Supporting the Criminalization of Marijuana is Not Racist

NOTE: I apologize for forfeiting the previous round. If readers of the debate want to take off conduct points, I completely understand. That said, in the spirit of debate, I'd appreciate it if they did not take off points for arguments. Thank you. Now, onto my argument.Marijuana is readily available on every college campus and every office building, not to mention the streets of every city. As my opponent notes, the use of marijuana is not exclusive to minorities. But the fact of wholesale discrimination in the criminal justice system is exclusive to minorities. The war on drugs (in which marijuana plays a key role) has defined an entire segment of the population (young Black men) as criminal, and it has led to the incarceration of a substantial percentage of their population.My opponent says "criminalizing a behaviour that is not inherent for a certain race is not racist." This only makes sense if "race" itself is "inherent," an unchanging collective identity. But recent studies in sociology, anthropology, and biology, suggest that race is as much a social institution as criminalization. What it means to be "Black" or "Latino" is constantly changing to reflect the endless metamorphasis of civil society.The crux of this debate is whether race is a social phenomenon or whether it is solely biological. My opponent's argument rests on the false assumption that race is defined solely through biological factors. I argue that race is a social construction, a system of meaning that connects physical features to ongoing social and political struggles. The meaning of terms like Black, White, Asian, and Latino are not defined solely by a genetic difference - race is defined by a context of social institutions that generate meanings that we attach to each group.For example, in general Black people perform worse than White people on the SAT - does this mean Black people are inherently dumber than White people? If you believe race is biological, the answer to this question is yes. But if you believe race is a social phenomenon, then the answer to this question is no. Instead, you would say that the test ignores the context in which Black people grow up, the fact that they have less access to SAT preparation or the fact that Black culture (an explicitly social phenomenon) doesn't place as much value on the SAT as White culture. The point here is quite clear: race is a social phenomenon.Therefore, what it means to be "Black" is itself defined by its social context, not by something that is biologically inherent in Black people. Now, I am certain my opponent agrees that young Black men (as defined by our current social context) have a higher probability of getting arrested for smoking marijuana than young White men (as defined by our current social context). This is a fact about our society - a fact about the way race is defined by us - and it is a fact that would change if marijuana were legalized. If marijuana were legalized, young Black men would have the same social status as young White men with respect to the use of marijuana. But if marijuana remains criminalized, young Black men would have a lower social status than young White men with respect to the use of marijuana. The meaning of the categories "Black" and "White" changes in each case, as the meanings attached to a race are defined by the particular social context in which it is situated.If marijuana is criminalized, the vast majority of the people who are arrested and incarcerated for using it will be young Black men. This is a fact about the society in which we live, and therefore, criminalizing marijuana defines young Black men as more criminal than young White men. This creates a racist differential between Black men and White men. Therefore, supporting the criminalization of marijuana is racist.The resolution is negated.