Unit 7 Post: Stop and Frisk

The Stop and Frisk tactics used by the New York City Police Department are ineffective, biased, and are causing much more harm than good to a city which desperately needed a positive way to help keep the streets safe and bring an end to the problem of violence in NYC. Not only does the tactic of stopping pedestrians and searching them for weapons or other contraband after witnessing “suspicious behavior” simply not work to deter crime, it is being implemented in a racially biased way that is causing more outrage and aggression in the community it was designed to prevent those things from happening in. New York City mayor Bloomberg has been credited with establishing the stop and frisk tactic, and tirelessly defends this obviously faltering law, claiming that it reduces violent crime and isn’t implemented in a racially unjust manner. However, after even a mere glance at the statistics of the law, it is blatantly obvious that it has not been an effective deterrent of crime, and the racially biased implementation of the law is obvious to anyone who investigates the facts. Supporters of this questionable practice claim that violent crime has dropped in the city dramatically from 2001 to today in the city and, for the most part, those supporters are correct. However, the belief that the stop and frisk program is responsible for that decrease is absolutely not based on fact and is disproven easily by observing the crime data of other large, dangerous cities during the same time period. In the time parameters mentioned, the violent crime rate in New York City fell 29 percent, which is undoubtedly a significant drop. However, in that same time frame the violent crime rate of New Orleans fell an astonishing 56 percent, while the same rate in Los Angeles plummeted an even more remarkable amount, showing a 59 percent reduction. The interesting fact about those statistics is that those two of many cities that showed a much higher reduction in violent crimes were not utilizing the stop and frisk tactic of the NYPD, but stuck rather to higher traditional police activity and trying to establish the community as a more hospitable and safe place to reside. It is obvious that the claim that violent crime is significantly reduced thanks to the stop and frisk practices is not backed by statistics, which shows the ineffectiveness of the law and a very good reason to stop frisking and begin more positive and racially equal ways of protecting the citizens of the city. Not only does stop and frisk simply not work, but it is offensive how the minority residents of New York are being blatantly discriminated against by the very force created to protect them. The spokesman for the NYPD, Paul Browne, claims that the laws are not implemented in a racially biased way because African-American and Hispanic residents make up a larger number of violent crime suspects in the city. Although that observation may be correct, it cannot be used as proof that the practice of stopping pedestrians on the street is not being used as a tool to harass minorities. In 2011, less than 12 percent of the total stops made by police officers were based on the description of a suspect of a violent crime. Throughout the entirety of the stop and frisk campaign, black and Latino citizens have made up nearly 90 percent of total stops. There can be no statistic that warrants such an unequal balance of people who were chosen by police to be searched for weapons or who were exhibiting suspicious behavior. It is painfully obvious that these officers, either seeking to act on a personal vendetta against minorities or to fill a required number of stops set by a higher authority, are unfairly targeting minorities, which has caused nothing but outrage and mistrust in the police force in the communities affected by stop and frisk. A final piece of evidence, one that is truly shocking, reveals how discriminatory and blatantly failing the practice of frisking is: blacks and hispanics fill 25 percent of the population of one of the more well off neighborhoods where stop and frisk is implemented, Park Slope. However, over 80 percent of stops that occur in this neighborhood are black or latino residents. The data speaks for itself. Stop and frisk is a barbaric and racially insensitive practice that needs to end immediately before it instills any more fear or mistrust of authority in the minorities living in New York City.

Works Cited:

"Stop And Frisk Facts | New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) - American Civil Liberties Union of New York State." NYCLU. New York Civil Liberties Union, n.d. Web. 12 Jan. 2014.

Mathias, Christopher. "NYPD Stop And Frisks: 15 Shocking Facts About A Controversial Program." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 13 May 2012. Web. 15 Jan. 2014

"Stop-and-frisk in New York City." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 01 Sept. 2014. Web. 14 Jan. 2014.

Durkin, Erin. "Study Finds Stop-and-frisk Leads to Mistrust of Cops, Unwillingness to Cooperate with Police." NY Daily News-Crime. NYDN, 19 Sept. 2013. Web. 12 Jan. 2014.

