New Perspective on the result of the War On Drugs

[Phil Smith]

Michelle Alexander legal scholar and author of the book: "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness" Makes some interesting points about the drug war and how it has created a new racial case system. I know some will not like what she's saying and dismiss it outright but she is a legal scholar and offers some compelling evidence to back up what's she's saying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWIsS5RBxJU

[Dr. Cheese]

Folks tend to say that because nothing specifically targets groups by race, it should not be seen as a racial issue. I would tend to argue if the results show a clear racial disparity, the motivation becomes irrelevant.

[Phil Smith]

Originally Posted by Dr. Cheese

Folks tend to say that because nothing specifically targets groups by race, it should not be seen as a racial issue. I would tend to argue if the results show a clear racial disparity, the motivation becomes irrelevant.

I think her argument is that enforcement has a racial component.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/3/1...exander_on_the

And the reason for their excommunication from our society, our mainstream society, is for engaging in precisely the same kind of drug activity that is largely ignored in middle-class and upper-middle-class white communities. People often say to me, “Well, if people—if, you know, black and brown men don’t want to be labeled felons, well, then they just shouldn’t commit drug crimes.” But, you know, we have known, as a nation, for a long time now that simply prohibiting drug activity does not lead people to stop using illegal drugs. We learned that lesson with alcohol prohibition. Banning the use of alcohol didn’t discourage many people from using or selling alcohol. And people of color are no more likely to use or sell illegal drugs than whites. Our stereotype of a drug dealer in the United States is of an African American kid standing on a street corner with his pants hanging down. But the reality is that drug dealing happens everywhere in America. Drug markets in the United States, much like our society generally, is relatively segregated by race. Blacks tend to sell to blacks. Whites tend to sell to whites.

[Dr. Cheese]

Originally Posted by Phil Smith

I think her argument is that enforcement has a racial component.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/3/1...exander_on_the

I know that is her argument, but because I suspect we will never find a document stating that the war on drugs was concieved to target a racial group, most reforms will have to act as if the laws were designed to be colorblind, no matter how color specific the affect is.

[bassrique]

The "war on drugs" is not logical. Google up William F. Buckly Jr. as to his thoughts on this silly spectacle. As for the race issue, I can't watch the vid at this time. I'll check in later.

[Lublin]

Tax pot and give it minimum user age. We'll all benefit.

[Deluge Of Sound]

I agree with her sentiment.

[EdHunter]

Legalise it. Means you cut out the entire middle-man system and can get rid of the gang culture violence around the commerce of narcotics, whilst at the same time controlling the damage the product does and who can get it. Then tax pizza and cookies.

[Mark Latimour]

If the War on Drugs^TM has resulted in greater availability of drugs and the War on Terror^TM has meant that everyone is now at more risk of terrorism, can I politely suggest that the US engage in a War on People Living in Huge Mansions^TM.

[PSPookie]

Prohibition is/was a silly idea. It only gives rise to ilegal markets and those who are most attracted to those markets tend to coem from the lower income brackets. Unsurprisingly, this economic tier is heavily populated with ethnic minorities.

Want to know why the war on drugs is unwinable? Google "jenkem". What's that tell you about humane nature?

[MakiSupaStar]

Originally Posted by Dr. Cheese

Folks tend to say that because nothing specifically targets groups by race, it should not be seen as a racial issue. I would tend to argue if the results show a clear racial disparity, the motivation becomes irrelevant.

Very interesting. Her facts are compelling, but I feel that she fails to point out how it's an organized conscious effort like a caste system, that was indeed organized and well defined in its parameters. I think conscious intent, is important, because then we identify and correct the laws, and/or enforcement of the laws. Additionally, if this applied to just black people, and not other minority groups, whether socio-economic or racial, then her argument would be even MORE compelling.

