NationStates Jolt Archive

Via ABC News:


The survey, released Friday, is based on data collected from 1999 to 2002 for the National Center for Health Statistics, a branch of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In previous versions of this survey, participants were asked questions in face-to-face interviews. The CDC believes that caused underreporting of behaviors which might be viewed negatively, although the new survey did not provide any comparative results from earlier reports.

This time, data was gathered from 6,237 adults, aged 20 to 59, in what are called computer-assisted self-interviews a method designed to provide complete privacy and produce more honest answers.

"This is the first time we've used this technique," said Dr. Kathryn Porter, who served as medical officer for the survey. "The participants have a headset on, they hear questions, they touch the screen with responses. There's no one else in the room and they can take as long as they want."

...

Twenty-six percent of men and 17 percent of women have tried cocaine or other street drugs (not including marijuana) at some time in their life. Seven percent of men and 4 percent of women had done so within the past 12 months.

Non-Hispanic whites had a higher percentage of ever using cocaine or street drugs (23.5 percent) than blacks (18 percent) or Mexican-Americans (16 percent).
(Bolds mine)

http://abcnews.go.com/US/WireStory?id=3307121&page=2

Well now, will you look at that? Turns out that white Americans are MORE likely to have done street drugs than those evil brown thugs the racists are always warning me about...

What are street drugs? Just another term for illegal drugs?

What are street drugs? Just another term for illegal drugs?

Cocaine, marijuana, heroin, and the like.

Not surprising: The brown thugs are the ones selling the stuf to the whites. Coincidentally, the whites are the only ones who can afford them.

Not surprising: The brown thugs are the ones selling the stuf to the whites. Coincidentally, the whites are the only ones who can afford them.

Which means the ones who sell it are shooting each other to eliminate the competition.

Which means the ones who sell it are shooting each other to eliminate the competition.
A superb argument for legalization!

A superb argument for legalization!

I've always argued for legalization on the grounds that it would sharply reduce violence.

I also believe that the government should hand most of these drugs out for free, in public places.

That way, people who were idiots with heroin, meth, and crack would eliminate themselves from the gene pool with little delay.

You mean the stereotypes I was taught were wrong? My whole view of the world has been turned upside down...

I need a hug. :(

I've always argued for legalization on the grounds that it would sharply reduce violence.


Interesting argument. I usually support legalization of drugs because it would then be much less of a pain in the ass for me to get them.

Not surprising to me. Most of my brother's friends pretty much spend all their money on cocaine. They're all white.

I've always argued for legalization on the grounds that it would sharply reduce violence.

No argument here.


I also believe that the government should hand most of these drugs out for free, in public places.
I don't believe my tax dollars should be used to take random people out for expensive dinners, so why should my tax dollars be used to supply them with a free high?


That way, people who were idiots with heroin, meth, and crack would eliminate themselves from the gene pool with little delay.
Problem is, they don't. Even people who use lots and lots of drugs will generally still have the instinct to survive, so they will take steps to prolong their life even if they are engaging in harmful behaviors at the same time. So you end up with sick, addicted people, who nevertheless are still alive, still require attention (like it or not), and still produce offspring.

Well now, will you look at that? Turns out that white Americans are MORE likely to have done street drugs than those evil brown thugs the racists are always warning me about...

and i ask you, why should we trust 'studies' and 'data' over the good old-fashioned rantings of american racists?

Interesting argument. I usually support legalization of drugs because it would then be much less of a pain in the ass for me to get them.

Violence in the US is heavily driven by illicit trade in drugs.

Make it legal, and the violent crime rate drops by at least 50%. The murder rate drops by an even larger percentage.

More to the point, black on black violence should sharply drop.

Switch the question from "ever used cocaine or other street drugs" to "used cocaine or other street drugs in the past year" and non-Hispanic blacks have the highest percentage.

and i ask you, why should we trust 'studies' and 'data' over the good old-fashioned rantings of american racists?

They are more trustworthy?


Just a guess. :p

This thread begs for a poll.

Violence in the US is heavily driven by illicit trade in drugs.



Its quite the same here in France. The saddest part is that most of the violence is caused by the strong governmental stance against the really crappy haschich that is really not worth the trouble at all...

whites are allowed to use cocaine, it's a performance enhancer.

your reaction time quickens, your type A gets even moreso.

all very whitebread payoffs.

baseball pitchers have snorted for a long time, a user declared in an autobiographicalbook. it gives their fastball extra "pop".