Unit 6 Post: Legalization of Marijuana

For far too long the United States government has been keeping a medicine, healing substance, and a method of relaxation from the citizens of our otherwise free nation for Draconian reasons that have been disproven again and again by countless studies that all point one way: To the legalization of cannabis in America. Innocent people are being consistently prosecuted for “crimes” much less severe than those committed by fellow citizens which are left unpunished, and this unjust imbalance that has consumed our great nation must be halted before it is allowed to continue any further. The best way to solve a problem is to look at the beginning cause and work past that, so the logical step to take would be to look at why the unfair practice of marijuana prohibition was brought about in the first place. As early as the mid-1800’s, physicians had began to prescribe marijuana and extracts of marijuana to patients to act as a pain reliever and an appetite stimulant. After several years of mismanagement of many medicines by doctors, not just marijuana, the government passed what were known as the “poison laws”, which declared any substance not issued by a pharmaceutical company was to be labeled a poison. The malicious label of “poison” served only as the first step of the government distorting the view of the public on the topic of marijuana. In the early 20th century, states began passing laws that made the possession of marijuana in any form illegal. This was a move believed to stem from racism towards the small-farm Mexican workers who sometimes smoked pot after farming to relax after a long day. By the decade of the 1930’s, the government had created an agency called the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, which released a slew of highly controversial ads all giving the message that marijuana makes the user overly violent and sexually aggressive, although neither of those claims had any backing to them. More and more of these factless advertisements were issued by the government, and, along with a movie that portrayed marijuana users as violent rebels, effectively silenced any of the critics of marijuana prohibition. The United States economy is in a state of despair, with thousands of the brightest minds in the country being utterly dumbfounded searching for a remedy. I realize legalizing marijuana will certainly not completely reverse the negative slope the economy is sliding down, but it would provide much needed stimulus to an already depleted financial system. Revenue from “Sin taxes” imposed by the government on alcohol and tobacco products are rising at a rate of 8% over every two years. If the government did legalize cannabis and put an equal tax rate on the crop, which is sold at street value for $20 a gram, the revenue generated by this would be unimaginable. With over 30% of the country admitting to using marijuana at least 5 times a year, if every person who admitted to using marijuana bought only 1 gram from the government for 20$ with a tax rate of 10%, the revenue the government would accumulate would be over $180,000,000. That is based on 30% of the population purchasing a gram once a year from the government. If legalized, imagine the revenue if 50% of the population purchased ounces from the government a year. The revenue, just from the taxing of marijuana distribution, has potential to reach well over $10 billion a year, a figure many economists believe to be highly possible. The government can not simply deny billions of dollars in revenue based solely on ancient laws, but that is exactly what they are doing now. My final reason as to why marijuana should be legalized is that the practice of apprehending and harshly punishing innocent pot smokers by the police is unjust and without reason. Many politicians, including Arnold Schwarzenneger, see this logic also, and Arnold was not afraid to voice his opinion on the topic, saying “that’s not a drug, that’s a leaf.”  Why is someone who simply chooses to light up occasionally and relieve stress being mercilessly persecuted by our supposedly unbiased judicial system? Over half of the people in the prison system are there because of some sort of drug related crime, and over three quarters of those people are there because of marijuana. Retail thieves hurt not only the owner of the business they steal from, but consequently the manager and other employees of the business. Someone who chooses to smoke marijuana to relax or relieve pain in their own home can in no way be seen as invading on anyone elses rights, but pot smokers continue to be bullied by the ruthless police force set up to crack down on users of “the murder drug,” and are punished in many cases more severely than the retail thief who has obviously committed a more severe offence.  

Marijuana users are obviously being unfairly targeted, and the health benefits are being held from the sick who are in dire need of the healing properties of cannabis. Despite legal experts like Michael Bloomberg saying, “yeah I smoked it, and I enjoyed it too”, legalization is still a cause begging for a spark, and it is wrong for Americans to sit back and watch innocent users be bullied by our “fair” justice system. 

