Is The War On Drugs Racist?

Post Reply New Topic

Question --
Was X policy intended to target Y race.

Answer --
Race is a social construct.

(I think sjw's got culture-jammed / demoralized.)

In short, each of the most-notorious street drugs has some nameable demographic, associated with it.

If it makes you any feel better, Lynch's tactics have been applied to white people, and Santa is now a suspected terrorist.

Anti drug laws started to go on the books back in 1906. The main reason? It was feared that Negro males, high on dope would rape and ravage white women. Prior to that one could buy luadinum (a poppy derivative) at the local pharmacy, and opium was used as a local anesthetic for babies who were teething and had sore gums.

As a matter of fact, the Nixon administration, as already pointed out by the OP, had instigated the war on drugs specifically to target blacks, because the paranoid Richard Nixon saw black Americans as his enemies.

Opium was associated with the Chinese.

Marijuana has been associated with Mexicans and liberal, 60's Jews.

Cocaine was said to drive black rapes, and the cheaper crack has later led to stricter sentencing.

When Geraldo was popular, govt interests reportedly imported it, in bulk, into the inner cities. (Also, discussed in the "Gentrification" scene, in Boyz in da Hood.)

If ever I am not allowed to simply mind my own business, I think that trigger happy, praetorian, chickenhawk types should be reminded of their tireless support of change agents, who could never have done it, on their own.

Welp----considering most anti-war protesters, during that era, were, by-a-wide-margin, WHITE.....

It doesn't seem like any ONE race was targeted----therefore, NOT racist.

I asked no such question. The one taking a leap in logic here is you, by assuming that you, rather than the world in general, were the subject of my observation.

However, I would certainly be interested in hearing your hypothesis of who is responsible for the racism you're implying may exist.



So you're saying the real target was hippies?

Sounds like a reasonable policy to me.

You are the one who brought up "wh***y" and you brought it up implying that it was being blamed for the racist policy.

Since you are asigning blame, then you must agree that the policy is racist.

As for the hippees, they were a counter culture that challenged the dominant order and supported racial equity.

I said nothing about blame, but you seem very concerned about "wh***y" being falsely blamed for this.

Could you please clarify who this "wh***y" person is, so I can understand your defense.

I watched the Pearl Harbor movie, in the livingroom of the first man, officially wounded, there.

It says, we cut-off oil, from Vietnam.

Later, countless barrels of oil were extracted, by Western interests, from Vietnam.

This was effected by the perilous, forced labor of American citizens.

Why is there an onus on black people, particularly, assuming that many protesters were white.

Disregarding the messenger, entirely, one of the main demands of Black Panthers has been autonomy -- to be self-sufficient and police their own.

Why, the need to sell them drugs, from state actors.

Nixon was going after hippie anti-war protesters, but he was also targeting blacks, trying to derail their civil rights gains by both the war on drugs, and the southern strategy.

Quote me doing so in that context.



Likewise, quote me doing so. My opinion on the policy is a great deal more nuanced than the binary you seem to be suggesting.



It's fascinating that you've chosen to extol what you perceive as their virtues in response to a throwaway joke.



Quote where I expressed concern that wh***y is being blamed for the racism you implied existed.



Defence? Am I on trial?

"wh***y" is a long-established derogatory term for white people, still in use today. My use of it was both ironic and sarcastic.

Still waiting for your hypothesis on who is responsible for the racism you implied may exist. Perhaps you have a dossier which implicates Russian hackers?

As far as drug legalization goes, I can only support legalizing marijuana.

Does this mean if I don't support legalizing cocaine, heroin, meth, etc., then I hate black people?

Why is "wh***y" terrible if it is not implied that "wh***y" is responsible for the racism?

Defense, you have made a claim that "wh***y" is being blamed for something, and you implied that it was unfair, so you must be defending "wh***y".

The defense of "show me where I said that" are the burden of proof and the ambiguity logical fallacies, please do better.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ambiguity

You've latched on to your own false inference. I've already clarified that I was speaking in general terms rather than to your specific example:





Another example of you confusing your own inference for my implication. What I implied (with the rolling eyes) is that it's both foolish and ridiculous. Whether or not it's fair is up for debate, but largely irrelevant. The narrative of the evil, privileged white man was prevalent throughout 2016, and shows no sign of disappearing despite its obvious lack of success. If Trump's victory and the Brexit referendum outcome are anything to go by, I fully support its continued use.



Pointing out your false inferences presented as strawmen is not a logical fallacy. You made multiple positive claims based on said inferences, absent any contextual evidence to support your interpretation, ergo the burden of proof is very much upon you. More pertinently, to claim superior knowledge of my motives than I myself make claim to is beyond arrogant.

Regarding your claim of an ambiguity fallacy, kindly point out where I misrepresented the truth. You were clearly misled by your own failure to comprehend my meaning, exacerbated by your seeming desire to insert meaning where none was previously to be found.

You have adopted an extremely egocentric stance on a post that was directed towards the subject in general rather than towards you specifically. Much as I hate to p*ss in people's cornflakes, I regret to inform you that the world revolves around the sun.

At least you got that part right.

Actually you didn't please see below.

Last edited by feral botanist on 03 Jan 2017, 11:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

The justification used for prohibition of pretty much all drugs definitely used racial demagoguery, drug addiction may of been a serious societal ill before any laws and do-gooders may thought prohibition could help but the evidence speaks for itself. I think the real underlying reason a lot of these drugs are banned today has to do with powerful monied interests in business and the prison-industrial complex. There is a reason these prisons are all off in far flung towns, often these towns will have more than 1 prison, it's because they're designing it so whole communities are absolute dependent on the status quo when it comes to mass incarceration.

It would be better if all drugs were legal and addiction was treated as the heath problem it is, so many of the issues with drugs are resultant from prohibition which would be alleviated instantaneously with legalization. So many people die simply because they are in the darkness so bring drug addiction to the light 100% save lives. People who suffer from substance abuse are not bad people necessarily and I believe in redemption, we all have moments of weakness some bigger and longer than others. People use drugs for a reason and that reason needs to be addressed, addiction is just symptom of a larger illness and just attacking that symptom will never solve anything on the scale you want it too. People need liberation and salvation not incarceration.

This country fails at caring for and treating the mentally ill, it's gotten progressively worse in a lot of ways. I live downtown so I see homeless people every day when I leave my house, I can't imagine these people are better off today living under bridges scrounging for enough change to buy some liquor or whatever drugs living for that next fix. Knowing many social workers they seem to agree with this sentiment, community care doesn't work very well when that community fears and hates you.