Is Bill O'Reilly correct about the African-American culture and race?

[LuisDantas]

it is not just that there are a large number of black people put in jail for drug crimes, but that both the formulation (at times) and the implementation of these laws are racially differentiated resulting in black people being disproportionately more likely to be arrested and prosecuted

Oh, no argument from me. I just don't see an easy solution. Drug enforcement is certainly biased by racism. But lessening the enforcement would solve little and harm much.

Also, I think it is fair to note that economic privilege alone does agravate the consequences of enforcement. Perhaps drug enforcement laws should take into consideration the extent of choice and privilege of the offender?

Somehow I just don't see popular support for (say) locking white hollywood stars real good instead of putting them into rehab reality shows, though.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Legalization of drugs would solve more problems than it creates. When Prohibition (on alcohol in the US) ended, there wasn't a whole new wave of people who drink, spawning a generation of alcoholics. Everyone that drank was already drinking during the Prohibition. It's the same thing with drugs. People that want them are already getting them whenever they want. Legalizing drugs won't cause some new junkie generation to spring up out of nowhere, but there will be a significant reduction in unnecessary arrests, racial profiling, and drug-related violence. Not to mention a huge boost in tax revenue and massive job creation in a booming industry from the opening of dispensaries.

 

[esmith]

". . .you can't design effective public policy that solves present problems by dwelling on the sins of the past" --O'Reilly

um, these aren't the "sins of the past", the racial profiling that Obama's talking about in the video are still going on right now.

No, I think he was referring to the time period during slavery and the segregation era.
Profiling is an effective yet frowned upon, by certain members of our society, method of policing and it is not necessarily race based. A experienced law enforcement official can observe certain characteristics and behavior that leads them to suspect a person and it is not always based on the color of ones skin. Now I am not saying that wrongful suspicion of person's based on their skin color alone does not take place, it does. But it is interesting that racism has increased over the years and not declined as one would expect. This attitude is not limited to one political group, but it is more pronounced by Republican (64%) over Democrats(55%). These figures are from the following link and additional information can be found there: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2012/10/2012102813952902929.html
another link is http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...mericans-Obama-took-office-finds-AP-poll.html
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2012/10/2012102813952902929.html

 

[LuisDantas]

Legalization of drugs would solve more problems than it creates.

Many people seem to believe in that. I most definitely do not.

When Prohibition (on alcohol in the US) ended, there wasn't a whole new wave of people who drink, spawning a generation of alcoholics.

It is premature to directly compare the two situations, however.

Alcohol had been socially accepted for millenia before the prohibition, and it was not fairly enforced in any case. Its main effect was to accentuate the social class differences and to send a message of discrimination.

Marijuana and other currently illegal drugs come from a very different place (although I will grant that Marijuana far less so than I would like).

Everyone that drank was already drinking during the Prohibition. It's the same thing with drugs. People that want them are already getting them whenever they want.

How can you be so sure that they are well aware of the true risks, though? Or that legalization won't embolden many who would otherwise abstain? For that matter, that the campaign for legalization does not?

Legalizing drugs won't cause some new junkie generation to spring up out of nowhere,

Not out of nowhere, true. It has been a very gradual and disastrous process, involving legal drugs and prescription medicine as well.

but there will be a significant reduction in unnecessary arrests, racial profiling, and drug-related violence.

I will grant you racial profiling. If you ask me, we do not have nearly enough drug-related arrests yet. And drug-related violence will only keep rising with the ever-increasing social acceptance of recreational drugs. Even continued legal restrictions can't do more than slow the rise a bit.

Not to mention a huge boost in tax revenue and massive job creation in a booming industry from the opening of dispensaries.

At a far greater price. It does not make even economic sense that I can see.

 

[Magic Man]

Fair point. But still, TEN times more likely to be imprisoned? That's an off-the-charts ratio. The judicial system might be biased against blacks, but they cannot be so biased as to produce a ridiculous ratio like that.

Do you have any support for this claim? As far as I can tell it's entirely possible for the system to be so biased as to produce a ridiculous ratio like that.

That's an unforgivable number of young black guys being locked up, they need to take a long hard look what the hell they're doing.

I agree. (And by "they", you do mean the legal system, right?)

