The War On Drugs Is A War On Black Men
John McWhorter writes on The Root that blacks are marching on Washington without marching for what they should be (and, in my opinion, what we should all be for), an end to the War on Drugs:
The most meaningfully pro-black policy today would be a white-hot commitment to ending its idiocy.The massive number of black men in prison, described on The Root site here, stands as a rebuke to all calls to "get past racism," exhibit initiative or stress optimism. And the primary reason for this massive number of black men in jail is the War on Drugs.
The War on Drugs destroys black families. It has become a norm for black children to grow up with their fathers in prison and barely knowing them. Data are unanimous in showing that children, especially poor ones, do better with two parents. We see the young black man in a do-rag pushing a baby carriage as a welcome sight rather than as a norm. That must stop.
The War on Drugs discourages young black men from seeking legal employment. Because the drugs' illegality keeps their price high, there are high salaries to be made in selling them -- not at first as a low-level runner, but potentially as one rises in the hierarchy. This makes selling drugs a standing alternative to legal employment, especially if one has a poor education.
The idea that selling drugs is the only choice available is refuted by the simple fact that immigrants, including black ones, regularly make do -- as do plenty of black American men who happen not to "go the wrong way." Was the man who installed your cable TV a white guy with a degree from Vanderbilt? Did the last security guard you saw have blond hair?
...What will turn black America around for good is not more theatrical marches but the elimination of a policy that prevents too many people from doing their best. After welfare reform in 1996, countless people thought that black women would wind up shivering on sidewalk grates. They underestimated the basic human resilience of black people. In the same way, if the War on Drugs is ended, the same people will assume that young black men will wander about jobless and starving. They will not, because they are human beings with basic resilience and survival instincts as well.
Meanwhile, studies suggest that addiction rates do not rise when anti-drug policies are pulled back, and surely a new regime would include more diligent rehabilitation processes. The New Prohibition: Voices of Descent Challenge the Drug War is a key and readable source on all of this -- highly recommended. Just as surely, however, the current policy will not do; it makes drugs no cheaper, while having the principal effect of destroying black communities. It must stop.
I'm oversimplifying? Frankly, I don't think so. What is the unsimplified version? And crucially, what proposals follow from it? Forty more years of sonorous phrasings about responsibility, expectations, institutional racism, "getting on board" and baggy pants? Surely we can do better than that.
"And the primary reason for this massive number of black men in jail is the War on Drugs."
No. Look it up in the Bureau of Justice Statistics pages.
No again: the enforcement of a law is not the reason a law is broken. By this "reasoning", we can eliminate the overwhelming bias of black-on-white crimes of rape by making that legal. Any takers?
Some people in this country are given a pass constantly. Stopping that would be a first step.
Radwaste at September 9, 2010 2:18 AM
"The War on Drugs destroys black families. It has become a norm for black children to grow up with their fathers in prison and barely knowing them."
OH Please. If you don't want your family torn apart, just do like I do - stay away from drugs.
Its. That. Simple.
I would agree the 'War on Drugs' is a fabulous waste of taxpayer money for other reasons, but STOP abdicating responsibility for your own actions - that is the real reason why you can't rehabilitate your own communities, this endless whining that you are "victims" of everything, apparently unable to exercise free will.
Lobster at September 9, 2010 3:00 AM
The war on drugs is a fabulous waste of taxpayer money, and an assault on freedom, period. It is the very definition of failure. Have drugs stopped? Have people stopped using them? Tell me again why we have signs on our roads in Arizona warning citizens that certain areas are unsafe. How many people get murdered every day in Mexico - you know, that vacation spot to our South?
You might not remember a time before all these no knock raids with the occasional innocent getting gunned down in their own homes, paramilitary police forces, asset forfeiture and invasion of privacy. I do.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing, over and over, and expecting a different result.
Race has nothing to do with it. Violent criminals of every color should be locked up until they are too feeble to harm anyone again. I just want to recognize the country I grew up in.
MarkD at September 9, 2010 6:10 AM
The color of your skin does not give you a pass on breaking the law. Whew!
The success of any ethnicity has and always will come from the family.
The two highest ethnicities that have received received the greatest amount of public welfare in the last 50 years are Native-Americans and African-Americans. Guess what ethnicities still have the highest poverty rates. Yes, Native Americans and African Americans. In both cases there is an extreme breakdown in the basic family unit. Before people jump on the minority discrimination bandwagon there are numerous Asian and Hindu Indian people that come over here and thrive and succeed. Why? Different attitudes on family, work and education. It doesn't take a village, it takes a family and only in exceptional cases does success come out of broken families.
