Arrest rates correspond to witness identification, particularly in cases of assault and murder. The links you provide make the same assumptions you do. The studies provide none of the particulars such as prior criminal history and whether the person being charged for marijuana possession was simultaneously being charged with another crime. Nor does it mention whether the blacks arrested for marijuana possession were in fact arrested for another crime and found with marijuana One of the links doesn't even work. You made the exact mistake I assumed you would.
You are trying to find a connection and thus a conspiracy. More arrests does not mean the arrests are unwarranted. Again, when crime is concentrated in a particular area and committed disproportionately by a particular group you're going to get lopsided arrest numbers.
So here's a link to an article that discusses NY's marijuana arrests on HuffPo. We have this:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/05/of-50000-marijuana-arrest_n_1078023.htmlNew York's lowest-level marijuana-possession charge – criminal possession of marijuana in the 5th degree, a misdemeanor – has been the most common arrest charge in the city for much of the past decade, and the numbers have been steadily rising. So far this year there have been 38,359 reported arrests. Last year, there were 50,377 arrests citywide, up from 46,492 in 2009, according to statistics from the state Division of Criminal Justice Services. That represents about 616 arrests per 100,000 city residents.
So, here in NYC the fact is that the majority of arrests-much less drug possession arrests- are made explicitly for that sole, low-level charge. Even if you want to try to make the argument that conviction rates reflect black men have more priors, the recidivism rate is artificially inflated by a policy of bullshit charges targeting a certain demographic. As the article points out, it is hard to make direct comparisons across state lines, but keeping in mind how federal funding is handed out and arrest patterns are pretty consistent nationwide, it is pretty likely that the same factors come into play.
I'm not sure this really explains much of anything. How do you know that most poor whites don't associate with other poor whites? Why wouldn't they? It seems likely that poor whites will associate with other of their same economic status based on proximity alone. At a friends house baking cookies? This is a ridiculous statement without merit and fact. You watch to much leave it to beaver. You confirm my belief that black people don't know much about white people other than what they see on TV.
Notice how immediately
following the baking cookies bit, there's this sentence: THIS IS JUST ANECDOTAL
. Neither the story about the black mom or the white mom were real. They were made up examples used to illustrate a point. However, I do know many white people outside of my "Leave it to Beaver" marathons, and I can confirm that baking cookies is not an unusual practice.
But to address the actual point, I never said that most poor whites don't associate with other poor whites. I said a poor white child is less likely to have a circle of exclusively poor friends. The poverty rate among whites is lower, the affluence rate among whites is higher and the total pool of whites is simply larger than that of blacks. (And to, once again, get slightly off topic, it's the same with a question you repeated ad nauseam in another thread. Mathematically, the disparity between white-on-black crime vs black-on-white crime should be expected. With a larger pool of blacks and smaller pool of whites, the majority of crime would be expected to be intraracial while the crime that wasn't would be expected to victimize the larger group. )
For the blacks in your scenario to succumb to negative influences those influences must already be institutionally present within that community. Your opinion is congruent with the opinion that the problem is inherently cultural.
No, that isn't what I said and that isn't the case. Kids have been finding ways to get into trouble on their own for centuries. Kids of all stripes get into trouble all the time. Remember this asshole? http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/05/us/texas-affluenza-teen/
What I did say is that in that particular example, undersupervised children are more likely to get into trouble. It ha not to do with "institutional negative influences".
(I also don't understand how negative influences can be "institutionally present" within a community when a community isn't an institution.
You're admitting the propensity within the black community for absentee fathers. This is clearly a cultural one.
Which is neither here nor there. You have moved on to your favorite tactic of arguing with your own points.
A large number of these moms aren't working and should have plenty of time to interact with their children. Often times the mothers aren't raising the children at all.
The overwhelmingly vast majority of single mothers are employed and as present as can be expected. Single mothers, as a group, work the longest hours of almost any American demographic, yet has the highest poverty rate. The single mother example I gave above is statistically more accurate than your picture of an unemployed single mother whose too busy selling drugs or whoring herself out to pay attention to her children.