A "protester" shot another "protester"... can we please stop calling them "Protesters"?
Comments
-
Crack is much, much cheaper than cocaine and worked its way into the poorer areas of our society. Cocaine is, and always has been, primarily a wealthy white man's drug.mace1229 said:
Would have been my reply if I read it sooner. No one will deny for a very long time blacks were treated very unfairly in this country, and that's putting it politely. I haven't looked it up but I'm guessing drug laws on crack were made much more recently than that.mcgruff10 said:
Jim crow was beat more than 40 years ago. are we still thinking jim crow has a direct impact on people's lives today?rgambs said:
Hahaha apparently you have a very weak imagination.mace1229 said:Maybe its time to switch to powder then?
I have a hard time believing some white people sat around thinking "how can we keep the blacks down some more? I got it, don't they use powder cocaine more? There's the answer then, make stiffer punishments for using crack, that'll solve it!"
Within 2 minutes of a google search I found multiple sources that discuss the difference between powder and crack, all saying how much more dangerous and addictive crack is vs powder. That seems to me like a much more likely reason to offer stiffer punishments than based on who uses it. And in fact they are not the same from what I read.
"Smoked cocaine, or crack cocaine, takes about 20 seconds to reach the brain, and its effects last for about 30 minutes. According to a study published in the US National Library of Medicine, there is a greater propensity for dependence when cocaine is smoked rather than snorted. The immediacy, duration, and magnitude of the effects of crack contribute to this fact."
http://cocaine.org/the-difference-between-powder-cocaine-and-crack-cocaine/
And you are also willing to ignore the fact that blacks have more repeat offenders (a fact I've seen used to explain why our judicial system is racist by the way, claiming those repeat offender laws were made to keep black people down too. Similar to your claim, which just doesn't seem logical to me) and the fact that more blacks are in poverty and therefore rely on public defenders more and as a result get bad representation. It comes down to the crack vs powder law?
Do you also have a hard time imagining that white people would develop a set of laws and practices that would keep black people subordinated for generations, or have you heard of Jim Crow in your travels through life?
I mean I'm irish and my ancestors were treated like dog shit in the usa for a long time. can I still use this as an excuse if something doesn't go my way?
I just have to ask myself which seems more plausible? Crack laws were written to keep blacks down, or because it's more dangerous and addictive? I would have the latter.
I very easily found several sources that stated crack was worse. Even if that research is wrong, wouldn't the one thing everyone could agree on on every thread is that the government tends to make decisions on misinformation?
Do the math. Who gets the harsher sentence? The white accountant who gets pulled over for speeding and a bag of cocaine is discovered or the black guy from the projects caught with a bunch of crack?
0 -
That could be 100% true. Still doesn't mean the laws are more strict because it is used by blacks. Still seems more plausible that in our modern culture the reason is due to the effects, and not who uses it. Wouldn't it be equally racists if they decreased the penalty on a drug because blacks use it?eddiec said:
Crack is much, much cheaper than cocaine and worked its way into the poorer areas of our society. Cocaine is, and always has been, primarily a wealthy white man's drug.mace1229 said:
Would have been my reply if I read it sooner. No one will deny for a very long time blacks were treated very unfairly in this country, and that's putting it politely. I haven't looked it up but I'm guessing drug laws on crack were made much more recently than that.mcgruff10 said:
Jim crow was beat more than 40 years ago. are we still thinking jim crow has a direct impact on people's lives today?rgambs said:
Hahaha apparently you have a very weak imagination.mace1229 said:Maybe its time to switch to powder then?
I have a hard time believing some white people sat around thinking "how can we keep the blacks down some more? I got it, don't they use powder cocaine more? There's the answer then, make stiffer punishments for using crack, that'll solve it!"
Within 2 minutes of a google search I found multiple sources that discuss the difference between powder and crack, all saying how much more dangerous and addictive crack is vs powder. That seems to me like a much more likely reason to offer stiffer punishments than based on who uses it. And in fact they are not the same from what I read.
"Smoked cocaine, or crack cocaine, takes about 20 seconds to reach the brain, and its effects last for about 30 minutes. According to a study published in the US National Library of Medicine, there is a greater propensity for dependence when cocaine is smoked rather than snorted. The immediacy, duration, and magnitude of the effects of crack contribute to this fact."
http://cocaine.org/the-difference-between-powder-cocaine-and-crack-cocaine/
And you are also willing to ignore the fact that blacks have more repeat offenders (a fact I've seen used to explain why our judicial system is racist by the way, claiming those repeat offender laws were made to keep black people down too. Similar to your claim, which just doesn't seem logical to me) and the fact that more blacks are in poverty and therefore rely on public defenders more and as a result get bad representation. It comes down to the crack vs powder law?
