Inductivist

According to self-report data, blacks use less alcohol and drugs than whites. Black students in my classes have argued that this is evidence that the criminal justice system is biased since blacks are arrested at high rates for drug-related offenses. (Let's leave aside the question of dealing, and that research suggests that blacks under-report deviant behavior). 

Treatment data, however, reveal that blacks are more likely to abuse alcohol and drugs. In 2008, 21.3% of Americans admitted for treatment of a drug or alcohol problem were black, although they are only 13% of Americans (and are less able to afford treatment). Black admissions are particularly high for crack and marijuana, but blacks are overrepresented even among those admitted for alcohol (16.8 percent of the total).

From the July issue of Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse:

The percentage of multiracial youth appears to be increasing in the United States. However, little has been disseminated about problem behaviors among multiracial Native Hawaiians, Other Pacific Islanders, and Asians on a national level. Using the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, the authors compared multiple-race Native Hawaiians, Other Pacific Islanders, and Asians, while disaggregating by ethnic subgroups, with single-race individuals within respective Asian ethnic subgroups and Caucasians for prevalence of alcohol/drug use and dependence. For multiple-race Native Hawaiians, Other Pacific Islanders, and Asians, high rates of alcohol dependence were observed compared with both single-race Native Hawaiian, Other Pacific Islander, and Asian subgroups and single-race Caucasians; for some multiracial Native Hawaiians, Other Pacific Islanders, and Asians, high rates of drug dependence were also observed.

I don't have access to the journal so I don't know how the authors interpret their results. The findings might suggest that people should marry within their own group to lower the risk of problems for their future children, but my guess is that people who marry inter-ethnically and inter-racially are more unconventional than other people, and their unconventionality is passed to their children, which in turn raises the risk of alcohol and drug dependence.

According to this study, two polymorphic alleles considered candidates for alcohol-related diseases are distributed very differently in an unmixed, indigenous Mexican group versus a sample of Mexican mestizos. This helps explain the high rate of alcoholism among Amerindians. 

Here are death rates (per 100,000) from alcoholic liver disease (CDC):

Amerindian 15.4
Hispanic 4.4
White 4.5
Black 3.4
Asian 1.0

Notice how, compared to whites, Hispanics do not have a problem with alcoholism despite having some Amerindian ancestry.

I'll keep a lookout for more examples (and correct me if I'm wrong) but it looks like American Hispanics overall are not a comparatively unhealthy group of people. 

The MIDUS study asked 2,556 people if either of their parents drank so much that is caused  problems. Here are the estimates by race/ethnicity:

Percent
Mexican American 56.2
Amerindian 38.1
Black 28.7*
White 25.1*
Asian 14.3 

* significantly less than Mexican Americans at the 95% confidence level

The parents of Mex-Ams are four times as likely to have a drinking problem as Asian Americans.

The Midlife Development in the United States Study (2004-06) asked respondents if they have a drinking problem (N = 3,918). Here are the percentages answering yes by religious affiliation:

Percent
No religious preference 7.8*
Agnostic/Atheist 9.1
Spiritual 15.4
Everyone else 3.6

* significantly higher than "everyone else"

People with no religion are 2-4 times more likely to be alcoholics.

By the way, I thought textbook sociology teaches us that religions that forbid alcohol produce the greatest number of drunks, but only 2.8% of Mormons report this problem.

It's the Irish with no religion who drink too much: In honor of St. Patrick's Day, let's test the stereotype that the Irish drink more than they should. GSS respondents were asked if there are occasions when they drink too much.


Percent who drink too much

Catholic Irish 41.6
Protestant Irish 40.6
Irish with no religion 54.8
All white Americans 37.8

So, compared to other whites, Irish Americans are more likely to overdo it, but the difference is large only for those with no church. Maybe the stereotype comes from a comparison with WASPs: only 33.5 percent of them say they drink too much.

While we're at it, I see that 49.6 percent of all white Americans with no religion say they drink more than they should. That's significantly higher than everyone else: Protestants (37.6), Catholics (36.1), Jews (26.4), and others (34.5).

More Hispanics means more alcoholics: In America, drunken bums bring up the image of a white or a black man, at least it does in my mind. This might have something to do with the fact that in my town, I get hit up constantly for money at gas stations from mostly blacks and a few whites.

This blog has shown that many stereotypes are rooted in fact, but not all of them. Centers for Disease Control data show that the image of the black drunk is false. It should be replaced with the image of the Mexican borracho.

I calculated the average number of people who died from alcoholic liver disease per 100,000 total population for the years 1999-2001 for all U.S. counties with more than 250,000 people. (I averaged over three years since these are rare events). Next, I calculated the Pearson correlations between this variable and percent Hispanic, percent black, and 14 other variables:


Pearson correlations, N = 220

percent Hispanic/alcoholism .40**
percent black/alcoholism -.09

**p < .01, two-tailed test


More Hispanics means more alcoholics, but not so for blacks. Of the 16 independent variables only the percent unemployed was more strongly related to the rate of death due to alcoholism (.41).

I'm not sure exactly why, but Hispanic alcoholism is more hidden than for blacks or whites. Families must keep members off the streets. We don't see it on our streets as much, and this explains the lack of a stereotype.

