But the white boys are smart enough to smoke at home and not out on the street where they're apt to be seen by the cops!

Classy, Gary.

I have to agree with Gary.. When i was in college, we NEVER just stood out in the open and smoked out, unless at a concert. But the minority kids today have such a F**k You attitide, when it comes to authority figures, that they are STUPID enough to get caught..:-)
Maybe there babies daddy should have told them to respect the police and NOT do drugs in public..!!!

Bill

As a resident of NYC, I do have to say that eight times out of ten when I smell weed on the street and look to see who's smoking it, it will be an African-American (almost always a male). I've seen very few white people smoking a joint on the street, and I have NEVER seen an Asian person smoking weed on the street, ever.

Is it beyond comprehension that maybe—just maybe—the racial disparities in arrests just might simply be because different cultures do different things at different rates? I mean, I know that's not "politically correct," but it should be apparent to anyone with eyes.

"Drug surveys routinely indicate that a higher percentage of whites smoke pot than blacks or Latinos, but Levine found that African-Americans have consistently accounted for about 52 percent of these low-level marijuana arrests over the past decade, even though they're only about 26 percent of the city's population."

Uhm, so? African-American males 10-34 years old also account for 49.6% of this countries homicide victims too, even though they're only 2.62% of the population. And who's killing them all? I'll give you a hint—it's not Asian women or old white men—it's other African-American males 10-34 years old, who also perpetrate about half of this countries homicides. And an enormous portion of those killings are drug related. But I'm supposed to believe that there's no way this same demographic could possibly smoke weed publicly at a greater proportion than their population?

I should note that although I don't smoke weed, I support decriminalization and legalization of marijuana and I think it's stupid for police to arrest anyone for smoking it or possessing small quantities of it. But I find the implication that since African Americans only make up 26% of the population of the city that they should only be arrested for 26% of all types of crime—and that if they are arrested in larger numbers it must obviously be a result of a racist system—to be, frankly, ridiculous.

Judging by my personal observations and experiences, although admittedly anecdotal, those arrest percentages look about what I would expect.

Here is my beef with pot being illegal. We all know that second hand tobacoo smoke is bad for those who don't smoke. That is why responcible parents who smoke tobbaco step outside to smoke.

However, if you decide to protect your kids from pot smoke you may get arrested for making a good health choice.

Peter, responsible parents don't get high when they are watching their children.

"Drug surveys routinely indicate that a higher percentage of whites smoke pot than blacks or Latinos,"
Are those national numbers or NYC numbers? Think about it folks. THere are lies, damn lies and stats.

And like a buddy of mine says, "If you aren't smart enough to puff weed on the down low, you deserve to get busted".

One time in '93, there were a bunch of black guys smoking pot across the street from FAO Schwartz. Hell, there were guys smoking all over out in the open. I haven't ben back since and articles like this incline me not to.

Wow. It's a shame this article didn't attract any intelligent comments as of yet - just a lot of defensive white posturing.
For those whites who posted here but have trouble reading, let me explain that the article clearly stated two very alarming things: 1] that the police coerce the kids into revealing pot that was NOT OUT IN PUBLIC OR BEING SMOKED IN PUBLIC before they were compelled to empty their pockets; 2]that the goal of revving up stop and frisks and creating charges that can lead to time in jail is to make sure they get these 'offenders' ON A DATABASE FOR FUTURE USE.
Are you people so racist that you don't find that alarming? That isn't what our best core values would support as a nation. It is a result of a fascist mindset that is devouring our freedoms. You don't care right now because it's 'someone else', a 'bro', a 'babies daddy' [sic] but eventually, when it behooves them, they could make policy and procedure changes that would make it easy to put you on 'the list' - any of you.

Wow.
I have so far avoided responding to comments since I get to have my say everday. But, man, Paul: thank you.
Debra J. Dickerson

Wow Paul, it's amazing how you somehow know the race of everyone who has commented thus far: if we don't automatically agree with the gist of the post, we must therefore be white—and racist.

Just judging by the people I see SMOKING POT OPENLY on the street, those arrest percentages look perfectly accurate to me. Cops coercing and tricking people into producing the weed they are carrying would certainly bolster those numbers, but the idea that cops are coercive bullies who will trick you into incriminating yourself if possible is not exactly a newsflash, regardless of your race, and should shock nobody.

OK, so it's "racist" to point out that perhaps—just maybe—African-Americans get arrested for smoking weed openly/carrying because they actually do it more. African-Americans have consistently accounted for about 52 percent of these low-level marijuana arrests over the past decade, even though they're only about 26 percent of the city's population. You and Debra chalk that up to racism, what else could explain such disparate numbers? Well, African-Americans also make up 61% of this city's homicide perpetrators, even though they are only a quarter of the population. Of course, it could just be those racist cops arresting black people for murders they didn't commit. But African-Americans also constitute 60% of this city's homicide VICTIMS—those numbers cannot be fudged. Is it racist for me to point that out? You might as well call me sexist for pointing out that most of the offenders are male. Let's get real here, please.

