Crack vs. Powder Sentencing Before the Supreme Court
- Thread starter QueEx
- Start date
Crack vs. powder cocaine sentencing
gets Supreme Court hearing
gets Supreme Court hearing
the result could shape the future of controversial
sentencing rules that punish crack cocaine users
far more severely than their powder cocaine counterparts
By Michael Doyle | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Friday, September 28, 2007
WASHINGTON — Gulf War veteran Derrick Kimbrough defended his country. Then he dealt drugs.
Now he's caught in a courtroom crossfire, and the result could shape the future of controversial sentencing rules that punish crack cocaine users far more severely than their powder cocaine counterparts.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will consider Kimbrough's case. Technically, it revolves around judicial discretion in sentencing. More concretely, it focuses on whether judges can avoid giving harsher punishments to crack users.
For sentencing purposes, the rules equate one gram of crack cocaine to 100 grams of powdered cocaine. Essentially, the judge who sentenced Kimbrough ignored this punitive standard.
"The judge said, this crack/powder thing is just nuts," said Harvard Law School Professor Carol Steiker.
Other judges agree. So does the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which has repeatedly recommended revising the 21-year-old cocaine sentencing rules. So do members of Congress such as Reps. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., and Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, who've again introduced a bill to even out cocaine sentences.
Congress, however, hasn't been willing to roll back the get-tough sentencing system imposed at the height of the Reagan administration's war on drugs. The Bush administration, moreover, insists that judges must be kept in harness.
"If each sentencing judge is permitted to adopt whatever policy he deems appropriate with regard to individual drugs, defendants with identical real conduct will receive markedly different sentences," Solicitor General Paul Clement argued in legal filings.
In the past five years, about 25,000 defendants have been sentenced in federal court on crack cocaine charges. On average, their drug sentences are about 50 percent longer than those imposed on powder cocaine defendants.
This translates to an average of about 40 additional months behind bars. Most of those who're sentenced for crack cocaine are African-American men, as is Kimbrough.
Last year, 81 percent of those sentenced on federal crack charges were African-Americans. Only 27 percent of those sentenced for powder cocaine were African-Americans.
"It results in thousands of additional years of lives spent in prison and in incalculable, unquantifiable losses to the affected defendants and their families," Kimbrough's public defender, Michael Nachmanoff, declared in a legal filing.
A 39-year-old former construction worker who served three years in the Marine Corps, Kimbrough is now doing time at the low-security Petersburg Federal Correctional Institute in Virginia. Whatever the Supreme Court decides, Kimbrough will be in prison for at least another decade.
Virginia police caught Kimbrough in 2004 when officers spied him in a car near a known drug-dealing area. He tried to run but was caught carrying bullets and $1,823 in cash. He pleaded guilty to charges of possessing firearms, as well as crack and powder cocaine. He didn't have any prior felonies.
Because of the crack possession, Kimbrough faced a sentence of 19 to 22 years. Instead, the judge called the crack guidelines "ridiculous" and sentenced Kimbrough to 15 years.
"This case," said U.S. District Judge Raymond A. Jackson, "is another example of how the crack cocaine guidelines are driving the (sentencing) to a point higher than necessary to do justice."
After the judge reduced Kimbrough's sentence, however, the government appealed the ruling and won, forcing Kimbrough to bring his case to the Supreme Court.
The closely watched case, Kimbrough v. United States, doesn't by itself challenge the crack cocaine sentencing guidelines. The guidelines are sometimes called the "100 to 1" rule, because that's the equivalency ratio between powdered and crack cocaine possession for sentencing purposes. Congress set the rules, and the Supreme Court isn't being asked to strike them down.
Instead, Kimbrough's case will determine whether judges sentencing cocaine defendants can take into account criticism of the crack guidelines and set lower sentences. Among the staunchest critics has been the U.S. Sentencing Commission, whose guidelines are advisory but influential.
"The current quantity-based penalties overstate the relative harmfulness of crack cocaine compared to powder cocaine," the Sentencing Commission advised in its May 2007 report to Congress, adding that the penalties "sweep too broadly" and "overstate the seriousness" of most crack offenses.
The Bush administration responds that it should be up to Congress to revise the crack sentencing rules.
The court's politics on this case are especially complicated.
Justice Stephen Breyer once served on the Sentencing Commission, giving him both insight and an emotional stake in the case's outcome. The court's two most stalwart conservatives, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, appear more sympathetic to giving judges sentencing leeway than their law-and-order reputations might otherwise suggest.
