1. Before watching the film, I understood that the war on drugs and war on crime were attempts by the government to stop the illegal consumption and distribution of hard drugs that endangered the lives of the youths, whether they were Whites or people of color.
2. I was surprised to learn that the legislative policies and the active role that the state played in criminalizing and deliberately targeting communities of color had racial underpinnings. Who could have imagined racial hatred drove all the governmental efforts against criminality?
After all, drug dealing and other forms of criminality have not helped people of color in any positive way. They have cut short the aspirations of many. Somebody like Robert DeShaun Peter lost his brilliant future and life in such acts.
3. The immediate reaction was that governmental powers should never be used to <em>malign a race</em>. While drugs and crimes have not helped the youths in making societal progress, the <em>war against drugs and crimes</em> should not be against the black race but criminality.
Thus, such partial wars targeting a racial community were not necessary. <em>Wars against illicit drugs and crimes</em> should be waged holistically for corrective effects and <em>not internalize hatred.</em>
Learn more: brainly.com/question/15702214
Answer:
the plant is the best illustrated
Answer:
to be able to answer this question i need more details. like a statement of what you are reading
The domestic manufacture of new machine guns that civilians could purchase was effectively banned by language in the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (also known as "McClure-Volkmer"). The language was added in an amendment from William J. Hughes and referred to as the Hughes Amendment.
Answer: No. There was no need to declare war, as this power had yet to be established.
Explanation:
