policies behind Crack Cocaine

Jordan Sanchez

ISP- 321

Nov 15, 2015

Prof. Netherland/Fischer

History and policies behind Crack Cocaine

Drug policies are put into place in order to protect the public from the harm associated with illicit drugs. The intention of current policies is to contain societal problems such as violence, crime, poverty, and the sale of drugs. Throughout the United States’ history, the idea of containing crime and violence associated with drugs has been one of the narratives instilled onto the public. Drug policies has been a means to initiate that containment. Often media depicts drug use and association towards a group of people in order to influence drug scare onto the public (Reinarman, 1994). These groups would be depicted as violent and dangerous under the influence of drugs. Policies in the wake of Crack Cocaine were passed in the 1980’s as many researchers have seen it, as a means to oppress low income African Americans (Alexander, 2012). One method of this oppression is through “target population”, which depicted lower class groups as dangerous and violent, thus constructing the stereotype of who was associated with drug use and thus blaming these groups for society’s problems, which results in containing the source of problem through imprisonment (Neill, 2009). African Americans were portrayed negatively and associated with Crack use, resulting in draconian like policies that not only victimized lower class African Americans, but influenced a sentencing disparity based on a 100:1 ratio between Crack and Cocaine. While the policies passed to control Crack Cocaine distribution, possession and use were well intended, they ended up doing more harm than good, toward low income African Americans in the United States.

When President Richard Nixon launched his war on drugs in 1971, he linked drug use to violent crimes and the decay of social order. He proclaimed “America’s public enemy number one in the United States is drug abuse” this message resonated with the public, as it became known that drug abuse was the societal problem that had to be undertaken (Jareki, 2012). One year before launching this offensive, Congress passed the Controlled Substance Act which created a classification system comprising of five scheduling levels for drugs based on their abuse potential and medical benefits (Neill, 2014).

The ones that decided how drugs were classified were left to the attorney general in the justice department. In part when power like this is given to the courts or criminal justice system, it becomes corrupt as they have the power to say which drug is capable of being abused the most and seen as more dangerous than the other (Tiger, 2012). This strengthened the law and order approach toward drug containment over treatment and rehabilitation (Neill, 2014). The Drug enforcement agency (DEA) was established in 1973 in order to facilitate federal drug control and assist law enforcement.

(Distinction between crack/cocaine)

Although Cocaine and Crack are derived from the same drug, they have different chemical components which sets them apart. The freebase form (Crack) often having the form of rocks, and powder (cocaine). As Carl Hart (2014) stated, powder Cocaine is known as “Cocaine hydrochloride” which is a neutral compound. In this form, Cocaine can be eaten, snorted, and injected when diluted with water. Crack is the process of removing the “Hydrochloride” compound in order to smoke it without decomposition. Cocaine was the “rich man drug”, being used by affluent white males, while Crack was used amongst low income African Americans (Hart, 2013)

(motivation behind anti-abuse act)

The motivation behind the Anti-Abuse Act of 1986 and 1988, was fueled by drug scare and hysteria. Galvanized by the media, when Crack Cocaine appeared in inner cities, it was something new and unknown to people and researchers. This allowed hysteria and anecdotes to create a devilish image of Crack Cocaine (Hart, 2013). The media made a frenzy out of Crack, often running negative stories about it that lead to this drug scare; known as “media magnification”.  This was the process of media outlets dramatizing the drug problem, and manipulating the information or lack thereof, for the purpose of skewing people’s perspectives, thus using “routinization of caricature” to broadcast and re-craft worst cases into regular episodic cases a day (Reinarman, 1997).

Such negative stories and saturated images of Crack use and the dangers behind it shifted the war on drugs into a get tough ‘law and order’ system of incarceration as solution. Congress passed the 1986 anti-drug abuse act which put into effect a mandatory minimum sentencing of five years without parole for possession of five grams of Crack, and allocated funding from treatment towards prisons and law enforcement (Neill, 2014). Although it was well-intended to pass this policy in order to deter the use and sale of crack (Reinarman, 2004) within these neighborhoods, it caused considerable harm toward low income African Americans and instituted mass incarceration. This act, created a disparity in sentencing between Crack and Cocaine, based on a 100:1 ratio, meaning. Five grams of crack was needed to receive the 5 years minimum, as opposed to Cocaine, which required possession of 500 grams to garner up that same sentencing (Sirin, 2011). The state prison population with African Americans grew from 7% to 25% in 5 years since the acts passing (Sirin, 2011). This created an unfair legislative piece that created racial disparities for sentencing between Crack and Cocaine, leading towards African Americans being incarcerated at a higher rate than whites for simple non-violent drug possession.

