Does Race exist?

[Truthy]

@Truthy I really appreciate your effort on explaining this to me, it must take a lot of time and commitment, I thank you. I already read the explanation of basically how the loci pattern on genomes, and how the additional quantity of loci increase the analysis accuracy.

I hope you appreciate the irony of me declaring "there's nothing left to be said" and then my very next post has more than a thousand words.

But I would like to ask you something:
This is an A-B population comparison isn't it? Not particular A and general A comparison?

So, I need to get off CFC for the day cause I have work to get done. But I'll respond to this tomorrow or the day after.

 

[H4run]

So, I need to get off CFC for the day cause I have work to get done. But I'll respond to this tomorrow or the day after.

Sure takes your time, I'm also here taking my time, a serious post need a serious reply

I hope you appreciate the irony of me declaring "there's nothing left to be said" and then my very next post has more than a thousand words.

Seriously I wont bother explaining for someone that I think not worth explaining, hence your wall of text flattered me.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

@Truthy Thanks for putting all that effort into the big post. Much appreciated. Not all of it was news to me, but a lot was I personally would not make the leap to call a characterization of peoples based on DNA loci "race", because it has less to do with the original concept of race than it has with the concepts of nationality or ethnicity or ancestry, for example. My gut feeling says, from your chart (2): Yoruba, Bantu, San, Uyghur, Basque, Sardinian, for example, I would call ethnicities, based on some coherence in culture and ancestry within those groups, while Russians and French on the other hand I wouldn't call ethnicities, because there isn't that much coherence in terms of language, culture and ancestry. Parts of Russia have asiatic peoples, others slavic, then others central European. Ancestry is kind of all over the place. It (grouping peoples by DNA loci) lacks a proper name for now, I think.

 

[Berzerker]

I used to think this as well especially about wealth inheritance and white people and what factor it would play in the disparity, but it doesn't explain successful black people.

I touched on it earlier, but black culture plays a huge part in the disparity, the whole gangster rap, drug culture, "F da police" type attitude and this reinforcement (usually by white people and more often than not for political gain or to virtue signal) that the whole system is out to get them simply because they are black, they have no chance at a successful life with a thought process like that, thinking that every obstacle they face in life is because there's this racist system that exists and it's purely designed to target them.

You could argue the drugs war played some factor in the disparity, but what about the black people that were/are law abiding citizens, what's the reason for their disparity? People that take drugs overwhelmingly commit other crimes.

Jim crow was Southern exclusive, that's why we see a large wave of black people migrating from the South to North and West, for the ones that stayed no doubt it had an impact but at least not in its entirety on all black people. You could well argue that the exodus itself could have been a contributing factor to a disparity especially if they were leaving with nothing and starting again with nothing and then facing hostilities and segregation in the North. Black people in the North were most certainly paid more than Southern black people, albeit it wasn't some kind of equality with whites, they were obviously paid less than whites.

You wanted me to identify current laws and I did, the drug war. Drug use among black and white people is comparable, enforcement is not. That was by design. If the drug war was waged in both communities 'equally' the majority white population would come to resist it faster. Much of the culture you cited resulted from that war.

The problem with that though is its an unsubstantiated claim, it wouldn't surprise me if Nixon did say something like that though. I am guilty of posting unsubstantiated claims sometimes myself though, so I can't judge

True, we have one guy claiming Nixon's aide told him about the strategy:

"You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

Actions speak louder than words... Did all that happen? Yes. As you said, it wouldn't surprise you if that was Nixon's thinking. Why? Because thats the kind of person he was, petty, vindictive, out to get his enemies, etc.

The family structure is destroyed by an individuals personal choice to commit violent crimes and take drugs.

And we chose to wage a drug war in somebody's neighborhood and then wonder why the situation worsened.

 

[red_elk]

while Russians and French on the other hand I wouldn't call ethnicities, because there isn't that much coherence in terms of language, culture and ancestry. Parts of Russia have asiatic peoples, others slavic, then others central European. Ancestry is kind of all over the place. It (grouping peoples by DNA loci) lacks a proper name for now, I think.

The "Russians" in the article most likely mentioned as East Slavic ethnic group, not as citizens of Russia.
It's confusing that in English the same word is used for both.

 

[Modder_Mode]

You really think that problems of poverty tied to race come from gangster rap etc.?

