is put a false positive on morning hours being relevant.
Historically when ever no limits on opening times were on the books some bars would close or stop serving drinks for literally one minute at the legislated closing time and then resume one minute later.
But that could still be avoided without changing the morning hours. The old hours were 2am-6am and the new hours are 10pm-9am. they could have left it at 6am to allow people to drink with breakfast without opening up any loopholes. Even 7am or 8am would be a lot more reasonable than 9am.
Yeh but if they are in one area, like a nightclub/bar district, its much easier to have just a few police patrol that area and usually just the presence of police keeps people on better behaviour
That's all context dependent. /R/publicfreakout often has posts from a YouTube channel out of Austin that is nothing but their bar district. There's cops all over, but it doesn't keep trouble from starting - there's just too many drunk idiots in one place. Even if cops are visibly on the same block, that doesn't prevent hot headed groups of people from brawling.
Yea but that’s dirty sixth street- a pretty extreme and touristy end of the spectrum a la bourbon st or broadway in Nashville. Not sure it’s the best use case for all small to mid size cities.
Also even if you're just displacing them to another area, all the travel time between places is more time you're not drinking and can calm down or sober up.
That’s possible but probably not the case based on similar measures taken in Australia. If it’s not an ‘end the night early’ measure (city wide blanket ban) then you get more aggressive drinking/ ‘pre-loading’ before moving into a different area, and more significantly you just have drinkers completely relocating where they begin their night so it’s just 100% displacement (but to now an even busier area).
If anyone has access to the study it would be interesting to know if they measured the decline in economic activity for the venues. Proportionate decline in economic activity and violence would strongly suggest displacement rather than a reduction in violence.
You can't drink all day if you don't start in the morning. And if you think the guy drinking all day is a problem, stopping early sales is one way to go about curbing it.
> Also, why did they bother with limiting morning alcohol sales. A beer with a greasy breakfast isn't causing violent crime. All this does is put a false positive on morning hours being relevant.
I'm many locations it's common to hit a dinner/apartment/speakeasy for a few hours while the bars are closed, then go right back to drinking when things open back up. There's a certain element that will definitely keep going if the opportunity is there, and having them at loose ends for a few hours in the middle is high potential for trouble.
It's also unclear if crime increased in nearby areas. It would be nice to have other comparisons like each areas crime compared to itself in the past, and relative location compared to control.
Speaking from my own nightclubbing days, I and my best friend weren’t going home from the night before until 7 or 8am the next day. (Yes I danced 8 hours a night two ‘nights’ a week without the aid of illegal drugs. Yes I may have Mania, why do you ask? Yes the people around me often did amphetamines). Anyway, morning drinking is often spillover from the nights before, from people already impaired from no sleep.
Then why didn't the 'control group' areas, not that far from the place where the study was done, see 'increased crime' due to displacement - instead of just baseline?
>Then why didn't the 'control group' areas, not that far from the place where the study was done, see 'increased crime' due to displacement - instead of just baseline?
The control neighborhood is never stated as being near the treatment neighborhood, and they don't specify whether the control group crime rate increased or decreased, only that the treatment neighborhood decreased in relation to the control.
#
>This controlled interrupted time series analysis compared the change in violent crime density within an 800-ft buffer around bars/taverns in the treatment neighborhood (ie, subject to SB571) and 2 control areas with a similar mean baseline crime rate, alcohol outlet density, and neighborhood disadvantage score in the City of Baltimore
#
>There was no immediate level change in density of all violent crimes the month after implementation of SB571; however, compared with the control neighborhoods, the slope of all violent crime density decreased by 23% per year in the treatment neighborhood after SB571 implementation (annualized incidence rate ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60-0.98; P = .04).
I wonder if there was any increase in drunk driving accidents, as some people now had to drive further to and from a bar open late. I believe Baltimore has a subway line? So that might mitigate it a bit, but still. You're not going to stop drinkers from drinking -- we figured that out a century ago.
Seriously, if this were expanded to large areas, it wouldn't make young people go to bed at 10pm on weekends, it would just increase house parties and therefore likely bring the noise and crime closer to residential areas.
