Better schools: the magic of 55%

The War on Drugs:

Race, Poverty, and Politics

Abstract: The U.S. government’s War on Drugs causes far more harm than the drugs it claims to be combating. The price of this war is race divisions, poverty, and an overburdened law enforcement and justice system that puts hundreds of thousands of people in prisons who don’t belong there. But there is a more cost-effective, compassionate, and logical alternative: education instead of propaganda and lies, treatment instead of more prisons and civil rights violations, and an end to the merciless treatment of the people of Latin America and other drug-producing regions.

One of the most volatile issues in the current American political climate is illegal drug use. Drug abuse is intimately related to problems like crime, economic inequality, and race relations, and is therefore a topic of great controversy for a great many Americans. The current national campaign to stamp out illegal drug use has been called a “war on drugs,” because it emphasizes the need to crack down on drug dealers, arrest users, and generally pursue an enormously expensive “tough-on-crime” law enforcement agenda, both internationally and within our borders. But illegal drug use has proven to be a more tenacious problem than expected, and the war on drugs has, although unintentionally, encouraged the perpetuation of economic inequality, especially along racial lines. The billions of dollars spent yearly on the war on drugs should be reallocated to more productive, less punitive anti-drug campaigns, such as education, drug prevention programs, and counseling. Such policies would not have short-term results, but would, in the long run, be more beneficial to the communities, families, and individuals currently wrestling with drugs, getting them out of poverty, rather than into prisons.

The “war on drugs” is essentially the name given to the United States’ federal drug policy over the past three decades, which has taken an increasingly militant attitude toward the drug crisis. This “war” causes and perpetuates economic inequality by ruining the lives of the people it affects, and by disproportionately targeting racial minorities that are already poverty-stricken. Since 1968, the United States has spent greater and greater amounts of money trying to stop drug use through the criminal justice system: at this point, the total comes to over 40 billion dollars per year.¹ Three-fourths of the Federal anti-drug money goes to police, prisons, border patrols, and foreign interdiction efforts,² i.e., direct-response measures to try to stem illegal drug use through law enforcement agencies. The remaining one-fourth of the budget goes to prevention and treatment measures.³

This emphasis on law enforcement, as opposed to treatment and prevention, has resulted in an enormous number of arrests. Half a million members of America’s prison population (out of about two million total) are incarcerated for drug-related offenses, and 700,000 people are arrested each year for marijuana possession alone.⁴ The problem with this policy is that imprisonment is often not the best way to deal with the drug problem in the long run. Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah commented that drug abusers “can get drugs in jail, but there’s no real education in jails, and no treatment.”⁵ Furthermore, little in the way of effective treatment or prevention programs are available outside of prisons either. Methadone, the most effective drug for the treatment of heroin addiction, is not available through doctors or pharmacies, and there are just 170,000 methadone-maintenance shots available in the U.S.⁶ While the government does sponsor anti-drug campaigns, such campaigns address drugs on a general level, but do not educate the population about specific issues like overdose prevention, an important part of drug safety that has received no funding from the federal government.⁷ A lack of proper treatment programs has also taken a toll on society—especially among the lower rungs of the social ladder—by increasing the spread of diseases like AIDS. Over 260,000 cases of AIDS have been traced to infected needles, and of the 40,000 new HIV infections each year, 10,000 are caused, directly or indirectly, by the use of unsafe needles for injecting drugs.⁸ Yet the federal government provides no funding for needle exchange programs, which are designed to prevent the spread of diseases through infected needles.⁹

In addition to imprisoning a large number of people for long periods of time, the war on drugs has disproportionately affected minority populations. African-Americans comprise 12.2% of the population and 13% of drug users, but 38% of those arrested for drug offenses, and 59% of those convicted, are African-American.¹⁰ Furthermore, three-fourths of those in prison on drug convictions are members of minorities.¹¹ The higher arrest rates for African-Americans are the result of a law enforcement emphasis on inner city areas, which are more likely to have open-air drug markets and a severe lack of treatment resources.¹² It is also the result of differences in sentencing between crack cocaine and powder cocaine. While both drugs have the same active ingredient, crack is sold in less expensive quantities and marketed in lower income communities, usually of color.¹³ A five-year federal minimum sentence is triggered by selling only five grams of crack, whereas one must sell five hundred grams of powder cocaine to receive the same minimum sentence.¹⁴ The result is more small-time, poor, minority dealers in prison for longer periods of time. In 1986, before the enactment of federal minimum sentences for crack cocaine offenses, the average federal drug sentence for an African-American was 11% higher than for a white person, but four years later, that statistic jumped to 49%.¹⁵ Young people of color, as well as minority families, are particularly mistreated under the current policy. A National Institute on Drug Abuse survey of high school seniors in the United States for 1998-1999 shows that white students use cocaine and heroin at around seven times the rate of black students, and that white youths of ages 12-17 are about one third more likely to sell drugs than their African-American counterparts.¹⁶ In spite of this, there are about 17 black youths arrested on drug charges for every white youth arrested.¹⁷ Poor women of color, and the children they are trying to raise, are also harmed by the war on drugs. About one-third of all women in prison are incarcerated for drug crimes, and the rate of imprisonment for black women is eight times that of white women.¹⁸ Black women are ten times more likely than white women to be reported to child-welfare agencies for parental drug use,¹⁹ causing them to lose vital support in raising their families under low income conditions. Finally, out of 1.5 million minor children who had a parent incarcerated in 1999, African-American children were nearly 9 times more likely than white children to have a parent incarcerated, and Latinos were 3 times more likely.²⁰

