Race and the war on drugs

Several scholars, including historian and lawyer Michelle Alexander, have stated that the War on Drugs is one product of a political strategy known as "tough on crime". The emergence of the tough on crime initiative in conservative politics can be traced to campaigns of the mid 1950s in the United States.[9] A 1966 U.S. News & World Report article covering Richard Nixon's presidential campaign quoted Nixon as saying, "the increasing crime rate can be traced directly to the spread of the corrosive doctrine that every citizen possesses an inherent right to decide for himself which laws to obey and when to disobey them."[10] Beginning in the 1960s, as Nixon was making his first presidential run, crime rates rose dramatically in the United States. Street crime reportedly quadrupled and homicide rates nearly doubled.[9]

Alexander writes that while modern scholars now attribute these rising crime rates to the surge in population of the baby boomer generation, conservatives of the time tied the increases to race. Crime reports were used as evidence of a loss of morality and social stability in the wake of the Civil rights movement.[11] 1964 Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater made this connection during his campaign, helping to lay the groundwork for the "tough on crime" movement. In a 1964 speech titled "Peace through Strength" Goldwater said, "Choose the way of the Johnson Administration and you have the way of mobs in the streets."[12] The Lyndon B. Johnson Administration was responsible for passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Alexander noted that while Goldwater did not win the presidency, his campaign strategy influenced that of Richard Nixon's 1968 presidential candidacy. Alexander stated that the politics of Nixon's campaign were coded anti-black rhetoric.[13] When referring to the migration of black southerners to the north, Nixon said "these cities were repaid with crime ridden slums and discontent." Nixon made 17 campaign speeches solely on the topic of Law and Order leading up to the 1968 election.[13] Republican strategist Kevin Phillips published his influential argumentative work Emerging Republican Majority in 1969. He wrote, "Nixon's successful presidential election campaign could point the way toward long term political realignment and the building of a new Republican majority, if Republicans continued to campaign primarily on the basis of racial issues, using coded antiblack rhetoric."[14]

Richard Nixon announced his first major federal policy relating to the issue of substance abuse in 1970, shortly after he was sworn into office. This policy, known as The Controlled Substances Act (C.S.A.), was ratified into law on September 7, 1970 and marked one of the administration's first major policy achievements. The C.S.A. regulated at a federal level the manufacture, distribution, use and distribution of certain substances. The policy placed all controlled substances into one of five scheduled classes based on the drugs potential for abuse and its ability to be used in medical treatment.[16] One feature of the C.S.A. was the establishment of the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, also known as the Shafer Commission, chaired by former Pennsylvania Governor Richard Shafer. The purpose of the commission was to understand the extent of use of marijuana in the United States.[17] The Shafer commission found that marijuana was undeserving of the schedule 1 classification, the most dangerous classification which included heroin and cocaine. In addition, the committee urged the administration to consider the potential of legalization laws in relation to marijuana.[17]

Drug historian, writer and researcher Emily Dufton attests to Richard Nixon's disdain for marijuana and his personal convictions of a connection between the drug and social rot. In addition, she argues that Nixon viewed marijuana as a "black drug" and that pursuing a punitive attitude towards this drug could offer significant political gain.[18] Dufton states that the Nixon administration directly ignored the report from the Shafer commission due to Nixon's personal feelings towards the drug. Nixon told Shafer in a private meeting, "I have very strong feelings about marijuana." He continued, "I want a goddamn strong statement against the drug. One that just tears the ass out of legalization supporters."[18] Marijuana's psychoactive chemical, Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is still listed as a schedule 1 drug today, despite its legalization in several states. Scholars of criminal justice and drug policy like Anthony Lowenstein and James Forman Jr. have argued that the C.S.A., while not being punitive in nature, targeted marijuana in a demonizing and criminal way. Their argument is based on a belief that targeting marijuana was part of a larger anti-black political strategy. Both intellectuals argue that marijuana was purposefully aligned by conservative politicians with an urban black population, civil rights protests and the rising crime rates of the late 1960s and early 1970s. The argument concludes that this political strategy led to disproportionate punitive treatment of the black communities' usage of marijuana.[19][20]

On June 17, 1971, Richard Nixon held a press conference in which he announced that "America's public enemy number one in the United States is drug abuse." He continued, "In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive."[21] In this speech Nixon called for Congress to approve the allocation of 150 million dollars in new funding to the "treatment and prevention of drug abuse."[15] According to the Bureau of Labor statistics the U.S. dollar reached an average inflation value of 3.85% over this period meaning in today's value this increase in funding is valued at just under 966 million dollars.[22]

