Racism

[Alpha1]

At this point, I am repeating myself as you guys continue to make the same argument over and over again. This conversation is not going anywhere, and the segmented nature of this (with four different people carrying on against one person) means that no individual thread is getting anywhere because they keep going through the same stage. Not to mention that I'm having trouble even figuring out what you guys mean in some cases. I'm backing off.

Yeah, that's why I was just quoting a portion. Didn't mean to dog pile.

[soupnazi]

Oh no, I don't want to imply that I felt ganged-up on or anything. I just don't think we're going to get anywhere, and I don't think that the large number of discussions going on are helping with that.

[Fuzzbucket]

Saying discrimination against whites is in some way different from discrimination against black people is setting white people apart from black people yet again.

 

I think it is very important to use the same terms for ALL forms of - yes - racism - we whites are a race too - or there is a risk of one racial group being perceived as less important than another. We are ALL equally important. We all have a right to be treated the same way. If we aren't, on the grounds of our race, that is racism in action. End of.

[KageSora]

Mmhmm. Tumblr is literally the ONLY place I've seen it used. I learned about it from Tumblr. And a lot of the people on Tumblr using it are white people, not people of color. A white person invented that definition. White people trying to be SJAs are who I mostly see using it. I see people of color calling it ridiculous. I see white people telling people of color they're wrong, thus silencing the opinions of people of color, while telling the rest of us we should only listen to people of color regarding these issues.

 

The tumblr SJ sphere is full of hypocrites and gaslighters and wannabe-activist posturing. That's why I don't take it seriously.

Yep, that's where I first heard of the definitition, too.

 

A lot of good comes from the SJ people on Tumblr--when it's the rational people doing it. (Sadly, a minority compared to the wanna-bes)

 

But I've never seen the rational people argue that racism can't be experienced by whites.

 

In fact, like you said, the only people I see arguing for that definition are WHITES who act like, even when PoC tell them it's crazy, they're obviously right because they're white so they know what they're talking about. I've had to unfollow before because white people started discriminating against white people and excusing it because "it's not racism so it's okay". :/

 

I actually usually (not always!) see it used that way by white, straight, cis girls who are also arguing that women can't be sexist against men, cis people are scum, heterosexuality is inferior, etc. It's like they're hell-bent on demonizing themselves for the most part. I don't understand it.

[TikindiDragon]

At this point, I am repeating myself as you guys continue to make the same argument over and over again. This conversation is not going anywhere, and the segmented nature of this (with four different people carrying on against one person) means that no individual thread is getting anywhere because they keep going through the same stage. Not to mention that I'm having trouble even figuring out what you guys mean in some cases. I'm backing off.

There had been all of three people reply between your previous post and this one - and one of those replies consisted of six words. This sounds like a cop-out to me.

[soupnazi]

There had been all of three people reply between your previous post and this one - and one of those replies consisted of six words.

That's one of three reasons that I no longer want to continue this discussion, and really it's the most minor one. If you think I'm "copping out", then fine, but don't say it. You're just criticizing my motivations when you know nothing of them, and that's nothing but insulting.

[akiokid]

i have been discriminated based on so many of my qualities. these are my disabilities (i have aspergers and other disabilities), my sexual orientaion (biromantic asexual), my nationalities/races (ive been called a mutt because im a huge mixture of different nationalities and im 2 races (caucasian and native american). i hate it whenever i see anykind of racism or discrimination.

[Blue Nadir]

http://healthland.time.com/2011/11/07/stud...gs-than-blacks/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/oct...g-arrests-claim

 

They get arrested much more for drug use, but it's out of proportion. For one reason, police departments focus on high crime areas that often have large black populations.

Your first link pertains to drug *use*. The way I read them is that only 9% of users are whites, whereas 91% of users relate to "people of colour". If you were looking for a 9 out of 10 success rate, you'd logically stop and search the "person of colour" (no, doesn't make it fair, but stats are stats and stats are wiley creatures)

 

It is also important to note that drug arrests do not pertain only to drug *use* but also to the possession of drugs with the aim of distributing them (ie drug dealing). A drug dealer that was addicted to his stock wouldn't make a whole lot of money.

