From yesterday's Washington Post. The last article I saw on this topic, a year or so ago, said that a black drug user was four times as likely to be imprisoned as a white drug user. Now the ratio is a factor of ten. This is the main reason many black men have prison records and are unable to get good jobs.African Americans are ten times as likely to be imprisoned for illegal drug offenses as whites, even though both groups use and sell drugs at the same rate, according to a study released on December 3.

Almost all large counties in the U.S. showed sharp disparities along racial lines in the sentencing of drug offenders, the study by the Washington-based Justice Policy Institute reported. There were 1.6 million drug arrests out of 19.5 million drug users (nearly 7% of the population) in 2002. About 175,000 people were incarcerated for a drug offense. Half of them were black, even though blacks account for only 13% of the U.S. population. The study, which looked at data from the 198 most populous counties, came up with findings similar to others on the subject, but it is the first to look at relative incarceration rates at a local level.

One of the reasons an institute spokesman gave for the disparity was that local police devote more resources to policing illegal drugs in open-air markets in inner cities, where more blacks live, than in white-dominated suburbs and college campuses.

From yesterday's Washington Post. The last article I saw on this topic, a year or so ago, said that a black drug user was four times as likely to be imprisoned as a white drug user. Now the ratio is a factor of ten. This is the main reason many black men have prison records and are unable to get good jobs.

Whether it's 4x or 10x it is a travesty. The national number is still probably less than 10x, since this new study is looking specifically at large urban areas where the criminal justice system is even more focused on arresting black drug users.

From yesterday's Washington Post. The last article I saw on this topic, a year or so ago, said that a black drug user was four times as likely to be imprisoned as a white drug user. Now the ratio is a factor of ten. This is the main reason many black men have prison records and are unable to get good jobs.

I certainly won't say it's not racism. But this research doesn't do much to prove it is. I think it may be partly racism, but also like the article said. They're naturally going to be doing more policing in the inner cities where lots of crime goes on. Incidentally or not, the ghettos are where blacks live.

Could it be that Blacks have been arrested for other crimes as well? It

seems that without knowing their history of past crimes then there's no way

to tell why this is happening. Just think , if a white person is found with pot

but doesn't have any other criminal activities in their opast perhaps that is

why they aren't arrested as often.

From yesterday's Washington Post. The last article I saw on this topic, a year or so ago, said that a black drug user was four times as likely to be imprisoned as a white drug user. Now the ratio is a factor of ten. This is the main reason many black men have prison records and are unable to get good jobs.
you know what's going to happen don't you?
instead of taking responsibility for their actions they'll scream "RACIST", "BIGOT', or some other nonsense. these blacks need to take a long hard look at WHERE this stuff is coming from.

frankly i don't buy it, especially with blacks holding some the most powerful positions in the government.

let's not forget the congressman (black of course) that recently cried about being stopped by the law and then had the guts to put in print that he was stopped for DWB, yes, that's driving while black. the actual charges was he was swerving across the center dividing line. gee, i wonder who on this board that sounds like? hmmmmm . . .

Blacks are never to blame for their own hardship. It's always someone else, especially whitey.

francois:

They're naturally going to be doing more policing in the inner cities where lots of crime goes on.

How do you know that more crime goes on in the inner cities? I'll tell you.

You know because police keep statistics of arrests and courts keep statistics of convictions, and those statistics are available.

So, we know for example that arrests for drugs are higher in inner-city predominantly black neighbourhoods than they are on predominantly white college campuses.

Does this mean that there's more drug dealing in the inner city than on college campuses? Answer: THERE'S NO WAY TO TELL.

It could well be that campuses are underpoliced and inner-city neighbourhoods are overpoliced, as the article in the OP suggests. They could have exactly equal amounts of drug "crime", and still have a visible disparity in drug statistics.

This point is far too subtle for all the racists, of course. Look at mountainhare, for example.