Clearly the war on drugs is taking a toll on low-income, minority families, adding to the obstacles between them and economic success. But the war on drugs has also failed to reduce illegal drug use in the United States. Three decades after the war on drugs began, there are “no fewer drug addicts, but more people in prison for drug crimes than ever before.”²¹ According to the 1999 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 87.7 million Americans had tried an illegal drug in 1999, as opposed to 4 million in 1962.²² Teen marijuana use is up almost 300 percent just since 1992, according to the 1998 National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse survey.²³ Despite attempts by law enforcement agencies to raise street prices by cracking down on dealers, “the fact remains that most illegal drugs remain popular and available.”²⁴ Despite $30 billion spent trying to cut the supply of drugs from abroad, the amount of cocaine and heroin coming into the U.S. from foreign countries is as great as ever.²⁵ Retail cocaine and heroin prices have actually fallen by about a third since 1992.²⁶ Purity is also up; the average THC content of marijuana in the 1970s was 1.5%, but now averages about 7.6%, and heroin purity, which used to range between 1-10%, now averages about 35%.²⁷ In short, the war on drugs has come at a great price, both for taxpayers and minority communities, without getting the kind of results that might justify the war.

The drug crisis in the United States must be addressed, but there is a more cost-effective, socially progressive alternative to the war on drugs that would help alleviate poverty, rather than encourage it. Such a federal program would include spending more money and time on treatment, both general education and drug education, counseling and after-school programs for poor youths, as well as legislation to legalize some drugs and decriminalize all of them—that is, reduce the crackdown on nonviolent users and small-time dealers. The emphasis of this program would be helping people deal with harmful addictions without imprisoning them. Money currently being spent putting people in prison (and keeping them there) would be siphoned off to pay for free drug treatment clinics, and needle exchange programs would be legalized and funded by the government in order to release the grip of AIDS on poor minority communities.

Money spent on general education would give poor youths a way of gaining economic and social success other than entering the illegal drug trade, and changing the emphasis of current federal anti-drug advertisement and education programs from “just to say no” to “safety and responsibility” would improve the effectiveness of such programs by reducing the harmful effects of drug use, rather than futilely trying to convince people not to use drugs at all. Funding after-school activities and counseling programs for poor young people would help keep them off the streets and away from harmful influences that could lead them to a life of addiction. Even simple activities like basketball leagues and music lessons would give poor youths something healthy to enjoy in their spare time, and counseling programs could help them deal with the emotional problems so often faced by low-income families through a means other than drugs. Finally, legalizing some drugs, such as marijuana and possibly cocaine, would reduce violence in poorer communities by legitimizing the industry, and would stop the enormous flow of minor drug offenders into prisons.

This policy change is not only more compassionate to the poor, but is also very practical and realistic from a logistical and financial point of view. Many studies, experts, and historical precedents give evidence for the many strengths of this proposed drug policy. First of all, treatment has been shown to be both effective and inexpensive. As new prisons have been built, treatment programs within them have declined, but the “best hope for controlling illicit drugs” is treatment, rather than punishment.²⁸ Numerous studies have shown that treatment of drug abusers is the “best and cheapest way” to reduce the national “craving” for addictive, illegal drugs.²⁹ Indeed, the Physician Leadership on National Drug Policy estimates that the cost per year for regular outpatient treatment for heroin addicts is $1,800, compared to a staggering $26,000 per year for incarceration.³⁰

Emphasizing education and after school programs would also be a very effective, realistic way of preventing young people from becoming drug addicts. In “Crack Country,” an article in the New York Times Magazine, author Walter Kirn explains that, in his experience as a young person growing up in a poor, rural environment, “boredom and freedom” are the chief causes for young, poor kids being led into drug abuse.³¹ Counseling for young students in drug-ridden neighborhoods has also proven effective in improving their school performance and conduct. In East Baltimore, a pilot program of counseling in the juvenile justice system and local schools, which was provided with a grant from an agency of the Federal Department of Health and Human Services, found that almost half the children in these low-income schools needed counseling, and there was drug use in about 70% of the students’ families.³² A sample of report cards from elementary school students who had received counseling under the program showed that 50% of the students, who had gotten unsatisfactory marks at the beginning of the year, had, by the 3^rd quarter, achieved satisfactory marks in reading, math, and conduct.³³ If studies like this are any indication, counseling is an excellent way of improving the chances of future success for children from drug-using families.

