War on white people?

[Zelitopia]

https://news.yahoo.com/war-whites-214642259.html

Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks brought up the alleged war on a conservative radio show hosted by Laura Ingraham, in response to questions about immigration reform and border security.

“This is a part of the war on whites that’s being launched by the Democratic Party, and the way in which they’re launching this war is by claiming that whites hate everybody else,” said Brooks.

“It’s a part of the strategy that Barack Obama implemented in 2008, continued in 2012, where he divides us all on race, on sex, greed, envy, class warfare, all those kinds of things,” Brooks continued.

Ok, imo, this is the latest nonsense from Washington. White people are still more privileged than non-whites in America. The border issues aren't about race, despite whether or not people want to make it about that.

So, what do you think? Is this going to be the Republican version of the 'war on women'? Are there some legitimate concerns that racial tensions might worsen because of the border crisis?

It's not nonsense from Washington.
It's wholly predictable nonsense from a Republican representative in Alabama.

That an elected member of the US Congress is spouting this stuff shows that the American people are very prone to electing...(what is the word I am looking for, morons or idiots?)....people with low intelligence and who do not know what they are talking about to high office just because they look pretty or have money. In the meantime the nation suffers and our future is even more imperiled by the foolish actions those people take as soon as they walk into Capital Hill.

[The Land of Truth]

How do you perceive racial boundaries if not by ancestry or skin color?

Ancestry? If you go by Ancestry, depending how far you go back, everyone is either Chinese or African.

Skin color? Skin color is meaningless and tells you absolutely nothing about heritage or ancestry. There are a lot of white europeans whose skin changes its color when they are in the lower latitudes and spend a lot of time outside.

Humans are from Africa. Everyone is African.

[Pacific Independence]

The government convicts people at that rate, that's why.

That doesn't mean anything.

Possession of drugs doesn't mean consumption of drugs. Consuming drugs is not a crime in the U.S.; only the possession of.

Why would you be in possession of drugs if you did not mean to consume or distribute them?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Your own source states that the likely correlation is socioeconomic status too and mainstream expectations. Nowhere does it say race is a factor, nor that they lie, but that they tend to rescind their answers on subsequent surveys, which means that they state that they have not ingested recreational drugs.

Which is lying, pure and simple.

How convenient you disregard the rest of my argument because you know your argument is bullshit.

[Trygg]

This is how you perceive racial boundaries?

How do you perceive racial boundaries if not by ancestry or skin color?

I simply choose to view humanity as a whole, rather than a species fragmented into groups of different people. I see no minority or majority, instead I see people with much to give, and people with little to give. Humanity has its flaws, but dividing it into races is not the answer.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

That doesn't mean anything.

Possession of drugs doesn't mean consumption of drugs. Consuming drugs is not a crime in the U.S.; only the possession of.

Why would you be in possession of drugs if you did not mean to consume or distribute them?

You do understand that distribution is not the same as consumption, correct?

[The Land of Truth]

Source?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandal_Kingdom

Yeah. I misread "Maghreb" as something else (I'm quite aware of the Vandal Kingdom's existence).

[Blakk Metal]

Which is lying, pure and simple.

I'm guessing you can't prove that?

Saying don't use drugs when you do is lying.

The government convicts people at that rate, that's why.

That doesn't mean anything.

Possession of drugs doesn't mean consumption of drugs. Consuming drugs is not a crime in the U.S.; only the possession of.

Why would anyone possess drugs without selling it or using it. Is collecting drugs a black thing now?

[Zelitopia]

Arabs generally don't have European ancestry

The Magreb was at one point occupied by Germanic tribes.

I had to look up Magreb but based on what the WWW has told me then you would have to be referring to the Romans and Vandals, and possibly a few Greeks here and there.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'm guessing you can't prove that?

Saying don't use drugs when you do is lying.

That doesn't mean anything.