David M. at September 9, 2010 7:14 AM
I'm torn on this. I think some drugs, such as pot, should definitely be legalized, and maybe all drugs, but not for these reasons. Although it may have a positive impact in the black community, that shouldn't our justification. What next? Legalizing theft?
I bought my black employee a used washing machine a few weeks ago, which we installed on his back porch in his run-down, predominately black neighborhood (which my other employee, an ex-miliatry guy, described as "like Beirut," and he's been there). During the night, the washing machine was stolen right off his porch!
So, there is a deeper, criminal element in the black culture that goes beyond drugs. It's not going to be addressed simply by legalizing the crimes.
lovelysoul at September 9, 2010 7:15 AM
I agree with the other commenters here.
Consider marijuana, which accounts for 60% of all drug arrests. You can't overdose on it, and it has no known health risks. Even the suspected health risks are minor compared to all the other perfectly legal things you can do to damage your own health. And for that matter, why is "because it's bad for you" considered a decent justification for making something illegal? Why not just make it illegal to get old, for godssake.
Leave the discussion about cocaine, heroin, meth, and everything else to future generations. If we could eliminate 60% of the drug war just by decriminalizing pot, let's at least start there. I'd rather see those guys out of jail and at home, taking care of their families - regardless of what color they are.
Oh, and another thing - leave the issue up to the states. If the people of California want to legalize it, let them. If the people of Kentucky want to keep it illegal, and pay for the costs of enforcement themselves, let them. There is no reason for the federal government to be wasting our money interfering with the desires of the individual states. This has "local matter" written all over it. In my above scenario, pot smokers wouldn't want to live in Kentucky, so it wouldn't even cost the people of Kentucky very much money to enforce their pot prohibition. The pot smokers would live in California (or other states where it was legal) and the citizens of CA wouldn't be paying for prohibition expenses either. Everyone gets what they want, and it saves everyone a bundle.
Pirate Jo at September 9, 2010 7:43 AM
Legalize marijuana. Period.
What do you get? Let's see:
Less crime and all the expense attached to it.
Tax revenue. (No point in pretending there.)
An easy-to-grow, natural product.
Small business growth.
Designer blends in various strengths.
Money money money money money!
(Not to mention the bucks that would flow to the junk food and pizza industry.)
Throw in the same laws that apply to booze, and you're good to go.
Part of me is amazed to see it's actually come this close, another part is shaking it's head in weary disgust that it's taking so long.
Pricklypear at September 9, 2010 8:13 AM
"The war on drugs is a fabulous waste of taxpayer money, and an assault on freedom, period. It is the very definition of failure. Have drugs stopped? Have people stopped using them? "
MarkD, the War on Drugs increases the avalaibility of drugs becasue enforcement worksa a price support system and increases profitability, and that incentivizes increased production and distribution.
DEA and local LE agencies are in a symbiotic relationship with drug cartels and dealers. They need each other to survive, and they can count on the stupidity of the voting public to continue the arrangement.
Jim at September 9, 2010 9:01 AM
For decades now, the likes of Jeremiah Wright have been preaching that crack cocaine was invented in a CIA laboratory to give the government a means of committing genocide against black people by getting them hooked on cheap, deadly drugs. Back in 1972, the National Association of Black Social Workers passed a resolution declaring that transracial adoption was cultural genocide:
http://www.salon.com/aug97/mothers/adoption970805.html
The War on Drugs is racist, legalizing drugs is racist, if whites don't adopt black children they're racists, if whites do adopt black children they're racists, everything is racist, everything is The White Man's fault, blacks are always the victims, and it will never end.
Martin at September 9, 2010 9:43 AM
How long do we continue with the war on drugs before we admit failure? Didn't this start with Nixon? Vietnam ended, why can't this? I don't even remember if I could vote then. If something never worked for my entire life, is it OK to stop pretending it's going to?
Or should I keep lusting after that hot girl in my ninth grade class while I'm at it?
MarkD at September 9, 2010 9:59 AM
Radwaste and Lobs made the points... especially since things were this way BEFORE there was a war on drugs. The only people with the power to change this is them. That the WoD is a waste of time and money is a separate issue. It is, and it should be ended... but that isn't going to automatically mean that those things should be legalized anyway.