YES, the offense numbers are totally disproportionate to the percentage of population that African-Americans constitute in this city, but look at this NYC homicide chart:

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/04/28/nyregion/20060428_HOMICIDE_CHART.html

Only Hispanics seem to kill and die in numbers proportionate to their population: They are 28% of the population, 27% of the victims and 28% of the killers. African-Americans kill and die in numbers greater than their population, and whites and Asians kill and die in numbers smaller than their population. And in regards to the low-level marijuana arrests we're discussing, the pattern holds true: Hispanics constitute a proportionate number of arrests to their population: 31%; African-Americans more, whites & Asians less.

So once again I will ask—what would lead me to believe that the arrest numbers for these weed busts are based on racism rather than actual offense rates? Why would it be rational for me to believe that a demographic that commits (and is the victim of) homicide at disproportionate rates might also not carry weed around and smoke it at disproportionate rates? Why is that such a stretch?

And lest I've not been clear, pointing out these disparate rates is only racist if I thought that race was the cause for these disparate rates. I don't. I don't think African-Americans in NYC are genetically predisposed commit more crimes, I don't think it has a damn thing to do with race. I think it has to do with economics and culture. It's no shock that these high offense numbers just happen to coincide with the lowest income areas of the city. It also doesn't shock me that they occur in a demographic whose popular culture right now glorifies criminal behavior and celebrates homicide.

If we misdiagnose the cause of these arrest rates, we are obviously going to be unable to come up with an accurate solution—and isn't that (or shouldn't it be) the prime focus here? Fixing the problem? Ignoring the reality of the situation doesn't do anyone any favors.

Debra, I don't comment here to talk to people like Gary or Paul, I commented here to talk to you—it's your blog post. Why should you hold your tongue if you have something to say? I'm interested in talking to someone who might actually address the points I've brought up instead of just calling me a racist and sweeping them under the rug.

I second Paul.

I interned at a juvenile detention facility (not in NYC), and they absolutely, 100% racially profile. Arrest records reflect who the police are targeting, NOT the actual rates of crimes being committed by certain ethnicities. In a day and age where so many people are skeptical of polling - which is theoretically a random sample - I don't know why anyone would trust the selective data that comes from an agency like the police.

As Debra pointed out, small time possession is NOT a crime, it's the smoking in public part. These kids are not smoking it in public; they are being tagged as behaving suspiciously and then being frisked. The police are the ones who get to determine what "suspicious behavior" looks like, which leaves all sorts of room for anyone who falls below a very high ethical standard - one that I am dubious many people meet - to profile away, intentionally or no.

I agree with Paul too. It isn't racist to say that a certain racial group has a certain characteristic if they actually do, but why are the statistics automatically lies, while anecdotal evidence of seeing Black people smoking outside is somehow credible as a representative sample?

"But the minority kids today have such a F**k You attitide, when it comes to authority figures, that they are STUPID enough to get caught..:-)"

What a ridiculous stereotype, how can you take yourself seriously saying "minority kids today" as if that could be anywhere near a homogenous group that can be lumped together like that. And there's really no need to throw in terms like "babies daddy" that just make the whole attitude even more offensive...

legalize it .tax it. be done with it. move on.the war is a farse you know it I know it.then use the funding for something that works.LIKE THE INTERSTRUCTURE OF BRIDGES AN SUCH..d

Amen, Guav! Your numbers show racially disparity DOES happen for non-racism reasons. Pointing to it does NOT mean you're a racist. Accusing someone of racism just because they won't jump to YOUR conclusion is just argument ad hominem, as well as poisoning the well. The article does not state the percentages of so-called "stop and frisks" - that level of detail is NOT collected. It is the knee-jerk reaction of those who see racist motives in every possible statistical "inequity." Finally, just because my first post was short and punchy, it doesn't follow that I'm race-baiting. I thank Guav for spelling out to those too ignorant to read through the lines.

JP:

"Arrest records reflect who the police are targeting ..."

But of course, they target the communities within which most crimes occur. Which is invariably going to be the low income neighborhoods, within which there happen to be concentrated populations of African-Americans. There doesn't need to be the same number of police patrolling Brooklyn Heights as there are patrolling Flatbush, because nobody is getting murdered in Brooklyn Heights.

... "NOT the actual rates of crimes being committed by certain ethnicities."

Yet you've not addressed my question about the completely disproportionate rates of homicide—by and against—African-American males in these same communities. Nobody has. It's the 800 lb gorilla in the middle of the room that none of you want to talk about. Because to acknowledge that disproportionate rates of offenses actually exist—and are concentrated in these same communities—directly contradicts your contention that only racist targeting can possible explain why African-Americans get arrested at disproportionate rates for public weed.

Mariella:

"but why are the statistics automatically lies, while anecdotal evidence of seeing Black people smoking outside is somehow credible as a representative sample?"

Well, I didn't say the statistics were lies—I believe the statistics are accurate. Where I disagree is in the interpretation of why those statistics are so skewed against African-Americans. You'll never hear me deny that racial profiling exists, and I have no doubt that a portion of those arrestees were unfairly targeted. But I don't think that it's nearly as significant explanation for the disparity as you guys do.

My anecdotal evidence is just that—anecdotal. But our personal experiences obviously influence how we view topics. And the fact is that if I was an undercover police officer and I arrested every person I have ever personally seen SMOKING weed in public (not searched, and not merely suspected, but SEEN) I'd have arrested dozens of African-Americans, perhaps eight Hispanics, like two white guys and a chick, one Indian and not one single Asian person.