 

[Magic Man]

C'mon... if you know that one particular group, say Latvian Lesbian Midgets was prone to a particular activity, if you encountered such people would you not stop them to check what they were doing? Is that unreasonable? Is it unfair to go with what the stats already indicate is a problem area? Is it unethical to target that area? :sorry1:

Let's see: No, I wouldn't; Yes, it is; Yes, if that means unreasonably stopping people; Yes.

First you'd have to prove one particular group is much more likely than all other groups to be involved in that particular activity. Then you'd have to prove that an insanely high percentage of people of that particular group are involved in that activity, like 99%. Otherwise, you're stopping someone/invading their privacy or suspecting them based on nothing other than "Well, some of the people who look like you do this thing, so it's safe to assume you do it too".

 

[Magic Man]

Oh, no argument from me. I just don't see an easy solution. Drug enforcement is certainly biased by racism. But lessening the enforcement would solve little and harm much.

I know your feelings on legalization of drugs, but your claim that lessening of enforcement of drug laws would solve little and harm much just doesn't have factual support. Every indication is that legalizing at least marijuana would have a huge positive effect on exactly the topics we're discussing here - poor families and minority families specifically. There is no indication that legalization of marijuana would lead to significantly more harm. Even if it led to more people smoking weed, that's not necessarily more harm, since weed is no worse than alcohol.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Many people seem to believe in that. I most definitely do not.

I must respectfully disagree.

It is premature to directly compare the two situations, however.

Alcohol had been socially accepted for millenia before the prohibition, and it was not fairly enforced in any case. Its main effect was to accentuate the social class differences and to send a message of discrimination.

Marijuana and other currently illegal drugs come from a very different place (although I will grant that Marijuana far less so than I would like).

Marijuana and opium have been widely used around the world for just as long as alcohol has. Opium was the party drug of choice in ancient Rome (they would put it in wine and drink it), and it was never frowned upon to do so. Roman soldiers were known to fill tents with marijuana smoke and stand in them for a while before marching out. The Boston Museum of Fine Arts has a collection of 2500+ year old Persian water pipes (aka bongs). Ancient priests were known to use hallucinogens in order to get in touch with their respective gods. Drug use has long been socially acceptable; we've actually only just recently started condemning it.

How can you be so sure that they are well aware of the true risks, though? Or that legalization won't embolden many who would otherwise abstain? For that matter, that the campaign for legalization does not?

I can't be 100% sure that people are fully aware of the risks, but with legalization would come education and regulation. People would know exactly what they're using, what it does, and have the security of knowing there's nothing else in it. As far as the other two questions, I can only offer up anecdotal evidence. The vast majority of people I know that use drugs don't do so to fit in or be a rebel, but rather just because they enjoy using them. And literally everyone I know that is against drugs isn't against them because they're illegal, but because of the negative physical/mental effects associated with drugs. I've never once heard someone say they would use drugs, but don't because it's illegal.

Not out of nowhere, true. It has been a very gradual and disastrous process, involving legal drugs and prescription medicine as well.

Again, I believe (with good reason) that drugs are already easy enough to obtain that anyone who wants to use them already does. Illegal drugs are not exactly hard to come by. Just go to any area anywhere with any amount of people in it.

I will grant you racial profiling. If you ask me, we do not have nearly enough drug-related arrests yet.

More than half of the prisoners currently incarcerated in the US (the country with the world's largest prison population) are serving time for drug crimes. I think there have been more than enough arrests. It's just becoming increasingly obvious that making arrests doesn't solve any problems.

And drug-related violence will only keep rising with the ever-increasing social acceptance of recreational drugs. Even continued legal restrictions can't do more than slow the rise a bit.

The overwhelming majority of drug-related violence isn't committed by people high on drugs, but rather by people selling them illegally. The majority of murders in the US are drug trade related, and Border patrol is literally at war with Mexican drug cartels.

At a far greater price. It does not make even economic sense that I can see.

Taking everything I just said into account, what exactly is the greater price? It can't be the widespread circulation of drugs; we already have that and a ton of violent crime to go with it.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I know your feelings on legalization of drugs, but your claim that lessening of enforcement of drug laws would solve little and harm much just doesn't have factual support. Every indication is that legalizing at least marijuana would have a huge positive effect on exactly the topics we're discussing here - poor families and minority families specifically. There is no indication that legalization of marijuana would lead to significantly more harm. Even if it led to more people smoking weed, that's not necessarily more harm, since weed is no worse than alcohol.

