So what's your timeline? What happened in what sequence, and why would an increased police presence result in black people assaulting each other in greater numbers? There has to be a link, not just coincidence.BS. The Black community had very low rates of violence prior to the increased police presence. You obviously havent done your research.I contend that greater rates of violence lead to greater police attention, which leads to higher arrest rates. Now, if you can demonstrate that white people commit more drug related violent crimes than black people do, I'll have to change what I think.Of course it backfired and provided the proof of intent. If whites were convicted at the same rate as Blacks are over drugs then we could claim there was no racism.What I mean by "wait" is that, even though you seem to believe that drugs were deliberately introduced into black communities because racist whites wanted to "keep the black man down", you also state that white people use those same drugs to the same or a greater extent than black people do. If they were intended to cause problems in black communities, it backfired, no?What do you mean by "wait"? I'm not ignoring the violence component. Show me where more Blacks are arrested due to violence and drugs than whites. If you look you will find most if not a vast majority of Black people are incarcerated for drugs is due to possession and usage.Wait, I thought you said drugs were introduced into BLACK communities to cause problems for them. White people buy and use the drugs, sure. Where does most of the drug-related violence take place? You can't ignore the violence component to incarceration rates.
And I don't deny that most black people are incarcerated for non-violent offenses, but is it not true that most drug related violence is done by young black men?
No its not true. What does that have to do with conviction and incarceration anyway?