My arrest rates would be nothing remotely resembling those various people's actual proportion of the population, and that is why I seriously question what's being said here. Not because I trust the police to tell the truth, but because what I have seen firsthand leads me to an entirely different conclusion.

Of course, legalization would not only cut out all those arrests for weed smoking and possession, but it would dramatically reduce those homicide rates as well, since a majority of them are drug-related to start with.

Black kids can get away with smoking mj in the public schools of DC, then why should they not smoke out in the open? And they do.

NYC is a different case right now. I guess they are trying a clean up campaign. Might as well start in the areas in which there is the most need!

Now let's be for real, if one is dumb enough to smoke in public, then one will get busted....I betcha that smart black kids are NOT smoking out in public--y'know just because a kid is black, does not mean that he is smart....
Just because I said that, does not mean I am a racist!

However, the real question is, why are we all not developing a forceful argument to regulate/legalize drug use. Remember the tales we have heard of prohibition? There is NO WAY our society can combat the pressure of the money the illegal drug trade brings. The only way we can escape from the power of drugs is to have a TRULY HONEST APPROACH TO ILLEGAL DRUG USE. MOST PARENTS WHO DECRY DRUG USE IN THEIR KIDS ARE USING (SOMETHING OR OTHER) THEMSELVES. TEACHERS, COPS, NURSES, DOCTORS, POLITICOS, NEWSMEN/WOMEN, ALL SEGMENTS OF SOCIETY ARE USING SOMETHING. We all know this.

I'M SICK OF THE BLAH BLAH ABOUT USING DRUGS AND GETTING BUSTED. STOP USING AND START THINKING ABOUT HOW THE DISHONESTY OF ALL WHO USE DRUGS ILLEGALLY CONTRIBUTES TO THIS TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE--IF THE KIDS GETTING BUSTED HAD ADULT SUPPORT, THEN THEY MIGHT BE SMARTER ABOUT WHEN AND WHERE THEY DECIDE TO BREAK THE LAW.

All of you poor victims blogging here and boo hooing about racism, might do better to begin a real grass roots initiative to change what's happening in NYC. Better yet, you might try to lobby the Congress to develop studies to find out the true effect of drug use in the population.

Blogging is a great way for many of us to avoid acting....

Thanks, Paul Miller. Evidently, "Guav" and his clueless cohort will never get it, no matter how many times your two salient points are repeated.

Guav - I wasn't really referring to you specifically about thinking the stats were lies - kirkbrew said that there were "lies, damned lies and stats" and went on to talk about the time some Black guys were smoking outside FAO Schwartz.

Maybe if you were an undercover cop you would have arrested more Blacks, but the fact is you're not, you see people smoking randomly as you're doing other things, you're not specifically looking for the problem, investigating, and figuring out who should be arrested and who shouldn't. I just got a bad feeling about reading multiple people seeming to use that kind of anecdotal evidence about minorities as a major basis for their arguments (I realize you had many other arguments).

I don't know about the backgrounds of any particular commenter, but I just think it's important to look outside our own experience and realize that maybe, for example, some white men when looking at the world see different things than maybe some black women would, and that maybe it would help everyone understand the problems a little if we were more open to seriously considering the impact of their different perspectives. I think that would be a lot more useful than the underlying attitude I was picking up from some of the commenters - "I don't see it that way so it's ridiculous that anyone does." Doesn't it seem reasonable that sometimes minorities might pick up on racism that white people don't automatically notice, not because they're racist but because they just haven't had the same experiences?

Of course, I'm not saying that the opinion of minorities is more valuable than that of white people, or that no one can question what someone says just because they belong to a minority group. Not at all. But since they are, in fact, minorities, I think it's safe to say that often theirs are the perspectives that haven't been heard as much. And racism, especially the less obvious racism, is likely an issue that people of colour have a special knowledge of.

"Maybe if you were an undercover cop you would have arrested more Blacks, but ... you're not specifically looking for the problem, investigating, and figuring out who should be arrested and who shouldn't."

No, I'm not—I would just look around whenever I smoked weed on the street, and in the case where I could see who the culprit was, I would arrest them. And just based on that, my arrest rates would be heavily weighted towards African-American males—looking very much like the numbers Levine found—and you guys would accuse me of racist targeting and profiling.

"I just got a bad feeling about reading multiple people seeming to use that kind of anecdotal evidence about minorities as a major basis for their arguments"

Yet you probably routinely accept anecdotal evidence of African-Americans concerning their interactions with police—indeed, my entire understanding of the problems that African-Americans face in regards to police comes from anecdotal evidence which I accept at face value. How do I know that police pull over African-Americans for no reason? Because African-Americans friends have told me so—it has happened to them, or their family.

And I don't discount that, because I believe them. Much of our personal knowledge and understanding of society comes from anecdotal accounts, not from studies and statistics. Why should my anecdotal accounts—my personal experiences—give you a bad feeling if they're true?

"I don't know about the backgrounds of any particular commenter, but I just think it's important to look outside our own experience ..."

I do to, but at the same time, I cannot simply discard my own experiences while doing so.

"... and realize that maybe, for example, some white men when looking at the world see different things than maybe some black women would."