Let's leave those immigration doors wide open: everyone loves a drunk!

Charles Adams: While watching Charles Adams, the son of the great American Founding Father, drink himself to death in the HBO mini-series John Adams (it's great--I recommend seeing it) I wondered if this was a tendency among the sons of great men.

The General Social Survey asked 1,479 men about their father's occupation, and if they sometimes drink too much. I compared the group with fathers in the highest one percent of occupational prestige with everyone else:


Percent who drink too much

Men with very prestigious fathers 70.6
All other men 43.6


There is a clear difference here. Now it might be that these guys from elite families just party more or are more willing to report their excesses, but I wonder if some of it reflects the difficulty in having every advantage but not measuring up to such a successful father.

If I'm right, this phenomenon shows the destructive nature of knee-jerk blank slatism. Junior was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, so why isn't he matching or even surpassing the old man's achievements?

Someone with even a basic understanding of reality knows that, using Adam's family as an example, his children were unlikely to match their father's accomplishments because they would likely regress toward the mean.

These sons need to be told that their fathers are freaks--why would you expect lightning to strike twice? No one should expect you to be a carbon copy of Poppy, and if they do, they are ignorant people with harmful beliefs.

But it makes me compassionate to believe that people have tremendous potential, and that only disadvantage holds them down, says the liberal. No, it does not make you compassionate. It destroys lives.

N = 885


N = 885

N = 2,323

N = 2,326

I suspect that atheists separate themselves from the herd not only on the question of God, but in other areas as well. These are folks who ask more questions, and are more likely to buck convention.

Well, respectable society says illicit drugs are bad, and I can easily see the atheist saying, says who?

In 2003, the General Social Survey asked if people if they had have ever used illegal drugs since 1990. The top graph shows the percent saying yes by one's belief in God. On the left are atheists, and as we move right, we have those who say: there is no way to know; there is some higher power; they believe sometimes; they believe but have doubts; and they know there is a God.

We can see that atheists are much more likely to have used drugs in the past than believers. Now, I thought older people might be more likely to believe in God and less likely to use drugs, so I limited the analysis to a narrow range of people old enough to have used something in the past decade plus. Atheists again were much more likely to be drug users, but the numbers are so low, it's hard to have much confidence.

Another way to look at the relationship is logistic regression. I regressed drug use onto belief in God (treating the measure as increasing confidence in God's existence) and found that atheists are significantly more likely to use (coffiecient of -.390, a T-statistic of 3.56, p-value .000, and a pseudo R-squared of .05, N = 885).

I am assuming that the higher rate of drugs among non-believers is simply due to their non-conventionality, but are they more likely to abuse them as well? Respondents were also asked if they have an alcohol problem. The second graph above summarizes the results. The same pattern is observed.

Once again, the samples size of problem users is very low. Logistic regression shows a significant increase in alcoholism among non-believers (coefficient -.417, T-statistic 2.89, p-value .004, pseudo R-squared .05, N = 885).

Samples are larger if we look at church attendance. The bottom two graphs show that illegal drug use and alcoholism are more prevalent among those who never attend religious services. (From left to right, religious attendance moves from "never" to "more than weekly".)

Overall, we can see that skepticism toward God and staying away from church are associated not only with recreational drug use, but with abuse of alcohol. Now, is it that non-conventionality leads to more use, which in turn raises the risk of getting hooked on the stuff, or is it that some atheists find life without God unpleasant, and so they search in other places for the "spirits" they can't find at church?

Well, I calculated the mean happiness of atheists and believers, and they are basically the same. So GSS data support the conclusion that non-believers use more, and in so doing are more likely to become addicted.

The Drunken Deist: General Social Survey respondents were asked if they sometimes drink too much. I looked to see if this varies with belief in God and church attendance:

Percent that drink too much

1. I don't believe in God. (34.0)
2. I don't know whether there is a God and I don't believe there is any way to find out. (40.9)
3. I don't believe in a personal God, but I do believe in a Higher Power of some kind. (46.8)
4. I find myself believing in God some of the time, but not at others. (43.6)
5. While I have doubts, I feel that I do believe in God. (40.9)
6. I know God really exists and I have no doubts about it. (27.3)

1. Never attends religious services. (47.3)
2. Less than once a year. (44.1)
3. Once a year. (46.4)
4. Several times a year (38.1)
5. Once a month (39.0)
6. 2-3 times a month (32.8)
7. Nearly every week (28.1)
8. Every week (24.4)
8. More than once a week (12.8)

In terms of beliefs, the confident folks seem to have the least problem with drinking. The atheists and especially the non-doubters have the lowest numbers. The people who are not sure, as well as the group who don't believe in a personal God, are most likely to be drunks. This suggests that having conflicted or vague beliefs, or perhaps a wavering personality, may not be healthy.

The pattern is even clearer with church attendance. The more often you go, the less likely to drink too much.

IQ and alcoholism: I'm interested in the moral character of smart people, so I took a look at the IQs of drunks, using GSS data. People were asked if they have a drinking problem. Here are their mean IQs.


Mean IQ

Whites
Has a drinking problem 98.3
Does not 103.1

Blacks
Has a drinking problem 86.2
Does not 93.2

For whites and blacks, alcoholics are less intelligent. Ideas about why?