The lawmakers and the policemen are racist.
They just do a damn good job (usually) at hiding it.


*EDIT*
See: semi-recent Arizona immigration law.

I think you put the emphasis on the wrong syllable.

Not that I'm disagreeing. The US government is mostly composed of rich, white, men.

That is beyond the point.

From what Ophanim said, I can gather that the law is about groups of more than one person posessing/using/interacting with drugs.
He said that was racist, because it might affect some races more than others.
I was merely pointing out that that was an incorrect statement, since things are usually only racist when there's a double standard.


There is no double standard in the law from what I know, so for it to be racist it would have to be because of the partiality of a judge, policeman, or some other law official.
However, any law can become racist in that manner.

No the point is they made the law because more black people smoke crack you dummy. The minimum sentencing is ridiculous and is blatantly racist. Cocaine is a rich white people drug, crack cocaine is a poor black people drug, and guess which one is worse.

Why is the minimum sentencing racist? Anyone of any race could receive the minimum penalty. Same thing goes for the maximum. (That IS assuming we have 100% impartial judges, but still.)
To be honest, I think your reasoning is more racist than the law.

I am assuming that the word crack belongs before one of those mentions of cocaine.

http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/int ... ing-policy

Not a disparity at all.

Tell me how this doesn't seem racist to you?

Whoops.

So, wait, there's a difference between crack and plain old cocaine? (I'm not really into drugs, so I haven't cared to learn much about them.)

If so, the information you've posted seems to be about crack, but not about cocaine... wouldn't bringing cocaine into the picture make this a bit clearer?
What's the difference between crack and cocaine as far as sentencing, common users, etc?


As far as what you posted, the time served does seem a bit harsh. Is it not justifiable? If cocaine more harmful/detrimental, etc than other drugs that perhaps have one year jail time?
If not, then I can see how it would seem racist... but perhaps it's just the bias of police officers, etc.?

I posted this before, crack and cocaine are basically the same drug, just different routes of administration. "Powder" and "crack" are adjectives, if that makes it clearer. Trafficking 500g of powder cocaine = minimum 5 year sentence.
Possession 5g of crack cocaine = ^
These actions are in no way equal nor do they deserve equal punishment. It's blatant, obvious racism and it doesn't need to be made worse.
AND POSSESSION != SELLING JFYI EVERY OTHER DRUG HAS A MAXIMUM 1 YEAR SENTENCE FOR POSSESSION OF SMALL AMOUNTS.

Ophanim, I'm only 14, but I really want to try acid out.
What do you recommend?

Waiting. Your body is going through a lot of changes at the moment, and throwing drugs into the mix won't help. This is a largely untested and unknown area of illicit drug use, and it's just not worth the risk.

Aight.
When is safe to do acid? (If it's safe at all.)

It's perfectly safe, but wait until you're older. This isn't established science, I just wouldn't trust it. Wait until like 18ish is what I say.

People used to think tobacco was safe. *grumblegrumble*

I mean seriously, do we really know? >_>

MLC now you're using creationist 'logic' to justify an opinion
absence of evidence, evidence of absence, etc

we actually do know, about as well as can be feasibly ascertained, thanks to extensive clinical research. especially in the case of LSD, much of that research was conducted by the federal government, mostly through the US military and CIA