Legalization is probably the most controversial aspect of the alternative policy proposed here. Legalization would certainly increase drug use, but that could be partially offset by increasing prices through large taxes on producers.³⁴ Furthermore, revenue collected from the taxes on legal drugs could be used to finance other aspects of this plan, such as treatment and education.³⁵ If history provides an accurate precedent, legalization and decriminalization would also reduce the strain on communities and law enforcement agencies by reducing the violent crime associated with the drug trade. The decades with the highest homicide rates in the United States coincide with alcohol prohibition and the war on drugs: in 1933 (the last year of alcohol prohibition), the homicide rate peaked at 9.7 per 100,000 people, then dropped dramatically; in 1980, the murder rate reached 10 per 100,000.³⁶ Reducing violent crime in low-income communities through legalization would help improve poor people’s chances of “getting out of the ghetto.”

There are certainly some obstacles to overcome if this policy is to be implemented. Most Americans actually wish to end the war on drugs; a 2001 study showed that a record 74% of Americans think the war is failing.³⁷ But it is hard to change the war on drugs because legislators, even those who see the futility of the current policy, don’t want to seem “soft on crime,”³⁸ which at this point, is tantamount to political suicide. It is also difficult to move away from a law enforcement emphasis on inner cities and minority communities. John Timoney, the Police Commissioner of Philadelphia, explained that “The ones who are particularly affected by drugs are the minority communities. We get a lot of pressure to clean up neighborhoods where there are four or five dealers on the block.”³⁹ Furthermore, there are some arguments that support keeping very tight control on illegal drug use. Although legalization would almost certainly reduce the violence caused in gang wars, ONDCP’s 1998 National Drug Control Strategy indicated that domestic violence is often linked to drug abuse: according to this survey, one-fourth to one-half of all incidents of domestic violence are drug-related.⁴⁰ Furthermore, drug users are less effective as employees. Drug users make more than twice as many workers’ compensation claims, use almost twice the medical benefits, and generally take one-third more leave than non-users.⁴¹ Because the alternative program proposed here would almost certainly increase the overall number of drug users, these problems would be likely to increase.

Despite these drawbacks, the costs that the current war on drugs exacts on society are utterly devastating, and it especially aggravates existing problems of economic inequality, particularly along racial lines. The United States imprisons a larger percentages of its population for drug-related crimes than European nations do for all offenses combined.⁴² The nation’s school systems go without proper funding while tax dollars go to building more and more prisons each year.⁴³ The education of low-income people is also threatened by the war on drugs. A depressing fact is that young black males in California are now five times as likely to go to prison as to attend a state university,⁴⁴ and the Bush administration has begun to enforce an obscure 1998 law that bars financial aid to students who have been convicted of any drug offense, even a minor one,⁴⁵ thereby keeping desperately needed aid from poor youths. Families are torn apart by the current policy, as well; women in prison risk losing their children, because every state permits terminating prisoners’ parental rights.⁴⁶ The current war on drugs has helped make AIDS an epidemic of the poor, a crisis that is more sharply divided along racial lines than ever before. Despite “the proven success of needle exchange programs in reducing the spread of HIV, AIDS, and Hepatitis C,” most states do not allow such programs to operate legally.⁴⁷ According to the Centers for Disease Control, African-Americans account for 37% of AIDS cases in the United States, of which 41% are injection-related, but African-Americans comprise only 12.2% of the population.⁴⁸ Additionally, Latinos account for 19.2% of of all AIDS cases, and over 44% of those cases are injection-related, but Latinos make up only 11.9% of the total population.⁴⁹ These particularly frightening statistics show the vast potential for long-term damage to poor, minority communities as a result of the war on drugs.

The alternative policy presented here would stop some of these alarming trends. In many ways, such an alternative policy would be in line with traditional American values. Freedom and opportunity have always been fundamental American values, and the alternative policy would not only give everybody more freedom to make their own choices about drugs, but would also give more opportunities to minorities and poor people who are currently starved for education and key social programs. On the other hand, the policy would require overcoming certain other aspects of traditional American culture, such as racism—a very basic part of U.S. culture that many Americans are loathe to recognize—and an attitude that people should help themselves achieve economic success without the help of the government. Still, the most basic American values: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, would be upheld by the alternative policy.

