The War on Drugs Is 50 Years Old – The Nation

On September 23, 1987, first lady Nancy Reagan accepts on behalf of the Just Say No Club a check from the Proctor & Gamble company for $150,000, in Washington, D.C. (Mark Reinstein / Shutterstock)

EDITORS NOTE: This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com.

Thank you for signing up forThe Nations weekly newsletter.

Fifty years ago, on June 17, 1971, President Richard Nixon stood before the White House press corps, staffers at his side, to announce a new, all-out offensive against drug abuse, which he denounced as Americas public enemy number one. He called on Congress to contribute $350 million for a worldwide attack on the sources of supply. The first battle in this new drug war would be fought in South Vietnam where, Nixon said, a number of young Americans have become addicts as they serve abroad.

While the president was declaring his war on drugs, I was stepping off a trans-Pacific flight into the searing tropical heat of Saigon, the South Vietnamese capital, to report on the sources of supply for the drug abuse that was indeed sweeping through the ranks of American soldiers fighting this countrys war in Vietnam.

As I would soon discover, the situation was far worse than anything Nixon could have conveyed in his sparse words. Heroin vials littered the floors of Army barracks. Units legendary for their heroism in World War II like the 82nd Airborne were now known as the jumping junkies. A later survey found that more than a third of all GIs fighting the Vietnam War commonly used heroin. Desperate to defeat this invisible enemy, the White House was now about to throw millions of dollars at this overseas drug war, funding mass urinalysis screening for every homeward-bound GI and mandatory treatment for any who tested positive for drugs.

Even that formidable effort, however, couldnt defeat the murky politics of heroin, marked by a nexus of crime and official collusion that made mass drug abuse among GIs possible. After all, in the rugged mountains of nearby Laos, Air America, a company run by the CIA, was transporting opium harvested by tribal farmers who were also serving as soldiers in its secret army. The commander of the Royal Lao Army, a close ally, then operated the worlds largest illicit lab, turning raw opium into refined heroin for the growing numbers of GI users in neighboring Vietnam. Senior South Vietnamese commanders colluded in the smuggling and distribution of such drugs to GIs in bars, in barracks, and at firebases. In both Laos and South Vietnam, American embassies ignored the corruption of their local allies that was helping to fuel the traffic.

As sordid as Saigons heroin politics were, they would pale when compared to the cynical deals agreed to in Washington over the next 30 years that would turn the drug war of the Vietnam era into a political doomsday machine. Standing alongside the president on that day when Americas drug war officially began was John Erlichman, White House counsel and Nixon confidante.

As he would later bluntly tell a reporter,

The Nixon White House had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. We knew we couldnt 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. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news.Current Issue

Subscribe today and Save up to $129.

And just in case anyone missed his point, Erlichman added, Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course, we did.

To grasp the full meaning of this admission, you need to begin with the basics: the drug wars absolute, unqualified, irredeemable failure. Just three pairs of statistics can convey the depth of that failure and the scope of the damage the war has done to American society over the past half-century:

Despite the drug wars efforts to cut supplies, worldwide illicit opium production rose tenfoldfrom 1,200 tons in 1971 to a record 10,300 tons in 2017.

Reflecting its emphasis on punishment over treatment, the number of people jailed for drug offenses would also grow tenfold, from 40,900 in 1980 to 430,900 in 2019.

Readers like you make our independent journalism possible.

Finally, instead of reducing domestic use, the drug war actually helped stimulate a tenfold surge in the number of American heroin users from just 68,000 in 1970 to 745,000 in 2019.

In addition, the drug war has had a profound impact on American society by perpetuating, even institutionalizing, racial disparities through the raw power of the police and prisons. Remember that the Republican Party saw the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which ended decades of Jim Crow disenfranchisement for Blacks in the Deep South, as a rare political opportunity. In response, Nixon and his men began developing a two-part strategy for winning over white voters in the South and blunting the Democratic advantage with Black voters nationwide.

First, in the 1970 midterm elections, the Republicans began pursuing a Southern strategy of courting disgruntled white supremacist voters in the South in a successful attempt to capture that entire region politically. Three years later, they launched a relentless expansion of the drug war, policing, and prisons. In the process, they paved the way for the mass incarceration of African Americans, denying them the vote not just as convicts but, in 15 states, for life as ex-convicts. Pioneering this cunning strategy was New Yorks Republican governor, Nelson Rockefeller. The harsh mandatory penalties of 15 years to life for petty drug possession he got the state legislature to pass raised the number of people imprisoned on drug charges from 470 in 1970 to 8,500 in 1999, 90 percent of them African American or Latinx.