Possession of drugs doesn't mean consumption of drugs. Consuming drugs is not a crime in the U.S.; only the possession of.

Why would anyone possess drugs without selling it or using it. Is collecting drugs a black thing now?

What I am saying is that the convictions don't mean anything in the context you are spinning it as.

Some black people who are in possession of drugs are also drug dealers but never try drugs; some of them consume them. Same as other races who are convicted. Also, convictions don't mean any rates in the general population.

If you are going to compare them you could say that the rate of getting caught as a white person dealing drugs over getting caught as a black person dealing drugs is half the time; but you cannot make the assumption that because people get convicted for using drugs that means all black people are "weed-smoking niggers"; that's not how it works.

[Mavorpen]

No, no it didn't. Not once does your source state they lie. Please quote the source saying that they "lie about drug use."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3455900/pdf/11524_2006_Article_433.pdf

So you CAN'T quote the source saying that they lie. Because, you know, lying implies it was a CONSCIOUS decision, and as your source explicitly states:

Note that this latter perspective suggests that underreporting is inadvertent,
not intentional.

But this isn't the biggest issue with your failure to understand your own fucking source. And once AGAIN, you chose to IGNORE the very post that brings the biggest issue up:

My sources disproved all self reported studies on race and drug use.

No, it does not. Your source studies the concordance rate to show how accurate self reported studies are. And if you read the results, it's actually very high.

Overall concordance rates were relatively high, ranging from 87 to 100% for
marijuana, 90–95% for cocaine, and 81–95% for the combined measure.

It does not, ANYWHERE, say "self reported studies on race and drug use are wrong." It does not, ANYWHERE, report any specific statistics measuring marijuana use by race that shows a difference level such as this:

Your source does NOT state that "black people lie, therefore all self-report surveys are bullshit." In fact, your source states that self-report surveys are the ONLY way to gather this data reliably and accurately.

Unfortunately, a drug test provides no data regarding the frequency or chronicity of drug use or the extent to which treatment resources are needed or have been previously used. Thus, because drug use and abuse history can only be
obtained from “good” questions, surveys are indispensable tools for informing
public policy.

In fact, your entire source is CENTERED around IMPROVING the self-reporting surveys in general, not get rid of them and replace them with any other method. Not only this, but your source also explains WHY concordance decreases

The discrimination
scale showed a significant association with cocaine concordance, with discordant respondents reporting higher levels of discrimination than concordant respondents (t440 = 2.11, P< .05). Privacy ratings were associated with marijuana
concordance, with discordant respondents reporting lower levels of perceived privacy
than concordant respondents (t422 = 2.60, P < .01). There were no other theory-based mediators significantly associated with the combined concordance measure.

In other words, perception of privacy and confidentiality is what decreases concordance. Guess what? The source that my source pulled the data from addresses this

The data collection method used in NSDUH involves in-person interviews with sample persons, incorporating procedures that would be likely to increase respondents' cooperation and willingness to report honestly about their illicit drug use behavior. Confidentiality is stressed in all written and oral communications with potential respondents. Respondents' names are not collected with the data, and computer-assisted interviewing (CAI) methods are used to provide a private and confidential setting to complete the interview.

Not only this, but the source has actually had its methodology tested. And guess what? The source not only recognizes the reports questioning the accuracy of self-report survey, it goes one step further and cites research concluding that this SPECIFIC self-report survey that I'm citing, is accurate.

