[Schmedlap]

"There is a history of institutionalized racism and/or oppression in the War on (some) Drugs."

I think there is a history of oppression, in that the government defeats its purpose for existence, by trampling on rights, rather than safeguarding them. Racism? No.

"Chinese immigrants tended to use opium, so that was banned and those users jailed. Then blacks tended to use MJ, and the reefer madness scare was born and that was banned, and blacks were jailed.When counterculture hippies started using psychedelics in the 60's, those were banned and those people were jailed. Then crack became popular in the black community and sentences were made stricter for crack crimes than 'regular' cocaine crimes - and blacks again were targeted."

Each of these statement relies upon the same logical fallacy. Each is a non-sequitor, of the type known as "affirming the consequent". See this link: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/affirm.htm

If A occurs, then B occurs, that does not mean that B occurs as a result of A. Unless you can show a causal relationship, your argument is inadquate.

"The history of drug control is covered with instances where a particular group is officially oppressed for ostensibly good reasons."

Your case does not support this, but I look forward to you presenting a case that does.

[Trailerpark Badass]

Your case does not support this, but I look forward to you presenting a case that does.

There is a great deal of scholarship which asserts the points made by the other poster and provides compelling evidence. Surely you don't expect the poster to reproduce it all, here, now?

[coloradan]

If A occurs, then B occurs, that does not mean that B occurs as a result of A. Unless you can show a causal relationship, your argument is inadquate.

I am unable to find it right now, but I have read a statement from a government agency basically stating that drug control was an admitted policy to control certain groups of people.