10
The War on Drugs: A Terrible Success text by Levi LaChappelle art by Samantha Langsdale
Those of you who keep up with such things will have noticed a growing consensus in the media:
that after 42 long, hard years, the United States’ drug war has failed. The War on Drugs has cost more than one trillion dollars and accounted for over 45 million arrests, and done little to reduce drug addiction. Even the federal government is coming to terms with the defeat: President Obama’s drug czar announced that the administration is taking a more health-based approach to drug addiction and jettisoning the phrase “War on Drugs” because it is counter-productive. Great news, progressives! It’s over, we won. Now you can lean back like Fat Joe, wear anti-drug T-shirts ironically, and savor the acknowledgement that those awful Reagan-era types did not succeed, at all. Right? Wrong. Campaigning 101: Fight Something. Anything. The War on Drugs succeeded, and not just a little bit. We’re talking Andy Murray, Wendy Davis, Kid President sort of success. Bold, dramatic, public success. I mean, it wasn’t successful at actually combating drugs, but that wasn’t the objective anyway, just the name. (Tricky, I know.) The true failure or success of the drug war hinges not on drugs, but on calculated and coded race-baiting, harnessing racialized fear of crime, and consolidating political advantage—that is, the exploitation of race and fear for political power. The earliest and longest standing benefactors of the War on Drugs are politicians—presidents, governors, attorney generals, and congressmen—and I say congressmen deliberately, because these fear mongers are usually men, and usually white, and more importantly, always full of shit. There is a lot at stake in the political game, and they have figured out how to stack the odds. They manufactured and perpetuated a limitless war in order to increase their chances
of getting elected, furthering their political agendas, and surreptitiously returning favors to campaign donors. And in these terms the War on Drugs has been terribly successful. So what if the wealthiest country on earth literally locks millions of Black men in steel cages? What do you care? Sounds like you’re soft on crime, not fit to lead. Hope you weren’t thinking about getting into politics, sissy. Quick rewind: the term “War on Drugs” describes a set of policies with the stated aim of reducing drug trade. The term itself is misleading. The “War on Drugs” is part of the “tough on crime” movement which attacks people, using drugs as a proxy. “War on Men of Color and their Families” would be a more accurate phrase, if we were really splitting hairs. Everyone is affected by the nation’s drug policy and the ten-fold increase in the U.S. correctional population, but it is Black Americans who have borne the brunt of this ill-conceived war.
11
For those outside of the United States—and indeed, for many, many people inside the United States—it is difficult to accurately visualize the racial dynamics of the country. However, any description of the War on Drugs which does not place race at its core is deficient to the extent that it is damaging to truthful portrayals of this topic. Race and racial politics were integral to the “tough on crime” movement at its inception, and this is no less true today.
“is public enemy number one.” It was Reagan who is said to have mastered “the excision of the language of race from conservative public discourse.” Reagan’s condemnations of criminals and “welfare queens” paid off big. Once in the White House, he officially announced the War on Drugs, and the antidrug budgets of federal law enforcement agencies skyrocketed. The War on Drugs was bad policy –the worst, actually – but it was excellent politics.
Getting Tough on Crime
Thatcher vs. Reagan… and Clinton and Obama?
The roots of the modern day War on Drugs can be found in the late 1950s colorblind (read: racist) “law and order” rhetoric picked up by (primarily) Southern politicians and law enforcement officials trying to generate opposition to the Civil Rights Movement. This rhetoric was fueled by the 1960s perception that the American social fabric was being degraded by antagonistic homosexuals, nonwhites, women, and liberals. Basically, anyone who would have read GEEKED (had it existed at the time) would have been implicated in bringing about a social cataclysm. During his presidential campaign, Richard Nixon harnessed racial hostility and resentment (without making explicit references to race, Tricky Dicky) in order to win over traditional Democrats in the South. This plan was known as the “Southern Strategy.” If you haven’t heard of the Southern Strategy, look it up now. In 1971, as part of his strategy, Nixon gave the public a presidential nod to treat drug addiction as the moral failure of a criminal rather than a health problem or byproduct of poverty. “Drug abuse,” he told Congress,
12
Margaret Thatcher’s approach to drug addiction is an infrequently explored progressive blemish on her otherwise flawless conservative record. In order to address the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s, the Iron Lady fought for evidence-based drug policy and a nation-wide commitment to harm reduction. In 1986, her administration expanded access to methadone treatment and launched a landmark clean needle exchange program. At that time, the Netherlands was the only other country in the world with such forwardthinking programs. Thatcher’s government deserves credit for averting an HIV epidemic amongst UK drug users and setting an example of smart policy on drug addiction. Even today, drug policy activists across the world recognize that the UK’s continued place in the drug reform debate is a result of Margaret Thatcher’s bold rejection of Reagan’s shortsighted and punitive approach. The Thatcher case is evidence that the American War on Drugs was not at all about combating addiction or bettering
society. Reagan and Thatcher developed their approach at the same time, with the same research available, and under very similar conditions; yet their policies diverged. The big difference is Reagan felt that the racially-coded “tough on crime” message was an indispensible aspect of his political campaigns. Thatcher, free from the American electorate and the States’ particular brand of racism, could pursue sound policy (at least in this instance) without risking her own status and power.
for certain crimes, expanded federal capital crimes, and authorized unprecedented funds used to escalate the drug war. During his administration, the Department of Justice grew faster than any other agency of federal government, and prison populations soared (more than under Reagan or even Bush Sr.). Clinton also made it easier for housing projects to deny anyone with a criminal history and enacted a permanent lifetime ban on eligibility for welfare and food assistance for anyone convicted of a drug felony offense, even marijuana possession.
