go to list of threads
drugs crack is now... posted by: publius 12:42 7.29.10 only 18x worse than cocaine, as opposed to the 100x it was before... as this article correctly points out, it is baby steps in the right direction...but i would have loved to been in on the discussion where the republicans (and you just know it was the republicans) bargained durbin away from his plan for 1:1 parity... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/cocaine-sentencing-injust_b_663263.html now if we can just stop this silly war on drugs altogether we might actually get somewhere meaningful... Okay. posted by: camdolphin 16:41 5.7.10 HB, the war on drugs is racist, racist, racist, so racist that even a chinaman can see it. Simpli, I'm not talking about sentencing disparities. You brought up sentencing disparaties. Sure they're racist, but that's the mid-layer on the cake. I'm talking about policing, prosecution, conviction, sentencing, and the resulting legalized discrimination against criminals (brown people). You can't pick one part of it (sentencing) and limit argument to that relatively non-controversial part (where data is easiest to both compile and compare). Here's a link for a better explanation of what the author was talking about, b/c it's from her (sans statistics): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelle-alexander/the-new-jim-crow-how-the_b_490386.html Okay, I guess she does have a few statistics there, including "during the 1990s -- the period of the most dramatic expansion of the drug war -- nearly 80% of the increase in drug arrests was for marijuana possession, a drug generally considered less harmful than alcohol or tobacco and at least as prevalent in middle-class white communities as in the inner city." But those arrested were primarily black people. In conclusion, the war on drugs is racist. oh wait...sorry.... posted by: publius 14:20 5.7.10 the war on drugs is racist no more wars on nouns! posted by: publius 14:17 5.7.10 no more wars on nouns! no more wars on nouns! i love how you libs have rules like... posted by: horsebeater 14:16 5.7.10 ...you have to mention that the war in drug is racist each and every post, no exceptions being libertarianish is so much ... FREER ... in its posting rules. (sorry for the interruption ... carry on) nope posted by: simplicissimus 13:21 5.7.10 it makes no sense to argue that we look anywhere *but* arrest records for discussing whether *sentencing guidelines* are racist. because by definition the only people sentencing guidelines apply to are people who are arrested. i mean, it was, is, and will be stipulated that there's a huge component of racism in the war on drugs. if we accept -- as i do -- that blacks are more likely to be busted for *all* drugs, then pointing out that the sentencing guidelines for crack alone are so much worse for *all other* drugs, then we have to accept (don't we?) that as a percentage (@35% of all crack users are black, while they make up 12% (?) of the population) crack is much more prevalent in african-american communities. i guess that's all i'm saying. do you disagree? on the larger point, all i'm saying is i think it's silly to point to a political process (everyone knows that until it was bipartisan -- which is why you've finally seen movement -- any politician who voted to lower crack sentencing was going to face a huge problem getting re-elected) as a great example of how bad, how pointless, who awful, how racist, how silly the war on drugs is. a much better -- much better -- resource is the simple fact that blacks not only get screwed with arrests, they also get screwed on sentencing. for all drugs. http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/575/human_rights_watch_racial_disparity_report http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~oliver/RACIAL/Reports/MadisonOverview.ppt etc. etc. and changing the crack sentencing rules is going to do preicous little to solve that. ending the war on drugs is the only way to go. You took a wrong turn posted by: camdolphin 12:31 5.7.10 when you used criminal justice statistics to determine prevalence rates of users and sellers. If 80% of crack convicts are black, and if the criminal justice system is blatently racist, then in truth blacks make up some figure well south of 80% of the people buying and selling crack. Crack is predominantly a black drug, no real denying that. But what I feel most strongly about is the perception that blacks are convicted for heavier drugs and whites are convicted for more minor drugs. The number of blacks in prison (not jail) for marijuana is staggering and disproportionate to the use and sale of marijuana among whites and blacks. hey man.... posted by: simplicissimus 11:30 5.6.10 i'm getting my numbers from the congressional black caucus: http://cbc.lee.house.gov/2007/12/071211.shtml “Sentences for crack offenders are unconscionably high and disproportionately affect African Americans. Every Member of the Congressional Black Caucus signed a letter in support of applying this modest guideline change retroactively. This decision is also in step with the previous Commission decisions – in 1993, 1995 and 2005 for LSD, marijuana and oxycodone – where each change was applied retroactively. The primary beneficiaries of those earlier decisions were white. It would be unfair and un-American not to apply the retroactive provision to all citizens.” "The decision [on crack sentencing guidelines] could affect as many as 19,500 prisoners, 86% of whom are Black." And WaPo tells me that 80% of people sentenced for crack cocaine violations are black, while 27% of people sentenced for powder cocaine are black. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/24/AR2009072401476.html And then there's the statement -- which I've seen many times from right leaning folks but never seen sourced -- that the Cogressional Black Caucus *supported* the insane crack guidelines in 1986 to help defeat (oy) the crack epidemic. The CSM repeats it (with more stats) so I'll say it is very likely true: http://www.famm.org/PressRoom/FAMMintheNews/ChristianScienceMonitor11207.aspx ---- Look, I hate the War on Drugs. And I think race has been a driving force in a lot of it. but I don't understand this: 1. Over 80% of people sentenced under *mandatory minimum* guidelines are black. 2. Those *mandatory minimum* guidelines put people away for way longer than other drugs. 3. So, the guidelines disproportionately affect blacks and may be racist. (so far so good) 4. But then you say crack is not predominantly a drug used by blacks. I don't get it. --- And as far as black kids and weed goes: I'm sure the usage is probably similar across races, the cops just don't pull over, roust, harass, and arrest white kids for it. which is what my ann arbor / ypsi statement meant to convey. If you're suggesting posted by: camdolphin 10:33 5.6.10 that white kids use/sell marijuana and lsd while black kids use/sell heroin and crack, check your data. You might be surprised at the number of black kids festering in prison for weed (and white users/sellers of crack). Seriously, the number is huge. Not to mention the destructive forces of the white drug meth. I think if you look at the data, the theory that sentencing/conviction disparaties are explained by the type of drug involved is shown to be a myth. well.... posted by: simplicissimus 10:21 5.6.10 your point holds, the media *did* get hysterical when it looked like the kid was help by the patriot act. but the problem is, that kid *was not* held under the patriot act. google it. he was into that thing called "swatting" -- where you call up places, make bizarre threats (in his case, it involved purdue university and bombs), and watch remotely as everyone scurries around. anyhow, he was charged under the federal bomb threat statute, which is from 1939. i don't have much trouble with the idea that for many the war on drug is infused with a class/race aspect. just watch a town like ann arbor freak about a white white kid getting busted for dope, while 2 miles to the east a poor black kid in ypsilanti gets busted in the same way every single day. that said -- and i'm playing devil's advocate here -- there can be little denying that crack and heroin are much, much, much more socially destructive that marijuana and lsd. of course, the whole war on drugs is a joke. so i'm just being disagreeable. Was going to put this in the Patriot Act thread, but it belongs here, I think posted by: camdolphin 15:56 5.5.10 Story of federal agents detaining a white middle class 16 year-old for unspecified bomb threats: http://www.wimp.com/patriotact/ Public's perception: Patriot act is supposed to be used against muslim or muslim-looking people. Drug laws are supposed to be used against blacks and browns wearing no shirts or possibly sports jerseys. As these laws are expanded to be used against whites, the media is horrified. This goes a long way to explain the racial tension in this country. Related thought: There's a new book out called the New Jim Crow - it's about race and drug laws in this country. The premise is that through the drug laws we have legalized all the racially discriminatory practices that flourished under the jim crow laws. It is now legal to discriminate on the basis of criminal records in areas of housing; employment; licensing; voting rights; and access to public benefits. Punitive court fees become like debtors' prison. All this sounds superficially okay, unless the author's stats are correct, which is that whites and blacks are equally likely to use and sell drugs, but blacks are gobs more likely to be entered into the criminal justice system (if you shake down all high school kids you'll find drugs; but if you only shake down the black ones you only have black criminal defendants). Then the racially disproportionate effects of the war on drugs begin to look a lot more like a new jim crow era. More controversially, the author pins the genesis of this war on drugs/get the blacks on the Reagan republicans, who were looking to hold onto white southern voters, who promised to get tough on "crime" as a code word for blacks. the drug war flourished and blacks suffered the brunt of it. I have only heard the author speak; haven't read her book. I'd be interested to see the freakonomics approach to see the effect on class v. race. But the effects of the drug war are undeniable - maybe now, given public budgets and the immense expense of the drug war, readdressing these laws will get more traction. it's funny... posted by: simplicissimus 14:47 5.5.10 this seems to be all over the internet. the fact that it's all on tape (though, i'll be honest i decided not to watch the dog shooting part) is obviously what makes it so incredible. but, honestly, this -- storm-troopers rushing through a house, guns drawn, to arrest a sadsack (alleged) mule, who by definition makes almost nothing but ensures that the the people who grow it, process it, transport it, and profit from it never get touched -- is 99% of the war on drugs is. don't hate *too much* on the cops, though. the vast majority of them are utterly incapable of handling the amount of power that's been given them. if you give the ability to do stuff like this, and the really cool toys, they are going to do exactly this. instead the hate should be directed squarely at the political establishment. the republicans for playing the "democrats are pro criminal, we are pro cob" card. and democrats for the "we love cops even more than you and we'll double down on the war on drugs to prove it!". the good news? i used to think that marijuana would be legal by the time i was 80. then i thought it'd be legal by the time i was 60. at the rate public opinion is going, marijuana is going to be de facto legal by 2015. war on drugs is awesome posted by: horsebeater 13:28 5.5.10 "This is the blunt-end result of all the war imagery and militaristic rhetoric politicians have been spewing for the last 30 years—cops dressed like soldiers, barreling through the front door middle of the night, slaughtering the family pets, filling the house with bullets in the presence of children, then having the audacity to charge the parents with endangering their own kid. There are 100-150 of these raids every day in America, the vast, vast majority like this one, to serve a warrant for a consensual crime." And they have video: http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/05/video-of-swat-raid-on-missouri a repository of sorts posted by: simplicissimus 10:51 8.13.07 this may not need a new thread. but i want to mark it anyhow; if anyone comes across a laundry list more impressive than this, please share. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=475034&in_page_id=1773 "a cocktail of heroin, ecstasy, cocaine and the horse tranquiliser ketamine." but wait! there's an ironic (though clearly self-referential enough to make one wonder) twist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD5sahXoj0U