 

TL; DR:

Drug abuse /= all drug arrests/crimes and it would be incorrect to make the two synonymous.

[Alpha1]

Your first link pertains to drug *use*. The way I read them is that only 9% of users are whites, whereas 91% of users relate to "people of colour". If you were looking for a 9 out of 10 success rate, you'd logically stop and search the "person of colour" (no, doesn't make it fair, but stats are stats and stats are wiley creatures)

 

That's not a comparison of drug usage. It's the amount of arrests they make, but it is disproportionate.

 

"Black Americans are 10 times more likely to be imprisoned for illegal drug offenses than whites, even though both groups use and sell drugs at the same rate, according to a study released on Tuesday."

 

"There were 1.5 million drug arrests out of 19.5 million drug users in 2002, it said. About 175,000 people were incarcerated for a drug offense, of which half were black, even though blacks account for 13 percent of the U.S. population, it said."

Edited May 26, 2013 by Alpha1

[Blue Nadir]

That's not a comparison of drug usage. It's the amount of arrests they make, but it is disproportionate.

 

"Black Americans are 10 times more likely to be imprisoned for illegal drug offenses than whites, even though both groups use and sell drugs at the same rate, according to a study released on Tuesday."

 

"There were 1.5 million drug arrests out of 19.5 million drug users in 2002, it said. About 175,000 people were incarcerated for a drug offense, of which half were black, even though blacks account for 13 percent of the U.S. population, it said."

Er, no. Your first link pertains to drug *use* --> "Study: Whites More Likely to Abuse Drugs Than Blacks". It doesn't even mention arrests apart from the very, very first line. Again, you do not need to be a drug *user* in order to be a drug *dealer*.

 

Your second link, which does actually pertain to drug *arrests*, has some interesting claims in it. It reads more as paranoia and speculation than real concrete evidence of racial discrimination/prejudice. I will gladly concede that *arrests* (at the discretion of any individual police officer) may be skewed along racial lines BUT, being in law enforcement myself, I can assure you that no-one can get *convicted* of a crime without concrete proof. You don't go to jail "for being black", you get convicted because a sufficient weight of evidence has been brought against you to sway a judge (in South African courts) and/or a jury of your peers (in a US/UK court).

 

The above paranoia reminds me of the "White Genocide" claims made by extremist whites in South Africa - ranging from the fanatically paranoid to the chillingly morbid litany of stats. Again, being in law enforcement and involved in the investigation of some truly heinous crimes (including the EugeneTerre'Blanche murder, oddly), I can assure you that most violent crimes in South Africa are perpetrated between members of the same race (usually black-on-black, which is to be expected given our demographic).

Edited May 27, 2013 by Blue Nadir

[Alpha1]

Er, no. Your first link pertains to drug *use* --> "Study: Whites More Likely to Abuse Drugs Than Blacks". It doesn't even mention arrests apart from the very, very first line. Again, you do not need to be a drug *user* in order to be a drug *dealer*.

 

I meant your comment about the article.

 

"The way I read them is that only 9% of users are whites, whereas 91% of users relate to "people of colour". If you were looking for a 9 out of 10 success rate, you'd logically stop and search the "person of colour" (no, doesn't make it fair, but stats are stats and stats are wiley creatures)"

 

From the article:

 

"Black youth are arrested for drug crimes at a rate ten times higher than that of whites. "

 

That's about arrests. The title was saying that whites are more likely to use drugs, so why would you have been referring to that? That doesn't support your statement.

 

Your second link, which does actually pertain to drug *arrests*, has some interesting claims in it. It reads more as paranoia and speculation than real concrete evidence of racial discrimination/prejudice

 

How? Study after study shows that drug usage and drug selling is similar between blacks and whites, so blacks are being disproportionately arrested. There's more blacks in prison than there were slaves in 1850. Many of them because of drug crimes.