Heroin Epidemic

During the Nixon administration the country faced a heroin epidemic. There were fifteen times as many heroin addicts in Washington D.C. as there were in all of England.[23] The U.S. government responded in two ways, the first response came from Nixons newly appointed Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention headed by Jerome Jaffe. The goal of the office in regards to heroin was the practice of providing free synthetic alternatives to heroin in the form of government regulated methadone.[24] The idea was not to cure the addicts, but rather to prevent them from engaging in street crimes to feed their addictions. The second response came in the form of an increased police presence. Some community activists criticized the Nixon treatment program, many of whom saw heroin addiction and methadone treatment as a new form of black oppression.[23] There was a call from black community leaders for more punitive action against dealers and users. Black activists in Chicago, D.C. and Harlem called on government to increase the policing and sentencing for individuals involved in robbery, mugging, street dealing and murder.[25] Many civil rights advocates pushed back against the Law and Order rhetoric which won Nixon the White House, while other activists from some of the nations most drug affected cities were some of the earliest supporters of more punitive drug policies. Scholars argue that conservative politicians used these calls from the nation's urban leaders as proof that the Law and Order policies had nothing to do with race.[26] Many historians, including Foreman Jr. and Alexander write that, knowingly or unknowingly, members of the black political body helped birth the formation of the American penal system which would grow to operate at levels unprecedented in world history.[26]

In 1973 President Nixon created the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), bringing together the Bureau of Dangerous Drugs and the U.S. Customs Agency. According to the DEA's own historical record the goal of the merger was to end the rivalry and miscommunication between the two offices in an attempt to combat the rising availability and use of drugs in the United States.[27]

Upon its creation, the DEA received a billion dollar increase in federal funding over what the two agencies had been receiving prior to the merger. From 1973, before the merger, to 1974 federal budgeting for U.S. drug enforcement rose 41 billion dollars. It would increase again in 1975 from 116.20 billion dollars to 140.90 billion dollars.[21]

The "Rockefeller Mandatory Minimum Drug Laws

In 1973, New York Governor Nelson D. Rockefeller passed the nation's first mandatory minimum drug laws.[28] Due to increasing pressure from failed treatment programs in New York's most drug addicted cities, Governor Nelson Rockefeller introduced Mandatory Minimum Drug Laws. Rockefeller, who according to New York district attorney Arthur Rosenblatt, had been a champion of rehabilitation treatment methods through his governorship, now felt that these policies were failing. He turned to the "tough on crime" ideas of President Nixon and introduced the new laws to his state.[28] The Rockefeller laws called for mandatory prison sentences of 15 years to life for drug dealers. Rosenblatt testifies that whether addict or casual users, anyone found in possession of even trace amounts of marijuana, cocaine or heroin was eligible for a prison sentence. He continues that almost immediately there was a disproportionate rate of arrest and incarceration within urban and minority neighborhoods. White people were using and selling drugs at similar rates to black American and yet disproportionately people of color were winding up in prison.[28] Rockefeller would become vice president in the Gerald Ford administration after the resignation of Richard Nixon.

John D. Ehrlichman Interview

A former Nixon aide has suggested that the War on Drugs was racially and politically motivated.[1]

The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. 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. 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.

— John D. Ehrlichman, former Nixon aide, interview with Dan Baum

However, because he may have been disillusioned with the Nixon administration following the Watergate scandal, the validity of Ehrlichman's claim is disputed.[29][30]

President Jimmy Carter was an advocate for legalization of marijuana at the national level.[31] Carter argued that possession of less than 28 grams of marijuana should be decriminalized. Carter believed in a more treatment-based approach to the addiction problems, with softer penalties for cocaine. He was similarly opposed to heroin as his predecessors.[32] In a speech to Congress in 1977, Carter stated that " penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself."

Rather than legalization, congressional lawmakers passed a bill that would only criminalize marijuana "open to public view." Scholars would later criticize the abuse of this bill when debating Stop and Frisk laws.[33] In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in Terry v. Ohio that a "stop-and-frisk" search does not violate the Fourth Amendment, so long as the officer executing the search bears a "reasonable suspicion" that the person being searched has committed, or is about to commit, a crime. As a result, "stop-and-frisk" searches became much more common during the War on Drugs, and were generally conducted in minority communities.[34] "Stop-and-frisk" searches have been criticized for being disproportionately carried out against minorities as a result of racial bias, though empirical literature on this count is inconclusive. Certain authors have found that, even after controlling for location and crime participation rates, African-Americans and Hispanics are stopped more frequently than whites.[3] Others have found that no bias exists, on average, in an officer's decision to stop a citizen, though bias may exist in an officer's decision to frisk a citizen.[35][36]

President Carter oversaw the largest scale back of incarceration in our nations history. Carter presided over a 34% decline in sentenced prisoners between 1977 and 1980, a reduction of 9,625 inmates. The decline during Carter's tenure was the largest of any president on record, both as a percentage and in absolute numbers."[37]

Crack cocaine hit the streets of the United States in 1985. A decline in legitimate inner city employment opportunities led some to sell drugs - most notably crack. The unsettled and developing crack markets created a wave of violence in many urban neighborhoods of the United States.[39] The DEA began lobbying congress on behalf of Reagan 's War on Drugs initiative by courting media outlets in an attempt to win public support for the drug war. Robert Strutman, head of the New York City DEA office recalled "In order to convince Washington, I needed to make drugs a national issue and quickly. I began lobbying efforts and I used the media. The media was only too willing to cooperate."[40]

