|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 13, 2016 8:57:41 GMT
What were the key factors that drove the “war on drugs”? What were the legislative and administrative actions that structured local government responses to it? How does Alexander relate the Drug War to the older system of Jim Crow?
|
|
|
|
Post by Esther Oh on Oct 13, 2016 16:42:46 GMT
Politics was one major factor that fueled the war on drugs. The Reagan and Bush administration took advantage of the social events and made crime, welfare, and drugs major themes of their campaigns. Reagan used racially coded rhetoric such as "welfare queen" which translated to lazy, greedy, black ghetto mother. In October 1982, when Reagan declared the war on drugs, less than 2% of the public viewed drugs as the most important issue facing the nation. However, this changed shortly upon his declaration. The Justice Department announced its intention to cut in half, the number of specialists that were focused on white collar crimes and instead allocate them to street level crimes, particularly drug enforcement. In four years, 1980-1984, FBI anti-drug funding rose from $8 million to $95 million. The department of defense increased their anti-drugs budget from $33 million in 1981 to $1,042 million in 1991. DEA went from $86 million to $1,026 million. This funding didn't just come for free. It came at the cost of budgets allocated for agencies to provide drug treatment, prevention, and education. The National Institute for Drug Abuse went from $274 million to $57 million during the course of four years (1981-1984). The Department of Education went from a $14 million budget to $3 million.
For the most part, politicians seemed to feed off the fears of the public; promising "tough on crime" actions. But one senator asserted that crack was merely a scapegoat distracting the public's attention from the true causes of our social ills; "If we blame crime on crack, our politicians are off the hook. Forgotten are the failed schools, the malign welfare programs, the desolate neighborhoods, the wasted years. Only crack is to blame. One is tempted to think that if crack did not exist, someone somewhere would have received a federal grant to develop it." Alexander asserts that unfortunately, "Critical voices, however, were lonely ones." The senator was correct in the sense that the Drug War was a scapegoat, something that would absorb blame for the failing economy, increasing unemployment, and inadequate welfare system. Rather than treating and assisting the citizens that needed it most, people of power seized the opportunity to marginalize minority America to create a facade of success for majority white America. Moreover, America was not alone in the crime and drug increase. Portugal who was also facing a drug problem responded to persistent problems of all drugs by redirecting money into drug prevention and treatment; decriminalization of all drugs. Ten years later, drug use an addiction plummeted. Portugal, when faced with adversary chose treatment. In comparison, America continuously chose prison and harsher penalties.
These government actions related the Drug War to the older system of Jim Crow because both were justified social controls, a justified "all out war on the "enemy" that had been racially defined years before. The reaction of legislative and administrative actions were unconstitutional and horrendous; death penalty was allowed for some drug cases and evidence that had been illegally obtained was authorized to be used in court. Congress revisiting drug laws in 1988 didn't provide remedy for the situation either. It instead lead to extremely punitive legislature; Anti Drug Abuse Act, which essentially created guide lines for evicting tenants, eliminating federal benefits, death penalty, and five year mandatory minimum for even first time offenders found with mere possession. What makes this act all the more shocking is that up until 1988, the maximum imprisonment for a drug offense was one year. These types of legislatures were similar to Jim Crow because they both were laws that targeted African Americans, and were used as a means for social and racial control.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tylor Beck on Oct 14, 2016 0:55:58 GMT
Politics, racism, and fear were the real key factors for the reason the War on Drugs was launched. Politicians like Richard Nixon used his platform to systemically oppress African Americans. African Americans are no more likely to use or sell drugs compared to whites, in fact it is believed that whites use and sell drugs at a higher rate than blacks, however blacks are much more likely to be arrested on drug charges, and given very long sentences. It is much believed that because many blacks opposed the Vietnam war and were against many of his conservative politics, Nixon needed a way to get them in line. Because it was believed that African Americans were heavy drug users, the War on Drugs was a way to in a way capture African Americans off the streets and lock them away. Blacks were thought to use heroin and crack cocaine which was given a larger sentencing disparity compared to powder cocaine that whites were though to of used.
