So first the war on drugs, and the crack epidemic was about black people(which it was), then when sentencing laws are changed, it was about white people? Am I reading this right? Then to top shit off somebody said the crack era was over like the 30 year sentence for 56 grams is? Said it before, and i'll say it again, niggas will complain about anything.
Why did they change the sentencing laws?
Probably because they were dispraportionate. A gram of crack was seen as 9x of undone or somethin like that.
So then why are black people still getting the book thrown at them if the sentencing was reduced?
The book is better than the library.
Call it what you want whether it's the book or the library black people are still getting it thrown at them despite Obama's new drug policy.
Damn what you want him to do let everybody out?
Not saying that. The truth of the matter is that once a certain type of people (white) started getting those same harsh drug charges they magically changed the drug sentencing laws. It had absolutely nothing to do with it being "disproportionate".
So because it benefits white people too, it's not good enough? Either the crack era is over, or white people are gettin sentenced for crack so lets change things. We can't have both. And to keep it real, white people been gettin caught up in these small towns with large scale indictments since the 90s. Them gettin jammed ain't no new shit.
Stop creating arguments that I'm not making. And secondly I'm pointing out why they changed the laws. That's it. Nothing more nothing less.
What argument am I creating? I can respond to you, and the thread at the same time, but we'll just stick to you.
You said they changed the laws because whites started getting jammed up, i'm sayin they been gettin jammed up. And even if they just started, they still had a lot of catchin up to do because we were still the overwhelming majority of crack/cocaine federal cases currently, and retroactively, so who does it benefit the most?
Let me cut to the chase the rate in which whites were getting charged for crack sales had something to do with it. Literally nothing that was done to benefit black people was ever done because it was the right thing to do. It was done because there were things that benefitted those in the dominant society.
Wouldn't be considered collateral damage if it was a tool all about keeping us in an inferior position? Or maybe having a black president and black attorney general may have gotten the ball rolling?
So then why aren't they doing anything about race soldiers murdering black people?
But i'm changing the argument.....You got it.