|
Post by aubrey on Aug 18, 2016 7:20:16 GMT
The origins of The War Against Drugs: "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." ~John Ehrlichman (Nixon aide) Report: Aide says Nixon's war on drugs targeted blacks, hippiesStill going on.
|
|
|
Post by marispiper on Aug 18, 2016 7:32:03 GMT
Well, it might seem that way to those stopped, but I believe the police require reasonable grounds to suspect the person may be carrying drugs, offensive weapon etc.
I get the impression you're opposed to it...however, I think that with the increased numbers of knife/gun carriers, it is a strategy that is needed.
It's easy to see how people get annoyed at being stopped, even when innocent. I've been stopped at customs, I think 3 times. You feel a kind of affront but quickly accept they are doing a job although if I had been treated aggressively, it might be different.
Both sides have to keep cool and cooperative
|
|
|
Post by marispiper on Aug 18, 2016 7:37:11 GMT
1. That was the USA, 2. That was 1970...possibly even earlier!
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Aug 18, 2016 8:19:32 GMT
The war against drugs is still going on; and the UK is a part of it, due to UN treaties.
Remember when the (Labour Govt) started their science-based drugs policy? And then sacked the bloke they'd appointed to be the head of it for actually recommending policies based on science, rather than prohibitionist nonsense?
Well, yes: being a young black man is enough grounds for suspicion: that's what the riots of the 80s were about (the Sus laws), and that policy was stopped and replaced with Stop and Search - which is just the same, in practice: black people six times more likely to be stopped than a white person, though drug use at least is the same whatever colour you are.
I wasn't annoyed about being stopped; I thought it was funny, the blatantly transparent lie about there having been a robbery nearby and I fitted the description, etc. If it was the 1oth time I'd been stopped I might have felt different.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2016 9:01:53 GMT
The war against drugs is still going on; and the UK is a part of it, due to UN treaties. Remember when the (Labour Govt) started their science-based drugs policy? And then sacked the bloke they'd appointed to be the head of it for actually recommending policies based on science, rather than prohibitionist nonsense? Well, yes: being a young black man is enough grounds for suspicion: that's what the riots of the 80s were about (the Sus laws), and that policy was stopped and replaced with Stop and Search - which is just the same, in practice: black people six times more likely to be stopped than a white person, though drug use at least is the same whatever colour you are. I wasn't annoyed about being stopped; I thought it was funny, the blatantly transparent lie about there having been a robbery nearby and I fitted the description, etc. If it was the 1oth time I'd been stopped I might have felt different. Why were you stopped in the first place, are you of significant appearance?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2016 9:07:00 GMT
You obviously approve of drug use Aubrey. But you ignore that fact that it destroys countless thousand lives, is also responsible for a very high percentage of robberies and thefts as people need to feed a habit. And it is illegal. That is just the tip of the iceberg of why it should be targeted.
I don't approve of drug use and if I found out one of my children or grandchildren was using I would personally turn them in.
|
|
|
Post by marispiper on Aug 18, 2016 10:51:07 GMT
Nobody comes up with a different or better strategy than stop and search, which needs more constructive ideas than just being against it.
If there is, I can't think of it.
I feel for the good honest black people who get identified as 'gangsters' simply for being black.
However, regarding BLM, they can holler all they like but they will change nothing...they are only about blame instead of looking for solutions. I think they should plough more energy into addressing reasons why these men in their 'communities' choose crime/gangs instead of study/work.
For all the positive discrimination to aid black young men to be contributors (we did loads at school) and recruitment drives for the police etc. it doesn't seem to have changed attitudes a lot.
