Hello:

Have I mentioned on these pages my belief that the drug war is racist to its core? I think I have.. Well, what I knew INSTINCTIVELY, somebody else knew ACADEMICALLY and she's written a book (http://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Michelle-Alexander/dp/1595586431/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331131855&sr=8-1) about it called, of all things, The New Jim Crow.

It marshals pages of statistics and legal citations to argue that the get-tough approach to crime that began in the Nixon administration and was intensified by Ronald Reagan, has devastated the black community. Professor Alexander writes, nearly one-third of black men are likely to spend time in prison at some point, only to find themselves falling into permanent second-class citizenship after they get out.

That is a familiar argument made by many critics of the criminal justice system, but Professor Alexander's book goes further, asserting that the crackdown was less a response to the actual explosion of violent crime than a deliberate effort to push back the gains of the civil rights movement.

Read this book and then write your congressman. This racist war MUST end.

excon

"Ten-plus printings later" you're just now finding it? Dude, I'm not impressed by using statistics to try and prove the drug war is "a deliberate effort to push back the gains of the civil rights movement." Statistics don't prove motivation.

Hello again, Steve:

I'm willing to accept that they didn't mean it, if they END it. If they don't, then it looks like they MEANT it.

excon

White America clearly forces Blacks to take and sell illegal drugs .

Here is the fact ,Right or wrong ,there are laws on the books about drugs . No body is forcing anyone else to break those laws .

It is this type of blame shifting in fact that helps people to not accept their own responsibilities for their actions. That liberals keep advancing such arguments make me suspicious of their motives . I think it's them that prefer the plantation mentality... the plantation of government dependency.

White America clearly forces Blacks to take and sell illegal drugs . Hello again, tom:

I wouldn't put it those words, but what you say is true. I'm also certain that you don't believe it.. That bothers me, NOT. Your side, historically, has been on the WRONG side of these social issues.

excon

You also believed that separate but equal was actually equal...
Lol... I will not defend postions I have not taken.

lol ...I will not defend postions I have not taken.Hello again, tom:

Ok, I took it out. The rest of my statement is absolutely TRUE.


excon

Hello again, tom:

The rest of my statement is absolutely TRUE.


excon

Now that would be a change, ex not doing a beatup

Hello again, tom:

I'd be willing to engage in SOME discussion of the social issues, that leads me to my conclusion...

We've got a disconnect... When I observe a city, and see a section of town with very poor people, and the bulk of them are NON-WHITE, I'd say that happens because of government POLICY. I suspect YOU'D say it's because they CHOOSE to live that way...

Certainly, if they CHOSE to live that way, then my argument goes into the crapper... Plus, IF the population of the ghetto ethnically represented the REST of society, then my argument goes into the crapper a second time...

But, that ISN'T the makeup of the ghetto.

Now, I START with the belief that people are the same no matter WHAT color their skin is. So, it's not plausible to me that an ethnic GROUP would CHOOSE those living conditions. To me, that's ample evidence, all by itself, to conclude that since it's NOT choice that has them live there, it MUST be policy.

Now, I don't know HOW you could explain that certain ethnic groups live in the ghetto by CHOICE, WITHOUT sounding racist, but I'm willing to let you try.

excon

Ghetto implies that they are forcibly living there. Ghetto is your word not mine . Why would they be different than any other race or ethnic group ? My ancestors came here and congregated in basically all Irish ,all Italian neighborhoods . NY city is still rich with ethnic pockets .

Now you might say that is a matter or poverty .But I don't see any evidence of that either . In the suburbs where there is choices about where you would live ,due to greater affluence ,there is often segregation by choice. So it would be incorrect to state that segregation is a government policy .It just isn't true
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1513&context=facpub&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt %26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dcities%2520with%2520african%2520a merican%2520middle%2520class%2520suburbs%26source% 3Dweb%26cd%3D7%26sqi%3D2%26ved%3D0CFwQFjAG%26url%3 Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarship.law.georgetown.edu %252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1513% 2526context%253Dfacpub%26ei%3DI7xYT8jJF4rp0QGGzO2h Dw%26usg%3DAFQjCNFN6iPr3vKDTtOgLTwhBvfvwVdQYg#sear ch=%22cities%20african%20american%20middle%20class %20suburbs%22

What I really want to know is why you think there is any connection between where someone lives and being involved with illegal drug ?

What I really want to know is why you think there is any connection between where someone lives and being involved with illegal drug ?Hello again, tom:

If you live in an affluent neighborhood, you have a WIDE variety of choices.. If you live in the slums, you don't. I don't think you'd argue with that. Or, maybe you would.

excon

Again.. what is the connection between where you live and being in the illegal drug culture ?
Fact ;not everyone who is poor or a minority is involved . Fact ,there are affleunt whites who are in the illegal drug culture. So the premise that somehow the laws regarding illegal drugs are the equivalence of Jim Crow laws is a grotesque fallacy.

Hello again, tom:

I'm trying to lead you down this road one "ahh ha" moment at a time. It takes a little bit of dot connecting... You're not WILLING to do it, or you don't see ANY connection between the dots.. To ME, the connection is GLARING... To YOU, not so much...

Ok, let's take another tact. The black prison population FAR exceeds their proportionate representation in society. Why is that? There's an EASY right wing answer that doesn't involve much thought.. Is that the one you're going to latch onto??

Then there's the OBVIOUS answer, and it doesn't take any dots to get there.

excon

You are right... the dots don't connect . If poverty leads to crime, then crime rates would rise when poverty rates rise.The world's poorest nations would also have the highest crime rates.But you know that isn't so.

Ok, let's take another tact. The black prison population FAR exceeds their proportionate representation in society. Why is that? There's an EASY right wing answer that doesn't involve much thought.. Is that the one you're gonna latch onto???

Then there's the OBVIOUS answer, and it doesn't take any dots to get there.

excon

Ex let me blow your argument out of the water, In other places where they don't have the war on drugs, the black population is over represented in prision populations. I believe that it is attitude to society, not laws that force this problem and it is the attitude of the people themselves. In our nation we have observed that the higher the percentage of black people in the population the higher their representation in prison. I think you might say black people are born with a chip on their shoulder and this gets them into trouble both in their own community and in the community at large. Why do they go to prison, it is usually for minor crimes, that is how it starts anyway, having done their apprenticeship they move on.

So crow it all you like, no one is targeting them. It is culture, it is attitude

Neither of you have read the book so I will forgive the ignorance. But you better check out why the prison system is a booming business, and check out the facts about how they recruit their candidates, and why. Ain't no future for a second class citizen in america.

Then maybe just maybe you can refrain from the prejudices and racism that keeps you from connecting the dots. Only a conservative could come up with the plantation blather or even its about someone's culture.

Its always about money, power and influence. 2 million votes, poor and minorities, locked up and trapped in the system that yields a legal under class that can never be served. Drug war my arse. Its pure class warfare and legal racism.

I think you might say black people are born with a chip on their shoulder and this gets them into trouble both in their own community and in the community at large. Hello clete:

Thank you for making my point.

excon

Tal I'll consider your facts when you come up with some . Your rants don't count .

I already have, just look up what I wrote and research it yourself. That was no rant, but a statement of facts. Okay I will help you out a bit! I know you still won't see it. From the book.

The New Jim Crow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Jim_Crow)


According to Alexander, the majority of young black men in large American cities are "warehoused in prisons" (their labor no longer needed in the globalized economy) or, after having criminal records and labeled as "felons", permanently trapped in a second-class status. The communities of color are targeted and decimated by the U.S criminal justice system, with the "War on Drugs" being the primary tool chosen by the establishment intent on continuation of many of the traditional and new forms of discrimination, discrimination, which according to the conventional point of view, had mostly ended with the Civil rights movement reforms of the 1960s.[2]


Politicians who opposed the civil rights acts, after their passage focused on "tough on crime" legislation, the calls for which became sanitized in terms of explicitly racial appeals. The law and order and tough on crime rhetoric proved appealing to working class whites, who were most directly affected by the government's desegregation measures and the resulting, often difficult, situation in urban centers and neighborhoods. The "anti-crime" campaign was to become the most successful and durable political tool and manipulation of the resurgent white right wing, and, together with the spontaneous white opposition to the social transformations that were taking place, led to a momentous and lasting to this day realignment of political forces in the United States.[28]


This raises the issue of how exactly such disparity comes about in a society where old-fashioned racism is not normally practiced and racial discrimination is condemned by most, under a formally colorblind criminal justice system. The usual opinion is that the grossly disproportionate incarceration rates are the result of black men having much higher rates of violent crime; it is however drug convictions, not violent crime, that are primarily responsible for the prison boom. According to Alexander, "despite the colorblind rhetoric and fanfare of recent years, the design of the drug war effectively guarantees that those who are swept into the nation's new undercaste are largely black and brown".[47]



The system operates in two major stages. The first is the granting law enforcement personnel extraordinary discretion as to whom to stop, investigate further, arrest and charge. This allows beliefs, stereotypes, policies and assumptions to unduly influence the decisions of officials. The second step is to disable the ability of court systems to consider claims of racial discrimination in the criminal justice system. It has been accomplished by requiring an unreasonably high standard of proof in discrimination cases: a (unobtainable in almost all cases) proof of some official's intentional racial discrimination (bigotry, racial hostility), rather than allowing a demonstration of the clearly discriminatory outcome of the legal process. This design turned out to be extraordinarily effective for the promoters of the system of racial control and extremely damaging for the segments of the population subjected to it.[48]

Racial profiling is a fact, but conservatives don't see that. I got more on redlining, and hiring practices, but its your turn to rant, or give some facts and not right wing opinions.

I


Racial profiling is a fact, but conservatives don't see that. I got more on redlining, and hiring practices, but its your turn to rant, or give some facts and not right wing opinions.

So according to you blacks are profiled into prison having done nothing to deserve it, having broken no laws. Where do you get this garbage? People wind up in prison because they have done something wrong, not because they were born to it. Of course you may have a system where the county is just filling a quota for the road gang but you allow such a system to exist. Now we can debate all we like about whether drugs should be legal or not, and how not letting the lower castes just veg out is a bad idea, but you are actually giving in to the idea that there is an under class. What happened to all men are created equal, just nice words, I guess.

When it comes to employment, opportunity plays a big part in it and so does skill, so maybe blacks don't get many opportunities because of where they live and on account that they may need training, but there are ways out, like the military, but this doesn't give a license for lawlessness.

I'm sick of hearing from an underclass that they have no opportunity, no choice. Fact is they have a choice and they have taken it.

the majority of young black men in large American cities are "warehoused in prisons"

I don't have to read any more than that... 3 % of the black population is in jail. I will also reiterate my initial comments . There is no relationship between being black or poor and being involved in the illegal drug culture. For you to say so makes YOU the racist... not me.

There is no relationship between being black or poor and being involved in the illegal drug culture. For you to say so makes YOU the racist...not me.

Being poor is not a racial distinction.

Tut

I'm not saying there is .It has been a point advanced throughout this thread .