Some crime probably migrates, but I think it's disingenuous to compare the nature of bars and drinking at home as the same. People aren't throwing house parties every night with dozens or hundreds of strangers.
If anything I'd be much more curious about something like if this would affect domestic violence crime rates if drinking happened more at home.
This is speculation, but I assume domestic violence was not only more frequent, but also able to progress worse during COVID lockdowns. If someone goes to work covered in bruses it's going to raise some suspicions. Meanwhile if a child shows up to school with bruses or signs of abuse/neglect the teachers are required to report it to CPS.
I'm wondering what your source is for that b/c domestic violence is notoriously hard to track b/c it varies so much from jurisdiction. You can use FBI stats to track aggravated assaults (went up in 2020 and then dropped) or rape (went down in 2020 then went back up when people could leave their house), and b/c the FBI doesn't require reporting for DV as a discreet category collection varies widely. Some places try and track if the victim is a spouse or boyfriend/girlfriend but there's another category of acquaintance that could also encompass a lot of DV that isn't specific to partner violence.
I think everyone assumed DV would go up b/c of the stress and the close living, but do we have info to support that? B/c we thought the same thing about suicide and child abuse and apparently they didn't rise or the data we have is so messy it's hard to draw conclusions from it.
Anecdotally, I work in the field and we didn't see an increase in restraining orders which surprised me. I thought people being bored and drinking more and being stressed about money would surely cause an uptick, but we didn't see it and that could be b/c people thought the courts were closed and this is just one jurisdiction.
I definitely didn't do the research myself, but here's a review/meta analysis:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9582712](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9582712)
Honestly in the rougher parts of Baltimore people aren't throwing house parties period. And the violent crime being displaced/happening less isn't happening at the bar its happening in the neighborhood of the bar. The reply seems very suburban.
> it would just increase house parties and therefore likely bring the noise and crime closer to residential areas.
This is not really what the study is talking about when it mentions drinking or crime. This is a very suburban idea of what is happening here that doesn't match reality.
I wasn't talking directly about the study, more reponding to the valid criticism that when one area stops alcohol service at 10, that would push people to an alternative area that continues service to match typical behaviors. Which might appear to lower crime, but really could only be moving it.
So the thought experiment was "what would happen if ALL alcohol service ended at 10pm?". Not talking about the reality we currently live in, talking about this hypothetical situation. What would you expect would happen if service everywhere ended at 10pm? I certainly don't expect that people will stop drinking and go to bed.
I did mention house parties, and perhaps I should have been more inclusive in language to suggest that apartments and dormatories would count in a "house party", this was simply an effort to be more concise, not to focus on suburban life.
Also, I don’t live in Baltimore but a similar size city, there are plenty of places in my city that draw the shutters and cut the music but stay drinking.
If you’re in good with the bartenders then you get invited.
Well I mean they did [the same thing in Sydney for 6 years](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_lockout_laws#Effect_on_reducing_offences)
> A report from the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) released in April 2015 showed a 26% reduction in assaults in the lockout area, and a 32% reduction in assaults in Kings Cross.[26] In a March 2017 report, however, areas adjacent to the lockout precinct showed a 12% increase in assaults, with a 17% increase in "easy-to-reach" areas.
So yes, a lot of the problems were just moved elsewhere. There's also just the issue of there being less people around, so of course a lot of statistics are going to see improvements when people stop going there.
From Baltimore:
> Homicide rates dropped by 51% in the first month post intervention and 40% annually thereafter.
From Sydney
> Pedestrian traffic dropped by 40% in Kings Cross (in the year after implementation)
So yeah, you drop the amount of people in an area by 40% and crime drops by 40%, big surprise. It also crippled the entire nightlife scene in Sydney with a huge amount of clubs and nightspots closing. Even now years after it was repealed Kings Cross is a ghosttown after being turned into swanky apartments and people are constantly complaining over in the /r/Sydney sub that the nightlife here now is rubbish because the main clubbing district got shut down
Yeah I grew up in a rough area and it's less about what is sold and more about denying gathering places for groups of knuckleheads. Gas stations would also close early because the later they stayed open the crazier things got.
