Why the War on Drugs is a failure
Thanks to John for such a thoughtful—and highly thought-provoking—post. I’d been thinking about prohibition recently because I just attended—and spoke at—the Drug Policy Alliance’s Drug Policy Reform Conference here in New Orleans. The DPA’s anti-prohibitionist message is very similar to what John lays out in his post, so its conference has had me thinking about larger issues surrounding the drug war itself. Here are some stray thoughts:
1) The way in which we have fought the drug war—particularly in the past 20 years where we pursued the policies of mass incarceration—is one of the great public policy failures in our country’s history. The United States is the world’s leading jailer and yet, as I believe I may have written in my initial post, drugs are cheaper, more pure and just as available as ever. Worst of all, our mass incarceration policies are profoundly inequitable in terms of who they imprison. Here’s the New York Times summarizing the Department of Justice’s most recent numbers on our vast system of prison and jails:
An estimated 2.38 million people were incarcerated in state and federal facilities, an increase of 2.8 percent over 2005, while a record 5 million people were on parole or probation, an increase of 1.8 percent. Immigration detention facilities had the greatest growth rate last year. The number of people held in Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facilities grew 43 percent, to 14,482 from 10,104.
The data reflect deep racial disparities in the nation’s correctional institutions, with a record 905,600 African-American inmates in prisons and state and local jails. In several states, incarceration rates for blacks were more than 10 times the rate of whites. In Iowa, for example, blacks were imprisoned at 13.6 times the rate of whites (emphasis mine) according to an analysis of the data by the Sentencing Project, a research and advocacy group.
It’s well past time to say it: mass incarceration is not simply failed policy but profoundly racist. Such policies—it is also well worth pointing out—have destabilized entire communities over the past two decades. I have a vast network of contacts in the federal prison system and I take phone calls from these guys nearly every day and whenever I get off the phone the realization hits me that they will not be coming home for decades (and in some cases, they will never be coming home; as the Sentencing Project recently noted, we now have nearly 130,000 inmates doing life sentences ). If these guys were uniquely violent drug dealers who had committed violent crimes then perhaps s their long sentences might be just. But they are not. They are imprisoned for decades—and sometimes for life—on drug related offenses—and their absence leaves a huge hole in their communities while also contributing to a wave of anti-law enforcement sentiment embodied in “Stop Snitchin.”
2) The effect of mass incarceration in the sentencing guidelines era of the past twenty years is uniquely destabilizing. Murders committed by juveniles, for example. are now increasingly at a frightening rate. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) arrests for juveniles for murder climbed almost 20 percent from 2004-2005. Many of these kids, mind you, grew up in the drug game. In an October of 2006 report called “The Gathering Storm,” the Police Executive Research Forum characterized these juveniles as “immersed in this culture of violence.” For evidence of this trend, look no further than suspects in the murder of Washington Redskins player Sean Taylor, three of whom are teenagers.
3) To address John’s larger anti-prohibitionist point, I’d add a few points: a) drug prohibition has been marked by consistently bad science which seeks to exaggerate the harms of individual drugs. b) Legal drugs such as alcohol and cigarettes arguably cause more harm than most illegal substances. c) If illegal drugs are legalized, what sort of harms will that present, given the harms caused by alcohol and cigarettes? I honestly don’t know the answer and I’d like to hear what Mark Kleiman has to say about this.
Finally, a big, over-arching point about what I’d call the “punitive paradox”: As I mentioned in an earlier post, I live in high-crime New Orleans. New Orleans leads most American cities in drug arrests and Louisiana is the nation’s leading jailer. YET: we have extraordinarily high levels of drug use, drug availability and drug related crime (the New Orleans drug game is perhaps the most vicious in the nation, leading to an astronomical murder rate. We will end this year with more than 200 murders, a stunning body count for a city of about 280,000 residents). So I’d argue highly punitive anti-drug policies actually intensify all of the ill effects of the drug game.
Why are so many people in prison? As with other American ventures, follow the money trail.
The private prison industry needs inmates, and the politicians that welcome cash donations. Florida leads the pack in terms of private prison dollars, with its candidates and political parties receiving almost 20 percent of their total contributions from private prison companies and their affiliates. Florida already has five privately owned and operated prisons, with a sixth on the way. It¹s also privatized the bulk of its juvenile detention system. Texas and New Jersey are close behind.
