|
|
| Census: War on Drugs Hit Blacks |
|
Posted by FoM on June 27, 2001 at 23:16:27 PT By Diane Scarponi, Associated Press Writer Source: Washington Post 
When an epidemic of crack and gang violence erupted in cities like New Haven in the 1990s, police and lawmakers struck back hard. The war on drugs yielded dozens of new laws, including mandatory sentences for drug dealers and heavier penalties for dealing crack rather than powdered cocaine.But those laws also had unintended consequences in minority communities. Black men make up less than 3 percent of Connecticut's population but account for 47 percent of inmates in prisons, jails and halfway houses, 2000 census figures show. Overall in Connecticut, one in 11 black men between the ages of 18 and 64 is behind bars, the census found. In 1990, that figure was about one in 25. Similar disparities can be seen across the country. In Louisiana, one of the few states to receive updated race statistics from the census, black inmates outnumber whites 3-to-1; blacks account for only a third of the state's population. Nationwide, the Justice Department reported that 12 percent of all black men between the ages of 20 and 34 were locked up last year. "I don't think anyone intended it to be this way, but if you were trying to design a system to incarcerate as many African-American and Latino men as possible, I don't think you could have designed a better system," said state Rep. Michael Lawlor, co-chairman of the Connecticut Legislature's Judiciary Committee. The National Conference of State Legislatures estimates state governments spend $20 billion a year fighting drugs. Some states now are trying to ease the drug laws of the 1990s, putting more money toward prevention and treatment instead of incarceration. "You can't put every drug user in jail, because if you do and they don't get any help, they're going to be right back in again," said Chief State's Attorney Jack Bailey, Connecticut's top prosecutor for 10 years. This year, the Legislature voted to give judges more leeway in sentencing drug dealers who operated near schools, day care centers and public housing projects. The old law set a three-year mandatory minimum sentence for dealing within 1,500 feet of those places. In densely populated New Haven, that meant virtually everywhere except the Yale University golf course and the Tweed-New Haven airport runway. While drugs also are prevalent in Connecticut's mostly white suburbs, the preference there for powdered cocaine over crack and sprawling development meant that few suburban dealers faced the same penalties. In California this year, a ballot proposition takes effect that will mean treatment instead of prison for many first- and second-time drug offenders. Offenders' records are cleared if they complete treatment. A similar 4-year-old program in Arizona has saved money because treatment is cheaper than prison, a state analysis found. Similar programs are being considered in Ohio, Florida and Michigan. Some politicians, however, believe a hard line on drugs is appropriate, or do not wish to be seen as soft on crime. "I think it sends out a very negative message to the public at large," said Connecticut state Rep. Ronald San Angelo, a Republican who opposed changing mandatory minimum sentences. People who lived through the gang and drug wars also offer caution. While they are angry that a generation of young black men are in prison, they do not want to return to the past. Lorraine Stanley, a resident of a New Haven housing project for 13 years, recalled how a drug gang called the Jungle Brothers terrorized her neighborhood. Police eventually busted up the gang, and now a police substation in the neighborhood keeps crime down. "Things have gotten a whole lot better," Stanley said. Despite changes in the laws, other experts said racial bias in the courts and poverty in the cities will continue to lead to more prison time for minorities. Frank Mandanici, a public defender in New Haven, said that bias among juries affects verdicts and sentences for black defendants. "Racism permeates our society. It's a cancer no one is willing to address," he said. "There is no test on how to detect it and what to do with it." Yale political science Professor Donald Green said the density and poverty of cities combined with law enforcement tactics have put more blacks in prison. "Drug use is similar in white and nonwhite populations, but the level of enforcement is very different among the two groups," he said. "Violent crime is more associated with gang activity, associated with drug abuse in minorities, and enforcement is aimed overwhelmingly in that direction." Also, Green said, poor people of all races turn to crime when there are no other opportunities. On the Net: State: http://www.state.ct.us Census: http://www.census.gov National Criminal Justice Reference Service: http://ncjrs.aspensys.com Source: Washington Post (DC) Related Article: Police Developing Profiling Policies CannabisNews Articles - Treatment Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
