http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nixon-drug-war-racist_us_56f16a0ae4b03a640a6bbda1
Maybe, but they should bring it back.
>>32752
>huffpo
Nice try Arianna.
Here's the same story from everywhere else that isn't Huffpo:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/nixon-aide-war-drugs-tool-target-black-people-article-1.2573832
http://www.vice.com/read/a-former-nixon-aide-admitted-the-war-on-drugs-was-designed-to-screw-over-blacks-and-hippies-vgtrn
http://www.theroot.com/articles/news/2016/03/former_nixon_aide_claims_war_on_drugs_targeted_black_people.html
http://newsone.com/3388286/nixon-aide-war-on-drugs-blacks/
http://fusion.net/story/283558/nixon-hated-black-people-duh/
http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-NEWS-and-COMMENTARY-c-2016-03-22-282080.112112-Former-aide-Nixon-invented-the-War-on-Drugs-to-decimate-hippies-and-blacks.html
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/285112/nixon-ehrlichman-war-drugs-invented-persecute-anti-war-left-black-people/
https://www.inverse.com/article/13153-nixon-advisor-admitted-the-obvious-war-on-drugs-was-a-war-on-blacks-and-hippies
>>32766
i don't understand how we can draw a conclusion that the war on drug was racist just because it targetted black people...
>Had it said : Targetted exclusively, it would have been racist
>But blacks are statistically very heavy users, so why not target them ?
>Is it unreasonable to target car accident prevention at reckless drivers ?
>Sure, you need to choose your area... Maybe avoid accusing kofi annan first. But in the ghetto in the 70's-90's, targeting a black guy was a 50% chance of arrest for possession...
>>32766
Thanks anon
>>32772
>I don't see how something is racist just because it targeted a specific race.
C'mon anon. The issue isn't whether it was racist or not, but whether the racism was a problem or not.
>>32795
precisely what i'm saying.
Something can be targetted at a specific race and not be racist.
Racism has a negative connotation to it : If you arrest all the users of drugs and all of them are black, it's not racism, it's statistics, isn't it ?
Like you said, the real question is to figure out whether or not it was a problem.
>Question to which we'll never get any hard evidence since we are talking about 10000's of officers each with their own "approach" to an official instruction
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/22/11278760/war-on-drugs-racism-nixon
>>32796
There are a certain few clickbait sites that /news/ seems to choke on,... Chief among them are Breitbart, Huffpo, Daily Mail, and Kotaku.
>>32752
And yet people still have the nerve to argue current policy is sound and appropriate. The drug on wars has been and continues to be one of United State's greatest farce, now more than ever, being clearly a war on dissenters and minorities.
>>32772
A whitewash so powerful not even Colgate's latest product can beat it.
>>32752
Well even if that's true, isn't it fair to say they lost?..
>>32772
Maybe that's why Great Society was a thing.
>>segregated neighborhoods meant segregated policing tactics, I.E. "Negro" police officers would overlook personal possession of drugs.
>>open society frees minorities to common policing practices since they're allowed to conduct commerce in areas that had Sunset laws previously.
>>More Terry Stops for blacks since "you fit description...", find drugs,???, profit from fines and Drug Enforcement revenue.
>>32926
Anti-war protesters won in the end, everyone recognizes Vietnam as a clusterfuck of a mistake.
I like how the "and hippies" part is omitted so much. This just fuels the fire of us vs them in the modern age whem it doesnt need to be
Also fuck the drug war
And Bill Clinton & Wife expanded it because...
>>32857
Breitbart's not my go to by far but its nothing compared to huffpo.
And the drug war solved both issues. Racism and the fact they were masive druggies. Those rock bags in your shoes didn't just show up there.
>>32752
>Nixon Aide Reportedly Admitted Drug War Was Meant To Target Black People
so fucking what... black people are so touchy
The Prohibition of alcohol taught the government that a vacuum can be created by criminalizing something that is common. Through this the government took on the task of being on two sides of the same war, essentially self-perpetuating itself. And the government doesn't like competition.
On the one side, there's the, "Say NO to drugs!" initiative and propaganda machine, allowing the civilian populous to back black ops and local department spending for all the police hardware and government agencies (some money trails of which, in the gov. agency sense, isn't even publicly available); contracts for guns, helicopters, FLIR, ammo, cars, etc. Big business in a corporate sense.
On the other side of the coin, black op agencies, the same ones fighting the war against drugs, filling the vacuum of positions that people like Al Capone took, making windfall profit by importing the same drugs they're supposed to be stopping. They allow cartels and gangs to flourish (Operation Fast & Furious).
The whole drug war is self-perpetuating and double-speak. It's only purpose is to cause dissemination and strife, teach state indoctrination to kids via DARE, create a prison and police state, and setup a sweepstakes of cash in the 100's of billions for black budgets.
Fuck the drug war.
>>33006
>Breitbart
>nothing compared to huffpo.
Both sites were designed by Andrew Breitbart when he was still alive. They are different partisan flavors of the same clickbait shit.
