Drug and gun laws were originally intended against blacks? I’d like to see some serious proof of that before I buy into it.
Also from that article, lest anyone think this is some kind of proven fact:
So a state that’s heavily under fire for racial profiling releases a study that vindicates them. Color me a little suspicious. Also color me confused. The vast, vast majority of people I see racing down the roads at mind-numbing speeds are white males, especially teenagers.
Well, I don’t know about gun laws, pot laws were rooted in racism (and other lies):
“There are 100,000 total marihuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marihuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others.”
–Harry Anslinger, U.S. Commissioner of Narcotics, testifying to Congress on why marijuana should be made illegal, 1937. (Marihuana Tax Act, signed Aug. 2, 1937; effective Oct. 1, 1937.)
Anslinger was more than just a bit player in all of this. He was the Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, formed in 1931. He held this post for 31 years and almost single-handedly created the anti-marijuana hysteria with tales of insanity among users and black men taking liberties with white women.
After the Marihuana Tax Act effectively outlawed pot, he continued his crusade. He actually had agents follow and keep files on several prominent jazz musicians for over five years. His goal was a coordinated, one-day roundup of all the jazz musicians that would make headlines nationwide. Luckily it never happened.
Well my brother is doing his part to sway the statistics just a little bit. He’s white and he celebrated his 21’st birthday in prison last year.
As much as I would love to be naive and say that in this enlightened age that racism is a dying concept… it is alive and well 
I also think money has a lot to do with it. Like others have stated… getting a good lawyer helps. My recent exposure to the judicial system certainly reinforced this belief.
Some people cited OJ Simpson and Martha Stewart as examples of what money can do for you. I also want to mention the Kennedy clan.
I do wonder how much of the prison population is in there for drug charges though. We waste so much money on fighting the drug industry… honestly if people want to sit at home and do drugs… let them.
I seriously doubt 12% is true. I saw an article in my newspaper today that said the real statistic is more like 4%.
People commonly carried guns in the open long ago. The first gun control laws prohibited blacks from carrying guns, so the blacks then carried guns concealed(whlie the white men and women continued to carry openly). So next, laws were passed prohibiting the carrying of “concealed weapons” which only affected the blacks since they were the only ones hiding guns.
However, it is the blacks today who are most in favor of prohibiting blacks from owning guns.
The NAACP is a leading oppenent of the right to bear arms, and wants strict gun control.
Today, there are 34 states where citizens can carry concelaed weapons, and most of those states are either states with small populations of blacks, or else they are states which included requirements before getting a ccw which prohibited large numbers of blacks from being eligeble from obtaining a ccw. Few blacks are allowed to get a ccw in the 34 current states which do allow ccw to the general populace. Additionally, in 10 additional states which do have stricter ccw in a much more limited manner(New YOrk, New Jersey, California, etc.) most of the ccw holders are white(eg. Robert Blake, Diane Fienstien, DR Lara, etc.) in those states.
http://www.coradpress.com/gun_control.htm
The history of gun control in America has targeted at blacks and other minorities. 13 In fact, the first gun control law in America was legislated in 1792 to disarm black slaves. The law served one purpose, to deny blacks their right to exercise their Second Amendment to keep and bear arms.
It is ironic that the British tried to enslave the colonists by attempting to disarm them as well. It is well known that the consequences for England’s transgression of the colonists, was retribution by brave revolutionaries. Ironically, by denying blacks the essential right of the freedom to bear arms, gun control laws were legislated that allowed slave owners to retain blacks as slaves with impunity. Slave owners knew that like the British, if blacks could arm themselves, they would face an uprising from slaves, which would have in essence ended slavery in a heartbeat.
Throughout the 1800’s, many laws restricted blacks from owning firearms. Racist government laws were even passed that allowed the Ku Klux Klan the right to terrorize innocent black neighborhoods by invading their homes to search for firearms. From 1860-1890, racist Government officials denied Native Americans the right to bear arms and were able to slaughter thousands of Indians in order to seize property. 15
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-284.html
Restrictions on the concealed-carry of weapons first appeared in the South in the years preceding the Civil War; Kentucky’s were the first in 1813. Few persons had revolvers in those days, and the most feared of concealed weapons was the Bowie knife, not the handgun. [2] By 1850 most Southern states, and Indiana, had prohibited the concealed-carry of weapons, including firearms.
Clayton Cramer, who has made an extensive historical review of case law relating to the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment and state constitutional guarantees, notes that the common characteristic of the states adopting those laws was slavery. The sole exception, Indiana, also serves to prove the point, because it was largely settled by Southerners with strong Southern sympathies. The 1850 Indiana constitution, Cramer points out, prohibited both slavery and free blacks from entering the state. Cramer suggests that the most likely explanation for concealed-carry laws is, therefore, to be found in the problem of race. [3]
The most obvious connection to prohibition of concealed carry of arms in the South is that most of these laws were adopted in the years immediately following Nat Turner’s 1831 rebellion. While free blacks were banned from carrying weapons (openly or concealed) in statutes different from those that banned concealed carry, the curious grouping in geography and time of these laws suggests that fear of slave revolt, or of armed abolitionists, or both, provoked these laws. A detailed history of each state’s concealed weapons statutes is . . . necessary to resolve the question of why these laws appeared almost exclusively in slave states during the antebellum period. [5]
Thus, it is important to understand the background against which those prohibitions were upheld by the courts. The prohibition (as opposed to the licensing) of concealed-carry developed in states that generally did not restrict the open-carry of firearms, at least by whites. (Numerous Southern states outlawed either ownership or carrying of firearms by slaves and freed black men who, it was feared, would lead slave revolts.) Indeed, in some states it is still legal to carry firearms openly in public. Unlicensed open-carry is still the law in Virginia, Nevada, and Maine, for example.