|
Comment #15 posted by kaptinemo on June 29, 2001 at 06:28:31 PT:
|
| My Mother was diagnosed with Crohn's Disease back in the early 1990's. She was given the maximum dosages of steroids (Prednisone) for years...when you are only supposed to take the stuff for a month at most. Those, combined with the other pills she was prescribed, weakened her terribly, and she died of complications caused by the medicines, not the disease. The term is iatrogenic: meaning, "caused by the doctor". I saw what they pills were doing to her. Having hung around the medics in my SF unit, I knew more than most about meds. I knew that when you give someone Lasix, you should give them mineral supplements to balance the electrolytes they lose. They didn't do that for my mother. I came home one weekend to find her unable to rise out of her chair, she was so weak. When she told me what she was on, I broke a few speeding laws to get to the local store and get her some sports drinks rich in those same electolytes. After gulping a couple down, she felt a lot better. After she had gone back to the her doc and complained, only then did he give her the supplements. The docs professed being mystified at her condition...when warnings about these prescriptions were written in publicly available books like The Pill Book which was sold at the very same pharmacy where I went to get her meds. I begged her to go off those pills, but because a doctor had prescribed them, they must be okay, right? She suffered horribly in her last moments of life - largely because of those meds. Pills? No thanks. I'll stick with what I know won't kill me. (hubbleubbblubble) [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #14 posted by FoM on June 28, 2001 at 20:03:46 PT |
| Hi Kapt, I was only kidding and I sure know you are right about what drugs can do to a person. My husband is going through another really sick time again and we haven't even called the doctor because they'll probably want to give him some drugs. I am afraid of prescription drugs because of all the problems I had with them. Both my parents would have lived longer without mistakes from the wrong drug given to my Mother and a screwed up surgical procedure that killed my Father. I saw what medicine did to my son. I'm with you. I only meant that drugs don't help very often. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #13 posted by kaptinemo on June 28, 2001 at 19:18:42 PT:
|
| They can do things to you. oh yes, indeed. Having sciatica can be a royal pain in the ass...and the legs...and the feet. But taking a pill can sometimes cause more trouble. To make a long story short, my doc, who's really a very sharp (and classy) lady gave me a prescription for something new. It was called "Carisoprodol". I had never heard of it. And I wasn't savvy enough at the time to check for possible side effects. A doctor prescribed it, so it must be safe, right? Wrong. And in my case, almost dead wrong. I had an anaphylactic reaction, like a bee sting does to those susceptible to them. My hands began to itch like a million mosquitos were biting, they swelled up like Polack Johnnie's kielbasa sausages, as did my feet, legs, my tongue, and parts of my face went numb. One of my roomies took one look at me, and being a former EMT, she hustled me off to hospital, where I had to have a massive shot of Benedryl to get the inflamation down. The doc in the emergency room said that if I had weighed 20 pounds less I'd have been dead. Oh, yes, they certainly can do things to you. Needless to say, I haven't had any other meds than the stuff I have to take evey day. I learned my lesson the hard way. Herbs, vitamins and minerals from now on. Not nearly as expensive, either. And like cannabis, a Hell of a lot safer [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #12 posted by FoM on June 28, 2001 at 17:07:35 PT |
| One pill makes you larger and one pill makes you small and the one that the pharmaceutical companies give you don't do anything at all. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #11 posted by dddd on June 28, 2001 at 16:58:37 PT |
| Lehder,,,isnt it amazing keep a log of the ads.The best place to see drug ads is during your daytime soap operas. You're right,Paxil ads seem to have mysteriously disappeared?They ddd............... Oh,,,,,there it is........d [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #10 posted by Lehder on June 28, 2001 at 15:38:24 PT |