McClatchy Newspapers 2007
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/20067.html
I'm troubled by this entire debate QueEx because on the one hand, no, there isn't parity in sentencing between powder and rock cocaine. At the same time when somebody passes that crack shit off to the children in my neighborhood and I want blood. It doesn't matter to me if the blood is from a brother or a white boy because that stuff is make to be cheap as well as plentiful.
Cheap dope It is killing our future through our children.
The purveyors of that kind of death should be stoned in the streets.
That for me is more important than making sure a crack dealer has a softer landing because it isn't powder.
I hope that after this is done, the guidelines for sentencing crack dealers remain as it is and powder users get the same as crack. Not the other way around.
-VG
Cheap dope It is killing our future through our children.
The purveyors of that kind of death should be stoned in the streets.
That for me is more important than making sure a crack dealer has a softer landing because it isn't powder.
I hope that after this is done, the guidelines for sentencing crack dealers remain as it is and powder users get the same as crack. Not the other way around.
-VG
As unfair as it is I think the whole debate is rather pointless since the actual prohibition is the real problem.
While I don't think that anyone should be able to buy cocaine or crack and the 7-11 I think there needs to be some outlet where cocaine is legal or at least decriminalized. If, for instance, cocaine addicts were allowed to engaged in a maintained reduction program (similar to the NAOMI project for heroin addicts) there would be a lot less drug dealers.
While I don't think that anyone should be able to buy cocaine or crack and the 7-11 I think there needs to be some outlet where cocaine is legal or at least decriminalized. If, for instance, cocaine addicts were allowed to engaged in a maintained reduction program (similar to the NAOMI project for heroin addicts) there would be a lot less drug dealers.
I don't know if giving judges more descretion is a good thing or not. It could very well work both ways.
What I would like our criminal justice system to adress is the fact that 20 years after the war on drugs we have scene zero effect. To me the issue is simple. Locking people up for 100 or 1,000 years has zero deterrent affect. The only affect incarcerating people and seizing drugs has on the drug trade is the price of the drugs.
So given the evidence that the current drug enforcing system has zero affect on drug use, or sales the 100 to 1 disparity is not an issue of protecting the community it's an issue of equality in the system. I agree totaly with the sentencing commission when they concluded that "The current quantity-based penalties overstate the relative harmfulness of crack cocaine compared to powder cocaine,"
Since we are dealing with punishment and not deterence (which as a system I have a major problem with) we have to be even handed or the system seems arbitrary and capricious. So congrats to the judge who had the courage to stand up and use his brain obviously congress hasn't reached that point yet.
So in conclusion to my convoluted response to this article.
1. We need to have equility in punishment in the justice system.
2. I don't think more judicial discretion is the way to go since judges have proven in the past to be arbitrary and semi-racist when given discretion.
3. Punishment has zero affect on drug use and sales in the black community so to me this issue is more philisophical than realistic.
4. If given a choice I would go with lower sentences because the cost of incarcerating individuals is not warranted strictly for punishment purposes.
5. With the billions of dollars made through illegal drug transactions and the billions of dollars spent on drug enforcement (which essentially is a punishment not deterent mechanism) we could spend billions on deterrence and have a greater REAL affect on the people in the communities. We could have less users less drug dealers and less ancillary drug crimes if we spent more money identifying and combating the potential drug dealers and drug users who today are children.
What I would like our criminal justice system to adress is the fact that 20 years after the war on drugs we have scene zero effect. To me the issue is simple. Locking people up for 100 or 1,000 years has zero deterrent affect. The only affect incarcerating people and seizing drugs has on the drug trade is the price of the drugs.
So given the evidence that the current drug enforcing system has zero affect on drug use, or sales the 100 to 1 disparity is not an issue of protecting the community it's an issue of equality in the system. I agree totaly with the sentencing commission when they concluded that "The current quantity-based penalties overstate the relative harmfulness of crack cocaine compared to powder cocaine,"
Since we are dealing with punishment and not deterence (which as a system I have a major problem with) we have to be even handed or the system seems arbitrary and capricious. So congrats to the judge who had the courage to stand up and use his brain obviously congress hasn't reached that point yet.
So in conclusion to my convoluted response to this article.
1. We need to have equility in punishment in the justice system.
2. I don't think more judicial discretion is the way to go since judges have proven in the past to be arbitrary and semi-racist when given discretion.
3. Punishment has zero affect on drug use and sales in the black community so to me this issue is more philisophical than realistic.