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Aug 18, 2016 16:32:10 GMT
You obviously approve of drug use Aubrey. But you ignore that fact that it destroys countless thousand lives, is also responsible for a very high percentage of robberies and thefts as people need to feed a habit. And it is illegal. That is just the tip of the iceberg of why it should be targeted. I don't approve of drug use and if I found out one of my children or grandchildren was using I would personally turn them in. Drug prohibition has done all those things, not the drugs themselves: remember the gangster culture in the US was created by alcohol prohibition, and the alcohol sold during that time was adulterated and sometimes fatal - that wasn't down to the alcohol itself but the fact that it was illegal to sell the stuff. The war against drugs, according to one of the people who set it up, had nothing to do with drugs, but the kind of people who were assumed to take them - IE, people who would never vote for Nixon. I don't approve or disapprove of drug use; there are plenty of drugs I wouldn't take myself. But I have had morphine and it did not do me any harm, at all; rather the opposite (it was pure, in a measured dose). Cannabis has helped me through bouts of insomnia (a lot better than alcohol does), and it has helped a lot with arthritis, a lot better than drugs I have been prescribed - fewer side effects as as well: no hair falling out, no sick tiredness, etc. Gus - I think it was because I was walking with my hands in my coat pockets (which were a bit like parka pockets) and crossed over my chest: I suppose it may have looked as if I were hiding something - the police asked why I was walking along like that anyway. really, it was just the cold.
|
|
|
Post by marispiper on Aug 18, 2016 16:53:55 GMT
Hands crossed over your chest? Sounds shady t'me 😊...people hide all sorts o'gear in those parkas...
|
|
|
Post by marispiper on Aug 18, 2016 17:00:49 GMT
I think all your Nixon stuff and prohibition may have some historical relevance but it has nothing to do with where we are now with the drug issue.
People who don't have an issue with drugs have usually just had enjoyable recreational experience and not had a loved one with a REAL problem because of drugs.
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Aug 18, 2016 17:24:56 GMT
The War on Drugs has never stopped: it was designed never to stop, because it can never be won. If govts really cared about people having problems with drugs they would treat it as a medical problem, not criminal (as we used to do here - heroin addicts could get it prescribed; there were very few of them back then (the early 60s): it was only when the system was stopped and possession became criminalised that heroin use started to grow). Heroin is not intrinsically dangerous: but illegal heroin, adulterated, so that you have no idea of how much and what you're taking: that is very dangerous. Pure, in a properly measured dose, it's not dangerous at all. Here is once consequence of the War Against Drugs that is coming into fashion in the US (and may well come here: there have definitely been unjustified cases of asset reclamation here already): Rep. Issa Calls Out Civil Asset Forfeiture As Letting 'Cops Go Treasure Hunting'Civil asset forfeiture allows police to seize property as long as they believe that the assets in question were somehow connected to criminal activity.
“As long as they believe” — that's the key part.
Authorities don't have to actually prove the person was guilty of a crime. They don't have to even file charges. The presumption of innocence is thrown to the wayside.
It's an egregious violation of the 4th Amendment, but that's not even the most glaring problem with the system.
Under current law, most states allow police departments to absorb up to 100% of the value of the confiscated property — whether it's cash, cars, houses or guns — and use the proceeds to pad their budgets. It's an obvious conflict of interest — and boy, is it profitable for law enforcement agencies. Basically, the police can say they suspect you of having money (or a vehicle, or anything), in order to buy drugs and then take it from you. There is no charge, no crime - that stuff about innocent until proven guilty goes right out - and the process of getting it back takes so long and costs so much (often more than the money involved) that most people give up. The police department gets to keep the money itself: one used some to buy a squishy machine for itself. It has to be said here that the people who have their assets taken are innocent, usually just people going about their business.
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Aug 18, 2016 17:28:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by marispiper on Aug 18, 2016 17:37:37 GMT
Much as I accept your providing 'evidence' I really don't believe the USA and its approach on drugs, (or race, come to that) has very much relevance here, thankfully.
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Aug 18, 2016 18:26:21 GMT
Oh, well.
|
|
|
Post by marispiper on Aug 18, 2016 18:48:44 GMT
Watched the news and there was a report about people's negative experiences of rascism. Then there was a black guy saying he didn't 'get it' and he felt that acceptance of each other is better now than it's ever been...
I am a firm believer in the self fulfilling prophecy...if you talk something down, that's what you will find. Reverse also true.
|
|