This doesn’t make sense and it’s a ridiculous attempt at a distinction. If the War on Drugs consists of the laws and their enforcement and they have been enforced in a discriminatory way, then that’s part of the War on Drugs. We’re not talking about what the war on drugs would theoretically be. We’re talking about what it is. We’re discussing its history and its effects. By necessity that includes how the laws have been enforced, and the history is pretty clear. The disparity between sentencing for crack and cocaine possession is also clear.
Since you seem to have conceded the point about systemic racism with the “acting as racists” comment, I’ll leave it be.
You didn’t say it was personal, you just made it personal.
This is not a “weeeeee” or a “whitteys” issue. Why do you think it is?
Because I used the word “I” rather than “some rational people”?
Why would any rational person want to hire a group of people who persist in ill advised counterproductive illegal behavior KNOWING that they are more likely to be punished for it? You can certainly make the arguement that it either makes them rather shortsighted or even downright inherently prone to criminal behaviour.
Of course, that point is certainly debateable and has thousand different interpretations.
But don’t act like this whole thing is all of a sudden personal because I used a pronoun.
Please :rolleyes:
Or can I say your mod actions are always “personal” because you have the “I” in “I banning your dog”?
Yes! Most people use the word “I” when expressing their own opinions, as a matter of fact. If that’s not your opinion, fine, although it did fit in with your previous comments about the civil rights movement “going down the shitter.” When you express an opinion using the word I and don’t give any indication you’re not expressing your own view, don’t be surprised if people think you’re giving your own opinion.
Such a person would appear to be a bigot who was capable of dealing with simplistic stereotypes, but not with individuals.
For what it’s worth, for better or worse, Bill Cosby seems to agree with the basic premise that billfish678 is putting forward…
He said something to the effect of “Why should we protest and scream because crack is more penalized or stigmatized than powder cocaine is? Why the hell are our young people involved with either one of them, when both drugs are a poison to our entire race? THAT’S what we should be protesting—Our own people are selling poison to each other, and we are upset that whites are not getting into as much trouble as we are?!?”
It’s not an either-or thing, though. I get that crack is a major problem is poor black communities and that needs to be dealt with. But the sentencing laws are clearly unfair. The disparity is not moral and it only makes the problem worse.
That statement is total hogwash. There is nothing racist about arresting someone for breaking the law. It doesn’t matter what the color of that person’s skin is.
The first cite says: *Rates were 14.7 percent for persons reporting two or more races, 10.1 percent for blacks, 9.5 percent for American Indians or Alaska Natives, 8.2 percent for whites, 7.3 percent of Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders, and 6.2 percent for Hispanics. *
The second is very artfully worded. It says: There are, for example, five times more white drug users than black. Relative to population, black men are admitted to state prison on drug charges at a rate that is 13.4 times greater than that of white men.
Notice that “relative to population,” only applies to the second sentence. Of course there are more white drug users than black – there are more whites than blacks. This is the definition of “minority.” Your own first cite reveals the rate of drug use per capita for whites is lower than that for blacks.
But you misread your second cite, and offer a complete falsehood: *It appears this “bad/ill advised behavior” is done by whites at 5 times the rate of blacks, yet blacks are imprisoned at 13 times the rate of whites. What is your explanation? *
My explanation is you don’t know how to read, or more specifically, whatever skepticism you might ordinarily bring to bear on this issue vanishes when your own biases are confirmed.
Are you making a point here? Or are you just trying to ninja interpret instead of addressing the argument? Drug use among blacks and whites is almost identical - 10.1% to 8.2%. A non-racist system would see these numbers represented in prison populations. Instead, blacks are imprisoned for drug crimes at 13 times the rate of whites.
The better question is not whether enforcement of the drug laws displays ‘systemic racism’ - but rather, whether enforcement of the drug laws displays greater ‘systemic racism’ than one would reasonably expect ordinarily resulting from discrimination against the poor; and further, whether such enforcement displays greater ‘systemic racism’ than that already displayed in other respects by society as a whole.
Well what about meth? Meth is seen as a “white trash” drug pushed by white gangs.
OMG YES! Matter of fact the biggest area of drug abuse is legal “script” drugs.
And yes. One of my friends is an addict. She’s from a rich family…she has gotten into SO much trouble, but it’s been swept under the rug since her family is wealthy.