| I made quite a sacrifice for you and for America last night. I watched television for over two hours . I paid attention. I took notes. Then I leafed through a magazine ( The Smithsonian ). Now, like the TV, I want you to take drugs. I got a whole list of 'em. And I want you to watch more TV too. If you don't like TV I have a pill that will put you in the hospital where you GOTTA watch TV. My format is like this: name of drug ( pill ) - condition it treats okay, TAKE THESE PILLS AT THE SLIGHTEST LITTLE DISCOMFORT: Nexium - heartburn ( acid reflux ) Allegra - allergies Zocor - cholosterol Zoloft - depression Vioxx - arthritis Aricept - Alzheimer's disease Okay, I hope yer feelin' better. I don't use a lot of big words like a physician would ( I'm tough and fast, not smart ) but I hope you're feelin' better anyway. * oh, yeah, the asterisked effects were gotten from the website I'm not gonna comment on Paxil. dddd and I discussed that at length some time ago. In fact, I recommended it to him. It's addictive. hope he's still got all his d's. I'm not gonna comment much on marijuana either except to point out that unlike diarrhea or respiratory infections it makes you feel better. It has only one negative side effect: PRISON. If you need any information on BOOZE, I'll be pushing plenty of it at our next public, televised execution - probably of a pot smoker. Beah Heah! By the way, I havn't seen a Paxil commercial on TV in several months! Do you suppose, dddd, that our discussion here could have had anything to do with that? IF I SEE ANY MORE PAXIL ADS I'M GOING TO GO TO THE EXTREME TROUBLE OF COPYING ALL THE FINE PRINTED SIDE EFFECTS FROM THE WEB SITE: Oh, well, here's Shelly, a bedraggled looking girl who's been taking Paxil for 8 years, and who has saved me the trouble of reading all that fine print. But if i see any more ads for Paxil I'm gonna check her work and share my results with you. Beah Heah! Getchuh Beah Heah! Ice Cold Beah Heah! [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #9 posted by jAHn on June 28, 2001 at 13:10:52 PT |
| It's as if THey're just DISCOVERING this little facet that's been making "the poor communities seem WAY UNWORTHY of travel and luxury shopping." I imagine in 5 years, the Black Leaders (uncle tom) are going to catch wind of this, but I'm NOT getting my hopes too HIGH. FUnny how "Competing Journalists" are ALL taking the same F@#cking Notes... Can you just FEEL yourself being F@#cked by the InvisiblePro? The news organizations are SO outdated in their Communicative fashion that I can only believe that they cater to a "certain audience." Not that this is ANYTHING new. TV is a Crime, and you businessfolk KNOW IT... What better way to fix a Market? Can you say UTTERLY transparent? HA HA HA HAH HA!!! America is FALLING, still... [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #8 posted by jAHn on June 28, 2001 at 13:03:59 PT |
| The simple fact that because we're a bunch o' "Pot-Toking hippies", it's HARD as Steel to prove that We know were talking about and in turn, get Locked up ourselves for "Sympathising." Funny how people of LOUD Multi Colors DO NOT fit into the "Dress Code" of an Elitist MENber of Society! And even more revealing after we've tried to get jobs at a Corporation with some Bell-bottoms, a Rainbow-Paisley Butterfly collar Shirt! KNOW that Corporations' Elitists HATE HATE HATE hippies! Dress your LOUDEST and get in One of their faces! Try putting Nailpolish on if you're a Male, then go to work! Even Marier...Wear a Bell-Bottomed Skirt....GET DEEP into their Neuro-Dysfunctional "Brains!!!" SEE THE HATE COME OFF ONTO YOU... People of LOUD color (stereotypically-hippies, ravers) are Oppressed by the same forces that are Squelching the Minorital Races/Communities. Hippies are a Minority. Why ELSE would Ford, Chevy, Honda(need i go on?) utilize a JimiHendrix or BobMarley song, BUT not in its' Orig. format sung and instrumented by the Original Artists? Answer: HATE of HIPPIES. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #7 posted by Kevin M. Hebert on June 28, 2001 at 11:18:33 PT:
|
| We have today juxtaposed articles from both papers. I tis obvious to me that the Post is simply a superior paper in terms of rational journalism. I think, however, that the Post writes what it thinks people want to hear (to make money) while the Times prints what it wants people to believe (to proselytize). Neither method is truly acceptable -- how about printing the truth? -- but the kinds of articles that have been printed in the Post lately lead me to believe that, finally, the American public is starting to realize what a miserable hypocrisy the drug war is. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #6 posted by Robbie on June 28, 2001 at 08:13:59 PT |
Seeing these stats only reinforces the idea that the Drug War truly is "social control" of people of color. Seeing the stats from 1980 onward only reinforces the idea that it was, in fact, the CIA that took this new form of cocaine called crack and poured it into the inner cities across America. The reasoning was twofold: 1) Generate funds for Reagan's favorite project, the Contras, and 2) Give police an even better job security by making the inner cities eat themselves. I want to yell out to the woman in this article, "As bad as it was, don't blame your young brothers and sisters for the problems you encountered. It's still the fault of the `white devil.' It's still the man tryin' to keep you down." If that used to sound reactionary and over-the-top, these facts and figures simply prove that the concern was justified. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #5 posted by kaptinemo on June 28, 2001 at 08:13:16 PT:
