> The fact that they will be given the most harsh punishment combined with the fact that marijuana is the drug of choice for the urban youth demographic is what

> The fact that they will be given the most harsh punishment combined with the fact that marijuana is the drug of choice for the urban youth demographic is what leads to the disparities we see when we view amalgamations of the data. Sadly, no - it will just change which drugs are used to vilify racial minorities and justify their incarceration. I wish that weren't the case, but I've seen this pattern play out far too many times over the last century to think that it won't happen again. FWIW: I used to work in drug policy reform, so while I won't pretend to know everything, I'm not just commenting as a casual observer, and I would love for history to prove me wrong this time. EDIT: Since people seem to disagree, let's look at the history that brought us the initial criminalization of marijuana in the first place (profit-driven motives, capitalizing on xenophobia of Mexican immigrants), the criminalization of the opium trade (ditto, but for Chinese immigrants[0]), the criminalization of crack cocaine over powder cocaine (race-driven hysteria over the form of the drug perceived to be more "black"[1]), and so on, and so forth. Or, if you want to extend this argument further, let's look at the pharmaceutical cycle. Not everyone knows this, but heroin was originally a trademark name for a drug. Furthermore, the reason that heroin was originally produced was in response to the use of morphine by (and I quote) "ruffians". Heroin was actually originally intended to be the less-addictive alternative. Take a look at who the so-called "ruffians" were, and you'll see this cycle continue all over again. [0] we're talking just about the US, but you can extend this to former colonies as well if you want [1] Look at the propaganda about crack that was coterminous with a peak in (powder) cocaine usage among the wealthy white demographics, and it becomes pretty clear.