Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Drug war = The New Jim Crow (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=641670)

  • Mar 13, 2012, 08:21 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by talaniman View Post
    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
  • Mar 14, 2012, 06:22 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by talaniman View Post
    Congregate socially is a lot different from living conditions.

    Hogwash, and besides that, a dorm is a residence. Duh.
  • Mar 14, 2012, 06:24 AM
    talaniman
    Which has nothing to do with a community.
  • Mar 14, 2012, 07:25 AM
    speechlesstx
    It's a community of students. You can't just wish the facts away, tal.
  • Mar 14, 2012, 07:32 AM
    excon
    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
  • Mar 14, 2012, 07:45 AM
    tomder55
    I would think that economics would be the determinant .
  • Mar 14, 2012, 07:58 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    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
  • Mar 14, 2012, 08:08 AM
    tomder55
    No more than a poor white person chooses to live in a poor neighborhood . Your problem is the introduction of race as a component
  • Mar 14, 2012, 08:09 AM
    speechlesstx
    All I can say is I don't hang out with anyone because they're white.
  • Mar 14, 2012, 08:38 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    No more than a poor white person chooses to live in a poor neighborhood . Your problem is the introduction of race as a component

    Hello 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
  • Mar 14, 2012, 08:41 AM
    talaniman
    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.
  • Mar 14, 2012, 08:42 AM
    tomder55
    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 .
  • Mar 14, 2012, 10:53 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by talaniman View Post
    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. :)
  • Mar 14, 2012, 11:06 AM
    talaniman
    You and Tom seem to be good at that. For NOW!

    Quote:

    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??
  • Mar 14, 2012, 11:29 AM
    tomder55
    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.
  • Mar 14, 2012, 12:00 PM
    talaniman
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    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.
  • Mar 14, 2012, 01:35 PM
    paraclete
    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
  • Mar 14, 2012, 01:45 PM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    The whole debate is too simplistic and it still won't stop the kids getting hold of it and getting hooked

    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
  • Mar 14, 2012, 01:47 PM
    speechlesstx
    I assume you'll order it like pizza and have it delivered.
  • Mar 14, 2012, 01:58 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    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
  • Mar 14, 2012, 02:11 PM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    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
  • Mar 14, 2012, 05:34 PM
    paraclete
    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
  • Mar 14, 2012, 06:20 PM
    talaniman
    Quote:

    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.
  • Mar 14, 2012, 07:17 PM
    paraclete
    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
  • Mar 14, 2012, 07:31 PM
    talaniman
    Quote:

    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.
  • Mar 14, 2012, 07:43 PM
    paraclete
    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
  • Mar 14, 2012, 07:46 PM
    excon
    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
  • Mar 14, 2012, 08:43 PM
    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.

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

    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%.
  • Mar 15, 2012, 04:53 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    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
  • Mar 15, 2012, 05:46 AM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello clete:

    HOOEY! Pure HOOEY!!!!

    excon

    Take you head out of the sand you're not an ostrich
  • Mar 15, 2012, 05:58 AM
    excon
    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
  • Mar 15, 2012, 07:06 AM
    talaniman
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    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:

    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.
  • Mar 15, 2012, 02:07 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by talaniman View Post
    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/2012-03-1...claims/3892416
    This why we don't like asians

    Quote:

    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
  • Mar 15, 2012, 06:36 PM
    celticfc
    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.
  • Mar 15, 2012, 06:49 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by celticfc View Post
    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
  • Mar 15, 2012, 07:12 PM
    JudyKayTee
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by celticfc View Post
    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."
  • Mar 15, 2012, 07:53 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JudyKayTee View Post
    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
  • Mar 15, 2012, 10:40 PM
    talaniman
    Or better more fair laws that have NO left, or right agendas.
  • Mar 16, 2012, 02:50 AM
    TUT317
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by talaniman View Post
    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
  • Mar 16, 2012, 07:01 AM
    talaniman
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TUT317 View Post
    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.

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:29 AM.