Cheese. I think motivation is important so we can identify intent, and specific policy/enforcement that targets people of a particular race. Additionally, it gets sticky when you identify a phenomenon that doesn't necessarily apply to a single race, but it applies to other minority groups, whether they are viewed as a particular race or socio-economic group. I agree with most of what she is saying, but if you look at solutions by race, then who would you actually look to implement these solutions? Another racial group? 'White' people? Racial groups aren't really organized that way, and while some racial groups are organized to protect their rights, most aren't, and the system that implements laws, and their enforcement are most definitely not (even if they are definitely 'white' biased). So while her observations are definitely astute, and they do raise some very compelling questions, I would say that they point us down a solution path that is destined to fail because it's starting in the wrong place (the identification of a problem through the racially biased lens - which I do understand is the point). I think we'd be steered toward a better solution if we looked at this vicious legal and incarceration cycle through a more socio-economic lens, rather than a racial lens. Because the 'caste system' that she describes doesn't just affect black people, but it affects all kinds of people from all different kinds of ethnic, religious, and racial backgrounds. So while her comparisons to Jim Crowe laws are very compelling, I think they tend to lead us down a path that only looks for a solution for black people, and not ALL people.

I'm not denying her arguments. They are things that I have also thought about to some degree, but because our government is NOT overtly organized by race, change through this perspective would be very difficult to implement and not equal in their goal and results.

[Dr. Cheese]

Originally Posted by MakiSupaStar

Very interesting. Her facts are compelling, but I feel that she fails to point out how it's an organized conscious effort like a caste system, that was indeed organized and well defined in its parameters. I think conscious intent, is important, because then we identify and correct the laws, and/or enforcement of the laws. Additionally, if this applied to just black people, and not other minority groups, whether socio-economic or racial, then her argument would be even MORE compelling.

Cheese. I think motivation is important so we can identify intent, and specific policy/enforcement that targets people of a particular race. Additionally, it gets sticky when you identify a phenomenon that doesn't necessarily apply to a single race, but it applies to other minority groups, whether they are viewed as a particular race or socio-economic group. I agree with most of what she is saying, but if you look at solutions by race, then who would you actually look to implement these solutions? Another racial group? 'White' people? Racial groups aren't really organized that way, and while some racial groups are organized to protect their rights, most aren't, and the system that implements laws, and their enforcement are most definitely not (even if they are definitely 'white' biased). So while her observations are definitely astute, and they do raise some very compelling questions, I would say that they point us down a solution path that is destined to fail because it's starting in the wrong place (the identification of a problem through the racially biased lens - which I do understand is the point). I think we'd be steered toward a better solution if we looked at this vicious legal and incarceration cycle through a more socio-economic lens, rather than a racial lens. Because the 'caste system' that she describes doesn't just affect black people, but it affects all kinds of people from all different kinds of ethnic, religious, and racial backgrounds. So while her comparisons to Jim Crowe laws are very compelling, I think they tend to lead us down a path that only looks for a solution for black people, and not ALL people.

I'm not denying her arguments. They are things that I have also thought about to some degree, but because our government is NOT overtly organized by race, change through this perspective would be very difficult to implement and not equal in their goal and results.

This is very similar to the kind of arguments that have come up in anti-discrimination cases. Most current jurisprudence says that one must prove intent, bad results are not enough. That is why I said elsewhere that reform of the war on drugs will have to work on the assumption of colorblindness whether we think the intent was colorblind or not because no one explicitly said that the law was color specific.

[Jim Nazium]

Originally Posted by Mark Latimour

If the War on Drugs^TM has resulted in greater availability of drugs and the War on Terror^TM has meant that everyone is now at more risk of terrorism, can I politely suggest that the US engage in a War on People Living in Huge Mansions^TM.

I like it. Can we add a War on Promiscuous Hot Chicks?

[MakiSupaStar]

Originally Posted by Dr. Cheese

This is very similar to the kind of arguments that have come up in anti-discrimination cases. Most current jurisprudence says that one must prove intent, bad results are not enough. That is why I said elsewhere that reform of the war on drugs will have to work on the assumption of colorblindness whether we think the intent was colorblind or not because no one explicitly said that the law was color specific.

Yeah. I totally agree.

[Phil Smith]

Originally Posted by MakiSupaStar

Very interesting. Her facts are compelling, but I feel that she fails to point out how it's an organized conscious effort like a caste system, that was indeed organized and well defined in its parameters. I think conscious intent, is important, because then we identify and correct the laws, and/or enforcement of the laws. Additionally, if this applied to just black people, and not other minority groups, whether socio-economic or racial, then her argument would be even MORE compelling.

