4 ms·

I think it's generally because most Americans would be looking at ridiculously long prison sentences for common actions if they got caught (like possession) and

by munk-a 6y ago

I think it's generally because most Americans would be looking at ridiculously long prison sentences for common actions if they got caught (like possession) and because the US's general view is that there isn't anything in the world that can't be cured by throwing more prison time at it.

whimsicalism 6y ago
Really? Where in America are you looking at a "ridiculous" long prison sentence in 2020 for possession? The war on drugs sucked, but it was still mostly a war against dealers.
- lamontcg 6y ago
  Not if you were black and used crack. And pretty much any prison for posession and use is rediculous, if its a problem for the user it is a mental health issue and prison is the wrong treatment. And of course the limits on what determines if you're a dealer is set low enough, and carrier laws meant that many users were getting prosecuted like dealers. And what defines a "dealer" since someone doing a group buy for three friends is significantly less socially problematic than someone trafficking drugs across the border.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    I of course agree. It is ridiculous. I also grew up in one of the cities that was the center of the so-called "crime epidemic." We've definitely improved on sentencing since 30 years ago. I just don't think it is accurate to say that people are getting super long sentences for possession anymore and I don't think it is right to use that as justification for longer sentences for other people.
    - lamontcg 6y ago
      Well #1: yes the are. #2: drug addiction is a mental health problem (and not all drug use is addiction) and any sentence for possession is too much.
      - whimsicalism 6y ago
        yes the are what? #2: I completely agree.
        lamontcg 6y ago
        yes theY are [still getting super long sentences] three strikes laws still exist, it is still possible to push possession into felony territory. if there's a gun anywhere near the arrest you can probably tack on firearms charges, etc. if you're reasonably white and middle class those extras will be ignored for a lighter sentence. if you're black or for whatever other reason they just don't like you then they'll tack those extras on and three strikes you. there is a lot of "prosecutorial discretion" still, and if you dig into it hard enough that's a code word for racially biased prosecution. the fact that they we reasonable with you or your college buddies who got busted with some MDMA or something is not the same experience that lower income black people get.
  - asveikau 6y ago
    Afaik there is a recording of Nixon saying that they want to use drug penalties to go after black people and hippies. A lot of times those racially biased outcomes are the product of many unrelated parts of a big and complicated system, but in this case the top of executive government seemed pretty deliberate about this.
    - whimsicalism 6y ago
      There is no such recording. A reporter who interviewed an aide of Nixon for his autobiography claimed that that aide said that (but he only claimed so after the aide had died).
      - asveikau 6y ago
        I must have misremembered then. There are so many recordings of Nixon saying offensive things that I can't keep them all straight.
      - munk-a 6y ago
        There is indeed no such recording - but calling the official an "aide" is a bit inaccurate, the official in question was the domestic policy chief[1] - rather than a random secretary that claims to have overheard something. That all said, for all of the negative PR Nixon has received over the years he was a rather progressive and surprisingly egalitarian executive who has been praised by Indian Country Today[2] and appears to have stuck pretty close to his quaker upbringings. I think a lot of people conflate Nixon and Regan - which is pretty ridiculous when you look at the policies those two presidents actually pursued during their terms... And even more folks are getting second hand vibes from Nixon's infamous presidential debate[3] which pitted a rather uncharismatic man against JFK and led to a pretty obvious outcome. 1. https://www.vox.com/2016/3/22/11278760/war-on-drugs-racism-nixon https://www.vox.com/2016/3/22/11278760/war-on-drugs-racism-n... 2. https://indiancountrytoday.com/archive/barack-obama-and-richard-nixon-among-best-presidents-for-indian-country-bJnChvj2_EKI5u8jISt1Hw https://indiancountrytoday.com/archive/barack-obama-and-rich... 3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9cdRpE4KKc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9cdRpE4KKc Just FYI - if you've never seen this I'd suggest giving it a go sometime. Given recent politics it's almost fantastical to listen to two folks come into a debate focused on the issues and minimizing the ways they attacked each other.

by munk-a 6y ago

whimsicalism 6y ago

Really? Where in America are you looking at a "ridiculous" long prison sentence in 2020 for possession? The war on drugs sucked, but it was still mostly a war against dealers.

lamontcg 6y ago
Not if you were black and used crack. And pretty much any prison for posession and use is rediculous, if its a problem for the user it is a mental health issue and prison is the wrong treatment. And of course the limits on what determines if you're a dealer is set low enough, and carrier laws meant that many users were getting prosecuted like dealers. And what defines a "dealer" since someone doing a group buy for three friends is significantly less socially problematic than someone trafficking drugs across the border.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  I of course agree. It is ridiculous. I also grew up in one of the cities that was the center of the so-called "crime epidemic." We've definitely improved on sentencing since 30 years ago. I just don't think it is accurate to say that people are getting super long sentences for possession anymore and I don't think it is right to use that as justification for longer sentences for other people.
  - lamontcg 6y ago
    Well #1: yes the are. #2: drug addiction is a mental health problem (and not all drug use is addiction) and any sentence for possession is too much.
    - whimsicalism 6y ago
      yes the are what? #2: I completely agree.
      - lamontcg 6y ago
        yes theY are [still getting super long sentences] three strikes laws still exist, it is still possible to push possession into felony territory. if there's a gun anywhere near the arrest you can probably tack on firearms charges, etc. if you're reasonably white and middle class those extras will be ignored for a lighter sentence. if you're black or for whatever other reason they just don't like you then they'll tack those extras on and three strikes you. there is a lot of "prosecutorial discretion" still, and if you dig into it hard enough that's a code word for racially biased prosecution. the fact that they we reasonable with you or your college buddies who got busted with some MDMA or something is not the same experience that lower income black people get.
- asveikau 6y ago
  Afaik there is a recording of Nixon saying that they want to use drug penalties to go after black people and hippies. A lot of times those racially biased outcomes are the product of many unrelated parts of a big and complicated system, but in this case the top of executive government seemed pretty deliberate about this.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    There is no such recording. A reporter who interviewed an aide of Nixon for his autobiography claimed that that aide said that (but he only claimed so after the aide had died).
    - asveikau 6y ago
      I must have misremembered then. There are so many recordings of Nixon saying offensive things that I can't keep them all straight.
    - munk-a 6y ago
      There is indeed no such recording - but calling the official an "aide" is a bit inaccurate, the official in question was the domestic policy chief[1] - rather than a random secretary that claims to have overheard something. That all said, for all of the negative PR Nixon has received over the years he was a rather progressive and surprisingly egalitarian executive who has been praised by Indian Country Today[2] and appears to have stuck pretty close to his quaker upbringings. I think a lot of people conflate Nixon and Regan - which is pretty ridiculous when you look at the policies those two presidents actually pursued during their terms... And even more folks are getting second hand vibes from Nixon's infamous presidential debate[3] which pitted a rather uncharismatic man against JFK and led to a pretty obvious outcome. 1. https://www.vox.com/2016/3/22/11278760/war-on-drugs-racism-nixon https://www.vox.com/2016/3/22/11278760/war-on-drugs-racism-n... 2. https://indiancountrytoday.com/archive/barack-obama-and-richard-nixon-among-best-presidents-for-indian-country-bJnChvj2_EKI5u8jISt1Hw https://indiancountrytoday.com/archive/barack-obama-and-rich... 3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9cdRpE4KKc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9cdRpE4KKc Just FYI - if you've never seen this I'd suggest giving it a go sometime. Given recent politics it's almost fantastical to listen to two folks come into a debate focused on the issues and minimizing the ways they attacked each other.