 

Maybe a video would be better

 

Edited May 27, 2013 by Alpha1

[Blue Nadir]

How? Study after study shows that drug usage and drug selling is similar between blacks and whites, so blacks are being disproportionately arrested. There's more blacks in prison than there were slaves in 1850. Many of them because of drug crimes.

I will gladly concede that *arrests* (at the discretion of any individual police officer) may be skewed along racial lines BUT, being in law enforcement myself, I can assure you that no-one can get *convicted* of a crime without concrete proof. You don't go to jail "for being black", you get convicted because a sufficient weight of evidence has been brought against you to sway a judge (in South African courts) and/or a jury of your peers (in a US/UK court).

So you're saying that the entire justice system is against blacks and is sending innocent black people to jail... because they're black?

 

Black people are six times more likely to be arrested than white people for drug offences and 11 times more likely to be imprisoned, according to new research claiming to show the racial bias of the criminal justice system.

In the US, research shows black people are three times more likely than white people to be arrested and 10 times more likely to be jailed for drugs offences.

Being arrested and being jailed are two vastly different things.

 

EDIT: Just had a chance to watch the video -LOL! Sorry! I just simply cannot take two white people discussing this issue like they are personally affected by it seriously. Both also seem more concerned with appearing "politically correct" than actually seeing the incidents they discuss for what they are - jailable offences. Saying that you've used drugs is different from being caught passing a bong in plain sight while driving a vehicle. Surely you can see this?

Edited May 27, 2013 by Blue Nadir

[Alpha1]

So you're saying that the entire justice system is against blacks and is sending innocent black people to jail... because they're black?

 

No, I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. There’s a socioeconomic component to it, and I have mentioned that police departments target the inner cities because there’s violent crime in those areas. Just because the blacks are affected much more negatively by the drug laws doesn’t mean it was some sinister plan to keep them in their place. For example, many people think white males here have so much privilege, but I don't see anyone calling out the injustice of labeling a 17-18 year old guy a sex offender and putting him in prison for years when he sleeps with an underage girl.

 

Being arrested and being jailed are two vastly different things.

 

And? The first article said “arrest”, which is the one I referred to. If the rate of imprisonment is even higher than arrests for blacks, you have to ask why that is. I know one reason is from flawed legislation.

 

“In 1986, the U.S. Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 which, amongst other things, created a 100 to 1 sentencing disparity for crack vs. powder cocaine possession, which some people consider to be a racist law which discriminates against minorities,[1][2][3] who are more likely to use crack than powder cocaine. People convicted in federal court of possession of 5 grams of crack cocaine will receive a minimum mandatory sentence of 5 years in federal prison. On the other hand, possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine carries the same sentence.[1][2] Some other authors, however, have pointed out that the Congressional Black Caucus backed the law, which they say implies that the law cannot be racist.”

 

Both also seem more concerned with appearing "politically correct" than actually seeing the incidents they discuss for what they are - jailable offences. Saying that you've used drugs is different from being caught passing a bong in plain sight while driving a vehicle. Surely you can see this?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykwaXsQY6Eg

 

Really? Jailable offenses? The Head of the DEA exposed the nonsense. She played dumb the whole time.

 

The two in the previous video disagree that they should be criminal offenses. Alcohol is worse than marijuana, yet it’s legal. The War on Drugs is such a failure.

 

Here are several special interest groups that want to keep it illegal.

 

1. Police Unions

2. Private Prisons Corporations

3. Alcohol Companies

4. Pharmaceutical Corporations

5. Prison Guard Unions

 

[AngelKitty]

For example, many people think white males here have so much privilege, but I don't see anyone calling out the injustice of labeling a 17-18 year old guy a sex offender and putting him in prison for years when he sleeps with an underage girl.

 

Um, they do.

 

And it depends on *how* underage. If you have an 18 year old and a 13 year old, that should be jailable, but there are states that have Romeo and Juliet laws to protect couples with smaller age differences (a 16 or 17 year old with an 18 year old, etc.).