SwissArmyD at September 9, 2010 10:32 AM
I was in high school when the war on drugs began. I remember why the war started. Believe it or not, it was because of the black leaders like Jesse Jackson, with the help of the Democratic legislatures. The black leaders demanded, actually demanded, that drug laws be heavily enforced in black communities because, they said, "the white establishment is allowing drugs to flourish in the black communities while working hard to keep drugs out of the white communities in the hope that the black communities will destroy themselves." Evil conservatives pointed out that the police were doing their best and that drugs were simply more pervasive throughout the black communities. The nerve! I joined in the call of "Racist, Dirty Racist" and was ashamed of the conservatives in my family.
Warning: personal rant follows...
Now, of course, I am the evil racist who is jailing blacks for drug use just as the black leaders and liberals demanded 50 years ago. I know this because black leaders and liberals tell me so. How can I now be evil just because I stood by them and blindly gave them what they demanded? I hate liberals. Everything they touch turns to crap. How can anyone who read Animal Farm and 1984 be so easily tricked? Why was I so stupid! I hate being stupid. I refuse to be stupid again.
anon15319 at September 9, 2010 10:41 AM
"The War on Drugs destroys black families...Data are unanimous in showing that children...do better with two parents."
How does the War on Drugs force all those unwed Black women to have multiple children by multiple men?
Tom at September 9, 2010 11:58 AM
The War on Drugs has turned out in retrospect to be a waste of money with unintended results, just like Prohibition. I don't know if it's really a war on black men, although it's disturbing how many black males are in jail. What could they possibly learn there except how to be a better criminal?
Well, we can't sterilize women who raise kids who develop criminal records, and we can't do mass deportations. Not only is it horrible and inhuman but it doesn't work. The thinking that classifies entire groups of people as "defectives" or "criminal" leads straight to the gas chambers.
We can't go NIMBY and leave ghettos to their own devices either, as if they were hermetically sealed off, because they're not.
I think part of the culprit is our drug-loving culture where legal drugs are touted as a quick fix for everything from an overactive child to despondency over one's own personal failures to behave like a human. Alcohol is everywhere, Ritalin and Xanax are popular, but then it's "Hey kids just say no to drugs (unless we're selling them)!" That's a mixed message if ever there was one.
Staying off drugs is not a trivial exercise if you live in a horrible pit of a neighborhood. It takes constant willpower, self control, self knowledge, an almost delusional sense of optimism, and supportive friends. We should all be so lucky.
Kids from the hood (any race) are also poorly socialized - or socialized in the wrong ways - and once they're older it's harder to remedy. They don't have respectful attitudes, a good work ethic, a desire to use their brains to think, or any marketable skills - not even a skilled trade. That's not a "war" on black men, and I'm not sure it's up to "society" to fix.
Wait, that's not right. Some hoods do have cohesive societies - especially immigrants from the same area- so maybe not all ghettos are equal?
I would like to see a greater investment in education. I would like to see American citizenry, all of it, become well educated and trained and competent in all areas of daily life. As a nation we can't afford to have citizens who are illiterate and unskilled. It seems that for people who made it out of bad circumstances without family support, it was often a teacher or coach who made the difference. People, not policy.
But then we get onto the rant of what educators are doing these days, so forget that.
vi at September 9, 2010 12:09 PM
Who was it who said that legalizing drugs - or even just some drugs - would be like legalizing slavery all over again?
lenona at September 9, 2010 12:43 PM
"Radwaste and Lobs made the points... especially since things were this way BEFORE there was a war on drugs."
What an asinine comment. Black families were not in a state of crisis pre-1970's - do you think it's just a coincidence that that's when the war on drugs started?
And to anyone comparing this to rape or theft, shut up, at least until you have an inkling of what you're talking about. Rape and theft are CRIMES, i.e., they HARM people. If you don't think people should have to right to determine what substances they take into their own bodies...well, that is authoritarianism at its very worst. What on earth gives you the right to decide that for another person?
I'd apologize for the unpleasant tone, but frankly, we need to stop treating the drug war with any sort of respect whatsoever - and that goes for its apologists as well. We are literally ripping families and lives apart, under color of law, over marijuana and xanax. There is no justification for sending armed men to hunt down people who aren't hurting anyone, and it's simply evil to support this as a national policy.
CB at September 9, 2010 1:04 PM
"Who was it who said that legalizing drugs - or even just some drugs - would be like legalizing slavery all over again?"