Blacks were merely a scapegoat for the worlds problems, if we could get a majority of people to fear blacks because of their "high" levels of illicit drug use, then they will become blind to the rest of the problems going on in society.
Administrative actors and legislators developed an abundance of laws and punishments for those found to be in possession or distribution of cocaine or heroin. Most notorious were the Rockefeller Drug Laws out of New York City. The Rockefeller Drug Laws, enacted in 1973, mandate extremely harsh prison terms for the possession or sale of relatively small amounts of drugs. These laws were enacted to target major drug dealers, however, that seldom was the case, low level non violent drug users who were really no threat to anyone in society, but themselves, were arrested and convicted for drug crimes, and were forced into serving a mandatory sentence. In todays society, the majority of individuals sitting in prison are low level offenders that were convicted for drug charges under the Rockefeller Drug Laws and Nixons the War on Drugs. Prisons are over capacitated, because of this "fear" of individuals who use drugs, still nothing has been done to seriously stop the use or distribution of drugs. In reality the War on Drugs is a failure.
Alexander equates the War on Drugs to a new systematic Jim Crow Era. We all know what the Jim Crow laws were like, African Americans were oppressed and treated as subhumans with very little rights. They couldn't vote, did not hold political office, were treated as second class citizens, were segregated in schools, could not date white women, and the list goes on. In todays world, being arrested as a black man under the War on Drugs gives a whole new meaning to the previous Jim Crow Era, they are disenfranchised from society. They can not vote, receive public assistance, school loans, hold certain jobs, and etc. Blacks are once again systematically oppressed under these drug laws because they are now a convicted felon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex Park on Oct 14, 2016 1:33:15 GMT
It is fascinating how the Drug War started. When President Reagan officially announced his War on Drugs on October 1982, less than 2 percent of Americans thought that drugs were a real issue. President Reagan knew that attacking the issue of drugs would bring down minorities. Almost in an instant, law enforcement agencies benefited additional federal funding to wage war on drugs. Its comical how the FBI's antidrug budget jumped from a mere $8 million to an outstanding $95 million and this was only from 1980 to 1984. Within ten years, the DOD's antidrug fund increased from $33 million to $1,042 million. The same can be said for the DEA.
Many people within the inner cities worked blue collar jobs. Modernization of factories and Globalization left many of these workers unemployed. Only the educated would reap the benefits from this transition. Trapped within the ghettos, many workers were "forced" into selling drugs just to survive.
Second to the horrors of Vietnam, the drug war was portrayed in the media heavily. Many stories and articles reinforced the racial stereotypes by utilizing the terms: crack whores, crack babies, gangbangers, predators, and welfare queens. Above, Tylor said "Blacks were merely a scapegoat for the worlds problems, if we could get a majority of people to fear blacks because of their "high" levels of illicit drug use, then they will become blind to the rest of the problems going on in society. " On page 53, it is mentioned that one senator insisted that crack was a scapegoat. By diverting the public's attention on crack, they would have tunnel-vision and not see the legitimate issues within the community.