Still waiting for the proof of the claim that the "drug war "is being waged to create an effective American apartheid .It's steaming load of cow chips .

There is a legitimate debate about if the illegal drugs should be made legal or decriminalized. Fine . But there is no evidence for the outrageous claim in the professor's thesis .

I'm not saying there is .It has been a point advanced throughout this thread .

Still waiting for the proof of the claim that the "drug war "is being waged to create an effective American apartheid .It's steaming load of cow chips .

There is a legitimate debate about if the illegal drugs should be made legal or decriminalized. Fine . But there is no evidence for the outrageous claim in the professor's thesis .

Hi Tom,

Well actually you did.

"There is no relationship between being black OR* poor and being involved in illegal drug culture."
* my emhpasis

You obviously wanted to say 'and' not 'or'. Sorry about the nit-picking but it does change the meaning.

Tut

Tut ,read the whole thread ;especially EX's comments to me starting #9 . I was not the one who introduced poverty into the discussion.

Tut ,read the whole thread ;especially EX's comments to me starting #9 . I was not the one who introduced poverty into the discussion.

Let me make it simple for you there is neither a relationship between being Black and committing crimes... nor is there a relationship between being poor and committing crimes.

Let me make it simple for you there is neither a relationship between being Black and committing crimes ....nor is there a relationship between being poor and committing crimes.

Hi Tom,

Thanks for making it simple for me.

My comment was directed at, "There is no relationship between being black and poor and being involved in the illegal drugs culture. For you to say so makes YOU the the racist...not me"

The subject of your first sentence is black or poor. 'Or' representing alternatives. Your second sentences is inclusive. Racism refers to one alternative and then the other.

I understand that you comment taken in isolation is not representative of the discussion as a whole. My comment was not intended suply a answer to the debate . As I said before it was directed at a single comment.

Tut



Tut

so according to you blacks are profiled into prison having done nothing to deserve it, having broken no laws. Where do you get this garbage?Hello again, fellows:

Thank you again, for making my point..

Where did we get this garbage? From you, of course.

I think you might say black people are born with a chip on their shoulder and this gets them into trouble both in their own community and in the community at large. Let's just take the above statement... It can be read TWO ways. Somebody could read it, nod their head and furrow their brows and say YES - somebody gets it. Or, you can react by feeling the hairs on the back of your neck stand up, and your skin begin to crawl, because it's racist.

Let me say again, IF your core belief is what cletes core belief is, and the policy you make STEMS from that core belief, you wind up with RACIST law. Thank you again, clete, for making my point. I could NOT have done it myself.

The dots are obvious for the world to see. If you can't connect them now, it's because you don't want to.

excon

Clete is entitled to his own views . They have nothing to do with US law.

Clete is entitled to his own views . They have nothing to do with US law.Hello again, tom:

All I can do is lead you to water. If you don't even SEE the water or you refuse to drink, there's nothing more I can do.

excon

Well here's one for you, ex. That evil, evil theocrat Pat Robertson thinks pot should be like, totally legal (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/8/pat-robertson-pot-should-be-legal-alcohol/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Front-TheWashingtonTimesAmericasNewspaper+%28Front+Page+-+The+Washington+Times%29).

Stoners are doing a bong hit in his honor. Next up for Robertson... explaining why the unicorn was kicked off the ark.

I don't have to read any more than that... 3 % of the black population is in jail. I will also reiterate my initial comments . There is no relationship between being black or poor and being involved in the illegal drug culture. For you to say so makes YOU the racist... not me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States


According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) non-Hispanic blacks accounted for 39.4% of the total prison and jail population in 2009.[41] According to the 2010 census of the US Census Bureau blacks (including Hispanic blacks) comprised 13.6% of the US population.[42][43][44]


Census data for 2000, which included a count of the number and race of all individuals incarcerated in the United States, showed for each state that the proportion of blacks in prison populations exceeded the proportion of whites among state residents in every state.[47] In twenty states, the percent of blacks incarcerated was at least five times greater than their share of resident population.[47]


In 2008 approximately one in every 31 adults (7.3 million) in the United States was behind bars, or being monitored (probation and parole). In 2008 the breakdown for adults under correctional control was as follows: one out of 18 men, one in 89 women, one in 11 African-Americans (9.2 percent), one in 27 Latinos (3.7 percent), and one in 45 whites (2.2 percent). Crime rates have declined by about 25 percent from 1988-2008.[14] 70% of prisoners in the United States are non-whites.[15] In recent decades the U.S. has experienced a surge in its prison population, quadrupling since 1980, partially as a result of mandatory sentencing that came about during the "war on drugs." Violent crime and property crime have declined since the early 1990s.[16]

Don't know where you got that 3% number from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_inequality_in_the_American_criminal_justice _system


With this new drug legislation, the U.S. government has increased the use of incarceration for social control which has resulted in "sharper disproportionate effects on African Americans."[6] In politics, blacks are still in the minority when it comes to winning legislative seats in the state and federal government. Because of this, legislation is being formed and issued through the eyes of the white majority in congress which has led to the continued burden in black communities across the United States.

I don't know either, but 3% of the black population at large is an entirely different number than the percentage of total prison population.

Because you aren't reading what I wrote . I was not talking about the percent of the population in jail . I was talking about the percent of the Black population that was in jail . You also fail to demonstrate how many of that prison population is incarcerate for illegal drugs.

Look ;prisons are over crowded .That much we know . Even some violent prisoners are being released due to space issues . So now we are to believe that this big lock up is about drug use or possession and an attempt by White America to create an apartheid policy . BS .

So now we are to believe that this big lock up is about drug use or possession and an attempt by White America to create an apartheid policy . BS .Hello again, tom:

I can't look into the hearts of the people who made the law. What I DO know, is that Marijuana was made illegal because the future head drug cop, Harry Anslinger, told congress (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/anslng1.htm)that if they DIDN'T make it illegal, black and Mexican men would be RAPING their white daughters...

I have NO indication that things have changed since those days.

excon

Not white America, but some in a position to control policy. Remember a racist is a person who has the power to affect the well being on another based on race. Most Americans don't meet that standard to be fair, and are not front and center about the existence of the problem because they are either removed from it, or apathetic toward it for whatever reason.

Its so subtle as all it takes is a racist judge, or cop,or governor, or a politician who is just greedy. Arizona is a good case study, of where greed, racism, and power plays a big role in law making simply because a racist wrote a law, and a govenor with ties to the private prison system wants to get state contracts for running the state prisons. Then you have a round up of illegals(?), and the judge sends them to those prisons, and they all make money.

Its just to easy. If you wanted to look you would see a lot of what the author of the book in question is talking about.

Section 2 Incarceration and Its Consequences - Prison Index | Prison Policy Initiative (http://www.prisonpolicy.org/prisonindex/prisoners.html)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/one-per-cent-of-americans-now-in-jail-790007.html

NOW with Bill Moyers. Society & Community. Prisons in America | PBS (http://www.pbs.org/now/society/prisons3.html)

This is a more recent study and puts the black rate at 17 percent. 2.6 for whites.

Hello again, tom:

I can't look into the hearts of the people who made the law. What I DO know, is that Marijuana was made illegal because the future head drug cop, Harry Anslinger, told congress (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/anslng1.htm)that if they DIDN'T make it illegal, black and Mexican men would be RAPING their white daughters...

You'll have to point out the quote because the only instance of any form of the word 'rape' I found was this:


I do not think there is such a thing as not being able to cure an addict. Marihuana addicts my go to a Federal narcotic farm. But I have not seen many addicts who could not be cured. An addict could drop it and he will not experience any ill effects.

One of these boys I referred to went insane, and they stopped it. Here in Colorado -- and Colorado seems to have had a lot of cases of violence recently -- in Alamosa County, and in Huerfano County the sheriff was killed as the result of the action of a man under the influence of marihuana. Recently in Baltimore a young man was sent to the electric chair for having raped a girl while under the influence of marihuana.

That's the same as "if they DIDN'T make it illegal, black and Mexican men would be RAPING their white daughters"? I see no reference to their skin color any where, do you?

Its just to easy. If you wanted to look you would see a lot of what the author of the book in question is talking about. Hello tal:

Dot connecting doesn't seem to be something they're going to do. Oh, they'll connect Michelle Obama and healthy food to socialism, all right, but the facts and figures presented by YOU and what's in the book...

Nahhhh.

excon

Hello tal:

Dot connecting doesn't seem to be something they're gonna do. Oh, they'll connect Michelle Obama and healthy food to socialism, alright, but the facts and figures presented by YOU and what's in the book...

Nahhhh.

excon

Hey, I was trying to connect the dots in your link above but they just aren't there dude. What's to connect? Why are you suddenly seeing a boogeyman in every corner?

What's to connect? Why are you suddenly seeing a boogeyman in every corner?Hello again, Steve:

To me it boils down to this.. If you were one of the fellows who furried his brow over what clete said, you'll NEVER connect the dots.. However, if it made your skin crawl, the dots should be obvious.

excon

Hello tal:

Dot connecting doesn't seem to be something they're gonna do. Oh, they'll connect Michelle Obama and healthy food to socialism, alright, but the facts and figures presented by YOU and what's in the book...

Nahhhh.

excon

Everything is different in there world and you have to understand that they may NOT be as exposed to the same things as we are ex.


Hey, I was trying to connect the dots in your link above but they just aren't there dude. What's to connect? Why are you suddenly seeing a boogeyman in every corner?

I think you grew up in your small town and have never lived in the larger cities, am I correct, speech?

Hello again, Steve:

To me it boils down to this.. If you were one of the fellows who furried his brow over what clete said, you'll NEVER connect the dots.. However, if it made your skin crawl, the dots should be obvious.

excon

I have no idea what Clete said, I was concerned with what you said and my response (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/drug-war-new-jim-crow-641670-4.html#post3050436).

I think you grew up in your small town and have never lived in the larger cities, am I correct, speech?

A city of 190,000 is not a small town and I grew up as one of maybe 5 white kids in my first six years of school. Our "small town" is larger than 10 state capitals. And Knoxville, TN. What's the relevance, I'm some country bumpkin?

P.S. I still reside as a minority in that same minority neighborhood.

Hello again, Steve:

You're right. It WASN'T in his testimony. It's in the Gore Files (http://reefermadnessmuseum.org/chap10/Why-the-Gore-File.htm).

Check those out, and check out what clete said.

excon

So because the newspaper reported it as "an attack by a Mexican American" then Anslinger actually meant "if they DIDN'T make it illegal, black and Mexican men would be RAPING their white daughters", even though he didn't actually say it. LOL, you're reaching deep buddy. I think that would qualify as a logical fallacy, you can't to your implication from there.

Hello again, fellows:

Thank you again, for making my point..

Where did we get this garbage?? From you, of course.
Let's just take the above statement... It can be read TWO ways. Somebody could read it, nod their head and furrow their brows and say YES - somebody gets it. Or, you can react by feeling the hairs on the back of your neck stand up, and your skin begin to crawl, because it's racist.