I certainly won't say it's not racism. But this research doesn't do much to prove it is. I think it may be partly racism, but also like the article said. They're naturally going to be doing more policing in the inner cities where lots of crime goes on. Incidentally or not, the ghettos are where blacks live.

That one little very important bit of demographic information is something that is always entirely overlooked by those seeking to make a racial issue of this whole affair. It's precisely those areas that ARE heavily policed because that's exactly where most of the drug trafficking and many other crimes occur compared to the city as a whole.

Also, practically every very large city has certain zones that police officers will not even enter alone or in just pairs - for good reason. In the city of Atlanta, GA. there was one such district that even the Post Office refused to continue serving because so many of their delivery people were being assaulted.

James R:

This point is far too subtle for all the racists, of course. Look at mountainhare, for example.


I see that you're engaging in personal attacks and distortions, as usual. Aren't you meant to be a moderator?


Does this mean that there's more drug dealing in the inner city than on college campuses? Answer: THERE'S NO WAY TO TELL.


So, as you admit, there's not way to tell if there is more drug dealing in the inner city. Hence, how come you are so quick to jump to the conclusion that racism explains the statistics provided?

So, as you admit, there's not way to tell if there is more drug dealing in the inner city. Hence, how come you are so quick to jump to the conclusion that racism explains the statistics provided?

It would be easy to tell if all areas were policed equally, instead of the police targeting certain areas based on the racial demographics of the area alone.

another piece of info that is missing is, what exactly do they consider as "black"? i've seen hispanics dark enough to be considered black. some middle eastern people can pass for black. the above, by itself, can make the OPs statistics meaningless.

Bells:

It would be easy to tell if all areas were policed equally, instead of the police targeting certain areas based on the racial demographics of the area alone.


So why is James so willing to accept the explaination that police are targeting certain areas based on racial demographics, and not merely that there may be more drug related crime in those area. After all, THERE'S NO WAY TO KNOW.

Ergo: If we don't know that rate of drug use in each respective area, then there's NO WAY TO KNOW if the excess arrests are due to excess drug use, or due to the police targeting the poor innocent blacks.

Another perfectly feasible explaination is that crime unrelated to drugs is more common in the inner cities and ghettoes (probably violent crime), while it is rare on campus. This would result in over-policing, which would indirectly result in my drug related arrests. And yet race would have nothing to do with it.

Another perfectly feasible explaination is that crime unrelated to drugs is more common in the inner cities and ghettoes (probably violent crime), while it is rare on campus. This would result in over-policing, which would indirectly result in my drug related arrests. And yet race would have nothing to do with it.
"inner-city" implies businesses. my guess would be break-ins, theft, robberies.

if one stand on a street corner pushing shit, i'd find that a easy bust
a rendezvous at some neutral zone designated via a cellphone is practically invisible

hmm
dumb fuck negroes
easy career advancement

the rest is ignorance and racism, institutional or otherwise

U.S. Sentencing Commission Issues New Recommendations on Federal Sentencing Guidelines (http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/gen/29539prs20070428.html)
Racial Disparities in Imprisonment (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=6&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ssc.wisc.edu%2F~oliver%2FRACI AL%2FReports%2Fmeparticledraft3.pdf&ei=MfZYR5nGLZSChAL9vYGaCQ&usg=AFQjCNFkpwfZuJB4EPQ8LXLBXMZoKHHgIw&sig2=x1LMTQn-QUuTrhC4dJE_RA)

Sure some of it is racist. Any race committing a crime within a population of another race would encounter this kind of issue to a certain degree.

leopold:

"inner-city" implies businesses. my guess would be break-ins, theft, robberies.


Yeah. But when I think 'inner city', I think of ghettos and slums, dark twisting alleyways and red light districts. Hence violent crime. I doubt you'd have many violent assaults and rapes on university campuses.

Another explaination is that blacks are more prone to committing drug offenses. This could be due to genetic, socioeconomic, and/or cultural factors.

Surely another factor here could be attitude in court?

The study, which looked at data from the 198 most populous counties, came up with findings similar to others on the subject, but it is the first to look at relative incarceration rates at a local level.