|
| The only thing the Supreme Court in the 1969 decision did was rectify a glaringly obvious logical mistake in the formulation of the 'law'...not make a judgement on its' intent. It did not rule on it's purpose, which Anslinger made quite clear. A purpose which has, true to its' stated intent 64 years ago, been used as an instrument to harrass and imprison minorities. In this case, it is an unwilling legal system - and sadly, many members of the public as well - which refuses to review the facts governing the crafting, political chicanery and outright lies that were involved in the formulation of that law. And why. Because to look at it's origin is to look at a very ugly facet of this country's history which it desperately tries to avoid examining. Because to do so is to admit that there is a much bigger problem than just the DrugWar; the DrugWar is only a symptom of the disease, not its' cause. Racism. To admit the existence of a problem, however grudgingly, is the first step in solving it. And a lot of people in very high places (no pun intended) have no intention of admitting such a thing. No, siree. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #4 posted by dude on June 28, 2001 at 06:35:40 PT |
| The Marijuana Tax act of 1937 was OVERTURNED by the supreme court in 1969(I think). This was because the law didn't make any sense. It called for taxes on all marijuana from the beginning of production to the end, and required everyone involved to get a tax stamp or get a fine. Conveniently, they never printed one tax stamp. And possesion was illegal without a stamp, along with the idea that you can't get a stamp without the drug. This was patently unconstiutional, so it was overturned. Due to this, we now have the Controlled Substances act of 1970, which reregulated EVERYTHING. I think, but am unsure if the Harrison Narcotics act was repealed at the same time. The CSA is also unconstitutional, since the constitution does NOT give the feds the right to regulate drugs, unless it is interstate transport. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #3 posted by dddd on June 28, 2001 at 04:29:41 PT |
| ...As if this was some sort of surprizing new discovery,,, ,,Good Grief!......"Drug War Hits Blacks",,,that's like a headline saying; "Bush Influenced By Corporate Interests", ,,or,,,"Marijuana less Harmful Than Aspirin or Alcohol",, ,,,or "Drug War Is Quite Expensive and Wasteful,Taxpayers Would be Really Pissed If They Knew Facts"..
[ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #2 posted by kaptinemo on June 28, 2001 at 04:10:10 PT:
|
| "But those laws also had unintended consequences in minority communities. Black men make up less than 3 percent of Connecticut's population but account for 47 percent of inmates in prisons, jails and halfway houses, 2000 census figures show. and: ""I don't think anyone intended it to be this way, but if you were trying to design a system to incarcerate as many African-American and Latino men as possible, I don't think you could have designed a better system," said state Rep. Michael Lawlor, co-chairman of the Connecticut Legislature's Judiciary Committee. As the old saying goes, there are none so blind as those who will not see. The Harrison Narcotics Act, whose target was "cocaine crazed Negroes", has been in place for 87 years. The blatantly, deliberately racist anti-cannabis "Marihuana (sic) Tax Act", which was explicitily designed to be used against minority members of the population (the " ' degenerate races' " as Harry Anslinger referred to them), have been in effect for 64 years. The early history of the DrugWar is there, readily available, in black and white, for all who have the wit to look for it. It's in public libraries. It's on the Web. And it's original intent was crystal clear: keep the N*****s and S***s and C****s in their place. And now we have the figures to prove it. Actually, we've had the figures to prove it all along. A little judicious research would have turned up the facts very quickly. Hell, all you even had to do was visit the local prisons and count how many noses had a melannin content darker tahn Wonder Bread to figure this one out. And the news organs of this country have just now tumbled to the fact that more people of color are locked up for drug offenses that Whites? And they call themselves journalists? (Sardonic laughter) [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by JSM on June 28, 2001 at 01:39:15 PT |
| Jim Crow is alive and doing very well thank you. His new name is "Drug War." This idiocy,drug war, would end in a heartbeat if the laws were applied to whites with the same severity that it is applied to blacks and others of color. Why our black leaders continue to ignore this is utterly amazing to me. [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |