[aspaceman]

The drugs were connotated with blacks and Mexicans. Those connotations were racist.

Later on, those connotations influenced lawmakers and policy was effected by it. This created racist policy.

Many of these racist lawmakers died. Others became less public about their racism.

Today, those policies still affect blacks and Mexicans more than whites, even though drug usage is similar. Therefore, the policies are still racist.

Thus if one supports the policies, one supports a racist act. Semantic arguments over whether that makes the person who supports them "racist" are moot. They're still supporting something that's racist.

[Throw_Away_5473]

The original intention is irrelevant for today. If a good law was originally passed for racist reasons that is no reason to abolish it. (Not saying that drug prohibition is good.)

> Today, those policies still affect blacks and Mexicans more than whites, even though drug usage is similar. Therefore, the policies are still racist.

Just because a policy does affect a certain group more doesn't mean that the supporters of the policy are against the group. For example, Blacks are more affected by laws against murder, but that doesn't mean that those who support laws against murder are racist.

[nkozyra]

> The original intention is irrelevant for today.

This simply is untrue unless you operate in temporal vacuums. The intention has affected and currently affects public perception and legislation even today. What you suggest is similar to people who argue that there was a clean slate after abolition or even the civil Rights acts.

[aspaceman]

> You: that doesn't mean that those who support laws against murder are racist.

> Me: Whether or not they are racist is moot

You're completely missing the point I was making. So much so that I would ask you re-read what I said. I don't care if today's folks aren't "technically" racist. It's clear the laws' impact and original intention were, and that should be enough to question their efficacy. Furthermore your analogy is completely ludicrous. No one thinks someone should go unpunished for murder.

Your phrasing makes it seem like you're more concerned with something being called racist, than you are addressing historical acts of racism. And that is pretty odd to me.

[DonHopkins]

Pretty odd but unfortunately quite common. No wonder he wants to be anonymous.

[noarchy]

>Not saying that drug prohibition is good.

Maybe, but one could certainly infer it from all of your posts in this topic, including the effort you undertook in another post to defend the success of alcohol prohibition.

[DonHopkins]

You're putting much more time and energy into downplaying racism than listening to what other people are saying in response to your postings.

Why don't you use your normal account for that kind of argumentation?

[vonseel]

Why do you feel so compelled to attach a name to a voice? Just curious because you mentioned his anonymity twice, now.