Finally! A list of BLM demands!

[Sbee]

I didn't say anything of the sort. I said voter ID laws did not pose an undue burden. I didn't defend the NC law at all - although I suppose I did indirectly defend the voter ID portion.

Poor blacks aren't convenient targets for arrest and prosecution to feed the prison industrial complex. They live in high crime areas where drugs are dealt in the open and people are robbed, beaten and murdered and other property crimes occur at alarming rates. The police aren't there to feed the system. They are there trying to make those neighborhoods safer. But when SJW idiots like BLM and leftist morons tell these people they are victims of a biased system, instead of telling them they are just as responsible as the police for making their neighborhoods safe, you feed a mentality that makes it impossible for progress.

Nobody is saying don't do anything to help addicts - we need that. But we also need more policing in these neighborhoods, not less. Again, the laws you're talking about weren't designed to curb addiction rates, they were designed to curb crime rates and in that regard they are working - and they are not racially biased - they're biased toward crime and the crime data matches up nearly perfectly with arrest and conviction data by ethnicity. Period.

Are you going to admit that republicans are using voter ID laws and ending early voting as a tactic to reduce the amount of minorities voting for democrats? I know you can say that you never said that it wasn't that, but can you admit that's what it is? I doubt you will.

There are huge financial incentives to lock people up for drug related offenses, federal funding for local police departments is tied to antidrug policing. The size of disbursements are tied to the number of drug arrests, never mind civil forfeiture laws allow cops to increase their budgets by taking cars and cash from people suspected of drug use or sales. So what do the police do? they pull people over for minor traffic violations and use that as a pretense for drug searches. the majority of drug users and dealers nationwide are white, but 3/4 of people imprisoned for drug offenses are black or latino. I understand that lack of private space in poor urban communities allow for easier targeting and quick convictions, but isn't there something fundamentally unjust about that?

Of course we should be concerned about violent crime in these poor urban areas but mass incarceration increases, not decreases the likelihood of violence in these areas. Locking millions of people outside of the mainstream economy, banning people from welfare benefits for felony drug possession (even marijuana), making it impossible for former offenders to find work or housing or feed themselves, destroying family bonds by warehousing millions of people for nonviolent crimes will make crime more, not less likely.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Are you going to admit that republicans are using voter ID laws and ending early voting as a tactic to reduce the amount of minorities voting for democrats?

Not directed at me, but I think there's a correlation/causation thing here too. Republics aren't trying to stop minorities from voting, they're trying to stop likely Democrat voters from voting, which is, in effect, minorities. I mean, I bet they're going after young people too. You look at the rules change, try to figure out if it impacts Reps or dems more, and then come up with an excuse to do it.

 

[Michchamp]

Not directed at me, but I think there's a correlation/causation thing here too. Republics aren't trying to stop minorities from voting, they're trying to stop likely Democrat voters from voting, which is, in effect, minorities. I mean, I bet they're going after young people too. You look at the rules change, try to figure out if it impacts Reps or dems more, and then come up with an excuse to do it.

they're not racist, their policies are!

 

[Gulo Blue]

they're not racist, their policies are!

If you make money selling cigarettes, you're going to have a hard time seeing they cause cancer. If you make money pumping C)2 into the atmosphere, you're going to have a hard time seeing it as a greenhouse gas. If you stay in office by requiring voter ID, you're going to have a hard time seeing it as racially biased.

 

[Sbee]

Not directed at me, but I think there's a correlation/causation thing here too. Republics aren't trying to stop minorities from voting, they're trying to stop likely Democrat voters from voting, which is, in effect, minorities. I mean, I bet they're going after young people too. You look at the rules change, try to figure out if it impacts Reps or dems more, and then come up with an excuse to do it.

my statement all along was that they were trying to stop minorities from voting for democrats. I think that's accurate, blacks and latinos are less likely to have state issued identification and more likely to vote for democrats. It's not hard to figure out what's going on here. We can argue over semantics but what's going on is blatantly obvious.

