Quote (bogie160 @ 26 May 2022 16:15)
No, that's incorrect. If the explanation for high rates of incarceration in the United States was largely the result of incarcerating non-violent offenders, you would expect to see a discrepancy between the overall incarceration rate and the rate of violent offenses. I.e. You would expect to see that the United States locks up a far greater percentage of their population despite comparably lower rates of homicide and violent crime. But we don't see that, the United States locks of several multiples of the UK on a per capita basis, but it also suffers several multiples the rate of homicide. That's not to say that we shouldn't do anything about the over-punishment of (solely) non-violent offenders, but it is not the explanation for American incarceration rates.
I have explained to you why crack cocaine and powder cocaine are charged differently. And I've explained why the quote of one estranged advisor from the Nixon administration is not particularly relevant when discussing 1980s drug enforcement. I'm not sure what you mean by "regurgitating facts", I am discussing the examples you brought up, because they don't mean what you think they mean. Rather than hopping to the next topic, try to understand what I'm saying, and then ascertain whether it makes sense, and whether you agree or disagree.
you not only failed statistics 101 but basic logic as well. that makes no sense at all. you can't simply pretend like if homicide incarcerations are proportional to the rate of homicides committed, therefore that applies to all crimes. do you genuinely not realise how dumb that is, or are you merely trying to muddy the waters because you lost the argument regarding guns and "freedom" a long time ago? seriously, the mental gymnastics you're performing in order to pretend that the government locking away millions of non-violent offenders on moronic charges for minor things is almost impressive.

i'm not even sure who you're trying to convince, or rather confuse, with your pre-schooler "logic", but it sure won't change the overwhelming consensus on the devastating impact the war on drugs had, specifically (and by design) on minority communities. i mean, the fact that you're still trying to justify the 100 to 1 disparity in cocaine sentencing, after even its racist architects and proponents admitted their disgusting motives, speaks for itself.
also, the suggestion that the war on drugs, or specifically its racial component ended with the nixon administration, trying to downplay reagan's devastating role in this, just further illustrates how completely ignorant or disingenuous you are.
in case you ever feel like doing some actual research, not just selectively quoting opinion pieces that you (erroneously) think support your ridiculous attempt to portray the war on drugs as well-meant, successful legislative effort:
https://ldi.upenn.edu/our-work/research-updates/the-war-on-drugs-as-structural-racism/