A fucking moron, and clearly someone who doesn't understand the first thing about either slavery or freedom. Slavery when someone else has complete control over every aspect of your existence, NOT when you have the right to choose for yourself what type of substances you ingest. Our current policy is far closer to slavery: even if you're not causing any harm to anyone else, you can be hunted down and locked up in a box simply for preferring an intoxicant or medicine that is deemed unpopular.
CB at September 9, 2010 1:07 PM
CB, apparently you are unaware that the black family has been in crisis since slave trading started in the Colonies in the 18th century. It was the slave traders/owners who split apart black families to drive profits. Drugs aren't the cause, just a symptom of an underlying problem with the black family that was institutionalized in America hundreds of years ago.
BTW, marijuana is not the problem here. It is already practically legal in this country. It is widely available, cheap, and with only minor possession fines (when enforced.) Surely you're not advocating the legalization of crack, heroin and crystal meth? These are the drugs doing the real damage to our society because they are addictive after a single dose. There isn't a society on the face of the Earth that is considering legalizing these drugs and for good reason. People are free to do whatever they want so long as they don't cause harm to me. And so yes, I object mightily to anyone freely taking these substances into their own body ... because the damage they inflict on society also causes direct harm to me and my family.
Another thing to consider is that Holland is rethinking their drug legalization policies because of the damage being caused to their country. Legalization has not stopped crime or other ill effects of the drugs. In fact, these things have steadily grown worse.
AllenS at September 9, 2010 1:54 PM
AllenS, what is your source for your information regarding marijuana enforcement? As a criminal defense attorney, I can assure you that it's incorrect. (So can the FBI: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/arrests/index.html) There are millions of people sitting in jails and prisons because of marijuana charges and convictions, and it's beyond ignorant of you to spout blatantly false nonsense about how it's "practically legal."
It's pretty hard to take anything else you say seriously after an error of that magnitude, but I'll give it a shot.
Yes, slavery was bad for the families of slaves. However, black American families were much stronger at the beginning of the 20th century - 40 years ago, only 25% of black children were born out of wedlock. Now it's over 70%. THIS is the demographic change that McWhorter's article was discussing. Now are you seeing the connection with the drug war?
What damage do drug users inflict on society, and what are you afraid that they'll do to you and your family? Why do you think that a criminalization scheme will prevent this harm? Be specific, here - you're talking about other people's liberty, and "I feel like it" isn't a good enough reason to throw someone else in jail.
CB at September 9, 2010 2:13 PM
Oops, looks like that close parentheses messed up the link.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/arrests/index.html
CB at September 9, 2010 2:26 PM
Fortunately, white people do not use drugs. That's why we have no problems and our lives are wonderful. I am going to pick some money off the money trees and ride my pony to the ice cream store now, because i am white.
vermindust at September 9, 2010 3:06 PM
AllenS, if you are white, then weed may in fact be practically legal FOR YOU. However, as CB stated, that is not the case for people who aren't white. Here's a really awful Nixon quote that pretty much sums it up -
"You have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this all while not appearing to."
The War on Drugs is the system he devised. It was, from the beginning, designed to incarcerate black people, and it's been going on far too long.
Sam at September 9, 2010 3:26 PM
Pirate Jo - "Consider marijuana, which accounts for 60% of all drug arrests. You can't overdose on it, and it has no known health risks."
Although I do not partake, I'm all for legalizing the chronic. But - "no known health risks?" Do you have teflon lungs? I mean, really!? It's an unfiltered cigarette ... I guess the key word is "known." there are no free rides ... or highs:
"Marijuana smoke and cigarette smoke contain many of the same toxins, including one which has been identified as a key factor in the promotion of lung cancer. This toxin is found in the tar phase of both, and it should be noted that one joint has four times more tar than a cigarette..." http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/Health_1.html
Mr. Teflon at September 9, 2010 4:11 PM
ya, the war on drugs is intended to target blacks, what kind of a moronic statement is that?
ron at September 9, 2010 5:48 PM
"What an asinine comment. Black families were not in a state of crisis pre-1970's - do you think it's just a coincidence that that's when the war on drugs started?"
Er, CB, I think your timeline is a little off. The War on Drugs, as we know it, is more of a late-'80s creation. The general attitude towards drugs was more lackadaisical in the '70s -- if it hadn't been, Cheech and Chong's act would never have gotten off the ground. And the inner-city black family was already in serious trouble by 1970. I recall seeing articles in Life about it in the late '60s.
