4 ms·
It wasn't a "markets thing". Crack hit black communities. Then, black leaders within those communities responded by passing tough laws.
by dogruck 9y ago
It wasn't a "markets thing". Crack hit black communities. Then, black leaders within those communities responded by passing tough laws.
- kchoudhu 9y agoAnd the majority could just as easily have done the right thing and refused to pass the laws, while lending a helping hand and attempting to preserve these communities. You're going through this thread and blaming victims for their misfortune. It is, to say the least, unedifying.
- dogruck 9y agoAh, "blaming victims for their misfortune." You seem cool.
- tptacek 9y agoNo, that's not at all true. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 was passed by an overwhelmingly white Congress and an overwhelmingly white Senate, and signed by overwhelmingly white Ronald Reagan.
- refurb 9y agoThis is the whole "dammed if you do, dammed if you don't". Situation: Crack use climbs in black communities leading to major social problems. Option A: Create tough laws to stop crack use. WRONG, YOU ARE RACIST (for singling out the black community). Option B: Don't create tough laws. WRONG, YOU ARE RACIST (for not caring about the black community).
- swift 9y agoThere are options other than "tough laws" for helping communities struggling with high rates of addiction. Your breakdown of this situation makes it sound like you think it doesn't matter what you do, because someone will call you a racist no matter what. In other words, that accusations of racism are totally arbitrary. That's not true.