Cops and Harm Reduction Hotties, Oh My!

In These Times ^ | November 14, 2005 | Silja J.A. Talvi

[wideawake]

The only righteous flock here are the truebelievers who think that calling something or someone racist is a religious guarantee of rhetorical superiority.

I may not be from MO, but you'll still have to show me.

[headsonpikes]

Anslinger may have poached the notion from Canada, which passed anti-pot laws to deport black jazz musicians and their low-life associates.

Seriously!

The Opium Laws in Canada were explicitly anti-Chinese from the get-go. There is no debate about this fact, and it is my understanding that similar anti-Chinese sentiments were the driving force behind these laws in the U.S.

[68 grunt]

You've been shown. You persist in phony righteous fervor. In your previous post to me you acknowledge the racist tactic of Anslinger, then you reject its continuation. Phony righteousness; it appears that is the only type of righteouness found anymore, phony.

[Moonman62]

Nope, it doesn't. Weed is consumed in it's natural form.

Which is irrelevant. What's relevant is the chemical in the plant and its abuse.

[wideawake]

Well, you say that Anslinger was inspired by legislation in the American Southwest and headsonpikes suggests he was influenced by legislation in Canada.

To me that seems anecdotal and inconclusive. Using Occam's razor, it seems to me that the most cynical conclusion one can come up with is that Anslinger was motivated by the American federal prohibition of alcohol to advocate for the prohibition of other substances.

As far as the slang term "the Man" is concerned, it seems to apply to any white authority figure from President to policeman to shift supervisor. I'm not sure what would make it narcotics-specific.

[68 grunt]

Both the Canada and the S/W anecdotes are true. Too complicated for you?

'The man' is the white authority figure, and its the easy prosecution of 'the herb' that enables the racist persectuion of blacks. Let 'em smoke their pot, let 'em make their own excuses for their failures.

Some of you righteous types don't want to acknowledge that there is a culture difference and many in their (black) culture prefer cannabis. This is also true of other cultures, and thats what makes prosecution racist.

[wideawake]

You've been shown.

No, I've been told.

No one has cited a quote, a fact, a date, a figure, let alone the actual words of a statute. I note that I am the first person on this thread to even cite concrete historical facts - namely the central role that Harry Anslinger played in the history of American drug enforcement.

In your previous post to me you acknowledge the racist tactic of Anslinger

What "racist tactic"? I said that it would not surprise me that a man born in rural PA in the 1890s may have been a racist, but that nothing about his career suggests that his campaign was motivated more by race than by a bureaucrat's instinct for job security.

Phony righteousness; it appears that is the only type of righteouness found anymore, phony.

I'm not sure what supposed righteousness you're talking about. You and your pals are the ones who feel they are righteous enough to stand in judgment over all of American drug enforcement and convict it as just a racist cabal - despite the fact that many of the men who fight and die in the war against the distribution of narcotics are intelligent principled black men who consider themselves to be fighting on behalf of their community as well as mine.

Some actual hard facts that can be quantified and referenced would be nice.

[L98Fiero]

"Which is irrelevant."

No, it isn't. It is the whole point.

Seriously, what were you thinking when you posted that? The government should have no power to say what naturally occuring plant can be grown. The government does not trump God.

[68 grunt]

Google it yourself, lazybones. I'm not doing a lick of research so some righteous bozo can reject it.

(Does reading it yourself count as being shown or told?)

[Moonman62]

Do you think it should be legal for parents to feed their children a diet of feces? It's natural.

[wideawake]

Both the Canada and the S/W anecdotes are true.

If they were, then you could cite evidence that Anslinger used them specifically while helping draft US drug legislation between 1928-1936.

You'd also have to show evidence that these laws were deliberately racist in intent - the original 1919 Texas statute seems to have been intended to prevent the importation of cannabis over the border in contravention of US Customs laws.

Perhaps you will now argue that the US Department of Customs was originally set up solely for racist purposes.

Some of you righteous types don't want to acknowledge that there is a culture difference and many in their (black) culture prefer cannabis.

Your colleague PaxMacian says that there is absolutely no racial difference in the prevalence of the use of cannabis. I'll let you sort it out, but your assertion sounds vaguely racist to me.