B.3.4 Validity of Self-Reported Substance Use

Most substance use prevalence estimates, including those produced for NSDUH, are based on self-reports of use. Although studies generally have supported the validity of self-report data, it is well documented that these data may be biased (underreported or overreported). The bias varies by several factors, including the mode of administration, the setting, the population under investigation, and the type of drug (Aquilino, 1994; Brener et al., 2006; Harrison & Hughes, 1997; Tourangeau & Smith, 1996; Turner, Lessler, & Gfroerer, 1992). NSDUH utilizes widely accepted methodological practices for increasing the accuracy of self-reports, such as encouraging privacy through audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (ACASI) and providing assurances that individual responses will remain confidential. Comparisons using these methods within NSDUH have shown that they reduce reporting bias (Gfroerer, Eyerman, & Chromy, 2002). Various procedures have been used to validate self-report data, such as biological specimens (e.g., urine, hair, saliva), proxy reports (e.g., family member, peer), and repeated measures (e.g., recanting) (Fendrich, Johnson, Sudman, Wislar, & Spiehler, 1999). However, these procedures often are impractical or too costly for general population epidemiological studies (SRNT Subcommittee on Biochemical Verification, 2002).

A study cosponsored by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) examined the validity of NSDUH self-report data on drug use among persons aged 12 to 25. The study found that it is possible to collect urine and hair specimens with a relatively high response rate in a general population survey, and that most youths and young adults reported their recent drug use accurately in self-reports (Harrison, Martin, Enev, & Harrington, 2007). However, there were some reporting differences in either direction, with some respondents not reporting use but testing positive, and some reporting use but testing negative. Technical and statistical problems related to the hair tests precluded presenting comparisons of self-reports and hair test results, while small sample sizes for self-reports and positive urine test results for opiates and stimulants precluded drawing conclusions about the validity of self-reports of these drugs. Further, inexactness in the window of detection for drugs in biological specimens and biological factors affecting the window of detection could account for some inconsistency between self-reports and urine test results.

So, what have we learned today?

1) You don't understand your own source and it doesn't claim what you think it claims; it does not state that all self-report surveys are wrong and that black people intentionally give false answers and therefore "lie."
2) Your source demonstrates that perceived privacy and confidentiality is what lowers concordance.
3) My source IS accurate enough to draw conclusions and DOES address the problem of perceived confidentiality and privacy.

So, with all that said, it's your turn. It's up to YOU to demonstrate that MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the methodology of MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the difference in marijuana usage you CLAIM exists accounts for the difference in conviction rate.



It's YOUR fucking move.

[The Land of Truth]

The Magreb was at one point occupied by Germanic tribes.

I had to look up Magreb but based on what the WWW has told me then you would have to be referring to the Romans and Vandals, and possibly a few Greeks here and there.

There was a Vandal Kingdom in modern-day Tunisia.

[UNITED AMERICAN FEDERATI0N]

Please explain your reasoning behind each of these claims. Use examples.

1st claim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_supremacy
(Overall article, advancing further.)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nuwaubian_Nation_of_Moors
• In August 2006, several members of the NBPP served as security personnel for former U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney's primary campaign, which she lost. After McKinney lost the primary, a journalist asked her what she attributed her loss to. Hashim Nzinga, the NBPP National Chief of Staff, interrupted: "Why do you think she lost? You wanna know what led to the loss? Israel. The Zionists. You. Put on your yarmulke and celebrate." (The former Georgia Democrat and the NBPP's connection continues today. In May 2010, McKinney spoke at the NBPP Black Power Convention.)
  http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/new-black-panther-party

2: This needs no further explanation.
3:

• http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/war-christians_794945.html
• http://www.tpnn.com/2014/04/17/obamas-war-on-christianity/
• http://www.yoism.org/images/AtheistEveTMPGAIA.jpg
• http://www.nevercensored.com/uploads/48544492c.jpg
• http://batr.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/obamaabortions.jpg Regarding this specific one, it literally refers to Obama saying "Like Everyone Else". This picture is on "Before its news", a classic Conservative webpage.

Well that's just I don't know what to say to that.

[Mavorpen]

Your own source states that the likely correlation is socioeconomic status too and mainstream expectations. Nowhere does it say race is a factor, nor that they lie, but that they tend to rescind their answers on subsequent surveys, which means that they state that they have not ingested recreational drugs.

Which is lying, pure and simple.

