• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

US Marshal Told By Supervisors Not to Bring the ‘War on Drugs’ to White Communities

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kame-sennin

Member
Below is a video from a former US Marshal breaking down how the war on drugs really works.. It’s about smashing down on Black folks who are seen as marginalized and with very little political connections to stop what is institutionalized..

Meet Matthew Fogg, a former U.S. Marshal whose exploits led him to be nicknamed “Batman.” When he noticed that all of his team’s drug raids were in black areas, he suggested doing the same in the suburbs. His boss didn’t take kindly to the idea.

This is part of the SafeKeepers video series produced by the Beyond Bars campaign and Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP).
Click to expand...

http://hiphopandpolitics.wordpress....-bring-the-war-on-drugs-to-white-communities/


Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72Lf9ZQK8t0


"I would notice that most of the time it always appeared to be urban areas, and that's when I asked the question; don't they sell drugs out in Potomac and Springfield and places like that? Maybe y'all think they don't. Statistics show they use more drugs out in those areas than anywhere. The special agent in charge, he says, 'you know if we go out there and start messing with those folks, they know judges, they know lawyers, they know politicians - you start locking their kids up, somebody's gonna jerk our chain. They're going to call us on it and before you know it, they're going to shut us down, and there goes your overtime. What I began to see is that the drug war is totally about race. If we were locking up everybody, white and black, doing the same drugs, they would have done the same thing they did with prohibition. They would have outlawed it. They would have said, 'let's stop this crazyness because you're not putting my son in jail'... If it was an equal enforcement opportunity operation we wouldn't be sitting here anyway."​
 
entremet

entremet

Member
This is known. Too bad we're gonna have ''do the time, do the crime'' folks always trying to oversimplify.
 
K

Kinitari

Black Canada Mafia
Not surprising to a lot of people, but I am sure some people still don't believe it occurs. It's important to bring to light the actual mechanics of this war on Drugs - even if conducted with the best intentions, it

A) Is a waste of time and money
B) Marginalizes those who are already marginalized
C) Is a dumb dumb face.
 
B

Binabik15

Member
and there goes your overtime
Click to expand...

BOOM, there it is.

The war on drugs is nothing but a way to get money, equipment and work for (special) law enforcement forces. And people into for profit-prisons, of course. And campaign contribuitions.
 
Hari Seldon

Hari Seldon

Member
Imo it is an economic issue. A lot of public service jobs would be lost if we ended the war on drugs. A lot of funding for all of these unnecessary SWAT teams as well. As long as they are hitting people without political power then they can keep the funding gravy train going.
 
H

hym

Banned
Jason Raize '75 - '04 said:
For those who advocate the legalisation of drugs, are you referring to the popular marijuana or all drugs in general?
Click to expand...

All drugs that don't have health risks attached to them greater than alcohol or be consistent and get rid of alcohol.

The war on drugs is supported by lobby groups from the pharmaceutical, alcohol and tobacco industries, not Medical Organization defending the well-being of the general public.

Oh and Private Prisons and Unions obviously.
 
N

NullPointer

Member
Hari Seldon said:
Imo it is an economic issue. A lot of public service jobs would be lost if we ended the war on drugs. A lot of funding for all of these unnecessary SWAT teams as well. As long as they are hitting people without political power then they can keep the funding gravy train going.
Click to expand...
Some job losses should be applauded.
 
Angry Fork

Angry Fork

Member
Jason Raize '75 - '04 said:
For those who advocate the legalisation of drugs, are you referring to the popular marijuana or all drugs in general?
Click to expand...

All drugs. Prohibition doesn't work and addiction shouldn't be illegal, it's a health problem. You don't jail people and ruin their lives/record for smoking something too much.
 