4. If given a choice I would go with lower sentences because the cost of incarcerating individuals is not warranted strictly for punishment purposes.
5. With the billions of dollars made through illegal drug transactions and the billions of dollars spent on drug enforcement (which essentially is a punishment not deterent mechanism) we could spend billions on deterrence and have a greater REAL affect on the people in the communities. We could have less users less drug dealers and less ancillary drug crimes if we spent more money identifying and combating the potential drug dealers and drug users who today are children.
What bothers me about this is the number of kids being sentenced as adults for crack cases. That's what decimating our community, when you give a 15 yr old 20 years for selling a few grams that has to be cruel and unusual punishment. Another problem is sending people to prison for using cocaine, this is suppose to be a free country a person has the right to abuse their body if they want to there is no way they should be filling up jail cells at tax payer expense it's cheaper to let them use dope and if they break the law sentence them for the crime. Last but not least prisons are suppose to be the last line of defense for the homeland, when you got disinfranchised youth in the same prison as Islamic terrorist it becomes a breeding ground for extremist. Black Muslims already are a force in the system putting foriegn terrorist in American prisons where there are plenty of angry potential recruits is a time-bomb waiting to explode.
Its impossible for me to feel like I wanna take sides on this matter (crack cocaine versus powder cocaine.)
First of all, selling cocaine is criminal.
Whether its a misdemeanor or felony, it's still against the law and that means you shouldn't be doing it to begin with. So now you're asking for a "debate" about sentencing guidelines. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Thats like trying to make two wrongs equal one right.
As far as decriminalization is concerned, I dunno much about that either. But more importantly, I have seen people too many people destroy there lives, spirits and more importantly there minds. If you lose your mind, you will never get that back. Supporting even decriminalization goes against my basic concept of right from wrong.
First of all, selling cocaine is criminal.
Whether its a misdemeanor or felony, it's still against the law and that means you shouldn't be doing it to begin with. So now you're asking for a "debate" about sentencing guidelines. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Thats like trying to make two wrongs equal one right.
As far as decriminalization is concerned, I dunno much about that either. But more importantly, I have seen people too many people destroy there lives, spirits and more importantly there minds. If you lose your mind, you will never get that back. Supporting even decriminalization goes against my basic concept of right from wrong.
One of the reasons certain narcotics are illegal is because they are impossible for the user to quit. Did you know that certain domestic animals must have there diets regulated because if there caretaker did not do it, they would eat themselves to death.
As far as our young boys are concerned, there was a time when jobs at McDonalds or Burger king was there first employment. As times have changed, that type of employment is no longer appealing. But Mexicans love working at McDonalds because it helps them fulfill there desire to work in the U.S. Its not great pay by american standards, but at least they have a job to go to.
What saddens me is the number of young guys I left high school with who decided to participate in the drug business. There are some that eventually went to jail, and I know a few that are now dead. Didn't make past 21. For most young drug dealers, there will never be a positive outcome once they get started.
D
DANGEROUSBLACKMAN
Guest
Yeah I Feel Ya.
I disagree about any narcotic being completely impossible to quit. Unlikely perhaps, but I've seen people, including a few family members, rebuild their lives after years of crack, heroin, pills and other kinds of addictions.
Hope seems to be the biggest common denominator in the ones who recover. They need a reason or incentive to get clean and unfortunately prison goes a long way to destroying that incentive. Imagine for a moment that you are addicted to a drug that gives you a whole body orgasm for several hours of the day. When you're not having that "orgasm" though you realize your poor, homeless, weak, hungry, have kids you can't see, a lengthy criminal record, have HIV, and hepatitis a-z, on top of all the usual physical withdrawals. You know that even if you successfully quit and stay sober for the rest of your life the sad fact is that your life probably won't amount to shit. You'll still be sick, your illness and criminal record will stop you from getting most jobs which means you're still poor, which means you still don't get to see your kids, except under the most humiliating of circumstances. What real incentive do you have to give up that orgasm?
This, more than anything, is what creates a cycle of addiction. You can't blame the dealers any more than you can blame a bartender for alcoholism. That's why these sentencing laws don't do shit.