Let's see what the word "lie" actually means, instead of what you THINK it means:
Oxford Dictionary:

lie
Syllabification: lie
Pronunciation: / lī/
NOUN

1An intentionally false statement:
Mungo felt a pang of shame at telling Alice a lie
the whole thing is a pack of lies

Would you look at that? It has to have INTENTION. And since your OWN source states it's not intentional:

Alternatively, the educational deficit perspective of the cultural deficit model suggests that inadequate formal education and relatively low literacy levels (due to poor quality schools) may result in a preponderance of survey errors and inconsistency among African American respondents. Note that this latter perspective suggests that underreporting is inadvertent, not intentional.

Although the term “underreporting” has been used to describe the survey
behavior examined here, it is not suggested that responses necessarily reflect
intentional distortions.

If anyone's lying, it's you.

[Zelitopia]

I had to look up Magreb but based on what the WWW has told me then you would have to be referring to the Romans and Vandals, and possibly a few Greeks here and there.

There was a Vandal Kingdom in modern-day Tunisia.

It got its start in Morrocco. Tunisia was only the capital.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So, with all that said, it's your turn. It's up to YOU to demonstrate that MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the methodology of MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the difference in marijuana usage you CLAIM exists accounts for the difference in conviction rate.

You are expecting too much of him.

We're not going to get him to change his mind or admit he is wrong because he doesn't make conclusions out of data, he makes the data fit his ill-conceived conclusions; which is nothing but wilful ignorance and a mockery of academia.

[The Land of Truth]

There was a Vandal Kingdom in modern-day Tunisia.

It got its start in Morrocco. Tunisia was only the capital.

Yes, I know, they came from Hispania.

[The Land of Truth]

So, with all that said, it's your turn. It's up to YOU to demonstrate that MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the methodology of MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the difference in marijuana usage you CLAIM exists accounts for the difference in conviction rate.

You are expecting too much of him.

We're not going to get him to change his mind or admit he is wrong because he doesn't make conclusions out of data, he makes the data fit his ill-conceived conclusions; which is nothing but wilful ignorance and a mockery of academia.

Still, though, it's fun to watch these people crumble under the weight of their bullshit.

[Mavorpen]

So, with all that said, it's your turn. It's up to YOU to demonstrate that MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the methodology of MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the difference in marijuana usage you CLAIM exists accounts for the difference in conviction rate.

You are expecting too much of him.

We're not going to get him to change his mind or admit he is wrong because he doesn't make conclusions out of data, he makes the data fit his ill-conceived conclusions; which is nothing but wilful ignorance and a mockery of academia.

Well, not really. I'm actually expecting him to mysteriously disappear again and not address it. But you're right that there's a tiny glimmer of hope he actually grows to understand his own source and the topic. And that's probably not a smart thing to have.

[Blakk Metal]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3455900/pdf/11524_2006_Article_433.pdf

So you CAN'T quote the source saying that they lie. Because, you know, lying implies it was a CONSCIOUS decision, and as your source explicitly states:

Note that this latter perspective suggests that underreporting is inadvertent,
not intentional.

But this isn't the biggest issue with your failure to understand your own fucking source. And once AGAIN, you chose to IGNORE the very post that brings the biggest issue up:

No, it does not. Your source studies the concordance rate to show how accurate self reported studies are. And if you read the results, it's actually very high.



It does not, ANYWHERE, say "self reported studies on race and drug use are wrong." It does not, ANYWHERE, report any specific statistics measuring marijuana use by race that shows a difference level such as this:

Your source does NOT state that "black people lie, therefore all self-report surveys are bullshit." In fact, your source states that self-report surveys are the ONLY way to gather this data reliably and accurately.

Unfortunately, a drug test provides no data regarding the frequency or chronicity of drug use or the extent to which treatment resources are needed or have been previously used. Thus, because drug use and abuse history can only be
obtained from “good” questions, surveys are indispensable tools for informing
public policy.