T

that1dude24

Member
Jason Raize '75 - '04 said:
For those who advocate the legalisation of drugs, are you referring to the popular marijuana or all drugs in general?
Click to expand...

i personally support decriminalization of all drugs, as in portrugal. perhaps legalization for the less addictive and harmful drugs.
On July 1, 2001, Portugal decriminalized every imaginable drug, from marijuana, to cocaine, to heroin. Some thought Lisbon would become a drug tourist haven, others predicted usage rates among youths to surge. Eleven years later, it turns out they were both wrong.
Over a decade has passed since Portugal changed its philosophy from labeling drug users as criminals to labeling them as people affected by a disease. This time lapse has allowed statistics to develop and in time, has made Portugal an example to follow.
The resulting effect: a drastic reduction in addicts, with Portuguese officials and reports highlighting that this number, at 100,000 before the new policy was enacted, has been halved in the following 10 years. Portugal's drug usage rates are now among the lowest of EU member states, according to the same report. One more outcome: a lot less sick people. Drug related diseases including STDs and overdoses have been reduced even more than usage rates, which experts believe is the result of the government offering treatment with no threat of legal ramifications to addicts.
Click to expand...

i don't support turning every drug into a taxable, consumer level product - some drugs, i feel, are simply too addictive and harmful to allow them on normal store shelves. but decriminalization would get the stupid amount of (racially unequal) people in jail for illicit drug consumption out.
 
E

Earthstrike

Member
Essentially, as long as the war of drugs continues, blacks should perpetually vote in large numbers for the democrats, to force the republicans to actually take the stance that the war on drugs is ended. This may really suck for the republicans, but that's what happens when your platform is built upon social regression.
 
T

Trey

Member
Angry Fork said:
I don't see the difference between decriminalization and legalization. Something is either legal or it isn't.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. It's not illegal to own a car. It's decriminalized. But it's illegal to speed, drive while drunk, drive without insurance, etc.

Decriminalized weed still couldn't be sold, publicly consumed, carried in large quantities.
 
Angry Fork

Angry Fork

Member
Rentahamster said:
That depends on other factors too e.g. amount of possession, using, selling, manufacturing, etc.
Click to expand...

I don't think unregulated selling should be legal, but that's different than taking drugs. I meant I don't see a difference between decriminalization and legalization when it comes to people smoking or injecting something.
 
Angry Fork

Angry Fork

Member
Eidan said:
Let me help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decriminalization
"While decriminalized acts are no longer crimes, they may still be the subject of penalties; for example a monetary fine in place of a criminal charge for the possession of a decriminalized drug. This should be contrasted with legalization, which removes all or most legal detriments from a previously illegal act."
Click to expand...

I consider a monetary fine to be treating someone like a criminal. If you fine someone for something then it's illegal in some form or another. I don't know how a fine can be justified if you're not doing something the state considers to be wrong.

shadowsdarknes said:
Decriminalization is more specifically a small fine of like $40. It is more of an infraction than a punishment.
Click to expand...

Infraction (or I should say a negative state response to an infraction) is punishment.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
I would notice that most of the time it always appeared to be urban areas, and that's when I asked the question; don't they sell drugs out in Potomac and Springfield and places like that? Maybe y'all think they don't. Statistics show they use more drugs out in those areas than anywhere. The special agent in charge, he says, 'you know if we go out there and start messing with those folks, they know judges, they know lawyers, they know politicians - you start locking their kids up, somebody's gonna jerk our chain. They're going to call us on it and before you know it, they're going to shut us down, and there goes your overtime. What I began to see is that the drug war is totally about race. If we were locking up everybody, white and black, doing the same drugs, they would have done the same thing they did with prohibition. They would have outlawed it. They would have said, 'let's stop this crazyness because you're not putting my son in jail'... If it was an equal enforcement opportunity operation we wouldn't be sitting here anyway."
Click to expand...
There is definitely a huge problem here. But I wouldn't say it is really about race . . . it is more about money and power. It is just that the money & power happens to largely correlate with race.

Presumably, the black people living in Potomac and Springfield are just as protected from prosecution as the white people living there.


As Chris Rock pointed out . . . if it was Orenthal James the bus driver, he probably would have gone to jail for murder.


That doesn't make the situation much better but it is nice to know it is not just pure racism.
 