Prison stocks are valued on a “per bed” basis-- which is based on the number of beds provided and the profit per bed. “Per bed” is really a euphemism for people who are sentenced to be housed in their prison. . . . for every contract [prison firm] Cornell got to house one prisoner, at that time, their stock went up in value by an average of $24,261. According to prevailing business school philosophy, this is the stock market’s current present value of the future flow of profit flows generated through the management of each prisoner. This, for example, is why longer mandatory sentences are worth so much to private prison stocks.
And then there are the "correctional officer" jobs. They gain big as new prisons open, they're well-treated and they show their appreciation. When Gray Davis was Governor of California their union was the second-largest contributor to Davis's political campaigns (after teachers) because Governor Davis had increased their pay and benefits to astronomical levels.Apply now! JOB DETAILS: It has been called "The greatest entry level job in California" -- and for good reason. Our Correctional Officers can earn more than $71,000 a year, not to mention a retirement package you just can't find in private industry. We even pay you to attend our state-of-the-art academy. With 41 adult and juvenile institutions, we have opportunities in some of California's most majestic and affordable communities. So apply today, and discover why more men and women are proud to wear our uniform than any other law enforcement agency in the nation.
Build the prisons and staff them, and the inmates will come. Thank you, "war on drugs".
ecotourism
WeGoEco.com
December 11, 2007 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please arrest Don, he stole the words right out of my mouth, or from my fingertips.
December 11, 2007 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
JeffC,
Some people claim that I am arrested, but what do they know.
December 11, 2007 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is why we need to elect Obama! The current resident at the White House embodies the social disparity of drug usage. W was a coke head and he escaped jailtime, expunged his records, and then skillfully denied it.
If Obama is elected we can reverse the trend by having a coke head member of a minority in the Whitehouse, who even outed himself in his own bestselling book!
/c
In the blogosphere every one is an expert, so no one is an expert.
December 11, 2007 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
if you believe noam chomsky, he said that the drug war was a cover for oil operations in Columbia...
To boldly go...
December 11, 2007 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
More on follow the money:
Not only is there the private sector, but there is also a benefit to the public sector. Police, lawyers, judges, DA's all make a career from the war on drugs. Supplemental funds provided by the federal government is an attraction as well.
The other group that likes the status quo is the drug production and distribution industry. Legal drugs would be cheap and producers and distributors would suffer a significant loss in revenue. If drugs were legalized this industry would be taken over by big business just as has occurred with tobacco and alcohol. The profits would go to a few, now they are widely distributed.
Imagine what would happen to all the insurgent groups that are being financed by drug money, especially in Latin America and Afghanistan. Why is it so hard to solve the problems in Columbia? Because there is a continual infusion of fresh money from drugs.
In addition to the economic aspect there is the social component. Carry Nation made a career out of "demon rum" and various religious and social service groups are doing the same with drugs. The Puritanical streak which underlies much of US policy gives these people a ready made platform on which to build.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
December 11, 2007 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
We make a mistake in using "War on Drugs" as a coherent concept. Maybe "Campaign to Make Enforcement a Permanent Institution" would be more accurate.
There is no need to eliminate all drug regulation, as libertarians dream of. What about unsafe patent medicines or thalidomide? What about USDA approval of distilled spirits? Nice to know there's no methanol or benzene in my Tennessee whisky.
It is the boosters and beneficiaries of the drug-enforcement campaign that like the "War" image, since it gathers all related efforts unto itself, and attacks all retrenchments or rethinking as undercutting the war effort. In this it is identical to "War on Terrorism". It is only a rhetorical trick.
I would be glad to see continued restriction of unregulated opiates and amphetamines/cocaine derivatives. But to make this more effective we should allow milder forms of at least the stimulants, and possibly the straight opium that is smoked in a pipe. And we should not decriminalize but legalize, with licensing and quality certification, marijuana.
Right now Britain, Switzerland, and the Netherlands are in an awkward phase with marijuana decriminalized but not fully in from the cold. Imagine alcohol being sold in this manner, and you will see the contradictions. Either legeal or not, and better legal. Save law for things that hurt people.
Drug laws are in effect Puritanism, of the sort that Garrison Keillor liked to characterize as "the suspicion that someone, somewhere, is having a good time."
Instructive to see how Dow funded a campaign against legal hemp to protect its wood-pulp paper process in the 30s.
December 11, 2007 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
agreed, using the phrase "war on -- poverty, terror, drugs" is stupid. A war is black and white with winners and losers. Dealing with poverty, drugs, and terror is far more nuanced and complex. You really set yourself up for failure declaring war on anything that can't be completely contained.
December 11, 2007 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that Prohibition was by and large a puritanical endeavor but I think that the "War on Drugs" started with Puritan ideals at its core but it repackaged them - it wrapped it's puritanical self-righteousness with a shiny coat of racism.