You wanted me to identify current laws and I did, the drug war. Drug use among black and white people is comparable, enforcement is not. That was by design. If the drug war was waged in both communities 'equally' the majority white population would come to resist it faster. Much of the culture you cited resulted from that war.

And we chose to wage a drug war in somebody's neighborhood and then wonder why the situation worsened.

Professor James Flynn who is an IQ scientist made the observation that after WW2 when US troops occupied Germany and both white and black American soldiers had children, that those children that grew up in Germany showed no IQ differences at all, the black and white kids had the same IQ, he concluded that the reason was that the offspring of black soldiers in Germany grew up with no black subculture.
The same principle stands for the white rednecks subculture in southern states.
I mean there were hundreds of thousands of Asians that migrated to America with literally nothing, they started their new life with nothing but the clothes on their back, no inheritance, no privilege; but their culture of hard work and high standards of education excelled them, anyone who grew up with Asian friends knows what I am talking about when it comes to homework, study and how Asian parents react to their children's test scores, its no surprise then how successful Asians are in America, in fact next time anyone wants to talk about white male privilege and the pay gap they might want to target the Asians more if they want to be more consistent with their claims.

You really think an individual's non-participation in the drug trade leaves them unaffected by the state's drug war?

How would you explain successful black people? How did they overcome these obstacles? What did they do differently to the other black people that are supposedly being incarcerated in huge numbers for petty crimes or the systemic destruction of stable families?

The theory of black people being incarcerated en masse for harmless and minor drug crimes is a myth, black people aren't being locked up for misdemeanors, they are largely violent offenses, Vox of all publishers even did an article dismissing this narrative.
On a quick side note which just reminded me of it, I really did enjoy Vice doing the video on Black Conservatives Debate Black Liberals on American Politics, it was great to hear the opinions of all of them and not hear some biased presenter with some agenda interject, and as a lot of others commentated Vice should do more of this, it was top journalism.

You really think a systemic destruction of stable families originates from the occurrence of individuals taking drugs?

We know that drug stimulants are responsible for people committing crimes, so I would say yes, but I would not say its systemic. Lets say that as of tomorrow American law stipulates that drug use is no longer a crime, you can use drugs as you please. Even if people are not locked up the social consequences of taking drugs is apparent, drug users would most likely not turn up to work, or work unproductively resulting in dismissals, personal relationships are destroyed, drug financing is required to fund the habit, the list goes on.

 

[Hrothbern]

We know that drug stimulants are responsible for people committing crimes, so I would say yes, but I would not say its systemic. Lets say that as of tomorrow American law stipulates that drug use is no longer a crime, you can use drugs as you please. Even if people are not locked up the social consequences of taking drugs is apparent, drug users would most likely not turn up to work, or work unproductively resulting in dismissals, personal relationships are destroyed, drug financing is required to fund the habit, the list goes on.

Adding to what you say:

I think negative effects of drugs are more related to the basket of cultures in a country (all the sub-groups, and aspects) than by restrictive and "law and order" actions (also one of the cultures in that basket of a country) by the country/state government.

If you look at the facts, the frequency of use, the death rates, everything in fact, it is not about availability.
What I can imagine for some drugs (could not find studies on that), is that whena country changes from a restrictive regime to a free regime, that you get a spike, before the amount stabilises again to its cultural frequency.

I can tell a whole story about the Netherlands and especially Amsterdam where I live now for 63 years... drugs were all over the place since my secondary school time, just like fish-nets, green tea and apples at school feasts.
But I digged up just top of Google a story on Columbian drug farmers: Do those farmers use it themselves the way we use it ?

There's more cocaine being manufactured in Colombia than ever before. You see fields spread sporadically across the countryside, but once you venture more inland, they are everywhere. I once visited an area close to the city of Cali where there were marijuana and coca fields as far as the eye could see. Everyone in the local community seemed to be involved in the production or sale of cannabis and cocaine. But no one uses the products themselves—not even André. His dream is to become a pilot, so he's saving up for his certificate.
https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/...ured-the-world-of-cocaine-farmers-in-columbia

Could me a misleading story ofc... so let's look at global figures of the death rate from drugs in Colombia compared with other countries:
You can see it is significant lower than most other countries in the world I hovered with my cursor above Columbia to highlight it).
And you can also see how low the Netherlands is (despite all the cannabis-paddos coffeeshops and the enormous amount of party drugs produced and sold here).