E

Eidan

Member
Angry Fork said:
I consider a monetary fine to be treating someone like a criminal. If you fine someone for something then it's illegal in some form or another. I don't know how a fine can be justified if you're not doing something the state considers to be wrong.
Click to expand...

Right...but that's what decriminalization is. When someone is saying they advocate that recreational drug use be decriminalized, they aren't necessarily saying they want it to be legal. They're saying they want the punishment to be less severe. Where's the confusion?
 
E

ElectricThunder

Member
Sheer evil and greed on display---war on drugs has never been a good idea and the very notion of intensifying it rather than dismantling it over the braying of whatever jackasses is lunacy.
 
T

that1dude24

Member
Angry Fork said:
I don't see the difference between decriminalization and legalization. Something is either legal or it isn't.
Click to expand...

what i mean by the distinction is whether something is available for mass production, and legal to sell as a "product" on normal store shelves. perhaps that would have less of an effect than i'd guess, and you might be right, it may just be a difference of regulation rather than legality.
 
Angry Fork

Angry Fork

Member
Eidan said:
Right...but that's what decriminalization is. When someone is saying they advocate that recreational drug use be decriminalized, they aren't necessarily saying they want it to be legal. They're saying they want the punishment to be less severe. Where's the confusion?
Click to expand...

Then they have a warped view of legal/illegal, as if the only way you can be considered a criminal is if you get sent to jail. If you get stopped in the street by a cop and given a $75 fine, you're being treated like a criminal. You've done something the cop thinks is illegal and therefore he thinks it's justified to fine you. That's a punishment, it isn't decriminalization. If it was you wouldn't be stopped or fined at all.

Rentahamster said:
You're just arguing semantics here.
Click to expand...

I don't see that at all, it's everyone else putting distinctions where they shouldn't be. I don't know how being fined isn't considered a punishment for doing something illegal, or committing an 'infraction' (illegal act, otherwise it wouldn't be an infraction).
 
A

Amir0x

Banned
Yup. The war on drugs was a very pointed political move to try to ensure that a huge burgeoning segment of the voting electorate was put in chains and forced out of the pool. It has now been partially responsible for holding back an entire generation of young minorities.
 
E

Eidan

Member
Angry Fork said:
Then they have a warped view of legal/illegal, as if the only way you can be considered a criminal is if you get sent to jail. If you get stopped in the street by a cop and given a $75 fine, you're being treated like a criminal. You've done something the cop thinks is illegal and therefore he thinks it's justified to fine you. That's a punishment, it isn't decriminalization. If it was you wouldn't be stopped or fined at all.
Click to expand...

Dude, there really isn't anything to debate here. Decriminalization means less severe punishment.
 
E

ezrarh

Member
If the black folks don't want to get arrested, they shouldn't be doing drugs in the first place.

That line of thinking infuriates me to no end.
 
I

i-Lo

Member
This thread coming on the heels of other thread that pertains to severe torture and murder of an ex-mayor in Mexico.

Connections and money. The haves and have nots. Hypocrisy and apathy. And now here more evidence of racism.
 
Angry Fork

Angry Fork

Member
Eidan said:
Dude, there really isn't anything to debate here. Decriminalization means less severe punishment.
Click to expand...

But then it isn't decriminalization is my point. It's 'not as illegal as murder'. The state can then use the term decriminalization to justify fining people left and right because it isn't as bad as jail. It's still oppressive but with a nicer slant. Maybe jay walking is 'decriminalized' but I sure as shit don't want to be stopped by cops and fined for it.
 
B

Bear

Member
Angry Fork said:
Then they have a warped view of legal/illegal, as if the only way you can be considered a criminal is if you get sent to jail. If you get stopped in the street by a cop and given a $75 fine, you're being treated like a criminal. You've done something the cop thinks is illegal and therefore he thinks it's justified to fine you. That's a punishment, it isn't decriminalization. If it was you wouldn't be stopped or fined at all.



I don't see that at all, it's everyone else putting distinctions where they shouldn't be. I don't know how being fined isn't considered a punishment for doing something illegal, or committing an 'infraction' (illegal act, otherwise it wouldn't be an infraction).
Click to expand...