Having said that: Although it's pretty clear that welfare and the exclusion of the black man from his family is the biggest social driver of black crime, the arbitrary-ness and ineffectiveness of the War on Drugs is probably a contributing factor. Yes, most of those incarcerated black men are in for violent crimes, but I'm guessing that for a lot of them, drug offenses were their "gateway crime" into the gang/violent crime life. I have no delusions about the gangs disappearing overnight if drugs are legalized (they'll find some other illicit line of business to apply their "talents" to), but it will make it more difficult for them to recruit new members if they are engaging in something more obviously immoral, say trafficking in forced prostitution. And that will reduce their influence in the areas where they operate.
The big thing is that the black man has to be returned to his family. Black men have to be welcomed as fathers and husbands again, and shown that there are better options in life than the gangs. Drug legalization could be a part of that plan.
Cousin Dave at September 9, 2010 6:49 PM
"CB, apparently you are unaware that the black family has been in crisis since slave trading started in the Colonies in the 18th century. "
Speaking of being "unaware", I recommend you read anything by Thomas Sowell, who talks about this in nearly every book he writes. Short version: the black family was relatively intact throughout the 20th century. It was the 60's and 70's - and the policies and culture associated with this era - that destroyed it. The data don't show what you'd expect if slavery had anything to do with it.
D at September 9, 2010 8:02 PM
The decline of the black family started with welfare changes in the 60's the penalized married couples. The war on drugs was just another nail in the coffin.
AllenS - "Surely you're not advocating the legalization of crack, heroin and crystal meth? These are the drugs doing the real damage to our society because they are addictive after a single dose."
My brother tried heroin once, and said it scared the shit out of him - that he could see why people got addicted. I doubt if there is any drug that addicts in 1 dose. Addiction seems to be caused by changes to the brain after sustained use.
William (wbhicks@hotmail.com) at September 9, 2010 8:16 PM
Cousin Dave - Sam posted a great Nixon quote a few comments up. Nixon was the initial architect of our disastrous drug policy. While things have gotten much, much worse since the 70's in terms of prosecution of the drug war, that's when things really got started on the sick path of incarcerating people who haven't harmed anyone. Also, check out the abovementioned statistics regarding the dramatic increase in out-of-wedlock births to black mothers (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4865449 ) since 1965. There are certainly other factors at work, but a mass campaign of sending young (and not so young) men to prison is going to be a pretty serious factor in destroying families no matter what.
Also, this statement isn't correct: "most of those incarcerated black men are in for violent crimes." The FBI statistics that I linked earlier are clear; out of over 14 million arrests in 2008, just under 600,000 were for violent crimes. 57% of federal prisoners are incarcerated for drug offenses. The rate of violent crime in the US has been dropping since the 80's - the massive increase in incarceration rates (200,000 in 1970 vs. 2.3 million today) is almost entirely due to our drug policies. It's sick, isn't it? We're conducting a campaign of violence against the non-violent.
CB at September 9, 2010 8:25 PM
Well CB, I think you need to revisit sowell...
" The weakening of crime controls by judges and political elites during the 1960s fostered an atmosphere of lawlessness in the black community that also contributed to a negative harvest of social problems." Sowell, Knowledge and Decisions
When speaking about the "War On Drugs" Nixon and Reagan were very different in what they did, Reagan making it a real war in 1988 and that is what I was referring to. The incarceration rates that cchanged at that point from merely going up in Nixon/Ford/Carter to a steep climb Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush as seen here:
Incarceration Timeline
Also Sowell speaks of family changes in the black community after WWII with the third wave move to cities... which is 20 years earlier than Nixon did anything.
However. This is a complicated question, esp since birth stats by race seem to be pretty hard to come by before '70 or so, but Sowell indicates:
"As regards family stability and out-of-wedlock births, black rates prior to WWII were hardly perfect, (19% in 1940 and 22% in 1960) but were still far lower than the 70% out-of-wedlock births afflicting the black community at the beginning of the 21st century." Sowell, Black Rednecks and White Liberals.
Sowell seems to believe this is due much more to the Great Society and the Civil Rights act of '64 than The War on Drugs... because before the 60's the family units were more intact.
Certainly we could argue about which thing causes what thing... But your argument about drugs not being violent, and your stats... Of those violent crimes, how many are drug related, and how many are within minority groups themselves? It's hardly a non violent thing.
