= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Alicorn comments on Open Thread, January 15-31, 2012 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (240)
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.