That, plus if everyone smoked weed we'd all be too lazy to fight each other:yes:

 

[Magic Man]

It is premature to directly compare the two situations, however.

Alcohol had been socially accepted for millenia before the prohibition, and it was not fairly enforced in any case. Its main effect was to accentuate the social class differences and to send a message of discrimination.

Marijuana and other currently illegal drugs come from a very different place (although I will grant that Marijuana far less so than I would like).

The only difference you cite that is legitimate is that alcohol was socially acceptable for a longer period of time. I'm not really sure how that makes a big difference, though. You say prohibition's main effect was to accentuate the social class differences and to send a message of discrimination. That exact phrasing could just as easily be applied to pot.

Or that legalization won't embolden many who would otherwise abstain? For that matter, that the campaign for legalization does not?

It's not really a concern if more people are emboldened to try weed, just like it wouldn't be with alcohol. Weed is not harmful like other harder drugs. Sure, it has some negative effects, just like alcohol, but none that mean more widespread use would have a significantly negative effect on society.

 

[Alceste]

Crime tends to be high within demographics that are disadvantaged by poverty and inadequate education. It's not because of race, but rather due to unfortunate cultural, sociological and economic circumstances.

Also, police disproportionately scrutinize and harass demographics that are in poverty. You don't see them doing sweeps or stop and search of college campuses trying to catch people with a bit of pot on them, and if they did, the courts aren't going to send a white college kid to jail for smoking pot. Heck they had a white president who was a former coke addict and everybody was totally fine with it.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Also, police disproportionately scrutinize and harass demographics that are in poverty. You don't see them doing sweeps or stop and search of college campuses trying to catch people with a bit of pot on them, and if they did, the courts aren't going to send a white college kid to jail for smoking pot. Heck they had a white president who was a former coke addict and everybody was totally fine with it.

I 100% agree. It's not exactly that more crime is being committed in low-income areas, but rather that police are more likely to target these areas. This is especially true regarding drug crimes.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

The only difference you cite that is legitimate is that alcohol was socially acceptable for a longer period of time.

That's actually not true at all. History is chock full of drug use.

 

[Magic Man]

That's actually not true at all. History is chock full of drug use.

Sure, but I don't know of it being chock full of marijuana use.

 

[LuisDantas]

The only difference you cite that is legitimate is that alcohol was socially acceptable for a longer period of time. I'm not really sure how that makes a big difference, though. You say prohibition's main effect was to accentuate the social class differences and to send a message of discrimination. That exact phrasing could just as easily be applied to pot.



It's not really a concern if more people are emboldened to try weed, just like it wouldn't be with alcohol. Weed is not harmful like other harder drugs. Sure, it has some negative effects, just like alcohol, but none that mean more widespread use would have a significantly negative effect on society.

I just don't see how I could possibly agree with what you say here. Sorry.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Sure, but I don't know of it being chock full of marijuana use.

Ancient Rome, the Persian Empire, the tribes of Afghanistan (where do you think the Kush strand comes from?), the Mayans, Aztecs , Olmec, various Native American tribes, early Northern Africans... All of these people were avid pot smokers.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I just don't see how I could possibly agree with what you say here. Sorry.

The majority of research done on the matter agrees with that very opinion. The only reason you really could have is pure defiance.

 

[LuisDantas]

The majority of research done on the matter agrees with that very opinion. The only reason you really could have is pure defiance.

You know a lot of my reasons, but then again I suppose it depends on how you define "defiance". There are certainly a lot of things that I think must be challenged, from iliteracy to drug use.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

You know a lot of my reasons, but then again I suppose it depends on how you define "defiance". There are certainly a lot of things that I think must be challenged, from iliteracy to drug use.

I know your reasons and respect you for standing by them, but on the subject of drugs, nearly all the research done and the majority public opinion would both disagree with your reasoning.

 

[Magic Man]

I just don't see how I could possibly agree with what you say here. Sorry.

I do. You could look at the facts of the case. Sorry, I don't mean to be flippant, but seriously, I don't see how you could possibly look at the facts and disagree with what I said.