Yes. For instance, the proportion of black Americans who use illegal drugs is well below the proportion of white Americans who do; however, black Americans are heavily overrepresented in illegal drugs arrests, convictions, and prison sentences. The arrest rates indicate that the law-enforcement system “believes” that black Americans use illegal drugs more — a statistical trend which isn’t there.
Another way of thinking about these issues, rather than talking about “discrimination against ”, is “privilege held by ”. This can describe the same thing but in terms which can cast a different (and sometimes useful) light on it.
For instance, one could say ” people are harassed by police when they hang out in public parks.” However, this could be taken as raising the question of what those people are doing in those parks to attract police attention — which would be privileging the hypothesis (no pun intended). Another way of describing the same situation, without privileging the hypothesis, is ” people get to hang out in public parks without the police taking interest.”
the proportion of black Americans who use illegal drugs is well below the proportion of white Americans who do; however, black Americans are heavily overrepresented in illegal drugs arrests, convictions, and prison sentences.
Where does the data about the actual proportion come from, since it can’t be the legal system’s data?
Having re-checked the above from, e.g. the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, done by the Department of Health & Human Services, I retract the claim that black Americans use drugs less than white Americans.
Rather, it appears to be the case that white Americans are well overrepresented in lifetime illegal drugs use, but black Americans are slightly overrepresented in current illegal drugs use; which is what would feed into arrests — after all, you don’t get arrested for snorting coke two decades ago. The white:black ratio in the population as a whole is 5.7, according to the Census. In lifetime illegal drugs use, 6.6; in last-month illegal drugs users, 5.1.
However, from the Census data on arrests, the white:black ratio in illegal drugs arrests is 1.9. Now, this doesn’t break down by severity of alleged offenses, e.g. possession vs. dealing; or quantities; or aggravating factors such as school zones.
Rather, it appears to be the case that white Americans are well overrepresented in lifetime illegal drugs use, but black Americans are slightly overrepresented in current illegal drugs use; which is what would feed into arrests — after all, you don’t get arrested for snorting coke two decades ago.
Sorry, I don’t understand that. Does it simply mean that white people in general as seen here used to do more drugs some years/decades ago, but now their proportion dropped below that of blacks?
Maybe but not necessarily. It would be consistent with, for instance, there being proportionally more white people who tried illegal drugs once and didn’t continue using.
The arrest rates indicate that the law-enforcement system “believes” that black Americans use illegal drugs more — a statistical trend which isn’t there.
In fact your interpretation is wrong. It is not “the law-enforcement system “believes”″ that blacks use more. It is that blacks are more often dealers, and it is easier to get a conviction or plea bargain as a user than as a dealer, since the latter requires intent as well as possession and will be fought harder because of higher penalties.
I suspect that blacks are not over-represented as drug dealers. Rather, blacks live in urban areas, which can be policed at lower cost than rural areas for population density reasons.
Yes. For instance, the proportion of black Americans who use illegal drugs is well below the proportion of white Americans who do; however, black Americans are heavily overrepresented in illegal drugs arrests, convictions, and prison sentences. The arrest rates indicate that the law-enforcement system “believes” that black Americans use illegal drugs more — a statistical trend which isn’t there.
Another way of thinking about these issues, rather than talking about “discrimination against ”, is “privilege held by ”. This can describe the same thing but in terms which can cast a different (and sometimes useful) light on it.
For instance, one could say ” people are harassed by police when they hang out in public parks.” However, this could be taken as raising the question of what those people are doing in those parks to attract police attention — which would be privileging the hypothesis (no pun intended). Another way of describing the same situation, without privileging the hypothesis, is ” people get to hang out in public parks without the police taking interest.”
Where does the data about the actual proportion come from, since it can’t be the legal system’s data?
Having re-checked the above from, e.g. the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, done by the Department of Health & Human Services, I retract the claim that black Americans use drugs less than white Americans.
Rather, it appears to be the case that white Americans are well overrepresented in lifetime illegal drugs use, but black Americans are slightly overrepresented in current illegal drugs use; which is what would feed into arrests — after all, you don’t get arrested for snorting coke two decades ago. The white:black ratio in the population as a whole is 5.7, according to the Census. In lifetime illegal drugs use, 6.6; in last-month illegal drugs users, 5.1.
However, from the Census data on arrests, the white:black ratio in illegal drugs arrests is 1.9. Now, this doesn’t break down by severity of alleged offenses, e.g. possession vs. dealing; or quantities; or aggravating factors such as school zones.
Sorry, I don’t understand that. Does it simply mean that white people in general as seen here used to do more drugs some years/decades ago, but now their proportion dropped below that of blacks?
Maybe but not necessarily. It would be consistent with, for instance, there being proportionally more white people who tried illegal drugs once and didn’t continue using.
Illegal drugs are an interesting place to try some Bayescraft.
In fact your interpretation is wrong. It is not “the law-enforcement system “believes”″ that blacks use more. It is that blacks are more often dealers, and it is easier to get a conviction or plea bargain as a user than as a dealer, since the latter requires intent as well as possession and will be fought harder because of higher penalties.
I suspect that blacks are not over-represented as drug dealers. Rather, blacks live in urban areas, which can be policed at lower cost than rural areas for population density reasons.