4 ms·

It's pretty clear what certain people wanted in response to the 70s stemming from the rise of minority groups like the Black Panthers or the American Indian Mov

It's pretty clear what certain people wanted in response to the 70s stemming from the rise of minority groups like the Black Panthers or the American Indian Movement trying to use their newly-enacted rights to fight oppression. Even the NRA was pro gun control when the Black Panthers were using the 2A for open-carrying to protect black Americans. If it was truly about marijuana use, then when usage rates for white and black Americans are effectively the same, black people would not be 3.5 times more likely to be arrested for possession than white people.

dheuoddjo 3y ago
> black people would not be 3.5 times more likely to be arrested for possession than white people While on its face true, this isn’t taking into account things like recidivism or multiple charges. That’s to say the average black person has more priors and is more likely to have multiple charges when charged compared to the average white.
- iudqnolq 3y ago
  I think the thing you said about priors is repeating a talking point about prosecution or sentencing disparities that isn't particularly relevant in the context of an arrest. I have no idea what you mean about multiple charges.
  - dheuoddjo 3y ago
    > I think the thing you said about priors is repeating a talking point about prosecution or sentencing disparities that isn't particularly relevant in the context of an arrest. Arrests don’t occur in a vacuum. The prior convictions are known and are a factor. > I have no idea what you mean about multiple charges. Person A is smoking pot and is arrested. Person B is smoking pot wearing a bloody t shirt with a knife in his hand. If you’re more likely to engage in criminal activity, you’re more likely to be smoking pot while engaging in criminal activity (again, on average).
    - iudqnolq 3y ago
      > If you’re more likely to engage in criminal activity, you’re more likely to be smoking pot while engaging in criminal activity (again, on average). I think a slightly simpler way of putting your point is that Black people are more likely to be serious criminals than white people. Am I missing some nuance?
    - 0ct4via 3y ago
      Yes, and if person A and B are white American and African American, the AA smoker is much more likely to be actually arrested, rather than given a warning, etc. at the officer's discretion. Dog whistles about unknowns like previous convictions or criminal history, and fictitious scenarios attempting to justify your point, don't actually help you the way you think they do. If you're ignorant enough to think there isn't a disproportionately racist response in the WoD and the application of anti-cannabis laws on the citizenry, you need to open your eyes. Attempting to claim "the prior convictions are known and are a factor" without admitting the disproportionate affect race has on such convictions being sought in the first place, is ignorant. "Arrests don't occur in a vacuum." - If you deliberately and willfully ignore the existence of racism in the policing and justice systems, then you're not considering all the factors - and are being misinformed at best, and deliberately disingenuous at worst. For example, see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67214409 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67214409 - a world championship medallist and Olympian sprinter were arrested on entirely fictitious charges of having suspected drugs and weapons - with no basis, and with no evidence of such items being found. If you can't see how the factor of race fits into the application of these laws against certain citizens more, that's your failure - it's nothing new.
      - Levitz 3y ago
        None of what you say counters their point. At the end of the day African Americans commit a disproportionate amount of crime, it would be a miracle if they didn't have more prior convictions on average.
        0ct4via 3y ago
- secretsatan 3y ago
  But if say, one group was more targeted they would have more priors and more multiple charges, isn’t it just a feedback loop?
  - parineum 3y ago
    Or say, one group has historical disadvantage which causes them to be disproportionately poor which causes them to be more likely themselves to commit crime and/or live in high crime areas. Which then leads to an increased police presence and, therefore, an increased chance of police interaction. There's no need to add in the practically unprovable presence of deliberate targeting when other explanations sufficiently account for disparities.

dheuoddjo 3y ago

> black people would not be 3.5 times more likely to be arrested for possession than white people While on its face true, this isn’t taking into account things like recidivism or multiple charges. That’s to say the average black person has more priors and is more likely to have multiple charges when charged compared to the average white.

iudqnolq 3y ago
I think the thing you said about priors is repeating a talking point about prosecution or sentencing disparities that isn't particularly relevant in the context of an arrest. I have no idea what you mean about multiple charges.
- dheuoddjo 3y ago
  > I think the thing you said about priors is repeating a talking point about prosecution or sentencing disparities that isn't particularly relevant in the context of an arrest. Arrests don’t occur in a vacuum. The prior convictions are known and are a factor. > I have no idea what you mean about multiple charges. Person A is smoking pot and is arrested. Person B is smoking pot wearing a bloody t shirt with a knife in his hand. If you’re more likely to engage in criminal activity, you’re more likely to be smoking pot while engaging in criminal activity (again, on average).
  - iudqnolq 3y ago
    > If you’re more likely to engage in criminal activity, you’re more likely to be smoking pot while engaging in criminal activity (again, on average). I think a slightly simpler way of putting your point is that Black people are more likely to be serious criminals than white people. Am I missing some nuance?
  - 0ct4via 3y ago
    Yes, and if person A and B are white American and African American, the AA smoker is much more likely to be actually arrested, rather than given a warning, etc. at the officer's discretion. Dog whistles about unknowns like previous convictions or criminal history, and fictitious scenarios attempting to justify your point, don't actually help you the way you think they do. If you're ignorant enough to think there isn't a disproportionately racist response in the WoD and the application of anti-cannabis laws on the citizenry, you need to open your eyes. Attempting to claim "the prior convictions are known and are a factor" without admitting the disproportionate affect race has on such convictions being sought in the first place, is ignorant. "Arrests don't occur in a vacuum." - If you deliberately and willfully ignore the existence of racism in the policing and justice systems, then you're not considering all the factors - and are being misinformed at best, and deliberately disingenuous at worst. For example, see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67214409 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67214409 - a world championship medallist and Olympian sprinter were arrested on entirely fictitious charges of having suspected drugs and weapons - with no basis, and with no evidence of such items being found. If you can't see how the factor of race fits into the application of these laws against certain citizens more, that's your failure - it's nothing new.
    - Levitz 3y ago
      None of what you say counters their point. At the end of the day African Americans commit a disproportionate amount of crime, it would be a miracle if they didn't have more prior convictions on average.
      - 0ct4via 3y ago
secretsatan 3y ago
But if say, one group was more targeted they would have more priors and more multiple charges, isn’t it just a feedback loop?
- parineum 3y ago
  Or say, one group has historical disadvantage which causes them to be disproportionately poor which causes them to be more likely themselves to commit crime and/or live in high crime areas. Which then leads to an increased police presence and, therefore, an increased chance of police interaction. There's no need to add in the practically unprovable presence of deliberate targeting when other explanations sufficiently account for disparities.