What percentage of drug busts occur outside the minority community, versus what percentage of drugs is sold outside the minority community?
I don't think you can establish causality between family disintegration and the War on Drugs, but they certainly go hand in hand. If there were no war on drugs as a big deal, the profit in drugs would go down, and so there wouldn't be such a differential to make it worth taking the risk to sell. Would that make the fathers stay in their families? Would it make them get jobs or be responsible? Dunno.
But you see this in a very one sided way. I think you are too close to the subject, as a lawyer.
SwissArmyD at September 9, 2010 11:19 PM
Jumping back up to Mr. Teflon regarding pot: Just so you know--you don't have to smoke it.
Pricklypear at September 10, 2010 7:58 AM
"What damage do drug users inflict on society, and what are you afraid that they'll do to you and your family? Why do you think that a criminalization scheme will prevent this harm?"
Damage a drug addict inflicts: When a person is high on crystal meth (same goes for many stims). They are prone to fits of rage similar to roid rage but far more severe. When one is coming off many proscribed narcotics the urge to get the next fix can trigger similar violent outbursts. The only way I see this being remedied is either an armed populace or free access to all the drugs you want. I'm all for open season on violent druggies, btw.
criminalization scheme: None. Crack heads will find themselves that crack no matter how hard you try to stop them. The harder it is the more dangerous they become.
As far as the oppression of anyone. Here's a fucking though put down the crack pipe. Crack is not conducive to success, not a hard concept to grasp. There are stories from every race in this country of people who beat the odd and were successes. Notice none of them point to crack making it happen. Even the rappers, most of the smoke the green but the successful ones stay away from the hard shit. Artists that fail to crash hard, Amy Winehous being one of the most blatant.
vlad at September 10, 2010 8:03 AM
SwissArmyD, where did I say that the War on Drugs was the ONLY thing contributing to problems within the black community/family unit?
I'm also not really sure what position of mine you're arguing against with that incarceration timeline. Yes, the drug war has been prosecuted more and more aggressively as it has gone on longer, as I pointed out above. Just like the payroll tax started at 1% and has crept up to 15.3%, pernicious government programs can often take a while to gather momentum.
"Certainly we could argue about which thing causes what thing... But your argument about drugs not being violent, and your stats... Of those violent crimes, how many are drug related, and how many are within minority groups themselves? It's hardly a non violent thing."
Not sure I'm really following this series of sentence fragments, but I think you're trying to say that violent crime is caused by drugs. If that is indeed your position, you'll need to provide some evidence for it - people have been raping and murdering each other for millenia, with and without the help of alcohol and other drugs. Which brings us to the next issue: if you're so concerned about the relationship between drugs and violent crimes, I assume you're in favor of bringing back Prohibition? After all, alcohol comes second only to PCP in terms of making people more likely to be violent towards others. http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/library-e/collin-e.htm (great report from 2001 on the relationship between drugs and crime)
Minorities are disproportionately subject to punishment for violation of drug laws, as AllenS so thoughtfully proved for us by believing that marijuana is "practically legal." So are cocaine, and MDMA, and prescription pills, as long as you're rich and white. But look at those FBI statistics - LOTS of people are getting arrested and incarcerated over this. And I can tell you from personal experience that almost half of the average criminal docket is made up of just drug offenses. Oh, wait, personal experience and knowledge is a BAD thing, I forgot - and what's your knowledge base/source, again?
CB at September 10, 2010 9:12 AM
Sorry to disagree but I cry 'bullshit'.
People are incarcerated because they have been convicted of breaking laws. Don't do the crime if you don't want to do the time.
Put the blame firmly on the shoulders of the people deserving it.
Uncle Sam did not make the poor, misunderstood citizen have unprotected sex and procreate. Or force them to drop out of school, do drugs or walk away from their responsibilities. Man, woman, black, white, pink, purple or polka dotted. It matters not.
Personal responsibility is what is lacking.
LauraGr at September 10, 2010 10:32 AM
Not always LauraGr.
I know a guy who went to jail for not paying child support. Kids wasnt his and all the 'notices' from the government were going to an old address.
What crime did he commit? Not replying to courts summons he never recived. He's a disabled vet so he cant work, and every few months he gets arrested for failure to pay. The only reason he get out is becuase his parnet pay the minimum the court demands to spring him.
You'd be amazed how many things are illegal, did you know it is illegal to transport beer arcoss state lines?
Cops can legally steal your property based on the assumption that it might have been used in a crime.
