To speak to the crack vs cocaine debate. The higher penalty for crack is still in the justice system today. In my jurisdiction having more than 5grams of crack is trafficking which carries a mandatory sentence of 10 years in prison. To get to that same sentencing range for cocaine you need to have more than 4 times that amount.

im not totally up to date on the federal sentencing figures since im a state prosecutor, but i believe it is even more exaggerated in federal court in the nature of something like 5 grams of crack equivalent to 100grams of cocaine for sentencing..

Eta- meth which is a significantly bigger problem in this community is at 20grams for trafficking as well as heroin.

Is this guy at least an American trump voter this time...

Of course I haven't responded to it - nobody has brought it up to me.

Aren't crack/cocaine worse for the body than meth and heroin - therefore making any weight vs punishment comparisons unfair?

False:

You even responded to (and quoted) the second post! You are a dishonest liar.

I was wrong. I did not remember those two posts. Easy on the personal attacks. Calling me a liar because of that is a bigger reach than calling voter ID laws racist.

If there was a politician who asked how a certain race voted then tried to find a way to prevent them from voting I would say he had racist intentions for a non-racist law. If a cop studied recent traffic violations in his city to see where one particular race was getting more speeding tickets than other races then set up around there and gave that race more speeding tickets I think you would agree that the cop had racist intentions, but having a speed limit isn't racist.

There are also racists who support minimum wage laws for racist reason. I assume you aren't ready to call the MW racist.

we're all very familiar with the conservative tactic of vacillating between "I didn't lie, I forgot" and "I know that's not true, I was kidding" when caught saying something awful ... You guys have been using it for decades.

And yes, voter ID laws absolutely are racist. And voter fraud is is essentially a nonexistent phenomenon, usually bullhorned by racists. Voter suppression, however... That's most definitely a thing.

Do you not see the difference here?

A politician is not a policeman. The policeman is enforcing a non-racist law in a racist way, in your example.

The politician, though, is not in the business of enforcement. He's in the business of making the laws. In this case he specifically crafted the law itself to be racist.

I mean for ****'s sake mickey, you're arguing poll taxes weren't racist. You're literally, at this point, saying that even laws drafted for racist reasons to target specific races are not, themselves, racist, as long as they don't explicitly mention race. It's incredible.

Source that proves your claim that there is significantly more voter suppression than voter fraud in the US?

The fact that one is creating law and one is executing law is irreverent.

There are many examples (I have posted sources 10+ times on 2+2) where politicians want to create or increase MW to hurt a minority. I assume you also believe MW laws are racist since some politicians "crafted" it because it hurt one race more than others?

Did you mean irrelevant? And no, it's not either of those things, your analogy doesn't work.

Could you direct me to one of these?

Do you think poll tax laws were racist? Do you think segregation (or more specifically, laws mandating "separate but equal" facilities) was racist? Do you think anti-miscegenation laws (forbidding interracial marriage) were racist? I will answer your MW question (provided with a source) when you answer these.

So there is evidence that voter ID laws actually do suppress minority voting, not just hypothetically but in actual practice

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.was...-the-research/

Voter fraud percentages?

Keep in mind these are just reported incidents, not even convictions. Some of them could be just database mixups and the like.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.905a40200602

The issue is that when there is fraud it's usually done in ways that voter ID laws won't fix, but those voter fraud cases are used to justify voter ID.

I don't really know the specifics nationwide, but personally I know several high functioning cocaine users that have professional jobs. I have never heard of a high functional professionally employed meth user.

There's a good reason crack received a harsher penalty, at least when the law was enacted, but the ratio should be like 1.3:1, not lolwtf 100:1 or even 18:1.

This is the insidiousness behind most institutionally racist laws, that there's a seed truth to them that's wildly blown out of proportion.

p.s. Also, another reason the stupid law was stupid was because dealers would sell uncut cocaine for buyers to freebase their own rocks.

Oh wait, is he? I was grunching. I'll show myself out.

Well, read this and you tell me:

I don't see how you could call poll taxes racist under this logic. According to mickey, a law could:

- be crafted to specifically cause harm to a certain race or races
- AND be crafted to do so by people intending for the law to be racist

...and still not be a racist law!

It's just the conservative definition of racism vs the more liberal definition. The Conservative definition is that only express mentions of racial animosity are racist, other than that we cannot peer into the hearts of the person. Which is why bahbahmickey says the laws aren't racist, there's no explicit animosity of specific races written in the law itself. Likewise the person crafting the law can only be said to be racist if he explicitly says that animosity towards a certain race is the cause.

The definition is easy to game though. Just put one more step between the law and the intent and then the racism cannot be definitively proven and then we have to give the person the benefit of the doubt. (It's also easy to have a false positive and claim something is racist when it's not)

That happens with the 10 commandments on public property as well. Say you want the 10 commandments there because Christianity should be a part of the country, etc and the courts strike it down based on express promotion of religion by the government. Give it a thin secular veneer like say it's because they want to honor the history that the 10 commandments have played in American history and the courts will approve even though the sentiment behind it is the same and usually the people making the second claim are closely related to the first.

One problem is that our political parties are so racially segregated that voter ID works to harm one party instead of harming both equally.

A tax on yarmulkes is a tax on little hats, no big deal.

Goggle "minimum wage racist" and you will find plenty.

I think all the laws you ask about are racist with the exception of the poll tax. He poll tax is a terrible idea but I don't think it is racist (depending how much the tax is).

I don't have time to read your sources tonight hit needless to say reported voter fraud does not equal instances of voter fraud in the same way reported rapes doesn't equal the actual number of rapes.

There are a lot of factors that could result in lower minority turn out in some states than others. Blaming all or even a significant amount on voter ID laws is not right.

That isn't true.

No, I do believe laws can be racist even if they don't mention a race. I just saying every law hurts one race more than others so saying a law is racist if it does is just saying every law is racist.

LOL

Can you just point me to one you find to be credible? I don't want to waste any time with reading some article, arguing against it, and then later finding out that isn't the one you wanted me to see.

Given logic you've espoused here before, I don't see how you can think "separate but equal" is a racist law; it does not favor one race over another. Same with anti-miscegenation laws.

Obviously we (liberals) think those laws are racist, but that's using logic that you've expressly rejected thus far in this thread. What criteria do you use to label those laws as racist, but not others?