The study results as posted seem to show some bias in its calculations. If the study is from the 'most populous' counties, then the racial make-up needs to be recalculated to show what % of the populations of these areas studied are, rather than as the % of the us population. In the twin cities St. Paul / Mpls, the racial % varies greatly between Hennepin county (most of minneapolis and most populous) vs the surrounding counties.

Another factor not touched on by the copy posted is what percentage of these people had their own lawyer vs a public defender.

years ago a black co-worker of mine told me that black drug buyers are stupid and its why they get caught so often. He said whites come and buy all the drugs they need at one time. Blacks buy it bit by bit. So the more times you are out in the street buying it, the more likely you are to get caught. That was his theory. At least that why he said he got busted when he was doing crack.

dumb fuck sci

Whether it's 4x or 10x it is a travesty. The national number is still probably less than 10x, since this new study is looking specifically at large urban areas where the criminal justice system is even more focused on arresting black drug users.It's not specifically looking at large urban areas. It's looking at about 200 of the counties with the largest populations in America, which probably includes 80% of the country's population. Adding back in that last 20% is not going to skew the statistics very much.Could it be that Blacks have been arrested for other crimes as well? It seems that without knowing their history of past crimes then there's no way to tell why this is happening. Just think , if a white person is found with pot but doesn't have any other criminal activities in their opast perhaps that is why they aren't arrested as often.That's quite possible, but it's probably past drug crimes, so the same point applies.another piece of info that is missing is, what exactly do they consider as "black"? i've seen hispanics dark enough to be considered black. some middle eastern people can pass for black. the above, by itself, can make the OPs statistics meaningless.No. The OP specifically stated "African American." It referred to them as "black" thereafter for concision. All governmental agencies count African-Americans as a separate ethnic group. It may include people of primarily sub-Saharan African ancestry from the Caribbean, but it does not include dark-skinned people from other tropical locations who are not primarily of sub-saharan African ancestry."inner-city" implies businesses. my guess would be break-ins, theft, robberies.No, "inner city" is a euphemism for low-income ghettoes, whose populations are overwhelmingly dark-skinned. There's not much business there.But when I think 'inner city', I think of ghettos and slums, dark twisting alleyways and red light districts. Hence violent crime. I doubt you'd have many violent assaults and rapes on university campuses.Actually IIRC violent rape is on the upswing on college campuses.Another explaination is that blacks are more prone to committing drug offenses. This could be due to genetic, socioeconomic, and/or cultural factors.No. Every study I've seen repeats the finding that the rate of drug use among light-skinned Americans and dark-skinned Americans is roughly the same. This is the first one I've read that said the rate of drug selling is also roughly the same, but even if it wasn't, I never considered that an excuse for the persecution. If dark-skinned people are selling a disproportionate quantity of America's drugs, then just who exactly is buying them? Light-skinned people who would hypocritically run dealers out of their own suburban neighborhoods?years ago a black co-worker of mine told me that black drug buyers are stupid and its why they get caught so often. He said whites come and buy all the drugs they need at one time. Blacks buy it bit by bit. So the more times you are out in the street buying it, the more likely you are to get caught. That was his theory. At least that why he said he got busted when he was doing crack.Dark-skinned people who live in ghettoes have very little personal security. There's no point in buying an ounce of cocaine or a quarter pound of marijuana. After a couple of weeks somebody will steal whatever you haven't used up.

Not to mention, the penalties go up with the quantity, especially for light-skinned people. If you or I got caught buying a joint, they might just charge us with possession--and in many jurisdictions possession of less than an ounce is just a really expensive parking ticket, something they use for revenue generation. If it's an ounce, the charge will be buying drugs. If it's a quarter pound, they'll presume it's possession for sale.

I can easily see why certain people and groups see racial bias in this kind of thing - they have an agenda to push.

But what I don't understand is why those who are otherwise rational thinkers buy into it so easily.

So let's move away from the biased, charged issue for a moment and examine a hypothetical situation which easily explains why these things are the way they really are.