[Alpha1]

Um, they do.

 

And it depends on *how* underage. If you have an 18 year old and a 13 year old, that should be jailable, but there are states that have Romeo and Juliet laws to protect couples with smaller age differences (a 16 or 17 year old with an 18 year old, etc.).

No, they don't. At least not as hard as they are when a same-sex case came up (see below). There's 20+ heterosexual cases prosecuted in Florida each year, but you never hear about them.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/24/justice/florida-teen-sex-case

 

The Romeo & Juliet laws don't necessarily get you out of trouble either.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Alpha1

[AngelKitty]

No, they don't. At least not as hard as they are when a same-sex case came up (see below).

Yes, they do. Not as hard when they are not straight. But white males are still highly privileged.

 

Also, there's a recent case involving lesbians. I don't know how I feel about it, because 14 years old is still pretty young for an 18 year old, but the relationship began when they were both minors and the parents are obviously doing this because it's a lesbian relationship, so I don't know.

[Blue Nadir]

No, I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. There’s a socioeconomic component to it, and I have mentioned that police departments target the inner cities because there’s violent crime in those areas. Just because the blacks are affected much more negatively by the drug laws doesn’t mean it was some sinister plan to keep them in their place.

And? The first article said “arrest”, which is the one I referred to. If the rate of imprisonment is even higher than arrests for blacks, you have to ask why that is.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. First you fight tooth and nail that there is a conspiracy, then there isn't but then there is? I promise that lawmakers have much more important things to get on with than writing laws in such a way that only a very specific race is sent to jail preferentially. I find repeating myself very tedious, so I'll point out one last time that "You don't go to jail "for being black", you get convicted because a sufficient weight of evidence has been brought against you to sway a judge (in South African courts) and/or a jury of your peers (in a US/UK court)".

 

Had you stayed with your original argument that *arrests* are racially skewed, I would've perhaps agreed to a certain extent. *Arrests* depend on the discretion (prejudice?) of a single individual. Once you get formally charged with something though, the system (which consists of officials of all races) takes over.

 

Really? Jailable offenses? The Head of the DEA exposed the nonsense. She played dumb the whole time.

 

The two in the previous video disagree that they should be criminal offenses. Alcohol is worse than marijuana, yet it’s legal. The War on Drugs is such a failure.

Wow, that lawyer is asking extremely vague questions (firstly, define "health" - mental, physical, financial, what?) and expecting her to only answer yes or no. That is the kind of emotive court room hijinx that is fortunately not allowed in South African courts. The law is the law and having witnessed what substance abuse can do to addicts or make them do, I fully support keeping illegal drugs illegal and having even closer control of legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco.

 

Legalising drugs is not suddenly going to stop turf wars. Legalising drugs will not suddenly make addicts less desperate for their next hit. Legalising drugs are not suddenly going to make them better for people's "health" (see Marilyn Monroe, Michael Jackson etcetc). How on earth would this be a solution?

 

Here are several special interest groups that want to keep it illegal.

 

1. Police Unions

2. Private Prisons Corporations

3. Alcohol Companies

4. Pharmaceutical Corporations

5. Prison Guard Unions

You left out:

6. Drug Cartels who'd lose a lot of money

7. Myself

[Alpha1]

Also, there's a recent case involving lesbians. I don't know how I feel about it, because 14 years old is still pretty young for an 18 year old, but the relationship began when they were both minors and the parents are obviously doing this because it's a lesbian relationship, so I don't know.

 

Yeah, that's the case I linked to. I don't know if it really started at 17. I've seen some places claim she only met her when she was 18.

 

You realize that when these cases get prosecuted, it's probably because the parents just don't like the man? So it's still similar to those parents disliking that it was same-sex. I read 9/10 are heterosexuals being prosecuted.

 

You think that's worthy of a felony? Two high school peers? In Canada or Europe, it wouldn't have been illegal. In Michigan, and some other states, you could date even outside of high school when you're 16.

