Oakland, Berkeley, And East Bay News, Events, Restaurants, Music, & Arts
Being arrested and convicted for dealing drugs has nothing to do with whether you are dealing drugs. The government need not prove their case. Nor do they ever
Why don't police walk through the halls of any corporate office with drug sniffing dogs? And eventually, when the dog alerts, seize all their property and go on a fishing expedition for other corporate crimes (insider trading, defrauding pensions, etc)
Your BS narrative of the black criminal is a self fulfilling prophecy.
"The vast majority of arrests aren't dealers. They are consumers. Whites and blacks consume at equal rates. "
F.F. has a keen eye for the irrelevant. Some 99.8 percent of federal prisoners sentenced for drug offenses were incarcerated for drug trafficking, not consuming. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/f… Including state prisons too, one inmate in 300 (!) had low-level marijuana possession as his or her most serious offense. http://www.hudson.org/research/10811-why-a…
Consumers are almost never arrested in Oakland, let alone incarcerated. Yet Oakland proposes to reserve a chunk of the limited marijuana business licenses for those who were incarcerated for serious crime.
Your assertion that we're filling the prisons with black drug users is simply false. Your allusions to Wall Street ring true. Guess what - Oakland residents do not want street dealing to flourish while we wait for enforcement against white-collar crimes. Street dealing has been a plague on Oakland neighborhoods. It generates burglaries and robberies; it changes good locations for legitimate small businesses into corners that people avoid; and disputes over turf are a major source of homicide and other violence.
The vast majority of arrests aren't dealers. They are consumers. Whites and blacks consume at equal rates. Whites predominantly don't get arrested. And we're filling the prisons with black drug users.
You're entitled to your opinion but not your own facts.
There have been (for almost a century) hoards of Wall Street players who consume and sell hoards of cocaine and they get a pass - no stop and frisk.
As to rewarding criminals, what do you think Wall Street is? The republican narrative is, when criminals are rich and white then the government is evil and the criminal is innocent. But when the criminal is poor and black, this narrative is turned on its head. "Conservatives" (they aren't conservative in the least) can't stand it when anyone but Wall Street, oil companies, and the banks get massive subsidies and congratulations for their crimes.
As to your definition of a "crime" just because people pass racist laws that make crimes out of things that aren't crimes, that victimize blacks not whites, doesn't mean anyone should abide by these insane laws. In fact, we have a moral obligation to disregard these laws.
"blacks are arrested for weed (nationally) 4Xs more than whites"
First, that has nothing to do with a policy that tells people, hey, incarcerated felons get rewarded with a better chance to hit the license jackpot.
Second, try to think when you read a statistic. In the Oakland flatlands, the statistic is in line with the proportion of street dealers who are black or white (and don't forget Latino). You can argue that street crime gets more police attention than wholesale drug networks run more often by Latinos and Asians. But you are silly to suggest that police overlook hordes of white street dealers.
@charlie pine: news flash: blacks are arrested for weed (nationally) 4Xs more than whites, and depending on the neighborhood, sometimes as much as 110Xs more.
Google "marijuana arrest disparity"
But I guess, according to folks who don't like facts and data, blacks are treated the same as whites.
Those "jailed for pot in the last ten years will go to the front of the line for legal weed permits."
You can't make this stuff up. Oakland felt a need to burnish its laughingstock reputation -- it's been awhile since the Ebonics farce.
"Maintains not less than 50% ownership in the ... worker cooperative ..."
What this article skirts around is that this measure is meant to help people in East Oakland which has been, up until very recently, treated like the armpit of Oakland. It's about time this area got a little love.
Way to stand up Desley Brooks!
It is sad to me that these new regulations are all about business opportunities and making money. What about patient access? What about dispensaries being non profits? It is sad that so much attention is being paid to the potential proprietors in these zip codes while nothing is said of the low income patients in these same zip codes who cannot afford their medicine.
Bad "legalization" laws are a real problem, and certainly are nowdays more "over-regulation" than they are "legalization".
In CA, the AUMA is a disaster. And, people are mistaken in the claims it will "let you grow your own", when it will really permit local governments to flat out ban outdoor grows, and will permit "reasonable regulation" of your indoor grow (and we all know what THAT will mean - besides, most folks cannot grow indoors for many reasons).
This thing is a huge conglomeration of give-aways of power to storefronts and big farms, as well as litigation-ready employment for cops and lawyers. We can't let the crappy be the enemy of the decent law we know is out there. The trick seems to be convincing some moneybag like Parker to back something worthwhile, and to convince the "pro pot lobby" to demonstrate a modicum of selectivity with their endorsements. The incremental "is it ANY better than what we have now?" (somewhat subjective, I might add) is threadbare at best, and probably harmful.
We are not beggars. Demographics are shifting fast. We don't need to settle
for a crap sandwich.
What is more tyranical than making medical patients homeless?
Excellent...can't wait to shop there.
Good For Her!
This comment was removed because it violates our policy against anonymous comments. It will be reposted if the commenter chooses to use his or her real name.
Although the poll is worrying, it could well be an outlier - the Probolsky poll this past February showed 60% overall support statewide, with the Bay at 69%, LA County at 65%, Central Valley 54%, Other Southern CA 53%, Other Northern CA 57%.
Michigan is trying to become the first state to totally abrogate (remove) marijuana prohibition from the Constitution. Michigan is feeling left out of the stories.
I think I may have been one of the first people busted in the Haight: February, 1965, when pot was still a felony for just one seed. Even then, people were saying, "Don't worry; it will be legal in 5 years!" But Big Money and Repressive Government have a way of putting logical solutions OFF, don't they! My felony "Possession" was reduced to a misdemeanor and dismissed in 1970 - or I wouldn't have been able to teach or get a real estate/insurance license in the state, so, I would say it is VITAL to get rid of long-term felony charges for any meaningful re-integration of ALL ex-offenders (with exception of Charlie Manson's "family" -- those sorts should be, instead, labeled "CRIMINALLY INSANE" because, having been self-consciously truly evil, they need to be ineligible for parole.)
I've never again been arrested & I haven't had lot of even traffic tickets. I wasn't a criminal; I was a poet and a seeker of my path. Why do I say Manson & the like can't be redeemed? Because they, like any of us, could relapse. But we could never be expected to really trust them, in amongst us. I don't wish them il or suffering, just isolation. Impulse-control is one thing; self-conscious evil is another!
East Bay Express All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation