I read the entire article. The man was duly convicted of a crime in Oklahoma. He broke the law, regardless of what anyone thinks. Fast forward to when black people owning property in certain places is now legal and this guy wants a piece of the action, but...he cannot legally do so because he fled from his master. Should we undo his conviction? No. He was tried fairly and found guilty based on the laws of the time and place. His fault. His color has nothing to do with it, and quite frankly, I'm sick to death of everything in this country now revolving around the blacks, sodomites, and women.
Laws are made by humans, and there is no guarantee that they are fair or ethical. The man in the article was caught with a couple cigarettes filled with a shredded plant (the illegal one, not that legal yet much more harmful plant). He served a felony for it because we instituted a draconian and racist class war under the guise of "saving the children from reefer madness". This country is finally instituting some sensible drug legislation, but the people that were most disproportionately affected by the War on Drugs are now disproportionately locked out of this new market. That is neither fair nor ethical.
Laws are made by humans, and there is no guarantee that they are fair or ethical. The man in the article was caught with a couple cigarettes filled with a shredded plant (the illegal one, not that legal yet much more harmful plant). He served a felony for it because we instituted a draconian and racist class war under the guise of "saving the children from reefer madness". This country is finally instituting some sensible drug legislation, but the people that were most disproportionately affected by the War on Drugs are now disproportionately locked out of this new market. That is neither fair nor ethical.