Study: Whites More Likely to Abuse Drugs Than Blacks | TIME.com
According to the federal Centers for Disease Control, he's (white male youth )4 times more likely than his African- American classmate to be a regular cocaine user.
White Kids Are Much More Likely to Use and Sell Drugs, Yet Black Kids Are More Likely to Go to Prison
Seems to be quite a bit of information available to support this claim. In addition, and I'll provide sources if you would like, they are disproportionately arrested for it are more likely to be convicted and get harsher sentencing when they are.
Absolutely correct. :applaud
So much for your grasp of statistics.
then how is it that non-white people are the icon for drug use?
Actually it isn't, as I had asked previously.Sorry - this is the first time you ask for proof of anything.
I asked a simple question. Do you think the same police department who defended him when he killed a black kid, won't defend him now that he has threatened a white woman?
No they did not.They both kept him from harm and they supported his statements.
The only one here angry, is you. The very question you made is one of anger.I'm sorry this makes you angry but you should really learn to relax and not support violent people like Zimmerman so much.
How absurd.It makes you look like a hypocrite when you're then attacking police for shooting a kid they thought was a threat (because he actually held a toy gun made to look real)
the point I was responding to.
While it's true certain drugs are associated with certain ethnicity (this goes with use and distribution), I'm not sure that those identities are universally "non-white". A perfect example of this would be meth, which is heavily associated with whites, both on the point of consumption and distribution
With all due respect brother, the racism of the so-called war on drugs is glaringly obvious .. but this speaks of a deeper point. It speaks to the insurmountable chasm between African-Americans and the right.
The meme is that blacks vote for democrats because we are programmed to .. but why would we want to vote for/politically associate with those who can't even see the racism in the war on drugs?
I'm not a democrat, but I understand why many believe there is only one choice to make.
With all due respect brother, the racism of the so-called war on drugs is glaringly obvious
but this speaks of a deeper point. It speaks to the insurmountable chasm between African-Americans and the right.
The meme is that blacks vote for democrats because we are programmed to .. but why would we want to vote for/politically associate with those who can't even see the racism in the war on drugs?
I'm not a democrat, but I understand why many believe there is only one choice to make.
The first article seems decent. The second article only considers cocaine, and that is not legit. If we used crack as the standard measurement, the article would reverse its claim. It's probably key, in the first study as well, that we consider drug type.
why would you want to vote for those who has it in their best interest to keep you poor and downtrodden, just so they can make false promises of wanting to help you?
While the right certainly has a denial aspect to it when we consider all things african american, the left often assumes all imbalances can be explained away by current appeals to systemic racism.
I can understand that point. Can you tell me why, in your opinion, it would be key to consider drug type?
Talk about being lead! That's nothing more than a Con pundit line that you have bought hook line and sinker.
oh please, the democrats have claimed to be the "champions" of the poor and minorities for 50 years. after all that time and promises, the poor and minorities are little better off than they were in the 70s.
Cocaine is generally more used by wealthy people and blacks are disproportionately represented therein. Using cocaine as the bench mark necessarily moves the study away from lower income households and, thus, away from the black population. Do the same study with crack and the results would be inverse.
oh please, the democrats have claimed to be the "champions" of the poor and minorities for 50 years. after all that time and promises, the poor and minorities are little better off than they were in the 70s.
But the intent of the study if not to determine if the use of any particular drug is more common among blacks or whites. The intent of the study is to determine if "drug use" is more prevalent with one group more then another.
Either way, from the article:
The study, which was published Monday in the Archives of General Psychiatry, controlled for variables like socioeconomic status because rates of severe drug problems tend to be greater amongst the poor
Read more: Study: Whites More Likely to Abuse Drugs Than Blacks | TIME.com Study: Whites More Likely to Abuse Drugs Than Blacks | TIME.com
As the following chart shows, marijuana usage rates are roughly equal for blacks and whites:
Of the major racial/ethnic groups, the rate of drug use is highest among the American Indian/Native American population (10.6%) and those reporting mixed race (11.2%), followed by African Americans (7.7%), Hispanics (6.8%), whites (6.6%). The lowest rates are found among the Asian population. (3.2%).