Hope seems to be the biggest common denominator in the ones who recover. They need a reason or incentive to get clean and unfortunately prison goes a long way to destroying that incentive. Imagine for a moment that you are addicted to a drug that gives you a whole body orgasm for several hours of the day. When you're not having that "orgasm" though you realize your poor, homeless, weak, hungry, have kids you can't see, a lengthy criminal record, have HIV, and hepatitis a-z, on top of all the usual physical withdrawals. You know that even if you successfully quit and stay sober for the rest of your life the sad fact is that your life probably won't amount to shit. You'll still be sick, your illness and criminal record will stop you from getting most jobs which means you're still poor, which means you still don't get to see your kids, except under the most humiliating of circumstances. What real incentive do you have to give up that orgasm?
This, more than anything, is what creates a cycle of addiction. You can't blame the dealers any more than you can blame a bartender for alcoholism. That's why these sentencing laws don't do shit.
In a lot of ways legal drugs are worse than illegal drugs, once you start taking them you're on them for life, the side effects are enough to kill you but you don't see pharmecutical companies under indictment even though they are responsible for about 100,000 deaths each year. So how can any repsonsible public offical sleep at night knowing kids are doing time for drugs while the CEO's of these companies are turning the nation into drug addicts and getting filthy rich doing it. It's the same arguement I was making in the Forbes 400 thread there is a glaring double standard for rich and poor in this country if something isn't done about it soon all hell will break loose.
Prohibition is the problem, not the solution. It makes no sense to say "take this drug and we'll pay for it, pit take THIS drug, and we'll put you in jail".
And think about it this way - The ONLY part of the constitution repealed was the one dealing with prohibition of the ingestion of a controlled substance.
And think about it this way - The ONLY part of the constitution repealed was the one dealing with prohibition of the ingestion of a controlled substance.
sorry u can colin or skip the first few paragraphs i made my point in the last one
"legal" drugs are intentionally watered down or farmed to near perfect qualities for a reason. If the government alowed a cure for diabetes the pharmacutical industry would be up in arms. wether you believe it or not there "was" a cure for aids and ebola. I say was because the original strain of aids was pharmed in the 80's and those white boys in MD were not going to release a bug they couldnt kill. as such with all viruses however those damn aids and ebola bugs have been through plenty of variations and now i truely belive there may not be a perfect "cure" anymore.
the pharmacutical comps make $$Trillions$$ off of US ALL being sick. just think world wide 6+ billion people in the world atleast 2 billion in developed areas with access to big name drugs. atleast 25% on regular meds. your inhaler, heart pills, "sugar" pills, blood pressure pills, migraine pills, allergy pills...etc = trillions$$$$$
with that said the government lets this shit go on, why? good ole boys look after their own. in line with that cocaine is a white collar high society crime. judges politicians, actors, entertainers and such do it and can maintain that habit.
crack is a blue coller poor person crime, all those people mentioned above cant relate to people who do crack, so fuck em mandatory 20+.
look at meth penalties in a lot of states meth carries a lighter punishment than crack and in some cases WEED!! (white people talk about gettin off for Meth or "trace amounts" of cocaine a lot at campus parties) but only a couple of my black friends have ever said they got off for bud in the ash tray.
line of coca = $10-40 (purity) joint of weed $3-30 (strength and rolling style)
"legal" drugs are intentionally watered down or farmed to near perfect qualities for a reason. If the government alowed a cure for diabetes the pharmacutical industry would be up in arms. wether you believe it or not there "was" a cure for aids and ebola. I say was because the original strain of aids was pharmed in the 80's and those white boys in MD were not going to release a bug they couldnt kill. as such with all viruses however those damn aids and ebola bugs have been through plenty of variations and now i truely belive there may not be a perfect "cure" anymore.
the pharmacutical comps make $$Trillions$$ off of US ALL being sick. just think world wide 6+ billion people in the world atleast 2 billion in developed areas with access to big name drugs. atleast 25% on regular meds. your inhaler, heart pills, "sugar" pills, blood pressure pills, migraine pills, allergy pills...etc = trillions$$$$$
with that said the government lets this shit go on, why? good ole boys look after their own. in line with that cocaine is a white collar high society crime. judges politicians, actors, entertainers and such do it and can maintain that habit.
crack is a blue coller poor person crime, all those people mentioned above cant relate to people who do crack, so fuck em mandatory 20+.
look at meth penalties in a lot of states meth carries a lighter punishment than crack and in some cases WEED!! (white people talk about gettin off for Meth or "trace amounts" of cocaine a lot at campus parties) but only a couple of my black friends have ever said they got off for bud in the ash tray.
line of coca = $10-40 (purity) joint of weed $3-30 (strength and rolling style)
legalize it.