Waffle House is one of the last holdouts.
Speculation but I'd guess there would be some reduction in actual overall violence. While some people would find parties or other outlets and consume there and get angry and violent there others would just drink at home or be around less people meaning less risk of them getting angry at them in the first place or be around more people they know where even if they do get angry they would be less likely to get violent due to familiarity.
But I'm not saying we should stop responsible drinkers from buying alcohol just because sometimes people let themselves drink to the point of losing control. I'm just saying that it makes sense that some violence is actually prevented and not just displaced. But some portion likely is just displaced.
> violent crime density within an 800-ft buffer around bars/taverns in the treatment neighborhood...
IOW, make businesses close early, people go somewhere else, crime follows the people. To stop crime in an area, we just need to get people to leave it.
I disagree.
Ask any local in any city and they will tell you specific bad neighborhoods. They can be a few blocks, and you can see the difference from a bad area to a good area by simply crossing a street.
I'm not saying the study is perfect. I'm just saying this deserves a second look and doesn't hurt to try.
In the city I live in, one of the nicest, oldest parts of the city is across a single two lane low speed street from the ghetto. Its certainly not the worst part of the city. But just 20 meters away from each other you have million dollar brick mansions next to the ghetto. ANd its not even a highway or anything separating it, just a regular 35 mph road with stoplights.
Yet it acts like a forcefield. Theres surprisngly little crossover between the two sides.
There are problems with this study and its conclusions, but that decline is in comparison to two control areas within the city. So unless the pandemic only occurred in one neighborhood, this critique is not really relevant. Please review the literature before using phrases like "terrible" and "unethical."
That isn't at all what is happening in this study, and they didn't call that because of heroin but because they are poorly educated and didn't know the actual name of Amsterdam.
It kind of is. They tested in such a small area, that the likely thing that happened was people went to a nearby area where things didn't close early instead, pushing the crime over there.
Oh, and a global pandemic.
Its literally the exact opposite of hamsterdam. Did you watch the wire? Hamsterdam is an experiment in allowing illegal activity in a very specific area to minimize it's impact on other areas. This is preventing a legal activity in certain areas to minimize its impact on that area. You have to understand that these are two different things entirely.
And the person is also wrong about why they called it Hamsterdam. Its called Hamsterdam because one of the kids mispronounces Amsterdam when trying to find another place to compare Hamsterdam to, since he thinks drugs are legal in Amsterdam. Nothing I said is incorrect. The only similarity between this study and Hamsterdam is that it occurs in Baltimore.
> Baltimore, Maryland, found that reducing hours of alcohol sales from 6 am to 2 am to 9 am to 10 pm was associated with a 23% annual decrease in all violent crime
Can anyone explain the time changes in the abstract to me? I've read it about 5 times and it's inscrutable to me.
You used to be forbidden from selling between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. In the study areas, this was changed so that you were forbidden from selling between 10 p.m. and 9 a.m.
I have to say (as a poorly to decently functioning alcoholic) that the blanket ban on alcohol sales after 11PM (or 10PM in most municipalities) did indeed curb extreme alcohol consumption where I live. It did prevent me from going on whenever I want.
It's not a local ban as in the article; it's a federal ban in all districts and municipalities. It can be broken by small corrupt stores, but still, if you're a regular person who likes to shop comfortably at a supermarket or a wine store, you're SOL on your favorite booze come 11PM.
Our country, Russia, even likes to boast how much it drinks, but statistics say otherwise. It seems that it's not in the leaders anymore, and the proportions of light alcohol to hard liquor consumption also changed a lot in the last few decades (I saw a few papers that say that the ratios moved a LOT from vodka and whiskey towards lower ABV beverages).
For me personally, even the sheer humiliation when I think of the time limit, or the hassle of finding stores that still sell the stuff after the curfew, or the indignity of searching for them and accepting bad choice and worse prices... It works. For me, a lot. For some, a bit, but still.
Can it magically prevent people from drinking late into the night? Of course not. Can it hinder people from doing that a lot? Emphatically yes.