Such mass incarceration moved voters from urban Democratic bailiwicks to rural prisons where they were counted in the census, but otherwise disenfranchised, giving a bit of additional help to the white Republican vote in upstate New Yorka winning strategy Republicans elsewhere would soon follow. Not only did the drug war let conservatives shave opposition vote tallies in close elections, but it also dehumanized African Americans, justifying repressive policing and mass incarceration.

None of this was pre-ordained but the result of a succession of political deals made during three presidenciesthat of Nixon, who started it; of Ronald Reagan, whose administration enacted draconian punishments for drug possession; and of the Democrat Bill Clinton, who expanded the police and prisons to enforce those very drug laws. After remaining remarkably constant at about 100 prisoners per 100,000 population for more than 50 years, the US incarceration rate started climbing relentlessly to 293 by the end of Reagans term in 1990 and 464 by the end of Clintons in 2000. It reached a peak of 760 by 2008with a racial bias that resulted in nothing less than the mass incarceration of African Americans.

While Nixon fought his war largely on foreign battlefields trying, and failing, to stop narcotics at their source, the next Republican president, Ronald Reagan, fully domesticated the drug war through ever harsher penalties for personal use and a publicity campaign that made abstinence a moral virtue and indulgence a fiercely punishable vice. Meanwhile, he also signaled clearly that he was determined to pursue Nixons Southern strategy by staging a major 1980 election campaign rally in Neshoba County, Miss., where three civil rights workers had previously been murdered.

Taking office in 1981, Reagan found, to his surprise, that reviving the drug war at home had little public support, largely because the outgoing Democratic administration had focused successfully on drug treatment rather than punishment. So, first lady Nancy Reagan began crisscrossing the country, while making TV appearances with choruses of cute kids wearing Just Say No T-shirts. Even after four years of the first ladys campaign and the simultaneous spread of crack cocaine and cocaine powder in cities and suburbs nationwide, only about 2 percent of the electorate felt that drug abuse was the nations number one problem.

Then personal tragedy provided Reagan with the perfect political opportunity. In June 1986, just a day after signing a multimillion-dollar contract with the NBAs Boston Celtics, college basketball sensation Len Bias collapsed in his dorm at the University of Maryland from a fatal cocaine overdose. Five months later, President Reagan would sign the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, aka the Len Bias Law. It would lead to a quantum expansion of the domestic drug war, including a mandatory minimum sentence of five years just for the possession of five grams of cocaine and a revived federal death penalty for traffickers.

It also put into law a racial bias in imprisonment that would prove staggering: a 100:1 sentencing disparity between those convicted of possessing crack-cocaine (used mainly by inner-city Blacks) and those using cocaine powder (favored by suburban whites)even though there was no medical difference between the two drugs. To enforce such tough penalties, the law also expanded the federal anti-drug budget to a massive $6.5 billion.

Get unlimited access: $9.50 for six months.

In signing that law, Reagan would pay special tribute to the first lady, calling her the co-captain in our crusade for a drug-free America and the fight against the purveyors of this evil. And the two of them had much to take credit for. After all, by 1989, an overwhelming 64 percent of Americans had come to feel that drugs were the nations number one problem. Meanwhile, thanks largely to the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, Americans jailed for nonviolent drug offenses soared from 50,000 in 1980 to 400,000 in 1997. Driven by drug arrests, in 1995 nearly one-third of all African American males between 20 and 29 would either be in prison or on parole.

If those two Republican presidents were adept at portraying partisan anti-drug policies as moral imperatives, their Democratic successor, Bill Clinton, proved adept at getting himself reelected by picking up their seductive rhetoric. Under his administration, a racialized drug policy, with its disenfranchisement and denigration of African Americans, would become fully bipartisan.

In 1992, two years after being elected president, Clinton lost control of Congress to Republican conservatives led by House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Desperate for something he could call a legislative accomplishment, he tacked hard right to support the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994. It would prove the largest law-enforcement initiative in American history: nearly $19 billion dollars for 100,000 new cops to sweep the streets for drug offenders and a massive prison-expansion program to house those who would now be sentenced to life after three criminal convictions (three strikes).

