US - NAACP’s paradigm shift on ending the Drug War

edgarshade

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
1,954
Location
UK
Miami Herald

By Leonard Pitts Jr. 07.30.11

With reader comments

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/07/30/2338455/naacps-paradigm-shift-on-ending.html

There was a quake last week, but you likely didn’t feel it. See, this particular quake was not of the Earth, involved no shifting of the planetary crust. No, what shifted was a paradigm, and the implications are hopeful and profound. On Tuesday, you see, the NAACP passed a resolution calling for an end to the War on Drugs. Said NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous in a written statement, “These flawed drug policies that have been mostly enforced in African-American communities must be stopped and replaced with evidence-based practices that address the root causes of drug use and abuse in America.”

Here’s why this matters. Or, more to the point, why it matters more than if such a statement came from Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. The NAACP is not just the nation’s oldest and largest civil rights organization. It is also its most conservative. That word is used here not in the modern sense of tea party antics or Fox “News” rantings but, rather, in the original sense, denoting a propensity toward caution and a distrust of the bold, the risky, the new. And that’s the NAACP all over.

Let the Universal Negro Improvement Association go back to Africa. Let the Nation of Islam preach black supremacy. Let the Congress of Racial Equality launch Freedom Rides. The NAACP went to court. Yes, the comparison is simplistic, but it’s essentially apt. Nor is the point of it to disparage — after all, going to court produced a landmark ruling in 1954. No, it’s only to say there has always been something determinedly middle class and cautious about the NAACP. This is the group whose then-leader, Roy Wilkins, famously detested Martin Luther King for his street theatrics.

For that group, then, to demand an end to the Drug War represents a monumental sea change. Interestingly, a number of other conservative — again, in the old, intelligent sense of the word — observers have also questioned U.S. drug policy. That includes George Schultz, Ronald Reagan’s secretary of state, Kathleen Parker, a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist, and the late William F. Buckley Jr., founder of the National Review.

And why not? By now, two things should be neon obvious where the drug war is concerned. The first is that it failed. Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, an advocacy group, reports that after 40 million arrests and a trillion dollars spent to fight drug use, the number of those who have used drugs is up 2,800 percent since 1970. The second is that it has come down like a hammer on the African-American community while leaving the white community, which does most of the buying, selling and using of drugs in this country, unscathed. The Sentencing Project, another advocacy group, reports that while two-thirds of regular crack users are white or Latino, better than 80 percent of those sentenced in federal court for crack-related crimes are black. That is absurd, obscene and unjust.

It is time to concede what has long been apparent: you cannot jail people out of wanting what they want. But, you just might be able to treat and educate them to that purpose. Granted, that will require a paradigm shift some of us will find difficult to get our heads around. But if the NAACP can do it, you and I have no excuse.
 
These articles never go far enough.

Anything short of full legalization is inane. Any government interdiction of personal choice is contrary to the principles of democracy.
 
^Yes they have real power, they are the largest civil rights organization in the country. They have influence, which is power. Not over government, but they can help change public opinion which is really what needs to happen. It's an important step for these organizations to recognize that drug legalization, or at least change in drug policy, is the most important civil rights question there is today.
 
Yeh. But I dunno. Do our governments tend to respond to public opinion really? Or would they even use force to maintain such a thing as the drug war: which is organised and managed by like 4 ultra-powerful police agenecies in the US alone.
 
It'll be considerably more difficult for the government to rationalize the drug war if public opinion is swayed in the other direction. Politicians are very concerned with keeping their constituents appeased, and if people push strongly enough against the war on drugs, it could be a big deal. This is fantastic news - the NAACP is a highly influential organization, and they could go a long way in helping to sway the public in the right direction.

That said, I agree with 2353 - decrim is one thing, but trying to convince the masses that legalization is the way to go is right now nothing more than a pipe dream. I agree that government should have no say in what you put in your own body, but it looks like it's going to be a LONG time before we get to that point, if ever.
 
^ yeh. thats what i was getting at.

i dont think they would care if everyone opposed. also arent there still a lot of conservative rednecks in the states? do they care about NAACP??
 
^The conservative rednecks don't care, but there are a lot of socially conservative black people, especially middle aged ones who lived through the civil rights movement, who care what the NAACP says. The more public figures and organizations come out in support of ending the drug war, the more public opinion will change, by reaching all corners of society.

Doesn't mean I expect the war on drugs to end soon. But I do think Marijuana will be decriminalized in my life time, and maybe legalized. Any movement forwards is good.
 
The National Aassociation for the Advancement of Colored People is a joke, thos people are not what they seem, its like evrything else, they are in it for the money and power. They really just hold back the "Colored People" rather than helping the cause.
 
Top