Imagine you have a community of 10,000 people. One thousand of them have Orange skin, another thousand have Purple skin, another thousand have Green skin, and so on.

Statistics clearly show that the Oranges, as a group, have a higher incidence of crime and drug-related problems that also often leads to crime than do the others. Where should the police focus their efforts and where do you suppose (group-wise) the greater number of arrests and convictions are going to be???

The logic clearly shown in that little example is why I'm astounded at all those people who buy into the myth that the issue being discussed is driven solely - and unfairly - by nothing more than racial bias and hatred. You people who swallow that myth should be ashamed of yourselves.

One of the reasons an institute spokesman gave for the disparity was that local police devote more resources to policing illegal drugs in open-air markets in inner cities, where more blacks live, than in white-dominated suburbs and college campuses.
I strongly suspect that the approach taken by the dealers has a lot to do with it. Cops want to arrest as many criminals as possible with the least amount of effort. Yeah, there's plenty of drug use on most college campuses and in the suburbs, but white drug dealers tend to only sell to people they know, or have been introduced to by friends. How often do you see white suburban drug dealers standing around on street corners trying to sell drugs to random strangers in cars? If there's a neighborhood where you can be pretty sure that a guy will just approach you and ask if you want to buy some crack, well, obviously the police are going to make their quota of busts.The cops are probably just going after the low-hanging fruit.

I can easily see why certain people and groups see racial bias in this kind of thing - they have an agenda to push. But what I don't understand is why those who are otherwise rational thinkers buy into it so easily.The argument that immediately follows in your post is not rational thinking, as I point out in my response.So let's move away from the biased, charged issue for a moment and examine a hypothetical situation which easily explains why these things are the way they really are. Imagine you have a community of 10,000 people. One thousand of them have Orange skin, another thousand have Purple skin, another thousand have Green skin, and so on. Statistics clearly show that the Oranges, as a group, have a higher incidence of crime and drug-related problems that also often leads to crime than do the others.Please cite your source of statistics showing that dark-skinned Americans have a higher incidence of drug use than light-skinned Americans. I have been following this issue for more than thirty years and have never seen a substantive difference, neither from personal observation nor from studies such as the one cited in the OP.The logic clearly shown in that little example is why I'm astounded at all those people who buy into the myth that the issue being discussed is driven solely - and unfairly - by nothing more than racial bias and hatred. You people who swallow that myth should be ashamed of yourselves.Your reasoning may be logical but your premise is invalid, so the myth falls on your side of this argument. There is no substantive difference in drug use between light-skinned and dark-skinned Americans.

The point is that the War on Drugs is used primarily as a tool of racial discrimination. I know light-skinned people who were at parties when the cops showed up for a noise complaint, and they told them to flush all their drugs down the toilet. My dark-skinned friends in the same situation were arrested.

Drug prohibition is unconstitutional, as the entire nation knew when the Temperance Nannies wanted to outlaw alcohol. They had to get a constitutional amendment enacted, which took several years. Thirteen years later when the effects on society of government regulation of the behavior of consenting adults were proven to be worse than the effects of alcohol consumption, the people rose up and repealed the amendment, with teetotaling Mormon Utah casting the deciding vote. The government still does not have the constitutional power to regulate the behavior of consenting adults, yet Congress passes legislation of this type with increasing frequency, the President signs it, and the Supreme Court upholds it.

The U.S. Constitution is nothing but toilet paper these days and our government is a farce. They get away with it because they took over the education industry in the early part of this century and have carefully bred a population that doesn't think about things they don't want it to think about--such as why we bombed Kabul and Baghdad for something that was perpetrated in Riyadh. The reason it's difficult to get the light-skinned majority of the population outraged over the War on Drugs is that it's not their family members who are targeted.

I'm not speaking about ghetto life or crime or policing or arrests or incarceration in general. But when it comes to the War on Drugs, it is indeed a tool of racial discrimination.

