[tomder55]

Good find Steve. John Dingell ,Harry Reid ,Bill Richardson... racists all of them . The truth is that about half the Black members of Congress voted for the law.

Although many media reports and images at the time of the act emphasized the spread of crack cocaine among inner-city minority communities, it is not clear that Congress foresaw the disparate racial impact these sentencing changes would have. Fully half of the African-American representatives in Congress voted for the act, many of them emphasizing the harm that crack use was causing to black communities.

http://www.enotes.com/anti-drug-abus...abuse-act-1986

[talaniman]

Thanks Speech, I was having trouble finding this particular bill. It seems to have covered a wide range of issues that were prevalent in 1986. As we can see it was a cooperative effort by both houses, working to reach consensus to resolve issues.

So are you saying that we have the same thing at work today, by congress, and local and regional governments?

Or have things happened that changed all of that?

We do have more FACTS of cause and effect of those policies these modern days, why are we not flexible enough to tweak them? Do we have to be stuck in 1986, or can we make some adjustments to correct the lack of knowledge, or changed conditions?

[excon]

Harold E. Ford Sr and Charlie Rangel? What in the world were they doing sponsoring racist laws?

Hello again, Steve:

They didn't know it was racist. The white congressmen didn't know it was racist. They didn't investigate. They went along with the crowd. I'm sure somebody scared 'em into that belief.. That's how pot became illegal. Somebody scared congress and after a few minutes of debate, they passed a law. Do I think this is any different?? No..

Whether BLACK people supported this racist piece of legislation makes it NO LESS racist. You DID see those numbers. The congress was informed of their inaccuracies. Did the change it? A little bit. Now it's only partially racist...

excon

PS> I guess you could say that slavery wasn't racist either, because there were some black overlords... Same thing.. It doesn't work..

[cdad]

We do have more FACTS of cause and effect of those policies these modern days, why are we not flexible enough to tweak them? Do we have to be stuck in 1986, or can we make some adjustments to correct the lack of knowledge, or changed conditions?

And it looks like this is the very reason why I call them Washington elites. The reason for being stuck in the past like that is because many of the members are from that era that never left.

I don't believe that the original intention of elected officials was to be a lifetime appointment. The idea being that they (the representatives) would have to live under the laws they created.

Would monies spent on the drug war have been better spent elsewhere ? Of course they would. There shouldn't be a drug war. But since we are talking of war lets not forget collateral damage. It happens in every war. In the drug war that would be the peoples that had their houses broken into because someone needed to feed an adiction. And who pays for that? Joe working Schmoe and the rest of us in higher premiums. The cycle continues. Muggings, murder etc. All in the name of drugs. If they weren't illegal in the first place we would be having a much different debate. We could afford to secure our boarders and feed people. We could spend on those social programs that are asked for that benefit all of us al a whole. Heck we could even get into space again. (I miss NASA programs).

My point being that things are broken. And the only true way to fix them is to look at them from an uninhibited angle. Even recently in the news we have heard stories of Obama smoking pot etc. And he went on to be president. SO maybe its time to take a much harder and closer look at this bad thing they call drugs without regard to race and call it as it really is.

[speechlesstx]

Thanks Speech, I was having trouble finding this particular bill. It seems to have covered a wide range of issues that were prevalent in 1986. As we can see it was a cooperative effort by both houses, working to reach consensus to resolve issues.

So are you saying that we have the same thing at work today, by congress, and local and regional governments?

What I'm saying is ex gave me an example of one of those "racist" laws and I'm showing the law is not racist. No one intended for that law to disproportionately affect blacks, and no one is trying to come up with new laws to punish any particular group (except Democrats who want to punish the wealth, especially ex-patriots), so can we cut the racist angle out?

We do have more FACTS of cause and effect of those policies these modern days, why are we not flexible enough to tweak them? Do we have to be stuck in 1986, or can we make some adjustments to correct the lack of knowledge, or changed conditions?

Brother, I'm becoming more and more an ally on this front so let's strike a balance. Just cut the racist crap, I hate that more than ex hates drug laws.

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

They didn't know it was racist. The white congressmen didn't know it was racist. They didn't investigate. They went along with the crowd. I'm sure somebody scared 'em into that belief.. That's how pot became illegal. Somebody scared congress and after a few minutes of debate, they passed a law. Do I think this is any different??? No..

Whether BLACK people supported this racist piece of legislation makes it NO LESS racist. You DID see those numbers. The congress was informed of their inaccuracies. Did the change it? A little bit. Now it's only partially racist...

excon

PS> I guess you could say that slavery wasn't racist either, because there were some black overlords... Same thing.. It doesn't work..

Sorry, but I have to call bullsh*t when I see it, and that qualifies. The law is not racist, period, so cut the crap. You wanted honesty, that was honest and so is this - what I told tal, "Brother, I'm becoming more and more an ally on this front so let's strike a balance. Just cut the racist crap, I hate that more than ex hates drug laws."

Let's be honest shall we?