<<If White Guys are overdoseing more than black ones this is evidence ,but not proof ,that white guys are users more often , just as getting busted with enough drugs to warrant a long sentance more often for black guys than white ones is evidence, but not proof, that black guys are merchants of the stuff more often.>>
I don't think you paid enough attention to my post, plane. I wasn't comparing black to white ratios among dealers, I specifically made reference to black to white ratios in the criminal justice system among users, i.e. those who regardless of colour are NOT dealers. Because independent of the criminal justice system, there is another system - - health care - - which has also compiled stats indicating relative populations of users within each race.
And BTW - - your male-female comparison is not comparable to Alexander's white-black comparison for the simple reason that biology, as you must have observed, creates a far greater differences between males and females than it does between black males and white males. So that while biology can explain much of the difference in incarceration rates between male and female, it can't do the same for differences in incarceration rates between whites and blacks. Nice try, though. Good for a quick laugh, which I am sure was at least part of your intention.
I am laughing at your pretentions to logic.
If treatment rates between races prove that rates of use are diffrent , then incarceration rates also prove that rates of use are diffrent .
But since one "proves" that Whie people use more drugs and the other "proves" that black people use more drugs , you accept one indicator as a proof of use and the other as a proof of bias.
I do see a proof of bias , I see your refusal to use genuine Logic as a proof that you are biased.
To use statistical studys to support personal predujudices is pernicious and foolish. The proper use of statistical study is to reveil truth , something that isn't going to happen if the result is decided before the data gathering or before the data evaluation.
If you want to use incarceration rates diffrence between races as proof of something (anything) you will have to eliminate or account for every important variable that opens up some other possible conclusion.
Of course there is a huge biological difference between men and women , this is an example of exactly what you are doing wrong, I did the same thing wrong on purpose.
Have you really even tried to controll for the huge number of variables that might be important?
For another example , the poor get locked up for longer sentances and more often than do the wealthy , is this proof that the better educations of the wealthy makes them less criminal?
It isn't complete proof?
Do tell.
