This simply is untrue unless you operate in temporal vacuums. The intention has affected and currently affects public perception and legislation even today. What you suggest is similar to people who argue that there was a clean slate after abolition or even the civil Rights acts.
> Me: Whether or not they are racist is moot
You're completely missing the point I was making. So much so that I would ask you re-read what I said. I don't care if today's folks aren't "technically" racist. It's clear the laws' impact and original intention were, and that should be enough to question their efficacy. Furthermore your analogy is completely ludicrous. No one thinks someone should go unpunished for murder.
Your phrasing makes it seem like you're more concerned with something being called racist, than you are addressing historical acts of racism. And that is pretty odd to me.
Maybe, but one could certainly infer it from all of your posts in this topic, including the effort you undertook in another post to defend the success of alcohol prohibition.
Why don't you use your normal account for that kind of argumentation?
> Today, those policies still affect blacks and Mexicans more than whites, even though drug usage is similar. Therefore, the policies are still racist.
Just because a policy does affect a certain group more doesn't mean that the supporters of the policy are against the group. For example, Blacks are more affected by laws against murder, but that doesn't mean that those who support laws against murder are racist.