A year later, when the non-partisan US Sentencing Commission recommended that the 100:1 disparity in penalties for crack-cocaine and cocaine powder be abolished, along with its blatant racial bias, Clinton flatly rejected the advice, signing instead Republican-sponsored legislation that maintained those penalties. I am not, he insisted, going to let anyone who peddles drugs get the idea that the cost of doing business is going down.

The countrys Black political leaders were eloquent in their condemnation of this political betrayal. The Reverend Jesse Jackson, a former Democratic presidential candidate, claimed Clinton knew perfectly well that crack is code for black and labelled the presidents decision a moral disgrace by a man willing to sacrifice young black youth for white fear. The Congressional Black Caucus would similarly denounce the sentencing disparity as a mockery of justice.

As they predicted all too accurately, the relentless rise of Black incarceration only accelerated. In the five years following passage of Clintons omnibus crime bill, the country added 204 prisons and its inmate population shot up by a mind-boggling 28 percent to 1,305,300. Of those, nearly half (587,300) were Black, though African Americans made up only 13 percent of the countrys population.

Facing a tough reelection campaign in 1996, Clinton again worked with hard-right congressional Republicans to pass the Personal Responsibility Work Act, which, as he put it, brought an end to welfare as we know it. With that laws work requirement for welfare, even as unemployment among Black residents of cities like Chicago (left behind by industry) hit 20 percent to 25 percent, youth in inner cities across America found that street-level drug dealing was fast becoming their only opportunity. In effect, the Clintons gained short-term political advantage by doing long-term social and economic damage to a core Democratic constituency, the African American community.

Nonetheless, during his 1996 reelection campaign, Clinton trumpeted such dubious legislative achievements. Speaking at a campaign rally in New Hampshire, for instance, Hillary Clinton celebrated her husbands Violent Crime Control Act for taking back the streets from murderous minority teenagers. They are often the kinds of kids that are called super-predators, Clinton said. No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel.

The term super-predator had, in fact, originated with a Princeton University political scientist, John Dilulio, who described his theory to the first couple during a 1995 White House working dinner on juvenile crime. In an article for a neoconservative magazine that November, the academic trumpeted his apocalyptic analysis. Based solely on the spottiest of anecdotal evidence, he claimed that black inner-city neighborhoods would soon fall prey to such super predatorsa new kind of juvenile criminal marked by impulsive violencevacant staresremorseless eyes. Within five years, he predicted, there would be 30,000 more murderers, rapists, and muggers on the streets who would place zero value on the lives of their victims, whom they reflexively dehumanize as just so much worthless white trash. This rising demographic tide, he warned, would soon spill over into upscale central-city districts, inner-ring suburbs, and even the rural heartland.

By the way, the truly significant part of Hillary Clintons statement based on Dilulios analysis was that phrase about bringing super-predators to heel. A quick quiz. Who or what does one bring to heel: (a.) a woman, (b.) a man, or (c.) a child? Answer: (d.) None of the above.

That term is used colloquially for controlling a leashed dog. By implicitly referring to young Black males as predators and animals, Clinton was tapping into one of Americas most venerable and virulent ethnic stereotypes: the Black buck or brute. The Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia at Ferris State University in Michigan reports that the brute caricature portrays black men as innately savage, animalistic, destructive, and criminaldeserving punishment, maybe death. Black brutes are depicted as hideous, terrifying predators.

Indeed, Southern fiction of the Jim Crow era featured the Black brute as an animal predator whose natural prey was white women. In words strikingly similar to those Dilulio and Clinton would later use for their super-predator, Thomas Dixons influential 1905 novel The Clansman: A Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan described the Black brute as half child, half animala being who, left to his will, roams at night and sleeps in the day, whose speech knows no word of love, whose passions, once aroused, are as the fury of the tiger. When turned into a movie in 1915 as The Birth of a Nation (the first film ever screened in the White House), it depicted a Black mans animalistic rape of a virtuous white woman and reveled in the Klans retribution by lynching.

In effect, the rhetoric about super-predators revived the most virulent stereotype from the Jim Crow lexicon. By the end of President Clintons term in 2000, nearly every state in the nation had stiffened its laws on juveniles, setting aside family courts and sending young, mainly minority, offenders directly to adult prisons for long sentences.