Man this situation is bullshit and they should even this shit out for real, niggas get caught with a 50 slab of hard and get a stiffer penalty than niggas with way more cocaine...its bullshit.
Why do you think so ? Remember, drug use is behind the only repealment of a constitutional amendment.
I don't agree with your conspiracy theory. The government has never been able to keep a secret well.
Abu Gharib
Blackwater
Approval of torture
The "WMD's"
Watergate
"Jacobs Ladder"
All of these were government programs that came out. Uncomfortable and embarising truths make money, and the press usually seeks them out.
BTW, Ebola and other hemmoragic fevers have been around forever and are well documented on oral traditions.
I think crack dealers should be shot on sight and if they sell that shit to kids, or have kids moving that shit into the neighborhood, strap one of those bomb belts on em with a 2 minute timer, and sit em in the middle of the desert. Same goes for powder.
The punishment should fit the crime of killing my community.
-VG
I oppose making cocaine and its derivatives legal because making it legal will only encourage more users which will only increase the burden upon taxpayers caused by the well known ills associated with its use. I don't want illegal dealers peddling the poison to the community and I don't want legal dealers doing the same either. Making the drug legal may wipe out or significantly curtail the illegal dope dealers and, therefore, a lot of the problems we see associated with "dealing" - - but legalization, in my opinion, will only increase the number of potential users.
VG,
I agree with shooting the dealers!
QueEx
Just a thought. But our not believing the conspiracy theory could be part of someones plan. If you look back to when coke was introduced to our community we couldn't figure out where it came from, later on we find the CIA used "Freeway Ricky Ross' to spread the poison in our community. If we take it a step further this was about the same time "West Coast' gangster rap came on the scene, the story was they were just talking about what was happening in the community, but it had the effect of enlisting more young people in the street lifestyle. A year or two later Easy of NWA mysteriously dies from aids even though the brother looked healthy up until his death. Pac starts a East-West deadly rivalry and predicts his own death and it comes true. The next thing you know gangs are in every U.S city and the government has mandatory drug laws, our community is decimated. Maybe coke and gangster rap were part of a CIA plan to keep our community down and rappers were used as moles. It sounds too far-out to be true, most people wouldn't believe it. But those are the same tactics the government used to undermine the NAACP, SCLC and Nation of Islam in the 60's. If you go further back it's the same tactics they used in the Opium Wars to colonize Asia. Maybe this history keeps repeating itself because it's just to hard to believe anyone would do something so fucked up.
blame the shrewd drug dealers for "employing" 15 year olds (and younger) in the first place. dope dealers been steering youth away from schools, luring kids with fast money into criminal enterprises, but spin the blame onto the government.
back in the day, dealers didn't want their adult friends caught up with major beefs, so they starting preying upon children to do their dirty work to avoid adult sentencing. sentencing got more harsh, and who ends up taking the hit?
Basically, to make money selling coke you're looking at $200 an 8-ball, you step on it to make 4 grams, and sell them for $60-$80 each (I've been out of the game for a while so the numbers might be different now). Basically that's a $240-$320 return on a $200 investment. If you're broke enough to sell drugs out of necessity that kind of investment is out of reach.
With crack it's possible to get in the game for as little as $5. If you can sell that rock for $10 you're in business. Don't forget too that many crack dealers are also crack addicts so that nickel dime hustle works well to feed a habit.
Also, the average coke head tends to be at a higher socioeconomic status than your average crack head. A lot of them are older professional types that don't want anything to do with a street level hustler. You have to have some stripes to deal with them. Crack addicts are a lot less picky and will gladly get their shit from hovels that would make Satan puke.
co-sign.
This is a moot and frustrating discussion. The facts are black people: YOU ARE PREY - period. No, you are a business first - then prey. VegasGuy encapsulated the problem in his comments. You want blood no matter what the color of the person is, but 9 out of 10 times this person is black. The PROVIDER, since Iran-Contra has been white.
I don't have time to discuss this as being the absolute "truth' because there are too many of you that don't read and swear that everything is up to debate as conspiracy fodder. It is chronicled by Gary Webb. He exposed the government, the players and why crack became so popular back in the day. He did a very thorugh job. Brought heat on a lot of people. He's dead, byt the way. On December 11, 2004, he (Gary) died from two gunshot wounds to the head, said in media reports to be self-inflicted. Of course when you commit suicide you shoot yourself 2wice IN THE HEAD to get it right...right?!?!?