Worse than a Blowjob: Bill Clinton’s Crime Policy
If Clinton’s predecessors were tough on crime, he was the toughest. This Oxford educated, anti-Vietnam, liberal, Yale Law graduate did not do this because he thought it was right, but because he thought it was necessary to win elections and accomplish his other goals in Washington. Frequently referred to as the “The First Black President,” Bill Clinton actually oversaw some of the most destructive policy to hit the Black community since Jim Crow.
Bill Clinton was the first Democratic presidential candidate to come out swinging in the “tough on crime” fight. Massachusetts liberal Michael Dukakis’ lost to George H.W. Bush four years earlier because he was portrayed as “soft on crime.” Clinton learned from this defeat: In 1992, he left his campaign trail to personally oversee the execution of mentally handicapped Ricky Ray Rector, presumably to preempt a Dukakis-like downfall in his own campaign. Democrats “should no longer feel guilty about protecting the innocent,” he declared afterward. Clinton, a skilled strategist, was certain moves like this were necessary to compete on the national stage. And boy was he ready to compete. Bill Clinton may not have built our prisons, but he filled them. During his time in office, he enacted more damaging criminal justice legislation than any American president in modern history. Upon entering office, he endorsed the Federal ‘three-strikes’ law and signed an overarching $30 billion dollar crime bill which mandated life sentences
Obama Is Better, Right? If you were holding out hope that the Democrat currently in the White House might change this pattern, don’t get too excited. It’s true that Barack Obama hasn’t verbally attacked crime with the ferocity of the Clinton administration, but on the whole his policies have been quite similar. Obama’s Department of Justice did well by pushing legislation to reduce the crack vs. powder cocaine sentencing disparity. But big picture: Obama’s team has not only failed to fight the hard-line prohibitionists, they’ve generally amped up their programs.
13
The Obama administration breathed new life into two of the worst federal drug programs of the Clinton era: the Community Oriented Policing Services program and the Byrne grant program. Unsurprisingly, his $2 billion funding for Byrne grants—which sponsor the militarization of destructive and discriminatory drug task forces—was a politically motivated short-term jobs program. Although some officers will keep their positions because of the grants, the program will create more barriers to employment for many more Americans, mostly Black and Hispanic men. Adding insult to injury, Obama appointed Michele Leonhart, originally nominated by George W. Bush, as administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Rather than work to critically to dismantle mass incarceration, Obama has capitulated to the conservative “tough on crime” agenda. Incarceration Nation The effects of the War on Drugs are now permanent features of our American social landscape. Politicians squeezed so much out of the “tough on crime” movement that it reached critical mass, its message normalized. Racial stereotypes and assumptions have become fused with caricaturizations of criminals and drug users. The results—mass incarceration, disenfranchisement, and the formation of a racial undercaste—are now simple facts of life: the way it is. Despite this process of normalization, the evidence continues to demonstrate that the “tough on crime” movement is based on false principles. It has been shown over and over again by the best researchers that getting tough on crime, especially on drug use, creates more problems for the American people. The United States now boasts the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. Americans make up just five percent of the world population but American
14
prisoners make up a full quarter of the world’s prison population. Barring millions of drug offenders from receiving food, health, housing and student assistance enforces a racially segregated undercaste, and funnels Americans into lives of crime and poverty. Mass incarceration increases the likelihood of violence in urban communities; drug criminalization creates black markets and funds organized crime. Tailored rehabilitation models, on the other hand, can reduce recidivism and drug abuse better than jails and prisons. Decriminalization, needle exchange programs, reasonable sentences for nonviolent offenders, and expanded mental health services all reduce crime, save lives, and give people a better chance to live fulfilling lives. Every “public servant” from the president down has seen this information across their desk, yet, for political gain alone, the archaic policies persist. Despite the hype, the War on Drugs has not failed; it has been a wildly successful political tool for decades, as it was meant to be. Elections at all levels have been decided by “tough on crime” politics, and as a byproduct, a robust system of racialized social control has emerged and everyone’s civil liberties have eroded. To quote the eminent Levar Burton, “you don’t have to take my word for it.” Read widely and critically. If you are not sure where to start digging, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness by Michelle Alexander is where it’s at. If you are more of a graphic novel type, check out Marc Mauer and Sabrina Jones’ Race to Incarcerate: A Graphic Retelling. Study up, stay engaged, and the day when we can celebrate a victory over a truly ‘failed’ War on Drugs may be yet to come! G