This Person is a Member of the US House of Representatives

[econ21]

What explains the difference?

According to the article I linked, it's partly higher arrest rates and partly higher rates of imprisonment if arrested. The article focuses on the former, arguing that blacks are more likely to be stopped and searched, and are more intensively policed. It's not just that the white drug users in suburbia get more lenient treatment if caught, they are much less likely to be caught.

Although Black people are 12 percent of the population and 14 percent of drug users, according to Mauer and Cole, they comprise 34 percent of those arrested for drug offenses and 45 percent of those incarcerated in state prisons for such offenses.

[Lemur]

Another one bites the dust at NRO.

In fairness, I do understand why some folks are dismissive of white racism. The video linked below the spoil, for example, is guaranteed to make any citizen's blood boil, especially when the chief of police announces it is not a hate crime.

Warning, graphic video of a guy getting mobbed, beaten and stripped. Profanity is the least of it. Guaranteed to raise your blood pressure and make you angry/sick/disgusted, so watch at own risk.

[PanzerJaeger]

In fairness, I do understand why some folks are dismissive of white racism. The video linked below the spoil, for example, is guaranteed to make any citizen's blood boil, especially when the chief of police announces it is not a hate crime.

Warning, graphic video of a guy getting mobbed, beaten and stripped. Profanity is the least of it. Guaranteed to raise your blood pressure and make you angry/sick/disgusted, so watch at own risk.

That puts Mr. Derbishire's rules for navigating America's racial waters in a different perspective, no? That poor tourist broke a number of them and paid the price.

But let's talk about an example and see what your response is to that. If I remember correctly, the penalties for crack cocaine and powdered cocaine are very disproportionate. Drugs are often absorbed and incorporated into a "scene" or social group and associated with them thereafter. For crack cocaine, it's the lower ends of the socioeconomic ladder, while powdered cocaine is what the rich bankers and wall street types are doing off their escorts for the night. It's the same drug, cocaine, just in different forms, different methods of absorption into your body. Why is it that the one which affects the disproportionately poor black is punished way, way harsher? You can talk all you want about black behavior, but why is it that the laws are different to begin with, and is this a problem from your perspective?

Mind you, I am not trying to take a side here. I just want your side fleshed out a bit more.

This is a perfect example of what I was talking about. When crack hit the scene in the 80's, it was devastating to urban communities in a way that powdered cocaine never was (Wall Street types could party on the weekends and make it in to work on Mondays). Politicians, including many black leaders, pushed for tougher laws on crack in response to the perceived crisis, just as meth laws have been strengthened in response to the real or imagined 'epidemic'. It is standard fare for politicians to react to ‘crises’ with tough legislation.

Debating the efficacy of such legislation and particularly whether harsher sentences deter drug use is a legitimate discussion. What is not legitimate is to inject race into the issue in order to imply the existence of some nefarious system built to keep the black man down. I mean, if it could be said that crack is a black drug (which it certainly is not), it could be said that meth is the drug of choice for white trash across the country. Should the war on meth be interpreted as a plot to keep Appalachia in trailer parks and out of mainstream society? The author and people who argue from that perspective twist facts and stats to fit a racially driven narrative that an objective analysis of that information would not support. It is intellectually bankrupt race baiting, and it should be called out as such.

The real story, if there is one to tell, is that harsh drug laws probably do more damage than good. And to bring this all the way back to Trayvon Martin: as Lemur has said, there is a legitimate story about whether the police responded to the incident correctly or not. However, the race baiters have twisted the story into one of racism and racial injustice, despite all facts to the contrary. I hate these people. They seek division and perpetual racial disharmony in America under the guise of fighting for the exact opposite position.

[rory_20_uk]

Tough legislation would be a good idea - make the tough decision to legalise it and set up a god newtork of support and rehab clinics. Take a way the stigma.

Posturing to lock people up for 50 years is easy.

[Strike For The South]

This is a perfect example of what I was talking about. When crack hit the scene in the 80's, it was devastating to urban communities in a way that powdered cocaine never was (Wall Street types could party on the weekends and make it in to work on Mondays). Politicians, including many black leaders, pushed for tougher laws on crack in response to the perceived crisis, just as meth laws have been strengthened in response to the real or imagined 'epidemic'. It is standard fare for politicians to react to ‘crises’ with tough legislation.

Don't piss on my boots and tell me it's raining. The idea that somehow the wall street types were more apt to pull themselves out of their drug stupor is a fallacy. Walls Streets neighborhoods were less patrolled, their lawyers better, and the sentences lighter. Thus poor black men go to prison longer and more often and they come out violent.