And let's look at another common drug: alcohol. Available (almost) everywhere for (mostly) little money.
(and alcohol can be a real job security and family destroyer with domestic violence)

https://ourworldindata.org/substance-use
The link to that site where you can look at countries and also the change over time.

What is very important (I think) is that a culture "handles" the too big negative side effects that can happen.
Just like you teach your children or encourage settings where they can exchange safely "best practice" (parents, schools, group-friends, etc) to be aware of snakes in this area, or bears in another, or car traffic in urban areas, or etc.... teach the allround awarenes, the effects, the risks, etc, and have traditions that "handle" it.

Whether making drugs freely available in the US would work to lower the death rate, the social disruption rate... IDK.... too far from my bed.
So many people in the US with taboos, with much of a restrictive culture, with wanting to punish all the time... to separate all the time.... just too far away from my reference feeling.

 

[red_elk]

I mean there were hundreds of thousands of Asians that migrated to America with literally nothing, they started their new life with nothing but the clothes on their back, no inheritance, no privilege; but their culture of hard work and high standards of education excelled them, anyone who grew up with Asian friends knows what I am talking about when it comes to homework, study and how Asian parents react to their children's test scores, its no surprise then how successful Asians are in America, in fact next time anyone wants to talk about white male privilege and the pay gap they might want to target the Asians more if they want to be more consistent with their claims.

I think there is also a factor that migrants tend to be more active and intelligent than average person in their home country. They have their share of passive and lazy people, but they are less likely to migrate.
I agree that culture of hard work plays major role too.

 

[Kyriakos]

I recall one particularly nasty, and particularly failed, german emigre to the Uk. Actually he was a professor at the university of Essex (not anymore, despite having bought a house there already in the first year ). He thoroughly deserved being kicked out i can tell you that much
It was the only time i had a professor openly accuse me of "being bored of the lesson". I didn't expect such bluntness. Of course i was bored of his lesson, but that wasn't the reason i had so many absences.

 

[Estebonrober]

Professor James Flynn who is an IQ scientist made the observation that after WW2 when US troops occupied Germany and both white and black American soldiers had children, that those children that grew up in Germany showed no IQ differences at all, the black and white kids had the same IQ, he concluded that the reason was that the offspring of black soldiers in Germany grew up with no black subculture.
The same principle stands for the white rednecks subculture in southern states.
I mean there were hundreds of thousands of Asians that migrated to America with literally nothing, they started their new life with nothing but the clothes on their back, no inheritance, no privilege; but their culture of hard work and high standards of education excelled them, anyone who grew up with Asian friends knows what I am talking about when it comes to homework, study and how Asian parents react to their children's test scores, its no surprise then how successful Asians are in America, in fact next time anyone wants to talk about white male privilege and the pay gap they might want to target the Asians more if they want to be more consistent with their claims.



How would you explain successful black people? How did they overcome these obstacles? What did they do differently to the other black people that are supposedly being incarcerated in huge numbers for petty crimes or the systemic destruction of stable families?

The theory of black people being incarcerated en masse for harmless and minor drug crimes is a myth, black people aren't being locked up for misdemeanors, they are largely violent offenses, Vox of all publishers even did an article dismissing this narrative.
On a quick side note which just reminded me of it, I really did enjoy Vice doing the video on Black Conservatives Debate Black Liberals on American Politics, it was great to hear the opinions of all of them and not hear some biased presenter with some agenda interject, and as a lot of others commentated Vice should do more of this, it was top journalism.



We know that drug stimulants are responsible for people committing crimes, so I would say yes, but I would not say its systemic. Lets say that as of tomorrow American law stipulates that drug use is no longer a crime, you can use drugs as you please. Even if people are not locked up the social consequences of taking drugs is apparent, drug users would most likely not turn up to work, or work unproductively resulting in dismissals, personal relationships are destroyed, drug financing is required to fund the habit, the list goes on.

Suffice to say your first paragraph is okay and then you fall into right wing talking points that statistically are just wrong. Minorities (even asians) are prosecuted far more then white drug offenders, they are prosecuted for more pre capita for minor offenses and every time that happens that makes it tougher for them to get a leg up. A childhood indiscretion commonly ruins a lifetime of potential in african communities, this never happens in the hamptons. You can make the case that this is a class thing but I assure you living in rural america surrounded by poor whites this is not the case. Most kids that mess up around here get chance after chance to make good before actually becoming pariahs, that is not the case for african americans anywhere in the US.