I agree. And I'm open and willing to here other people's perspectives. And I'd like to hear Debra's feelings on what I've said here and the points I've raised. I did ask my wife, who is a woman of color, if she ever sees people smoking weed on the street. "Yeah, of course." And then I asked, "I know it might sound like an odd question, but what race were they?" She answered, "Couple white people, mostly black and hispanic." When I was growing up upstate in Ithaca, NY, the answer would be totally different. People rarely smoked weed on the street there, but if you ever saw someone smoking, it would invariably be a white person. But down here in NYC, that is just not the case.

"maybe it would help everyone understand the problems a little if we were more open to seriously considering the impact of their different perspectives."

Are you suggesting that, considering the potential impact of my points, I should simply keep them to myself? I fail to see how that would help anyone understand the problems. Correct me if I've misinterpreted your statement (I probably have).

"Doesn't it seem reasonable that sometimes minorities might pick up on racism that white people don't automatically notice, not because they're racist but because they just haven't had the same experiences?"

Yes, I understand that minorities are capable of picking up on racism that passes right by white people (and me) without notice. I know there is a lot I miss. However, they are also capable of picking up on racism where none exists, and assigning racist motives to situations where they don't apply. So there may be cases where I don't see the racism in a situation until it's pointed out to me, but there have also been situations where racism was pointed out to me and was totally incorrect—so for any given situation, I cannot just defer to the announcement that racism is at work and take the claim at face value simply because it was made by an African-American who has experienced racism more than I have. Because sometimes racism is detected even when it's not there.

Thank you for your comment though, it was great. Far better than most of the comments agreeing with me haha. ::sigh::

Drugs war is joke

OMG, Kirkbrew, black guys smoking across the street from FAO back in '93. Whew, you must have been scared, I don't know what I would have done...what with marijuana making people get so violent, especially black guys. I didn't the youth of our nation were so bold 15 yrs. ago. It further surprises me that after an incident like that NYC has not been emptied and quarantined. Maybe it's something in the water.

I think it's amazing that Guav sites a comment by his wife, whom he points out to us is black, to defend his position. This reminds me of the kind of person who makes a racist comment and then, to deflect criticism, says, 'Hey, one of my best friends is black..."
For the record, on my numerous trips to New York, I have yet to see anyone of any ethnicity smoking pot on the streets. Maybe I look like an undercover cop? Or perhaps some people only notice a black man when he's acting out the stereotype the observer has been anticipating.

"I think it's amazing that Guav sites a comment by his wife"

God forbid I should try to get someone else's perspective. From now on I'll take your word for everything.

"whom he points out to us is black"

No, actually, I didn't. You just incorrectly assumed she was, just like you assumed everyone else was white.

"This reminds me of the kind of person who makes a racist comment ..."

Well of course it does, because everyone is racist in your eyes.

"and then, to deflect criticism, says, 'Hey, one of my best friends is black..."

I'm not trying to deflect criticism though—I don't mind criticism. I asked her about the topic in an effort to see if perhaps my personal experiences were just a fluke and if hers were entirely different. I'll make sure never to do that again, I apologize, Mr. Race Police.

"For the record, on my numerous trips to New York, I have yet to see anyone of any ethnicity smoking pot on the streets."

That's unsurprising, since it's not something you see every day, or even every month. It happens from time to time. If you had lived here for 12 years, you'd have seen it many times by now.

"Or perhaps some people only notice a black man when he's acting out the stereotype the observer has been anticipating."

I don't think I've actually ever seen the person smoking it first. I've smelled it, and then looked around to see who's smoking it. Although I don't smoke marijuana, I happen to like the smell. Let me know when you're able to address the questions I posed instead of yapping your thinly-veiled ad hominem attacks.

Guav wrote: "I did ask my wife, who is a woman of color, if she ever sees people smoking weed on the street."
Guav also wrote:"No, actually, I didn't [point out that my wife is black]. You just incorrectly assumed she was, just like you assumed everyone else was white."

Well, Guav, if you weren't suggesting by your comments that your wife was black, than you certainly are confusing. Given the context of the post and comments, I think you wanted it to be believed that your wife was black to add credence to your ignorant and anecdotal nonsense.
You switched gears rapidly from anecdotes to a blinding array of statistical numbers in this post. Nonetheless, you failed to acknowledge that Ms. Dickerson's article was about surveillance and unchecked police power as much as it was about racism. Regardless, only a fool would argue that the statistics Ms. Dickerson provided had more to do with black behavior than a biased, white-dominated system. You sound like the person who blames the rape victim: "Why was she wearing that mini-skirt and lipstick if she didn't want it?" Let's see: How about you call up your cousin, who is a person of some sort of color [red, brown, yellow, chartreuse?] AND a police officer and part-time judge, and get his opinion on whether 'the blacks' are more prone to smoke pot out on the street....Then you can incinerate me with that account tomorrow. Tootles.

Paul - I hate to jump in here because I've actually agreed with you this whole time, but I couldn't resist for this one point. I'm a woman of color, but I'm not black, and I think that this is the case with Guav's wife as well. A "person of color" could be any race, except obviously white.

Guav - I didn't think you should keep your opinions to yourself (necessarily, though honestly I was offended by some of the arguments and sort of wished they hadn't been said), I was saying that I thought everyone was way too quick to dismiss Debra's article, it almost seemed like an automatic response, instead of thoughtfully considering both Debra's opinion and the possibility that their perspective on the issue could be wrong/incomplete.