Let me say again, IF your core belief is what cletes core belief is, and the policy you make STEMS from that core belief, you wind up with RACIST law. Thank you again, clete, for making my point. I could NOT have done it myself.

The dots are obvious for the world to see. If you can't connect them now, it's because you don't wanna.

excon

Ex I am not racist but an observer and what I observe is a certain sector of society stands out, not because of race but because of attitude, it may have something to do with race, it might have something to do with disadvantage, but it certainly has a lot to do with rebellion against the values that other sectors of the society hold as valid and reasonable, and as a result of this these people are over represented in prisons. You yourself have said they might be black or brown, to me that means you might be speaking of a number of different races, and I come back to this basic fact, these people are marginalised, as a result they have a bad attitude and from that the rest flows

these people are marginalised, as a result thay have a bad attitude and from that the rest flowsHello again, clete:

Somehow I missed the "they're marginalized" part, and only got the "they're uppity" part... Makes a substantial difference.

excon

A city of 190,000 is not a small town and I grew up as one of maybe 5 white kids in my first six years of school. Our "small town" is larger than 10 state capitals. And Knoxville, TN. What's the relevance, I'm some country bumpkin?

P.S. I still reside as a minority in that same minority neighborhood.

This has nothing to do with being a bumpkin, lol, the town I grew up in is the same size as yours, but I wanted to point out that you cannot know what another goes through unless you walk in their shoes. Sure I know you are a good guy, but my point is that when you sit in a one world, you may not know what goes on in a different world.

Just suggesting that maybe there is a reason why you cannot connect the dots, or see some boogy men are real.


QUOTE by paraclete;
Ex I am not racist but an observer and what I observe is a certain sector of society stands out, not because of race but because of attitude, it may have something to do with race, it might have something to do with disadvantage, but it certainly has a lot to do with rebellion against the values that other sectors of the society hold as valid and reasonable,
Please clarify, so we can see what you mean by rebellion against the values of other sectors of the society, so I can see why your elitist mind holds as valuable, and reasonable. Where do you differientiate between race, and attitude that makes a portion of the population so unique, and not as valued as other people.


and as a result of this these people are over represented in prisons.
That seems a bit harsh for attitude to result in prison. WHY?


You yourself have said they might be black or brown, to me that means you might be speaking of a number of different races, and I come back to this basic fact, these people are marginalised, as a result they have a bad attitude and from that the rest flows.

So HOW do they get margialized is my question, and by whom, and why? I mean what's a bad attitude that lands you in jail in Australia?

Man you guys are teetering on the edge with this topic. Having lived through much of what is being talked about. I don't see any connection to the real world that people live in and the way it is being discussed here.

The real truth is that deep at heart we are all pretty much the same. We all have choices to make. For the black families when I was growing up there was a duality and for many other cultures there was the same duality that had their lives going in 2 directions at once. The public eye and the private one. I have experienced both sides from many different backgrounds. Are there some cultural differences in the public eye. Yes you bet there is. But behind closed doors no not really. It is that difference that is driving the prison populations to be what they are. When the peoples decide as a group to straighten out the mess they are in then it will stop. Until then you can spin it any way you like and life goes on just the way it really is.

[QUOTE=tomder55;3049457 So the premise that somehow the laws regarding illegal drugs are the equivalence of Jim Crow laws is a grotesque fallacy.[/QUOTE]


Hi Tom,

Could be, but the idea of separate but equal always lends itself to social economic and legal opportunities favouring one group over another. This is historically true and has gone under a number of names in the past. "Living apart" in South Africa is the most obvious example.

My above observation really means very little, except for the fact that I accidentally came across this.

War on Drugs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs#Uni)

Wikipedia needs to be treated carefully in some areas, but can anyone explain away the section on 'Sentincing Disparity'. I am interested in the 100 to 1 disparity.

If no one can explain this away then I can see what Ex, and possibly Alexander are on about.

Tut

Please explain how race becomes a determinant that someone would break the law ? Perhaps the difference between myself and the liberal crowd is that I look at people as individuals instead of groups . As I recall MLK spoke of that also.

Please explain how race becomes a determinant that someone would break the law ?




Hi Tom,

I don't need to explain how race has become a determinant factor in braking the law because from my point of view it is not a factor.

That's not the question I am asking. I was asking about the disparity in sentencing.







Perhaps the difference between myself and the liberal crowd is that I look at people as individuals instead of groups . As I recall MLK spoke of that also.



I am sure you do. But, again I don't see how this is relevant.


Tut

You did not suggest that sentencing was now the issue under discussion . The Wiki link did not give me an indication that the discussion had shifted to sentencing .

My position on that for years is that sentencing needs serious reform . A user is not as big a problem as a dealer . A non-violent offender is not as big a problem as a violent one.

You did not suggest that sentencing was now the issue under discussion . The Wiki link did not give me an indication that the discussion had shifted to sentencing .

My position on that for years is that sentencing needs serious reform . A user is not as big a problem as a dealer . A non-violent offender is not as big a problem as a violent one.

Hi Tom,

Sorry about the lack of notice.

If the link is accurate then I am interested as to why it is the case that a drug of choice for a particular socio-economic group. Crack cocaine in this case receives much harsher sentences for offenders. The same drug in a different form is the drug of choice for the more affluent. Offenders tend to attract a much lighter sentence.

Why the disparity? Is this what Ex and Alexander are on about?

Tut

Sorry about the tough questions but you don't have to be a lawyer to see a link between 'disparity of sentencing' and 'separate but equal'

Tut

What I would like to see is the proof that the sentencing guidelines suggest institutional racism. If we are talking sentencing reform ,I'm all for it. But do I think that crack cocaine sale or possession should be legalized... absolutely not.

And ,this is not a separate but equal issue. Anyone who is caught selling or using crack cocaine is subject the same sentencing . What is Ex and the author suggesting,, that whitey is going into the "ghetto" (Excon's word) and pushing crack and forcing anyone to use it ?
There is a case to be made for reforms of existing drug laws ,and it's been forwarded on this forum many times. This race argument is grasping at straw.

Hello Tut:

The sentencing disparity you found is only the outward manifestation of the racism built into the system. You can imagine, can you not, just how much racism is simmering under the surface, if we have the temerity to actually SENTENCE black offenders too much longer prison terms than we do to WHITE offenders who use the SAME amount of cocaine?

excon

Ex ,you have not until your last comment suggested that the problem was sentencing disparity . Your position is the make it all legal . If your position is to end sentencing disparity I'm on board .However ,I would also point out that there is no penalty for someone who doesn't break the law.

And ,this is not a separate but equal issue. Anyone who is caught selling or using crack cocaine is subject the the same sentencing . Hello again, tom:

Since we've began, I've been showing you DOTS, hoping that you'll connect them.. Ain't happening...

TUT just showed you a DOT - a real simple DOT to confirm, too. Yet you didn't. Your argument SOUNDS like it, too. So, I'm going to throw down a gauntlet for you. I challenge you to learn about the disparity in sentencing (http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/crack-powder-cocaine-sentencing-disparity-undermines-criminal-justice-system)between the SAME amount of cocaine in ROCK form, (preferred by blacks), and the same amount of cocaine in POWDER form, (preferred by whites).

It's hard to argue when your correspondents are ignorant of the law.

excon

Ex ,you have not until your last comment suggested that the problem was sentencing disparity .Hello again, tom:

The problem is NOT sentencing disparity. The problem is racism. The sentencing disparity TUT pointed out is simply the most glaring manifestation of that racism.

excon

No I think the problem for you is that you want illegal drugs legal. I think this racism argument is just the latest grasp at straws attempt to justify it.

No I think the problem for you is that you want illegal drugs legal. I think this racism argument is just the latest grasp at straws attempt to justify it.Hello again, tom:

Given that you're NOT going to take my challenge to educate yourself about the subject, I think it's fair to say you just want to keep drugs illegal, and don't want to be bothered with facts..

excon

Making marijuana legal will do nothing for the publicly defended poor guy caught with two rocks, who gets 3 years, while the lawyered up suburban kid who has a lawyer, and gets probation for a year, and community service for a .25 grams of powder cocaine. One goes home under bail, or bond the other can't pay bail so they sit in jail.

For 3 dots guess who sits in jail?

Kid gets picked up and lives in the good part of town for smoking a joint, another kid gets picked up for having a joint after a traffic stop.

For 5 dots who goes home, who goes to jail?

We haven't even started on the race disparity, not even warmed up yet.


Originally Posted by tomder55
Ex ,you have not until your last comment suggested that the problem was sentencing disparity .

You missed that dot, it is in the book.

And don't possess crack or cocaine... no jail time.

So this has really been about reforming sentencing and not about making illegal drugs legal. I thought so... All those dots I've lead you down has finally got you to admit what the real issue was.

Hello again, clete:

Somehow I missed the "they're marginalized" part, and only got the "they're uppity" part... Makes a substantial difference.

excon

I would have thought Ex that someone who has contributed here for so long would have learned to read between the lines and understand that attitude has a cause. I notice this thread has taken a turn to suggest there is racism in sentencing. I can't speak for your country but in mine being black is likely to get you a lighter sentence on account of that mitigating circumstance "marginalisation" but eventually it won't keep you out of jail because if you go to the court house on any day guess who most of the people you find there are? Seems some people can't take the hint

and don't possess crack or cocaine ... no jail time.

So this has really been about reforming sentencing and not about making illegal drugs legal. I thought so ...All those dots I've lead you down has finally got you to admit what the real issue was.



Hi Tom,

Ex claimed that the drug war was racist and he made reference to a book by Professor Alexander as evidence.

I hadn't read Alexander's book but I made reference to a Wikipedia section. It was then I realized there was a link between 'disparity in sentencing' and the 'separate but equal' claim also being made here.

Separate but equal means that two recognised racial groups in a society have equal opportunity to go about their lives living apart where practiable. History has shown this to be a very bad idea for a number of reasons. One of the important reasons being that one group usually holds the social, economic, and legal tools to favour their group at the expense of the other.

It thought it was rather obvious that one of the tools being employed here was the legal tool. This was done by way of differentiated sentencing as per the Wiki article.

I think this is what Tal picked up on. Sentencing per se is not the issue.

Tut

I am not unfamiliar with the disparity of sentencing issue ,and have stated already here and in other postings that they need reform .

Again... that at best leads to justification of sentencing reform... not making illegal drugs legal .

By the way ;both drug laws were passed in Democrat dominant Congresses. So the OP claims of "intensified by Ronald Reagan" are not quite accurate . The sentencing was perhaps an over reaction to designer drugs . The bill was passed after the death of basketball star Len Bias ;and the Dems ,looking to outflank the Republicans on the law and order issue passed the sentencing bill .
But I would not accuse the Dems of racism . They were reacting to the best most accurate information they had ;which was that crack was a much more dangerous drug form than cocaine.

Is it a stretch then if racism is not the criteria for control, and marginalism of people then maybe its social, and economic motives behind this inequality?