[FLASH]http://youtube.com/watch/v/UYmB9g8G0ss[/FLASH]
[FLASH]http://youtube.com/watch/v/3iU4xe2vT1Q[/FLASH]
At the same time Nancy Reagan was telling us to "Say no to drugs" in the 80's, her husband approved to have Oliver North smuggle drugs into California to aid the Contras and then that mess spread. Laws againts crack dealers increased, cocain users dropped - since most, who could afford the powder, were white.
They get you coming and going. Unregistered weapons and munitions to kill blacks, miraculously get circulated in the streets, cops need more advanced weaponry to kill and incarcerate blacks, more jails need to be built so there are bidding wars for the next Supermax, if you don't make it to jail, they sell you a nice coffin to put you in. F.U.B.A.R
1. Stop having all these fatherless kids running the streets. You are the first line of defense, in the defense, of the next generation.
2. Raise your children.
3. Teach your children the truth about your family history, world history and how they can effect the future.
4. Educate yourselves and your communities.
5. Jobs are moving overseas. Learn a trade, invest in something you love doing, pass the gift/skill/trade on to your kids so that they do not look for quick loot or an easy hussle. Teach them the value of "working" and pride will come.
NOTE: (For "believer's", placing God first in your life would actually be #1, but I know there are multiple belief/doubt systems on this board).
This is a moot and frustrating discussion. The facts are black people: YOU ARE PREY - period. No, you are a business first - then prey. VegasGuy encapsulated the problem in his comments. You want blood no matter what the color of the person is, but 9 out of 10 times this person is black. The PROVIDER, since Iran-Contra has been white.
I don't have time to discuss this as being the absolute "truth' because there are too many of you that don't read and swear that everything is up to debate as conspiracy fodder. It is chronicled by Gary Webb. He exposed the government, the players and why crack became so popular back in the day. He did a very thorugh job. Brought heat on a lot of people. He's dead, byt the way. On December 11, 2004, he (Gary) died from two gunshot wounds to the head, said in media reports to be self-inflicted. Of course when you commit suicide you shoot yourself 2wice IN THE HEAD to get it right...right?!?!?
[FLASH]http://youtube.com/watch/v/UYmB9g8G0ss[/FLASH]
[FLASH]http://youtube.com/watch/v/3iU4xe2vT1Q[/FLASH]
At the same time Nancy Reagan was telling us to "Say no to drugs" in the 80's, her husband approved to have Oliver North smuggle drugs into California to aid the Contras and then that mess spread. Laws againts crack dealers increased, cocain users dropped - since most, who could afford the powder, were white.
They get you coming and going. Unregistered weapons and munitions to kill blacks, miraculously get circulated in the streets, cops need more advanced weaponry to kill and incarcerate blacks, more jails need to be built so there are bidding wars for the next Supermax, if you don't make it to jail, they sell you a nice coffin to put you in. F.U.B.A.R
1. Stop having all these fatherless kids running the streets. You are the first line of defense, in the defense, of the next generation.
2. Raise your children.
3. Teach your children the truth about your family history, world history and how they can effect the future.
4. Educate yourselves and your communities.
5. Jobs are moving overseas. Learn a trade, invest in something you love doing, pass the gift/skill/trade on to your kids so that they do not look for quick loot or an easy hussle. Teach them the value of "working" and pride will come.
NOTE: (For "believer's", placing God first in your life would actually be #1, but I know there are multiple belief/doubt systems on this board).
co-sign.
This is a moot and frustrating discussion. The facts are black people: YOU ARE PREY - period. No, you are a business first - then prey. VegasGuy encapsulated the problem in his comments. You want blood no matter what the color of the person is, but 9 out of 10 times this person is black. The PROVIDER, since Iran-Contra has been white.
I don't have time to discuss this as being the absolute "truth' because there are too many of you that don't read and swear that everything is up to debate as conspiracy fodder. It is chronicled by Gary Webb. He exposed the government, the players and why crack became so popular back in the day. He did a very thorugh job. Brought heat on a lot of people. He's dead, byt the way. On December 11, 2004, he (Gary) died from two gunshot wounds to the head, said in media reports to be self-inflicted. Of course when you commit suicide you shoot yourself 2wice IN THE HEAD to get it right...right?!?!?
[FLASH]http://youtube.com/watch/v/UYmB9g8G0ss[/FLASH]
[FLASH]http://youtube.com/watch/v/3iU4xe2vT1Q[/FLASH]
At the same time Nancy Reagan was telling us to "Say no to drugs" in the 80's, her husband approved to have Oliver North smuggle drugs into California to aid the Contras and then that mess spread. Laws againts crack dealers increased, cocain users dropped - since most, who could afford the powder, were white.