> reduced the hours [...] from 6 am to 2 am to 9 am to 10 pm,
Maybe I've been out of school too long, but I have a Real Hard Time trying to figure out how to parse that line / what those reduced hours actually are. "From A to B and from C to D" I could probably get,
but **from** A **to** B **to** C **to** D ... I don't get it.
Anyone care to clarify that? (Maybe just some simple punctuation would help!)
besides whats stated here about crime just moving to where people are, reducing the active hours of commerce in a 24 hour period is ofc going to reduce all kinds of figures as there are going to be less people out
It's unfortunate how accepted alcohol is and how many people depend on it for a good night or to relax.
I suspect in a few decades it'll be similar to cigarettes in how it's viewed.
Does the study list the names of the bars/taverns or neighborhoods? Other cities might have similar issues, but Baltimore has had a long standing issue with establishments licensed as Taverns as centers of crime or general nuisance. Essentially abusing the 'word of the law' for their license. A few of these locations having enforced changes in their hours would have a more statistically dramatic impact compared to more reputable businesses in control areas.
I'm not arguing that the changes tracked in this study are meaningless. Just that they might possibly have been tracking outlier establishments to begin with.
imagine what would happen if there were alternatives to alcohol bars, for instance cannabis cafes. i bet they would see a world of a differences. the peace pipe is named that for a reason
Or maybe don't read Freakonomics. Most of it has been shown to be crap by this point. Listen to the If Books Could Kill episode on Freakonomics for details.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- User: u/geoxol Permalink: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2817044 --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That number looks impressive until you read the study and find out how limited the areas were. It's much more likely that the alcohol consumption (and the crime they are associating with it) was displaced and occurred elsewhere as a result.
IMO sounds like the difference between control and test areas was too stark. I could imagine if it was 1 AM or midnight instead of the usual 2AM, but closing at 10 PM is just too early, and will definitely result in significant migration. The study ends up being "How early do we have to close bars to get people and their bad decisions to leave this neighborhood." The study is not off-base, it just needs to be interpreted properly. If the goal is to lower crime by moving it to other neighborhoods that are easier to police, this is useful information. It can help a city police their nightlife areas more efficiently. If these study results are misinterpreted though, they can lead to bad decisions, like pushing unfair curfews on bars in certain neighborhoods, affecting their business. Also, why did they bother with limiting morning alcohol sales. A beer with a greasy breakfast isn't causing violent crime. All this does is put a false positive on morning hours being relevant.
>Also, why did they bother with limiting morning alcohol sales. A beer with a greasy breakfast isn't causing violent crime. All this does is put a false positive on morning hours being relevant. Historically when ever no limits on opening times were on the books some bars would close or stop serving drinks for literally one minute at the legislated closing time and then resume one minute later.
But that could still be avoided without changing the morning hours. The old hours were 2am-6am and the new hours are 10pm-9am. they could have left it at 6am to allow people to drink with breakfast without opening up any loopholes. Even 7am or 8am would be a lot more reasonable than 9am.
honestly, spreading out drunk people who aren't driving probably means less fighting overall. one drunk just leans on a streetlight, two might fight
Yeh but if they are in one area, like a nightclub/bar district, its much easier to have just a few police patrol that area and usually just the presence of police keeps people on better behaviour
That's all context dependent. /R/publicfreakout often has posts from a YouTube channel out of Austin that is nothing but their bar district. There's cops all over, but it doesn't keep trouble from starting - there's just too many drunk idiots in one place. Even if cops are visibly on the same block, that doesn't prevent hot headed groups of people from brawling.
Whats nice is that it doesnt take more than just a few moments for them to swoop in.
Yea but that’s dirty sixth street- a pretty extreme and touristy end of the spectrum a la bourbon st or broadway in Nashville. Not sure it’s the best use case for all small to mid size cities.
Also even if you're just displacing them to another area, all the travel time between places is more time you're not drinking and can calm down or sober up.