 

u seem to be contradicting yourself.    First you fight tooth and nail that there is a conspiracy, then there isn't but then there is? I promise that lawmakers have much more important things to get on with than writing laws in such a way that only a very specific race is sent to jail 

 

How am I contradicting myself? In my initial post, I didn't claim that blacks were being targeted because they were racist. You seemed to believe that black people use drugs waaaay more than whites, but that's not the case.

 

Yopreferentially. I find repeating myself very tedious, so I'll point out one last time that "You don't go to jail "for being black", you get convicted because a sufficient weight of evidence has been brought against you to sway a judge (in South African courts) and/or a jury of your peers (in a US/UK court)".

 

I'm not saying that either. I said whites use drugs just as much, if not more, yet the drug laws affect the black populations much more.

 

Wow, that lawyer is asking extremely vague questions (firstly, define "health" - mental, physical, financial, what?) and expecting her to only answer yes or no. That is the kind of emotive court room hijinx that is fortunately not allowed in South African courts. The law is the law and having witnessed what substance abuse can do to addicts or make them do, I fully support keeping illegal drugs illegal and having even closer control of legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco.

 

What? It's a comparison between marijuana and the harder drugs. It's a simple question. Leonhart was testifying before the House Subcommittee. Polis is going after her because in Colorado, medical marijuana is legal, but the Obama Administration has done massive raids on perfectly legal marijuana dispensaries.

 

Legalising drugs is not suddenly going to stop turf wars. Legalising drugs will not suddenly make addicts less desperate for their next hit. Legalising drugs are not suddenly going to make them better for people's "health" (see Marilyn Monroe, Michael Jackson etcetc). How on earth would this be a solution?

 

Legalizing the drugs doesn't mean you would get a bunch of addicts. One of the foremost fruits of prohibition is the substitution of inferior goods, too. Certainly no one would try to get high with what are basically poisons from bad drug sythesis like that "krokodil" in Russia.

 

Alcohol consumption comparison

 

“Russians consume about 18 liters of pure alcohol per person a year, more than twice the internationally recommended limit, a rate that President Dmitri A. Medvedev has called a “natural disaster.”

 

A male in Russia only has a 60 year life expectancy partly because one fifth of male deaths are related to alcohol from alcohol poisoning and car accidents. They also have to deal with all those babies born with fetal alcohol syndrome disorders."

 

Legal here, yet not nearly as bad.

 

You left out:

6. Drug Cartels who'd lose a lot of money

7. Myself

 

That's another one!

[Blue Nadir]

How am I contradicting myself? In my initial post, I didn't claim that blacks were being targeted because they were racist. You seemed to believe that black people use drugs waaaay more than whites, but that's not the case.

 

I'm not saying that either. I said whites use drugs just as much, if not more, yet the drug laws affect the black populations much more.

Your first response was to a question I asked about the claim that "whites are more likely to have something to hide" to which you posted your links. I never said blacks used way more drugs - in fact, I argued against it, stating jokingly that snorting your stock would be bad for business (ie I didn't think that all *arrests* pertained to the *use* of drugs but rather the possession/dealing there-of). I even gave a nifty summary of "Drug abuse /= all drug arrests/crimes and it would be incorrect to make the two synonymous". Remember?

 

Racial stereotyping by individual arresting officers may be an issue, but I find it very hard to believe that the justice system is out to "get" blacks - which you agreed with, and then promptly doubted ("if the rate of imprisonment is even higher than arrests for blacks, you have to ask why that is") and followed up with a quote that suggested that the law was skewed to nail blacks/minorities. It feels like you're flipflopping here. What are you trying to say?

 

What? It's a comparison between marijuana and the harder drugs. It's a simple question. Leonhart was testifying before the House Subcommittee. Polis is going after her because in Colorado, medical marijuana is legal, but the Obama Administration has done massive raids on perfectly legal marijuana dispensaries.

