br0, I've never once denied that black people may be more likely to smoke crack. In fact, I think 38% of crack smokers are black even though 13% of our population is black, just like the data say. However, in a non-racist justice system, I would expect that the percentage of people sentenced for using crack is also at 38%. White crack users should be no less likely than black users to face punishment, but that is not the case. Why do you insist that it is reasonable that black people might be 38% of crack users but 79% of people punished for using crack?

Feel free to ignore Salon's hyperbolic title, as this is an excerpt from an actual bio on William F. Buckley, but I think there are some really relevant pieces herein, especially as they pertain to a paraphrase of many of the points peddled ITT.

It's complicated. It's not all about race. What about other minority groups? These are all old tropes, and Buckley was no idiot (though he made a career of defending idiotic positions intelligently).

Why does it matter? Because the bottom line for his flagship publication was:
And more damning:
So you'll have to forgive some posters if they see more insidious thinking behind claims like "it's too complicated to simply be race" and "there are cultural pathologies in the black community" etc.

Yes, yes, we know Buckley repudiated these attitudes later in life and regretted opposing civil rights... when, of course, it was no longer publicly tenable to oppose the Civil Rights Movement and the CRA (at least until Rand Paul came along?). And that's nice, except that it really didn't matter anymore, and Buckley was still more than happy to get into bed with other people who continued to fight against the gains of the CRM.

You're coming in at the end of the story. Cocaine came before crack and cocaine was considered a black man's drug, until Wall Street traders or whoever got their hands on it and cocaine moved upmarket while crack replaced it.

Turn Prophet- Also good to remember that Reagan said this about apartheid:

Emphasis mine.

I dont think you understand the context. Yes, black people are arrested and jailed at a disproportional rate when it comes to crack, this is not rocket science since they make up a disproportionate number of crack users relative to population of crack users.

Relative to others, they do use it more. 38% of all crack users are black, yet make up 13% of the general population. 52% are white, yet make up over 777% of the general population

They're saying that even though black people use crack a disproportionate amount, they're arrested and convicted for it much more, even after considering that fact. The fact that they're more likely per-capita to use crack is irrelevant to that, the bias in the justice system is still apparent.

Stop relying on demographics. A disproportion is not racism. Hey, I'm objective and I'm more than capable of seeing racial bias and am certain it exist in the CJ system. However, the problem comes when you talk so causally and in such general way you lose credibility. "crack laws are racist". Show me any kind of evidence that shows law makers were targeting black people instead of crack when writing that law and I'll listen but you and others just assume its racist because of disproportions.

With that said, there some questions that get raised when you start comparing demographics such as locations...not to mention to "users" as opposed to addicts or frequent users. There are so many variables just in the question "do you use crack and what race you are". This is what I mean about ignoring variables. You see this number and automatically assume racism as the main culprit....and I think well...I need more information.

Finally, I've never said it was reasonable.

It was no where near the volume of crack.

Yes, I understand that but they have no grounds to make that claim. They use a study of "users" to determine the baseline crack population. Its ignores frequent users or addicts who are more like to be engulfed by the CJS, not to mention location disparities which do not correspond with the the general population figures.

Location and race are inseparable variables. Redlining has guaranteed that. Unless you are trying to argue that a geographic demarcation causes crime, and that if you replaced all the people in a bad neighborhood with people from a good one that crime would go up amongst the new inhabitants compared with what it was when they were in their prior spot, then blaming "high crime" on a neighborhood is a total canard.

Explanations like "The cops aren't targeting drug enforcement on blacks, they're just targeting this (overwhelmingly black) neighborhood," are ridiculous. We know for a fact that they could choose to target white neighborhoods where white people use crack. We know they exist because of all the white people who use crack. But the cops chose the black neighborhood, and not by accident, not by happenstance, but because of a deliberate choice to arrest people from that neighborhood.

Ah yes, the hypothesis that black people are inherently more criminal than white people. White people know how to handle their coke, but you get a black person all amped up and he'll turn into a real threat.

OK, what would be reasonable?

I try not to be condescending but are you really this simple minded and ignore some basic variables like culture? What kind of peer pressure has untold amount of kids, specifically black kids, faced to join a gang? This culture is not an intrinsic quality. Both the application of peer pressure and the embracing of the gang is learned behavior that's repeated over and over and over again. This is only one aspect of location that is extremely relevant to the discussion about crack, especially if a significant percentage of the crack cases originate from a location that has a lots of gang violence .

Show me rates of violence. While I'm sure racism exist, I'm telling you cops, for the most part, focus on where the violence occurs and the violence occurs where the street money is. If you live in that area and are an addict, you probably have a substantially higher chance of getting caught rather than someone who visits.


Straw man. I thought you were being disingenuous but you cant comprehend anything with multiple and complex variables and insist on making short-sighted assumptions because of this.

