Some very interesting topics were hit upon in today's show. Bruh Luv, an ex-drug dealer convicted of shooting a rival in the leg in 1992, was our guest along with Carver Boynton, a distinguished Selma native, and manager of the Selma Mall. The question was swirling around the room like a pesky fly but dared not land on anyone's tongue. But it deserves to be at least debated. They say evaluation is the true source of salvation. Here it is: Is the dope game that much different from "legitimate" American businesses, i.e, Big Tobacco or the producers of such gems like Thunderbird, Seagram's Gin and 20/20 Mad Dogg? If it is true that disproportionately more folk die from Tobacco and Alcohol than Marijuana or even cocaine, why the deep disgust and moral outcry against the sale of illegal "pharmaceuticals" for profit? Does it not reflect the American way? The idea that the greater the risk, the greater should be the reward? Is there anyone who takes greater risks? Or there any greater odds? Is not prison or death a virtual certainty? What explains the irrepressible murmurs of foul-play from many law-abiding moralist when law-suits are filed against Big Tobacco for causing death as juxtaposed to the mad-rush of the same crowd to break out the hanging gloves for every petty drug peddler guilty of "destroying lives?" Is this a contradiction? Is there something of intrinsic moral value in a thing being legal or of inherent depravity in a thing's illegality? How does this square with slavery or jim crow laws? If everything can be explained by the times and morality must be scaled on the basis of historical context, does not a double standard exist in some quarters with regards to drugs and crime? Why is it okay for one to celebrate the character of Robert E. Lee and not okay for young black teenagers to admire the code of a Frank Lucas (depicted in the Movie "American Gangster"). I can't wait to see yall go at this one!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The current drug regulations cause us to question exactly whom those regulations are trying to protect. In addition to the often-documented disparities in enforcement, the actual regulations have been ineffective in curtailing drug use and in protecting those in our communities most in need of protections. The emergence of a black market for an illegal or overly regulated substance is nothing new. Entrepreneurial individuals will always try to respond to demands, whether those demands be for legal or illegal substances. In fact, some entrepreneurs go as far as to create ways of maintaining or increasing those demands, regardless of the risks to consumers' health. The Tobacco industry certainly did this by their initial non-disclosure of the addictive nature of nicotine. Frank Lucas, did the same by making sure he sold the most addictive form of heroine. Both parties are equally morally reprehensible. They are responsible for the death of thousands. Did they receive proportionate punishments?
Interesting point. I concur in part, but there is an important distinction that can be drawn between the "dope game", and the alcohol/tobacco industries (ATIs).
This article mentioned litigation as a result of "ruining lives". This is possible because there is a deep pocket to go after in the ATIs once harm has been done. In other words, when it comes to the dope game, who can you sue. More than likely, the small peddler who puts the drugs in the addict's hands doesn't have any real assets besides the $500 in 5's and 10's that he flashes at the club, or the $4,000 rims that are on his vehicle. There are some drug dealers who happen to be true "ballers" (in the liking of American Gangster), but these people are hard to identify. These are your Columbian drug lords who are millionaires. As a note, many people find it interesting that, after the math, is done, the average street hustler only averages $2.15/ per hour. Surprising huh, do the math...standing on the corner, or posting up, for long hours, puts the average street hustler at $2.15 per hour. Now if you have 100s of them working under you, as a king pin, you are pulling down 100k in tax free dollars every year. This makes the king pin the only deep pocket to sue, who again, is hard to identify. So in the case of the drug game, to whom is the victim to turn to for compensation...the answer is no one. Therfore, one reason for "criminal" oversight of the drug game is that this may indeed be the only way to protect the victims...Just a distinction to think about...
Again, I concur with this article in part, but there are many differences between "the dope game" and ATIs- especially when balancing the task of keeping lives from being ruined.
Wow! Super points! I'm falling in love with this analysis. To clarify, what in your opinion explains the outrage of folks who think that tobacco companies should not be sued because it is an individual's personal choice to use cigarettes? That folks should take responsibility for their own actions? How about individuals from this group who believe that in the case of drugs, it is the distributers who should take responsibility but in the case of tobacco it should be the users?
What would be the rationale behind this?
What do you feel about the fact that this year our United States Supreme Court overturned a 79.5 million dollar punitive damage award against Phillip Morris on the grounds that it was UNFAIR! If a drug dealer was sued (which can be done!), do you believe our Supreme Court would overturn a 79.5 million dollar award on the basis that it was unfair?
What explains the fact that most cases brought by Tobacco users are dismissed from court, or the damages rewards are overturned by State Supreme courts and the United State Supreme Court?
Consider This:
The tobacco companies have had evidence since the 1950s indicating that cigarettes were harmful and addictive, yet they withheld this evidence from the public.
The law entitles the government to seek compensation. A federal law against racketeering (RICO) allows the government to obtain compensatory damages from businesses who have tried to maximize their profits through improper means.
Why is the government not filing more suits or seeking criminal indictments against CEO's of Big Tobacco?
The only significant case went to trial in 2006.
Why don't they shut the Tobacco industry down? It is undisputed that it is the biggest killer among all the drugs combined!
Why doesn't the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) have authority over Tobacco products?
Two words: Money and Power. I assume that a major factor in the “quasi immunity” of the tobacco industry is that more than likely these companies have influential lobbyists and stock holders. Not to defend the tobacco companies, but I assume the industry has convinced some relevant persons or entities that (1) a smoker’s act of smoking is an intervening cause to their own harm; and (2) that the economical benefits outweigh the risk (i.e. a few lives and lawsuits).The FDA? I have assumptions but I am not informed enough to comment.
Do I think that’s right? Morally, no. However, the aloof culture of business in its rawest form is not necessary about right or wrong, but rather about the takings. There is a common laymen belief that if there were an “ethical” and “ highbrowed” way to regulate the “legal”marketing and distribution of illegal drugs, certain entities would tap into the barter. Look at the trend in the western states with the “medical marijuana”; and were not alcoholic beverages once prohibited by the same government that now regulates the distribution of the same? [side note: Did y’all know that moonshine can start a car!!]
However, in my opinion, the question of petty “dope dealer” being a businessman reaches beyond the context of whether or not his illegal hustle constitute legitimate business practices. Demand. Supply. Offer. Acceptance? Yes. He is a business man...but so is a “hit man”. (I know... grim example) Are the effects of a dope dealer’s actions more deplorable than Tobacco companies and alcohol distillers? Legally–maybe not. Morally–(in my opinion), yes. It can be argued that many other factors of the “dope game” can extend simple questions of moral probity into implications of genocide.
That brings me to the final point: Glorification of the “Gangster culture”. Just look at some of the attributes. Strength. Power. Respect. Fraternity. Money. Integrity. Attractive huh? Many young men (and women) of color are not raised in environments where these traits are elevated in a positive light and therefore many seek them in the “thuglife”without a full understanding of the “darkness” of the criminal elements. On the other spectrum, some are attracted to the culture out of curiosity...because they have been sheltered and desire the thrill. We have to set the tone to emphasize the same attributes (i.e. Strength. Power. Respect. Fraternity. Money. Integrity) in other more progressive aspects. Gator.
Post a Comment