The Drug War was clearly developed to attack Blacks and Latinos. Many white people supported this war; they wanted to "get tough on crime" and remove welfare for the poor. Politicians did not want to be seen as weak and so they strengthen law enforcement, and policies that supported the antidrug mission.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alexa Guzman on Oct 14, 2016 3:13:26 GMT
Just adding on to Alex and Tylor's comments on the media's impact of discriminating against African Americans:
It's difficult to declare war on an idea or an object. When the Reagan administration declared War on Drugs, they needed a target. What did our enemies look like? Crack is a small tiny rock that doesn't appear necessarily intimidating or scary, but when you show the people who are abusing the drug, it changes things. The media during the rise of crack in the United States made sure to put a face to the name "crack". That face became African American single mothers on welfare, and African American men who were unemployed. The face became those of babies who were born from addicts and the warzone became the inner cities and "ghettos". The media created the common enemy. it was no longer crack, but rather African Americans.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Sheridan on Oct 14, 2016 12:57:04 GMT
I think the drug war was driven in a very political manner. Without coming straight out and saying what the intentions were, the mask of law and order was revealed, and i really feel as if this was used to propagate and entice the racial discrimination against minorities. The drug war adopted a crude mentality of "us versus them" with "us" being the white folk and the "them" being african americans. With this attitude, the drug war becomes more than just combating substance abuse issues, it becomes a a racial one. The drug war almost echoes the older system of Jim Crow because it was erroneously used belittle and discriminate upon racial minorities by targeting them for drug related offenses.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Karneyeu on Oct 14, 2016 19:02:07 GMT
Politics was one major factor that fueled the war on drugs. The Reagan and Bush administration took advantage of the social events and made crime, welfare, and drugs major themes of their campaigns. Reagan used racially coded rhetoric such as "welfare queen" which translated to lazy, greedy, black ghetto mother. In October 1982, when Reagan declared the war on drugs, less than 2% of the public viewed drugs as the most important issue facing the nation. However, this changed shortly upon his declaration. The Justice Department announced its intention to cut in half, the number of specialists that were focused on white collar crimes and instead allocate them to street level crimes, particularly drug enforcement. In four years, 1980-1984, FBI anti-drug funding rose from $8 million to $95 million. The department of defense increased their anti-drugs budget from $33 million in 1981 to $1,042 million in 1991. DEA went from $86 million to $1,026 million. This funding didn't just come for free. It came at the cost of budgets allocated for agencies to provide drug treatment, prevention, and education. The National Institute for Drug Abuse went from $274 million to $57 million during the course of four years (1981-1984). The Department of Education went from a $14 million budget to $3 million. For the most part, politicians seemed to feed off the fears of the public; promising "tough on crime" actions. But one senator asserted that crack was merely a scapegoat distracting the public's attention from the true causes of our social ills; "If we blame crime on crack, our politicians are off the hook. Forgotten are the failed schools, the malign welfare programs, the desolate neighborhoods, the wasted years. Only crack is to blame. One is tempted to think that if crack did not exist, someone somewhere would have received a federal grant to develop it." Alexander asserts that unfortunately, "Critical voices, however, were lonely ones." The senator was correct in the sense that the Drug War was a scapegoat, something that would absorb blame for the failing economy, increasing unemployment, and inadequate welfare system. Rather than treating and assisting the citizens that needed it most, people of power seized the opportunity to marginalize minority America to create a facade of success for majority white America. Moreover, America was not alone in the crime and drug increase. Portugal who was also facing a drug problem responded to persistent problems of all drugs by redirecting money into drug prevention and treatment; decriminalization of all drugs. Ten years later, drug use an addiction plummeted. Portugal, when faced with adversary chose treatment. In comparison, America continuously chose prison and harsher penalties. These government actions related the Drug War to the older system of Jim Crow because both were justified social controls, a justified "all out war on the "enemy" that had been racially defined years before. The reaction of legislative and administrative actions were unconstitutional and horrendous; death penalty was allowed for some drug cases and evidence that had been illegally obtained was authorized to be used in court. Congress revisiting drug laws in 1988 didn't provide remedy for the situation either. It instead lead to extremely punitive legislature; Anti Drug Abuse Act, which essentially created guide lines for