It's technically a punishment, but it's no longer a criminal one. Misdemeanors don't have long term consequences like a conviction would.
 
E

Eidan

Member
Angry Fork said:
But then it isn't decriminalization is my point. It's 'not as illegal as murder'. The state can then use the term decriminalization to justify fining people left and right because it isn't as bad as jail. It's still oppressive but with a nicer slant.
Click to expand...

So is it the word "decriminalization" that you have a problem with? How about "soft-crimes" instead? Crime-lite?

Also, what are your views on the words "driveway" and "parkway"?
 
K

kame-sennin

Member
speculawyer said:
That doesn't make the situation much better but it is nice to know it is not just pure racism.
Click to expand...

NullPointer said:
Yep. Its always been class warfare.
Click to expand...

That would be true if poor whites were as likely to be arrested on drug charges as poor blacks, but they aren't. The federal government has specifically targeted the black community. In the link to this article, there is another video interviewing a black former FBI informant who helped the FBI undermine black militant groups. It's an amazing video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UHnUFpCeGxQ

The federal government has been concerned about revolutionary behavior coming out of the black community for decades. Demolishing that community with the drug war has been an effecting way of neutralizing that threat.
 
S

shadyspace

Banned
Sucks but it's not like the government is all, "You can't hurt white people! We love them!" These guys start making a point of going into affulent white areas and they're fucked. It's that bully mentality: only fuck with the people who can't hit back.
 
Angry Fork

Angry Fork

Member
Eidan said:
So is it the word "decriminalization" that you have a problem with? How about "soft-crimes" instead? Crime-lite?

Also, what are your views on the words "driveway" and "parkway"?
Click to expand...

I'd like soft crimes better because it more accurately describes the issue. State power likes to use certain sly buzz words to play 'gotcha!' when it comes to something you thought was legal but turns out is 'decriminalized'. It can be used by police to fleece more money off of people who don't know their rights. At least if they say it's a 'soft crime' people know to be on their guard and react accordingly.

Basically imagine if a cop saw you in a restaurant and fined you for eating spaghetti. Eating spaghetti isn't considered a 'criminal act' but it's 'de-criminalized' so you only get a fine. Wouldn't you find that extremely offensive? Then it's not de-criminalization it's something else. Why not call out police oppression by it's real name and not use nice ones to hide the issue. The issue being no state authority should be able to tell you what you can/can't put into your body and whether it's a fine or jail time both are punishments handed down to you for breaking their rules (not that rules have no place, I just don't think this one is justified).
 
V

verbum

Member
Dubbed Operation Triple Beam, the two-week enforcement initiative employed a systematic and sustained approach specifically focused to reduce violent gang crime. Members of the N/OK VCTF worked closely with the Tulsa Police Department Gang Unit to identify the most violent areas of the city and target the most violent gang members responsible for the majority of crime.
The Marshals Service is the federal government's lead agency for conducting investigations involving: escaped federal prisoners; probation, parole and bond default violators; and fugitives based on warrants generated during drug investigations.
The U.S. Marshals have the authority to make an arrest on all federal warrants.
Click to expand...

Maybe they were after gang members with outstanding warrants? Maybe the black communities have the majority of outstanding warrants? I don't know. Just a thought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

GIBiz: After 200 unsuccessful pitches in 2 years, Deliver Us Mars dev Keoken Interactive says the way games are funded is "failing"
Business Game Dev
24
2K
SmokedMeat replied
  • Locked
How The Last of Us became 'the greatest story' ever told in video games
Opinion Analysis 2 3 4 5
203
18K
Elysium44 replied
Star Wars: Jedi Survivor | Review Thread
Analysis Review 2 3 4 5
207
18K
oji-san replied
[Insider Gaming] Inside Ubisoft – From Low Morale To Internal Tensions
Game Dev
26
2K
BacklashWave534 replied
Microsoft-Activision is a done deal – but what if the FTC still wins? Ask Whole Foods.
News
14
2K
Kuranghi replied
Top Bottom