Yes a big stretch .The fact that the result has been that more Blacks are incarcerated because of the law is an unintended consequence that is on it's way to being corrected or have you not noticed that the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 was signed into law ?

Again... no possession of illegal drugs... no crime committed.. no jail time .

Tut ,your definition of separate but equal does not work for me.Historically in this country it meant that a White could do something legally that a Black couldn't do... eat in certain establishments ,use certain public facilities ,ride in the front of the bus etc.

In this case ;the sentencing for crack was the same for all races and the different sentencing for coke applied to all races .

This issue of sentencing is a beatup, judges have discretion in sentencing and exercise it. The community generally thinks sentences are too light and the criminals think sentencing is too heavy, thus claims of racism. As far as drugs are concerned criminalisation has not solved the problem, but the violence and corruption associated with drug distribution must be dealt with

Again... no possession of illegal drugs... no crime committed.. no jail time .

This is a point that seems to be lost in all the arguments. Do the crime.. Do the time. Yes it does infringe upon your liberty, but then you were at liberty not to do the crime. You could even say it is a failure of the education system that people don't get the point early enough in life. So how about you take a vote, all those who want to do drugs could be given a democratic opportunity to voice their opposition to existing laws or is allowing democracy to operate too dangerous a concept. You might even get a 100% voter turnout

Or we could re examine how the law is applied and make better adjustments. But of course the laws are never voted on because there is no equal and fair representation, Not even where you are Clete, and since influence is regional, there is no one law that fits all but the majority over the minority.

In many parts of the world, tribal law is what's taught, and it often conflicts with national law, and we get a lot of poor and minorities caught up, and the ruling elites not subject to the same thing. It's a global issue to be fair, and ideology, and racism are a privilege not all enjoy.

Or we could re examine how the law is applied and make better adjustments. But of course the laws are never voted on because there is no equal and fair representation, Not even where you are Clete, and since influence is regional, there is no one law that fits all but the majority over the minority.

In many parts of the world, tribal law is what's taught, and it often conflicts with national law, and we get a lot of poor and minorities caught up, and the ruling elites not subject to the same thing. It's a global issue to be fair, and ideology, and racism are a privilege not all enjoy.

From our observation Tal tribal law would be useless. It has been applied in parts of Australia but hasn't yielded results in lessening addiction, The tribal elders are often victims of addiction themselves. We were forced into a position of government intervention which of course was seen as racist because the people affected were under-privileged, indigenous persons with severe social problems in their communities. I am uncertain whether these measures actually led to any long term improvement but it certainly gave someone an excuse to say we are dealing with the problem

I don't understand something you have said

It's a global issue to be fair, and ideology, and racism are a privilege not all enjoy.[/
I don't see racism as a privilege but the inevietable result of certain ideology and it appears to be the norm in tribal societies. The negro races practiced racism in Africa when they participated in the slave trade and sold their neighbours and they were abetted by the white races who used racism for profit. This is where tribalism gets you. The Arabs still take negro slaves in Africa. The Chinese practice racism in Tibet.

I can't speak to regional influences in your country, but it is clear it has only recently emerged from racist practices with regional overtones. Such thinking takes many generations to be completely removed from society

Again .....no possession of illegal drugs ...no crime committed ..no jail time .Hello again, tom:

It all boils down to this. There's only a few ways to make cash when you live in the hood.

If you believe that the hood represents government POLICY, and NOT the choices of the residents, and I DO, then the drug war looks like ENTRAPMENT.

"Here, young black man... Live in this part of town where the schools suck, unemployment is HIGH, and most of the FATHER FIGURES are ALREADY in jail. But, don't sell drugs.."

Right...

excon

To be a true racist you must have power. You cannot just hate and do nothing about it. You have to be able to actually suppress or victimize because of the hate. With no power, you are just another mother who is prejudice, and powerless. Power is reserved for the privileged.

Racism is always justified by saying its best for the heathens own good, that he be controlled, and reeducated in to the ways of the oppressor, whether he wants to or not. Slavery among tribes was a prejudice to keep the gene pool fresh, and not subjugation and free labor. Nor dehumanizing as practised by the self entitled races. They think they are more civilized than the tribes are. Only an excuse for what they do.

But your last sentence is dead on.

To be a true racist you must have power. You cannot just hate and do nothing about it. You have to be able to actually suppress or victimize because of the hate. With no power, you are just another mother who is prejudice, and powerless. Power is reserved for the privileged.

Racism is always justified by saying its best for the heathens own good, that he be controlled, and reeducated in to the ways of the oppressor, whether he wants to or not. Slavery among tribes was a prejudice to keep the gene pool fresh, and not subjugation and free labor. Nor dehumanizing as practised by the self entitled races. They think they are more civilized than the tribes are. Only an excuse for what they do.

But your last sentence is dead on.

Tal you can't justify racism or slavery under any pretext, nor can it be said that one man's slavery or racism is purer than another. The fact is that some were more civilised than others but this obviously didn't prevent the profit motive from overcoming sensibility

Hello again, tom:

It all boils down to this. There's only a few ways to make cash when you live in the hood.

If you believe that the hood represents government POLICY, and NOT the choices of the residents, and I DO, then the drug war looks like ENTRAPMENT.

"Here, young black man... Live in this part of town where the schools suck, unemployment is HIGH, and most of the FATHER FIGURES are ALREADY in jail. But, don't sell drugs.."

Right....

excon
What a copout, Ex, the hood is the result of government policy, like your nazi government set up these ghettos and forced people to live there, built a wall around them to keep them there. Where do you live? Look if this were true who would care if the inhabitants sold drugs to each other. As long as the problem was quaranteened who would care, but the reality is different

This nobody loves me crap so I've got to do drugs and shoot up my neighbours is just a copout fornot getting up and moving yourself. The reality is there are too many people in your country and parts of it are third world and those jobs you shipped offshore should have been moved into your ghettos but that takes social engineering and a nanny state and a removal of some of those freedoms you swark about.

You see ex and take a look at Mexico if you can't find a local example, wherever there are drugs and disadvantage there is violence so the real logic says drugs are a bad thing and to remove them is not to repress the black population but to liberate them. Now I've observed that this is a continuing theme with you. You ask the same question over and over again and argue the same bankrupt theories over and over again. Like, give it a rest man!

Tal you can't justify racism or slavery under any pretext, nor can it be said that one man's slavery or racism is purer than another. The fact is that some were more civilised than others but this obviously didn't prevent the profit motive from overcoming sensibility

I justify NOTHING Clete, but should I paste the quotes from you justifying your own acceptance of institutional racism?


Originally Posted by paraclete
I think you might say black people are born with a chip on their shoulder and this gets them into trouble both in their own community and in the community at large.

I justify NOTHING Clete, but should I paste the quotes from you justifying your own acceptance of institutional racism?

I don't accept institutionalised racism Tal in fact I don't accept racism of any kind but I do note that certain groups are more disposed to certain behaviours than others. To me institutionalised racism would be like what happened here in the days of the stolen generation or aparteid in South Africa or the american south. Hopefully we are past those times, we are a little more enlightened, but the reality is that in this world not all men are equal, they are not of equal ability and they don't have equal opportunity and sometimes positive descrimination is necessary to break the generational bondage. I think that is equally true in your nation and mine. Question is; are you willing to bite the bullet or are you going to hide behind this all men are equal so I don't need to do anything?

But I ask you how has discrimination worked out for your nation? Has affirmative action freed your black population from poverty? You want to talk institutionalised racism, take a look closer to home.

has affirmative action freed your black population from poverty? You want to talk institutionalised racism, take a look closer to home. it's all in good intentions so the lib conscious is clear.

I don't accept institutionalised racism Tal in fact I don't accept racism of any kind but I do note that certain groups are more disposed to certain behaviours than others. Hello again, clete:

That's like saying I DON'T steal.. I only shoplift.. What makes it especially insidious, is that you have NO idea that what you said is RACIST... THAT'S the problem...

Look... Let me try again... Let's use another word.. Let's use prejudice... Prejudice MEANS to pre-judge. Let's insert that word in your statement and see what we come up with...

"I don't accept prejudice of any kind, but I do note (prejudge) that certain groups, are more disposed to certain behaviors..."

YOU are the poster boy for racism. That's why I latched on to your statement so gladly.. You ADMIT it, and you don't even know it. Now, I didn't do this to put you down. Only to use you to MAKE my point...

Racism is a main DOT.

excon

Hello again, clete:

That's like saying I DON'T steal.. I only shoplift.. What makes it especially insidious, is that you have NO idea that what you said is RACIST... THAT'S the problem...

Look... Lemme try again... Let's use another word.. Let's use prejudice... Prejudice MEANS to pre-judge. Let's insert that word in your statement and see what we come up with...

"I don't accept prejudice of any kind, but I do note (prejudge) that certain groups, are more disposed to certain behaviors..."

YOU are the poster boy for racism. That's why I latched on to your statement so gladly.. You ADMIT it, and you don't even know it. Now, I didn't do this to put you down. Only to use you to MAKE my point...

Racism is a main DOT.

excon

Hello ex you really should learn to read, not see what you want to see. I said groups, not races. Those groups might be religious groups, they might be nationalities or ethnic groups and sadly there might be racial overtones in their behaviour, saying that I observe something is not an indication of prejudice but that I have eyes and use them, This means I don't pre-judge but observe. I don't like the behaviour of people from many places, including your own nation and it has many groups and there is enough bad behaviour to lump you all together and suggest there is something of a national ethos behind it. This bad behaviour is a learned response. Now make something racist out of that but while you are at it explain this racist act to me
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-11/us-soldier-opens-fire-on-afghan-civilians/3882648?WT.svl=news0

it's all in good intentions so the lib conscious is clear.

Yes Tom often it works out that way because attitudes, yes, there is that word again, are entrenched

Tut ,your definition of separate but equal does not work for me.Historically in this country it meant that a White could do something legally that a Black couldn't do....eat in certain establishments ,use certain public facilities ,ride in the front of the bus etc.

In this case ;the sentencing for crack was the same for all races and the different sentencing for coke applied to all races .


Hi Tom,


Your historical definition of 'separate but equal' is accurate. Your comment about crack and coke applying equally to all races is also accurate. However, the problem is that while all of this is true it is worth keeping I'm mind that many poor Africian Americians have tended to consider a particular form of the drug cocaine a preferred choice.

This doesn't mean that other poor ethnic groups don't consider this a preferred choice. No doubt they do. It has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. Rather it is socio-economic choice. It just so happens that Africian Americians are the largest group occuping this platform. Hence they are the most representative when it comes to incarceration for this type of crime.

As I said, I haven't read Alexander's book, but I would be surprised if she hasn't raise this issue. I would also be surprised if she didn't argue along the lines of 'separate but equal'.

