Are mandatory drug sentencing laws racist?

Question

None of the laws say "lock up black people" or "lock up white people."

To the extent there are different treatments of people of different races charged with the same crime, that's the idea - - no matter who you are or what color you are or where you're caught, if you're caught with X ounces of Y drug, you're going to prison for Z years.

To the extent different communities might tend to use and therefore sell different drugs with similar potency or addiction rates, there might be differences in treatment of someone selling one poison that is no worse than another poison. But while the dealer of this or that type of drug might be black, but so is the community in which he's dealing - - - black crack dealers might get a longer sentence than white powder dealers but look at the flip side - - he was selling crack in a black neighborhoods to black kids - the threats to the black community are treated more harshly than the threats to suburbia.

Wouldn't you WANT that?

Dave I love jazz but are you trying to tell me they were going after John Coltrane?

Answer 1

no, they're drug userist

Answer 2

Do I want the mandatory sentence? you bet no matter what color the person is- the difference as stated before enforcing the laws where some colors would have to be at the mercy of the legal aid and some could hire lawyers- black,white, whatever it's a matter of the color green as the money not the color of the skin- a rich afro american will get away with something that a poor white person wouldn't or vice versa. It's all about the color green

Answer 3

I thin the outlawing of drugs, to begin with, was racial motivated. Look at when marijuana was made illegal, then look at the primary users at the time....jazz musicians. And most jazz musicians were black and intellectually spoke their minds through song. Sounds like the man hard at work to bring everyone down and under a fascist control.

**Absolutely! I think that with the popularity of jazz, the musicians saw an opportunity to speak their mind to possibly people that would listen and could help. The government saw that a threat to the infrastructure and thought that if they took away their source of "inspiration" then there wouldn't be any protest to the oppression. Those musicians were the "punks" (real, not the pop-punk crap) of their time. Speaking out for injustice and fighting the establishment for the masses that have gone unheard. **

Answer 4

you have to understand WHY they made these laws. Often times in our lives (i should find a proper word for it) we tip the scales. If there's something we don't like or someone we don't like, we will do things to indirectly hurt them.

Some suggest that some drug laws true intent was to do this to black people. It's the hardest thing to prove because you have legitimate surface reasons. Like the Iraq war. True 9/11 happened, true saddam was a bad guy 20 years ago, but these are excuses. You'll notice that the invasion came right after saddam switched to selling oil for euros. We didn't invade 20 years ago when he gassed his own people. There are surface reasons and peripheral reasons, how can we know what the administrations true intentions were? Dick Cheney's actions are suspect, he profited by millions and uses invalid arguments, like shame and fear to promote his war.

In drugs they suggest that the mandatory sentences on crack are unfair. Cocaine is more or less the same drug, can be easily cooked to crack at home. But crack carries a much stiffer penalty. Since crack is cheaper and more prevalant in the ghetto, while you still had lots of whites on cocaine in the suburbs and the discos, It is suggested that the minimum sentences are a subconcious or discreet stab at blacks.

Drug laws are altogether stupid anyway, the kids today are growing up on designer pharmecuticals oxycontin et al. Your mommas drug drawer is big business. They're selling you all kinds of drugs, partly for money, partly to subdue you, keep you quiet in modern f'ed up society. Hopelessness, greed, manipulation, division, hatred. Goes on and on, they tell you to take some traquilizers and do what your husband says. It's rather absurd really.

Answer 5

No they aren't racist. What you are referring to is a combination of different factors.

Take for instance the difference of punishment for an herb dealer as opposed to a rock dealer. Big difference, one is considered a much larger risk and harm to society. After all you wont have the first person mentioned robbing a store, neglecting their children (not to the same extent), in order to go buy more. He's more likely to go to the store and pick up munchies.

Secondly, it is a HUGE deal what type of lawyer you have for your defense. As displayed in numerous trials (OJ Simpson, the best lawyers, and surprisingly not guilt, how does your color theory work here?), people always claim rich people barely get tried for crimes and even when they do their sentencing doesn't compare with a "normal" person's. Having the best lawyer ensures that they will work every angle in order to get you off, or ensure the smallest penalty allowed. As opposed to a "court appointed lawyer" who will likely settle for the best plea bargain they can get. I agree with you that having set in stone laws will help but realize more likely than not each case is going to be unique. You mention the size dictates the years in prison, however their are other things usually things like other drugs, guns, etc that affect charging and in turn sentencing. It's not all black and white (pun intended) with the law, contrary to many people's opinions. Knowing the law and your rights help more than any of us can fathom.

Answer 6

Of course they are.
The biggest drug problems are in the inner cities, there is little wonder of the ethnicity of those who live there.
little wonder for profit prisons are springing up like daises.

The vast, vast majority of our criminally unjust “criminal justice” system is a big, expensive way of NOT dealing with crime. There are two million virtual desaparecidos, humans in cages, in the US alone. Hundreds of thousands are released from these dungeons-for-dollars every year with no support at all. That is human sacrifice, and we are all victims: the guards, the cons, the innocent, the guilty, the future victims of humans so regressed and dehumanized by the prisons.

Most Americans have not been in prison, and most do not think at all about their fellow citizens in human storage. Many people on the outside will find that reference to prisoners as their “fellow citizens” faintly obscene. If we think of them as monsters, predators, subhuman, Other, not-us, then we can rationalize their incarceration; we can believe in their encagement as a good and necessary thing, as “justice”.

For how else can we tolerate, and continue to pay for, prisons? Unless we buy the twisted lie that these are not our brothers and sisters, we will have to confront our complicity in cruelty, in brutality, in slavery.

If we say, “This is wrong”, then we are morally obligated to act to change it. To act to undo the wrong, unlock the cages of our hearts and free the grief and love that will fuel our struggle to destroy the cages and the supposed need for cages.

Answer 7

**"if you're caught with X ounces of Y drug, you're going to prison for Z years."**

this rule has never applied. everytime someone goes in front of a judge, that judge imposes his own law. blacks have always come up on the short end. a white male may get probation or the option to join the military, while a black holding the same amount of substance will get 3-5 years and a strike.

the law system is extremely unfair and flawed.

Answer 8

I think that people tend to blow certain things out of portion. I know a white man (Mike H.) who went to prison for 3 years for having marijuana and then I know a black man (Jimmy J.) who got probation for cocaine. Mike had 3 joints in his car, JimJim had an oz of coke. HHHHMMMM You only hear about it when someone wants to use the racist card regardless of skin color. I THINK THAT IS WRONG!

Answer 9

No they are not racist it only appears that way .
the law is simple , the amout in possession plus
the amount that can be proven (sales)
influences the time in permission as well as the way they were arrested.
was a weapon involved that includes resisting,
long chases,
spiting at police which are all mitigating circumstance's.
when you spit on 5 o that is Ag. assault/ attempted murder.
so of course this adds time.

remember this you get what you pay for.

(IE OJ SIMPSON)

Answer 10

Theoretically it's not racist unless the authorities go after the black people with these laws and not white people. The sort of people who scream, "Racist!" at stuff like that have no credibility with me.

Answer 11

No no no no no no no! There is no logic in selling that crap, due to moral issues and no logic in buying, due to the downfall of the individual user and everyone associated with him or her. Powder or crack, you can't a story about either that has a happy ending.