Quote (bogie160 @ Sep 19 2020 06:46pm)

Police presence is greater in the inner city because the inner city has more crime. As a result, inner city residents have more contacts with the police. That is simply the reality of the situation. When we poll blacks specifically, they are largely in favor of either the same or greater police presence.

If drug crimes should not actually be crimes, then let's get rid of drug crimes. Our laws today were implemented decades ago with widespread,diverse support. If we made a mistake, so be it. Inner city crime was perceived to be a problem, that problem was understood to be linked to drugs, crack cocaine was the drug of choice, ergo harsh laws against crack cocaine. Rather than follow this simple logic, acknowledge that it had unintended side effects, and correct it, you've embarked down some conspiratorial rabbit hole.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Sep 19 2020 10:07pm)

Oh yes, it's a conspiratorial rabbit hole, we definitely don't have people in the Nixon administration on tape admitting that was their goal in authoring those laws.

Again, you have to go out of your way to ignore important details that I know for a fact you are aware of.

You didn't used to be this blatantly dishonest.

Quote (inkanddagger @ Sep 19 2020 10:24pm)

The inner city has more arrests, not more crime.

Quote (bogie160 @ Sep 19 2020 10:36pm)

Ehrlichman? Seriously, come on.

The Nixon administration focused largely on demand reduction, not supply reduction. To the extent that they did increase supply reduction, it was largely in line with public sentiment at the time. And the extent to which the Nixon administration increased supply reduction was minuscule in context of what was to come later, again, largely in response to public pressures and concerns with respect to violence and drug crime.

It's also worth keeping in mind that much of law enforcement in the United States is local, not federal. Federal policy has only ever been one small part of a larger equation. Blaming local and state enforcement on an obscure federal conspiracy is asinine.

Incorrect.

Quote (bogie160 @ Sep 19 2020 08:36pm)

Ehrlichman? Seriously, come on.

The Nixon administration focused largely on demand reduction, not supply reduction. To the extent that they did increase supply reduction, it was largely in line with public sentiment at the time. And the extent to which the Nixon administration increased supply reduction was minuscule in context of what was to come later, again, largely in response to public pressures and concerns with respect to violence and drug crime.

It's also worth keeping in mind that much of law enforcement in the United States is local, not federal. Federal policy has only ever been one small part of a larger equation. Blaming local and state enforcement on an obscure federal conspiracy is asinine.



Incorrect.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Sep 19 2020 11:45pm)

Wonder why they focused on demand reduction. Probably because it's easier to target people.

You're so dishonest lol. The federal government put and continues to put pressure on states to adopt similar drug policies. It's not either or, it's "federal does this, and states better do the same or we're gonna start pulling your funding". GTFO with your bullshit. You are seriously bending over backwards to deny the obvious and insanely well documented history on this subject.

Quote (bogie160 @ 20 Sep 2020 00:19)

"Demand" in this case means treatment and prevention, not law enforcement ("supply"). The Nixon administration was quite modern in how they approached drug policy, mandatory minimums and the like came mostly later, and to the extent with which they did take place under Nixon, the primary driver was widespread support among the public.

Historians do not share your view of the Nixon administration. I'm not trying to be difficult, you're just at odds with the facts.

Quote (bogie160 @ Sep 19 2020 11:19pm)

Historians do not share your view of the Nixon administration. I'm not trying to be difficult, you're just at odds with the facts.

Quote (Thor123422 @ 20 Sep 2020 00:48)

Man I love how you're now avoiding the topic by trying to shift to a specific disagreement about the Nixon administration.

That disagreement itself is ridiculous though, since we know from his staff what the motivations were and also know he was the beneficiary of and actively continued things like the southern strategy.

I believe you believe what you say, but I only think you believe it because you've made an active attempt to separate facts in your mind, where the facts that support uncomfortable conclusions get shoveled away into "isolated boxes" and aren't allowed to influence the narrative.