Marijuana is a well-known gateway drug. I'd even go as far to call alcohol and tobacco gateway drugs too, but that'd just be an indication of my disdain for for the abuse of all of the aforementioned. When a substance is legalised, it comes with a certain measure of governmental control. For smoking and alcohol, there are minimum ages for legal consumption for instance. So although both are legal substances, you'd still get in trouble if you were lighting up a cigarette while sipping your gin&tonic at 12 years of age.

 

I don't know anything about the situation you mentioned in Colorado, but chances are even medical marijuana, although *legal*, has strict control measures in place. Should the checks&balances not be adhered to - expect trouble.

 

This has gone way off-topic. You keep steering toward "drugs" when the topic is clearly "racism".

[Alpha1]

Your first response was to a question I asked about the claim that "whites are more likely to have something to hide" to which you posted your links. I never said blacks used way more drugs - in fact, I argued against it, stating jokingly that snorting your stock would be bad for business (ie I didn't think that all *arrests* pertained to the *use* of drugs but rather the possession/dealing there-of). I even gave a nifty summary of "Drug abuse /= all drug arrests/crimes and it would be incorrect to make the two synonymous". Remember?

 

Okay, this is getting kind of confusing. I didn't directly answer if they were more likely "to hide something", but you would think it's similar if drug usage and selling is similar between the two groups, right?

 

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/2...han-minorities/

 

Here's an article about stops and if they have drugs or not.

 

You say you already agreed that they didn't use drugs much more often, but what were you saying below? If drug usage and selling is similar like the two articles I've posted said, then your paragraph makes little sense.

 

"The way I read them is that only 9% of users are whites, whereas 91% of users relate to "people of colour". If you were looking for a 9 out of 10 success rate, you'd logically stop and search the "person of colour" (no, doesn't make it fair, but stats are stats and stats are wiley creatures)"

 

Racial stereotyping by individual arresting officers may be an issue, but I find it very hard to believe that the justice system is out to "get" blacks - which you agreed with, and then promptly doubted ("if the rate of imprisonment is even higher than arrests for blacks, you have to ask why that is") and followed up with a quote that suggested that the law was skewed to nail blacks/minorities. It feels like you're flipflopping here. What are you trying to say?

 

I didn't mean to imply that, and I think what I had posted actually would have lessen that claim. After all, when you posted that the imprisonment of blacks was much higher than the rate for whites even when considering drug arrests made, many people would think, "Wow, that's racism!". I was merely pointing out that blacks possess crack more than whites which has a mandatory minimum federal sentencing for a very small amount compared to powder cocaine. The Wiki quote also mentioned the Black Caucus voted for it, so why would I have included that if I was really arguing that it was clearly based on racism?

 

Marijuana is a well-known gateway drug. I'd even go as far to call alcohol and tobacco gateway drugs too, but that'd just be an indication of my disdain for for the abuse of all of the aforementioned. When a substance is legalised, it comes with a certain measure of governmental control. For smoking and alcohol, there are minimum ages for legal consumption for instance. So although both are legal substances, you'd still get in trouble if you were lighting up a cigarette while sipping your gin&tonic at 12 years of age.

 

That's a myth. There has been many studies that have come to that conclusion.

 

Yale study: Alcohol’s gateway effect much larger than marijuana’s

 

"A Yale study published Tuesday in the Journal of Adolescent Health found that people who used alcohol or tobacco in their youth are almost twice as likely to abuse prescription opiate drugs than those who only used marijuana."

 

Correlation doesn’t equal causation either.

 

"The author of the study said it can't prove whether that's due to the drug's effects, the social environment in which it's used [drug sellers, gangs] or whether pot smokers are just more likely to be laid-back from the get-go."

 

I don't know anything about the situation you mentioned in Colorado, but chances are even medical marijuana, although *legal*, has strict control measures in place. Should the checks&balances not be adhered to - expect trouble.

 

It's because there's special interest groups that don't want marijuana legal for medical purposes or just for recreational use. It makes no sense that it's a Schedule Class I drug, but police and prison guard unions given it up would be like tax accountants calling for a simplification of the tax code.

