I am impressed by how quickly the notebook goes from raw data to interesting patterns. Nice.
If I wanted to be picky about statistics (I generally do), I'd note:
1. Equating enforcement-related statistics with usage-related statistics is a dangerous thing to do. For example:
a. The rate of non-CRACK incidents in TENDERLOIN is probably low (disproportionate with actual use) due to the focus limited police resources put on crack.
b. I would bet that the high rate of WEED incidents in INGLESIDE / BAYVIEW vs, say, MISSION, is due to police using weed enforcement as a weapon against gangs (and minorities). I mean, people smoke a lot of weed in the Mission.
2. Putting "AMPHETAMINE"-related crimes under "METH" is inaccurate, as is putting "OPIUM"/"OPIATE"-related crimes under "HALLUCINOGENIC".
If I wanted to be picky about statistics (I generally do), I'd note:
1. Equating enforcement-related statistics with usage-related statistics is a dangerous thing to do. For example:
a. The rate of non-CRACK incidents in TENDERLOIN is probably low (disproportionate with actual use) due to the focus limited police resources put on crack.
b. I would bet that the high rate of WEED incidents in INGLESIDE / BAYVIEW vs, say, MISSION, is due to police using weed enforcement as a weapon against gangs (and minorities). I mean, people smoke a lot of weed in the Mission.
2. Putting "AMPHETAMINE"-related crimes under "METH" is inaccurate, as is putting "OPIUM"/"OPIATE"-related crimes under "HALLUCINOGENIC".