>make something illegal
>one race decides to do it more than any other even though it's illegal
>dem nasty evil rassists keepin a brudda down
Nobody forces blacks to do drugs. Nobody forces them to rob people's houses and corner stores for booze. Nobody forces them to get abortions and then go out and have more sex.
>>33030
>one race decides to do it more than any other even though it's illegal
You mean white people? Surely you're aware of the fact that white people have higher rates of drug usage.
http://healthland.time.com/2011/11/07/study-whites-more-likely-to-abuse-drugs-than-blacks/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/30/white-people-are-more-likely-to-deal-drugs-but-black-people-are-more-likely-to-get-arrested-for-it/
>Nobody forces blacks to do drugs.
Apparently not.
And now its still pretty effective at keeping the prison industry going.
>>33030
You've found the solution to the problem ! Just tell blacks that nobody is forcing them to take drugs and commit crimes !
Genius, why didn't anyone think of this before.
>>32806
That's /the-board-that-shall-not-be-named/ for you. Anything to keep "muh racial superiority" intact.
>>33010
Disgusting, isn't it?
The worst part is there are so many groups involved, all working independently, that the diffuse of responsibility is insane.
One hand washes the other while somehow not knowing what the other hand does.
>>32752
Not surprised at all
>>32801
> If you arrest all the users of drugs and all of them are black, it's not racism, it's statistics
>whites wrote the law
>specifically choose this law because it affects blacks
>if it affected whites more than blacks, it wouldn't have been written
>>33004
To control the Democrat base effectively and pass the buck to the other side.
I mean, who knows if this guy is even legit? Just look at the timing of this, right before a major election that the Dems could very possibly lose. This is the kind of thing that riles up their base and gets them to vote against the other side, even if they don't care at all for whatever sack of garbage is running as a Democrat this year.
It's a power play.
Ehrlichman was thrown under the bus during Watergate and as a result has a huge axe to grind with pretty much everyone in the Nixon administration so i'd take that with a shaker or two of salt.
>>32772
>Is it unreasonable to target car accident prevention at reckless drivers ?
>in the ghetto in the 70's-90's, targeting a black guy was a 50% chance
[citation needed]
>>33353
>Just look at the timing
>spoken in '94
>included in books in 2012
Anything to maintain your delusions, huh.
>>33121
You're the same kind of retard that thinks blacks fill the prisons because we're all racists, and lil' Tyrone dindu nuffin.
>>33423
>article posted where high ranking official literally says blacks were targeted to fill prisons
>you decide to make a dindu joke
You're a special kind of stupid, aren't ya?
>>33010
this 100%
>>33435
Black criminals were targeted, not people who did nothing wrong
>>33469
>my measure for right and wrong is based on whether it's illegal or not. also, I'm going to completely ignore the racist foundation of making certain substances illegal in the first place.
I refuse to believe you're actually this retarded.
>>33476
uhhh what? you know a drug is illegal and yet you still do it. b but i diniin du nuffin. uhhh ok.
>>33512
Wow, turns out you actually are that retarded. I suppose making breathing temporarily illegal should be enough to rid ourselves of people around your IQ level.
>>33102
The first article doesn't seem to make any distinction between legal and illegal drugs. So i don't think it is particularly relevant to this discussion.
>>33102
>>33703
Oh, and the second is based on a bunch of analyses of surveys. And as we all know, surveys can be very useful, but they are rarely proof of anything, as you can't verify the data given. Especially when they're taken by kids.
Of the three papers, one is behind a paywall (if anyone else wants to find it, it was called "Drug Dealing and Legitimate Self-Employment", and was published in the Journal of Labor Economics, Volume 20 Number 3.).
Another was based on a 1989 survey specifically regarding Boston youths, and the paper on that was keen to point out differences between that survey's results and the results of a national survey.
The brookings.edu article writer's referencing of the 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health is relatively solid, as it at least targeted illicit drug use on a national scale, but the guy doesn't show his work, as well as jumps between different stats and even different years of the survey when making his comparisons in order to try and support his point. For example, he points out a 32% difference in some 2012 data that supports his point, but calls the (unstated) 10.5% difference in a different stat in the 2013 data that doesn't support his point as being "not statistically different". Had he used the 2012 data, the difference would have been 22.8%.
A bit too much cherry-picking for my taste.
>>32772
>I started to ask Ehrlichman a series of earnest, wonky questions that he impatiently waved away. “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 black, 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.”
>I must have looked shocked. Ehrlichman just shrugged.
https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/?single=1
>>33755
So it was always against whites and blacks, not just blacks
>>32772
Get the fuck outta here.
>>33818
>The analyses based on the _surveys_ failed to actually support the point being stated
No they didn't. They supported the claims being made, but >>33720 is attempting to dispute their methodology. And EVEN IF that was the case, my point was that the unsourced yet commonly stated claim of black drug use is never given the level of scrutiny of sourced claims of white drug usage.