Many of the original laws prohibiting drug use were sold to the public using racist propaganda. Racist fears were fictionalized and flamed to build support for the anti-drug movement. It was a two birds with one stone approach. They could demonize both drugs and minorities simultaneously. And perhaps in the end that's why this prohibition has stuck with drugs where it failed to do so with alcohol - they simply didn't have an effective anti-minority PR program behind the effort to stop alcohol sales and use. When the "War on Drugs" in this country is seen through the historical lens of racism, the forces at work behind our detestable incarceration problem suddenly become much clearer.
December 11, 2007 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
had to rate this down, boo. I'd be surprised if anyone agrees with this theory.
How do you explain minorities running many of our major cities (in other words they're in charge) and buying into this "racist war" at the same time. It's a house divided. Black mayors, judges, and police officers are putting away criminals just like their white counterparts.
December 11, 2007 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rate away. Then, when you're done try reading up on the history of the anti-drug movement in this country. I think you'll be surprised at what you find. Hell they even showed it on the History Channel's series on drugs. But I'll leave it up to you if you care to bother.
I'm not saying it's all racism nor that most can even see it there anymore. That's what happens over time. Call it acclimation if you like. But it is still there. Denying it isn't going to change the facts.
December 11, 2007 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think a lot of people would be surprised by the notion you suggest -- that a member of a minority group can't act in a racist way against other members of the same group.
A lot of people would say that the very words "Clarence Thomas" mean you're wrong.
Now, that's a harsh judgment, I admit. Thomas might say that his opposition to affirmative action and his support for prosecutors and police are all part of a "tough love" philosophy designed to uplift not only his own people but all people.
But the rationale doesn't change the support for the methods, does it? Your downrating was more than a little unjustified. People are accused of acting against the interests of their own ethnic groups all of the time. I suspect you know that but maybe had a knee jerk reaction to McBoo's post.
Or... you might think I'm being an idiot.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
December 11, 2007 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
"you might think I'm being an idiot"
Not at all, but you do seem to be unaware of the realities on the ground in urban neighborhoods.
Placing all the blame for high minority incarceration rates on racism is an extremely naive point of view. The issue is far more complex than that, as I stated earlier.
Bill Cosby is the only black leader I know that has the courage to speak truth to poverty of mind and spirit that plagues many of these neighborhoods.
In an America where a black man is very close to winning a Presidential nomination bid, it's getting harder and harder to blame these problems on racism.
December 12, 2007 5:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you lived in those neighborhoods, if your family has always lived in those neighborhoods I bet you'd have a poverty of mind and spirit too. What do they have to live for? More of the same.
December 12, 2007 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brook,
Surprise!! I agree with mcboo, and so do the Supremes.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. judges can impose lighter prison sentences than federal guidelines specify, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday in cases involving crack cocaine and ecstacy that could add pressure to overhaul sentencing practices.
In a racially sensitive issue, the justices overturned a U.S. appeals court ruling that judges cannot hand down a lighter punishment simply because they disagree with wide disparities for crack and powder cocaine sentences.
Blacks account for about 80 percent of the federal crack cocaine convictions. The guidelines call for lighter prison terms for the sale of powder cocaine, a drug more popular with whites and Hispanics.
December 11, 2007 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brook,
I think that you are focusing on those who enforce the laws (judges, prosecutors,cops, etc), and boo is discussing those who make the laws (federal and state legislators).
Once these laws are handed down, those who do not enforce them "properly" are then opened up to scrutiny.
These local officials' hands are tied because of the laws of the land, and many of these laws are inherently racist, intentionally or otherwise.
December 11, 2007 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Classic ignorance at work.
The legislation and policies that contain the drug war originate at state and federal levels. It's George H.W. Bush that goes on television to complain about the availability of crack in front of the White House. It's Nancy Reagan who says Just Say No.
The legislative initiatives against drugs have come principally from White politicians at state and federal levels, and from white bureaucrats in state and federal institutions. That's pretty obvious.
It's a level that Black politicians have not been able to crack in any substantial way, and certainly have no significant influence in.
While it is true that many black politicians have emerged at the Municipal level, many of these have actively crusaded against the injustices and racist aspects of the drug war. To use them as poster children explaining that the Drug War is not racist defies belief.
Finally, one unit of municipal government that consistently defies black politicians and has running conflicts is the police, which are often ethnically white. This is pretty clear to anyone who spends five minutes watching these things.