There are over 4000 federal crimes. One would think it should be fairly easy to find out what is illegal and what isnt but give it a try. See for yourself how hard it is to find a comprehensive list of everything illegal
lujlp at September 10, 2010 12:10 PM
"And I can tell you from personal experience that almost half of the average criminal docket is made up of just drug offenses." CB
and? Who is FORCING those people to commit crimes? The violence doesn't come from doing drugs, it comes from the sale and distibution of same. I'm with LauraGr on the responsibility issue...
You would think the incarceration rate would give somebody pause, but apparently it doesn't matter to them, the potential reward is too high. Somewhere a balance has to be struck between how much is being spent on policing activity, and what the value add is. But that doesn't CHANGE the fact that the activity itself is illegal.
If you were to legalize, where would you draw the line? Meth? Crack? Black Tar? Anything that's truly physically addictive? What's your criteria?
As far as your experience, I'm not saying it isn't worth a lot, I'm saying it has narrowed your point of view so much that you can't see anything else. I don't understand how you can say that somone who willfully breaks a law somehow doesn't bear responsibility for it. It's not like the conditions of the law cannot be easily met. There is no catch-22 involved, unless you talk about the very narrow band of people who need it for medical reasons. But all the 20somethings in Colorado who suddenly have bad backs and need to go to their local dispensary is astonishing. They make a mockery of people who have cancer, and need pain control. In this ONE aspect the law is too much of a blunt instrument.
Personally I think ganja should be regulated just like beer, age requiremnt, and if anything bad happens while high, you'll get in trouble. But, I also don't care one way or the other, so I'm not going to fight for that.
You of all people should know that you don't fight for the repeal of a law by getting arrested for breaking it.
SwissArmyD at September 10, 2010 12:15 PM
"You of all people should know that you don't fight for the repeal of a law by getting arrested for breaking it."
Actually, that's the only way unjust laws have ever been fought, and it's the only way our justice system ALLOWS them to be fought - you can't challenge a law's constitutionality unless you have standing (i.e., you are personally affected by it).
All this talk about "but the activity itself is illegal." Are you really that much of a statist stooge? Just because the government says it's bad, we'd all better listen up and toe the line? Look, I'm absolutely in favor of having a police force to protect us from murder, rape, theft, and all the rest of of the wickedness that human beings seem to enjoy perpetrating upon one another. The problem comes when people think it's okay to declare personal choices illegal, and send armed men after anyone who wants to continue making her own individual choices about what medicines to take, whether for health or recreation. There has got to be a standard for what the government is allowed to do, and messing with someone's control over his or her own body is far beyond what we - as free, intelligent people concerned with justice and a successful society - should tolerate.
No one is forcing people to commit crimes; the coercion comes in when the government arbitrarily decides to criminalize individual choices that aren't anyone else's business. I understand that most people are totally convinced that legalizing crack and meth and heroin would mean the end of society, but here's the thing: the people who are doing those things and hurting other people because of it don't care whether it's legal or not. And if you're so concerned about people being harmed, why not think about the people harmed by the enforcement scheme? People who are minding their own business, enjoying a recreational drug now and then, who are ripped from their families and livelihoods and sent off to prison, where they'll probably be raped, and will definitely associate with real criminals. That's not even getting into the vast numbers of totally innocent people - Kathryn Johnston, Jonathan Ayers, Cory Maye, etc. - who get caught up in the corrupt practices fostered by our drug policy.
"But, I also don't care one way or the other, so I'm not going to fight for that."
How noble. If you don't care about your fellow citizens' freedoms, don't expect anyone to care about yours.
CB at September 10, 2010 3:16 PM
CB, I do love when you show up around here.
Sam at September 10, 2010 3:23 PM
lujlp - The premise of the article is that there are an unjust number of black people languishing in prison. Not that there are some exceptions like your example demonstrates.
I think of pot sort of in the same light as I do speeding. Many people do it, for the most part nobody gets hurt, and not everybody that speeds is going to get caught or ticketed. Should we abolish speed limits?
The "other people do it too" defense is crap. Don't want a speeding ticket? Nobody is forcing you to speed. Don't want to be busted for pot? There is a really simple way to avoid that one, too.
I do not consider these prisoners to be victims. They are there because of actions they took and that that they chose freely.
LauraGr at September 10, 2010 5:34 PM
So will that be your attitude when they out salt?
