[questiondev]

it happens all the time to people of color who get busted for weed in a non-legal state. it’s actually been this way for years in america, a lot of these overextending started from the red scare, terrorism but yeah a large part was based on the war on drugs which largely has been an expensive failure

[ta_17354_tx]

Why specify PoC? I have several non-PoC friends busted for minor possession (weed) while in grad school and found themselves unhireable upon graduation with masters of engineering degrees.

[gumby]

A simple glance at the statistics would show you why.

The drug laws have race at their roots. If you don’t have time to look up the history I’ll give you an example: during the “crack cocaine epidemic” in the 80s and 90s the focus was on a version of cocaine mostly used by the poor and not on the use of the powdered stuff by the middle and upper classes — in fact that usage was celebrated.

Oh but wait: I didn’t use the word “race” in that example. Just look at the wealth and access to the middle classes for Black people in the US and decide.

Note: I haven’t looked at this for meth and fentanyl. Pot and cocaine in the beginning of the 20th century (the origin of the US recreational drug laws) were chosen because they were common the Black community at the time. I don’t doubt your experience (that of your friends I mean) but the burden is not spread uniformly.

[choko]

I bet that is little consolation for non-PoC victims of bad drug policy.

Your statements come across as suggesting that the non-PoC experience doesn't matter, since a random PoC has it worse. I hope that it wasn't intentional.

[gumby]

That’s your read, not mine. I was simply responding to the question.

[choko]

It is incumbent on the communicator to word their point in such a way as to clearly relay their intent. It was my "read" because that's how you worded it.

[Zababa]

> The drug laws have race at their roots. If you don’t have time to look up the history I’ll give you an example: during the “crack cocaine epidemic” in the 80s and 90s the focus was on a version of cocaine mostly used by the poor and not on the use of the powdered stuff by the middle and upper classes — in fact that usage was celebrated.

I won't deny that there are racist reasons for that, but another part of the explanation might be that the poor classes commit more violent crimes, and thus focusing on crack cocaine helps fight violent crime more. Which then would invite the subject "Is focusing on violent crime (vs "white collar crime") better for society or another form of racism?". I don't have an answer to that one.

[gumby]

Prosecuting low level drug offenses is usually an alternative to going after violent crimes which can be dangerous.

[auxfil]

Because its the world they live in, and its real to them. Why the fuck would they go out of their way to avoid what is probably a mundane fact for them. Why did "you" have to specify that your "non-PoC" friend got busted. Just because someone calls out a specific attribute of a story doesn't automatically make it an agenda.

[Cederfjard]

How does this work in practice? Do “all” companies do background checks that include criminal records?

[dehugger]

Every job I've gotten outside retail/customer service has done background checks. Criminal record is basically top of the list for what those checks are looking to uncover.