Do you also have a hard time imagining that white people would develop a set of laws and practices that would keep black people subordinated for generations, or have you heard of Jim Crow in your travels through life?
I mean I'm irish and my ancestors were treated like dog shit in the usa for a long time. can I still use this as an excuse if something doesn't go my way?
I just have to ask myself which seems more plausible? Crack laws were written to keep blacks down, or because it's more dangerous and addictive? I would have the latter.
I very easily found several sources that stated crack was worse. Even if that research is wrong, wouldn't the one thing everyone could agree on on every thread is that the government tends to make decisions on misinformation?
Do the math. Who gets the harsher sentence? The white accountant who gets pulled over for speeding and a bag of cocaine is discovered or the black guy from the projects caught with a bunch of crack?
Many crimes receive stiffer penalties if they are associated with a gang. Isn't that racist too then since theres a higher percentage of black gang members than white? Or could it just be people don't like gangs?
All I have been convinced of so far is there is a justification for the difference in sentencing when it comes to color, which has been an argument for modern racism. I really don't give a crap that a deadly drug is cheaper, and therefore used by minorities more. If it's worse for you, make stricter laws for it. Just makes sense. We should not make laws based on color, which is what it sound like you are suggesting if you want easier laws for crack based on the fact it is used by blacks more.Post edited by mace1229 on0 -
No no, the forces in power would never conspire against minorites...you are expected to ignore generations of such behavior and all the leaked evidence on the war on drugs and take the advice of some post hoc research that is marginally related to the issue of sentencing.eddiec said:
Crack is much, much cheaper than cocaine and worked its way into the poorer areas of our society. Cocaine is, and always has been, primarily a wealthy white man's drug.mace1229 said:
Would have been my reply if I read it sooner. No one will deny for a very long time blacks were treated very unfairly in this country, and that's putting it politely. I haven't looked it up but I'm guessing drug laws on crack were made much more recently than that.mcgruff10 said:
Jim crow was beat more than 40 years ago. are we still thinking jim crow has a direct impact on people's lives today?rgambs said:
Hahaha apparently you have a very weak imagination.mace1229 said:Maybe its time to switch to powder then?
I have a hard time believing some white people sat around thinking "how can we keep the blacks down some more? I got it, don't they use powder cocaine more? There's the answer then, make stiffer punishments for using crack, that'll solve it!"
Within 2 minutes of a google search I found multiple sources that discuss the difference between powder and crack, all saying how much more dangerous and addictive crack is vs powder. That seems to me like a much more likely reason to offer stiffer punishments than based on who uses it. And in fact they are not the same from what I read.
"Smoked cocaine, or crack cocaine, takes about 20 seconds to reach the brain, and its effects last for about 30 minutes. According to a study published in the US National Library of Medicine, there is a greater propensity for dependence when cocaine is smoked rather than snorted. The immediacy, duration, and magnitude of the effects of crack contribute to this fact."
http://cocaine.org/the-difference-between-powder-cocaine-and-crack-cocaine/
And you are also willing to ignore the fact that blacks have more repeat offenders (a fact I've seen used to explain why our judicial system is racist by the way, claiming those repeat offender laws were made to keep black people down too. Similar to your claim, which just doesn't seem logical to me) and the fact that more blacks are in poverty and therefore rely on public defenders more and as a result get bad representation. It comes down to the crack vs powder law?
Do you also have a hard time imagining that white people would develop a set of laws and practices that would keep black people subordinated for generations, or have you heard of Jim Crow in your travels through life?
I mean I'm irish and my ancestors were treated like dog shit in the usa for a long time. can I still use this as an excuse if something doesn't go my way?
I just have to ask myself which seems more plausible? Crack laws were written to keep blacks down, or because it's more dangerous and addictive? I would have the latter.
I very easily found several sources that stated crack was worse. Even if that research is wrong, wouldn't the one thing everyone could agree on on every thread is that the government tends to make decisions on misinformation?
Do the math. Who gets the harsher sentence? The white accountant who gets pulled over for speeding and a bag of cocaine is discovered or the black guy from the projects caught with a bunch of crack?Monkey Driven, Call this Living?0 -
I actually didn't do any research on sentencing for this discussion. All the information I have was from previous discussions, news reports and so on, this topic comes up in almost every thread dealing with race. I did Google the difference between crack and powder since I have zero knowledge on that and it was brought up, and all of the top search results indicated there was a difference. Maybe they're all wrong, but that's enough to convince me it is possible for the government to believe there is a difference too.rgambs said:
No no, the forces in power would never conspire against minorites...you are expected to ignore generations of such behavior and all the leaked evidence on the war on drugs and take the advice of some post hoc research that is marginally related to the issue of sentencing.eddiec said:
Crack is much, much cheaper than cocaine and worked its way into the poorer areas of our society. Cocaine is, and always has been, primarily a wealthy white man's drug.mace1229 said:
Would have been my reply if I read it sooner. No one will deny for a very long time blacks were treated very unfairly in this country, and that's putting it politely. I haven't looked it up but I'm guessing drug laws on crack were made much more recently than that.mcgruff10 said:
Jim crow was beat more than 40 years ago. are we still thinking jim crow has a direct impact on people's lives today?rgambs said:
Hahaha apparently you have a very weak imagination.mace1229 said:Maybe its time to switch to powder then?