 

[Gulo Blue]

my statement all along was that they were trying to stop minorities from voting for democrats. I think that's accurate, blacks and latinos are less likely to have state issued identification and more likely to vote for democrats. It's not hard to figure out what's going on here. We can argue over semantics but what's going on is blatantly obvious.

Considering motive isn't semantics.

And there's a practical reason to get off the racism high horse and have a little empathy/faith in other people.

"You need to change what you are doing because what you are doing impacts people unevenly" is going to get a better response than "you need to change what you are doing because you are racist."

 

[Sbee]

Considering motive isn't semantics.

And there's a practical reason to get off the racism high horse and have a little empathy/faith in other people.

"You need to change what you are doing because what you are doing impacts people unevenly" is going to get a better response than "you need to change what you are doing because you are racist."

The GOP lawmakers know what they're doing and why they're doing it. Their intentions are to win elections by creating roadblocks for minorities to vote. Their goal is to impact people unevenly. I think they're more cheaters than racists for the record, is that somehow better?

 

[Gulo Blue]

The GOP lawmakers know what they're doing and why they're doing it. Their intentions are to win elections by creating roadblocks for minorities to vote. Their goal is to impact people unevenly. I think they're more cheaters than racists for the record, is that somehow better?

Personally, yeah, I think racists are worse than cheaters.

edit: and for practical reasons, you should care too.

 

[Spartanmack]

Are you going to admit that republicans are using voter ID laws and ending early voting as a tactic to reduce the amount of minorities voting for democrats? I know you can say that you never said that it wasn't that, but can you admit that's what it is? I doubt you will.

There are huge financial incentives to lock people up for drug related offenses, federal funding for local police departments is tied to antidrug policing. The size of disbursements are tied to the number of drug arrests, never mind civil forfeiture laws allow cops to increase their budgets by taking cars and cash from people suspected of drug use or sales. So what do the police do? they pull people over for minor traffic violations and use that as a pretense for drug searches. the majority of drug users and dealers nationwide are white, but 3/4 of people imprisoned for drug offenses are black or latino. I understand that lack of private space in poor urban communities allow for easier targeting and quick convictions, but isn't there something fundamentally unjust about that?

Of course we should be concerned about violent crime in these poor urban areas but mass incarceration increases, not decreases the likelihood of violence in these areas. Locking millions of people outside of the mainstream economy, banning people from welfare benefits for felony drug possession (even marijuana), making it impossible for former offenders to find work or housing or feed themselves, destroying family bonds by warehousing millions of people for nonviolent crimes will make crime more, not less likely.

Again, I support voter ID laws and I believe they should be required by every state. I'm not pushing for selective use of them nor am I defending measures aimed at limiting early voting or anything else. Voter ID laws don't pose an undue burden on anyone regardless of race.

Millions of nonviolent offenders? Really? I don't buy the claim that our prisons are full of non-violent drug dealers and the numbers seem to indicate you're wrong. The prison population of the United States is 2.2mm, technically, that's millions but unless 90% of them are nonviolent offenders, your claim seems to be obviously wildly exaggerated. Also, drug offenders (violent and non-violent) make up only 25% of the prison population in state prisons (there are only 193k inmates in federal prison TOTAL) so again, it's not possible for their to be millions of non-violent drug offenders in our prison system. You're wrong. Also, according to this article in the Washing Post, the trend of blacks in prison for drug convictions is going down while the numbers for whites are increasing...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/14/AR2009041401775.html

And again, white suburban kids aren't killing each other over drug territory. That's why they're not getting arrested at the same rate as poor people. People caught dealing drugs are profiting from death both by violence and the products themselves. So stiff penalties for dealing drugs make sense, even if it isn't shown that a dealer actually killed someone. I agree that the forfeiture issue is a problem - it needs to be addressed and fixed. Forfeitures should require at a minimum something more than mere suspicion, at least up to some level - it's not unreasonable to suspect a kid carrying a large sum of cash, particularly in a poor area, is up to something but everyone subject to forfeiture should have some recourse if they can prove the cash is clean.