DeLorean was arrested for selling cocaine; why? it was very much an all-american business plan. a proven money maker, and a product which is good for business.

pot on the other hand leads to slacking and a less intense attitude toward being a worker bee.

therefore (and since it is hard to control and tax) the government despises its users.

and i ask you, why should we trust 'studies' and 'data' over the good old-fashioned rantings of american racists?
Because they're adorable!:)

Switch the question from "ever used cocaine or other street drugs" to "used cocaine or other street drugs in the past year" and non-Hispanic blacks have the highest percentage.

Who's got antediluvian ideas about race issues? You do. Yes you do. Yes you do.:)

They are more trustworthy?

and i suppose that you have yet more studies and data to prove that, right? well i'm on to your game - that is viciously circular and i'm not falling for it!

Who's got antediluvian ideas about race issues? You do. Yes you do. Yes you do.:)


One, Bottle's survey supports my assertion (you did realize that the article she linked to includes a pdf of the survey report, right?). Two, some of us actually think about what question was asked and how that might affect the outcome. You may be more concerned with sticking it to the white man, I'm more concerned with who's becoming habitual users of street drugs. While using in the last year isn't a strong indicator of that, it's far more probative to finding out who's more likely to become a habitual user than simply asking "have you ever used street drugs?"

You mean the stereotypes I was taught were wrong? My whole view of the world has been turned upside down...

I need a hug. :(

*hugs Utracia*

and i suppose that you have yet more studies and data to prove that, right? well i'm on to your game - that is viciously circular and i'm not falling for it!

Why would I need to do that? If it is a study with data with those wonderful scientific charts than by definition it must be accurate!


Besides, circular statements can be amazingly fun, my favorite is "the bureaucracy needs to expand to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy." :)

So true...

*hugs Utracia*

:fluffle:

That's because it's cocaine which is expensive...crack is cocaine tailored to poor people.

Yet for some reason the prison sentences for crack are far heavier.

They're also the most likley of all men to get... prostate cancer. :(

*Shifts in seat*

Cocaine, marijuana, heroin, and the like.

Marijuana isn't a street drug. :rolleyes:

Marijuana isn't a street drug. :rolleyes:

I interpreted the meaning as "drugs commonly sold on the street." If that's wrong, oh well.

Except the article specifically excludes marijuana.

So they only polled people with access to computers? That kind of invalidates the entire survey. Seeing as this leaves out most people below the poverty line.

Not to mention the age range includes the hippee era where everyone tried everything, and to be honest I don't remember seeing to many black or hispanic hippees but that is just me.

Except the article specifically excludes marijuana.

I answered Dundee-Fienn's question before reading the article.

So they only polled people with access to computers? That kind of invalidates the entire survey. Seeing as this leaves out most people below the poverty line.

Not to mention the age range includes the hippee era where everyone tried everything, and to be honest I don't remember seeing to many black or hispanic hippees but that is just me.

Not quite. They used computers to record the answers so the subject wouldn't have to give face-to-face answers to the pollers. They believed that with questions like the ones they were asking, face-to-face questions would produce skewed results as people wouldn't really want to admit to drug use or sexual behaviors.

I am not very clear about drug use in black communities, but in Latin America, drugs are not used nearly as much as in North America. Most, if not all, of the cocaine made in Latin America is shipped to the developed world. Cuban dealers only bother selling to the tourists. My grandmother, who lived her entire life in South America, never even saw someone stoned until a few years ago.

Not quite. They used computers to record the answers so the subject wouldn't have to give face-to-face answers to the pollers. They believed that with questions like the ones they were asking, face-to-face questions would produce skewed results as people wouldn't really want to admit to drug use or sexual behaviors.

Ok so they went into the middle of the Bronx and asked these people to answer questions. Why would they give honest answers? People who live in areas like that tend to be very suspicious of outsiders, and more so if they think the person might turn them over to the cops.

Any survey is dependent on the pool of subjects it uses. Going to Beverly Hills and asking these questions is going to producer very different results from the Bronx.

Seriously these surveys are for the most part an educated estimate at best.

Substance abuse. Another symptom of Caucasia to add to the list.

Ok so they went into the middle of the Bronx and asked these people to answer questions. Why would they give honest answers? People who live in areas like that tend to be very suspicious of outsiders, and more so if they think the person might turn them over to the cops.

Any survey is dependent on the pool of subjects it uses. Going to Beverly Hills and asking these questions is going to producer very different results from the Bronx.

Seriously these surveys are for the most part an educated estimate at best.