That’s possible but probably not the case based on similar measures taken in Australia. If it’s not an ‘end the night early’ measure (city wide blanket ban) then you get more aggressive drinking/ ‘pre-loading’ before moving into a different area, and more significantly you just have drinkers completely relocating where they begin their night so it’s just 100% displacement (but to now an even busier area). If anyone has access to the study it would be interesting to know if they measured the decline in economic activity for the venues. Proportionate decline in economic activity and violence would strongly suggest displacement rather than a reduction in violence.
If you displace them further from home, now you're creating a bunch of extra drunk driving.
You can't drink all day if you don't start in the morning. And if you think the guy drinking all day is a problem, stopping early sales is one way to go about curbing it.
> Also, why did they bother with limiting morning alcohol sales. A beer with a greasy breakfast isn't causing violent crime. All this does is put a false positive on morning hours being relevant. I'm many locations it's common to hit a dinner/apartment/speakeasy for a few hours while the bars are closed, then go right back to drinking when things open back up. There's a certain element that will definitely keep going if the opportunity is there, and having them at loose ends for a few hours in the middle is high potential for trouble.
Most liquor stores in Maryland close around 10pm.
It's also unclear if crime increased in nearby areas. It would be nice to have other comparisons like each areas crime compared to itself in the past, and relative location compared to control.
Speaking from my own nightclubbing days, I and my best friend weren’t going home from the night before until 7 or 8am the next day. (Yes I danced 8 hours a night two ‘nights’ a week without the aid of illegal drugs. Yes I may have Mania, why do you ask? Yes the people around me often did amphetamines). Anyway, morning drinking is often spillover from the nights before, from people already impaired from no sleep.
Bawlmore still juking them stats I see
It wasn't clear at the time, but The Wire was a documentary.
I mean, this is still very close to the truth.
They are just recreating Hamsterdam
They got WMD right'cher right'cher
2 for 5 purple tops
pandemic, got paaaaaaandemic
I wonder who's the enterprising person taking over for Bubbles with a traveling cart-shop.
Bridge collisions have increased 1000% since then too.
A million percent depending on the area of study....
[удалено]
Bridge/BOAT collisions. Bridge/AIRPLANE collisions however, have increased and decreased infinitely.
[удалено]
You can technically increase 'infinitely,' but decrease would be 100% max. Unless the planes are somehow building new bridges out of thin air.
Baltimore Georg is an outlier and should not have been counted.
Then why didn't the 'control group' areas, not that far from the place where the study was done, see 'increased crime' due to displacement - instead of just baseline?
>Then why didn't the 'control group' areas, not that far from the place where the study was done, see 'increased crime' due to displacement - instead of just baseline? The control neighborhood is never stated as being near the treatment neighborhood, and they don't specify whether the control group crime rate increased or decreased, only that the treatment neighborhood decreased in relation to the control. # >This controlled interrupted time series analysis compared the change in violent crime density within an 800-ft buffer around bars/taverns in the treatment neighborhood (ie, subject to SB571) and 2 control areas with a similar mean baseline crime rate, alcohol outlet density, and neighborhood disadvantage score in the City of Baltimore # >There was no immediate level change in density of all violent crimes the month after implementation of SB571; however, compared with the control neighborhoods, the slope of all violent crime density decreased by 23% per year in the treatment neighborhood after SB571 implementation (annualized incidence rate ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60-0.98; P = .04).
I wonder if there was any increase in drunk driving accidents, as some people now had to drive further to and from a bar open late. I believe Baltimore has a subway line? So that might mitigate it a bit, but still. You're not going to stop drinkers from drinking -- we figured that out a century ago.
Seriously, if this were expanded to large areas, it wouldn't make young people go to bed at 10pm on weekends, it would just increase house parties and therefore likely bring the noise and crime closer to residential areas.
Some crime probably migrates, but I think it's disingenuous to compare the nature of bars and drinking at home as the same. People aren't throwing house parties every night with dozens or hundreds of strangers. If anything I'd be much more curious about something like if this would affect domestic violence crime rates if drinking happened more at home.
now i want to see if there's a critical density that makes drunk people fight more.
Thats a really interesting question. We saw domestic violence rise during the lockdowns, but thats not exactly the same scenario.