 

[Sbee]

Again, I support voter ID laws and I believe they should be required by every state. I'm not pushing for selective use of them nor am I defending measures aimed at limiting early voting or anything else. Voter ID laws don't pose an undue burden on anyone regardless of race.

Millions of nonviolent offenders? Really? I don't buy the claim that our prisons are full of non-violent drug dealers and the numbers seem to indicate you're wrong. The prison population of the United States is 2.2mm, technically, that's millions but unless 90% of them are nonviolent offenders, your claim seems to be obviously wildly exaggerated. Also, drug offenders (violent and non-violent) make up only 25% of the prison population in state prisons (there are only 193k inmates in federal prison TOTAL) so again, it's not possible for their to be millions of non-violent drug offenders in our prison system. You're wrong. Also, according to this article in the Washing Post, the trend of blacks in prison for drug convictions is going down while the numbers for whites are increasing...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/14/AR2009041401775.html

And again, white suburban kids aren't killing each other over drug territory. That's why they're not getting arrested at the same rate as poor people. People caught dealing drugs are profiting from death both by violence and the products themselves. So stiff penalties for dealing drugs make sense, even if it isn't shown that a dealer actually killed someone. I agree that the forfeiture issue is a problem - it needs to be addressed and fixed. Forfeitures should require at a minimum something more than mere suspicion, at least up to some level - it's not unreasonable to suspect a kid carrying a large sum of cash, particularly in a poor area, is up to something but everyone subject to forfeiture should have some recourse if they can prove the cash is clean.

When I said millions I was talking about people in the system (prison, jail, probation, parole) who are locked out of the mainstream economy, felons face almost insurmountable odds to find employment. You have to declare your felon status on job applications, nobody wants to hire ex cons, I'm sure there are some anecdotal examples but only 40% of employers said they would be open to hiring a felon. You're denied access to public housing, education assistance, food stamps, joining the military, welfare benefits, etc. Are you shocked these people resort back to crime?

as for trends in imprisonment, I'm sure that's due to opiate addiction rates skyrocketing in white communities.

you said that stiff penalties for dealing drugs makes sense, how? I understand they profit off of the misery of others but putting dealers in prison doesn't decrease accessibility to drugs, so it's another life ruined and 31k per year for the taxpayers, but people still use at the same rates. My arguments have focused mainly on possession, not distribution. In 2005, 4 out of 5 drug arrests were for possession,, most people in state prison for drug offenses don't have any violent offenses or distribution of any significance.

http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp...-Drugs-and-Its-Impact-on-American-Society.pdf

 

[Spartanmack]

When I said millions I was talking about people in the system (prison, jail, probation, parole) who are locked out of the mainstream economy, felons face almost insurmountable odds to find employment. You have to declare your felon status on job applications, nobody wants to hire ex cons, I'm sure there are some anecdotal examples but only 40% of employers said they would be open to hiring a felon. You're denied access to public housing, education assistance, food stamps, joining the military, welfare benefits, etc. Are you shocked these people resort back to crime?

as for trends in imprisonment, I'm sure that's due to opiate addiction rates skyrocketing in white communities.

you said that stiff penalties for dealing drugs makes sense, how? I understand they profit off of the misery of others but putting dealers in prison doesn't decrease accessibility to drugs, so it's another life ruined and 31k per year for the taxpayers, but people still use at the same rates. My arguments have focused mainly on possession, not distribution. In 2005, 4 out of 5 drug arrests were for possession,, most people in state prison for drug offenses don't have any violent offenses or distribution of any significance.

http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp...-Drugs-and-Its-Impact-on-American-Society.pdf

no, you said we're warehousing millions of people for nonviolent crimes. It's simply not true.

It's probably more likely due to crystal meth than opiates but that's not the point, the trend is undeniable.