Another perfectly feasible explaination is that crime unrelated to drugs is more common in the inner cities and ghettoes (probably violent crime), while it is rare on campus. This would result in over-policing, which would indirectly result in my drug related arrests. And yet race would have nothing to do with it.

Excellent point. I was about to say that. Do people honestly think inner cities aren't policed more because there is more crime there to begin with?

I'm not speaking about ghetto life or crime or policing or arrests or incarceration in general. But when it comes to the War on Drugs, it is indeed a tool of racial discrimination.

How do you know it's deliberate racism though? I mean, I get it, white and blacks use and sell drugs at the same rate, and yet blacks are 10 times more likely to get incarcerated. But how do you know that it's not a matter of there being more policing where blacks live, due to there being more overt crime in their quarters to begin with? How do you do know it's not a matter of blacks not being as good as whites at concealing and being discreet in their drug business?

((Blacks + whites = equal drug business) && blacks disproportionately incarcerated) != racism

More information is needed and more research needs to be done to make an absolutely necessarily casual relationship.

How do you know it's deliberate racism though? I mean, I get it, white and blacks use and sell drugs at the same rate, and yet blacks are 10 times more likely to get incarcerated. But how do you know that it's not a matter of there being more policing where blacks live, due to there being more overt crime in their quarters to begin with? How do you do know it's not a matter of blacks not being as good as whites at concealing and being discreet in their drug business?Whatever the mechanism, my point is that despite:overwhelming evidence that illegal drugs are far less dangerous to the users (on average per capita) and far less disruptive to society (in aggregate) than legal drugs, a previous dismally failed and roundly condemned experiment proving that prohibition does more damage than the prohibited substance, and the blatant unconstitutionality of the prohibition of drug use by consenting adults, the only reason we still have a War on Drugs in this country is that selectively enforced drug prohibition is a convenient tool for persecuting a target population. That target population includes:ethnic minorities (people I knew long ago who had vivid memories of the prewar era in the Southwest said that the sudden emphasis on arresting users of marijuana correlated strongly with its status as the drug of choice among new immigrants from Mexico, where it had been readily and unremarkably available), non-conforming young people who might grow up to be thinking individuals instead of complacent "consumers" and "human resources," people who argue loudly against the War on Drugs, openly flout it and/or encourage an end to it, and people who remind voters that the War on Drugs takes heavy collateral damage, such as medical marijuana patients who insist on high profile drug purchases through medical channels instead of quietly buying it on from Zeke in the next block, who would probably give them a discount or even provide it for free just for the goodwill.There is nothing rational about drug prohibition. To lump it in with other laws--that have at least some component of maintenance of order or protection from evil--is naive, and is exactly what the Drug Warriors want from a docile citizenry, so they can continue to get away with using it to persecute the target population.

Uh, how come nobody is commenting on the stated reasons for the disparity (the last paragraph quoted in the OP)? I.e., that the black drug sales are happening in open-air environments, whereas white drug sales take place behind closed doors. It doesn't take a statistical genius to notice that the odds of being caught go way up if you're selling out doors, in public. I've never been approached and offered drugs on the street by a white stranger (in the US, that is). I wish I could say the same about other races.

That's not to say that racism isn't a component, although it does beg the question of whether the inequality that results in the different locations for drug sales isn't a bigger factor than police discrimination. The more I think about racism in my country, the more apparent it becomes that it's not a matter of institutional discrimination (even covert discrimination) but rather it's about much more deeply embedded social, economic and cultural issues.

It would be great if people on this site could have a discussion about any issue related to race without immediately rushing to force any information they're presented with into predefined categories and arguments.

I dont even know where to begin with the thought process involved to create a thread like this so it is best i not say anything.

I just hope that Bill Cosby dont see this thread.

It's not specifically looking at large urban areas. It's looking at about 200 of the counties with the largest populations in America, which probably includes 80% of the country's population. Adding back in that last 20% is not going to skew the statistics very much.