In the United States, African Americans amounted to 13% of the country’s population, but made up 84% of Crack related offenders (Coyle, 2002). Congress intended to deter major drug trafficking with the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, but 73% of Crack defendants were low income African Americans, contrary of what congress wanted to accomplish. (Coyle, 2002). According to Coyle (2002), mandatory sentencing did not reduce the amount of drug trafficking into the U.S. Instead it turned state level offenses into federal crimes, creating strains on low income drug violators with long prison sentencing. These hefty sentencing started a long and vicious cycles that resulted in disenfranchisement of drug offenders, and strains on communities and families. African American men who were incarcerated often left their family in a state of despair resulting in destabilization due to financial insufficiency (Alexander, 2014). The men that are incarcerated with a felony drug charge are unable to attain medical benefits, affordable housing, food assistance, welfare, and thus loses the right to vote; leading to recidivism and the cycle of the revolving door (Rich, 2011).

(5 Links of destruction)

When a group of people is identified as the root of societal problems, they become vilified and are to blame for those problems often being linked to drugs that are beyond their control. An example of these consequences from The Anti-Abuse Act inflicted toward African Americans can be seen in the documentary “The House I live in” when it relays the 5 links of destruction in the United States. This is one of the tactic used throughout the United States history with drugs which is to put blame on a specific group of people, and thus see them as deviants and treat them as such. In the wake of crack cocaine, the first link “Identification”, is the purpose of identifying a group as the cause of the societies issues linking them to a drug, in this case African Americans were associated with Crack Cocaine use and were blamed for the crime and violence it incited. In the second link, “ostracism”, people are taught to hate the identified group and thus displacing them from their homes and into ghettos, this was done of blacks through redlining and the lack of economic opportunities. The 3rd link, “Confiscation”, the stripping of people liberties and rights, and the change in policies targeting this identified group. The Anti-Abuse Act was a class based policy targeting low income blacks with the sentencing disparity for position of Crack as opposed to Cocaine. The 4th link, “Concentration”, involves the incarceration of identified dangerous group into prison facilities, away from society. African Americans were incarcerated at enormous rates where many have lost the right to vote due to felon drug charges. Lastly, “annihilation”, consist of the death of the group. It could be said that the U.S initiated this in-direct link towards African American when the CIA turned a blind eye and blocked law enforcement from stopping Contra insurgents from smuggling Crack Cocaine into poverty stricken neighborhoods in an effort to fund its covert war in Nicaragua (Alexander, 2012). Since arriving in these types of neighborhoods, Crack has caused an increase in crime and violence due to a new market in illicit drug sale taking place. When Crack Cocaine came into the streets into the early 1980’s, it surfaced in poverty stricken neighborhoods which resulted in an increase of crime and violence due to the new market and drugs taking place. These heinous links summarizes the consequences left behind by this “war on drugs’ and race targeted Anti-Drug Abuse Act that has resulted in the self-destruction of an entire racial group at the hands of the U.S government.

(Policy reform recommendation) 

One of my policy recommendations is to expand from President Obama’s Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. This act repeals the five year mandatory sentences for first time offenders with less than 28 grams of Crack Cocaine, and changes the sentencing disparity for possession of Crack versus Cocaine from 100:1, to 18:1 (Sirin, 2011). I want to disparity between the two drugs and implement a ratio of 1:1 for Crack versus Cocaine. My reasoning behind this is because Crack and Cocaine are the same drug, it gives out the same affect, so it should be treated the same as one another for drug violations (Sirin, 2011). This would cut down on the number of low income African Americans being incarcerated due to this disparity. My intention is to focus on treatment and rehabilitation for Crack addicts and abusers, instead of punishment and incarceration. My method of treatment would be the use of harm reduction because this approach doesn’t place blame or judgment on the user’s drug use; it reduces further drug harm and prevents the spread of HIV and Hepatitis C. These type of diseases can be passed onto one another with the use of Crack pipes for smoking. These pipes can leave burns or cuts on the user’s lips which can transfer blood onto these Crack Pipes. If these pipes are shared amongst one another, then that infected speck of blood can transmit these deadly diseases onto the other user.

