Well, clearly it's an appeal to race: "See what lack of gun control is doing to blacks?" which leads naturally to "Therefore being against gun control means you are against blacks, and thus a racist."

Anyways, they should really stop compiling statistics on race, because the underlying assumption of taking such statistics is that "race" is causing some effect or other, which is offensive but more importantly almost always wrong. Culture is not dependent on race, even if the two are strongly correlated.

The same claim could be made about free speech. "See what gansta rap is doing to blacks." In other words, some people are less deserving of freedom than others. I think it's racism, in the form of taking away freedom in order to protect some people from themselves.

This mentality is a cancer, eating away our birthright.

Well, I agree, even if it's pretty unlikely we would pass laws making gangsta rap illegal, as opposed to merely publicly disapproving of it and telling parents they shouldn't buy it (which is itself an exercise in free speech).

I think the main problem is that we involve race in these issues at all, which are really questions of culture and character. I've seen plenty of white kids buy into the gangsta rap image -- and a lot of girls who go for it.

This might not be the place to post this information, but I believe I've actually figured out one of the key reasons that there is a disparity in racial crime statistics. It is based on supply and demand, and the incarceration rates for young men.

My theory goes like this. First, a simple fact. Almost one in four young black men is in prison. Now, for the most part, everyone is, deep down, a bigot, who wants to cohabitate or marry someone of the same race and age (and statistics support me on that much). When there is a large imbalance between the number of available men and women, the amount of achievement and quality of the man desired (I'm working all of this from the standpoint of women as buyers, for reasons that are, I think, obvious) fluctuates. If you have two men for everyone woman, to get the attention of a woman as a young man requires more money, achievements, and higher quality. In the reverse, if there are two women for every man, women have to settle much more.

And this is what we see. When there are more men than women in a group, the men are much more educated than their mates, and abuse rates are low. When there are more women than men (admittedly, this really only happens with young blacks in America) available, women are more educated and abuse rates are higher.

Because young black men don't need to achieve as much to get women as men of other races and ages, they simply don't. They misbehave, and that turns into crime as they go along that path. This accounts for crime statistics, educational gaps, and employment gaps.

Of course, to start the system, you have to be imprisoning 1/4 of young black men. So, you can call it tautological. However, if I am right, and this has as much of an impact on behavior as I think, then simply ending the drug war would virtually end the racial disparities we see when it comes to whites and blacks on education and crime and employment (because almost half of the young black men in prison are there on non-violent drug charges, and many more are there solely because of the drug trade).

However, like you, I don't analyze issues of liberty by possible racial disparity of outcome. I oppose the drug war because it is morally indefensible, in my mind, not because of the impact it has on blacks.

Low IQ and crime are correlated.

Race and IQ are correlated.

Which may mean that some races need more guns for self protection.

There is a much simpler possibility, Jon, and one that applies Occam's Razor, rather than a conspiracy:

Perhaps blacks commit more crime, disproportionate to their population.

In order to get to the conclusions you're suggesting it would mean that if you eliminated the drug war and decriminalized drugs, that anyone who is now making their living selling drugs would take a job at McDonald's or open a grocery store, ie, engage in a non-criminal activity.

The issue of the immorality of criminalizing drugs has nothing to do with the issue of crime, although many try to draw a causal relationship.

The facts simply don't justify that shark jumping.

When prohibition ended, the folks involved in organized crime didn't become fine, upstanding citizens. They simply switched their focus to OTHER illegal activities. And users who are currently stealing to support their habit will not suddenly have jobs in Wall Street to get the money to buy legal drugs. The cash shortage will still exist.

But back to the topic...

Gun control STARTED out as a way to keep blacks from owning guns, so its entire foundation was based on racism.

Mrs. du Toit,
In this instance, I see a great deal of difference between the drug war and alcohol prohibition. There wasn't really that much of a racial disparity to the violent crime associated with alcohol prohibition, while there is a huge one with drugs.