They get you coming and going. Unregistered weapons and munitions to kill blacks, miraculously get circulated in the streets, cops need more advanced weaponry to kill and incarcerate blacks, more jails need to be built so there are bidding wars for the next Supermax, if you don't make it to jail, they sell you a nice coffin to put you in. F.U.B.A.R
1. Stop having all these fatherless kids running the streets. You are the first line of defense, in the defense, of the next generation.
2. Raise your children.
3. Teach your children the truth about your family history, world history and how they can effect the future.
4. Educate yourselves and your communities.
5. Jobs are moving overseas. Learn a trade, invest in something you love doing, pass the gift/skill/trade on to your kids so that they do not look for quick loot or an easy hussle. Teach them the value of "working" and pride will come.
NOTE: (For "believer's", placing God first in your life would actually be #1, but I know there are multiple belief/doubt systems on this board).
This is a moot and frustrating discussion. The facts are black people: YOU ARE PREY - period. No, you are a business first - then prey. VegasGuy encapsulated the problem in his comments. You want blood no matter what the color of the person is, but 9 out of 10 times this person is black. The PROVIDER, since Iran-Contra has been white.
I don't have time to discuss this as being the absolute "truth' because there are too many of you that don't read and swear that everything is up to debate as conspiracy fodder. It is chronicled by Gary Webb. He exposed the government, the players and why crack became so popular back in the day. He did a very thorugh job. Brought heat on a lot of people. He's dead, byt the way. On December 11, 2004, he (Gary) died from two gunshot wounds to the head, said in media reports to be self-inflicted. Of course when you commit suicide you shoot yourself 2wice IN THE HEAD to get it right...right?!?!?
[FLASH]http://youtube.com/watch/v/UYmB9g8G0ss[/FLASH]
[FLASH]http://youtube.com/watch/v/3iU4xe2vT1Q[/FLASH]
At the same time Nancy Reagan was telling us to "Say no to drugs" in the 80's, her husband approved to have Oliver North smuggle drugs into California to aid the Contras and then that mess spread. Laws againts crack dealers increased, cocain users dropped - since most, who could afford the powder, were white.
They get you coming and going. Unregistered weapons and munitions to kill blacks, miraculously get circulated in the streets, cops need more advanced weaponry to kill and incarcerate blacks, more jails need to be built so there are bidding wars for the next Supermax, if you don't make it to jail, they sell you a nice coffin to put you in. F.U.B.A.R
1. Stop having all these fatherless kids running the streets. You are the first line of defense, in the defense, of the next generation.
2. Raise your children.
3. Teach your children the truth about your family history, world history and how they can effect the future.
4. Educate yourselves and your communities.
5. Jobs are moving overseas. Learn a trade, invest in something you love doing, pass the gift/skill/trade on to your kids so that they do not look for quick loot or an easy hussle. Teach them the value of "working" and pride will come.
NOTE: (For "believer's", placing God first in your life would actually be #1, but I know there are multiple belief/doubt systems on this board).
alcohol
nicotine
pharmaceuticals
remove the illegality and you remove the violence and the chief enslavement tool used against mostly black people
everyone doesn't smoke
everyone doesnt become an alcoholic etc
legalize it and most likely underemployed undereducated black males will seek out a new forbidden fruit since this is an economic issue for the most part
I'd rather see hundreds of thousands if not millions of nonviolent offenders free to attempt living again than a system of perpetual slavery. Arguing legalizing crack will make everyone crackheads is crackhead logic.
Any real solution to this problem would involve social programs, new efforts in repairing the educational system and other honest efforts at solving the poverty-slavery cycle. Anything else is lies.
Repair the educational system and install/improve mechanisms aimed at solving the poverty cycle and you should move people away from drugs, without making crack legal. To make crack legal thinking that there won't be more crackheads and more destruction of lives is, well, lying to yourself.Makkonnen said:
QueEx
If you remove the illegality of it hen you make it easier for people to gain access to a debilitating fatal narcotic. Maybe less death between dealers and cops, but the buyer’s life expectancy diminishes exponentially.
True change starts at home. Most of the people I knew that sold drugs were young dudes with no family structure. The moms were on welfare or had low paying jobs. They could barely afford to pay rent. They knew the risks their sons were taking every time they left the house, but the rent got paid. To paraphrase KRS1: “Now [there was] steak with the beans and rice.”
