You might argue that the context around why these laws, for instance why there are specifically sentencing disparities written into law, doesn't matter because the plain text doesn't say black people shall have a 2x longer sentence. That's ignorant IMHO.
Even so, racist laws were specifically written in plain text IN OUR CONSTITUTION spelling out black worth as only 3/5ths of white.
Nixon's advisor has a 'great' quote plainly laying out the motivation and showing why context and the actual affects of these laws are racist.
you're being purposefully being flippant with a throwaway account so I'm not going to continue responding but go ahead and downvote again.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=marijuana+racial+bias+u...
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/how-we-rise/2020/06/23/mariju...
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/the-shocking-and-sickening-st...
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/racial-d...
https://www.aclu.org/issues/smart-justice/sentencing-reform/...
Correlation does not imply causation.
>But if you want to exclude certain people from your neighborhood, and those people happen to often be from a certain culture/socioeconomic class…
No doubt, no one wants to live around low class riff raff. That's not race specific, and so, is by definition not racist.
>It's also worth noting that the same laws were applied to Asians - exclusionary zoning and housing policies led to the consolidation of populations within certain neighborhoods, like San Francisco's Chinatown
Now you're straw manning hard. No one is making the claim that laws of the past weren't racist. Now, they're not, and so Asians, Indians, Africans (as in recent African immigrants) all flood to the suburbs because suburbs are decidedly not racist, and are free of the riff raff.
>It wasn't always the case that most Asians could (whether financially or politically) move to the suburbs.
Same for whites. Many/most were locked away in perpetual poverty in rural areas.