 

http://www.ucdenver.edu/about/newsroom/new...fic-deaths.aspx

 

Study shows medical marijuana laws reduce traffic deaths

 

Because they're substituting alcohol with marijuana.

 

Lead to lower alcohol consumption

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2795734/

 

“Medical cannabis patients have been engaging in substitution by using cannabis as an alternative to alcohol, prescription and illicit drugs.”

 

That's why alcohol companies don't want it legal. It's not a gateway that will make them drink more alcohol and go crazy with drugs.

 

This has gone way off-topic. You keep steering toward "drugs" when the topic is clearly "racism".

 

Well, why do you want to keep it illegal when these laws are decimating the black male population?

[Blue Nadir]

I didn't mean to imply that, and I think what I had posted actually would have lessen that claim. After all, when you posted that the imprisonment of blacks was much higher than the rate for whites even when considering drug arrests made, many people would think, "Wow, that's racism!". I was merely pointing out that blacks possess crack more than whites which has a mandatory minimum federal sentencing for a very small amount compared to powder cocaine. The Wiki quote also mentioned the Black Caucus voted for it, so why would I have included that if I was really arguing that it was clearly based on racism?

Well, why do you want to keep it illegal when these laws are decimating the black male population?

And you're flipflopping again... Is it a racist conspiracy or not? Are you suggesting that if a white person was caught with crack cocaine that they would not be subject to the exact same harsh sentencing? You seem to be implying just because blacks are "more likely" to have crack cocaine that the law was written to nail them. That is like suggesting KFC is racist because they only make fried chicken, and everyone knows how much blacks like fried chicken so obviously they're trying to exclude white folks! People are in jail because they broke the law - a law that is equally applied regardless of the race of the defendant. Nothing more sinister than that.

 

That's a myth. There has been many studies that have come to that conclusion.

 

Yale study: Alcohol’s gateway effect much larger than marijuana’s

 

"A Yale study published Tuesday in the Journal of Adolescent Health found that people who used alcohol or tobacco in their youth are almost twice as likely to abuse prescription opiate drugs than those who only used marijuana."

 

Correlation doesn’t equal causation either.

 

"The author of the study said it can't prove whether that's due to the drug's effects, the social environment in which it's used [drug sellers, gangs] or whether pot smokers are just more likely to be laid-back from the get-go."

I very much doubt that being under the influence of marijuana is in any way better than being under the influence of alcohol or any other drug for that matter. The kids were probably sitting around stoned in their parents' basements instead of driving - a thought supported by the study ("However, Rees and Anderson cautioned that legalization of medical marijuana may result in fewer traffic deaths because it’s typically used in private, while alcohol is often consumed at bars and restaurants."). Put those kids behind steering wheels and I doubt that they would have better judgement or reflexes than the drunks.

 

I've already said that I consider alcohol and tobacco gateway drugs due them being so readily available. Any substance that impairs your judgement should be tightly controlled. Studies suggest that marijuana causes permanent impairment that includes lowering of IQ, possibly due to brain damage. These do not sound like healthy, productive members of society to me and the same goes for alcoholics.

 

And that is really the last I will say about the legalisation of drugs. It is not on topic and I remain unconvinced that legalisation would be a solution to the "war on drugs".

Edited May 29, 2013 by Blue Nadir

[Alpha1]

And you're flipflopping again... Is it a racist conspiracy or not? Are you suggesting that if a white person was caught with crack cocaine that they would not be subject to the exact same harsh sentencing? You seem to be implying just because blacks are "more likely" to have crack cocaine that the law was written to nail them. That is like suggesting KFC is racist because they only make fried chicken, and everyone knows how much blacks like fried chicken so obviously they're trying to exclude white folks! People are in jail because they broke the law - a law that is equally applied regardless of the race of the defendant. Nothing more sinister than that.