Crack is a culture thing for black people to some degree, culture is not intrinsic or inherent. You like demographics well black violence rose substantially with the crack epidemic and it has nothing to do with them being black and everything to do with the illicit market, which spawned an increase in gangs and the horrid cycle of generations. Only your side is stupid enough to think I'm talking about some inherent characteristic. You cant help yourself when faced with intelligent criticism of your "its racist" mantra because you cant defend it other than post endless citations of demographic reports then assume everyone is talking about inherent characteristics and such.....could this be cognitive dissonance?

LOL


Who gives a ****, though?

Do we need your permission to discuss issues like adults? Like when we are talking about racism, which exists and is real and manifests itself in stuff like disproportionate policing....

Who cares about what you need? That seems like your problem, not our problem.

Oh....You want to talk about an issue without addressing criticism of your ideas, I get it, If I held a indefensible position like yours, I may feel the same way. If you just want to state an opinion, cool but I was under the impression this was a "discussion". Does not seem like you want to discuss it other than cite endless demographics reports and call things racist. If that's what goes for intelligent around here, well, I would respectfully disagree. I mean Are you butt hurt wookie has not banned me yet so you all can get back to the cool kids circle jerk?

Braves. What do you think is racist?

I ask because you've gone so far into the paint to explain why 100:1 sentancing ratios on the same drug isn't racist and why the fact that 79% of people arrested for crack are black isn't racist.

I understand your general thesis is that too many things are called racist... but is there anything that is?

Got a source for black people being more likely to be addicts than whites? Or is this just a blatantly racist assumption?

Not to mention, you're the one asserting that there is no inconsistency in numbers when blacks are 38% of crack users but 79% of jailed crack users. When you say this:

Uh, the claim is "here are the numbers". They dispute what you're saying. The grounds on which we can make that claim is, look at the ****ing numbers. I'm not sure what's a bigger struggle, eradicating racism or making you understand basic mathematics.

100:1 ratio is dumb but its creation and implementation was a direct result of violence and the extreme popularity crack gained in a short period of time.

There is with out doubt some form of racial bias in the CJS....the problem comes in when you guys call it all and everything connected to it racist based on some extremely broad demographics. None of you know where the "racism" is occurring and you are so bent up on the racist angle that you have no idea its more likely subtle discriminatory bias that people do not know they have. This is not racism, this is discrimination. While I acknowledge discrimination can be racist, its not always so.

With that said, if you want me to take you serious and want to have an actual discussion, take my questions serious instead of having fly talking about permission and such or wookie repeating his same straw man about inherently qualities. The 79% number needs more information before you validate it as abnormal. I'm rather certain, most of the arrest occur in high crime areas mostly populated by black people and its not unreasonable to expect some disproportionate numbers to show up in these instances.

Finally, you cant attack biases and subconscious stereotyping by calling the entire system racist because one its not and two its not the law or the system that's the problem, its the people on both sides of the equation. Really look, what has the "its racist" mantra really accomplished in the past 15 years? The gap has not changed one iota. You need to comprehensively study judges, cops and prosecutors then make them aware of their bias and not by calling them racist and include as many as variables as you can to break it down to specific situations where these biases present themselves not entirely base it on race or some other broad metric.

Seems like a bias to investigate

Read the passage you quoted again and bold the "black" and "white" parts because I missed it. Are you being deliberately dishonest or are you really this pathetic in your attempt to call me racist? Or are you just stupid? hint: you are having a comprehension problem as well as a context problem that I'm not going to help with anymore.

[/QUOTE]


I'm sorry, I've tried to explain this to you multiple times. If you do not understand that those simple and incredibly broad numbers do not have any substantial value to makes any sort of credible assumptions with out more information, I cant help you, especially when you are making **** up now.

and what came of that investigation? Its 2015 and the only evidence people can come up with is that black people disproportionately smoke crack and get disproportionately arrested for it.

Do you have a citation for a better explanation?

.

The drug war?

braves:

Black people are arrested for crack use at a higher rate than the rate at which they use it. This is a fact demonstrated by the numbers.

You suggested that a reason for this may be that addicts are more likely to be caught up by the criminal justice system. In other words, if some group gets arrested at a higher rate, it may be because that group is more likely to be addicts.

Since the numbers demonstrate that black people are a group getting arrested at a higher rate, you have thus suggested that black people are more likely to be addicts. Without a source for such a claim, you could only otherwise be pulling it out of your ass as an assumption. To assume that black people are more likely to be crack addicts than white people is racist.

Hope this helps in your continuing struggle against basic mathematics.

The reason why the drug war is harder on black people is the drug war? Great stuff.

Seems perfectly fine to see the drug war as both having a racial and socioeconomic components.