Stiff penalties for dealing drugs makes sense because dealing drugs is an inherently violent crime and because drugs destroy peoples' lives. People who sell drugs participate in an enterprise where murder is a significant business practice and they profit from products that destroy the lives of users and lead to violent crimes. Those people are responsible for that blight on society and should be penalized for the violence and destruction they promote. When I watched that movie Blow, I was disgusted that they tried to make the audience feel pity for Depp's character. That guy deserved to go to prison for life. You sell that much cocaine, you're responsible for a lot of death and destruction.

personally, I'd be reluctant to hire a felon, especially a drug user - they're notoriously unreliable and untrustworthy. Decriminalizing drugs would do little to change my opinion of the employability of a junkie. I suppose you think that makes me a selfish, heartless prick. Employers have a responsibility to protect their employees, customers, businesses and themselves. Many of them can't afford to take chances on criminals and drug addicts.

 

[Sbee]

no, you said we're warehousing millions of people for nonviolent crimes. It's simply not true.

It's probably more likely due to crystal meth than opiates. And stiff penalties for dealing drugs makes sense because dealing drugs is an inherently violent crime and because drugs destroy peoples' lives. People who sell drugs participate in an enterprise where murder is a significant business practice and they profit from products that destroy the lives of users and lead to violent crimes. Those people are responsible for that blight on society and should be penalized for the violence and destruction they promote. When I watched that movie Blow, I was disgusted that they tried to make the audience feel pity for Depp's character. That guy deserved to go to prison for life. You sell that much cocaine, you're responsible for a lot of death and destruction.

well I misspoke there, warehousing is part of the problem but I was referring to people in the system, but my point was about how locking people up for nonviolent crime creates more crime. You keep jumping back to dealing drugs being violent as your way to tie your argument together. My point has focused on nonviolent offenders and possession, 4 of 5 drug arrests in the study I posted a link to were for possession and the majority had no history of violence. Possession, not dealing, but locking the dealer up does nothing more than promote another dealer. Do you really think locking dealers up lowers addiction rates? the junkie is still going to get high, he'll just buy from the next guy.

 

[Spartanmack]

well I misspoke there, warehousing is part of the problem but I was referring to people in the system, but my point was about how locking people up for nonviolent crime creates more crime. You keep jumping back to dealing drugs being violent as your way to tie your argument together. My point has focused on nonviolent offenders and possession, 4 of 5 drug arrests in the study I posted a link to were for possession and the majority had no history of violence. Possession, not dealing, but locking the dealer up does nothing more than promote another dealer. Do you really think locking dealers up lowers addiction rates? the junkie is still going to get high, he'll just buy from the next guy.

I made some significant edits to this post - you can see above.

I'm not trying to tie my argument together. I'm drawing a distinction that you're not picking up on. Punishment for crime is designed to reduce crime, not addiction and in that regard it's quite effective. When you look deeper into the numbers, it's easy to see that there isn't a massive disparity between crime and punishment by ethnicity. Only 25% of people in prison are there for drug crimes. They're not all non-violent and many of the ones who themselves haven't been caught doing something violent, specifically dealers, very likely have. And even if they haven't they are responsible for a lot of violence and destruction and are a scourge on society, so they deserve to be locked up for longer periods of time. If a dealer moving kilos worth of drugs but has his underlings shoot up rival corners or crack houses or take out rival dealers, etc, is he a nonviolent offender? I don't want to lock dealers up to lower addiction rates, I want to lock dealers up because violence they do or promote and the damage their products do to communities, cities, the nation, etc.

 

[Sbee]

I made some significant edits to this post - you can see above.

