4 ms·

The data backs up the grandparent’s post that blacks and Hispanics were disproportionately punished for their use compared to whites.

nickff 2y ago
Not parent or grandparent, but ‘disproportionate’ is different from ‘about the same’; you’re shifting the goalposts.
- kristjansson 2y ago
  Direction matters? same or _lower_ frequency of use does not seem like 'shifting the goalposts' on the original claim of disproportionate _incarceration_.
  - j4coh 2y ago
    Direction matters, though as the answer to a different question than whether rate of committing crimes is uniform. We are in this sub thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43393070 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43393070
    - kristjansson 2y ago
      > whether rate of committing crimes is uniform The above linked data show self-reported cannabis use within +/- 10% over the relevant pre-legalization period (before 2012), if anything with a slight advantage to whites. Drug arrest and incarceration rates vary by much, much more (factors of 2-6 between whites and blacks). Against that, use rates of 15 vs 13ish vs 12.5ish are as good as uniform , esp. on a survey with all the inherent variability therein (even for one as competent and longstanding as the cited work). So what's the quibble? That the shares aren't exactly equal? Or that there are other demographic cuts with larger differences (and, y'know, aligned carceral disparities)? Or that cannabis use isn't representative of 'petty crime'?
      - j4coh 2y ago
        The quibble was that > Every demographic commits petty crimes and code violations at about the same rate .. is not actually true, so better not to claim it as part of a strong argument.
        kristjansson 2y ago
        They argument does not depend in the slightest on the equality of crime rates, its depends on the their similarity. The data linked show quite similar rates of reported use for cannabis. You can make all sorts of valid counterarguments at this point. Refuting the language used to express the argument ('uniform', 'equal') is meaningless-to-disingenuous nitpicking of its form with basically no consequences for its substance.
        j4coh 2y ago
        That’s my point though? If the argument doesn’t depend on it, why make an easy to nitpick and disprove claim as part of it, especially if it doesn’t even come to bear on the point anyway. I’m not the one who brought up the nitpick in the first place, so you can argue with them instead if you prefer people didn’t do so in the first place.

nickff 2y ago

Not parent or grandparent, but ‘disproportionate’ is different from ‘about the same’; you’re shifting the goalposts.

kristjansson 2y ago
Direction matters? same or _lower_ frequency of use does not seem like 'shifting the goalposts' on the original claim of disproportionate _incarceration_.
- j4coh 2y ago
  Direction matters, though as the answer to a different question than whether rate of committing crimes is uniform. We are in this sub thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43393070 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43393070
  - kristjansson 2y ago
    > whether rate of committing crimes is uniform The above linked data show self-reported cannabis use within +/- 10% over the relevant pre-legalization period (before 2012), if anything with a slight advantage to whites. Drug arrest and incarceration rates vary by much, much more (factors of 2-6 between whites and blacks). Against that, use rates of 15 vs 13ish vs 12.5ish are as good as uniform , esp. on a survey with all the inherent variability therein (even for one as competent and longstanding as the cited work). So what's the quibble? That the shares aren't exactly equal? Or that there are other demographic cuts with larger differences (and, y'know, aligned carceral disparities)? Or that cannabis use isn't representative of 'petty crime'?
    - j4coh 2y ago
      The quibble was that > Every demographic commits petty crimes and code violations at about the same rate .. is not actually true, so better not to claim it as part of a strong argument.
      - kristjansson 2y ago
        They argument does not depend in the slightest on the equality of crime rates, its depends on the their similarity. The data linked show quite similar rates of reported use for cannabis. You can make all sorts of valid counterarguments at this point. Refuting the language used to express the argument ('uniform', 'equal') is meaningless-to-disingenuous nitpicking of its form with basically no consequences for its substance.
        j4coh 2y ago
        That’s my point though? If the argument doesn’t depend on it, why make an easy to nitpick and disprove claim as part of it, especially if it doesn’t even come to bear on the point anyway. I’m not the one who brought up the nitpick in the first place, so you can argue with them instead if you prefer people didn’t do so in the first place.