If you flag this, it's you admitting I'm right and you can't handle the truth and objective reality.
>Federal marijuana prohibition and the War on Drugs (yes including laws) is rooted in racial bias.
Somewhat of a myth, and at the end, the law is not biased or racist.
The Democratic party and gun control laws are also "rooted in racial bias". Is continuing gun control laws racist? Is the Democratic party racist?
>There are a HUGE amount of sources and you aren't acting in good faith so this is pointless. Some links below.
None of those links point to specific laws being racist whatsoever. One of you links literally agrees with me: "Athough there is no indication from case law and legislative history that Congress harbored a discriminatory intent when enacting the Anti-Drug Abuse Act"
>You might argue that the context around why these laws, for instance why there are specifically sentencing disparities written into law, doesn't matter because the plain text doesn't say black people shall have a 2x longer sentence. That's ignorant IMHO.
That's not ignorant, that's reality. They're not racist, your own source agreed with me. Meth also has 2x longer sentencing, is that a racist law targeting whites?
>Even so, racist laws were specifically written in plain text IN OUR CONSTITUTION spelling out black worth as only 3/5ths of white.
Are those laws still active? Oh, they're not? Cool, thanks for agreeing with me.
>Nixon's advisor has a 'great' quote plainly laying out the motivation and showing why context and the actual affects of these laws are racist.
These laws predate Nixon by decades. Stop moving goalposts and straw maning.
>you're being purposefully being flippant with a throwaway account so I'm not going to continue responding but go ahead and downvote again.
Translation: "I wasn't able to prove suburbs are racist, so I attempted to strawman and goalpost, but that failed, so I'm just going to take the leftists' exit and call you racist and leave."
If you flag this, it's you admitting I'm right and you can't handle the truth and objective reality.
>Federal marijuana prohibition and the War on Drugs (yes including laws) is rooted in racial bias.
Somewhat of a myth, and at the end, the law is not biased or racist.
The Democratic party and gun control laws are also "rooted in racial bias". Is continuing gun control laws racist? Is the Democratic party racist?
>There are a HUGE amount of sources and you aren't acting in good faith so this is pointless. Some links below.
None of those links point to specific laws being racist whatsoever. One of you links literally agrees with me: "Athough there is no indication from case law and legislative history that Congress harbored a discriminatory intent when enacting the Anti-Drug Abuse Act"
>You might argue that the context around why these laws, for instance why there are specifically sentencing disparities written into law, doesn't matter because the plain text doesn't say black people shall have a 2x longer sentence. That's ignorant IMHO.
That's not ignorant, that's reality. They're not racist, your own source agreed with me. Meth also has 2x longer sentencing, is that a racist law targeting whites?
>Even so, racist laws were specifically written in plain text IN OUR CONSTITUTION spelling out black worth as only 3/5ths of white.
Are those laws still active? Oh, they're not? Cool, thanks for agreeing with me.
>Nixon's advisor has a 'great' quote plainly laying out the motivation and showing why context and the actual affects of these laws are racist.
These laws predate Nixon by decades. Stop moving goalposts and straw maning.
>you're being purposefully being flippant with a throwaway account so I'm not going to continue responding but go ahead and downvote again.
Translation: "I wasn't able to prove suburbs are racist, so I attempted to strawman and goalpost, but that failed, so I'm just going to take the leftists' exit and call you racist and leave."
>I'm pointing out that you for instance, could benefit from some perspective in understanding why there is disagreement between because we fundamentally have different word-views / disagree on the language of this argument.
There's objective reality, and then there's narrative safe delusions. I guess you're right, my world-view is objective reality, apparently yours isn't.
>It's like trying to argue about bikes, if your definition of bike is a self powered two wheel and mine is a motorized machine.
Poor example. What constitutes the definition of a bike is codified in law LOL! There's that de jure and reality striking again.