In 2011, among persons aged 12 or older, the rate of current illicit drug use was lowest among Asians (3.8 percent) (Figure 2.11). The rates were 8.4 percent among Hispanics, 8.7 percent among whites, 10.0 percent among blacks, 11.0 percent among Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders, 13.4 percent among American Indians or Alaska Natives, and 13.5 percent among persons of two or more races.
In 2010, among persons aged 12 or older, the rate of current illicit drug use among Asians was similar to that among Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders (3.5 and 5.4 percent, respectively), but the rate among Asians was lower than among other racial/ethnic groups (Figure 2.10). The rate among persons of two or more races was similar to that among American Indians or Alaska Natives and among blacks (12.5, 12.1, and 10.7 percent, respectively). The rate was 8.1 percent among Hispanics and 9.1 percent among whites.
And if that is accurate you think that the only contributing factor is the social programs instituted to help them overcome racist obstacles? Wouldn't that be swell. If the world were actually so simple that we could trace all of our troubles back to just ONE cause. Welcome to Mayberry.
Actually it isn't, as I had asked previously.
It got mistakenly edited out in one of the many edits I make.
I guess you didn't see it before it was changed. :shrug:
And yet you have failed to provide proof this time. You know it has been asked for, you you fail to provide it. Figures.
Secondly; You clarified what you asked when you you said it was about the Police Department.
The way you are now trying to portray your question, (obviously because you are angry for being called on its inflammatory wording), Is absolutely absurd.
Under your portrayal now, the police also have defended him when they had him safely behind bars. Making your question ridiculous.
But of course that isn't what you originally meant, even though you are now trying to deflect by indicating it was.
Truly sad.
No they did not.
The Department in the course of performing it's duties or even the individual Officers doing theirs, had nothing to do with supporting him.
They doing their jobs is not support of him.
You are being ridiculously absurd.
And apparently it is because you are angry because he was acquitted.
The only one here angry, is you. The very question you made is one of anger.
How absurd.
Going with the evidence does not make on a hypocrite. But it does say volumes of your actual connection to reality.
You really try to come back before speaking anymore.
As it had been posted. You are wrong.So then yes, it is the first you ask for it.
Still being absurd huh?I did. I posted the definition of "defense" what the police did most certainly qualifies as that. :shrug:
You really should learn to relax and not become so inflamed by questions that cause anger. If the question makes you angry and your opinion is that it is inflammatory you should take some time off the computer.
You must have a magic ball of some sort.
No need to ad hom simply because you are inflamed and don't like a question. Your opinion is well granted, but under the definitions of "defend", the police certainly defended George Zimmerman's account.
Oh, not at all. I'm perfectly calm sipping on some green tea.
Your argument boils down to you not liking the definition of defend, you finding things absurd, and you being inflamed. Your emotional response is granted, but it's not based on any fact. Facts are that George Zimmerman was defended by the police both physically then they supported his side of the story. If you don't like those facts, you're more than welcome to petition Merriam-Webster and change the definition of defend.
As it had been posted. You are wrong.
Still being absurd huh?
Figures.
The only anger being shown is by you and your false claim that the Department defended him, when it is clear they did not.
As it had been posted. You are wrong.
Still being absurd huh?
Figures.
The only anger being shown is by you and your false claim that the Department defended him, when it is clear they did not.
Your opinion is nice, but it's not a fact. The fact is that they did, as I have shown.
Stop telling untruths. You have shown no such thing, as I already pointed out.
Still trying to push the story that you are right huh?Your opinion about the facts doesn't change the facts. May I suggest you write a letter to whatever body regulates the English language and ask them to change the definition of "defend" to whatever Excon thinks it means?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?