If it is accepted in the home and there is no knowledge of self + poor income dynamics = desperation and scheming on the selling side. However, there are the anomalies like those who like the power, money and “prestige” that comes with the rock star lifestyle as well.
As far as users, there are the experimenters, the casual users, but more often than not there are the hopeless and those wanting to escape reality. Giving them legal access to kill themselves, with the desperate state of mind they are already in, is not wise to say the least.
As far as government programs, the first program would be to stop aiding drug traffickers to come into the US to sell the distribute drugs. Drugs are a multi-billion dollar industry. The money flows upward, far beyond what the petty traffickers and hoppers see.
The government needs a segment of the population to be sick and dependent upon government services, programs and medication. Therefore, do not expect any real help form them. True freedom from the selling and use of drugs starts in the home with a strong family unit. Its so basic that it confounds the masses.
Even if you're correct wouldn't a partial legalization at least limit a lot of that potential destruction? A lot of people tend to forget that a lot of crack addicts are relatively functional just like most alcoholics are. The difference is that unlike alcoholics, crack heads have to break the law to get their fix and also risk losing their jobs if they fail a drug test. IMHO this causes just as much if not more destruction as the actual drugs do.
Also, if the majority of drug users are middle-upper class whites then how is ending a cycle of poverty going to end drug use? If education is the answer then how come the D.A.R.E. program has been such a failure?
I believe that our society has to wake up and realize that our Puritan ideals of temperance are not realistic. We have to accept that getting intoxicated is a basic facet of human nature the same way that sex is. We also have to accept that not all people are going to get intoxicated the same way, in fact for some people the recommended legal methods can be downright dangerous.
The least powerful group of people in our nation is the most negatively effected by this. Are the PBA's and Bars of our nation going to back those social programs?
Most "crackheads" are functional working adults. Just like most alcoholics. Most drug addicts are white as well but since their drugs aren't treated in the same manner and since they aren't under the same type of criminal scrutiny they aren't shuffled into the slave pens in the same quantity as our people are.
Its a bullshit conversation anyway as long as slavery is an industry. Whether its crack, meth, X, heroine etc there will always be something for people to criminalize to keep the industry going.
With the way our government operates do you really see any shift in the application of justice towards black people barring some significant earth shattering social movement?
I don't. No one is ready to pay those dues.
Its unregulated commerce and an easy way to enslave people. All the dangerous narcotic bullshit is a joke. Alcohol devastates health and lives in far greater numbers and no one does or says shit. Cigarettes?
Its all about personal responsibility when people dont want to do shit for others in society then its looking out for them when criminalizing drugs. Okay.
Its all about enslaving people.
Government is a reactionary device it is not suppose to be proactive. That's why there's different branches and checks and balances. Something drastic has to happen before it takes action or it has to be petitioned or lobbied. These laws came about because Black people were complaining about gang's and crack so the government responded by enacting draconian laws, politicans saw it was a winning issue so they raced to the bottom coming up with tougher laws to win office.
and therein, is the undeniable proof AGAINST legalization.
We've been trying to repair the educational system for over 20 years.
Thats why I favor school choice.
Kids that "desire" an education over the regular high school dribble of sports and entertainment, should be able to choose the school thats going to prepare them for the college or vocation. Thats what Marva Collins was doing... preparing kids for college... Black kids are just as educatable as any other group in this country. That is.... once they get past the usual school fun stuff and mind garbage.
As far as poverty is concerned, american society does not "legislate" morality. There is no law that tells a woman how many children she can have. Countries like China and India already do that... the abortion rates in those countries are phenominal and would shock the average american.
How do you tell people (women) to not have kids if they can't afford them? If they can barely afford to take care of themselves, what makes them think they can afford to add more members to there households? The numbers don't add up today, nor will they add up tomorrow.
Besides, the majority of poverty stricken kids are in homes with no father. If you have kids before you have the money to take care of them, its the equivalent of starting out with over $100,000 of debt and no clue how you're going to pay for it.
My own daughter cost $3000 dollars to bring into this world and we had insurance to cover the costs (that was over 18 years ago... I could guess its around 5 grand these days)... who pays for an unmarried womans child? do they pay for it out there own pocket... or are they relying on the government to pick up the tab.
Kids are not toy's... you don't throw them in the trash after you're tired of em. They bring with them not only the costs of pre and post natal care... but ongoing expenses in annual thousands till they reach 18.
Last edited:
Similar threads