The fact is that the war on drugs has already been lost. Billions upon billions of taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars have been spent futilely trying to stop illegal drug use while minority and low-income communities, abandoned by the federal government, are left to pay the social price for a militaristic, hard-line policy. Stopping the cycle of poverty and violence will take broad steps toward social responsibility and away from the punitive attitudes so often found in current law enforcement agencies. Americans must come to grips with the fact that punishing and locking away users simply does not work. The ultimate goal of a democracy should be to allow people to make educated choices for themselves, rather than forcing uneducated mobs to do what politicians demand. The war on drugs must be altered to give people the knowledge needed to make their own choices about drugs, so that everybody is given a fighting chance in the even greater war on poverty and economic inequality.

Endnotes

1. Jann S. Wenner, “America’s War on Drugs,” Rolling Stone 16 August 2001: 82-98, p. 82.
   
2. Wenner, p. 82.
   
3. Wenner, p. 82.
   
4. Wenner, p. 82.
   
5. Wenner, p. 84.
   
6. Wenner, p. 96.
   
7. Wenner, p. 84.
   
8. Wenner, p. 89.
   
9. Wenner, p. 89.
   
10. “Race and the War on Drugs,” The Lindesmith Center Drug Policy Foundation, March 2001, 28 October 2001, <http://www.lindesmith.org/library/focal_race2.html>.
    
11. Wenner, p. 90.
    
12. “Race and the War on Drugs.”
    
13. “Race and the War on Drugs.”
    
14. “Race and the War on Drugs.”
    
15. “Race and the War on Drugs.”
    
16. Wenner, p. 98.
    
17. Wenner, p. 98.
    
18. Wenner, p. 91.
    
19. Wenner, p. 91.
    
20. “Race and the War on Drugs.”
    
21. Wenner, p. 82.
    
22. “Drug Use in the United States,” Drug Enforcement Administration, 2 November 2001, <http://www.dea.gov/concern/use.htm>.
    
23. “Drug Use in the United States.”
    
24. Gary S. Becker, “It’s Time to Give up the War on Drugs,” Business Week 17 September 2001: 32, p. 32.
    
25. Lewis, Anthony, “A War Against Ourselves (Op-Ed),” New York Times 28 April 2001, late edition (East Coast): A15.
    
26. Wenner, p. 87.
    
27. “Drug Use in the United States.”
    
28. “The Drug War Backfires (Editorial),” New York Times 13 March 1999, late edition (East Coast): A14.
    
29. Lewis, p. A15.
    
30. Wenner, p. 96.
    
31. Walter Kirn, “Crack Country,” New York Times Magazine 13 February 2000: 6.15, p.16. He also points out that, as a recent study showed, young people from low-income families in the country, who have even fewer activities available than inner-city children, are even more likely to abuse drugs.
    
32. Dudley Clendinen, “Helping Embattled Children in America’s Cities (Editorial),” New York Times, 31 August 1999, late edition (East Coast): A20.
    
33. Clendinen, p. A20.
    
34. Becker, p. 32.
    
35. Becker, p. 32.
    
36. Wenner, p. 95.
    
37. Wenner, p. 82.
    
38. Lewis, p. A15.
    
39. Wenner, p. 83.
    
40. “Drug Use in the United States.”
    
41. “Drug Use in the United States.”
    
42. Becker, p. 32.
    
43. “The Drug War Backfires (Editorial),” A14.
    
44. “The Drug War Backfires (Editorial),” A14.
    
45. Lewis, p. A15.
    
46. Wenner, p. 91.
    
47. “Race and the War on Drugs.”
    
48. “Race and the War on Drugs.”
    
49. “Race and the War on Drugs.”

Bibliography

Becker, Gary S. “It’s Time to Give up the War on Drugs.” Business Week 17 September 2001: 32.

Clendinen, Dudley. “Helping Embattled Children in America’s Cities (Editorial).” New York Times 31 August 1999, late edition (East Coast): A20.

“Drug Use in the United States.” Drug Enforcement Administration. 2 November 2001. <http://www.dea.gov/concern/use.htm>.

“The Drug War Backfires (Editorial).” New York Times 13 March 1999, late edition (East Coast): A14.

Kirn, Walter. “Crack Country.” New York Times Magazine 13 February 2000: 6.15.

Lewis, Anthony. “A War Against Ourselves (Op-Ed).” New York Times 28 April 2001, late edition (East Coast): A15.

“Race and the War on Drugs.” The Lindesmith Center Drug Policy Foundation. March 2001. 28 October 2001. <http://www.lindesmith.org/library/focal_race2.html>.

Wenner, Jann S. “America’s War on Drugs.” Rolling Stone 16 August 2001: 82-98.

----------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------