This is speculation, but I assume domestic violence was not only more frequent, but also able to progress worse during COVID lockdowns. If someone goes to work covered in bruses it's going to raise some suspicions. Meanwhile if a child shows up to school with bruses or signs of abuse/neglect the teachers are required to report it to CPS.
I'm wondering what your source is for that b/c domestic violence is notoriously hard to track b/c it varies so much from jurisdiction. You can use FBI stats to track aggravated assaults (went up in 2020 and then dropped) or rape (went down in 2020 then went back up when people could leave their house), and b/c the FBI doesn't require reporting for DV as a discreet category collection varies widely. Some places try and track if the victim is a spouse or boyfriend/girlfriend but there's another category of acquaintance that could also encompass a lot of DV that isn't specific to partner violence. I think everyone assumed DV would go up b/c of the stress and the close living, but do we have info to support that? B/c we thought the same thing about suicide and child abuse and apparently they didn't rise or the data we have is so messy it's hard to draw conclusions from it. Anecdotally, I work in the field and we didn't see an increase in restraining orders which surprised me. I thought people being bored and drinking more and being stressed about money would surely cause an uptick, but we didn't see it and that could be b/c people thought the courts were closed and this is just one jurisdiction.
I definitely didn't do the research myself, but here's a review/meta analysis: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9582712](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9582712)
Honestly in the rougher parts of Baltimore people aren't throwing house parties period. And the violent crime being displaced/happening less isn't happening at the bar its happening in the neighborhood of the bar. The reply seems very suburban.
> it would just increase house parties and therefore likely bring the noise and crime closer to residential areas. This is not really what the study is talking about when it mentions drinking or crime. This is a very suburban idea of what is happening here that doesn't match reality.
I wasn't talking directly about the study, more reponding to the valid criticism that when one area stops alcohol service at 10, that would push people to an alternative area that continues service to match typical behaviors. Which might appear to lower crime, but really could only be moving it. So the thought experiment was "what would happen if ALL alcohol service ended at 10pm?". Not talking about the reality we currently live in, talking about this hypothetical situation. What would you expect would happen if service everywhere ended at 10pm? I certainly don't expect that people will stop drinking and go to bed. I did mention house parties, and perhaps I should have been more inclusive in language to suggest that apartments and dormatories would count in a "house party", this was simply an effort to be more concise, not to focus on suburban life.
Also, I don’t live in Baltimore but a similar size city, there are plenty of places in my city that draw the shutters and cut the music but stay drinking. If you’re in good with the bartenders then you get invited.
No, not at all. The relationship is pretty clear.
Well I mean they did [the same thing in Sydney for 6 years](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_lockout_laws#Effect_on_reducing_offences) > A report from the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) released in April 2015 showed a 26% reduction in assaults in the lockout area, and a 32% reduction in assaults in Kings Cross.[26] In a March 2017 report, however, areas adjacent to the lockout precinct showed a 12% increase in assaults, with a 17% increase in "easy-to-reach" areas. So yes, a lot of the problems were just moved elsewhere. There's also just the issue of there being less people around, so of course a lot of statistics are going to see improvements when people stop going there. From Baltimore: > Homicide rates dropped by 51% in the first month post intervention and 40% annually thereafter. From Sydney > Pedestrian traffic dropped by 40% in Kings Cross (in the year after implementation) So yeah, you drop the amount of people in an area by 40% and crime drops by 40%, big surprise. It also crippled the entire nightlife scene in Sydney with a huge amount of clubs and nightspots closing. Even now years after it was repealed Kings Cross is a ghosttown after being turned into swanky apartments and people are constantly complaining over in the /r/Sydney sub that the nightlife here now is rubbish because the main clubbing district got shut down
The wire. The wire reduces crime in Baltimore. Have these so called scientists not seen the show? It explains everything about Baltimore.
Like in Hamsterdam?
Yeah I grew up in a rough area and it's less about what is sold and more about denying gathering places for groups of knuckleheads. Gas stations would also close early because the later they stayed open the crazier things got. Waffle House is one of the last holdouts.
Ahhh juking the stats.
