That's a diabolically well-constructed argument. Anyone paying attention to social media knows that the kind of overt racism you refer to lies just below the surface, and bubbles up readily when given the opportunity.

Still, you are overstating the impact of "the will of the people." We live in a well-managed system where "representation" is mostly bought, then legitimized by voting among two bought choices.

We've been ready to end the War On Drugs for a decade - coincidentally the very thing responsible for a majority of our prison ills.

Who is "we?" The vast majority of the population thinks everything except marijuana should be illegal. Also, the drug war is not responsible for the majority of our prison ills. The most egregious stuff (three strikes laws) has nothing to do with the drug war.

Not true, by a wide margin.

http://www.people-press.org/2014/04/02/americas-new-drug-pol...

As for three strikes, drug possession was one of the top offenses for which it is applied.

http://www.lao.ca.gov/2005/3_strikes/3_strikes_102005.htm

"Possession of controlled substances alone made up 12 percent of the state’s [CA] total three strikes population at the time — drug crimes in general accounted for 23 percent."

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/three-strikes-law-drug-addict...

Americans don't want to give jail time for possession. But they still want to keep those drugs (besides pot) illegal by huge margins: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/drug-legalization-poll_n_5162.... I haven't seen any polls asking about trafficking specifically, but I think it's fair to take those two data points to mean people want to target traffickers not users. But that is what the vast majority of the drug war is about. 99.8% of federal prisoners incarcerated for drug offenses were incarcerated for trafficking, not simple possession.

Your California stats are misleading. First, you said that drugs are responsible for the "majority" of our prison ills, but your chart shows that 77% of people sentenced for a second or third strike are for property or personal crimes, or gun possession.

Second, California is unusual in that the third strike can be anything (first two must be violent felonies). So people are in for drug possession, but also for other minor things like larceny. In most states, drug possession doesn't trigger the three strikes rule at all.

In any case, three strikes rules weren't created because of the drug war, even in California. It was a response to a guy who murdered a girl. And note that in several states, these rules passed by public referendum with huge margins less than 25 years ago.

> Second, California is unusual in that the third strike can be anything (first two must be violent felonies).

No, not since the passage of Proposition 36 in 2012: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law (see "California")

Right. But the data he's sourced to is from 2005.

> As for three strikes, drug possession was one of the top offenses for which it is applied.

But fundamentally the three strikes rule is a bigger issue there than the drug possession charges themselves, the three strikes remove all judicial flexibility and agency.

Obligatory link to Matt Taibbi's excellent take on the subject (2013):

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/cruel-and-unusual-...