And, if we did decriminalize drugs, I am suggesting that other crimes would decrease. For one thing, legal drugs would cost less, but more importantly, because the supply of women would remain unchanged while the supply of men would have increased massively, to get women, men would have to achieve more. That means getting more jobs and comitting fewer crimes.

If it is an issue of race, why don't we see the same massive disparity of crime between white middle-aged men and black middle-aged men? Why do we see black couples with the mn in superior economic and educational positions in middle-age and not in youth?

I honestly think that the number one thing that motivates men is women, so a change in the terms of trade has a dramatic impact on the desire for educational and ecomonic achievement.

Also note that IQ can't explain it. From the chart Mrs. du Toit linked to in another thread, see that even if everyone had an IQ in the 70's range, incarceration should only be 7%, but it approaches 25% for blacks, half of whom have IQs over 85.

I'm not so sure about the idea that drugs would be cheaper if sold legally. Have you seen how much a pack of cigarettes is today? The government would be quick to apply "health cost" taxes and the end result would be higher (in my estimation).

Who would manufacture them? The insurance those sellers and manufacturers would have to have would be mind boggling. Tort lawyers thought they had a field day with cigarettes...man-0-man.

Also, I don't think you can make the leap about the Black community on the prohibition thing. There's more detail and lots of conflict in the data to make that kind of assertion.

A LOT changed in the Black community since then. For one, Black communities used to be that, communities, not ghettos. The social progressives of the 1960s had the idea of ending segregation by moving blacks out of self-segregated neighborhoods. The result was that the educated and wealthy moved out, leaving the community bereft of role models. Add to that the unbelievable increase in the welfare state in the 1960s and 1970s and you had a huge increase in the misery index.

Keep in mind that prior to our social tinkering (at the turn of the last century), blacks had 98% employment and a tiny average increase in out of wedlock births (as compared to whites). All our "fixing" is what has caused these problems.

In addition, the mafias of the 1920s wouldn't go near drug traffic (or most didn't). It was Black and foreign organized crime that had the monopoly on drug sales before prohibition ended. You might say they had the jump on it. It was heroin and alcohol that made Harlem, Harlem.

It was only after prohibition ended and the mafia needed to switch products that they got more involved with drugs, gambling, and prostitution.

I just don't see how you think that taking away one illegal substance that people sell to make a living, will mean that those (current) criminals will take up a law-abiding job. What makes you think that would be the result? People are making a living selling something illegal, ie, they are making their living as criminals. Why would they suddenly stop being criminals if you took away their livelihood by making drugs legal? The mafias didn't go away when prohibition ended.

Mrs. du Toit,

Ahh, I see the miscommunication here. I am not assuming that there would be a huge shift in the number of people supplying their income by criminal trade (though I think there would be some shift). I am assuming that the people arrested for non-violent drug use, not trafficking, would not be thrown in prison for something else. In the colloquial, users, not dealers. For the record, I am making an assumption that some people really do go to prison for narcotics abuse and social, rather than commercial, distribution.

However, I think that is why the numbers for income of drug dealers are so low. That is, so many people categorized as dealers really only get some loose change that way, and use and socially distribute most of their product. While others are really full time dealers, who make a large amount of money that way. The two are lumped together, and I don't expect to make model citizens of the latter by making drugs legal.

Hello All,

It does no one any good to understand their rights when they do not understand what jurisdiction they find themselves in.

It is a jurisdiction where Constitutional Rights are immaterial.

We are tangled in fiction and have forgotten the difference between what is Legal and what is Lawful.

Do not ask an attorney they are ignorant and they know they are ignorant.

A judge does not have to tell you the law and won't.

Start here:

http://www.roage.com/main.asp?Page=34

http://www.roage.com/main.asp?Page=36

http://www.roage.com/main.asp?Page=24

I will answer all your questions.

If you need further supporting documentation I will provide the links.

Every human being on this planet needs to understand the law and you are not helping if you have not marshaled resources to that end.

Warm Regards,

Roger Kent Pool
Aurora Colorado
303-902-7144