This is one I published at Power and Control in September of 2007. I think it deserves a wider audience.
Update: it appears that this was published at Classical Values in September of 2007 also. Normally I keep track of these things by adding a "Cross Posted at Classical Values" to my Power and Control posts. I forgot to do it in 2007. Which has since been corrected. Still worth a read.
Another update. Trinity United Church of Christ, Obama's former church, is likely in on the scam.
Located in the heart of Chicago's impoverished Southside, Trinity UCC's vast array of ministries include career development and college placement, tutorial and computer services, health care and support groups, domestic violence programs, pastoral care and counseling, bereavement services, drug and alcohol recovery, prison ministry, financial counseling and credit union, housing and economic development, dozens of choral, instrumental and dance groups, and diverse programming for all ages, including youth and senior citizens.
This paints Bush's Faith Based Initiative in a much darker light. Not that it started with Bush.
========
I have been wondering for a long time why the Black Community supports the drug war, which is doing so much damage to that community. My old friend Cliff Thornton provides an answer. Cliff comes at politics from a Green point of view, but he is spot on about this one.
Racism, classism, and the war on drugs are inextricably parts of one huge lie, one cannot address one part effectively without addressing the other. This is not a war on drugs but a war on poor people, primarily people of color. I can talk about the race issue, which is well documented and blacks as usual are the perceived primary pariahs, but what I want to talk about is the burgeoning class separation. The religious community has always been the backbone of the black community. We have seen this through out our history with slavery, segregation and the civil rights movement. Why are they (black politicians, preachers and leaders) bemoaning racial profiling and not the war on drugs, when racial profiling is a direct result of the drug war? Why are they not talking about AIDS and that the war on drugs is the primary culprit for the spread of this incurable disease in their communities? Why do they have this dumb look on their faces when you mention that intravenous drug users, through homosexual and heterosexual encounters are the primary conveyers of AIDS in prisons and our communities? Is it because the religious community is tied to local, state and federal funding and the authorities forbid discussion? Is it because they have become employers and employees of the drug war through rehabilitation centers and drug counseling etc.? Is it because they have become gatekeepers where their prosperity depends on not solving the drug problem but perpetuating it?
I really had no idea that Black ministers were colluding in the destruction of their own people for money. What self delusion it must take to keep "helping".
posted by Simon on 08.15.10 at 01:37 AM
Comments
Just Wow, I was going to comment that my church doesn't have those types of services but reading that I guess I should be glad we don't, Sad indeed,
Bob
Bobnormal · August 15, 2010 2:25 AM
The reason the black community strongly supports drug prohibition is that they are awash in the side effects of widespread drug abuse: wasted lives; widespread crimes of violence induced by loss of inhibitions; economic devastation.
You can argue that the damage done by prohibition is worse than the consequences of private use. There's a reason a majority of Americans, white and black, find that argument silly. It's because we are surrounded by the damage done by widespread use of intoxicants (including the legal ones, like alcohol).
I am witness to the devastating effect of psychoactive drugs – alcohol included. When I was a young child I was in an auto accident where a drunk plowed into a station wagon filled with two families. A parent of one family was killed immediately. A parent of the other family suffered crippling injuries that took nearly a decade to remediate.
When you inform me that programs to reduce drug use-alcohol included - are worse than the effects of drug use, my reply is: what bridge in Brooklyn are you trying to sell me?
Another point is that when we have such devastating effects with a legal psychoactive drug such as alcohol, that does not encourage me to believe that legalizing drugs will have a better effect. Say what you will about the Volstead Act, alcohol use did go down during the Twenties.
The problem with the Volstead Act was that prohibition of a drug that an estimated 90% of the population used - and most did so responsibly- made the Volstead Act honored more in the breach than in the observance, and thus not good law. By contrast, we do not have 90% of the population using speed, for example.
There are problems with drug prohibition, but I am skeptical about legalization.
Gringo · August 15, 2010 10:10 AM
The reason the black community strongly supports drug prohibition is that they are awash in the side effects of widespread drug abuse
Well yes. But evidently prohibition doesn't solve the problems of addiction and adds massive crime to the mix. About 1/3 of black fathers are in the criminal justice system leading to family breakdowns.
So let me see. Subsidized crime. Family breakdown. And still the kids find it easier to get illegal drugs than beer.
In any other reality that would be considered a failure.
And let me add that in places that have legalized we find that drug use is lower than in places that haven't, generally.
I also read (I should have saved the link) that the average age of heroin uses is going up in a place where drugs have been legalized. That means new users are not being recruited.
In addition you confuse the effects of prohibition with the effects of drugs.
Was it alcohol that caused gang warfare in the 1920s? If so why don't we see gang warfare over alcohol these days. After all it is more freely available.
Let me add that before drug prohibition started in 1914 there were no drug gangs in America. Perhaps you can explain that.
Hint: it is not the drugs. It is the money.
In fact illegal drug gross profitability closely tracks drug war spending. The more that is spent on the war the more profits for the gangs. The harder the war is fought the better for the gangs.
The Opium Trade
"If the trade is ever legalized, it will cease to be profitable from that time. The more difficulties that attend it, the better for you and us."
-- Directors of Jardine-Matheson
Another point is that when we have such devastating effects with a legal psychoactive drug such as alcohol, that does not encourage me to believe that legalizing drugs will have a better effect.
Legalization will not solve the drug problem. How could it?
It will solve a crime problem. (mostly) See prohibition, alcohol.
The NIDA says that the drug problem is about 50% attributable to genetics and the other 50% to some unspecified "environmental" factor.
The Public Policy poll found that 62% of Democrats supported the proposition, as did 55% of independents, but only 37% of Republicans. Among ethnic groups, support was highest among African-Americans (68%), followed by whites (53%), and Hispanics (47%). Only among Asians was there more opposition to the measure (43%) than support (29%).
The average age of heroin users in Holland is 40 and rising. The average age of heroin users in the UK is 25 and falling. Why do you think that this is the case? Do we have anything to learn from Dutch drug policy?
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
Just Wow, I was going to comment that my church doesn't have those types of services but reading that I guess I should be glad we don't, Sad indeed,
Bob