[68 grunt]

You really don't care how deceitful you are when you quote people, do you? Pax said something like there is equal disbursement of drug usage, he didn't say squat about cultural acceptance. Continue with your blind rejection, continue with your fear, continue with your deceit, but don't expect any respect from me. The opposite, actually. deceit begets ridicule.

[wolfcreek]

China executed addicts. Thats about the only way we can win this "war" against drugs

Well Hell, Throw in all the people who are addicted to drugs they get LEGALLY from their doctors and we can solve the population problem too.

[wideawake]

You really don't care how deceitful you are when you quote people, do you?

I do care - which is why I was careful to be accurate.

Pax said something like there is equal disbursement of drug usage

Thank you for admitting that my citation was indeed perfectly accurate.

he didn't say squat about cultural acceptance

A distinction without a difference. Widespread usage implies acceptance. If it wasn't accepted, people wouldn't do it.

Continue with your blind rejection,

My rejection of the unsupported assertion that drug enforcement is inherently racist is hardly "blind" - I know black LEOs personally who put their lives on the line to fight the drugs that are killing kids in their communities. That does fit your little theory too well, does it?

continue with your fear,

I'm not afraid of discussing hard facts. You are. You and your buddies are long on rhetorical flash and very short on names, dates, facts and figures.

continue with your deceit,

You're the guy making sweeping claims he can't back up. Not I.

but don't expect any respect from me.

Why would I expect any?

The opposite, actually. deceit begets ridicule.

Just because you find it easier to spout meaningless ridicule than to do your homework doesn't make ridicule an inevitability. It's your weakmindedness, not my problem.

[wideawake]

Google it yourself, lazybones.

Typical answer of someone too lazy to back up their own unsupportable assertions.

I'll be clear: things aren't true because you say they're true. Your uninformed opinions are not automatically fact.

If you want to be taken seriously when you make a sweeping generalization, you'll have to do better than : "It's true because I say so."

[L98Fiero]

"Do you think it should be legal for parents to feed their children a diet of feces? It's natural."

Oh, jeez. Get real. If someone wants to eat his or her on feces, that's their business and it's not illegal. Nobody said anything about forcing anything on children. What a complete disconnect.

[TKDietz]

"In most cases there are more serious crimes that are plea-bargained in order to gain evidence against suppliers, or reduce the court load.

For example, a person may commit a domestic assault while high on drugs but the victim refuses to press charges. The city attorney agrees to a plea bargain on the drug charges to avoid a court battle which may go either way due to the lack of a key witness. It saves the state/city money and gives the person the opportunity to get clean."

I'm a public defender who handles literally hundreds of felony and misdemeanor cases every year. Maybe things are just different where I live, but it is not true here that in most drug cases there are more serious charges that are plea bargained away. In fact, that rarely happens here. Often, if we try to talk the prosecutor into getting rid of a charge it will be the drug charge because those come with a drivers license suspension that would be a real hardship on some people. We'll try to get that one dropped or amended to something like "possession of an instrument of crime" to avoid the drivers license suspension. Usually though, charges are never dropped. Almost all cases end up being resolved by plea bargain, but that certainly doesn't mean charges will be dropped. That just means the defendant will be convicted without going to trial. We try to get him a better deal, but that generally just means less punishment than a judge or jury might give him. We're trying to get a "plea discount," working out something that will entail less punishment than the defendant would likely get if he loses at trial. He still might very well be getting prison or jail time, but if we have done our job right he'll get less time than he would have had we have gone to trial.

Most all drug charges where I live are felony offenses. The only ones that are misdemeanors are first offense marijuana possession and first offense possession of certain prescription drugs that are less controlled than the harder pharmaceutical drugs like oxycodone, hydrocodone, and the like. Misdemeanor possession is in the highest possible classification of misdemeanor crimes. There is no more serious misdemeanor. Simple possession of a drug like meth, cocaine, or even hydrocodone is in the middle range of felony classifications. A felony in a higher classification would be a very serious crime. Only capital murder is in a higher classification than delivery or possession with intent to deliver these types of drugs in my state. Selling or possessing with intent to sell even a tiny amount of these drugs could get someone a life without the possibility of parole sentence. Kidnapping, burglary, robbery, sexual abuse of a child, and so on are all lesser offenses. People in trouble for that are in almost every case going to prison and prosecutors rarely drop any other charges because they want them on the person's record in case he gets in trouble again. Then he'd be a habitual offender subject to much higher penalties and it would be much easier to get him to just shut up and plead the next time he gets arrested for something.