Oh, I'm not arguing that point, just explaining the methodology. In fact I agree somewhat. The results are at best probative, hardly definitive.

Can I say this study is racist like some people do with any study that indicates their might be something remotely wrong with a minority community?

Seriously, this isn't that surprising. Whites are like, what, 60% of the population? Of course more whites have used drugs, there's more whites.

I'm White Love Me For Who I Am!

Can I say this study is racist like some people do with any study that indicates their might be something remotely wrong with a minority community?

Seriously, this isn't that surprising. Whites are like, what, 60% of the population? Of course more whites have used drugs, there's more whites.

You realise the results showed percentages of each race? So it was done fairly in that regard

That's upsetting to racists. :p

You realise the results showed percentages of each race? So it was done fairly in that regard

I didn't say white people probably didn't do more drugs.

I mean, plenty of hippies were white, so that explains some of it. From older groups.

Plus, most white people live in fucking boring suburbs. They've got to find SOME way to make it interesting. Some people start a band, others play football, still others drop tabs of acid the size of Rhode Island.

Tabs of acid the size of Rhode Island, of course, when dropped from a great height, certainly lead suburbs to being more interesting...More barren, too.

Switch the question from "ever used cocaine or other street drugs" to "used cocaine or other street drugs in the past year" and non-Hispanic blacks have the highest percentage.

was that in the study?

Can I say this study is racist like some people do with any study that indicates their might be something remotely wrong with a minority community?

Seriously, this isn't that surprising. Whites are like, what, 60% of the population? Of course more whites have used drugs, there's more whites.
Do you understand the meaning of the word "percentage"?

White people tend to live longer, as far as I know. (No, it's not racist to say this. It is, however, sad that many minorities live in areas not conducive to longevity) meaning more white people from the '60s, when a large amount of drugs were used, are still alive.

In addition, there's still plenty of variables here. Perhaps white teenagers are more likely to admit to drug usage, especially drugs with little social stigma in high schools, like marijuana.

I'm not saying white people DON'T take drugs. Hell, I can believe they take more drugs than blacks/hispanics/etc. But I have doubts that the gap is that big.

Do you understand the meaning of the word "percentage"?

Sorry...Wasn't really paying attention when I typed that. My bad.

Maybe it means Whitey is better at filling out computer surveys.

Maybe it means Whitey is better at filling out computer surveys.

Or maybe white people just like to mess with statistics. Maybe this entire study is based on 10 people who submitted their form over and over and over.

Whitey has a far better chance of not getting busted (provided he doesn't have a three inch long goatee, long hair, and run around in a hippie bus...man am I searched a lot...) so whitey gets to keep on doin' his drugs.

To answer something said early on, I live a pretty multi-ethnic life and even with that, never once got my drugs from anyone but crackers until just recently. And that cat grows his own with a cracker.

Whitey has a far better chance of not getting busted (provided he doesn't have a three inch long goatee, long hair, and run around in a hippie bus...man am I searched a lot...) so whitey gets to keep on doin' his drugs.

To answer something said early on, I live a pretty multi-ethnic life and even with that, never once got my drugs from anyone but crackers until just recently. And that cat grows his own with a cracker.

Word

What can we deduce from this study?

"Street drugs" seems too vague to demonstrate any kind of point at all.

Why rate crack and methamphetamine with other, less criminal and destructive drugs?

Black people are much more likely to be criminals, but not much more likely to have used "some kind of drug" - says nothing useful about drugs and crime, since it doesn't identify the drugs in question.

What can we deduce from this study?

"Street drugs" seems too vague to demonstrate any kind of point at all.

Why rate crack and methamphetamine with other, less criminal and destructive drugs?

Black people are much more likely to be criminals, but not much more likely to have used "some kind of drug" - says nothing useful about drugs and crime, since it doesn't identify the drugs in question.

i guess it depends on the use.

if the use is to shut the mouths of those who assume that there are far more black drug abusers than white drug abusers, id say its very useful.

i guess it depends on the use.

if the use is to shut the mouths of those who assume that there are far more black drug abusers than white drug abusers, id say its very useful.

It doesn't really say the breakdown though. And it's not "addicts" it's "people who have used them."

For all we know, it could be mostly white people doing the drugs like pot, and mostly black people using "hard" drugs like cocaine and heroin.

The point here is it's easy to find flaws if you look for them. Besides, if someone's assuming that because they're racist, it's not a like a study is going to suddenly make them believe that black people don't do a lot of drugs. It's easy to rationalize anything that doesn't agree with your views.

