[kefka]

This whole clusterfuck is thanks to Reagans (Nancy and Reagan).

Prior to the 80's "War On Drugs", it was only an offence to MAKE drugs. In Prohibition, only those who made alcohol were violating the law. You could still possess and drink it. That's why Speakeasys were a thing.

Fast-forward to the Drug war. And now, even a single pill is enough for a felony. Sure makes sorting out "undesirables" easier. And Harry Anslinger back in the late 30's put a fine point on it.

_______________________

" “There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.”

    “…the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races.”

    “Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death.”

    “Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.”

    “Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing”

    “You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill your brother.”

    “Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.”"

_______________________

Crazy, I say! These negroes think they're somehow equal to us whites!

All I can do is shake my head, and wonder why such an obvious racial discrimination with regards to culture is still banned today. We got rid of the "colored water fountains"....

[rangibaby]

The genesis of the War on Drugs was Richard Nixon wanting a way to harass blacks and hippies

[Symmetry]

More as a way to appear to be doing something about increasing crime rates. Hitting people he didn't like was just icing.

[warfangle]

> “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

John Ehrlichman, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under Nixon.

http://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/

[int_19h]

Nixon is definitely to blame for starting the whole thing, but practically every administration since than has contributed - and not just Republicans.

For example, you know that progressive darling, Joe Biden? Well, that guy has been instrumental in expanding civil asset forfeiture in collaboration with the Reagan administration, which put in place the economic underpinning of the whole "war on drugs" thing that makes the law enforcement agencies so heavily invested in continued prosecution of it. He was also behind the "COPS" program, which evolved into the present system of police departments militarizing by acquiring surplus and retired equipment from the military, all funded by the feds.

[pc86]

Just because $policy has a disproportionate effect on one race or another doesn't make $policy racist or mean that we should abolish it. The reasons why marijuana should be legal have nothing to do with racially disproportionate effects of enforcement.

[eyelidlessness]

> Just because $policy has a disproportionate effect on one race or another doesn't make $policy racist

Yes it does, even if it is completely accidental and without malice. Racism is not only a way people feel about other people who are racially different from them, it is also a construction of systematic discrimination.

But the fact is that the "war on drugs" happens to be racist with malice.

> or mean that we should abolish it.

It does if you want to live in a more just society; or even if you just want to live in a healthy, functioning society. Policies which disproportionately harm a group of people lead to a permanent underclass. Even if you don't care about the people who are impacted the most, it undermines all of the other institutions of society.

> The reasons why marijuana should be legal have nothing to do with racially disproportionate effects of enforcement.

There are many, many reasons to legalize marijuana (and nearly all of them apply to all other drugs). One of those reasons is absolutely the harm that its prohibition has caused to people of color and poor whites.

[kefka]

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can't say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

By Lee Atwater, an American political consultant and Republican party strategist. He was an advisor of 40th U.S. President Ronald Reagan, the campaign manager for 41st U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and Chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Interview with Alexander P. Lamis (8 July 1981), as quoted in The Two-Party South (1984)‎ by Alexander P. Lamis. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater

_______________________________

So, the talking point here is: "When does it migrate from blatant full-on racism(Darkies, nigger, etc.) to policies that directly are racist and affect certain races much more negatively (totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse)?"

Or, further, should we be taking data on how our policies affect different demographics, and adjust how policies are done? Should we not strive for equality, even in areas where it's simple economic decisions that do disproportionately affect certain peoples?

[dannypgh]

There are multiple definitions/types of racism, but one of the most significant ones to enter discourse and study in the 1960s was institutional racism, which more or less defines policies that are disproportionately being used to affect one race as racist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism

[pc86]

My point was that there is a difference between a policy used to negatively impact one race and a policy that happens to negatively impact one race. Statistical anomalies and/or demographic trends are not racist.

[dannypgh]

...what?

That people of color are more likely to be arrested, convicted, or sentenced to prison for drug crimes than white people, despite comparable levels of drug use, is most certainly an example of racism in our society.

"Demographic trends"

There's a rich history of redlining and discriminatory housing practices, which is why communities still tend to be racially segregated. By concentrating police activity on these neighborhoods- perhaps a decision often made today by looking at maps that show rates of arrests- you get a feedback loop or cops arresting people of color in predominately minority neighborhoods, because cops were able to do a bunch of that before. In sum it ends up being institutionally racist, even though there may not have been any intentionally racist decision making throughout the way.

There are of course plenty of solutions, but not arresting lots of people for common harmless activity is a good start. Not focusing all policing around areas with the highest arrest rate would be progress. Figuring out how to desegregate neighborhoods would also be useful. The status quo, however, defaults to racism, which is why institutional racism is so insidious.

[sp332]

What is the difference? The state is enforcing racial inequality either way.

[microcolonel]

The only drug that leads to both pacifism and violence.

That said, War on Drugs was Nixon; and it was incredibly popular with people who would show up to vote, which is likely why Reagan let his wife get on the bandwagon and didn't fight it.

[tjic]

> This whole clusterfuck is thanks to Reagans (Nancy and Reagan).

No, the war on drugs started during the same Progressive era that pushed alcohol prohibition and eugenics.

The "controlling what people do with their lives" ball really got rolling under Wilson.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_t...

[M_Grey]

The actual "War" on drugs was started by Nixon.

[toss1941]

Where do those quotes come from?