I have a hard time believing some white people sat around thinking "how can we keep the blacks down some more? I got it, don't they use powder cocaine more? There's the answer then, make stiffer punishments for using crack, that'll solve it!"
Within 2 minutes of a google search I found multiple sources that discuss the difference between powder and crack, all saying how much more dangerous and addictive crack is vs powder. That seems to me like a much more likely reason to offer stiffer punishments than based on who uses it. And in fact they are not the same from what I read.
"Smoked cocaine, or crack cocaine, takes about 20 seconds to reach the brain, and its effects last for about 30 minutes. According to a study published in the US National Library of Medicine, there is a greater propensity for dependence when cocaine is smoked rather than snorted. The immediacy, duration, and magnitude of the effects of crack contribute to this fact."
http://cocaine.org/the-difference-between-powder-cocaine-and-crack-cocaine/
And you are also willing to ignore the fact that blacks have more repeat offenders (a fact I've seen used to explain why our judicial system is racist by the way, claiming those repeat offender laws were made to keep black people down too. Similar to your claim, which just doesn't seem logical to me) and the fact that more blacks are in poverty and therefore rely on public defenders more and as a result get bad representation. It comes down to the crack vs powder law?
Do you also have a hard time imagining that white people would develop a set of laws and practices that would keep black people subordinated for generations, or have you heard of Jim Crow in your travels through life?
I mean I'm irish and my ancestors were treated like dog shit in the usa for a long time. can I still use this as an excuse if something doesn't go my way?
I just have to ask myself which seems more plausible? Crack laws were written to keep blacks down, or because it's more dangerous and addictive? I would have the latter.
I very easily found several sources that stated crack was worse. Even if that research is wrong, wouldn't the one thing everyone could agree on on every thread is that the government tends to make decisions on misinformation?
Do the math. Who gets the harsher sentence? The white accountant who gets pulled over for speeding and a bag of cocaine is discovered or the black guy from the projects caught with a bunch of crack?
Only the people dumb enough to deny the holocaust happened would say we never had laws designed to put down an entire group.
We both seem well aware of civil history and look at the same information and you think one scenario better explains it and I think the other in modern society is more plausible. I think we killed the topic, the closest to an agreement is ill say yes it is possible, just seems less likely to me.0 -
You still don't seem to understand what white priviledge is.mcgruff10 said:
Well I can honestly look in the mirror and say my wife and I have never seen any sort of white privelage. We both work our asses off to afford what we have.Go Beavers said:
I'm suggesting stickman is thinking hard working whites haven't been given something.mcgruff10 said:
You re saying blacks have not?Go Beavers said:
Whites have been given handouts and shortcuts.Stickman12 said:
It's simple. It's working hard to be successful within the boundaries of societies laws and standards while not looking for handouts and shortcuts.mcgruff10 said:
So white privelage is exactly what? Having successful parents to help you along the way?Go Beavers said:
No kidding. Who was making excuses? And I'm also well aware of my own white privilege, which I've incorporated into my position.dignin said:
When have we made excuses? Please stop making shit up.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
I've never denied it exists.Go Beavers said:If there's evidence that disproves white privilege, then bring it up for discussion.
I've also pointed out the failings of individuals within the black community who have failed to exercise strong values and have made very poor decisions (acknowledging at the same time the challenges they face when doing so).
You have most certainly trumpeted the white privilege issue (opportunistic as you have been yourself within it no less)... yet made excuses for these 'failings' I speak of as if those people are simply incapable of exercising decency or responsibility.With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
I guess I don't.PJ_Soul said:
You still don't seem to understand what white priviledge is.mcgruff10 said:
Well I can honestly look in the mirror and say my wife and I have never seen any sort of white privelage. We both work our asses off to afford what we have.Go Beavers said:
I'm suggesting stickman is thinking hard working whites haven't been given something.mcgruff10 said:
You re saying blacks have not?Go Beavers said:
Whites have been given handouts and shortcuts.Stickman12 said:
It's simple. It's working hard to be successful within the boundaries of societies laws and standards while not looking for handouts and shortcuts.mcgruff10 said:
So white privelage is exactly what? Having successful parents to help you along the way?Go Beavers said:
No kidding. Who was making excuses? And I'm also well aware of my own white privilege, which I've incorporated into my position.dignin said:
When have we made excuses? Please stop making shit up.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
I've never denied it exists.Go Beavers said:If there's evidence that disproves white privilege, then bring it up for discussion.