If she is talking along those lines I would imagine she is not presenting an argument for a deliberate policy of separate but equal. This would obviously be an absurd position to take. Rather, it would be along the lines of an UNINTENDED consequence of the cocaine laws. In other words, unintended consequences of drug legislation has given rise to a facsimile of the Jim Crow Laws. However, it is important to note that THIS ONLY APPLIES to the area of jurisprudence.

No doubt Alexander would want to talk extensively about other areas in her book. As I said, I can't comment on this because I have not read the book. My observations are based on what I have read here.

Tut

Separate but equal is the real racist act, the aparteid response, but americans don't like to think that they once practiced aparteid in a manner just as repressive as the South Africans. They see racism as something like the nazi practiced where separate and not-equal was the rule and cannot believe that their system was extreme, with attitudes that masked a very nasty physical outcome where some were never equal.

So the consequence of the drug war might fall on the disadvantaged but remember it is only because of the level of offense in that community because they are neither separate or equal

And targeted, as they have nowhere to hide, while the powder crowd just goes back to suburban gated communities, or the quiet subdivisions where the cops don't go.

What makes the racism so bad, and pervasive is the implementation of policy through the law that not only looks legitimate, but has the guise of social justice, law and order to promote it. Like the "job creator" excuse to keep taxes low for the richest, and extract resources from those that need it. Like allocating more prison space, while defunding alternative measures to get people not only on a positive track in society, but keep them in the incarceration cycle.

And lets face it Clete, your observations are very prejudiced, and not as casual, or accurate as you may think them to be as case in point your assignment of negative behavior, or attitude to those you do not understand, or dislike. You would fit quite well with the knee jerk obstruction crowd who get there ego rush by deriding others, and lifting yourself while failing to acknowledge but for the grace of birth go I.

So of course you see no reason to open your own mind and see that in truth, you are as subjugated as the ones you disparage, yet don't know it. You seem to take Toms position of its not your fault that the system works for you and not them.

So I submit to you both that maybe that's why you hate the players, and NOT the game, because it puts you above the ones who lose in it. And the bleeding heart liberals who want the game to end, and the right things done.

Hello tal:

**BIG, HUGE GREENIE**

excon

Speaker Tip O'Neill came back from Boston full of stories about how the Len Bias story was all the talk of Beantown. His 1st act was to call the Democrat caucus together and tell them that his top priority was to advance legislation that would get tough on designer drugs like crack.
That legislation became the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986
Sorry ,this whole issue was caused by the Dems trying to outflank the Repubs on the law and order issue. It was and is not racism .It is unintended consequences of legislation that was passed with the best information available at the time.
Makes a compelling case for all legislation having an expiration date.

Thanks ex! I volunteer for many causes, foundations, churches, and schools, and yeah, I am a bleeding hearted liberal, progressive, and proud of it. Its easy to bash a guy when he's down, but doing the right thing takes work.

My observation is when you show a guy the right thing, he follows it. While ignorance of the law is no excuse for bad behavior, the law has to be fair in the first place. That's the whole dilemma. It is intentionally NOT fair. Nor are the ones who defend that unfairness.

That's my observation, just saying.

Speaker Tip O'Neill came back from Boston full of stories about how the Len Bias story was all the talk of Beantown. His 1st act was to call the Democrat caucus together and tell them that his top priority was to advance legislation that would get tough on designer drugs like crack.
That legislation became the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986
Sorry ,this whole issue was caused by the Dems trying to outflank the Repubs on the law and order issue. It was and is not racism .It is unintended consequences of legislation that was passed with the best information available at the time.
Makes a compelling case for all legislation having an expiration date.

Maybe some adjustments, and tweaking when needed. Like the Constitution, interpretation is in the eye of the beholder. Things change with time, and you have to account for those changes.

You seem to take Toms position of its not your fault that the system works for you and not them.
.


Tal if the system works for me it is because I engage in it, I was born into just as lowly a position as any, like many I dropped out of high school, and any thing I have gained is because I worked to attain it. I didn't take the view that system couldn't work for me and therefore I should seek solance in drugs and lazying about, and drifting into activities that bring the law down on me.

I see in your statement the very attitude that I have been talking about, the idea that it is the fault of the system that it doesn't work for all, the idea that somehow the world owes you something and that even because you are a minority or disadvantaged you should have special treatment.

The system owes no one anything but the opportunity, and racist laws and the application of policy takes away the opportunity, and replaces it with obstacles. Why else would the law maker defund help for a guy with a joint, and take away permanently his rights, and incarcerates him for years?

Your argument that only the strong survives may boost your ego, but does nothing for those that don't, or cannot, for whatever reason. You may be a poster child why some can accomplish, but you imperiously close your eyes to those who cannot or have not!

That's the difference between us Clete, I never forget where I come from, and you seek to erase your humble beginnings, and are no longer humble, but closed minded, and judgmental. You fail to acknowledge your roots, or understand how lucky you are to have succeeded. That's why you look down your nose at others beneath you, and would fit in great with the racist, and the prejudiced here who justify there hate, and fears, and actions, by simply saying some that are not as lucky, don't deserve help, or OPPORTUNITY.

I love you, but you are a hard core right wing conservative!

The system owes no one anything but the opportunity, and racist laws and the application of policy takes away the opportunity, and replaces it with obstacles. Why else would the law maker defund help for a guy with a joint, and take away permanently his rights, and incarcerates him for years?

Your argument that only the strong survives may boost your ego, but does nothing for those that don't, or cannot, for whatever reason. You may be a poster child why some can accomplish, but you imperiously close your eyes to those who cannot or have not!

Thats the difference between us Clete, I never forget where I come from, and you seek to erase your humble beginnings, and are no longer humble, but closed minded, and judgmental. You fail to acknowledge your roots, or understand how lucky you are to have succeeded. Thats why you look down your nose at others beneath you, and would fit in great with the racist, and the prejudiced here who justify there hate, and fears, and actions, by simply saying some that are not as lucky, don't deserve help, or OPPORTUNITY.

I love you, but you are a hard core right wing conservative!

Tal I have never erased where I come from or turned a blind eye to need but with everything goes the need to, as we say, have a go, you haven't failed until you have tried. Obviously people need opportunity and the role of government is to see that opportunities exist and right wing people who think that the system will provide everything are wrong. By opportunities I don't mean the opportunity to exploit welfare or engage in illegal activity as some here might suggest is OK because after all these people are disadvantaged, but to encourgave and fund, if necessary, development and to change those parts of the system that are not working.

As to why your lawmakers would make the situation worse by removing support in certain situations I don't know, we have the same mentality at work here. I expect it is because the wrong people are employed in decision making or they are just making the budget balance

You mean our systems since you see the same thing there. But I agree the structures of government are flawed, and influenced by greed, money, and need, and FEAR, but no one here has said its okay to exploit the safety net systems, its just some recognize the reasons they do.

I blame the system, not the players, unlike those who don't care to see facts beyond their nose. Clearly the game is rigged to keep power, and money in certain hands, and out of others. They keep that power, AND money by stoking fears of divisiveness.

They know the divide, and conquest of the masses is their gain.

Jesus people, you cannot prove the law is racist by statistics. But I understand, you libs think the tail wags the dog.

Jesus people, you cannot prove the law is racist by statisticsHello again, Steve:

That's the way it WILL be proven when enlightened individuals take over.

As a layman, however, having a larger percentage of dark skinned people in prison, than are represented in the general population, is the most GLARING statistic of them all.

And, you go, "so what?".

Ain't nothing you can do with people like that.

excon

No sir, I never said "so what" and you know I'm OK with legalizing pot and easing up on this non-violent prison population explosion. The difference is I don't inject racism into every perceived injustice because I'm not a racist like so many liberals.

I believe there are bigger issues in the black community to address but we can't because you guys think we're the problem when it's the left that is keeping them on the plantation.

And you go "so what"?

Its neither left or right, but policy. Ending government created ghettos, is a start, I mean what would you expect from lumping poor people into one area gets you? Gangs, drugs, crime.

Then put them all in one school, and don't fund it properly? Asking for trouble! Poor blacks have the same problem Speech, as poor blacks, and as long as you see it as a black problem, you miss the point.

My point is how is making more poor people even poorer helping anything? How is making more poor people period, helping any one?

Tal, ex made it about being a "dark skinned" problem, not me. But the fact is Democrats work overtime to inject racism into every issue and keep blacks on the plantation so ask them why they want to keep them dependent on the government.

And while you're at it, after all these years after desegregation ask why blacks keep self-segregating? I'm not creating white dorms, white fraternities, white congressional caucuses, whites for Whitey for president or a white neighborhood association in my Hispanic neighborhood.

And while you're at it, after all these years after desegregation ask why blacks keep self-segregating? Hello again, Steve:

While you're at it, ask yourself if blacks were self-segregating by CHOICE, would they be doing it in THAT neighborhood.

excon

I see no reason why they would be afraid to. I grew up with blacks over here, too. I'm the minority, remember?

I see no reason why they would be afraid to. I grew up with blacks over here, too. I'm the minority, remember?Hello again, Steve:

I didn't say "afraid". You did. YOU even get that it AIN'T the greatest neighborhood. What I ASKED was, if they were CHOOSING to self-segregate, as YOU suggest, would they do it in THAT neighborhood.

Pretend you don't understand all you like, but the obvious answer to my question is, they WOULDN'T!

excon

Come on Speech, stop making this personal, and see a bigger picture, as it's the inability to see beyond your own neighborhood that prevents you from knowing what poor people really want, and only see what's good for them.

That's the whole problem, you divide and dictate, but are not open to new ideas. Then you feel like they are ungrateful for what you are trying to give them. Maybe you are comfortable with interacting with other cultures and mindsets, but many are NOT, and it's that fear that drives policy, with adverse affects to whom the policy is aimed at.

Hello again, Steve:

I didn't say "afraid". You did. YOU even get that it AIN'T the greatest neighborhood. What I ASKED was, if they were CHOOSING to self-segregate, as YOU suggest, would they do it in THAT neighborhood.

Pretend you don't understand all you like, but the obvious answer to my question is, they WOULDN'T!

excon

You don't know that, my point is they are welcome here which you obviously missed.

Come on Speech, stop making this personal, and see a bigger picture, as its the inability to see beyond your own neighborhood that prevents you from knowing what poor people really want, and only see whats good for them.

Thats the whole problem, you divide and dictate, but are not open to new ideas. Then you feel like they are ungrateful for what you are trying to give them. Maybe you are comfortable with interacting with other cultures and mindsets, but many are NOT, and its that fear that drives policy, with adverse affects to whom the policy is aimed at.

No sir, the whole problem is you lefties think you have all the answers and we're idiots.

Not idiots, well not all of you, just the ones who talk, but don't budge even in the face of facts and the common good. Be one thing to have an opinion, but who listens to someone's opinion, yet disregards all that doesn't line up with yours?

My way, or the highway is the course of idiots, and the true downfall of this nation. Now stubborn is okay, but only accepting one way is NOT.

Meet me in the middle, and I can hardly call, or think you an idiot because we are working together. Its fruitless to think you can pull the other two thirds of the country to your way of thinking, and if you are unwilling to budge then we have NO consensus, NO agreement, and NO path forward to resolve the issues to the benefit of all.