December 12, 2007 6:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Val, your Canadian Bacon is showing. You really need to stay out of discussions regarding local and state US politics, because you don't know what you're talking about, any more than I would be qualified to comment on the racial composition of Sherbrooke legislators.
December 12, 2007 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brook, do me a favour and lick my balls.
December 12, 2007 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll wear that zero proudly Howard. I was low, mean, and despicable, and Brook had it coming.
December 12, 2007 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
had to rate this down, boo. I'd be surprised if anyone agrees with this theory.
Surprise! mcboo is correct.
...the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. Bill Moyers
December 12, 2007 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ethan's logic has an element of anarchy, when applied more broadly. Would he argue traffic laws don't work, because there are more speeders on the road than ever? Laws should be judged by intent as well as effectiveness. We would never legalize murder no matter how bad the murder rate got in any US city.
What is the intent of our current drug laws, and do they fulfill that intention? This question should be asked and answered, before proposing a sweeping reform.
Cocaine was once legal in this country (even bottled), and there were specific reasons why it was banned. We were losing too many citizens to addiction. China lost entire generations to the opium dens, which is one reason they are ruthless against drug use.
While alcohol certainly has addictive qualities, the vast majority of people consume it responsibly without impairment. It also has nasty (and painful) side effects in the form of a hangover that helps to limit abuse.
Polls waffle on MJ, but the vast majority of citizens still seem to be opposed to legalizing any other hard drugs for now, so this "drug war" may continue for the simple reason that a democratic majority wants it that way.
December 11, 2007 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
A majority of people who are exposed to constant anti-drug propaganda since childhood!
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
December 11, 2007 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. I don't even know where to start on this one.
If that is the case, what's up with the one child policy?
I think "vast majority" is an overstatement at best.
This is just silly. All abused drugs fall into this category. That is why they are addictive. You keep using the drug to avoid the hangover.
Your argument suggests that one could smoke crack, or snort coke, or shoot smack and wake up feeling fine, while someone who gets drunk will feel bad the next day.
I will not even get into your statement that legalizing drugs equals legalizing murder, because that would just make me call you bad names.
December 11, 2007 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I will not even get into your statement that legalizing drugs equals legalizing murder, because that would just make me call you bad names"
That's not what I said. Go back and read it. What I said was that we would never consider legalizing murder no matter how bad the murder rate gets. The reason is that the majority of Americans believe the public should be protected from murderers. So, you extrapolate to apply the same logic to drugs. I drew an analogy -- not an equation.
I hope I don't have to admonish you to study the history of what has happened in societies where drugs were legal, before you form an opinion. Why was Coca-Cola, for example, forced to remove cocaine from their product?
December 12, 2007 5:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see, where are recreational drugs tolerated or legal, and where are they rabidly suppressed? Let's suggest the Netherlands and Switzerland for the former, and can I suggest Saudi Arabia or Iran for the second? What conclusion should I draw?
A difficulty in recreational drug policy is that many Americans don't know what they're deciding about. At best they can extrapolate from codeine or oxycontin to think about injected heroin, maybe guess at cocaine from experience with coffee, and the few that have never smoked pot just guess wildly. But honest information is hard to find, buried under decades of proaganda. One has to read novels and personal histories.
Even valuable medical research on opiate use is difficult, and an inquisition-like fear hovers over doctors that fear prosecution for just barely crossing the line when prescribing. (And forget decent research on marijuana.)
In contrast, most Americans were familiar with alcohol before prohibition, so it is not surprising that failed miserably.
December 12, 2007 7:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are some challenges. The biggest is that a great number of practitioners are unaware of the program. Not all state and local law enforcement agencies have agreed to the contract, and may not be aware of it.
If the letter of the contract is followed, rather than documenting rational variations, there might be problems in various contingencies. Bona fide emergency treatment means that another practitioner may need to prescribe or administer drugs. The contract includes a provision for no replacement of lost drugs or prescriptions, but this happens -- and potentially can be enforced with drug level measurements and a limited number of such replacements.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 12, 2007 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
The 60's is a good place to get some information and the whole Timothy Leary experience, but there are vast differences in the impact on the mind from his experiences and a toke with your buddies during a ball game.
this confusion could be what leads many to decide it's safer to ban most mind-altering drugs and medically regulate the rest. There is little downside right now to playing this one safe, politically, and too much controversy in making it an issue here.
The EU's booming economy has made it the fastest-growing market for cocaine, so it will be interesting to see how their politicians react -- if they react at all.