In fact, your entire source is CENTERED around IMPROVING the self-reporting surveys in general, not get rid of them and replace them with any other method. Not only this, but your source also explains WHY concordance decreases

The discrimination
scale showed a significant association with cocaine concordance, with discordant respondents reporting higher levels of discrimination than concordant respondents (t440 = 2.11, P< .05). Privacy ratings were associated with marijuana
concordance, with discordant respondents reporting lower levels of perceived privacy
than concordant respondents (t422 = 2.60, P < .01). There were no other theory-based mediators significantly associated with the combined concordance measure.

In other words, perception of privacy and confidentiality is what decreases concordance. Guess what? The source that my source pulled the data from addresses this

The data collection method used in NSDUH involves in-person interviews with sample persons, incorporating procedures that would be likely to increase respondents' cooperation and willingness to report honestly about their illicit drug use behavior. Confidentiality is stressed in all written and oral communications with potential respondents. Respondents' names are not collected with the data, and computer-assisted interviewing (CAI) methods are used to provide a private and confidential setting to complete the interview.

Not only this, but the source has actually had its methodology tested. And guess what? The source not only recognizes the reports questioning the accuracy of self-report survey, it goes one step further and cites research concluding that this SPECIFIC self-report survey that I'm citing, is accurate.

B.3.4 Validity of Self-Reported Substance Use

Most substance use prevalence estimates, including those produced for NSDUH, are based on self-reports of use. Although studies generally have supported the validity of self-report data, it is well documented that these data may be biased (underreported or overreported). The bias varies by several factors, including the mode of administration, the setting, the population under investigation, and the type of drug (Aquilino, 1994; Brener et al., 2006; Harrison & Hughes, 1997; Tourangeau & Smith, 1996; Turner, Lessler, & Gfroerer, 1992). NSDUH utilizes widely accepted methodological practices for increasing the accuracy of self-reports, such as encouraging privacy through audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (ACASI) and providing assurances that individual responses will remain confidential. Comparisons using these methods within NSDUH have shown that they reduce reporting bias (Gfroerer, Eyerman, & Chromy, 2002). Various procedures have been used to validate self-report data, such as biological specimens (e.g., urine, hair, saliva), proxy reports (e.g., family member, peer), and repeated measures (e.g., recanting) (Fendrich, Johnson, Sudman, Wislar, & Spiehler, 1999). However, these procedures often are impractical or too costly for general population epidemiological studies (SRNT Subcommittee on Biochemical Verification, 2002).

A study cosponsored by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) examined the validity of NSDUH self-report data on drug use among persons aged 12 to 25. The study found that it is possible to collect urine and hair specimens with a relatively high response rate in a general population survey, and that most youths and young adults reported their recent drug use accurately in self-reports (Harrison, Martin, Enev, & Harrington, 2007). However, there were some reporting differences in either direction, with some respondents not reporting use but testing positive, and some reporting use but testing negative. Technical and statistical problems related to the hair tests precluded presenting comparisons of self-reports and hair test results, while small sample sizes for self-reports and positive urine test results for opiates and stimulants precluded drawing conclusions about the validity of self-reports of these drugs. Further, inexactness in the window of detection for drugs in biological specimens and biological factors affecting the window of detection could account for some inconsistency between self-reports and urine test results.

So, what have we learned today?

1) You don't understand your own source and it doesn't claim what you think it claims; it does not state that all self-report surveys are wrong and that black people intentionally give false answers and therefore "lie."
2) Your source demonstrates that perceived privacy and confidentiality is what lowers concordance.
3) My source IS accurate enough to draw conclusions and DOES address the problem of perceived confidentiality and privacy.

So, with all that said, it's your turn. It's up to YOU to demonstrate that MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the methodology of MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the difference in marijuana usage you CLAIM exists accounts for the difference in conviction rate.



It's YOUR fucking move.