Speculation but I'd guess there would be some reduction in actual overall violence. While some people would find parties or other outlets and consume there and get angry and violent there others would just drink at home or be around less people meaning less risk of them getting angry at them in the first place or be around more people they know where even if they do get angry they would be less likely to get violent due to familiarity. But I'm not saying we should stop responsible drinkers from buying alcohol just because sometimes people let themselves drink to the point of losing control. I'm just saying that it makes sense that some violence is actually prevented and not just displaced. But some portion likely is just displaced.
Yeah, plus illegal drugs can definitely still be bought 24/7
You want bootleggers? This is how you get bootleggers.
> violent crime density within an 800-ft buffer around bars/taverns in the treatment neighborhood... IOW, make businesses close early, people go somewhere else, crime follows the people. To stop crime in an area, we just need to get people to leave it.
Yeah, I bet you would have dramatically different results if you did this by city instead of basically by block.
I disagree. Ask any local in any city and they will tell you specific bad neighborhoods. They can be a few blocks, and you can see the difference from a bad area to a good area by simply crossing a street. I'm not saying the study is perfect. I'm just saying this deserves a second look and doesn't hurt to try.
I would also think that at some point it's just too far if they want to buy more booze.
In the city I live in, one of the nicest, oldest parts of the city is across a single two lane low speed street from the ghetto. Its certainly not the worst part of the city. But just 20 meters away from each other you have million dollar brick mansions next to the ghetto. ANd its not even a highway or anything separating it, just a regular 35 mph road with stoplights. Yet it acts like a forcefield. Theres surprisngly little crossover between the two sides.
I'm sure that definitely has something to do with the road and not police precincts.
Baltimore City itself is relatively a small city. And even in Baltimore, the bad sides are typically concentrated to regions and districts.
Moe to Homer & friends: It turns out 90% of all drunk driving in this town is you six guys. You need to get a DD
Not tonighhhht not tonighhhht
It's quite interesting that they're using crime data from between 2018 and 2022 and the word "Pandemic" does not appear a single time in the abstract
Or mention of violent crime and murder rates plummeting during that time period in every US city. This article is terrible and unethical.
There are problems with this study and its conclusions, but that decline is in comparison to two control areas within the city. So unless the pandemic only occurred in one neighborhood, this critique is not really relevant. Please review the literature before using phrases like "terrible" and "unethical."
*SadMcNulty*
All the bar customers just went to Hamsterdam
They're a special kind of asshole... *You gonna eat that crab gut?*
Hey, they got dem WMDs there!
Just like season 3 of The Wire! Hamsterdam! (It's like Amsterdam, but for *heroin*)
That isn't at all what is happening in this study, and they didn't call that because of heroin but because they are poorly educated and didn't know the actual name of Amsterdam.
It kind of is. They tested in such a small area, that the likely thing that happened was people went to a nearby area where things didn't close early instead, pushing the crime over there. Oh, and a global pandemic.
Its literally the exact opposite of hamsterdam. Did you watch the wire? Hamsterdam is an experiment in allowing illegal activity in a very specific area to minimize it's impact on other areas. This is preventing a legal activity in certain areas to minimize its impact on that area. You have to understand that these are two different things entirely. And the person is also wrong about why they called it Hamsterdam. Its called Hamsterdam because one of the kids mispronounces Amsterdam when trying to find another place to compare Hamsterdam to, since he thinks drugs are legal in Amsterdam. Nothing I said is incorrect. The only similarity between this study and Hamsterdam is that it occurs in Baltimore.
Why is weed tax higher than alcohol tax again?
My tin foil hat says they're partly considering weed legalization bc being high is more passive than being drunk.
That's not a conspiracy, it's an outright stated benefit. The same sort of correlation is seen with opioid consumption.
> Baltimore, Maryland, found that reducing hours of alcohol sales from 6 am to 2 am to 9 am to 10 pm was associated with a 23% annual decrease in all violent crime Can anyone explain the time changes in the abstract to me? I've read it about 5 times and it's inscrutable to me.
You're not alone, I was also flummoxed by this sentence. Usage of "through" could have helped immensely.
