Ana the Ist
Aggressively serene!
Many of the drug laws racist intent...and in some cases, the authors of such policies didn't even hide it.
Nixon's own domestic policy advisor had this to say:
“You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or blacks, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
No offense, but even far left wing sources like Vox dismiss that idea...
Was Nixon's war on drugs a racially motivated crusade? It's a bit more complicated.
But Ehrlichman's claim is likely an oversimplification, according to historians who have studied the period and Nixon's drug policies in particular. There's no doubt Nixon was racist, and historians told me that race could have played one role in Nixon's drug war. But there are also signs that Nixon wasn't solely motivated by politics or race: For one, he personally despised drugs — to the point that it's not surprising he would want to rid the world of them. And there's evidence that Ehrlichman felt bitter and betrayed by Nixon after he spent time in prison over the Watergate scandal, so he may have lied.
More importantly, Nixon's drug policies did not focus on the kind of criminalization that Ehrlichman described. Instead, Nixon's drug war was largely a public health crusade
So a bitter former adviser trying to tarnish his legacy isn't the best source....especially when we have the words of Nixon himself.
This link also has an interesting take on the matter:
Crack vrs. Powder Cocaine: One Drug, Two Penalties
I already read that...which is why I asked for evidence. You're the one who says motives matter.
Why Blue Lives Matter Is Just as Dangerous as White Lives Matter
The growing political support for White Lives Matters and Blues Lives Matter has ironically occurred in a period in which the deaths of police officers in the line duty are down 8% in 2016 compared to previous years. In fact— contrary to criticisms that Black Lives Matter incites violence against cops and what critics perceive as U.S. President Barack Obama's lack of support for law enforcement—police fatalities incurred in the line of duty between 2009 and 2015 are at the lowest levels in more than 30 years. Data collected on police fatalities simply does not show a growing crisis of mortal attacks on law enforcement.
The cooptation of the phrase "Black Lives Matter" for Blue Lives Matter and White Lives Matter by those opposing the Movement for Black Lives and by a national organization of police officers and their supporters epitomizes a willful ignorance about racist policing. Using the “Lives Matter” formulation rallies people wedded to the idea that police are under attack in an unprecedented way.
Police are under attack. Harassment and abuse hurled at police just doing their job is a relatively common event now.
If the lack of murders of police somehow delegitimize Blue Lives Matter....then the lack of police murdering black people delegitimizes Black Lives Matter.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...he-real-cause-of-soaring-black-homicides/amp/
"In 2016, the police fatally shot 233 blacks, the vast majority armed and dangerous, according to the Washington Post. The paper categorized only 16 black male victims of police shootings as “unarmed.” That classification masks assaults against officers and violent resistance to arrest.
Contrary to the Black Lives Matter narrative, the police have much more to fear from black males than black males have to fear from the police. In 2015, a police officer was 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male was to be killed by a police officer."
So as far as narratives go...who has the legitimate cause for concern?
Yes, and when that process fails repeatedly, people lose faith in that process and seek accountability via legislative means rather than judicial/executive ones.
You're acting like I wasn't alive for all of this...
A black man would be shot by police and in a couple of days there would be a protest. Don't tell me they just wanted accountability, when the investigation had barely begun...they had already reached their conclusion.
The "we investigated ourselves and cleared ourselves of any wrong doing" by the departments themselves hasn't shown to be particularly effective.
How do you know that?
The court angle hasn't been very effective (it's the same system that found Brailsford innocent after executing an unarmed man who was on all 4's crying please don't shoot while outnumbered by armed cops 3-to-1), and then allowed the police force to re-hire him for 20 days, just so they could grant him a medical discharge so he could get his pension.
They also found OJ innocent...nobody is claiming the justice system is perfect.
Look at the number of times when a judge clears the officer in a criminal case, then weeks later, a civil suit is filed and the police force was found to be guilty of wrongdoing, then it's taxpayers who get to pay for it when the city settles with the family.
Ok...I don't really have to explain the difference between civil law and criminal law, do I?
Being found liable for a civil suit doesn't make one guilty of a crime.
Anecdotes are not evidence, obviously, but based on the feedback I've heard from my family members in the profession, if you're a cop and get pulled over and are "a little tipsy", as long as you're not completely wasted, the normal operating procedure is to give "professional courtesy". There are news stories that cover such events occurring as well.
Yeah...what does that have to do with the public though?
You can even look at documented statements from officers on the matter from interviews:
This is from a pro-police publication that interviews officers and gauges attitudes on a wide variety of topics (sort of like a gallup poll for cops)
“I feel there are two things to consider: 1. An off-duty officer will help you if he is driving by and you need help. 2. We should treat our brother/sister officers like we want to be treated. If we would want professional courtesy when we get pulled over then we should pay the same respect back. The bottom line: we should not be giving other cops tickets, period.”
— Officer Anthony Signore, Redding (Conn.) Police Dept.
“I'm a Sgt. with my department with 18 years of service. Normally, I do not give other officers traffic tickets, but I have done so in the past.”
— Sgt. Guy Finney, La Coste (Texas) Police Dept.
“Law enforcement officers need to stick together, now more than ever! Petty nonsense like writing other cops is ridiculous and it should be taught in all police academies that you don’t write [up] cops!”
— Detective Gary Olivier, Rye (N.Y.) Police Dept.
“I’ve got more important things to do than cite a fellow officer. I haven’t found a need to do so in 37 years on the job.”
— Sgt. Brian Stover
“I thought ‘blue was blue’ but it appears from the poll that isn't the case anymore! Glad I'm retired after 31 years in LE. The job isn't the brotherhood it used to be.”
— Ken Frisbie, Retired from Chicopee (Mass.) Police Dept. since Sept. 2003
“Sorry, but to the officers that issue citations to other officers, I have to say: If you’re on a traffic stop and you’re getting your butt kicked, you had better pray an off-duty officer is driving by. We need to take care of each other because the general public is most likely not going to.”
— Officer Mike Ely, Aurora (Ill.) Police Dept.
Do these kinds of statements (combined with 38% officers responding opening saying "no, I don't ticket other officers, and over half saying it depends") give you a lot of confidence?
Confidence in what? Cops don't give cops tickets for speeding. They also let a multitude of civilians slide for various traffic violations.
What are you suggesting? That they not be given this discretion?
I heard that PandaExpress gives all their employees a free meal per shift. I heard Walmart offers a small discount to employees...and so does Amazon. Cops basically have one benefit they're allowed to exploit while they're cops and you're upset about it?
You realize that if they lost the ability to use their own discretion....there would be no more "warnings" for you and anyone else. Just tickets from that point on.
Upvote
0