The reduction of infection and HIV contraction is essential for the health of Crack users and imperative in reducing the harm associated with Crack smoking. The programs used to prevent this include, “Crack pipe exchange program”, which would provide users with a new clean pipe for smoking. This is a means to prevent users from using a dirty or broken glass pipe which would initially lead to cuts. Administering “Crack kits” that would provide equipment for safe smoking practices such as heat resistant pipes to prevent bursting, a mouth piece to prevent lip burning, alcohol pads for after use cleaning, and a metal pipe screen to prevent chocking from excessive inhalation (Catie, 2008). If we further expand programs such as these and harm reduction treatment, not only do we reduce the use of Crack for user’s overtime, but we also prevent the spread of HIV and Hepatitis C amongst users, thus helping save lives and curbing addiction. If we implement these proposals, not only can we curb Crack substance abuse and addiction, but we can stop the spread of blood borne diseases with this Harm Reduction approach and thus save lives in the process.

In conclusion, Richard Nixon stated, “When people think about drugs, they’re just disgusted by it. They just want to lock em up and throw away the key. But it’s more complex than that”(Courtwright, 2004) Nixon was correct when he stated this, the concept of drugs is still hated till this day. The level of deviancy behind drugs and the dangers it poses not only toward users, but communities, is what stemmed this hate. People were socially constructed to believe that drugs was the cause of society’s problems, and the people associated with drugs, waned to cause harm towards others. This was narrative media has been instilling onto people for these past 40 years. The complexity of the drug issue was to approach it with the intent to treat and rehabilitate people who used drugs, and targeting peddlers and pushers in order to contain the problem of drug use (Courtwright 2004). Instead of focusing on societal issues that lead to peoples drug use, we employed disciplinary methods, blaming the user and incarcerating them, taking a “law and order” approach toward the drug problem and inflicting “force treatment” with imprisonment (Tigers, 2012).

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act caused significant harm toward low income African Americans, resulting in enormous rates of incarceration, being admitted to prison on drug charges at 20-50 times greater than white men. This led to the United States leading in the world’s prison population. Before the start of the “war on drugs”, there were 300,000 imprisoned and that number reaching 2 million in prison population in less than 30 years (Alexander 2012). These are the negative consequences associated with drug policies and the effect it holds on low income African Americans. If we focus on societal issues such as poverty, unemployment, and lack of mobility, within impoverished communities, then we can eliminate that need for drug use and the illicit drug market. By focusing on treatment and rehabilitation, we could face drugs as the public issue that it is and provide users with the help needed; to cease use without the notion of demonizing their character and moralities.

 

Works Cited

Alexander, M. (2012). Excerpt: The new Jim Crow. In The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. The new press.

Hart, C. (2013). High price: A neuroscientist’s journey of self-discovery that challenges everything you know about drugs and society. New York, NY: Harper.

Jarecki, E., & Shopsin, M. (Producer). (2012). The House I Live In [Documentary].

Tiger, R. (2012). Judging addicts drug courts and coercion in the justice system. New York: New York University Press.

Neill, K. A. (2014, December 21). Tough on drugs: Law and order dominance and the neglect of public health in U.S drug policy. World medical and health policy, 6(4).

Reinarman, C. (1994). The social construction of drug scares. In Constructions of deviance: Social power, context, and interaction. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Pub.

Reinarman, C., & Levine, H. (1997). The Crack Attack: Politics and media in the Crack Scare (pp. 47-66). University of California Press.

Reinarman, C., & Levine, H. (2004). Crack in the Rearview Mirror: Deconstructing Drug War Mythology (Vol. 31, pp. 182-199). Social Justice/Global options.

Rich, J., Wakeman, S., & Dickman, S. (2011, June 1). Medicine and the Epidemic of Incarceration in the United States.

Sirin, C. V. (2011). From Nixon’s war on drugs to Obama’s drug policy today: Presidential progress in addressing racial injustices and disparities. Race, gender, & class journal, 18.

Courtwright, D. (2004). The Controlled Substance Act: How a “big tent’ reform became a punitive drug law (Vol. 76, pp. 9-15). Jacksonville, Florida.

Villiamy, E. (2011, July 23). Nixon’s ‘war on drugs’ began 40 years ago, and the battle is still raging. In theguardian. Retrieved November 29, 2015, from http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jul/24/war-on-drugs-40-years

Distributing Safer Crack use kits in Canada. (2008, September 1). Retrieved December 1, 2015, from (n.d.). In catie.ca. Retrieved December 1, 2015, from http://www.catie.ca/en/practical-guides/hepc-in-depth/prevention-harm-reduction/safer-crack-smoking

Coyle, M. (2002). Race and class penalties in crack cocaine sentencing. Washington, D.C.: Sentencing Project.