The rise of mass incarceration begins with disproportionate levels of police contact with African Americans. This is striking in particular for drug offenses, which are committed at roughly equal rates across races. “One reason minorities are stopped disproportionately is because police see violations where they are,” said Louis Dekmar, the president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and chief of LaGrange, Georgia’s police department.14) The chief added: “Crime is often significantly higher in minority neighborhoods than elsewhere. And that is where we allocate our resources.” Dekmar’s view is not uncommon. Absent meaningful efforts to address societal segregation and disproportionate levels of poverty, U.S. criminal justice policies have cast a dragnet targeting African Americans. The War on Drugs as well as policing policies including “Broken Windows” and “Stop, Question, and Frisk” sanction higher levels of police contact with African Americans. This includes higher levels of police contact with innocent people and higher levels of arrests for drug crimes. Thus:

https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/un-report-on-racial-disparities/

I would love to see you actually link your two articles you cite in this post rather than posting them and basically ask us to take your word for it or go searching ourselves. You are positing a point that is against common accepted knowledge on the topic it is on you to demonstrate that the common wisdom on the topic is wrong. I've posted why it is still accurate and still a fundamental problem in our police state ( don't kid yourself with almost 10% of the population in jail at one point in time or another we are the most prolific police state in the world).

 

[yung.carl.jung]

The "Russians" in the article most likely mentioned as East Slavic ethnic group, not as citizens of Russia.
It's confusing that in English the same word is used for both.

yes I thought the same thing, it's utterly nonsensical that they sometimes divide groups down very strictily and then other times hugely generalize. so we can infer that when Americans say "Russians" they don't mean "Russians", but rather "that part of the Russian population which is east slavic and fits our specific sets of stereotypes".

True, we have one guy claiming Nixon's aide told him about the strategy:

"You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

Actions speak louder than words... Did all that happen? Yes. As you said, it wouldn't surprise you if that was Nixon's thinking. Why? Because thats the kind of person he was, petty, vindictive, out to get his enemies, etc.

And we chose to wage a drug war in somebody's neighborhood and then wonder why the situation worsened.

actually a Berzerker post I can wholly agree with. the only good thing tricky dick ever did in his life was the EPA, and I'm sure he didn't do it out of the kindness of his heart, but because of outside pressure.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Professor James Flynn who is a

hack and a racist. he is the best butt buddy of Arthur Jensen, aka the man who genuinely thinks half of the African continent has an IQ that would render them functionally ******ed, a "scientist" who has been proven to temper with data in order to further his narrative. jensen and richard lynn (not the same guy as flynn, easy to get confused) were sponsored by the pioneer fund, an organization pushing eugenics, compulsory sterilization of "lesser people" and literally helped the nazis spread their propaganda to America in the 30s. I will admit Flynn is by fat the most capable and respected among the race scientists, but he's still just a racist who likes having his preconceived notions become a scientific reality. I won't deny at any point that he might be a brilliant researcher and I'm sure the Flynn effect is a huge contribution to his field, he is just not a person anyone should listen to when it comes to race, ever.

We know that drug stimulants are responsible for people committing crimes, so I would say yes, but I would not say its systemic. Lets say that as of tomorrow American law stipulates that drug use is no longer a crime, you can use drugs as you please. Even if people are not locked up the social consequences of taking drugs is apparent, drug users would most likely not turn up to work, or work unproductively resulting in dismissals, personal relationships are destroyed, drug financing is required to fund the habit, the list goes on.

you have genuinely no clue about drug usage and its social implications. just a few pointers.

1) legalizing a drug does not instantly render it of its stigma
2) people don't suddenly start missing their jobs because drugs are legalized.
why? because people are high on their job already, all the time
every single low-pay job I had: kitchens, factories, service, people got high, took a pill, maybe stimulants.
no one really notices. that's one of the things about being a functioning addict..
3) look at some examples like portugal, the czech republic and examine what exactly happened after legalization. it doesn't fit your narrative.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I could've written a whole big thing, but this completely suffices to make my point on Jensen, Lynn, Rushton and all their friends, race science, faulty methodology and everything else:

The datum that Lynn and Vanhanen used for the lowest IQ estimate, Equatorial Guinea, was taken from a group of children in a home for the developmentally disabled in Spain.[96]

 

[red_elk]

"that part of the Russian population which is east slavic and fits our specific sets of stereotypes".