Not sure of your age but was that your attitude when any sex out side of the missonary position while married was punishable by jail time?
Or when black people were arrested for violating jim crowe laws?
Or when women were arrested for illegal demonstrations for suffrage because local municipalities illegally refused to issuse essambly permits?
lujlp at September 10, 2010 6:31 PM
"So will that be your attitude when they out salt?"
Umm... ?? What?
And no, my attitude is that if you find rules unjust, you work to change or repeal them or you support those that are already doing so. Smoking pot or whatever and getting busted and penalized is not my idea of activism. YMMV.
LauraGr at September 10, 2010 7:18 PM
CB, define for me the basis that the drug law is unconstitutional.
Also, if that is so, why in the years of it's existance, why has it not been successfully thrown out if it is so straightforward?
Finally, what is your opinion on the basis that laws are made to protect the pop from something? Let's take melamine in food. Should the govt. be able to keep it out of the food supply because it will cause harm? What basis does the govt. use to regulate things that will cause us harm? Would you consider meth addiction harm?
SwissArmyD at September 10, 2010 7:20 PM
McWhorter is the "conservative thinker" who told people to vote for Obama so that blacks would feel better about themselves. Seriously, that was his whole argument for the incompetent ideologue now occupying the Oval Office. I haven't paid any attention to his "thinking" or "think pieces" since.
noirfan at September 10, 2010 9:10 PM
That should have read outlaw salt
Incandecent lihtbulbs will be outlawed fairly soon, will people deserve to go to jail then for using the worng kind of lightbulb?
lujlp at September 10, 2010 10:28 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/09/09/the_war_on_drug_1.html#comment-1753312">comment from lujlpHere's where I think I'm going to order mine from after I get paid by Psych Today for a piece I did. I'll probably order 200 of the 100 watt frosted ones that are 33 cents for 120 or more. Of course, I'll have to buy a few big plastic tubs -- maybe I can get them at the 99 Cent store...any suggestions would be appreciated -- and then I'll store them all in my garage. If anyone thinks moisture would be bad for the bulbs, please let me know. They'll be in tubs, but should the tubs bow and should moisture sneak in...?
Amy Alkon at September 11, 2010 6:18 AM
SwissArmyD, define for me why you have the right to send armed men after your fellow citizens even when they aren't hurting you or anyone else. Define for me the benefits that our society has enjoyed as a result of the drug war. Define for me why it's moral to rip someone away from his family and livelihood because of his recreational drug use. Remember, the burden of proof is on the side that wants to throw people in jail - unless you think the default position on any issue is "the government should be able to hunt you down and lock you up for doing this activity."
As for the constitutionality issue, thanks to Wickard v. Filburn, it's extremely unlikely that any modern court would find our drug laws unconstitutional. Ever since the Supreme Court - under threat of court-packing by FDR - found that virtually any activity any human being engages in can constitute interstate commerce (in Wickard, it was a farming growing wheat for his own consumption, but the government still made him burn it because they said it violated the quotas they'd set for wheat production), the Constitution has been severely weakened in terms of protecting citizens' private behavior. Even better, the government takes away your right to vote if you've been convicted of any but the most minor drug crime, so the very people most aware of this evil are specifically excluded from any political processes where they might legitimately effect change. This is a big part of how bad laws stick around - the people who pass them are able to entrench them in the political process. Slavery, segregation, and the subjugation of women have all enjoyed legal legitimacy in this country.
But, I never said that this was a straightforward issue of constitutionality. And as for why our massive patchwork of state and federal drug laws hasn't been thrown out, the problem is that there are far too many people like you in this country. People who are willing to believe that whatever the government says about drugs must be true (even in the face of contrary evidence, and arbitrary decisions like legalizing alcohol while making marijuana illegal), and it's always okay to punish people if the government says so. You whine "but it's AGAINST THE LAW," as though that tells us anything whatsoever about whether the government's actions are just, moral, or even pragmatically beneficial.
Yes, the government's job is to prevent people from forcing harm on one another. Putting dangerous substances in other people's food without their knowledge is indeed harming them, and it's reasonable for the government to regulate that. But if you want to drink, smoke, eat fast food, play video games, and otherwise engage in activities that are less than healthy for yourself, why should anyone else get to throw you in jail for that? Being addicted to meth isn't great for your body, but neither is being addicted to cigarettes or eating an all-carb diet. Want to make those illegal too, Comrade?
CB at September 11, 2010 9:43 AM
Leave a comment