Highly selective quotes from Tim Wise:
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2001-08/23wise.htm
Although blacks and Hispanics tend to try drugs for the first time at a slightly younger age than whites, by the end of high school, whites have caught up and surpassed them in every drug category. White seniors are a third more likely to have smoked pot in the past year, seven times more likely to have used cocaine, three times more likely to have used heroin, and nine times more likely to have used LSD. And it's not just that there are more white users, as this would reflect mere population percentages, but rather, that the white rate of use is that much higher than the rate for blacks.
It's the same story for young adults. Whites are 66% of 18-25 year olds, but 70% of drug users that age. Blacks are 13.5% of persons in that age cohort, but only 13% of young adult users, while Hispanics are nearly 15% of that age group, but only 12% of drug users 18-25.
When it comes to drug dealing, the picture changes only slightly. According to the Justice Department, drug users tend to buy from same-race dealers. So the nearly three-quarters of users who are white, mainly rely on white dope peddlers, not the Jamaicans or Dominicans of popular imagery. And when it comes to drugs like Ecstasy--a hot product for the Virginia cartel--the dealers and users have long been known to be mostly white, middle class males between 14 and 32.
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2002-12/16wise.cfm
But that said, it was David’s side comments about Taylor that indicate how comfortable Horowitz has become with the racist right, even as he blisters the left for supposedly condescending to people of color in a racist fashion. For example, about Taylor, Horowitz says that he is "author of a pioneer book of political incorrectness on race...a very smart and gutsy individualist...a very intelligent and principled man."
Although Horowitz criticizes Taylor’s white nationalism as a capitulation to destructive "identity politics," he cannot bring himself to call Taylor a racist. Indeed he defends him against the charge, saying it is more accurate to call him a "racialist." That this is a distinction without a difference, and the same term David Duke uses to describe himself--all the while adhering to the beliefs in white superiority shared by Taylor--apparently matters not to Horowitz, who goes on to say that Taylor and AR are no more racist than Jesse Jackson or the NAACP.
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2003-02/12wise.cfm
In truth, the fertility rate for black women is hardly different than for white women. For every 1000 white women 15-44 there are 66.5 live births, while for every 1000 black women that age there are 71.7.
Indeed, the fertility rate for black women has fallen by more than half in the last forty years, such that the gap between black and white fertility has been slashed by nearly 80%, according to the Centers for Disease Control. The birthrate for unmarried black women--especially vilified by racist rhetoric--is at a forty-year low and the rate of babies born to black teens hasn’t gone up one iota since 1920.
And speaking of teens, only six-tenths of one percent of black babies are born to women under the age of fifteen, and the birthrate for black teens 15-19 has dropped by a third since 1991. Overall, more than eight in ten black babies are born to mothers in their twenties or older, and the teen birthrate has fallen faster among black youth than any other racial group over the last decade.
The parallel belief that black women have too many children--at whatever age--and therefore can’t properly care for them is equally mythical. The average number of minor children in white households and black households is identical, and for female-headed black and white households the difference is statistically insignificant. Contrary to the widespread notion that black women typically have four or five children (if not more), only one in twenty black female headed families have four or more kids.
Even for families receiving public assistance--and even before welfare “reform” bumped tens of thousands off the rolls and restricted eligibility for benefits--the typical “welfare family” of whatever race included only a mother and two children and was actually slightly smaller than the typical non-welfare family.
Of course I can hear the voices of racial apoplexy now. “What about the skyrocketing rate of out-of-wedlock births in the black community?” Doesn’t that indicate the sexual irresponsibility of black females and their male compradors, one might ask?
Well no. In fact, not even close.
The reason for the increase in the share of black children born out-of-wedlock in recent decades is that two-parent black couples are having fewer children than ever, meaning that a growing share of the children who are born in the black community will be out-of-wedlock, even though sexual behavior hasn’t changed, and fertility rates among single black women have been falling.
Indeed, eighty percent of the increase in out-of-wedlock childbirths in the black community is because of the falloff in children born to intact black families: a falloff that has been even steeper than the decline among single moms.
Additionally, the apparent “increase” in out-of-wedlock children in single mother homes within the black community, and generally, is the result of the Census Bureau changing the methods used for counting such families in the first place.
Whereas single moms with kids who lived in extended family settings (such as living with their own parents) were historically not counted as separate family units, since the early 1980’s they have been. So even though such families may have existed for many years prior to the accounting switch, they would not have appeared in statistical data until more recently.
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2004-03/02wise.cfm
---Urban and suburban high school students are equally likely to have had sexual intercourse, with suburban students having had sex at an earlier age, on average;
---Suburban students are more likely to have commitment-free sex, and there are no real urban/suburban differences in rates of contracting sexually transmitted diseases, or rates of pregnancy or abortion;
---Suburban students are more likely to smoke cigarettes regularly and drink alcohol, and they tend to start drinking younger than their urban peers.
---The two groups are equally likely to use drugs, roughly equally likely to have been alcohol or drug-impaired at school, and suburban students are more likely to drive drunk;
---There are no substantial differences between urban and suburban students in terms of whether they have been in a fight, shoplifted goods, or damaged property; and finally,
---Suburban students are slightly more likely to sell drugs than their urban counterparts, and there are no major differences between urban and suburban students in terms of bringing a weapon to school, mostly because so few of either group ever do so.
I've always wondered why Whites weren't more worried about their drug-using White children? I'd also like to see how many of their children use legal drugs (adderall, ritalin) abusively as well as illegal drugs
Posted by: at September 15, 2004 12:27 PM
Hey! You forgot Meth. Its predominantly used by rural whites, and increasingly, homosexuals.
Posted by: GDAWG at September 13, 2004 04:40 AMFor the past ten years or so it has crated a swath of misery in the western US and now the eastern seabord states. As noted in the Washington Post recently, the State of Maryland had an opportunity to apply "Mandatory Minimun Guidleines" for criminal sanctions to person convicted for se or possesion, but chose not to because of "shaky state finances," Hmmm.... Hello Crack!!!!!!!!!! And the brothers and sisters, no treatment for ya'll. Itis prison. Guess who's going to get treatment?
GDAWG