At the time the restrictions were enacted, then, people were generally free to carry firearms openly.
http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=74
But the reality is, the gun control measures endorsed by the NAACP will disproportionately affect minority communities, where people are exposed to higher crime rates and slower police response times, said Dasbach.
“The NAACP apparently wants to limit the ability of its members to defend themselves and their families against violent crime,” he said. “That’s shameful enough, but what’s even worse is that this lawsuit continues the disgraceful legacy of white racists who don’t think blacks can be trusted with guns.”
NO neutron star quite the opposite. The USDoJ was doing this study to convict/indite/go after/whatever NJ of racial profiling and lo and behold the USDoJ found in their oun study that the reason NJ pulled black drivers more often then white is because they speed more.
The USDoJ did not want to release this report and when they knew they released the disclamer you cited.
NO neutron star quite the opposite. The USDoJ was doing this study to convict/indite/go after/whatever NJ of racial profiling and lo and behold the USDoJ found in their oun study that the reason NJ pulled black drivers more often then white is because they speed more.
The USDoJ did not want to release this report and when they knew it was being published they released the disclamer you cited.
Thanks, Astro. That’s very informative.
This site claims that blacks are given longer and harsher sentances than whites for the same crimes.
This site claims blacks get the death penalty more than whites, and illustrates with this story:
It continues:
Oh, okay. I misread. So then the DoJ is saying their own methods might have been unsound.
So your local paper trumps the Associated Press as a cite?
And thanks Lissa for the links!
If you’re referring to the OP you’re welcome, but that’s the extent of any info I’ve offered in this thread. Did you mean to reply to someone else?
Your OP. The AP story to which you linked led to a couple of interesting sites that I have been wallowing about in. In particular, this DOJ report: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pjim02.pdf
and this independant report: http://www.sentencingproject.org/pubs/civilrights.pdf
Thanks for bringing this to the fore.
Racist postings like this will not be tolerated in this, or any other, forum. Consider this to be a formal warning, Simbelmyne. Post crap like this again, and you’re gone.
Moving this to Great Debates.
A while back I had a GD thread entitled Using DOJ stats to prove or disprove the criminality of a race is a crock of feces.
Here’s the OP:
My opinion has not changed.
For the readers of this thread there’s more to the story than “DOJ numbers are completely worthless” with regard to the thread Biggirl linked to. A complete reading and balanced analysis of DOJ stats shows that minorities commit crimes at a disproportionate rate as reported by law enforcement officials. This disproportional rate is likely due to a number of factors which may include unconscious race bias, biased laws, as well as a disproportionate representation among minorities in the lower socio-economic classes. The degree to which DOJ stats regarding minorities are inaccurate due to reporting problems, biased laws, or racial bias is undetermined. The primary reason minorities commit crimes at a disproportionate rate IMO is due to the aforementioned unbalanced representation in the lower socio-economic classes. This is then exacerbated by other secondary factors.
I don’t support racial profiling or race targeted laws however these stats are illustrative of the challenges that poor minorities face, partially from bias but primarily IMO from the disadvantages of a poor socio-economic background.
Oh this little bit:
is wrong. It’s wrong because I suck at math.
That should be “. . .blacks, who make up 15% of the drug using public. . .”
Thanks for those statistics, but I don’t think they are accurate, because the figures add up to 100%, yet dont take into account Hispanics and Asians, who together make up close to 20% of the total population.
In other words, surely Blacks and Whites aren’t doing ALL the drugs in this country.
Irregardless of that, let us suppose that the Black and White rate of drug usage is about even, and that Blacks are arrested at a much higher rate.
I think one main reason for this is because Blacks tend to sell drugs out in the open, in public, and to strangers. Whites tend to sell drugs behind closed doors, and to friends and associates. Now, I know that is not not always the case, but I believe it to be true in enough cases to make a difference. I’ve often heard that if a person is new in town, doesn’t know anyone, and wants some drugs, he should go down to the Black part of town where they are likely to be sold out in the open. I used to do quite a bit of meth back in the '80s, and it was always sold to me behind closed doors.
And also, its been my experience that Whites are more likely to buy from Black dealers than Blacks from White dealers. Since the law is much harsher on dealers than users, this may also account for some of the disparity.
Just my opinion:)
If I was a black lesbian I’d have it made. Thats what I heard back before sites. Well, there were Nike Sites.
When I worked for the lazy B (Boeing Company) I fell into the EEOC crap. My partners in crime were two black guys. One, with a plumbers license by golly. The other was as stong as Lou Al Cinder. Could lift a Bradley Basin, hold it while I learned how to fix a leak. Being a white woman I identified with these guys. When peeps commited on our motley trio I replied “Nobody else wants to work with us”!
I’m sorry 12 % of the black men in the USA from 18-39 are in prison. Who are the other 88%?
As I mentioned, I did some rounding off-- if someone else wants to take a crack and getting the exact numbers-- go right on ahead.
Why would anyone assume that blacks tend to sell outside while whites inside? And what would why should that effect drug abuse arrests?