[minikites]

They just don't do it to white people:

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/1/5850830/war-on-drugs-racist-mino...

>White and black people report using drugs at similar rates, according to the latest data from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

>A 2009 report from Human Rights Watch found black people are much more likely to be arrested for drugs. In 2007, black people were 3.6 times more likely to be arrested for drugs than white people.

>Human Rights Watch found more than four in five arrests in the war on drugs are for mere possession, while the rest are for sales. That suggests police are targeting drug users, not traffickers.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/23/opinion/oe-ayres23

>For every 10,000 residents, about 3,400 more black people are stopped than whites, and 360 more Latinos are stopped than whites. Stopped blacks are 127% more likely to be frisked -- and stopped Latinos are 43% more likely to be frisked -- than stopped whites.

>Now consider this: Although stopped blacks were 127% more likely to be frisked than stopped whites, they were 42.3% less likely to be found with a weapon after they were frisked, 25% less likely to be found with drugs and 33% less likely to be found with other contraband.

[hueving]

>They just don't do it to white people:

That statement directly contradicts your evidence:

>black people were 3.6 times more likely to be arrested for drugs than white people.

Please don't exaggerate, particularly when it comes to politically heated topics like this. Otherwise rational people disengage because it's clear you have some kind of axe to grind and the only people that push back are other axe grinders.

Also, as the other poster pointed out, it's not clear if any of this data has been correctly normalized for income level. This same lazy tactic is used by racists to associate crime with black people, so it's very counterproductive to perpetuate stats that don't adjust for income.

[lukeschlather]

There's a lot of deliberate misinformation by people who want black people to be arrested at a higher rate than whites.

And part of the genius of their misinformation campaign is deliberately coming up with policies that target poverty, so that it's difficult to tease out how much of the racism is just a natural outcome of the policy vs. biased policing.

But that's the thing. Even if the policing isn't biased against blacks (you know it is) the policy is deliberately biased against blacks.

Adjusting for income demonstrates that the police aren't totally to blame - and that's correct. They may not even be primarily to blame. But adjusting for income also understates the scope of the problem.

Arguably, the deeper problem is that doing drugs while poor will land you in jail for 15 years while doing the same drugs while rich will get you a slap on the wrist.

[hueving]

>against blacks (you know it is)

STOP DOING THIS. It's not a way to conduct a rational discussion.

>Arguably, the deeper problem is that doing drugs while poor will land you in jail for 15 years while doing the same drugs while rich will get you a slap on the wrist.

Yes, being poor lands you into trouble much more frequently because poor areas are so much more heavily policed. But that's the point, many of these issues are related to biases against poor communities in general, not specifically black people.

[lukeschlather]

You said "exaggerate" which was a tacit acknowledgement that you know and have seen the income-adjusted numbers. Obviously the income-adjusted numbers are less dramatic, but they are just as damning.

What's no way to conduct a rational discussion is when any figure, no matter how well-researched, is immediately called into question apropos of nothing.

[hueving]

If they are damning, use those numbers. Stop lying. Rational people don't call you out for illustrating a problem, they call you out for misrepresenting it.

[minikites]

Why are you so eager to deny that the USA still has a lot of racist systems/processes in place?

[hueving]

Why are you so eager to deliberately misrepresent information to make things seem significantly worse than they actually are? When you do that and people find out that you effectively lied, you lose credibility and they stop listening. How do you plan to affect change with that strategy? Get the people stupid enough to believe your lies to riot?

[jshevek]

> by people who want black people to be arrested at a higher rate than whites

You seem to know an awful lot about the motives of people who disagree with you.

[geofft]

> Otherwise rational people disengage because it's clear you have some kind of axe to grind

There is an axe to grind. I live in a country which has had about three centuries of experience finding every possible way to marginalize black people, and in the last few decades has found every way to dress up the marginalization of black people to preserve plausible deniability and work around laws preventing the direct marginalization of black people (for instance, finding things like income or geography that are correlated with race, and then applying disproportionate policies based on that, so they can convince kind-hearted people like you that they're not discriminating on race when that is totally the intention of the policy). Why should we not have an axe to grind here?