No the report states that the jurisdictions involved include only 51 percent of the population and 60 percent of the drug arrests. Based on what they say as well as what I know about the constitution of rural America and the drug problems that are most prominent in rural America, I think the statistics for the country as a whole are significantly different. Still bad for African Americans but not as bad as the 10x figure suggests. Rural America is "more white" than the country as a whole (81.9% white vs. 69.1% for the country) and the biggest drug problem in rural America today, besides alcohol, is methamphetamine (a drug that is relatively rarely used by African Americans).

I think what's most interesting about the report is the way it shows differences in policing strategies relative to factors such as funding. For example, looking at the data it appears that a certain amount of police funding is necessary to deal with serious crime but that departments that have funding beyond that end up going after drug offenders without making much of a further dent in violent crime statistics. Although the authors don't draw much in the way of conclusions from these data (except that higher departmental funding equals higher criminal justice admissions for drug offenders), I suspect that cops not occupied with more serious crime and needing to justify their budgets arrest those offenders (African Americans drug users) that are the easiest targets. I also suspect that there are also local, cultural factors that play a part that do not easily equate with traditional histories of institutional racism (e.g., 3 of the urban counties with the 10 lowest rates of drug offenders admitted to the criminal justice system are in North Carolina and 3 are the suburban counties surrounding DC--Howard & Montgomery in MD & Fairfax, VA).

It is an interesting report but as with a lot of such things the authors are playing up in the media the numbers that look impressive at the expense of focusing on what could be more interesting findings.

Uh, how come nobody is commenting on the stated reasons for the disparity (the last paragraph quoted in the OP)? I.e., that the black drug sales are happening in open-air environments, whereas white drug sales take place behind closed doors. It doesn't take a statistical genius to notice that the odds of being caught go way up if you're selling out doors, in public. I've never been approached and offered drugs on the street by a white stranger (in the US, that is). I wish I could say the same about other races.

That's not to say that racism isn't a component, although it does beg the question of whether the inequality that results in the different locations for drug sales isn't a bigger factor than police discrimination. The more I think about racism in my country, the more apparent it becomes that it's not a matter of institutional discrimination (even covert discrimination) but rather it's about much more deeply embedded social, economic and cultural issues.

It would be great if people on this site could have a discussion about any issue related to race without immediately rushing to force any information they're presented with into predefined categories and arguments.

The economic disparity is certainly a major issue here and open air drug markets (which are themselves a result of individuals lacking other economic opportunities) make it easier for police to go after drug offenders.

I don't normally recommend TV shows for their accurate analysis of social problems but I think anyone who really does want to get a fairly accurate picture of how urban police departments deal with drug use and sales could do worse than watch the HBO series the Wire. It was created by an ex-cop and an ex-reporter and has gotten great views for accuracy from police and others.

There is nothing rational about drug prohibition. To lump it in with other laws--that have at least some component of maintenance of order or protection from evil--is naive, and is exactly what the Drug Warriors want from a docile citizenry, so they can continue to get away with using it to persecute the target population.

I'm with you there, man. I would like to see all drugs legalized too. As for why they're illegal right now, I honestly do not know. I suspect corruption. But the main thing it seems you're arguing in this thread is that our system targets minorities in general and blacks specifically. What's the evidence?

How do you know that more crime goes on in the inner cities? I'll tell you.

You know because police keep statistics of arrests and courts keep statistics of convictions, and those statistics are available.

So, we know for example that arrests for drugs are higher in inner-city predominantly black neighbourhoods than they are on predominantly white college campuses.

Does this mean that there's more drug dealing in the inner city than on college campuses? Answer: THERE'S NO WAY TO TELL.

This point is far too subtle for all the racists, of course. Look at mountainhare, for example.James, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. All crime is more prevelent in inner cities. It's not just drug dealing. Even driving thru an inner city neighborhood puts one in danger.

A friend of mine was taking a church basketball team to Gary, IN for a traveling team game when a bullet passed right thru his car. The trajectory of the bullet was right where his son's head had been a moment before. If he hadn't bent down to pick something up, he'd be dead now. That was the end of games played in Gary.