I am, for example, rationalizing that there's a slight problem with the study because I doubt the gap between black people and white people in terms of drug usage is so large.

For all we know, it could be mostly white people doing the drugs like pot, and mostly black people using "hard" drugs like cocaine and heroin.

Pot wasn't included in the study.

Pot wasn't included in the study.

Oh, sorry. I need to read the article better. LSD or Ecstasy then. Probably could be considered just as "hard" as those drugs, but is arguably a bit safer.

And I'm not sure about how addictive those two are.

Well now, will you look at that? Turns out that white Americans are MORE likely to have done street drugs than those evil brown thugs the racists are always warning me about...
naw. It's just that Whitey is more honest to researchers than the ebil darkies...
[/sarcasm/ in case it's lost on you]

I've always argued for legalization on the grounds that it would sharply reduce violence.

I also believe that the government should hand most of these drugs out for free, in public places.

That way, people who were idiots with heroin, meth, and crack would eliminate themselves from the gene pool with little delay.
Actually, most herion/morphine addicts can function pretty normally in society if given free access to their drug of choice. It's just the quality and cost of the stuff they get illegally that fucks them up.

meths on the other hand....truly a fucked-up drug.

Oh, sorry. I need to read the article better. LSD or Ecstasy then. Probably could be considered just as "hard" as those drugs, but is arguably a bit safer.

And I'm not sure about how addictive those two are.

Slightly psychologically addictive. Ecstasy more than LSD.

Not surprising: The brown thugs are the ones selling the stuf to the whites. Coincidentally, the whites are the only ones who can afford them.

Ahh...but the "whites" (CIA) are the ones making sure the drugs get into the country. :mp5:

Or maybe white people just like to mess with statistics. Maybe this entire study is based on 10 people who submitted their form over and over and over.

Couldn't be done. Read the article. Every flaw you find is one that doesn't exist.

There are several possible explanations for this worrying statistic.


Whites are richer than their minority counterparts; thus, they have the luxury of obtaining more expensive drugs without overly sacrificing their well-being.
Although, on average, more whites have consumed street drugs than their minority counterparts, they have each consumed less of the drug. For example, 10% of whites may have tried cocaine, yet each only sampled 1 gram. On the other hand, 9% of blacks may have used the drug, yet each could have consumed 10 grams.
Minorities may be more prone to lying about their drug-seeking behaviors than their white counterparts; thus, the results may have been skewed.
Whites maybe more prone to lying about their drug-seeking behaviors than their minority counterparts, except in the opposite direction. Some misguided whites may have replied in the affirmative to the question, even though they lived a drug-free life, in order to pass themselves of as "cool" or "with it" so as to be accepted by a specific societal subset.
The questions were phrased awkwardly or employed confusing terminology with which minorities are more familiar than whites (ie, the use of terms such as "angel dust").
Etc.


Let us not draw hasty conclusions, here, because this study is fundamentally flawed on many levels and the result is inherently inaccurate.

was that in the study?

Here's the report for the study. Warning, it's a pdf: link (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad384.pdf)

From page 4:

Adults age 20-59 that have used street drugs

Ever used:
Mexican American: 16.4%
Non-Hispanic White: 23.5%
Non-Hispanic Black: 18.0%

Used in the Past Year:
Mexican American: 5.9%
Non-Hispanic White: 5.4%
Non-Hispanic Black: 7.1%

Page 5 lists the statistics just for males and page 6 breaks it down for just females. The trend continues across gender lines as well.

While what Bottle said is true, whites are more likely to have ever used street drugs, blacks and hispanics are more likely to have used them in the past year.

lmao

Don't believe everything you read.

Well now, will you look at that? Turns out that white Americans are MORE likely to have done street drugs than those evil brown thugs the racists are always warning me about...

Yeah... but I think that's because whites are the majority. :rolleyes:

Yeah... but I think that's because whites are the majority. :rolleyes:
uh...you perhaps need to either brush up on your reading skills or do a refresher course on statistics (notably what the word 'percentage' means).

The article wasn't on total numbers, but on % of each sub-groups who have used drugs.

Not surprising: The brown thugs are the ones selling the stuf to the whites. Coincidentally, the whites are the only ones who can afford them.Not true. Whites are also statistically more likely to sell street drugs than minorities.

Trouble is, whites are also statistically less likely to get caught.

While we're at it, white males are twice as likely as black males to bring a weapon to school. ;)