You aren't budging on the undeniable facts concerning church ministries. And by the way, a Pew survey (http://news.investors.com/article/604124/201203130802/pew-center-study-of-american-online-habits.htm) reveals liberals are the "my way or the highway" group online.

You don't know that, Hello again, Steve:

Yes I do. And you do too, but you're wearing your right wing blinders...

Let's see.. We were talking about people of the same race self-segregating themselves by CHOICE.

In the major city's I'm familiar with, you could only CHOOSE a few places to do that in. That would be, a middle class neighborhood, a gated community uptown, or the hood where the projects and crappy schools are..

So, you'd have me believe they'd CHOOSE the projects?? Dude. Look around.

excon

Clearly this is an economic issue then and not a racial one.

You aren't budging on the undeniable facts concerning church ministries. And by the way, a Pew survey (http://news.investors.com/article/604124/201203130802/pew-center-study-of-american-online-habits.htm) reveals liberals are the "my way or the highway" group online.

Well clearly the liberals here don't fit into that category because we meet you conservatives for coffee, lunch, dinner, and snacks almost everyday, LOL.


clearly this is an economic issue then and not a racial one.
Clearly, but race divides and that's the goal. Now who benefits from a divided society?

Clearly, but race divides and thats the goal. Now who benefits from a divided society?

Democrats.

clearly this is an economic issue then and not a racial one.Hello tom:

It is. But, what's INTERESTING from a socioeconomic perspective, is Steve's belief that they CHOOSE that life because that's where their bro's are.

Look. That belief, like cletes belief is RACIST to its core. Is it DELIBERATE racism?? No. Steve is my friend, and I don't believe he has a mean bone in his body. I don't know about clete.. And, I don't know about you, tom. You've been pretty silent on the issue in terms of YOUR belief.

So, I don't know what to call it, other than BACK DOOR racism. It doesn't overtly show. It's hidden just below the exterior. I don't expect you to AGREE that these statements ARE racist. But, they are. IT'S the racism this thread is based on, and I suspect MOST drug warriors share those same beliefs.

excon

It was just early when I answered that question. But it is not a socioeconomic issue for blacks to self-congregate in a college dorm, dining hall or Martha's Vineyard (http://nymag.com/guides/summer/2009/57472/), because that's where their bro's are.

I've made more than 2 dozen responses to this thread. My position is clear .The idea that the drug war is racist is a ginned up reason for the goal of legalization. I have also made it clear in this and other thread that I think sentencing guidelines need to be reformed.
I don't have to submit a biography to justify my position if that's what you are looking for . I wouldn't be believed anyway.

And I also made a comment about self segregation. I forget which one it was ,but if you look you'll find it. The poor from any racial group do not have the same housing choices as the more affluent .
However it is an irrelevant point . That has nothing to do about deciding to break the law.

Tom on the subject of self segregation and housing choices, we all have the same basic choice, we can live in a house or we can live in the street and we both know that how much money we have determines where we live, or you might think so. However some people would rather live in enclaves, manly ethic, than move out. No one forces them to live there, it's an option they exercise.

You are right it has nothing to do with breaking the law or rocking your neighbours roof, as I have said before here it is about attitude and the rule of the mob, and Ex, that is racist to its core, so before you declare me racist get all those other racists to clean up their act.

Drug Laws are not racist at their core, no one sat down and said this how we will subject those people we don't like, we will outlaw drugs. No ex they said this is a problem which is causing social degeneration, violence, etc and we don't need this, our children need protection from this. What I suggest Buddy is if you want to use dope you go somewhere where it is legal. You can go to Columbia and suck on a coca leaf, you go to Afghanistan and you can cultivate your own poppies

Democrats.

How about greedy people who have their own agenda. MONEY!! And lots of it. Dems, repubs, and all the money that pays them.


Hello tom:
So, I don't know what to call it, other than BACK DOOR racism. It doesn't overtly show. It's hidden just below the exterior. I don't expect you to AGREE that these statements ARE racist. But, they are. IT'S the racism this thread is based on, and I suspect MOST drug warriors share those same beliefs.
Excon

Its called Hidden Racism, so a minority gets screwed for their own good.


It was just early when I answered that question. But it is not a socioeconomic issue for blacks to self-congregate in a college dorm, dining hall or Martha's Vineyard (http://nymag.com/guides/summer/2009/57472/), because that's where their bro's are.

Congregate socially is a lot different from living conditions.


The poor from any racial group do not have the same housing choices as the more affluent .
However it is an irrelevant point . That has nothing to do about deciding to break the law.

You almost got it on the head, then you screwed it up with that irrelevant nonsense.


QUOTE by paraclete;
Tom on the subject of self segregation and housing choices, we all have the same basic choice, we can live in a house or we can live in the street and we both know that how much money we have determines where we live, or you might think so. However some people would rather live in enclaves, manly ethic, than move out. No one forces them to live there, it's an option they exercise.

Without a job, there is no option, with a minimum wage job, there is no options. Are you really going to believe that a guygirl who can afford to move doesn't??


You are right it has nothing to do with breaking the law or rocking your neighbors roof, as I have said before here it is about attitude and the rule of the mob, and Ex, that is racist to its core, so before you declare me racist get all those other racists to clean up their act.

That's mob mentality, Racist mob mentality.


Drug Laws are not racist at their core, no one sat down and said this how we will subject those people we don't like, we will outlaw drugs. No ex they
Said this is a problem which is causing social degeneration, violence, etc and we don't need this, our children need protection from this.

They did sit down and figure out how to make money on them. Make a law and pour money and resources to get people with no resource to escape, and making the building of new prisons a big industry, with a steady stream of "customers".

What do you righties do? Talk among yourselves and tell yourselves that its justified to keep minorities in there place by whipping them with laws while limiting there options?

Or are you afraid that minorities outnumber you they will take what you worked so hard for, and change things from the way you like them?

Or like the state of Texas, you just redraw the district to deny equal representation for growing communities?

Or make laws for voting, based on fear, and NOT facts?

Or all the above! Dehumanize, minimize, and make up all kinds of excuses to discriminate, while justifying it all with good intentions.

Those are the tools of divisiveness and separation, that the racist sells to the unwary. Its about the money, make NO mistake. The few that divide, the many.

How about greedy people who have their own agenda. MONEY!!! And lots of it. Dems, repubs, and all the money that pays them.
Its called Hidden Racism, so a minority gets screwed for their own good.
Congregate socially is a lot different from living conditions.
You almost got it on the head, then you screwed it up with that irrelevant nonsense.
Without a job, there is no option, with a minimum wage job, there is no options. Are you really going to believe that a guygirl who can afford to move doesn't???
Thats mob mentality, Racist mob mentality.
They did sit down and figure out how to make money on them. Make a law and pour money and resources to get people with no resource to escape, and making the building of new prisons a big industry, with a steady stream of "customers".
What do you righties do? Talk among yourselves and tell yourselves that its justified to keep minorities in there place by whipping them with laws while limiting there options?
Or are you afraid that minorities outnumber you they will take what you worked so hard for, and change things from the way you like them?

Or like the state of Texas, you just redraw the district to deny equal representation for growing communities?

Or make laws for voting, based on fear, and NOT facts?
Or all the above!! Dehumanize, minimize, and make up all kinds of excuses to discriminate, while justifying it all with good intentions.
Those are the tools of divisiveness and separation, that the racist sells to the unwary. Its about the money, make NO mistake. The few that divide, the many.

Tal I think it is really sad you live where you do. You are right I have no idea about these conditions because it doesn't happen here and that is because we are a fairer society. Doesn't mean we have solved all the social problems but poverty isn't an issue. Lack of money and lack of opportunity might be an issue but poverty isn't an issue and treading down the masses isn't an issue. It appears you have not known a truly free society where there is an ethos that cares about everyone

Doesn't mean we have solved all the social problems but poverty isn't an issue.

No wonder your minorities have an attitude.

No wonder your minorities have an attitude.

True not having to worry about where your next meal is coming from can give you attitude, a sort of stupid pride, but truly it cannot be said we have minorities plural, we have a minority, about 2%, who are somewhat vocal about us changing what they can't change for themselves and we have various ethnic groups who seem to do reasonably well and we don't hear much out of them. The Indians get a bit shirty when the riff-raff target some of their number but generally it is fairly quiet.

Right now our biggest problem is one of the indigenous population has been playing bushranger for seven years and the best of the best haven't been able to catch him
Fugitive Malcom Naden one step ahead of the police | thetelegraph.com.au (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/fugitive-malcom-naden-one-step-ahead-of-the-police/story-e6freuzi-1226298684034)

Congregate socially is a lot different from living conditions.

Hogwash, and besides that, a dorm is a residence. Duh.

Which has nothing to do with a community.

It's a community of students. You can't just wish the facts away, tal.

Hello again,

Let's say two black people like hanging out with each other BECAUSE they're BOTH black. Ok... I'm not seeing the connection between THAT fact, and the racist drug war.

But, let's say you're a black fellow who's considering moving to town... Would you CHOOSE to live in the POOR neighborhood because there are lots of black people, or would you (if you could) pick a gated community in the burbs, where NO black people live?

excon

I would think that economics would be the determinant .

I would think that economics would be the determinant .Hello again, tom:

Then it would be fair to say that people don't live in the hood by choice, either, would it?

excon

No more than a poor white person chooses to live in a poor neighborhood . Your problem is the introduction of race as a component

All I can say is I don't hang out with anyone because they're white.

No more than a poor white person chooses to live in a poor neighborhood . Your problem is the introduction of race as a componentHello tom:

And, if the population of the hood LOOKED like the population of the REST of the city, I wouldn't have to.. Now, you can CHOOSE to ignore the significance of those demographics, but they constitute a DOT - a HUGE dot.

But, you cannot make the blind see if they don't want to. Isn't that how it goes?

excon

Speech, I truly wish that ALL conservatives were of your character. Lefties too! You, Tom, and Clete have different views from mine, but we do talk, discuss, and debate. That's a great thing to me!

I like all the guys and gals that visit this site.

No matter where one lives ,it is no excuse or justification for possession of illegal drugs. This whole thing is a big grasp at straws .

Speech, I truly wish that ALL conservatives were of your character. Lefties too! You, Tom, and Clete have different views from mine, but we do talk, discuss, and debate. Thats a great thing to me!

I like all the guys and gals that visit this site.

Ditto Tal, just because I want to beat some conservatism into you doesn't mean I don't like you. I can always beat up on you at the virtual football/baseball fields anyway. :)

You and Tom seem to be good at that. For NOW!


Quote by Tom,
No matter where one lives ,it is no excuse or justification for possession of illegal drugs. This whole thing is a big grasp at straws .

Don't dismiss the why of drug use, or forget the effects of Prohibition, and the lessons learned. Cocaine is no more dangerous, or deadly as alcohol! One is legal, one is not. At least decriminalize drugs use and give help, rather than push a person into a worse position. Regulate it and let treatment pay for itself. Teach responsibility, and then just as with alcohol, jail 'em when they screw up.