Paul:

"Well, Guav, if you weren't suggesting by your comments that your wife was black, than you certainly are confusing."

You're just easily confused—this is primarily due to your insistence on making assumptions about people's race. "Of color" does not mean "black."

"I think you wanted it to be believed that your wife was black to add credence"

No. I'll explain it slowly since you're having a hard time following the conversation. I said that in response to Mariella saying that I should look outside my white male experience and realize that maybe a woman of color, for example, might see different things when they look at the world. She's undeniably right, of course—so I asked my wife, who is not white. Her experience happened to have been similar to mine (although on a smaller scale, having only been here for 6 years) which in itself proves nothing in a general sense, except that I'm not imagining things.

"You switched gears rapidly from anecdotes to a blinding array of statistical numbers in this post."

If what I provided is a "blinding array of statistical numbers" to you then it's no wonder that you're confused all the time, and I'm shocked that you were able to read Debra's original post without your head exploding.

"Regardless, only a fool would argue that the statistics Ms. Dickerson provided had more to do with black behavior than a biased, white-dominated system."

Continue with your ad hominems if you must, but stop ignoring the question I have repeatedly posed to you, especially if you're going to continue to maintain that I am the one who is the fool. If behavior cannot possibly be at work here, the how do you account for the fact that 60% of this city's homicide victims are African-American although they are only 25% of the population, whereas whites, who are 35% of the population, account for only 7% of homicide victims? The race of homicide perpetrators are the same [ http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/04/28/nyregion/20060428_HOMICIDE_CHART.html ]. Clearly sometimes crimes ARE committed by a group in numbers totally disproportionate to their population.

I'll take pains to clarify again, since your reading comprehension is so poor, that I don't think race (genetics) has jack shit to do with this—it is, in my opinion, largely cultural and economic. Unsurprisingly, we can look at the map and see that the majority of the homicides take place in the lowest income areas of our city (which you referred to as "high crime" neighborhoods, using the quotation marks to imply that you apparently didn't really believe that these areas REALLY had higher crime rates—thus showcasing your complete naïveté and lack of knowledge about my city).

But unless you're going to claim that African-American males are not actually being killed at an alarming rate completely disproportionate to their population—and in turn, are really not killing each other at the same disproportionate rate—then why, exactly, is it foolish for me to wonder if they are also not smoking weed on the street at disproportionate rates, ESPECIALLY since my personal observations lead me to exactly that conclusion?

That's not foolish, that's rational.

"You sound like the person who blames the rape victim: "Why was she wearing that mini-skirt and lipstick if she didn't want it?"

Weird that you'd say that, since YOU'RE the one who just compared being raped with committing a crime, not me.

Mariella:

I don't want to offend you, you've been very nice. What specifically did I say that offended you? I have taken great pains (except with Paul now) to be courteous, civil, and to not say anything blatantly offensive or insulting. I assume my offense is merely posing the question, "Perhaps African-Americans smoke marijuana on the street in larger numbers?" These days it's "offensive" to simply cause people to think about and discuss "politically incorrect" premises.

If I had said "Perhaps men smoke marijuana on the street in larger numbers than women?" would you have been offended and thought I was sexist, or would you have entertained the possibility that it could be true?

Guav and Mariella, of course I understand that 'of color' can mean an ethnicity other than black, but based on the specific discussion, why would I value the observation regarding who smokes the most pot on the street more from an Hispanic, Asian, Muslim or Native American, et al, than from Guav himself? I mean how would the observation of that person be any more of a solid indictment of behavior just because the observer is anything but white? Unless you're assuming that automatically white people are incapable of sound reason and thus need to be tested against the perceptions of other, more sane or scientific, ethnic people. Having said that, I apologize to Guav for the incendiary post from last night - it was heavy on snark and probably didn't help the conversation at the end of the day.
When I made my first post here, which Guav has pointed out assumed the ethnicity of previous posters, I was mostly just shocked that this conversation about a series of institutional practices that victimizes black youths in New York had been turned around and made into a argument about the behavior of young black men, an argument that ostensibly insinuates that it is 'their fault'. Thus, Guav, the blame the victim comment from last night's post.
Since you have implied that I have a learning disability, I will ask the favor of a few more minutes of your time. Does the homicide statistics you've sited ad nauseum negate that the search and frisk practices of the NYPD, coupled with the amping up of sentencing, is cause for concern for black people in those neighborhoods? Additionally, since I think that entrapment is unethical, are you still unwilling to weigh in on whether these practices are wrong? I believe if you won't answer that directly, that it is you who is dancing around the issue. And I mean that as respectfully as possible.

Paul,

Cites versus sites?

Other than that . . .

"respectfully as possible."

That is why I always respect your posts.

Thanks, capt-Hussein. I've harrassed others for their spelling in the past, so this is a nice little lesson in humility. To be frank, those two I always confuse.

Guav:
"If I had said "Perhaps men smoke marijuana on the street in larger numbers than women?" would you have been offended and thought I was sexist"

I also compare sexism and racism to try to get my point across, I don't think this is the most appropriate comparison in this case, but I'll try to answer the best I can.

