[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.