The War on Drugs Part 1: The National Context

The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. a Nixon aid stated that "you understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

This Post will be part of a two part series on the national and international consequences of the War on Drugs. The research will be focused on the following resolution and round.

The Resolution: This House would end the War on Drugs. 

       2017 US National's Final Round: Watch the round and read the arguments below.

Background:

• President Nixon declared the War on Drugs in Since the 1970’s 
• The United States has about five percent of the world’s population, but contains twenty five percent of the world’s prisoners 
• There are many reasons for this dramatic rise. However, most attribute it to the lengthening of minimums and the criminalization of the use of certain drugs. From 1980 to 1996, drug convictions increased by ten times the original rate. 
•  People of color are over represented in prisons. African Americans are incarcerated in state prisons at a rate that is 5.1 times the imprisonment of whites… in some states the disparity is more than 10 to 1  
• One in three Black men born in 2001 can expect to go to prison in their lifetime.
•  This is due to many injustices in the legal system, including racist judges and juries, plea bargains, and access to wealth. 
• Many studies have found that both groups use drugs at about the same rate but African Americans are 2.5 times more likely to be arrested. They are more likely to be convicted and they are often given harsher/longer sentences. 

Arguments for Ending the War on Drugs: 

• Model: We believe that ending the war on drugs would be composed of three measures; first, it would end the formulation of mandatory minimums for drug use and possession; second, it would stop funding and the enforcement of programs that attempt to stop drugs from reaching the country; third, it would decriminalize certain drugs like marijuana. 
• Prisons are over crowded. The War on Drugs argued for the lengthening of sentences and increased minimums for possession. This has led to a dramatic increase in the number of people in the prison system. 
• This overcrowding is dangerous for prisoners in three main ways. First, the current system is not equipped to handle the number of those incarcerated (Miles). Prisons are forced to pack too many people into one cell because they do not have enough beds for everyone. 
• Second, overcrowding increases the likelihood of abuse by other prisoners and guards to include sexual assault and violence. The government has an obligation to provide safe living conditions for prisoners and overcrowding limits the government’s ability to adequately care for them. 
• Third, overcrowding reduces the access to rehabilitative programs for prisoners. This increases recidivism rates and harms the communities that ex-prisoners eventually return too. A recent study found that “strain on prison staff, reduced access to educational and training programs, and lack of mental health and substance abuse treatment services ... reduced the likelihood that prison sentences will actually work to tackle the causes of offending behavior” (P.A.). Thus, overcrowding stop prison from providing rehabilitation to inmates. These individuals leave prison unprepared and they are at risk of reoffending because they did not receive access to proper help.  
• Additionally, this harms communities because in some areas a large proportion of young men are in prison. It creates entire communities where fathers are not present in their children’s life which has been proven to lead to lower grades and increased risk of future incarceration. 
• The War on Drugs unfairly targets and punishes minorities, promoting racial inequality. Drug criminalization keeps some groups oppressed and allows others to maintain their power. It gives cash to the private prison industry and allows politicians to distract from actual concerns by using fear of the other to gain power. Fundamentally, it economic, social, and political destroys the lives of its captives. It means that these individuals struggle to find employment, cannot receive higher education because they are unable to receive school loans, and force them to work for pennies on the dollar. Alexander writes that after an individual is “labeled a felon, the old forms of discrimination…are suddenly legal…as a criminal, you have scarcely more rights, and arguably less respect, than a black man living in Alabama at the height of Jim Crow” (Alexander). 

Arguments Against Ending the War on Drugs: 

Creating an opposition case for this resolution is significantly more challenging.

•  Ending the War on Drugs does not truly address the racism in the current system. African American men are arrested and convicted and significantly higher rates for almost every crime. African American boys are more likely to be sent to Juvenile centers and they are more likely to be convicted of rape (Sentencing Project). Focusing on the War on Drugs ignores the other ways that minorities are uniquely harmed by the justice system. It allows politicians and debaters to claim that the problem has been solved. 
• Fundamentally, this might be the worst time to end the War on Drugs because Marijuana has been promoted by young white groups. Thus, the focus is less on racial equality and more on greater access to Marijuana for recreation and health. 
• John Pfaff book, Locked In: The True Causes of Mass Incarceration and How to Achieve Real Reform, explains that the narrative that the War on Drugs caused mass incarceration is not completely correct because it misses much of the real story.  His book argues that the “standard story” doesn’t tell the full story and that people are locked up for largely violent crimes and ignores that reform needs to “focus on state and local, not federal, reform” (Lopez). He writes that “shocking” statistics do not help us solve the current problems we are facing because “it gives too little attention to the more mundane-sounding yet far more influential causes of prison growth” (Pfaff). Less than 16% of state prisoners are in prison on drug charges. Most prisoners have been convicted of violent crime. Focusing on the war on drugs does not actually solve the problems that are faced by many; instead, it masks the issue. 

Reading List:

The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness by Michelle Alexander.  Alexander's book started the conversation on the racial undertones of the prison system. This book outlines the shift from segregation to a new and more insidious version of racism. The author argues that the United States has not ended the racial caste system; instead, the era of colorblindness has created a new system of oppression by using the criminal justice system to label people of color as criminals.This was by far the best book I read this semester.

Racial Profiling and the NYPD: The Who, What, When, and Why of Stop and Frisk by Jay L. Newberry. Newberry explores the role of Racial Profiling by NYPD.

Why you can't blame mass incarceration on drugs: Article by Vox. Probably some of the best arguments to respond to a case about race. 

The Color of Justice: Created by the sentecing project. Fast and easy read and covers all of the basics. 

Documentaries: 

13th on Netflix. Excelent Documentary that really gets at the heart of the issue.