December 12, 2007 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coca Cola had less than 1/400th of a grain of coca in it. In 50 million gallons there was less than 6/100ths of an oz. Besides which, there was never "cocaine" in Coca Cola, there was an alkaloid that could be synthesized to make cocaine. They were "forced" (which actually wasn't true) to remove any trace whatsoever because of the ignorance and hysteria of people who leap before looking.
One interesting statistic is that over 75% of murders in this country have alcohol consumption as a major factor in them. That is because the vast majority of murders in the U.S. are "acquaintance" murders" - the victims know each other.
December 12, 2007 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know in my mind that we could cut off the drug trade today at the top. The ones that bring the large volumes into the country, the big guys. We could use the same technology that is used for the terrorist threats. How many times have we heard that anyone who crosses the border (uncontrolled) could be a terrorist?
The problem is if we cut of the top big importers of the drugs we would have a crisis of addicted individuals.
No way our elected politicians are going to spend capital on individuals.
No social spending on non-producing or obsolete humans. Keep them productive as fodder for our Prison Industrial Might in the world.
Worse we would remove one of the few rallying points for some of the judgmental politicians use. They obtain votes and stay elected with the threat of drug crazed criminals! It would be like a store selling only two products and suddenly it loses the one that accounts for 75% of profits. It would be bad for business.
No, process the merchandise, put most in boxes for long term residual income, and bury the rest in the ground. Keep the producers depressed both monetarily and physically thus producing more spawn to mature into new merchandise for future profits.
What a business!
-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking
December 11, 2007 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Click here for one of the best War on Drugs articles I have read in some time.
December 11, 2007 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interestingly it hasn't only been minorities who have been unjustly treated at the hands of the puritanical on their holy qwest to save us all. No, the 'enemy' has evolved over time as the chance or need arose. There were always new people to add to the list.
Who can forget those crazy rock & roll rebels of the 50's-60's? My what amusing public service films we have to thank them for. Then there was the 60's-70's. Yes our nation nearly fell to the threat all those hippies posed. In each case, the youth (and in some ways change) where painted as being synonymous with the drug(s) of the day and together they threatened to destroy all that was 'good' in this country.
But what occurred by the time we hit the 80's & 90's? Something seemed to have changed. The 'war' seemed to target only certain users and cartels in other countries. Meanwhile it left others here virtually untouched. Legions of yuppies dove head first into drugs. Following that we had armies of suburban club kids doing their own bit of 'experimentation'. And I may not be looking in the right places but I'm finding it very difficult to find (past or present) our prisons overflowing with yuppies or clubbers from the 'burbs. These particular users apparently didn't need prison. No all they needed was some public service & sage advice - 'just say no'. And surprisingly that apparently hasn't worked so well.
I don't think all drugs should be legal that is for certain. Those that should & shouldn't merit a serious and rational debate. And all that are deemed 'safe enough' should be carefully regulated. At least in a manner as alcohol & tobacco are. But fairness & justice should be equally available to all citizens of this nation. And neither drugs nor any 'war' on them should be allowed to be used as an excuse withhold either from anyone.
December 11, 2007 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's interesting how much our "drug war" today parallels the great "gin crisis" of 18th C England. There were three schools of thought - keep it exactly the way it was without regulating it, ban it altogether or regulate its sale. The consensus was finally to regulate its sale. And do you know what happened to all the crime, social problems and addiction? They continued to rise. Statistically, though, the population grew at about the same rate, the inequity in workers pay and upper class income continued to grow, (for example, in 1750s England a skilled carpenter could barely make enough to keep himself, much less a family) and unemployment was still a chronic social ill because it was cheaper to import labour from the countryside than raise wages for skilled and unskilled workers. Obviously it wasn't the gin that was the problem, that was only a component of the problem, the real problems were still there and as today, are still with us. Tell the kid who is standing at the counter at McDonald's for 8 hours at the lowest wage they are legally allowed to pay him, which cannot support him much less a family, why selling drugs and consuming drugs is such a bad idea. Tell the world that yes, some of the great fortunes in this country were made by opium and rum running, but it isn't "fair" for them to do the same, tell those peasants whose only cash crop (as in Appalachian Kentucky where poverty is still as bad as it ever was with no hope of any kind of living since the closing of so many tobacco warehouses, manufacturing plants and textile mills) is a societal evil when it is the only choice between starving and eating and ask them who they think the war is being waged upon - the drugs or the people trying to keep a grasp on the bottom rung of existence.
December 12, 2007 6:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
after extensive travel all over the country, including East KY, i have to say, Bev, the America you describe doesn't resemble the one I'm familiar with.
December 13, 2007 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink