US Drug Laws: The New Jim Crow?

[pnewton]

Yes, Prohibition is the automatic response of too many.

Why do you think this is? It is not an “automatic” response as in some sort of word association test. Rather it is an apt lesson. If that is not enough, the current war on drugs and the current enforcement policy seems to be rather ineffective. Should we throw more money at the problem? Perhaps some sort of Obama-ish Afghanistan final push.

I do not claim to know the answers. However, I respect that the failure of current drug enforcement efforts should cause some to consider other options. I prefer to consider people like estesbob rather than dismiss them because they are different and radical. It may well be that a radical approach is needed.

 

[estesbob]

Yes, Prohibition is the automatic response of too many. Why do people sell illegal drugs? They often have no other way to get money. After the drugs are taken away, what will they do? They will rob people, and businesses using guns and violence if necessary. In Detroit, a group of people drove a large van into a pharmacy at night and took what they could. On occasion, ATMs are physically removed by people using full size trucks. There will still be desperate people and gangs looking to take whatever they can. So-called “home invasions” are occurring in the ‘better’ parts of town right now.

God bless,
Ed

’
An inner city kid looks at the difference between working for minimum wage or working for the local pusher and the propsect of prison if he gets caught doesnt look all that bad.

 

[edwest2]

Why do you think this is? It is not an “automatic” response as in some sort of word association test. Rather it is an apt lesson. If that is not enough, the current war on drugs and the current enforcement policy seems to be rather ineffective. Should we throw more money at the problem? Perhaps some sort of Obama-ish Afghanistan final push.

I do not claim to know the answers. However, I respect that the failure of current drug enforcement efforts should cause some to consider other options. I prefer to consider people like estesbob rather than dismiss them because they are different and radical. It may well be that a radical approach is needed.

What radical approach? Violence and gangs are not going away if illegal drugs are decriminalized. They will still want and need money and they will use guns and violence to get it.

For decades, I’ve heard the ‘new ideas’ mantra from politicians belonging to all of the football teams. I’ve got a book of political cartoons from the 1950s showing the neglect of funding schools goes back at least that far. Schools are like the grass, every season the problem is brought up, only to disappear after the election, only to spring up again.

Drugs and drug dealers are the enemy. Yes, some may just be desperate people, but this is not something we should just decriminalize to ‘see what happens.’

God bless,
Ed

 

[PaulinVA]

I think the House passed a new sentencing bill yesterday that brings the rock and powder cocaine sentences more in line.

Legalizing cocaine will not solve anything.

The gangsta culture and the conscious and purposeful lack of achievement in certain communities is what needs to be addressed.

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

answers.com/topic/anti-drug-abuse-act-1986

Historically this is a great discussion.

It is true that the sentencing minimums for Crack vs. Cocaine are very disparate. When the law is applied to the population we see much harder sentences for Black Americans, who frequent crack, than for White Americans, who frequent cocain.

The problem is most people in their minds take a big jump in the next part of the thought process and immediately deem the American Justice system inherently racist. And most, of course blame the Reagan administration and republicans in general for this “racist” policy.

Here are the facts, the disparity in sentencing was intentional. Democrats themselves increased the ratio. Most Black Congreessman supported the bill. Would we dare to call the Black Congressman racist? The “all-inclusive” Democratic party racist? Of course not.

There intention was to combat the crack epidemic in the black community. They thought greater penalties would decrease the usage. Anyone involved in the Addiction field know that the penalty has nothing to do with it. But at the time this information escaped those implementing the law.

So you have a disparate law in place on PURPOSE. The goal was to help those that the law disparatley effected.

We seem to have lost the context of this disparity and would rather deem the whole system racist than to actually look at the facts and the intentions of those implementing the law.

Thanks.

p.s. this doesn’t mean I believe the law works or should continue as such. Just stating the history behind the law.

You have a very interesting reply. Can you cite any proof? I am not being antagonistic in any way.