Seems dumb to have a war on drugs when the war on alcohol failed and made criminals rich. Geez Tom, nobody stopped drinking when it was illegal, so whose going to stop using drugs because its illegal??

Why ? I did it in my dark days because it was fun. There... find a socio-economic-racial rationale in that .

Is there any product you think is too harmful to make legal ? Legal drugs that you can only obtain with a prescription also gets abused . So is your answer then to make them readily available over the counter ? For someone who wants to regulate every aspect of our lives you certainly are very libertarian on this single issue. New lib campaign... make drugs legal ,ban salt.

Why ? I did it in my dark days because it was fun. There ...find a socio-economic-racial rationale in that .

Is there any product you think is too harmful to make legal ? Legal drugs that you can only obtain with a prescription also gets abused . So is your answer then to make them readily available over the counter ? For someone who wants to regulate every aspect of our lives you certainly are very libertarian on this single issue. New lib campaign ... make drugs legal ,ban salt.

They are fun, and feel good. No rationale, most of us feel that way, but we were lucky not to get caught, right? Anything can be abused, and some substances need regulation, as better regulation than unjustified imprisonment, wouldn't you say, or lock 'em up and forget 'em.

I don't abuse salt.

I don't get this whole make drugs legal debate, is your friendly neighborhood dealer going to open a shop front? Do you get them at the pharmacy and do the big drug companies get to distribute them? Are they sold under the counter or in plain packaging? Will they be auctioned on Ebay? Will advertising be permitted? Will you take a drive to see the hemp and coca fields? Would you like a meth lab next door? Maybe Big Tobacco will use their manufacturing and distribution network? The FDA makes sure the product is pure?

The whole debate is too simplistic and it still won't stop the kids getting hold of it and getting hooked

The whole debate is too simplistic and it still won't stop the kids getting hold of it and getting hookedHello again, clete:

If you think kids CAN'T get it now, you're not paying attention... At LEAST, if it's sold in stores where they check ID's, it would be better than getting it in your alley, where the dealer doesn't care.

excon

I assume you'll order it like pizza and have it delivered (http://marijuanadeliveryservice.com/).

Hello again, clete:

If you think kids CAN'T get it now, you're not paying attention... At LEAST, if it's sold in stores where they check ID's, it would be better than getting it in your alley, where the dealer doesn't care.

excon

There is no doubt Ex you can trivilise anything but that's the point of the drug war, the kids can get it now. Checking ID's doesn't stop kids getting alcohol, it just gives the pretense to we care. Do you expect there will be less OD's because its legal or cleaner needles.

When the jails empty you will get the true unemployment statistics as well as adding all the out of work dealers and gang bangers to the list. You could almost see making drugs legal as instant depression

Do you expect there will be less OD's because its legal or cleaner needles.Hello clete:

Both.

The only time the drug warriors told the truth about drugs is when they spoke of the horrors of addiction.. NOBODY wants to be addicted. But, today, there's NO place for an addict to get treatment, unless he has LOTS of money. So, he stays addicted. Might run into a dirty needle and die. Might OD.. Probably will

But, along with legalization, if we made treatment on demand available, in MY VIEW, there would be MORE addicts trying to get OFF drugs,than there would be people trying to get ON them...

Speaking of neophytes trying to get addicted... Do you know anybody who is just chomping at the bit waiting for drugs to be legal so they can try them?? I don't... Everybody I know who wants to use drugs, is USING drugs.

excon

Ex we can all understand how addicts get addicted and why they stay addicted. This isn't a reason for legalisation and many people get addicted before they appreciate the dangers and consequences, again not a reason for legalisation.

The only people who are treading down the people in the hood who use drugs are the dealers, these are the only people who have an interest is getting people addicted and keeping them addicted. The governments efforts to stamp this trade out is not oppressing the black population or any other population even though there may be unfortunate side effects from law enforcement such as a growing prison population.

It simply comes back to; you do the crime... you do the time

The governments efforts to stamp this trade out is not oppressing the black population or any other population even though there may be unfortunate side effects from law enforcement such as a growing prison population.

What a crock! Some drugs (alcohol) are legal, some are not (cocain, herion), and if you take the profit motive out of criminal hands, you make dealers poor. Its like the lifting of prohibition took the profit out of the hands of mobsters, and grew a business with liscensing, regulation, and profits.

And you wouldn't target people to go to jail except irresponsible users who hurt people. Equality, fairness, and common sense can work in law making and actually help and not subjugate.

Lol, do you have a law against race mixing Clete? We did, and the fools who support it still exist, while the law has changed.

No Tal we don't and never had a law against race mixing, we had some stupid people who though the mixed race children should be angloised and removed from the infuences of their parents. We had laws which prevented certain races taking up residence here and we didn't recognise the indigenous people as citizens but all that is behind us.

The phenonemon of dark skinned people being overrepresented in prisons has also been noted here particularly where there are large populations of such people but this is mainly for street offenses and disorderly conduct. We haven't until recently suffered the violence associated with drugs but allowing certain ethnic groups to take up residence here has changed that

We don't believe that further legalisation of addictive substances is a benefit to society, we would like to wean the government off the revenues and remove alcohol and tobacco from the scene too these are heavily taxed and we fear that legalisation of drugs would give the government a tax windfall and entrench the addictive culture even further. Our government at the moment is at war with tobacco so removing drugs from criminal relm and putting it under tax administration doesn't appeal. You see we have realised that allowing alcohol and tobacco has had unintended consequences in the health arena and legalisation of drugs are likely to do likewise

No Tal we don't and never had a law against race mixing, we had some stupid people who though the mixed race children should be angloised and removed from the infuences of their parents. We had laws which prevented certain races taking up residence here and we didn't recognise the indigenous people as citizens but all that is behind us.

That's sounds like laws against race mixing to me, but don't you think laws should be adjusted according to new facts, or social changes? Or heaven forbid, progress through technology? Applying last centuries solutions to today's circumstances may not be that effective in solving the problem, nor is sticking with something that doesn't work, but has unintended consequences.

No Tal if you could live here you could mix with whoever you wanted to, even my mother used to tell me if you couldn't get a white girl get an dark one, no, we had what was called the White Australia Policy to keep mainly Asians out. This had stemmed from the influx of Chinese and Pacific Islanders in the nineteenth century and was mainly associated with preventing cheap labour from being imported in a time when the Unions were very powerful. Sort of like where your hispanics get all the low paid jobs, well that sort of thing was seen as undercutting wages and lowering the standard of living, which was the highest in the world at the time

Hello again, clete:

Here's another little factoid that won't change your mind. I don't know why..

Although tobacco is legal, nicotine is highly addictive. Even MORE addictive than cocaine or heroine. It's also the most dangerous. In the US, it kills about 350,000 people EVERY year... For comparison sake, pot kills ZERO..

But, this story isn't about pot. It's about tobacco and the serious problem we had in this country. 25 years ago, before we got the truth out of the tobacco companies, fully HALF of us smoked.. That's 150 MILLION of us, and MOST of us died young, my dad included.

Since then, over that 25 year period we managed to reduce those who smoked by HALF. That's 75 MILLION people who don't smoke today. That's 75 million lives saved.

We DID that by simply telling the truth - and, we didn't have to put a single person in jail, either.

There's a DOT in that story. I wonder if you can find it.

excon

Ex you avoid the obvious nothing new there. Pot creates mental problems, paranoia and schizophrenia and is a lead into hard drugs so you cannot say it doesn't kill anyone they just die from other causes Tobacco is a serious problem, no one denys that and we have done much to reduce addiction here, not by merely telling the truth as you suggest but by taking on the industry with advertising bans, making sure they are not targeting youth as we know they do and more recently with graphic health warnings on packs and soon plain packaging. We understand the health problems and alcohol will be next. So why would we want to legalise drugs and then do it all again.

I saw the dot ex . Here is another . We also know that sometimes people have to be saved from themselves.

Before you strain yourself patting yourself on the back here are some statistics for your consideration Smoking rates in Australia


How many men smoke in Australia?
In 1945 approximately 72% of Australian men smoked.
(1) The rate has been dropping since then.
In 2010 only 16.4% of Australian males (14 years or older) were daily smokers.
(2) The daily smoking rate among males (16 years or older) in NSW was 13.8% in 2010. (3)

What about women?
In 1945 26% of Australian women smoked.
(1) By 1976 this figure had risen to a peak of 33%.
In 2010 the national daily smoking rate among females (14 years or older) of 13.9%.
(2) The daily smoking rate among females (16 years or older) in NSW was 9.8% in 2010.

What about youth?
A 2008 survey of Australian secondary school students found that current (smoked in the last week) smoking rates were 6.9% among boys aged 12 to 17 and 7.7% among girls in the same age group.
The figures peaked at 14.5% for 17 year old boys and 12.7% for 17 year old girls.
Among students in NSW current (smoked in the last 7 days) smoking rates in 2008 were 6.9% among boys and 7.7% among girls aged 12 to 17.
The NSW students figures peaked at 16.7% for 17 year old boys and 14.3% for 17 year old girls.
Since 1984, when the first NSW secondary school survey on smoking was conducted, smoking rates among 12 to 17 year old secondary school students have declined significantly from a high of 20.5%.

Why have smoking rates among the general population declined so dramatically over recent decades?

It is likely that the decline in smoking rates during recent decades has occurred as a result of concerted and sustained government tobacco control strategies such as high tobacco taxes, advertising bans, mass media public education campaigns and smoke-free environments legislation.

Which age groups smoke most?

The highest rates of daily smoking among Australian men (by age) in 2010 were in the 30-39 and 40-49 years age groups (both at 20.2%) and for women, in the 40-49 years age group (18.8%).

What are the smoking rates among indigenous Australians?

Smoking rates among indigenous Australian s are considerably higher than those for the non-indigenous community in every age group.
In 2008, the daily smoking rate among Aboriginal Australians was 47.7%.

Ex you avoid the obvious nothing new there. Pot creates mental problems, paranoia and schizophrenia and is a lead into hard drugs so you cannot say it doesn't kill anyone Hello clete:

HOOEY! Pure HOOEY!!

excon

Hello clete:

HOOEY! Pure HOOEY!!!!

excon

Take you head out of the sand you're not an ostrich

Hello again, clete:

Let me see... If I wanted to know something about flying, I'd ask a pilot - NOT somebody who READS about flying..

Like I said above, factoids aren't something you believe... So, we ain't going to get anywhere here. Bummer.

excon

No Tal we don't and never had a law against race mixing, we had some stupid people who though the mixed race children should be angloised and removed from the infuences of their parents. We had laws which prevented certain races taking up residence here and we didn't recognise the indigenous people as citizens but all that is behind us.