 

How is that flip-flopping? You're a different person. I haven't found sources saying that the 80's crack panic legislation was blatantly racism, and there can be several reasons why politicians do the things they do. But I can ask you why you still want these laws when they're obviously doing a lot of harm to the black communities. We also needed to get on topic. ; )

 

By the way, what was your point on bringing up the difference on arrests and imprisonments? I was just pointing out that the disparity between crack and powder cocaine accounts for a significant portion of it.

 

Your analogy also is apples and oranges. If we're talking about the early marijuana and opium laws, they did in fact have a racial component to them.

 

 

I very much doubt that being under the influence of marijuana is in any way better than being under the influence of alcohol or any other drug for that matter. The kids were probably sitting around stoned in their parents' basements instead of driving - a thought supported by the study ("However, Rees and Anderson cautioned that legalization of medical marijuana may result in fewer traffic deaths because it’s typically used in private, while alcohol is often consumed at bars and restaurants."). Put those kids behind steering wheels and I doubt that they would have better judgement or reflexes than the drunks.

 

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/09/m...-of-collisions/

 

The highest risk estimate I've seen is twice as much crashes. There are others (see below link) that have said it's similar or slightly higher than the general population. It's quite low because they're employing effective strategies and have more of an awareness that they're impaired.

 

http://adai.uw.edu/marijuana/factsheets/driving.htm

 

CDC says more teens are smoking pot than cigarettes, so there's plenty of chances for someone who has been smoking marijuana to crash, but the stats show alcohol is overwhelmingly #1.

 

Lets put this in perspective, too. Night shift workers are four to five times more likely to crash according to researchers at UoNC. Texting increases the risk of a crash 23 times or so. Alcohol increases the risk of a fatal crash for each sex as follows:

 

http://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-1...24488--,00.html

 

"Male teenage drivers with a BAC of 0.05 or more are 18 times more likely than a sober male teen driver to be killed in a single vehicle crash. Female teen drivers are 54 times more likely to be killed in a crash than their sober counterparts."

 

Here's some more facts that help put it into perspective.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impa..._factsheet.html

 

"The annual cost of alcohol-related crashes totals more than $51 billion.

 

Drugs other than alcohol (e.g., marijuana and cocaine) are involved in about 18% of motor vehicle driver deaths. These other drugs are often used in combination with alcohol."

 

http://well.wvu.edu/articles/the_high_cost...ing_and_driving

 

"More than 40 percent of all fatal auto accidents are alcohol-related.

 

Auto accidents are the greatest single cause of death for young people between the ages of six and 27. Almost half of these accidents involve alcohol."

 

I've already said that I consider alcohol and tobacco gateway drugs due them being so readily available. Any substance that impairs your judgement should be tightly controlled. Studies suggest that marijuana causes permanent impairment that includes lowering of IQ, possibly due to brain damage. These do not sound like healthy, productive members of society to me and the same goes for alcoholics.

 

That's baloney.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/cannabis-us...lower-iq-2013-1

 

"There are two problems, according to Ole Rogeberg, who authored the new analysis. He writes: "First, these estimates are based on small numbers. Second, as noted by the researchers, reduced schooling could be part of the causal path by which cannabis use lowers IQ."

 

Other studies of this group of kids have found "that early-onset cannabis use is more common for those with poor self-control, prior conduct problems, and high scores on risk factors correlated with a low family SES," he says.

 

So, Rogeberg simulated how these factors could have caused the IQ drop that the original researchers saw. His analysis was published today, Jan 14, in the journal Proceedings Of The National Academy of Sciences. He found that most, if not all, of the effect seen in the original study could be accounted for by the low SES factor."

Edited May 30, 2013 by Alpha1

[PJ.Midnight]

A2, Michigan....College town-University of Michigan and the pot town

 

A lot of people smoke that stuff in my school....

[KageSora]

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act

[Nectaris]

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act

So, do you think this is a good thing or a bad thing? Part of the reason given for getting rid of it was that it was no longer needed given voter registration and turnout and was very outdated. And do not forget, this was always targeted at only a few states, so other states not included never had the protection of this law.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Nectaris