I'm not trying to tie my argument together. I'm drawing a distinction that you're not picking up on. Punishment for crime is designed to reduce crime, not addiction and in that regard it's quite effective. When you look deeper into the numbers, it's easy to see that there isn't a massive disparity between crime and punishment by ethnicity. Only 25% of people in prison are there for drug crimes. They're not all non-violent and many of the ones who themselves haven't been caught doing something violent, specifically dealers, very likely have. And even if they haven't they are responsible for a lot of violence and destruction and are a scourge on society, so they deserve to be locked up for longer periods of time. If a dealer moving kilos worth of drugs but has his underlings shoot up rival corners or crack houses or take out rival dealers, etc, is he a nonviolent offender? I don't want to lock dealers up to lower addiction rates, I want to lock dealers up because violence they do or promote and the damage their products do to communities, cities, the nation, etc.

Ok, keep fighting that supply side, it's really working out well and making communities stronger. We can imprison a higher percentage of our population than any other nation and do nothing to lower addiction rates and on top of it we can create a permanent underclass. Oh, and it's not expensive, this doesn't cost us much right? You want more prisons and more cops, more black people locked up at 3x the rate of whites for crimes they're just as likely to commit. Keep up the good work!

 

[tomdalton22]

but you want to lessen the deterrent for selling drugs and spend even more money treating drug users, most of which don't want to quit?

 

[Sbee]

but you want to lessen the deterrent for selling drugs and spend even more money treating drug users, most of which don't want to quit?

Your ignorance makes it impossible to have a real discussion.

 

[tomdalton22]

Your ignorance makes it impossible to have a real discussion.

You never answer the question. You have no idea how many drug users in prison are actual addicts or just users. You have no idea how successful treatment is. You have no idea how many users actually want to quit.

 

[Spartanmack]

Your ignorance makes it impossible to have a real discussion.

his ignorance? you're the one massively over-inflating the problem, by millions and at least 3x the actual size - an error that indicates you don't really know what you're talking about. This is not nit-picking and it's not me trying to find a reason to disagree with you. And you're the one saying people who support policies that have been demonstrated to reduce crime don't care about addressing the addiction epidemic. you're trying to solve addiction by eliminating laws that have nothing to do with addiction - a step that would obviously not help your stated objective in any way and would instead lead to more crime. that is ignorance.

 

[Sbee]

his ignorance? you're the one massively over-inflating the problem., by millions - an error that indicates the problem isn't nearly as big as you think. And you're the one saying people who support policies that have been demonstrated to reduce crime don't care about addressing the addiction epidemic. you're trying to solve addiction by eliminating laws that have nothing to do with addiction - a step that would obviously not help your stated objective in any way and would instead lead to more crime. that is ignorance.

I'm not going to carry on a discussion with tomdalton because he has no understanding of addiction or the science behind it. I wasn't over inflating a problem, I was talking about the millions in the system, prison, parole, probation who are put in a situation where they have very few options in a mainstream economy. I'm advocating treating drug usage as a medical problem, not a criminal one. The failed policies you advocate do little or nothing to reduce usage and simply ruin peoples lives, fighting the supply side simply doesn't work.

 

[Spartanmack]

I'm not going to carry on a discussion with tomdalton because he has no understanding of addiction or the science behind it. I wasn't over inflating a problem, I was talking about the millions in the system, prison, parole, probation who are put in a situation where they have very few options in a mainstream economy. I'm advocating treating drug usage as a medical problem, not a criminal one. The failed policies you advocate do little or nothing to reduce usage and simply ruin peoples lives, fighting the supply side simply doesn't work.

the policies I advocate are extremely effective at what they are designed for - reducing crime. They are remarkable successes, not failures in any way. Getting rid of them won't do anything to help the addiction epidemic but it will most certainly have a negative impact on crime.

As for your claim about millions of nonviolent offenders caught up in the system, there are a maximum of 550k people incarcerated for drug related crimes - including violent offenders. I have no idea what % of those offenders are nonviolent but it's definitely not all of them. I also think it's naive to believe that dealers aren't responsible for violence even if they're not charged with a violent crime, don't deserve to harsh sentences. It's also true that some of those people on parole and probation are violent or are responsible for violence on some level. So to say there are millions of nonviolent victims in the system is probably as incorrect as saying the system is racially biased.