My father was almost car jacked driving thru an inner city neighborhood. (he backed up his car and ran the guy over instead). My friends and I were once attacked by two carloads of thugs while sitting at a stoplight in Gary.

Come to the US, walk the streets of a quiet suburban town one night. Then walk the streets of an inner city the next night. See if you notice a difference. See if you survive.

Uh, how come nobody is commenting on the stated reasons for the disparity (the last paragraph quoted in the OP)? I.e., that the black drug sales are happening in open-air environments, whereas white drug sales take place behind closed doors. It doesn't take a statistical genius to notice that the odds of being caught go way up if you're selling out doors, in public. I've never been approached and offered drugs on the street by a white stranger (in the US, that is). I wish I could say the same about other races. That is such a great, and obvious point. It totally demolishes the whole "racism" charge.

Fraggle:

Actually IIRC violent rape is on the upswing on college campuses.


And I don't care about what you 'remember'. Your subjective, fuzzy memories aren't exactly going to convince me that there is institutionalised racism in the police force.

Also note that whether there is an 'upswing' in violent rape on college campuses doesn't mean that violent (and non violent) crime aren't more common in the inner cities. This could be simply due to the fact that there are more people in the inner city. Or that the inner city houses the ghettos and lower socioeconomics. Or that the inner city has more black criminals. Or that close living makes people neurotic and more likely to engage in conflict.

Also note that I feel quite safe walking about my campus at midnight (and have done so on several occasions) But there is no way in hell I would traverse inner Melbourne at midnight. Hell, I wouldn't even ride public transport at night, given that Sudanese thugs have been bashing innocent bystanders.


No. Every study I've seen repeats the finding that the rate of drug use among light-skinned Americans and dark-skinned Americans is roughly the same. T


Really? Yet the study cited in this original post states that blacks are arrested and convicted far more often than non-blacks. Do you know what that signals to me? That blacks are more likely to get caught taking drugs. Now, this could be because:

1. Blacks are more likely to take drugs (for whatever reason).

2. Blacks are more stupid than whites, and hence are more likely to get caught taking drugs.

3. Cops will enforce the law on black people. But when they see a white guy hauling a pound of hashish, they will pat him on the back and say 'Haha, good job, bro.'

4. There is a greater police presence in black areas. The motive for this increased police presence is unclear, although you automatically assume racism.

Now that we have numerous explainations for the statistics that have been provided, perhaps you could provide some strong evidence which conclusively demonstrates point 4, and that the ulterior motive is a racist agenda.

Uh, how come nobody is commenting on the stated reasons for the disparity (the last paragraph quoted in the OP)?

i did
so did nasor
as did the article

do you fucking read?
brain on drugs?

It also may be related to intelligence. Those with lesser intelligence are more likely to be caught by the po-po.

mountainhare:

Really? Yet the study cited in this original post states that blacks are arrested and convicted far more often than non-blacks. Do you know what that signals to me? That blacks are more likely to get caught taking drugs. Now, this could be because:

1. Blacks are more likely to take drugs (for whatever reason).

As Fraggle pointed out above, that appears to be false.

2. Blacks are more stupid than whites, and hence are more likely to get caught taking drugs.

There is no evidence for a different in intelligence.

3. Cops will enforce the law on black people. But when they see a white guy hauling a pound of hashish, they will pat him on the back and say 'Haha, good job, bro.'

I've been to "up-market" bars in the city where you live, where groups of high-earning accountants, stock brokers and others (all white, by the way) gather after work on a Friday night. I've seen these people doing lines of coke quite openly in the bathrooms.

How many cops do you think I've seen "busting" these guys? Guess.

4. There is a greater police presence in black areas.

I see more police patrolling pinball parlours in your city than I see patrolling the bars the stock brokers frequent. Think about it.


Hillyer:

It also may be related to intelligence. Those with lesser intelligence are more likely to be caught by the po-po.

Those with lesser intelligence are less likely to be able to discern patterns in policing.