Cheese. I think motivation is important so we can identify intent, and specific policy/enforcement that targets people of a particular race. Additionally, it gets sticky when you identify a phenomenon that doesn't necessarily apply to a single race, but it applies to other minority groups, whether they are viewed as a particular race or socio-economic group. I agree with most of what she is saying, but if you look at solutions by race, then who would you actually look to implement these solutions? Another racial group? 'White' people? Racial groups aren't really organized that way, and while some racial groups are organized to protect their rights, most aren't, and the system that implements laws, and their enforcement are most definitely not (even if they are definitely 'white' biased). So while her observations are definitely astute, and they do raise some very compelling questions, I would say that they point us down a solution path that is destined to fail because it's starting in the wrong place (the identification of a problem through the racially biased lens - which I do understand is the point). I think we'd be steered toward a better solution if we looked at this vicious legal and incarceration cycle through a more socio-economic lens, rather than a racial lens. Because the 'caste system' that she describes doesn't just affect black people, but it affects all kinds of people from all different kinds of ethnic, religious, and racial backgrounds. So while her comparisons to Jim Crowe laws are very compelling, I think they tend to lead us down a path that only looks for a solution for black people, and not ALL people.

I'm not denying her arguments. They are things that I have also thought about to some degree, but because our government is NOT overtly organized by race, change through this perspective would be very difficult to implement and not equal in their goal and results.

I think your statements are rooted in the misconception that somehow black people are separate from Americans as a whole. Everyone should be concerned that laws and policies are giving rise to a deleterious effect on a group of Americans. It's not a solution for black people, it's a solution for everyone, but people don't see it that way because of the history of this country.

the identification of a problem through the racially biased lens

Are you asserting that her research is biased? If yes, how do you know that? Is there another way to interpret her data?

[MakiSupaStar]

Originally Posted by Phil Smith

I think your statements are rooted in the misconception that somehow black people are separate from Americans as a whole. Everyone should be concerned that laws and policies are giving rise to a deleterious effect on a group of Americans. It's not a solution for black people, it's a solution for everyone, but people don't see it that way because of the history of this country.

I actually agree with you. But I need to be clear, I don't see black people as separate. In fact, I define an American (US citizen) as someone born here, has legal residence, and/or as acquired citizenship. You kind of pointed out what I was trying to say. I believe solutions should benefit everyone, not just black people, because this isn't just a 'black' phenomenon. While black people are disproportionately affected, it also affects poor people of all colors, races, and other socio-economic make-ups. I also think we have to look at why are black people americans are so much more affected by this than other racial and socio-economic groups. If there is policy that is indirectly affecting them negatively, because of some set of common cultural norms, then perhaps this could be offset with policy that indirectly affects this same group positively (much like the current system that tends to be biased toward the benefit of the culture norms of what is considered 'white'). It's super vague and hard to pinpoint, this is why I suggested a bias that more orientated around socio-economics and not racial composition.

Originally Posted by Phil Smith

Are you asserting that her research is biased? If yes, how do you know that? Is there another way to interpret her data?

I'm not asserting that her research is biased in the sense that it's inaccurate, or worthless, but I'm asserting that it's biased toward the study of one group of people (black americans) because that is indeed the focus of her study. I completely find her methods valid, and I understand her motivations for the study as well. America has a history in which black people from Africa were enslaved, and this history has produced specific legislation, laws, and even moral correction of legislation that was determined to be unconstitutional (Jim Crowe et al), so it makes sense for her to have this bias, because it relates to the history of our country and it legislation.

I think that you could also expand the bias of her study, to include the perspective of a specific socio-economic bias, and in turn that might lead toward a more equitable and fair solution that affects all people (including black americans), that find themselves trapped in this vicious cycle that she compares to the caste system. I hope that made sense.

[anonymous122511]

Originally Posted by bassrique

The "war on drugs" is not logical.

If you take it at face value the war on drugs is highly illogical. Apply Cui Bono to it though and it begins to make more sense. Those who brought you the war on drugs may be a lot of things but stupid and shortsighted aren't among them.