1. Am I supposed to assume that black people are too stupid to understand questions? The more plausible answer is that they were lying.
2. If black people are too stupid to understand questions like that in one survey, then why should I assume the blacks in the surveys you cite were smart enough to understand the questions they were given.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

1. Am I supposed to assume that black people are too stupid to understand questions? The more plausible answer is that they were lying.
2. If black people are too stupid to understand questions like that in one survey, then why should I assume the blacks in the surveys you cite were smart enough to understand the questions they were given.

One thing intrigues me:

How the fuck do you assume ALL black people lie or are stupid when the studies have shown that there's, at best, 5-10% rescind rate because of several factors?

Are you even operating under rules of reality? Or are these sociological extrapolations your own bullshit assumptions?

[The Land of Truth]

So you CAN'T quote the source saying that they lie. Because, you know, lying implies it was a CONSCIOUS decision, and as your source explicitly states:



But this isn't the biggest issue with your failure to understand your own fucking source. And once AGAIN, you chose to IGNORE the very post that brings the biggest issue up:



Your source does NOT state that "black people lie, therefore all self-report surveys are bullshit." In fact, your source states that self-report surveys are the ONLY way to gather this data reliably and accurately.



In fact, your entire source is CENTERED around IMPROVING the self-reporting surveys in general, not get rid of them and replace them with any other method. Not only this, but your source also explains WHY concordance decreases



In other words, perception of privacy and confidentiality is what decreases concordance. Guess what? The source that my source pulled the data from addresses this



Not only this, but the source has actually had its methodology tested. And guess what? The source not only recognizes the reports questioning the accuracy of self-report survey, it goes one step further and cites research concluding that this SPECIFIC self-report survey that I'm citing, is accurate.



So, what have we learned today?

1) You don't understand your own source and it doesn't claim what you think it claims; it does not state that all self-report surveys are wrong and that black people intentionally give false answers and therefore "lie."
2) Your source demonstrates that perceived privacy and confidentiality is what lowers concordance.
3) My source IS accurate enough to draw conclusions and DOES address the problem of perceived confidentiality and privacy.

So, with all that said, it's your turn. It's up to YOU to demonstrate that MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the methodology of MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the difference in marijuana usage you CLAIM exists accounts for the difference in conviction rate.



It's YOUR fucking move.

1. Am I supposed to assume that black people are too stupid to understand questions? The more plausible answer is that they were lying.
2. If black people are too stupid to understand questions like that in one survey, then why should I assume the blacks in the surveys you cite were smart enough to understand the questions they were given.

1. Well, considering everything else you've said about them... Seriously, though, your own study even says they weren't lying. At this point, it's just cognitive dissonance.
2. It has nothing to do with understanding the question. Seriously, if you'd actually read the study, you'd notice that the main factor in how people answered was their perceived privacy (and that applied to everyone, not just black people).

[Washington Resistance Army]

1. Am I supposed to assume that black people are too stupid to understand questions? The more plausible answer is that they were lying.
2. If black people are too stupid to understand questions like that in one survey, then why should I assume the blacks in the surveys you cite were smart enough to understand the questions they were given.

Holy mother of fuck are you that ignorant? Mav destroys your argument and all you have to say is black people are stupid and don't understand a survey? Damn, way to notch it up to eleven.

[The Land of Truth]

1. Am I supposed to assume that black people are too stupid to understand questions? The more plausible answer is that they were lying.
2. If black people are too stupid to understand questions like that in one survey, then why should I assume the blacks in the surveys you cite were smart enough to understand the questions they were given.

One thing intrigues me:

How the fuck do you assume ALL black people lie or are stupid when the studies have shown that there's, at best, 5-10% rescind rate because of several factors?

Are you even operating under rules of reality? Or are these sociological extrapolations your own bullshit assumptions?

Do you really have to ask?

[Mavorpen]

1. Am I supposed to assume that black people are too stupid to understand questions? The more plausible answer is that they were lying.