evicting tenants, eliminating federal benefits, death penalty, and five year mandatory minimum for even first time offenders found with mere possession. What makes this act all the more shocking is that up until 1988, the maximum imprisonment for a drug offense was one year. These types of legislatures were similar to Jim Crow because they both were laws that targeted African Americans, and were used as a means for social and racial control. I agree with Esther that comparing the War on Drugs is a form of social control and is similar to Jim Crow Laws. Same group of people were targeted because of their race. It is systematic racism that ruled the war on drugs. It was only a cover up for the real Reagan racism. Systematic mass incarceration is similar to the “elimination” of the race from Jim Crow laws. Mandatory minimums for minor crimes, three strikes and you’re out, and other techniques are used to make the race that is more involved in the drugs to be eliminated. These techniques do not rehabilitate, they only incarcerate for decades innocent and guilty the same. |
|
|
|
Post by Alyssa Carbone on Oct 14, 2016 21:51:32 GMT
I think the drug war was driven in a very political manner. Without coming straight out and saying what the intentions were, the mask of law and order was revealed, and i really feel as if this was used to propagate and entice the racial discrimination against minorities. The drug war adopted a crude mentality of "us versus them" with "us" being the white folk and the "them" being african americans. With this attitude, the drug war becomes more than just combating substance abuse issues, it becomes a a racial one. The drug war almost echoes the older system of Jim Crow because it was erroneously used belittle and discriminate upon racial minorities by targeting them for drug related offenses. I agree that the war on drugs was driven in a political manner. Politicians were able to target certain "groups" without ever explicitly saying their intentions. The War on Drugs primarily targeted young African American males within inner-city communities. Also, like you mentioned, this enticed racial discrimination against minorities. This is demonstrated in Alexander when she states: "Beginning in the 1970's, researchers found that racial attitudes- not crime rates or likelihood of victimization- are an important determinant of white support for "get tough on crime" and antiwelfare measures" (p. 54). Basically, the racial-neutral terms that were used in the War on Drugs resulted in minorities becoming an easy target without anyone actually being accused of racism. Ultimately, white folk and politicians were able to hinder the ability of African Americans to move up in society through the War on Drugs. |
|
|
|
Post by annessalall on Oct 15, 2016 3:31:02 GMT
I think the drug war was driven in a very political manner. Without coming straight out and saying what the intentions were, the mask of law and order was revealed, and i really feel as if this was used to propagate and entice the racial discrimination against minorities. The drug war adopted a crude mentality of "us versus them" with "us" being the white folk and the "them" being african americans. With this attitude, the drug war becomes more than just combating substance abuse issues, it becomes a a racial one. The drug war almost echoes the older system of Jim Crow because it was erroneously used belittle and discriminate upon racial minorities by targeting them for drug related offenses. I agree that the war on drugs was driven in a political manner. Politicians were able to target certain "groups" without ever explicitly saying their intentions. The War on Drugs primarily targeted young African American males within inner-city communities. Also, like you mentioned, this enticed racial discrimination against minorities. This is demonstrated in Alexander when she states: "Beginning in the 1970's, researchers found that racial attitudes- not crime rates or likelihood of victimization- are an important determinant of white support for "get tough on crime" and antiwelfare measures" (p. 54). Basically, the racial-neutral terms that were used in the War on Drugs resulted in minorities becoming an easy target without anyone actually being accused of racism. Ultimately, white folk and politicians were able to hinder the ability of African Americans to move up in society through the War on Drugs. The war on drugs is an absurd idea, it is a war that cannot be won. Drugs cannot be kept out of prisons much less out the streets. Convictions for drug offenses have become the most important cause of the rising incarceration rates in the U.S. Drug offenses account for two-thirds of the rise in federal inmate population, and more than half in state prison. The amount of people in prison or jail for drug offenses have increase 1,100 percent since 1980. The War on Drugs has not rid the streets of drug kingpins nor has it reduced the use of dangerous drugs. Most people that are incarcerated are there for non-violent drug charges, and majority of them are for marijuana. Marijuana is a drug that has less harmful effects than tobacco and alcohol. It would be assumed that after reviewing these mass incarceration numbers something would be done to combat the damage that has been done. However, from start it was never about the drugs, it was about social control. This war has done nothing but caused a rippling effect of damages in communities and families. |
|