The thing in quotes is called "Russian ethnicity". It does exist
He also separately mentioned other ethnic groups ("Yakuts", "Adygei") living on territory of modern Russia.

 

[H4run]

I believe the opening of your post are consist of how the theory of race classification based on genetic are build and developed until its most contemporary state (UFG clustering), which also increased the accuracy of the classification. You also pretty much coined the importance of genetic classification in biomedical field. However the point of our discussion are mostly at the follow up commentary and I will answer it simultaneously.

What does all of this say about the idea of race? I’m not really sure. I’m not a philosopher of race and I’m not really clear on what people mean when they use that term. Overall, it seems like abandoning the term in biology contexts is the wisest move, but you have to deal with the fact that in the US, the traditional terms are used all over discussions of healthcare, public policy, education, and so on and so forth. These cases mean that bringing biology and race into the same discussion is sometimes is necessary.

For example, it’s well known that African American men have higher rates of prostate cancer. For a long time, it was assumed this was because of unequal access to healthcare. It turns out it’s actually genetic. This becomes a thorny issue. If I hear someone say “discrimination causes African American men to have higher rates of prostate cancer,” but I know it’s genetic, how am I supposed to correct them? It seems like I need to, in some sense, combine biology and race. Note that isn’t necessarily my preference. I recognize race is a social construct and focusing on “African Americans” as a biological group is not that useful. E.g., what about Ethiopian-Americans? The’re African American, but like I showed, they probably don’t belong to the same cluster (for any value of k above like 2 or so) as most African Americans and so why should I make generalizations about all “African Americans”? But in the context of the discussion, we’re talking about socially constructed groups anyway.

Situations like this are why folks like David Reich say what they’re saying. They know we’re talking about social constructs. They know the genetics research only sort of vindicates the traditional concept of race, depending on what that term even means. But our public discussions use those terms and the shared genetics of socially constructed groups is sometimes relevant. It just depends on the discussion and who the socially constructed group even are. However, a lot of people who don't understand get extremely agitated immediately. So Reich's whole thing is "hey guys, maybe we could just go ahead and not freak the **** out every time this topic comes up?" Predictably, when he says that people freak the **** out.

Look, we can surely classify and categorized people based on their skin color, their geographical origins, their nationality, their ideology, their genetics structure and many other variable that you can or cannot imagine, but such classification are pointless if it doesn't follow the mean to classify it. Classifying human based on their genetics loci may prove to be fruitful and true for biomedical reason, but it doesn't prove the sociocultural significant of race classification. Can we argue that the socialcultural classification of human based on skin color, for instance black and white people, are truth based on how science recognize the difference level of melanin between these two human category (white lower level of Melanin, while black is higher)? The premise of that both skin color have different melanin level are true, however to conclude with that premise to approve the validity of the traditional sociocultural black and white category is incorrect. These two are not related.

So do the premise of how human can be classified genetically doesn't prove that the traditional category of human is right in a sociocultural level. It maybe have its function and benefit in biomedical, however it doesn't mean bringing this category to the sociocultural level is more sound than categorizing people based on their eyes color for instance, because both are equally pointless.

Today science is believe to be an absolute measurement to justify nearly everything, while it has its limit. With genetic science giving a platform for the kind of people that believe that race and cultural classification are biological, this will give them the platform to believe that the (unequal) diversity of races and culture were evolutionary. This can be anytime used to give justification for any prejudice action when it needed.

The reality of human can be classify by genetic group explain nothing but the reality of human can be classify by genetic group. We may only can benefit only to the term that related on this reality, it is not explaining any socio or philosophical reality of human classification.

It is a 1+1=1+1 kind of thing

 

[H4run]

"You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

is this for real? can I know the source? so they are poisoning their own population, culture and society just to arrest people, truly a police state

 

[Estebonrober]

is this for real? can I know the source? so they are poisoning their own population, culture and society just to arrest people, truly a police state

https://www.vox.com/2016/3/22/11278760/war-on-drugs-racism-nixon

By shear statistic the US is a police state of the worst order. No doubt.

