So i was thinking recently about how the availability of drugs fluxuates in different regions based on population and median income. In my life i have lived in a poor suburb, a rich suburb, and a big city. From what i have heard and experienced it seems to me that drug availability can be expresed by stating:

"The prevalence of all drugs, except for marijuana and methamphetamine, in a region increases primarily as the population of that region increases, and secondly as the median income of the region increases."

This means that there are more drugs per capita in big cities than in small towns (duh) but that between two equally populated towns the town with the higher median income will have more drugs per capita.

So regions can be ordered in terms of availability of drugs as:
(least amount of drugs to most amount of drugs)
poor rural
wealthy rural
poor suburban
wealthy suburban
poor city
wealthy city

This makes economic sense because a larger market with a larger deman leads to a greater supply, and a market with more disposable income leads to a greater demand, which in turn leads to a greater supply.

If my statement is true that means that all of the rich white suburbonites that move their families into wealthier neighborhoods in an attempt to shield their children from drugs (like mine did) are actualy moving into an environment where their children are more likely to encounter those horrible illicit substances ;)

The reason i left out weed is because its plainly available everywhere.

I think that meth still follows the model of being more abundant in larger cities. However, personal experience and anecdotal evidence has lead me to believe that it is more prevalent in poorer communities.

So the model for meth per capita would be:
(smallest to largest again)
wealthy rural
poor rural
wealthy suburban
poor suburban
wealthy city
poor city

with larger cities that have lower median incomes being the regions with the most meth per capita.

Since this is based largely on my personal experience i was hoping to get feed back from BLTC.

Do you think i'm right or should my formula be amended?

Do you think i'm right or should my formula be amended?

Actually...

From what i have heard and experienced it seems to me that drug availability can be expresed by stating:

"The prevalence of all drugs, except for marijuana and methamphetamine, in a region increases primarily as the population of that region increases, and secondly as the median income of the region increases."

I would critique that premise.

The prevalance of demand is likely related to income - I would expect a decreasing limit towards lower incomes with a sudden upswing at rock bottom... placing recreational luxury and "desperate escape" as opposing intercept...

...but the prevalence of supply, however, I would honestly view as the opposite... increasing towards the point where the medium-low profit of low-scale drug dealing would outcompete any realistic economic opportunity with the altered weight on the curve supplemented by illegalities.

...so it might depend on whether you're considering the question of demand surplus, or the prevalence of supply.

so we agree that there is more demand in the richer neighborhoods.

that demand creates a market force. If you're in an environment where you can sell tons of drugs for high prices eaily you're more likely to sell than if you were in an area where it would be slower gains.

what im saying is that the increased demand tempts more people to enter the market causing the supply to rise.

I like the higher thinking going on in this thread.

Since I am impossibly high right now I would not seek to demean such a decent thread.

Instead, I will bless this using one of the pillars of my most dear math sciences I've ever taken.

Behold, the holy bell curve.

http://classes.kumc.edu/sah/resources/sensory_processing/images/bell_curve.gif

Not to rain on your parade but isn't this just common sense?

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2001/07/05/rainy.jpg