I've also pointed out the failings of individuals within the black community who have failed to exercise strong values and have made very poor decisions (acknowledging at the same time the challenges they face when doing so).
You have most certainly trumpeted the white privilege issue (opportunistic as you have been yourself within it no less)... yet made excuses for these 'failings' I speak of as if those people are simply incapable of exercising decency or responsibility.I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
mcgruff10 said:
I guess I don't.PJ_Soul said:
You still don't seem to understand what white priviledge is.mcgruff10 said:
Well I can honestly look in the mirror and say my wife and I have never seen any sort of white privelage. We both work our asses off to afford what we have.Go Beavers said:
I'm suggesting stickman is thinking hard working whites haven't been given something.mcgruff10 said:
You re saying blacks have not?Go Beavers said:
Whites have been given handouts and shortcuts.Stickman12 said:
It's simple. It's working hard to be successful within the boundaries of societies laws and standards while not looking for handouts and shortcuts.mcgruff10 said:
So white privelage is exactly what? Having successful parents to help you along the way?Go Beavers said:
No kidding. Who was making excuses? And I'm also well aware of my own white privilege, which I've incorporated into my position.dignin said:
When have we made excuses? Please stop making shit up.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
I've never denied it exists.Go Beavers said:If there's evidence that disproves white privilege, then bring it up for discussion.
I've also pointed out the failings of individuals within the black community who have failed to exercise strong values and have made very poor decisions (acknowledging at the same time the challenges they face when doing so).
You have most certainly trumpeted the white privilege issue (opportunistic as you have been yourself within it no less)... yet made excuses for these 'failings' I speak of as if those people are simply incapable of exercising decency or responsibility.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rX7wtNOkuHo
"My brain's a good brain!"0 -
Sorry del. This definition goes way above my intellectual level.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:mcgruff10 said:
I guess I don't.PJ_Soul said:
You still don't seem to understand what white priviledge is.mcgruff10 said:
Well I can honestly look in the mirror and say my wife and I have never seen any sort of white privelage. We both work our asses off to afford what we have.Go Beavers said:
I'm suggesting stickman is thinking hard working whites haven't been given something.mcgruff10 said:
You re saying blacks have not?Go Beavers said:
Whites have been given handouts and shortcuts.Stickman12 said:
It's simple. It's working hard to be successful within the boundaries of societies laws and standards while not looking for handouts and shortcuts.mcgruff10 said:
So white privelage is exactly what? Having successful parents to help you along the way?Go Beavers said:
No kidding. Who was making excuses? And I'm also well aware of my own white privilege, which I've incorporated into my position.dignin said:
When have we made excuses? Please stop making shit up.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
I've never denied it exists.Go Beavers said:If there's evidence that disproves white privilege, then bring it up for discussion.
I've also pointed out the failings of individuals within the black community who have failed to exercise strong values and have made very poor decisions (acknowledging at the same time the challenges they face when doing so).
You have most certainly trumpeted the white privilege issue (opportunistic as you have been yourself within it no less)... yet made excuses for these 'failings' I speak of as if those people are simply incapable of exercising decency or responsibility.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rX7wtNOkuHo
I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
Lol.mcgruff10 said:
Sorry del. This definition goes way above my intellectual level.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:mcgruff10 said:
I guess I don't.PJ_Soul said:
You still don't seem to understand what white priviledge is.mcgruff10 said:
Well I can honestly look in the mirror and say my wife and I have never seen any sort of white privelage. We both work our asses off to afford what we have.Go Beavers said:
I'm suggesting stickman is thinking hard working whites haven't been given something.mcgruff10 said:
You re saying blacks have not?Go Beavers said:
Whites have been given handouts and shortcuts.Stickman12 said:
It's simple. It's working hard to be successful within the boundaries of societies laws and standards while not looking for handouts and shortcuts.mcgruff10 said:
So white privelage is exactly what? Having successful parents to help you along the way?Go Beavers said:
No kidding. Who was making excuses? And I'm also well aware of my own white privilege, which I've incorporated into my position.dignin said:
When have we made excuses? Please stop making shit up.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
I've never denied it exists.Go Beavers said:If there's evidence that disproves white privilege, then bring it up for discussion.
I've also pointed out the failings of individuals within the black community who have failed to exercise strong values and have made very poor decisions (acknowledging at the same time the challenges they face when doing so).
You have most certainly trumpeted the white privilege issue (opportunistic as you have been yourself within it no less)... yet made excuses for these 'failings' I speak of as if those people are simply incapable of exercising decency or responsibility.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rX7wtNOkuHo
Hey... you got swashbuckling down so who cares."My brain's a good brain!"0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help