Please stop pretending that this is some sort of dispassionate "politically heated" issue that you can have a friendly watercooler discussion about. Otherwise rational people disengage because it's clear you are making the irrational assumption that both sides are being equally reasonable and participating in equally good faith.

[lutorm]

It's not like it's just fine and dandy to discriminate against poor people unless it's being done with the underhanded intent that most of those poor people will also be minorities, is it?

I totally agree that minorities should be upset at these policies, but so should the non-minorities that are being affected by them, too, and hopefully those "kind-hearted people" you talk about, too.

[noobermin]

I can read it as expanded phrasing. He clearly meant "they don't do it to white people as often."

[minikites]

How does that directly contradict my statement? Also, you left out the very important context, which is that while they are 3.6x as likely to be arrested, black people use drugs at the same rate as white people, so what justifies the 3.6x increase?

And, how does income affect stop-and-frisk or drug possession arrests? Do cops have some sort of x-ray vision where they can see a suspect's W-2?

[jazzyb]

> how does income affect stop-and-frisk or drug possession arrests?

It's typically poor communities that these tactics are done in. I think the tactics are reprehensible, and race probably does have something to do with it, but I've also seen cops roll up into rural trailer parks to start shit, too. What gets lost in a lot of the media narrative is how poor folk in general get taken advantage of by the authorities.

[jmcmichael]

Yes, our social institutions treat the poor reprehensibly, and it does present a huge problem that doesn't get addressed as often as it should.

The fact still remains, though, that our social institutions treat poor black folks much worse than poor white folks.

[viraptor]

You wrote that they just don't do it. In reality they do. Just less often.

[lumberingjack]

I know a white guy whom just got a felony for two pills in his car, a majorly stupid thing you can't do these days. It was all over Fox national news like he was some sort of gang/drug lord. In reality he was just working a full time 9/5 at amazon box and hustling a little on the side to pay the bills. Now he lost his job and is sitting around on welfare because no one will hire a felon.

[Vendan]

I've encountered plenty of "stop everyone and check their license/registration/insurance" points where they just wave me past. Presumably because I'm a late-20's white male wearing business casual in a decent/good car.

[nickff]

Many of those checkpoints are also a way to collect revenue from out-of-state drivers who are unlikely to appeal the ticket or appear to contest it.

[ceejayoz]

> And, how does income affect stop-and-frisk or drug possession arrests? Do cops have some sort of x-ray vision where they can see a suspect's W-2?

Target low-income areas? Target people with falling-apart cars, shabby clothes, etc.? It's hardly difficult.

[jshevek]

The quality and condition of various aspects of a person's body (particularly teeth) can sometimes be indicators as well.

[minikites]

So you believe judging people based on their appearance is a reliable way to determine things about them? Hmm.

[ceejayoz]

I'm about 90% certain you're trolling.

It's not perfect - occasionally you'll stop someone who looks like a homeless guy and it'll turn out to be Robert Downey Jr. doing some method actor research for a new movie.

Most of the time, though, if you want to target someone who's low-income, there'll be a part of town and a set of characteristics you can pretty reliably look for.

[minikites]

You don't have to look poor to be targeted by police: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Louis_Gates_arrest_con...

[mattnewton]

Most people wear a good approximation of their W-2 in their hair and clothing. I don't disagree though, that same heuristic is very often racist.

[activ3e]

Aren't the poor side of cities mainly black ? If that's the case then that's just a consequence but it kinda makes sens. If police patrols more in those sides of the cities, the probability for someone black to be arrested then goes higher.

The real problem would be that the poor side of the city is mainly black and that it is trapped in a vicious circle where they have less education and are then more likely to turn to crime and not succeed in life.

[loup-vaillant]

Still, being less likely to be found with contraband and such heavily suggests blacks/poors are being frisked more often than nescessary --at the very least, there's some unjustified bias.