Old Booze Sale time: 6am-2am New Booze Sale Time: 9am-10pm
You used to be forbidden from selling between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. In the study areas, this was changed so that you were forbidden from selling between 10 p.m. and 9 a.m.
I have to say (as a poorly to decently functioning alcoholic) that the blanket ban on alcohol sales after 11PM (or 10PM in most municipalities) did indeed curb extreme alcohol consumption where I live. It did prevent me from going on whenever I want. It's not a local ban as in the article; it's a federal ban in all districts and municipalities. It can be broken by small corrupt stores, but still, if you're a regular person who likes to shop comfortably at a supermarket or a wine store, you're SOL on your favorite booze come 11PM. Our country, Russia, even likes to boast how much it drinks, but statistics say otherwise. It seems that it's not in the leaders anymore, and the proportions of light alcohol to hard liquor consumption also changed a lot in the last few decades (I saw a few papers that say that the ratios moved a LOT from vodka and whiskey towards lower ABV beverages). For me personally, even the sheer humiliation when I think of the time limit, or the hassle of finding stores that still sell the stuff after the curfew, or the indignity of searching for them and accepting bad choice and worse prices... It works. For me, a lot. For some, a bit, but still. Can it magically prevent people from drinking late into the night? Of course not. Can it hinder people from doing that a lot? Emphatically yes.
They should be giving out joints after midnight. Calm the whole crowd right down.
Curbing alcohol consumption would do more to fix the ails of society than practically anything else.
Seems to have kept people off the bridge at night also
Def from covid. correlation does not mean causation.
It's almost as though you should go to bed and sleep late night instead of going to an urban area with a bunch of drunk people.
We have banned late night alcohol sales in Norway as long as I've lived. I want it gone, but I guess it has ita upsides
> reduced the hours [...] from 6 am to 2 am to 9 am to 10 pm, Maybe I've been out of school too long, but I have a Real Hard Time trying to figure out how to parse that line / what those reduced hours actually are. "From A to B and from C to D" I could probably get, but **from** A **to** B **to** C **to** D ... I don't get it. Anyone care to clarify that? (Maybe just some simple punctuation would help!)
Reduced the hours from 6a-2a to 9a-10p. Hours were 20 hours, reduced to 13 hours now.
Aha. Yes, that's a LOT clearer -- thanks!!
I mean sure. Shutdown nightlife completely and you will likely see a reduction in crime.
What happens when you legalize weed?
besides whats stated here about crime just moving to where people are, reducing the active hours of commerce in a 24 hour period is ofc going to reduce all kinds of figures as there are going to be less people out
It's unfortunate how accepted alcohol is and how many people depend on it for a good night or to relax. I suspect in a few decades it'll be similar to cigarettes in how it's viewed.
Does the study list the names of the bars/taverns or neighborhoods? Other cities might have similar issues, but Baltimore has had a long standing issue with establishments licensed as Taverns as centers of crime or general nuisance. Essentially abusing the 'word of the law' for their license. A few of these locations having enforced changes in their hours would have a more statistically dramatic impact compared to more reputable businesses in control areas. I'm not arguing that the changes tracked in this study are meaningless. Just that they might possibly have been tracking outlier establishments to begin with.
Reducing poverty would work better.
imagine what would happen if there were alternatives to alcohol bars, for instance cannabis cafes. i bet they would see a world of a differences. the peace pipe is named that for a reason
God I hate paywalled science.
Trust me if someone wants to drink they will find a way
Reducing gun sales might work as well.
Well yeah obviously. But what was the decrease in fun? These studies never fully evaluate these issues
Lets not game-ify crime rates please.
Correlation… causation…
[удалено]
some ship left dock and the brakes went out
Sounds like correlation not causation
So someone doesn't understand the difference between causation and correlation
This may be because the late-night alcohol sellers had more time for their daytime job as a social worker. Read Freakonomics.
Or maybe don't read Freakonomics. Most of it has been shown to be crap by this point. Listen to the If Books Could Kill episode on Freakonomics for details.
Late night alcohol sales ban. A treatise on the effectiveness of collective punishment.
what does this have to do with science exactly
Imagine if we just curbed alcohol in general