 As shown by this graphic, public opinion about the legalization of marijuana is changing dramatically as more facts are made public

Some of the blatantly false propaganda used by the government to support marijuana prohibition

NORML has been leading the fight to end marijuana prohibition

This shows the ignorance and misunderstanding displayed by somebody supporting further prohibition
Works Cited:
http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-war-statistics
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/28/why-marijuana-should-be-legalized_n_1833751.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-bloom/legalization-or-bust-a-br_b_775684.html

Unit 5 Post: San Francisco Earthquake

Andrew du Bois

Unit 5 Post: 1906 San Francisco Earthquake

A massive earthquake, the likes of which had never been seen by residents of the western United States, hit San Francisco along with much of the northern California coastline, on April 18, 1906. The quake hit early in the morning, and had a magnitude estimated at 7.9, making it the highest magnitude quake in the history of California. Apart from the earthquake itself, massive fires that broke as an immediate result of the quake caused a great deal of devastation and destruction to the entire city of San Francisco. San Francisco, along with much of California in the early 20th century, was at great risk for an earthquake, and surprisingly had little to no sort of preparation for the inevitable disaster. San Francisco lies next to the San Andreas Fault, which spans the entire length of California, or about 800 miles. There were very few building standards in place before the earthquake to make sure the major structures in the city were prepared to withstand such a massive tremor. Also, fire safety was not a major issue when dealing with the construction of homes or other public places in the early 1900s, so the entire city was not only at risk of completely collapsing as a result of a shift in the earth, but it also had a high risk of burning to the ground, as many of it’s densely packed large buildings were not designed to withstand such a massive fire as the one that broke out as a direct result of the quake. In the preceding decade, Northern California had experienced the largest number of minor earthquakes in history, which is a characteristic typical of locations where a major earthquake hits. It is astounding to me that these minor quakes were not seen as a precursor to a major one, and the proper precautions were not taken to prepare the city for a quake of a high magnitude. As far as possible cause goes, there is speculation that these minor earthquakes, which are believed to be partially the catalyst for the major quake, were a result of hydraulic mining practiced during the California Gold Rush. When the earthquake made impact on San Francisco, it was 5:12 AM, so most of the city was still asleep, which only adds to the level of unpreparedness displayed. There was a foreshock of about 20 seconds, which awoke and alarmed much of the city. But it was much too late to take any preventative measures, as the major shock wave hit immediately after the foreshock, and lasted for nearly 45 seconds. During and immediately after the initial tremor was when much of the destruction happened, with multiple major public destinations such as Market Street and Haight Ashbury Street, collapsing as a whole. The initial death toll was 375, although that number is believed to be low as hundreds of deaths in the poverty stricken Chinatown went unreported. As hard as it sounds to believe, the earthquake was not even the cause of the majority of the destruction of the city. In fact, nearly 90% of the destruction is said to have been caused by the fire. Unprotected gas mains snapped during the tremor, and all it took after that was a spark to set an entire block ablaze. The fires ravaged the city, leaving almost 300,000 people, or 3/4s of the population, homeless. There were over 30 fires that emerged throughout the course of the disaster, and these destroyed around 25,000 buildings. The destruction caused by the fire may have been at least partially avoidable, but along with the gas mains that snapped during the earthquake, the water lines failed also, so the remaining firemen had no source to power their hoses to put out the blazes ripping the entire city apart. After all of the damage had been done, the final cost of the destruction was $235 million, which is equivalent to slightly over $6 billion in today’s currency. A large majority of that figure was damage done by the fire, as it ravaged the entire city for four straight days. Apart from taking a massive blow financially, the city was also stricken by poverty in the aftermath of the disaster, with well over half of the population becoming homeless and setting up refugee camps, which were densely populated by tens of thousands of residents living in tents. The death toll was immensely high also, thought to be almost 3,500, which is a low number considering the amount of unreported deaths in and around Chinatown. It would make sense that the city would set very strict building standards relating to the stability and fire resistance of the structure. However, building standards were lowered immensely in the aftermath of the disaster, as the San Francisco municipal government wanted the city restored immediately so it could continue to be a flourishing trade destination, and to prepare for the Panama-Pacific Exposition. These structures built with minimal regulations are still standing today, and they put San Francisco at even more risk to be ravaged by a similar disaster.

City Hall before and after the Quake

San Francisco Skyline 

A makeshift refugee camp for the homeless in San Francisco

One of the fires that ravaged the city

Side by side comparison of Market Street before and after the earthquake

This is a map of the area in San Francisco damaged by the fires