Of course, the predicted wave of 30,000 young super-predators never happened. Instead, violent juvenile crime was already declining when Hillary Clinton gave that speech. By the time President Clintons term ended in 2001, the juvenile homicide rate had fallen well below its level in 1985.

Amazingly, it would be another 20 years before Hillary Clinton was compelled to confront the meaning of those freighted words of hers. While she was speaking to a donors meeting in South Carolina during her 2016 presidential campaign, Ashley Williams, a young Black activist, stood up in the front row and unfurled a small banner that read: We have to bring them to heel. Speaking calmly, she asked: Will you apologize to black people for mass incarceration? And then she added, I am not a super-predator, Hillary Clinton.

When Clinton tried to talk over her, she insisted: I know that you called Black people super-predators in 1994. As the Secret Service hurried that young woman out of the room amid taunts from the largely white audience, Clinton announced, with a palpable sense of relief, Okay, back to the issues.

In its report on the incident, The Washington Post asked Clinton for a comment. In response, she offered the most unapologetic of apologies, explaining that, back in 1994, she had been talking about violent crime and vicious drug cartels and the particular danger they pose to children and families.

As an advocate, as first lady, as senator, I was a champion for children, she added, though admitting as well that, looking back, I shouldnt have used those words.

That was it. No mention of mass incarceration. No apology for using the power of the White House pulpit to propagate the most virulent of racial stereotypes. No promises to undo all the damage she and her husband had caused. Not surprisingly, in November 2016, the African American turnout in 33 statesparticularly in the critical swing states of Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsinwas markedly down, costing her the election.

As much as both Republicans and Democrats might wish us to forget the costs of their deals, this tragic past is very much part of our present. In the 20 years since the drug war took final form under Clinton, politicians have made some relatively inconsequential reforms. In 2010, Congress made a modest cut in the sentencing disparity between the two kinds of cocaine that reduced the prison population by an estimated 1,550 inmates; Barack Obama pardoned 1,700 drug offenders; and Donald Trump signed the First Step Act that released 3,000 prisoners. Add up all those reforms and you end up with only 1.5 percent of those now in prison for drug offensesjust the tiniest drop of mercy in a vast ocean of misery.

So, even 50 years later, this country is still fighting a war on drugs and on nonviolent drug users. Thanks to its laws, petty drug possession is still a felony with heavy penalties. As of 2019, this countrys prisons remained overcrowded with 430,900 people convicted of drug crimes, while drug offenders represented 46 percent of all those in federal penitentiaries. In addition, the United States still has the worlds highest incarceration rate at 639 prisoners per 100,000 population (nearly double Russias), with 1,380,400 people imprisoned, of whom 33 percent are Black.

So many decades later, the drug wars mass incarceration still denies millions of African Americans the right to vote. As of 2020, 48 states refused their convicts the vote, while 34 states imposed a range of restrictions on ex-convicts, effectively denying suffrage to about 2.2 million Blacks, or 6.3 percent of all African American adults.

Recent challenges have made more visible the drug wars once largely invisible mechanisms for denying African Americans their rightful political power as a community. In a 2018 plebiscite, Florida voters restored electoral rights to that states 1.4 million ex-convicts, including 400,000 African Americans. Almost immediately, however, Republican Governor Ron DeSantis required that 800,000 of those felons pay whatever court costs and fines they still owed before votinga decision he successfully defended in federal court just before the 2020 presidential election. The effect of such determined Republican efforts meant that fewer than 8 percent of Floridas ex-convicts were able to vote.

But above all, Black male drug users are still stigmatized as dangerous predators, as we all saw in the recent trial of Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, who tried to defend kneeling on George Floyds neck for nine minutes by blaming Floyds death on the opiods an autopsy found in the victims blood. And in March 2020, a paramilitary squad of Louisville police broke down an apartment door with a battering ram on a no-knock drug raid for a suspected Black drug dealer and wound up killing his sleeping ex-girlfriend, medical worker Breonna Taylor.

Maybe now, half a century later, its finally time to end the war on drug usersrepeal the heavy penalties for possession, pardon the millions of nonviolent offenders, replace mass incarceration with mandatory drug treatment, restore voting rights to convicts and ex-convicts alike, and, above all, purge those persistent stereotypes of the dangerous Black male from our public discourse and private thoughts.

If only

View original post here:

The War on Drugs Is 50 Years Old - The Nation