The phenonemon of dark skinned people being overrepresented in prisons has also been noted here particularly where there are large populations of such people but this is mainly for street offenses and disorderly conduct. We haven't until recently suffered the violence associated with drugs but allowing certain ethnic groups to take up residence here has changed that

We don't believe that further legalisation of addictive substances is a benefit to society, we would like to wean the government off the revenues and remove alcohol and tobacco from the scene too these are heavily taxed and we fear that legalisation of drugs would give the government a tax windfall and entrench the addictive culture even further. Our government at the moment is at war with tobacco so removing drugs from criminal relm and putting it under tax administration doesn't appeal. You see we have realised that allowing alcohol and tobacco has had unintended consequences in the health arena and legalisation of drugs are likely to do likewise

So leave it to the criminals to make money while you save people from their own choice? We tried that and the mobs got rich, and supported other criminal activities, and left bodies every where. Good luck with Prohibition, you will need it. And you should have paid the asians more, not kept them from the country, but then when foreign companies come there and give you low wages, I guess you love it.


QUOTE by paraclete;
Ex you avoid the obvious nothing new there. Pot creates mental problems, paranoia and schizophrenia and is a lead into hard drugs so you cannot say it doesn't kill anyone they just die from other causes Tobacco is a serious problem, no one denys that and we have done much to reduce addiction here, not by merely telling the truth as you suggest but by taking on the industry with advertising bans, making sure they are not targeting youth as we know they do and more recently with graphic health warnings on packs and soon plain packaging. We understand the health problems and alcohol will be next. So why would we want to legalise drugs and then do it all again.

I saw the dot ex . Here is another . We also know that sometimes people have to be saved from themselves.

Tobacco users don't go to jail, and they have a choice, same for alcohol, so decriminalize drugs, take it from the alley to the shelves, tax it like alcohol and tobacco, and give choices, not jail cells.

So leave it to the criminals to make money while you save people from their own choice? We tried that and the mobs got rich, and supported other criminal activities, and left bodies every where. Good luck with Prohibition, you will need it. And you should have paid the asians more, not kept them from the country, but then when foreign companies come there and give you low wages, I guess you love it.

I don't think you have quite got what I'm saying. Governments make a choice that is what they are there for and ours has made a choice to go along with public opinion and outlaw drugs. We are not talking about prohibition so much as taking an active stance to reduce consumption.
As to paying wages, american companies have for years tried to establish themselves here and pay minimum wages, thinking they could do here what they do there so we don't love it, you see that slave owing mentality has never left, where as our unions said we will not allow you to import cheap labour, to establish slave labour by any other name here and were too successful in their lobbying but then I don't expect you think we should have laws about this sort of thing either
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-15/chinese-fly-into-australia-to-make-27dodgy27-asylum-claims/3892416
This why we don't like asians


Tobacco users don't go to jail, and they have a choice, same for alcohol, so decriminalize drugs, take it from the alley to the shelves, tax it like alcohol and tobacco, and give choices, not jail cells.

Tobacco users are fast becoming pyriahs in our society, just as drug users are pyriahs, there are fewer and fewer places where they can pollute our air legally and one day they just might go to jail for doing it, I have the same objections to pot as I have to tobacco, it stinks and yes the alley might be the only place in the city where you can light up, but I would say don't put the users in jail cells put them in education and detoxification centres, but definitely put the dealers and the pushers in jail. Alcohol consumption has its own problems mostly associated with violence and disorderly conduct and that has been targeted as well.We didn't have these problems until we liberalised drinking hours so the lesson is not lost on us

Blacks commit crime and break the law they only make thereselves go into prison.and everyone has an opinion on drugs.I agree with paraclete.

blacks commit crime and break the law they only make thereselves go into prison.and everyone has an opinion on drugs.i agree with paraclete.

Thank you celtic, the liberal agenda doesn't always end in a better society or even a more just one. There is always someone who says I am different because and therefore you should change to accommodate me. Well in this case drug users are being accommodated

blacks commit crime and break the law they only make thereselves go into prison.and everyone has an opinion on drugs.i agree with paraclete.


Everybody who breaks the law "makes thereselves go into prison." I don't know this is a Black issue.

I do know it's a "who has the best Attorney issue."

Everybody who breaks the law "makes thereselves go into prison." I don't know this is a Black issue.

I do know it's a "who has the best Attorney issue."

So then the answer is to provide better legal aid

Or better more fair laws that have NO left, or right agendas.

Or better more fair laws that have NO left, or right agendas.

There is actually an agenda but the important question becomes, whose or what's agenda?

Therefore, the important question to ask ourselves is, do African Americans choose to 'live part'. Well, in some respects they do. I think we have established there is a good argument for claiming that drug laws may have inadvertently contributed to making many African Americans involved in a particular types of drug being labeled as felons.

These people now have the appropriate label and the appropriate legal weight to reinforce this label. In essence, they are separate and unequal. The law is weighted heavily against them because they choose a particular drug of choice. After all, it was their choice.

A similar type of argument has been rescinded to the political dust bin in the old South Africa. The argument for 'living apart' policy was that if most native South Africans had the choice they would choose to live apart from the white population. This is of course debatable, but there is not doubt that in certain periods of old South African history this would have been part of the normal language. This likely choice ( forced or otherwise) would have had a strong propaganda component behind it.

What was conveniently not stated was that white people in this society will control all the social, political,legal and economic strings. You can live apart and equal, but we will make decisions on how 'equal' will actually be determined in terms of social, political, legal and economic resources.

Herein lies the problem. We can put a good argument for the legal system inadvertently favouring one social-economic group over another. When we have a reality check we realize that this has inadvertently disadvantaged the African American component of society.

However, this only accounts for a legal disadvantage. How do we explain away the other disadvantages that seem to work against the African American component of society. We have explained away the legal aspects, but how do we explain the social and economic aspects?

It is possible that we can use the same 'unintended consequences' argument and in the end this may well suffice. However, it will require more than that to chance things for the better. The first step will be the need to actually admit that this problem exists. To bury one's head in the sand and admit there is no problem is to give tacit approval.

Tut

There is actually an agenda but the important question becomes, whose or what's agenda?

Therefore, the important question to ask ourselves is, do African Americans choose to 'live part'. Well, in some respects they do. I think we have established there is a good argument for claiming that drug laws may have inadvertently contributed to making many African Americans involved in a particular types of drug being labeled as felons.

These people now have the appropriate label and the appropriate legal weight to reinforce this label. In essence, they are separate and unequal. The law is weighted heavily against them because they choose a particular drug of choice. After all, it was their choice.

A similar type of argument has been rescinded to the political dust bin in the old South Africa. The argument for 'living apart' policy was that if most native South Africans had the choice they would choose to live apart from the white population. This is of course debatable, but there is not doubt that in certain periods of old South African history this would have been part of the normal language. This likely choice ( forced or otherwise) would have had a strong propaganda component behind it.

What was conveniently not stated was that white people in this society will control all the social, political,legal and economic strings. You can live apart and equal, but we will make decisions on how 'equal' will actually be determined in terms of social, political, legal and economic resources.

Herein lies the problem. We can put a good argument for the legal system inadvertently favouring one social-economic group over another. When we have a reality check we realize that this has inadvertently disadvantaged the African American component of society.

However, this only accounts for a legal disadvantage. How do we explain away the other disadvantages that seem to work against the African American component of society. We have explained away the legal aspects, but how do we explain the social and economic aspects?

It is possible that we can use the same 'unintended consequences' argument and in the end this may well suffice. However, it will require more than that to chance things for the better. The first step will be the need to actually admit that this problem exists. To bury one's head in the sand and admit there is no problem is to give tacit approval.

Tut

Very well put, but good luck with getting some to admit to a problem. Fear will keep them blind.

So then the answer is to provide better legal aid


Well, it was bound to happen sooner or later. For once we agree on something.

In my area tell me who you retained and I can give you a very educated guess about your sentence. Yes, it's unfair.

I will also throw in my two cents about the level of education in many parts of the US (as demonstrated on AMHD fairly frequently) - people who have a very poor grasp of the English language do very poorly in Court. The judge listens to "you know," "I axed him a question," "I be going there" a few times and things do not go well. Agreed, not fair - but it happens and very often it is obvious.

Well, it was bound to happen sooner or later. For once we agree on something.

In my area tell me who you retained and I can give you a very educated guess about your sentence. Yes, it's unfair.

I will also throw in my two cents about the level of education in many parts of the US (as demonstrated on AMHD fairly frequently) - people who have a very poor grasp of the English language do very poorly in Court. The judge listens to "you know," "I axed him a question," "I be going there" a few times and things do not go well. Agreed, not fair - but it happens and very often it is obvious.

I thought that was what having an attorney was for, to speak for you and even coach you a little

If you are "coach-able." Some people are not.

I don't know what 'fair' means in this case . What type of council can you expect for free ?

.edit... and speaking of "fair "... the subject of fairness will be explored from a libertarian perspective tonight.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2012/03/15/what-fair-tonight-9pm-fbn

I don't know what 'fair' means in this case . What type of council can you expect for free ?

.edit ...and speaking of "fair " .... the subject of fairness will be explored from a libertarian perspective tonight.

What Is Fair? (Tonight at 9PM on FBN) - Stossel's Take Blog - Fox Business (http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2012/03/15/what-fair-tonight-9pm-fbn)

Well Tom you get someone who is trained, perhaps a recent graduate, depends upon where you live. Who said the law was fair

I don't know what 'fair' means in this case . What type of council can you expect for free ?

.edit ...and speaking of "fair " .... the subject of fairness will be explored from a libertarian perspective tonight.

What Is Fair? (Tonight at 9PM on FBN) - Stossel's Take Blog - Fox Business (http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2012/03/15/what-fair-tonight-9pm-fbn)


Libertarian perspective?? How is this perspective different from any other perspective presented by Fox News? Just for a change they could try presenting an informed and impartial debate.

No Stossel is much different than most Fox conservative commentators .

When Fox broadcasts news it's generally straight up reporting . When it has commentary shows ,they don't hide their perspective. But unlike their counterpart progessive news station MSNBC they often have guests to offer counter points to debate.

That isn't what Stossel's show is however . He mostly does documentaries from a libertarian perspective ;which is significantly different than conservative in some aspects ,and similar in others . One example would be this very debate . Stossel falls in line with those who want to make drugs legal .

No Stossel is much different than most Fox conservative commentators .

When Fox broadcasts news it's generally straight up reporting . When it has commentary shows ,they don't hide their perspective. But unlike their counterpart progessive news station MSNBC they often have guests to offer counter points to debate.

That isn't what Stossel's show is however . He mostly does documentaries from a libertarian perspective ;which is significantly different than conservative in some aspects ,and simular in others . One example would be this very debate . Stossel falls in line with those who want to make drugs legal .


Hi Tom,

Sorry, seems like I jumped the gun again. As much as I like this forum I think I need a rest from it. Too many errors lately.

Tut

Don't go .I like to get my premise challenged .

Like when the cops knock down your door

don't go .I like to get my premise challenged .

Hi Tom,

Now I am interested again. Which premise is that?

Tut