But that's completely unsurprising. Actually attempting to find the truth of the matter is much less interesting to you guys than maintaining the Dindu Narrative.
>>33512
>research shows pakis drink more tea and whites drink more coffee
>pakis take power and decide to criminalise coffee drinking deliberately as a way to jail whites
>hurr it's not racist it's statistics, just stop drinking coffee!
>>33842
>They supported the claims
Are we talking past each other? >>33102 made one claim, "white people have higher rates of drug usage." That's the claim under question in
>>33703 and >>33720, and that's the claim that the two links do not properly support.
The first link doesn't limit its scope to illegal drugs; a study that includes _alcohol_ use in its overall findings is simply not relevant to this discussion. The Washington Post articles draws primarily off a brookings.edu article, which itself draws from two analyses of surveys, and the writer's own analysis of a survey. The first of those three is behind a paywall, so it can't be confirmed. The second simply doesn't support >>33102's claim; it's focus is another topic, and the abstraction made by the writer is also on another topic (selling, not using). And the third (the writer's own analysis of a survey) also focuses on drug dealing instead of using, and brushes off the difference between black and white drug use as "statistically insignificant". This is a claim I called into question (and was the primary reason for the cherry picking comment), but even if I _didn't_, it would still fail to support >>33102's claim that whites use _more_ drugs.
The only way that >>33102's claim is supported by the links he provided is if he moved the goalposts to include legal drugs. Which wouldn't be particular relevant to the conversation, as this discussion relates to the War on Drugs.
>Actually attempting to find the truth of the matter is much less interesting to you guys than maintaining the Dindu Narrative.
Screw you. I was interested enough to read the linked articles and looked into their sources. Seeing evidence for the claim would have actually validated the time spent doing so. Sadly, the claim was unsupported by the sources, thus my time was completely wasted.
>>33882
>that's the claim that the two links do not properly support.
If a study is released stating that 'persons under 20 tend to support X, while persons over 20 tend to support Y', and someone counters it with "well there was only 400 people in the study so that's hardly a sufficient sample size", that study still 'supports' the claim, even if it is not without fault. There's a difference between 'I disagree with the methodology used here' and 'That's not what this study says at all'.
>The first link doesn't limit its scope to illegal drugs; a study that includes _alcohol_ use in its overall findings is simply not relevant to this discussion.
You're joking, right? Not only is the fact that whites have a higher OVERALL rate of drug abuse, illegal or not, STILL counter the narrative of unusually pervasive drug use among blacks; but within the context of BOTH the racist history of which drugs were deemed legal and which ones weren't AND the context of the racist history of how the drug war was carried out (as laid out by OP), the repeated claim that there was no racist intent behind drug enforcement and/or 'black people should just be more like whites and stop using drugs' doesn't make any sense. White people are using AND selling drugs, illicit and otherwise at higher rates than black people AND there are several times as many whites than blacks, so in a world where there is equal enforcement of the law the makeup of those being arrested and serving time for drug related offenses would reflect these facts. But in the real world it doesn't, because black people are being specifically and disproportionately targeted for drug related offenses. THAT is the point of this thread.
>>33882
>Screw you. I was interested enough to read the linked articles and looked into their sources.
But not enough to look into the subject the myriad of times it's been alluded to here or on /pol/ or wherever else. Shit, you decided to challenge the one post that provided sources in the entire thread, and not the half dozen posts before that using made up statistics and conjecture that precede it, including the post it was replying to.
>>33887
Sample size? Who's complaining about sample size? Again, it seems like we're talking past each other.
My point is that the actual claim ("white people have higher rates of drug usage.") is not being directly supported by the linked sites. The articles reference stuff behind a paywall, or about drug dealing instead of drug use, or about how the changes in black arrests for different categories of crime and how it correlates to the War on Drugs, stuff like that.
>You're joking, right?
No, I'm not. You're talking about narrative, I'm talking about a particular claim and the references given for a claim.
>THAT is the point of this thread.
No, the topic is regarding the War on Drugs, which escalated penalties for drug crimes and created massive disparities in how different types were handled and punished. Throwing alcoholism stats into the mix doesn't really serve any point.
>>33888
>the one post that provided sources
It's not a virtue to provides sources that don't support your premise!
It's like if I went on /a/ and saw someone claiming that X-chan was best waifu, and so I responded to it by saying X-Chan was shit and Y-chan was the best waifu. And I provided links to support my claim, except my links were
-an article about how the show that X-chan and Y-chan are in has the best waifus (but doesn't try to claim which one is the best),
-to a post on a forum that requires a paid subscription to access
-an article about quality differences in Korean-animated anime
-an article about which anime outfits and character archetypes are the best waifu outfits and archetypes (the bit about outfits corresponding to my preference of Y-chan over X-chan, but not the archetypes bit, so I just label the latter bit as statistically insignificant because of how often those traits are prominently displayed in the manga version of the story, despite the manga version having different outfits).
>>33004
Being "tough on drugs" was a popular political platform in the 90s.