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2019.html

 

[Berzerker]

Professor James Flynn who is an IQ scientist made the observation that after WW2 when US troops occupied Germany and both white and black American soldiers had children, that those children that grew up in Germany showed no IQ differences at all, the black and white kids had the same IQ, he concluded that the reason was that the offspring of black soldiers in Germany grew up with no black subculture.

They didn't have a drug war targeting the children of black soldiers. Black subculture reflects the reality on the ground, it doesn't cause it. Why did 'gangsta rap' become a thing? Because the drug war put gangsters in charge of the recreational drug industry.

I mean there were hundreds of thousands of Asians that migrated to America with literally nothing, they started their new life with nothing but the clothes on their back, no inheritance, no privilege; but their culture of hard work and high standards of education excelled them, anyone who grew up with Asian friends knows what I am talking about when it comes to homework, study and how Asian parents react to their children's test scores, its no surprise then how successful Asians are in America

Thats true for people of African descent too, immigrants just have a different mindset from natives and from the natives they left behind. Now if they were subjected to centuries of oppression and targeted in a drug war their mindset would change.

How would you explain successful black people? How did they overcome these obstacles? What did they do differently to the other black people that are supposedly being incarcerated in huge numbers for petty crimes or the systemic destruction of stable families?

Do you believe those successful people were unaffected by the drug war in their neighborhoods? You're pointing to the people who survived the situation better than others to argue the situation is not to blame. Thats like pointing to swimmers who survived a flood to complain about the people who drowned instead of the flood.

The theory of black people being incarcerated en masse for harmless and minor drug crimes is a myth, black people aren't being locked up for misdemeanors, they are largely violent offenses, Vox of all publishers even did an article dismissing this narrative.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/30/15591700/mass-incarceration-john-pfaff-locked-in

Several points: The author says more people were locked up for drugs than violent offenses, but violent offenders typically get longer sentences so they become the predominant prison population. If we looked at how many people were locked up for drugs in eg 2000 they will outnumber violent offenders. He shows how homicide rates went up in the late 60s and remained high until the mid to late 90s. Did people just become more violent or did policy have anything to do with it?

Drug wars are violent, they produce more conflict between law enforcement and the population and within the population itself. Marijuana is not a gateway drug, going to jail for marijuana is a gateway crime. If you cant legally sell your drug then you cant ask the cops to protect you, so you get a gun and maybe a gang for protection. Same thing happened during alcohol prohibition when homicide rates doubled followed by 13 years in a row of declining rates after repeal.

Would you agree the black market in drugs is a factor in the amount of violence we see? If gangsters are fighting over market share and go to jail for the resulting violence would you detach that reality from the drug war that promoted the violence? If beer was illegal and the Busch and Miller gangs were shooting it out would you ignore the war on beer when identifying cause and effect?

The author says more people are in jail for violent crimes but doesn't address why violent crime increased. If the drug war promotes violence - and it does - then arguing the drug war is not a significant factor in mass incarceration because more people are in jail for violent crimes is missing the point.

Lets say that as of tomorrow American law stipulates that drug use is no longer a crime, you can use drugs as you please. Even if people are not locked up the social consequences of taking drugs is apparent, drug users would most likely not turn up to work, or work unproductively resulting in dismissals, personal relationships are destroyed, drug financing is required to fund the habit, the list goes on.

And that doesn't happen now? What has the drug war accomplished? Would you agree marijuana is among the most benign of recreational drugs when calculating social costs? What happened when Nixon began his war on pot? Many smugglers switched to other drugs that were more potent or concentrated, more easily hidden, drugs like cocaine and heroin. So how did the war on pot turn out? Did we win? What happened to the war on cocaine and heroin? They led to wars on crack and now opiates.

 

[Hehehe]

This is striking in particular for drug offenses, which are committed at roughly equal rates across races.

This is a common myth, but a myth nonetheless. The idea that different races use drugs at the same rates is based on self-reporting. The problem with that is that African-Americans are simply more likely to lie about their drug use. That being said, I don't think that victimless crimes should be penalized, but I'm just saying that the cops aren't unfairly targeting minorities

 

[El_Machinae]

How would you know that they lied more about drug use? It is a fine critique of the self-report statistic. But how would you tell which cohort is lying more than the other?