It depends on tyhe drug. Crack smokers\meth get busted often, does not matter if they are black or white. The study i read which this thread is probably based from is kind of meaningless anyway because unless you see first hand your talking out of your ass. But the conclusion of the study was no racism. Supported by the fact thaT THERE ARE Many black law enforcement and even in supervisor positions.

If you are stuck in 1963 mentality you may perceive racism, poor people dont want drugs in their neighborhoods though. They are actually a lot like everyone else.

Blacks are never to blame for their own hardship. It's always someone else, especially whitey.

Which race had miscegenation laws, "Jim Crow" laws, and still lynched innocent men of the other race well into the 20th century?

It depends on tyhe drug. Crack smokers\meth get busted often, does not matter if they are black or white. The study i read which this thread is probably based from is kind of meaningless anyway because unless you see first hand your talking out of your ass. But the conclusion of the study was no racism. Supported by the fact thaT THERE ARE Many black law enforcement and even in supervisor positions.

If you are stuck in 1963 mentality you may perceive racism, poor people dont want drugs in their neighborhoods though. They are actually a lot like everyone else.

Since when did saying there was a racist system mean that every cop, or prosecuter, or judge in that system is racist? Do you really not see the difference? Actually, it need not be the case that any cop is racist for the end-effect--the targeting of black drug users over white drug users--to be racist.

Poor people are also too smart to believe that racism magically disappeared in 1963, and most of the poorer drug users I've spoken to (white or black) see this inherent racial injustice in the system.

Since when did saying there was a racist system mean that every cop, or prosecuter, or judge in that system is racist? Do you really not see the difference? Actually, it need not be the case that any cop is racist for the end-effect--the targeting of black drug users over white drug users--to be racist.

Poor people are also too smart to believe that racism magically disappeared in 1963, and most of the poorer drug users I've spoken to (white or black) see this inherent racial injustice in the system.

It is naive to assume blacks are targeted and the article, if it is the same one i read, determined racism was not a factor. Also, if anyone thinks that cops give whites a pass when they find drugs on them they're wrong (same charges). I know a place in the city, probably not there anymore, where there are people selling all kinds of drugs out in the open. There are sweeps there all the time and they are not black but they are still minority people. Would you like for the cops to go find Chinese dealers to up the quota? I dont think it works that way though.

It is naive to assume blacks are targeted and the article, if it is the same one i read, determined racism was not a factor. Also, if anyone thinks that cops give whites a pass when they find drugs on them they're wrong (same charges). I know a place in the city, probably not there anymore, where there are people selling all kinds of drugs out in the open. There are sweeps there all the time and they are not black but they are still minority people. Would you like for the cops to go find Chinese dealers to up the quota? I dont think it works that way though.

It's really very simple. Black are using & dealing drugs at the same rates as whites (if you read the article you would see strong evidence for this) but are arrested at a much higher rate. If you don't like the reasons suggested by the article and other posters then propose a counter explanation. If you read my posts (which I'm not sure you did) you would see that I never said or even believe that this is about racist cops arresting blacks but that doesn't mean that the end result isn't racially biased.

What I would like to see, since you ask, are cops who enforce (or not enforce it) the law equally and don't just go after an easy arrest (i.e., the black, inner city drug user). Would you want to see cops take the same attitude towards other crimes (i.e., ignore the cases that are difficult and only arrest the criminals they can easily find)?

uh, Max i am not black nor do i sit here and claim to speak for black people but you would be hard pressed to find average black person complaining about drug dealers or users getting arrested. You see a lot of white people complaining about it though.

In addition to that, the day i see Al Sharpton complaining about it is the day i say it may have some merit. But i dont know has he? because i have never heard about it.

Admittedly, like everyone else here i am no authority on this subject.

In the U.S the foreigners or "those who do not belong" are targeted all the time in the name of due dilligence, not that there is anything wrong with that, I would do the same thing too, but the shame is that some people actually do believe minorities are the major cause of drugs.