Maybe a relic policy of racist era is more appropriate. I would think today’s lawmakers are more likely to oppose mj because they see it as something lazy hippies and stoner kids do rather than a tool to oppress minorities.
> The New York Civil Liberties Union today released an analysis of the NYPD’s 2012 stop-and-frisk data showing that the stop-and-frisk program’s stark racial disparities and ineffectiveness in recovering illegal guns continued last year despite a decline in the overall number of stops.
It was back when it was banned, partially due to intentional propaganda (which is why Americans use the Spanish word for it, rather than cannabis). A quick read through the wiki page of Harry Anslinger, first commissioner of the Federal Narcotics Bureau and one of the main architects of reefer madness, will give you a good overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger
The drugs were connotated with blacks and Mexicans. Those connotations were racist.
Later on, those connotations influenced lawmakers and policy was effected by it. This created racist policy.
Many of these racist lawmakers died. Others became less public about their racism.
Today, those policies still affect blacks and Mexicans more than whites, even though drug usage is similar. Therefore, the policies are still racist.
Thus if one supports the policies, one supports a racist act. Semantic arguments over whether that makes the person who supports them "racist" are moot. They're still supporting something that's racist.
The original intention is irrelevant for today. If a good law was originally passed for racist reasons that is no reason to abolish it. (Not saying that drug prohibition is good.)
> Today, those policies still affect blacks and Mexicans more than whites, even though drug usage is similar. Therefore, the policies are still racist.
Just because a policy does affect a certain group more doesn't mean that the supporters of the policy are against the group. For example, Blacks are more affected by laws against murder, but that doesn't mean that those who support laws against murder are racist.
This simply is untrue unless you operate in temporal vacuums. The intention has affected and currently affects public perception and legislation even today. What you suggest is similar to people who argue that there was a clean slate after abolition or even the civil Rights acts.
> You: that doesn't mean that those who support laws against murder are racist.
> Me: Whether or not they are racist is moot
You're completely missing the point I was making. So much so that I would ask you re-read what I said. I don't care if today's folks aren't "technically" racist. It's clear the laws' impact and original intention were, and that should be enough to question their efficacy. Furthermore your analogy is completely ludicrous. No one thinks someone should go unpunished for murder.
Your phrasing makes it seem like you're more concerned with something being called racist, than you are addressing historical acts of racism. And that is pretty odd to me.
Maybe, but one could certainly infer it from all of your posts in this topic, including the effort you undertook in another post to defend the success of alcohol prohibition.
> Last year, the NYPD stopped and interrogated people 532,911 times, a 448-percent increase in street stops since 2002 – when police recorded 97,296 stops during Mayor Bloomberg’s first year in office. Nine out of 10 of people stopped were innocent, meaning they were neither arrested nor ticketed. About 87 percent were black or Latino. White people accounted for only about 10 percent of stops.
That would be racism.