If I heard statistics from what I believed to be a reliable source ("Drug surveys routinely indicate that a higher percentage of whites smoke pot than blacks or Latinos") that told me that women smoked more pot than men, and I didn't have any evidence other than your statement that men smoked more on the street, AND I knew that sexism against men was a major ongoing problem in the criminal justice system and society at large, then yes I would in fact be suspicious of your assertion.

I appreciate that you're trying to have a reasonable argument, but what I objected to was using black homicide rates (both as perps and victims) to disprove racism in the criminal justice system, while racism is a major problem in the entire criminal justice system. (It is also a major root cause of crime, so bringing up high crime rates to disprove racism seems a little off.) Now I'm really not an expert on the subject, but it just seems to me that that's kind of counter-productive. For example maybe BECAUSE the homicide rates are high, police target black youth for the non-violent offense of pot possession, in order to get them in the system because the police stereotype them as future murderers. And I think it is relevant that it's a non-violent offense - the fact that white people are less likely to commit murder hardly makes them less likely to smoke weed, they may both be illegal but they're very different things.

"It also doesn't shock me that they occur in a demographic whose popular culture right now glorifies criminal behavior and celebrates homicide."
This I find offensive, because I think it's an overused stereotype to say that about black culture. Sure, tons of hip hop glorifies criminal behavior right now, but white kids listen to that stuff at least as much. Grand theft auto? Any number of incredibly violent TV shows, movies (how bout white gangster movies), video games that white kids probably consume more of? And let's be more fair to black culture: there is a whole lot more to it than 50 cent, but maybe it's the white owned radio stations and magazines that are picking up on the hyper violent stuff and bringing it to the mainstream?

I'd be interested to hear your comments on Debra's latest post.

"of course I understand that 'of color' can mean an ethnicity other than black, but ... why would I value the observation ..."

Well Paul, I wasn't talking to you though, remember? I was responding to Mariella concerning a question she specifically raised. So why would I be concerned if YOU valued the observation or not? It wasn't directed at you.

"Having said that, I apologize to Guav for the incendiary post from last night - it was heavy on snark and probably didn't help the conversation at the end of the day."

Thank you, I appreciate it. I really do prefer if we don't act like that towards each other. Oh, and I apologize for assigning the "high crime" comment to you, it was actually from the Village Voice article. My mistake.

"When I made my first post here, which Guav has pointed out assumed the ethnicity of previous posters, I was mostly just shocked that this conversation about a series of institutional practices that victimizes black youths in New York ..."

As I have already said, police frequently abuse their power and I find it entirely unshocking (and regrettable of course) that they trick people into incriminating themselves. But they do that to everyone Paul. They're cops. A lot of them are dicks on a power trip. You think if there were no black people in NYC they wouldn't still be pulling crap like this? Of course they would. I've had very few positive experiences with police officers.

"... had been turned around and made into a argument about the behavior of young black men."

Well I'm sorry, but I think that's big part of it. Young black man act differently from old Asian women, for example. They do. And of course that's an absurd comparison, but it's only absurd because OF COURSE they do—it's a no-brainer. Different cultures act differently. Different genders act differently. People of different economic means act differently. Behaviors differ.

So yes, what I am saying is that I believe young African-American males actually smoke marijuana IN PUBLIC at far higher rates than hispanics, whites or Asians. I think they are far less likely to take pains to conceal their smoking or do it only at home. And the ONLY reason I think that is because that is what I have witnessed with my own eyes. I can't help that.

If most of the people I saw lighting up in NYC were white we wouldn't be arguing because I'd be outraged at these arrest numbers. But I'm not as outraged by the disparity, because the only available evidence that I have to go by (until someone does a survey asking NYC residents if they have ever toked up in public) is what I have witnessed, which closely mirrors that disparity. It would be completely irrational for me to just discard that experience. Do you want me to lie and say that only about 25% of public weed smokers I have seen were African-American? It's not true.

"Thus, Guav, the blame the victim comment from last night's post."

At the end of the day, marijuana is an illegal substance, period. Shouldn't be, but it is. Possessing a vagina is not illegal. So comparing getting busted by the police for carrying or smoking something illegal that you're not supposed to have in the first place—even if you're tricked into revealing it—to a woman getting RAPED is, I hope we can agree, a pretty offensive comparison.

"Since you have implied that I have a learning disability ..."

Which I only did because I was fed up by the way you had been talking to me and wanted to return the favor. I assume you realize I don't actually think you have a learning disability.

"Does the homicide statistics you've sited ad nauseum negate that the search and frisk practices of the NYPD, coupled with the amping up of sentencing, is cause for concern for black people in those neighborhoods?"

Nope. And I think that police overstepping their bounds, being abusive, entrapping people, and arresting people for non-crimes is a cause of concern in general, because they do that shit to everyone. [ http://www.npr.org/blogs/bryantpark/2008/02/youtube_baltimore_cop_vs_skate.html ] Remember when the NYPD illegally arrested and detained all those RNC convention protestors? I have a friend who is a police officer. And I love the guy, but he totally fucks with people and takes advantage of his position of authority when he is on the job. Of all places, in Martha's Vineyard—the capital of WhiteWorld. It sucks, but I have come to the conclusion that cops will pretty much abuse anyone who is in front of them. If you put them in in Harlem, it's gonna be black people. If you put them in Martha's Vineyard, it's gonna be white people (this is not to say, however, that there are no racist cops or or racist policing, of course).

"Additionally, since I think that entrapment is unethical, are you still unwilling to weigh in on whether these practices are wrong? I believe if you won't answer that directly, that it is you who is dancing around the issue."

But I've already said that directly in my very first reply to you. Of course tricking or entrapping people is WRONG. Of course I oppose it. Hell, I don't have any problem with people smoking marijuana in the first place and I don't think it should be illegal to start with! Legalizing drugs would cut down on those homicides as well.

MARIELLA:

I'm sorry, I spent more time on Paul than I intended. I'm not ignoring your comment, but I don't think I'll be able to reply today. I will try tomorrow :)

I thank you for your comments, Guav. I was sharing some of the various posts with my life partner the other night, about two cocktails into the evening, and in rereading some of your snark I found myself laughing out loud and thinking: "The bastard really is pretty witty." It was the comment about my head exploding. And no, I don't mean to say you're a bastard, so keep reading. So then it occurred to me that I was silly to behave so thornily in the debate, to take a defensive positon as though you and I were mortal enemies instead of two men with differant experiences and possibly even some less obvious commonalites. I mean here is someone clever enough in his wordsmithery to make me laugh even when he's flaying me, so I need to start approaching this more respectfully. I know you have been coming at this discussion thoughtfully and with real heart. I appreciate the time you took to address the last post and hope we can have some nice banter and discussion in the future.

MARIELLA:

"Drug surveys routinely indicate that a higher percentage of whites smoke pot than blacks or Latinos"

I found three surveys. Two of them said that blacks used marijuana at higher rates than whites and one of them was about the same. But for all other drugs, whites used them at higher rates. But I was already (mistakenly, apparently) under the impression that whites used marijuana at MUCH greater rates than blacks. This isn't about about who smokes more weed in general, but WHERE and HOW they smoke it. It's about behavior. And from personal experience and observation, the people in NYC who seem to have no compunction about lighting up on the street and smoking out in the open have been overwhelmingly African-American. And I don't hang out in Harlem or Flatbush—I see this in Manhattan.

"I appreciate that you're trying to have a reasonable argument, but what I objected to was using black homicide rates (both as perps and victims) to disprove racism in the criminal justice system..."

That's not what I was trying to do at all. All I was trying to point out is that simply because a disproportionate number of African-Americans are arrested for smoking weed in public, it does not AUTOMATICALLY mean that it's just due to racist targeting. Sometimes it's simply because African-Americans offend at a disproportionate rate for some crimes. Such as homicide, for example. And of course I realize that there are mitigating factors that LEAD to higher crime rates, but that doesn't change the end result, does it?

And like I told Paul, it's not that I automatically assume that African-Americans offended at a higher rate. The only reason I questioned the studies assumptions is simply because my personal experiences and observations correlate with those arrest rates (actually, they don't—If I arrested everyone I have ever seen smoking weed on the street, 80% of those I arrested would be African-American, not 52%).

But I was not trying to disprove racism in the system—racism exists everywhere, including the system. I know this. I just don't know that this is an example of it. Once again, based on what I've seen. If the majority of people I'd seen smoking on the street were white, there'd be no doubt in my mind that the disproportionate arrest rates HAD be a result of unfairly targeting African-Americans.

"And I think it is relevant that it's a non-violent offense - the fact that white people are less likely to commit murder hardly makes them less likely to smoke weed, they may both be illegal but they're very different things."

That was never what I was saying at all. There are other offenses that whites commit at higher rates than blacks. All I was trying to point out is that "percentage of the population" has no bearing whatsoever on offense rates, and that it was irrational to presume that simply because 50% of those arrested for smoking weed in public are African-American, who are only 25% of the population, that it HAS to mean they were racially targeted. It's illogical.

"I think it's an overused stereotype to say that about black culture."

It's not black culture I blame, it's hip-hop/thug culture.

"Sure, tons of hip hop glorifies criminal behavior right now, but white kids listen to that stuff at least as much."

Yeah, and you'll see a lot of those white kids acting the exact same way. My point exactly. Like I have said several times, this isn't about race, it's about culture. And too much hip-hop these days provides absolutely horrible guidelines for how to behave.

"Grand theft auto? Any number of incredibly violent TV shows, movies (how bout white gangster movies), video games that white kids probably consume more of?"

That's touched upon here: http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_3_how_hip_hop.html

Also read this Orlando Patterson peice: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/opinion/26patterson.html?_r=2&incamp=article_popular_5&pagewanted=print

You're damn straight I blame hip hop for playing a role in the genocide of American black men. When your leading causes of death and dysfunction are murder, ignorance and incarceration, there's no reason to give a free pass to a culture that celebrates murder, ignorance and incarceration."

"I'd be interested to hear your comments on Debra's latest post."

I'm not sure what I could comment on. Debra first calls Mac Donald her enemy, and then spends the entire post essentially admiring and complimenting her for her research and writing skills. I kept waiting for Debra to refute Mac Donald's numbers, but she never bothered, so I guess she accepts them as accurate. About the only thing it appears they disagree on is what causes those numbers. Debra says it's racism, and Mac Donald says it's race (according to Debra—I am not a close follower of Mac Donald as Debra is, so I'll take her word for it).