As for the domestic assault/drug possession scenario you talked about, things would go differently where I live. Quite likely the misdemeanor domestic assault would be a lesser crime than the misdemeanor drug possession charge. There are different degrees of that crime with the highest being in the same classification as misdemeanor drug possession. The city attorney would not drop the assault charge even if a key witness didn't show. Instead, she'd ask for a continuance and the judge would probably grant it. Before asking for the continuance, she'd tell the defendant's attorney what she was going to do and that she was going to make sure the witness showed next time even if she had to send the cops there to pick her up. She'd make an offer that might include jail time, but would definitely include a six month anger management class. She might agree to do something about the drug charge, either drop it or, more likely, work it out such that it stays off the person's record, but she'd be much more concerned with making sure the defendant did the anger management class than the "drug treatment." The drug class he'd have to go to if convicted would be some short worthless thing where he'd spend a Saturday afternoon listening to an incompetent government drug counselor talk and watch a bunch of scary videos. It's a waste of time and even the prosecutors know this.

Every once in a while I can get a case dropped because a witness doesn't show, but if I am certain I can get the thing dropped or beat it at trial, what the heck would I want to plea bargain it for and why would I let a case the prosecutor and I both know she can't make have much of an effect on plea negotiations on the remaining charge? Sometimes these cases do get dropped if a key witness (almost always the victim) doesn't show, but not very often. Prosecutors and judges hate dismissing these cases because they worry that the victim is not showing because she is being threatened by the defendant or others tied to him. The judge will always continue the case at least once and the detectives will do their best to track the person down and scare them into coming to court threatening them with contempt charges and filing false police report charges. Generally the person will plead anyway if he or she is guilty even if the victim doesn't show because normally we can get a pretty decent deal when the victim isn't there, whereas if we wait till next time when they've dragged the victim in he might get the book thrown at him. The decent deal we might get is much more likely to be one that keeps the drug conviction from showing up and his license from being suspended rather than one that drops the violent offense. We might be able to get him a deal that will allow him to get the violent offense off his record eventually if he pays his fines and complies with the terms and conditions of his suspended sentence, but it's rare that we'll actually be able to get it dropped.

[JTN]

I wouldn't say that the war on drugs today is necessarily a racist conspiracy, but it certainly has racist origins and is fought in ways that target minorities. Here are some actual quotes that show the motivation of the prohibitionists in the 1930s:

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.

Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men.

All from Harry Anslinger.

Many newspapers also editorialized in favor of marijuana prohibition on racist grounds.

You might also be interested in reading Eric Schlosser's book Reefer Madness, which explains how some of the suspicion of cannabis was due to its use by Mexican immigrants.

As for current policy, it clearly is more harmful to minorities:

A Northeastern University study of drug busts in the Dorchester section of Boston found that black and other minority suspects faced far stiffer charges and longer prison terms than whites, the Boston Globe reported on July 19th. The findings held true even when suspects had similar records or similar roles in the crimes.

...

The study of some 200 cases in one of Boston's seven court districts found that among defendants described as drug "sellers" in initial police reports, blacks were nearly twice as likely as whites to be charged with drug sales instead of the less serious drug possession.

Racial minorities were also found to be more likely to be charged with distribution or intent to distribute cocaine than whites. Cocaine distribution, intent to distribute, or distribution within a school zone requires a mandatory minimum two-year sentence.

When researchers factored in criminal records, the disparities remained. Comparing blacks and whites with no prior drug arrests, researchers found that more than half the blacks got distribution charges, while only 15% of whites did.

Controlling for the amount of drugs seized, researchers found that, among those arrested with at least 1.5 grams of cocaine, 94% of minorities were charged with drug dealing, while only 26% of whites were.

Interestingly, John Walters has talked about how the war on drugs has targeted minorities for their own good. See here and here.

[68 grunt]

Like I figured, you won't even read it yourself. That is pure ignorance.

[Katya]

It's the by products of the war on drugs that are ruining societies. The government has in essence created a marketplace for the drug cartels, however the government refuses to direct the commerce with regulations....so we are left with the criminals policing this marketplace. Crime, mayhem and murder are ten times the problem the addict is.