Debating the efficacy of such legislation and particularly whether harsher sentences deter drug use is a legitimate discussion. What is not legitimate is to inject race into the issue in order to imply the existence of some nefarious system built to keep the black man down. I mean, if it could be said that crack is a black drug (which it certainly is not), it could be said that meth is the drug of choice for white trash across the country. Should the war on meth be interpreted as a plot to keep Appalachia in trailer parks and out of mainstream society? The author and people who argue from that perspective twist facts and stats to fit a racially driven narrative that an objective analysis of that information would not support. It is intellectually bankrupt race baiting, and it should be called out as such.

It's not nefarious nor is it a conspiracy. There is an overwhelming amount of empirical data to back this up, we all know it is but if want me to link it I can. Certain legislation has led to racial outcomes in the judicary that can't be chalked up to chance alone. Now I certainly don't place the blame soley on the justice system, the media is just a cuppable for glorfying black culture in the most primal ways.

I agree the drug war is the root of all this, I'm just not going to discount the race factor simply becuase it's icky. Race baiting is Trayvon Martin, this is not.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Why would cops patrol low crime neighborhoods instead of high crime neighborhoods? I would rather someone explained the empirical data to me than linked to it. It's quite possible that the best police method leads to a disparate outcome. Should we make it so that all lawyers work for the same fee?


edit: basically, one of the main justifications for the war on drugs is supposed to be that it allows police to go after violent criminals. People who get beat up often are wary of testifying, so it's much more effective to get the violent criminals on drug charges.

[Lemur]

Going back to the Martin case, now that Zimmerman is charged and in custody, the best possible outcome would be for him to get a fair trial. Here's hoping.

[Vladimir]

Another one bites the dust at NRO.

In fairness, I do understand why some folks are dismissive of white racism. The video linked below the spoil, for example, is guaranteed to make any citizen's blood boil, especially when the chief of police announces it is not a hate crime.

Warning, graphic video of a guy getting mobbed, beaten and stripped. Profanity is the least of it. Guaranteed to raise your blood pressure and make you angry/sick/disgusted, so watch at own risk.

See people! I'm telling you; Baltimore.

Is it possible to necropost within an active thread?

[Strike For The South]

Racism ended becuase white America thinks racism ended.

There is implicit privellge with being born white in America.

I don't think you can legislate it out nor do I think you can guilt people into changing the paramaters in which we operate

[Sasaki Kojiro]

According to the article I linked, it's partly higher arrest rates and partly higher rates of imprisonment if arrested. The article focuses on the former, arguing that blacks are more likely to be stopped and searched, and are more intensively policed. It's not just that the white drug users in suburbia get more lenient treatment if caught, they are much less likely to be caught.

I mean, are the authors right? And what's the conclusion supposed to be? As it stands they are just quoting an empty statistic.

I worry about the quality of our debate on this stuf...liberals are far far far to eager to score political points by talking about racist conservatives ( and if they have a chance to work in some pet policy issue of theirs like gun control or the death penalty or drug wars they jump on it) and by now republicans are sick of it and assume anything the liberals say about it is bogus race baiting. Liberals are far too happy to believe the problem is something they enjoy it being. In the end all that's said is a bunch of tv pundit talking point crap.

[Lemur]

liberals are far far far to eager to score political points by talking about racist conservatives ( and if they have a chance to work in some pet policy issue of theirs like gun control or the death penalty or drug wars they jump on it) and by now republicans are sick of it and assume anything the liberals say about it is bogus race baiting. Liberals are far too happy to believe the problem is something they enjoy it being.

That's exceptionally cynical, even by your standards. I find it hard to believe that everyone is acting in complete and total bad faith.

In other news, charges will be filed and there will be a trial. Good. That's how this is supposed to work.

According to a senior law enforcement official, Corey is expected to announce that Zimmerman will face state charges. The number or nature of the charges was not immediately known. [...]

Some of the charges that Zimmerman could possibly face range from involuntary manslaughter to voluntary manslaughter to second-degree murder, according to Mary Anne Franks, associate law professor at the University of Miami School of Law in Coral Gables, Florida. Both involuntary and voluntary manslaughter could carry up to 15 years to prison, while the second-degree murder charge could carry a sentence of life in prison.

The law enforcement official said that authorities knew where Zimmerman was and were planning to arrest him soon rather than let him turn himself in. The official said he was not in Florida.

[Strike For The South]

lyk dis if u cry everytym