Was there something precisely in the post you wanted me to address?

PAUL:

I am glad to see you have come to appreciate my formidable skills of snark. I just regret that I was forced to unleash their sarcastic fury upon you in the first place. I do hope I didn't wound you too deeply.

In all seriousness, I have no doubt that we most likely have much more in common than our initial sparring would lead the casual observer to believe, and I'm sure we probably agree on most—or at least, many—issues. I mean, I read Mojo blog and subscribe to Mother Jones because I love it, I'm not trolling here.

Next time we disagree we'll play nice :)

MARIELLA:

I left a long comment for you, but I fear the links I put in it have caused it to be held up in moderation. Hopefully it will be let through soon.

Hope everyone's weekend is going nicely.

Hey Guav: thanks for your comments, I appreciate the time you've taken.

As far as the drug surveys go, according to the article above and what I've read whites smoke more according to most surveys. But like you said, this isn't about who smokes more it's how, so I guess we can leave this point behind.

"the people in NYC who seem to have no compunction about lighting up on the street and smoking out in the open have been overwhelmingly African-American"
We've been arguing about this the whole time, but really, this isn't what the article was actually about. It's not about who gets arrested for actually smoking, it's about tricking people into bringing pot into the open that they had concealed in their bags. The Village Voice article is very clear about that: "Levine says that they estimated, after talking to Legal Aid and defense attorneys, that two-thirds to three-quarters of the people arrested "are not smoking in public."

Blacks are stopped by the police at a much higher rate than whites (according to statistics, and I think we can agree this is very believable). Though NYPD has used the excuse that stop rates match up to suspect descriptions, actually according to the Village Voice article very few people are stopped because of suspect descriptions, it's usually because the cops are suspicious about something to do with their appearance (reasons like an unusual bulge, or "other").

Also from the Village Voice:
"Statistically, there are just as many young white people walking around the Upper West Side neighborhoods near Columbia University with pot in their pockets as there are blacks holding marijuana a few blocks away in Harlem. But Harlem has one of the highest marijuana-arrest rates, while the Upper West Side has one of the lowest."
The police are assigned to the "high crime" areas which have a higher percentage of blacks, then have to meet quotas, and surprise, blacks end up getting arrested more. But if you're right and this is supposed to be about behavior, how does living in Harlem constitute bad behavior? Again, we're not even talking about smoking on the street, this is carrying concealed pot.

And I think it's even more despicable that the people who are being targeted are those who are less likely to have the connections and legal knowledge to make trouble for the police and the city over these unfair procedures that, though I'm also not a legal expert, seem to amount to entrapment.

So, the cops are using procedures that trick people into incriminating themselves, this practice is negatively impacting blacks at a disparate rate. Whether or not individual cops are racist, isn't that a racist practice?

Well I've already stated my opposition to the tactics being used in a large portion of these busts—and all entrapment across the board, of course.

Let's say that, as we'd all like, police stopped tricking citizens into bringing their stash into the open, and instead just concentrated on people they saw SMOKING marijuana in public. How do you think the racial breakdown of arrestees would change from the 52/27/36 for blacks, hispanics and whites that we currently have?

"So, the cops are using procedures that trick people into incriminating themselves, this practice is negatively impacting blacks at a disparate rate. Whether or not individual cops are racist, isn't that a racist practice?"

Absolutely not. Asians are only 11% of the city's population, but I am willing to wager that any policy/crackdown on bootleg handbags would negatively impact Chinese at a far disparate rate. That'd probably be because the city's epicenter of bootleg handbags is Chinatown, not because the NYPD has it in for Asians.

I would call a policy racist only if it's INTENT is to negatively impact a particular race at a disparate rate, not merely because that is it's RESULT—since that result could just as well be due to higher offense rates. The reality is that different races commit different crimes at different rates and that's always going to be reflected in arrest rates, even in a world without racial targeting (Missouri had the most meth arrests in the US, Iowa was second, and there's only like a dozen black people in both those states put together :)

The current policy might well be (intentionally or unintentionally) racist—I'm looking into it more and am starting to lean towards that conclusion, actually—but no, not BECAUSE it negatively impacts blacks at a disparate rate.

"How do you think the racial breakdown of arrestees would change from the 52/27/36 for blacks, hispanics and whites that we currently have?"
I'm not sure if you really wanted me to answer that, but I can't because I have absolutely no data with which to make that speculation, I obviously am very opposed to using my own experience as evidence for anything because it's so limited (as I'm just one person), and besides, I don't even live in New York.

It wasn't about ANY policy affecting people at a disparate rate, absolutely people can commit crimes at a different rate. But when it was an UNFAIR policy that we both believe to largely be entrapment and it's affecting blacks at a disparate rate, that's a whole other story.

Anyways, it's been nice to talk to you, and though my arguments didn't convince you, I'm glad that you're starting to lean towards the same conclusion (even though you didn't HAVE to end up leaning towards my side I guess ;)

Yeah, ignore that question—there's no way to answer it, I have no idea why I posed it in the first place, it was dumb.

I know it wasn't about ANY policy but one that was both unfair and affected a certain demographic at a disparate rate, but I still maintain that there's nothing inherently racist about that—I think intent and motive matters when discussing whether or not something is racist.

If anyone is still reading this thread, I'll show you what I found.