When you learn how many of the women in prostitution are forced into that work by sex traffickers or sheer poverty, it's not hard to understand. The sex 'seller' often isn't the one who gets the money.
If the real issue is enslavement, why not just carve out a general exception in criminal law to acts which you are performing against your will? I.e., if you rob a bank because your wife/children are being held hostage, the person holding your wife hostage is criminally liable for that act.
(I'd actually be very surprised if this exception doesn't already exist.)
The average outcome of prosecuting a drug user or prostitute is you spent a bunch of government resources processing, trying and incarcerating the person in order to take someone off the streets who's not actually particularly dangerous.
So, why do it?
Drug dealers on the other hand frequently beef over territory, sell bad product that kills people, get into interesting sideline work, etc. And they're very few in number compared to the users. So as far as bang for the buck, it makes sense to prosecute them. Yes, there are exceptions, but you make policy for the average case and hope that your cops and DAs are smart enough to exercise some judgment when warranted.
Hypothetically, suppose it turns out that black drug dealers are far more likely than white drug dealers to be violent criminals [1]. Would you then favor prosecuting drug crimes committed by blacks, but not by whites? Depending on what the numbers work out to be, you will get the same statistical "bang for buck" that you would prosecuting drug sellers but not sex sellers.
[1] Lets give this hypothetical a TV face: take Weeds as the average white drug dealer, and The Wire as the average black drug dealer. Of course, this is only statistics - there are violent white drug dealers and harmless black drug dealers, even in the hypothetical.
Regarding prosecuting black ones instead of white ones.. well we already do that, so I'd say the reality has surpassed both of us. However, as far as what I think should happen, then yes, I would differentiate between gang bangers who own corners, run protection rackets, etc and the dude in high school who sells a little weed to his friends. But as far as consistency in the law, if you're decriminalizing usage and keeping dealing criminal, then you need to apply that consistently when you catch people dealing.
Anecdotally, I think the difference you're perceiving isn't so much black/white as it is weed/hard and suburban/urban.
After this statement, I can't really take you seriously. Do you have any proof beyond this statement?
"However, as far as what I think should happen, then yes, I would differentiate between gang bangers who own corners, run protection rackets, etc and the dude in high school who sells a little weed to his friends. But as far as consistency in the law, if you're decriminalizing usage and keeping dealing criminal, then you need to apply that consistently when you catch people dealing."
If drugs were legalized, most likely, dealing without some sort of license would still be illegal.
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~oliver/RACIAL/RacialDisparities.htm (copious linkage and a good overview) http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~oliver/RACIAL/RacialDisparities.htm (very detailed analysis of sentencing disparities in particular)
Here is an excerpt:
"Whites are primarily sentenced to prison for violent offenses and white prison admissions for violent offenses grew in the 1990s, while drug sentences actually declined somewhat"
so does this mean that the system is being racist against whites in regards to violent crime?
More African Americans may be getting arrested for drug-related offenses, but there is no mention if they actually interviewed a cross-section of those people to see if they actually committed the crimes.
How do we know that there aren't more African Americans, on average, using more illegal drugs?
Some interesting points from the article:
"The second is more complex: high Black male imprisonment is associated with a rise over time in the proportion of Black children living with mothers who have not graduated from high school; this rise occurs despite an overall rise in Black mothers' education and a positive association between Black male imprisonment and the proportion of children living with mothers who are married college"
So it might not have anything to do with racism. A higher percentage of black families only have a mother..and a father in Prison. I heard stats elsewhere that said that this was the case with something like 75% of black families. Children of these broken families have a much lower chance of becoming successful adults and I would say a higher chance of getting involved with illegal drugs. Racism does still happen, but not nearly as much as you are saying.
75% of black fathers in prison? Looks a bit high.
You're really under the impression that black people aren't systematically questioned/harrassed/arrested in proportionally higher numbers than white people?
I mean that's its own whole discussion but I'd say the number of young african american men currently in jail pretty much proves the point.
If you have any black friends, ask them about profiling sometime.
Seriously? I mean I love that show but taking as Nancy Botwin as the average white drug dealer is crazy talk.
It is a common argument, and I don't deny the existence of it, but I never saw any real research on the fact, besides watching this documentary[1], which did not presented much research on the subject in a global basis.
I'd say all of those are forced to some degree.
Usually that arises after the "has to feed self" situation.
At least, that's what Law & Order SVU has taught me.
In fact, the government is actually harming the hungry prostitute by reducing demand for her services by criminalizing the customers.
It's easy to read some article and say, if A then B so therefore C (or not C, whatever, etc.), but if you don't have experience with people who actually suffer through these experiences every day, then you have no basis from which to say "In fact".
As for this "unless you have personal experience, you can't comment" argument, I call BS. That is nothing but an attempt to keep outside views out of the debate. Thanks to the powers of logic and reason, humans can draw all sorts of correct conclusions without personal experience. I've never experienced quantum mechanics, the inside of a computer chip, or plate tectonics, yet I can draw all sorts of correct conclusions about them. You are trying to tell me that I can't draw correct conclusions about a slightly different human experience?
I don't know what it's like to grow up in the projects either, and I don't even have a huge disagreement with you in regards to this particular niche of policy.. but I'm wise enough to know that I'm pretty average, maybe a little bit brighter and harder working but nowhere near special enough to claim I would've made it out of the projects.
I'm done here.
That's more than a "slightly different" human experience than giving $20 blowjobs in order to get through to next week. We're talking about something that's entirely alien to your (and my) cushy existences here.
Personally, I had more of a head start by age 5 than anyone in the projects is likely to ever have. I realize this. It's humbling, but it's the truth -- I'm not that special, mostly just lucky.
My point is not about whether, given the facts, you could make accurate conclusions. My point is that no internet article on this subject can give you the facts on which to base an accurate conclusion.