I'm confused. That doesn't appear to show the same rates between demographics.

It appears to show generally more frequent use in men than women, younger than older and until somewhat recently, white than black or hispanic.

The data backs up the grandparent’s post that blacks and Hispanics were disproportionately punished for their use compared to whites.

Not parent or grandparent, but ‘disproportionate’ is different from ‘about the same’; you’re shifting the goalposts.

Direction matters? same or _lower_ frequency of use does not seem like 'shifting the goalposts' on the original claim of disproportionate _incarceration_.

Direction matters, though as the answer to a different question than whether rate of committing crimes is uniform. We are in this sub thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43393070

> whether rate of committing crimes is uniform

The above linked data show self-reported cannabis use within +/- 10% over the relevant pre-legalization period (before 2012), if anything with a slight advantage to whites. Drug arrest and incarceration rates vary by much, much more (factors of 2-6 between whites and blacks). Against that, use rates of 15 vs 13ish vs 12.5ish are as good as uniform , esp. on a survey with all the inherent variability therein (even for one as competent and longstanding as the cited work).

So what's the quibble? That the shares aren't exactly equal? Or that there are other demographic cuts with larger differences (and, y'know, aligned carceral disparities)? Or that cannabis use isn't representative of 'petty crime'?

The quibble was that

> Every demographic commits petty crimes and code violations at about the same rate

.. is not actually true, so better not to claim it as part of a strong argument.

They argument does not depend in the slightest on the equality of crime rates, its depends on the their similarity. The data linked show quite similar rates of reported use for cannabis. You can make all sorts of valid counterarguments at this point. Refuting the language used to express the argument ('uniform', 'equal') is meaningless-to-disingenuous nitpicking of its form with basically no consequences for its substance.

That’s my point though? If the argument doesn’t depend on it, why make an easy to nitpick and disprove claim as part of it, especially if it doesn’t even come to bear on the point anyway.

I’m not the one who brought up the nitpick in the first place, so you can argue with them instead if you prefer people didn’t do so in the first place.

Yes, that's what the survey I linked indicates. I didn't want to make that claim because that's not the argument I'd heard in the past, even though that is what this survey indicates.

> people reported using cannabis at the same rate when surveyed. However, many, many more black people ended up in prison for it.

As I understand it, people went to prison mostly for selling or possessing amounts that are implying selling. Which might explain the difference. Would you go to prison for possessing a single joint back then?

>Would you go to prison for possessing a single joint back then?

Yes, Harvard Professor Timothy Leary was sentenced to 30 years in prison (!) for having a single partially-smoked joint in his car.

It might. But racism is a major more obvious and plausible explanation.