Just to be straight up, I don't like the user who wrote this comment. I think they're a terrible person with shallow one-dimensional takes. That said, I thought their comment pictured below would be great opportunity to show why it's so important that we know how to use statistics in a way that is as fair and unbiased as possible.
In the comment, you see that they mentioned 25%-50% of violent crimes in the US are committed by people under the influence. If this sentence was all you saw, you would probably assume that a lot of drug users are violent criminals. Now, let's look at the data from some US institutions. In 2025, SAMHSA reported that 44.6 million people were struggling with substance use disorder (SUD). In that same year, the FBI recorded 1,091,047 violent crimes (aggravated assault, robbery, rape, and murder). Let's say that all 1m of those violent crimes were perpetrated by people under the influence. That still only adds up to 2.45% of the 44.6m people with SUD. Already you can see that with just a little more context, the original statement starts to change shape.
Let's take a look at drug-related crimes. In 2025, the FBI estimated that there were 1,140,818 narcotic violations and 539,692 drug equipment violations. Of the 1.1m narcotic violations: 10,359 were linked to aggravated assault; 2,287 to robbery; 344 to rape; and 258 to murder. Of the 5.4k drug equipment violations: 4,509 were linked to aggravated assault; 1,134 to robbery; 115 to rape; and 51 to murder. Let's assume that all 1,680,510 people who committed a drug-related violation is an addict. They still only add up to 2.6% of people with SUD. Out of that 2.6%, only approximately 1.1% were linked to a violent crime.
Now the stats and data aren't perfect. SAMHSA doesn't survey people without a fixed address and not all crimes get reported to the FBI. But this is a much clearer picture of what the US's drug and crime scape look like than what we started with in the OG comment. Numbers and percentages only mean so much without the context from which they were taken. This is why it's so important to scrutinize sensationalist headlines that tout crazy stats. Don't just take whatever someone says as valid. Look for the sources. Read the dataset. Find out how it was collected. Ask questions. It's more important than ever to not spread harmful misinformation.
If anyone is curious about the collection and classification of any of the stats I gave and more, the two sources are down below. I'd also recommend the 2024 SAMHSA survey results as I think it gives a more thorough breakdown of their process than the 2025 one.
https://www.samhsa.gov/data/data-we-collect/nsduh-national-survey-drug-use-and-health/national-releases/2025https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/ TLDR: Drug addicts are not majority violent criminals. 99% not causing harm (violent crimes) is actually pretty close to what the data suggests.
Messages
I think I know who this is lol.
I bet my left check and foot that 99.99% of the people involved in those 1,091,047 violent crimes were recurring users of forks, spoons and maybe butter knifes.
Would it be fair for me to say then that the majority of people who use cutlery are violent criminals? No, of course no. The fact that "group B" contains people from "group A" does not make "group A = group B" true.
You said it perfectly. I would also add that we need to question the relationships between facts/statistics and context around them.
Ohhh I love that little addition that the end there! Great point!
Back at university my colleagues and I had a running joke xD whenever someone made an argument like that we'd call them a "correlation-is-causation guy". It's a nerdy way of saying they have such a poor grasp of statistics that they mistake the most basic logical fallacy for evidence...
What kind of fucking outdated take did this person make??? viewing drug addicts as violent just because they struggle with substance abuse is generalizing an entire population of people who just need help what a huge amount of ignorance to have
clock it thank you sm . i was really disgusted by what OP said ystd. drugs are immoral but saying every single addict is dangerous and a bad person is just pure evil. idk why ppl still dehumanize other ppl like that.
people don’t take drugs because they want to ruin their life, yet OP was so entitled he couldn’t even apologize for his mistake.
The first casual remark was bad, but his replies and doubling and tripling down was what made it truly awful for me. Unfortunately Asia is incredibly anti-drug to its people's own detriment. I doubt he will ever see why his beliefs are so bigoted.
yeah, that made scoff really hard… the way many people tried to make him understand that his words were mean and that he was in fact uneducated on the subject but he deleted all the replies and started acting like a victim. can’t say i’m surprised by this behaviour….
the stats were so stupid too.. he is supposed to be a psychologist student yet he doesn’t know how stats work #noticing.
i understand if people don’t get the deal about drugs but at least have the decency to apologize when you’re told you’re in the wrong. him saying stoners are dangerous made me laugh lmao.
"taking drugs is a choice" well if you end up homeless, while everyone treats you like less than a human being and plus you’re being looked down on, of course you would give up and take drugs… it’s not a choice, people are suffering
Exactly! Calling it a choice completely disregards all the systemic and societal issues that often go hand-in-hand with drug abuse.
Nice, Cool information gained! Thank you(☆▽☆)
Happy to share!
Drug addicts and schizophrenic people are so dehumanized by the media that only showcases crimes done by them and not to them since they're considered almost not human and honestly i think people find relief in the deaths of mentally ill people and drug addicts the so called trash of society
"and not to them since they're considered almost not human" --- This is such a great point and you're absolutely right. My brother works for a homeless shelter and many of the people who pass through are struggling with substance abuse. All of them have awful stories about being abused, mocked, and taken advantage of.
i still cant believe oop wrote a whole paragraph half heartedly quoting stats just to defend calling fkn oh sangwoo a drug addict. Like really some ppl just don't seem to believe ppl struggling with something are even human
Wait sangwoo from killing stalking? Lmao what??
"25%-50%" got a heavy dose of side-eye from me. The difference between 25% and 50% is huge.
also, a good number of unhoused ppl are those who age out of foster system and/or ppl with disabilities. adhd for instance has a huge comorbidity with SUD. we are more likely to develop addiction bc thats just how our brain is wired. a lot of us adhders also self-medicate thru substances (including caffeine) when money's tight and we cant afford our meds just to function and work. theres a lot of systemic barriers around this topic that i wish ppl would approach it with more nuance and empathy bc really, we're all just trying to survive in this capitalistic hellscape
it's such a funny statistic to use either way, like wow, i wonder if most of these crimes under the influence were done under controlled drugs OR the way more available and socially acceptable alcohol. I really cant tell....
The systems we have in place are so shit and resistant to change. We all deserve so much better.
my favorite "red blobs kill five blue blobs every year! and the population of blue blobs is 100 million"
The blue blobs are suffering! Who will save them?
don't tell them that actually 500 blue blobs are killed by blue blobs every year as well, they'll implode and shove all of them in jail and we'll have no more blue blobs.
(⊙…⊙ )(⊙…⊙ )(⊙…⊙ ) who will we eat then.