No, you're supposed to assume that your own source is reliable. Are you saying it ISN'T reliable?

In which case, that brings me back to square one: where's your fucking source?

2. If black people are too stupid to understand questions like that in one survey, then why should I assume the blacks in the surveys you cite were smart enough to understand the questions they were given.

Psst. Hi, um, you could, you know read the rest of my post that demonstrates that the survey had accurate results when the methodology was tested. It LITERALLY answers your question for you

In other words, perception of privacy and confidentiality is what decreases concordance. Guess what? The source that my source pulled the data from addresses this

The data collection method used in NSDUH involves in-person interviews with sample persons, incorporating procedures that would be likely to increase respondents' cooperation and willingness to report honestly about their illicit drug use behavior. Confidentiality is stressed in all written and oral communications with potential respondents. Respondents' names are not collected with the data, and computer-assisted interviewing (CAI) methods are used to provide a private and confidential setting to complete the interview.

Not only this, but the source has actually had its methodology tested. And guess what? The source not only recognizes the reports questioning the accuracy of self-report survey, it goes one step further and cites research concluding that this SPECIFIC self-report survey that I'm citing, is accurate.

B.3.4 Validity of Self-Reported Substance Use

Most substance use prevalence estimates, including those produced for NSDUH, are based on self-reports of use. Although studies generally have supported the validity of self-report data, it is well documented that these data may be biased (underreported or overreported). The bias varies by several factors, including the mode of administration, the setting, the population under investigation, and the type of drug (Aquilino, 1994; Brener et al., 2006; Harrison & Hughes, 1997; Tourangeau & Smith, 1996; Turner, Lessler, & Gfroerer, 1992). NSDUH utilizes widely accepted methodological practices for increasing the accuracy of self-reports, such as encouraging privacy through audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (ACASI) and providing assurances that individual responses will remain confidential. Comparisons using these methods within NSDUH have shown that they reduce reporting bias (Gfroerer, Eyerman, & Chromy, 2002). Various procedures have been used to validate self-report data, such as biological specimens (e.g., urine, hair, saliva), proxy reports (e.g., family member, peer), and repeated measures (e.g., recanting) (Fendrich, Johnson, Sudman, Wislar, & Spiehler, 1999). However, these procedures often are impractical or too costly for general population epidemiological studies (SRNT Subcommittee on Biochemical Verification, 2002).

A study cosponsored by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) examined the validity of NSDUH self-report data on drug use among persons aged 12 to 25. The study found that it is possible to collect urine and hair specimens with a relatively high response rate in a general population survey, and that most youths and young adults reported their recent drug use accurately in self-reports (Harrison, Martin, Enev, & Harrington, 2007). However, there were some reporting differences in either direction, with some respondents not reporting use but testing positive, and some reporting use but testing negative. Technical and statistical problems related to the hair tests precluded presenting comparisons of self-reports and hair test results, while small sample sizes for self-reports and positive urine test results for opiates and stimulants precluded drawing conclusions about the validity of self-reports of these drugs. Further, inexactness in the window of detection for drugs in biological specimens and biological factors affecting the window of detection could account for some inconsistency between self-reports and urine test results.

So, what have we learned today?

1) You don't understand your own source and it doesn't claim what you think it claims; it does not state that all self-report surveys are wrong and that black people intentionally give false answers and therefore "lie."
2) Your source demonstrates that perceived privacy and confidentiality is what lowers concordance.
3) My source IS accurate enough to draw conclusions and DOES address the problem of perceived confidentiality and privacy.

So, with all that said, it's your turn. It's up to YOU to demonstrate that MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the methodology of MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the difference in marijuana usage you CLAIM exists accounts for the difference in conviction rate.



It's YOUR fucking move.

Oh, and you still didn't source that the difference in marijuana usage you CLAIM exists accounts for the difference in conviction rate.