In June, 1986 Newsweek called crack the biggest story since Vietnam/Watergate and in August Time termed crack "the issue of the year."[41] Stories written about crack featured terms like "welfare queen", "crack babies" and "gangbangers, racially targeted terms. "Welfare Queen" and "Predator criminals" were among the most frequently used terms, terms coined by Reagan during his presidential campaign.[41] Sociologists Craig Reinerman and Harry Levine stated that "Crack was a godsend to the right... It could not have appeared at a more politically opportune moment."[42]

The Military Cooperation with Law Enforcement Act passed in 1981, It allowed the military to provide local, state and federal police access to military bases, weapons, intelligence and research in the name of drug intervention. The act rescinded much of the power of the Comitatus Act, passed during the Civil War, which prevented the use of the military in local police efforts.[43] Police departments would receive disbursements based on the number of anti drug arrests the department made. Non drug arrests brought no financial gain, even for violent crime.[43]

The original act, passed in 1970, allowed governments to attain funds, drugs and equipment seized during raids through civil court hearings and drug convictions. Over the years, the list of items allowed to be seized grew in size. In 1984 the act was amended to allow federal law enforcement agencies to "retain and use any and all proceeds from asset forfeitures, and to allow state and local police agencies to retain up to 80 percent of the assets value." The law now allowed police units to seize cars, cash and property from drug raids with or without a conviction.[44] "Because those who were targeted were typically poor or of moderate means, they often lacked resources to hire an attorney or pay the considerable court costs. As a result, most people who had their property seized did not challenge the government's action, especially because the government could retaliate by filing criminal charges."[44]

Between 1989 and 1992 federally funded state and local police agencies seized over 1 billion dollars in assets. This number does not include the DEA or other federally funded enforcement agencies.[45]

The Anti Drug Abuse Act

Spurred by the media craze over the War on Drugs the House of Representatives allocated 2 billion dollars in new funding to the federal anti-drug fight in 1986.[46] The House also authorized the use of the military in narcotics control efforts, the death penalty for some drug related crimes and the admission of illegaly obtained evidence in drug trials.

In October 1986, President Reagan signed the Anti Drug Abuse Act.[47] The act supported much harsher federal penalties than any prior drug legislation in the United States. Included in the act were mandatory minimum sentences for the distribution of cocaine, including far more severe punishments for the distribution of crack. The law outlined a 100-1 discrepancy in prison terms for crack versus powder cocaine. If an individual was caught with 5 grams of crack cocaine they would face a five-year sentence. An individual would need to be caught with 500 grams of powder cocaine to carry the same sentence. Many scholars have argued that these laws were racist in nature as crack was a drug identified by the media and the public to be associated with black America and powder cocaine with white America. In addition scholars have pointed out that data from states like New York, where mandatory minimum sentencing originated a decade prior, show that mandatory minimums lead to a disproportionate number of arrests of black Americans.[48] The act was revisited by the administration in 1988. The new additions to the act allowed public housing authorities to evict a tenant who allows drug related activity to occur on or near public housing premises. It also added a five-year minimum mandatory sentence for anyone found in possession of cocaine base, without evidence of intent to distribute. The penalties applied to citizens even without prior convictions.[48]

The vote passed 346–11. Six of the negative votes came from the Congressional Black Caucus.[49]

In 1996 journalist Gary Webb published a series of articles for the San Jose Mercury News tying the Reagan Administration to the trafficking of illegal narcotics into the United States. The three part expose by Webb titled "The Dark Alliance" claimed that in an effort to financially support Sandinista National Liberation Front (FDN) the C.I.A. supported narcotics trafficking into the U.S. by top members of the Nicaraguan Rebel group, known. as the Contras.[50] Webb alleged that the fallout from this operation was the large scale spread of the crack epidemic in the United States. A California-based drug dealer named "Freeway" Rick Ross testified that Norwin Meneses and Danillo Blandon Reyes, two members of the FDN, supplied him with cocaine for much of the 1980s. He testified that at its peak height the drug ring operated from California to Michigan and as far south as Louisiana.[51] The U.S. state department, with knowledge of this operation, interfered with local police investigation and prevented prosecution of FDN linked trafficking.[52] In 1990 Reyes testified that his "cocaine sales were for a time C.I.A. approved.[51] Blandon testified that the C.I.A.notified him of a raid on his home in 1986. Neither Meneses or Blandon ever received prison sentences for their roles in the scandal.[51]

The response to Webb's writings were mixed. Journalists from both the Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times credited Webb with an important piece of journalism. David Corn of The Washington Post wrote that Webb "deserves credit for pursuing an important piece of recent history and forcing the C.I.A. and the Justice Department to investigate the contra-drug connection.[53] Other journalists, including James Adams of The New York Times, were critical of Webb's work with his sources. Adams denounced Webb for his failure to contact the C.I.A. and "cross check sources and allegations," and concluded that "For investigative reporters determined to uncover the truth, procedures like these are unacceptable."[54]

The series resulted in three federal investigations (i.e. by the CIA, Department of Justice, and the House Intelligence Committee) into the claims of "Dark Alliance". The reports rejected the series' main claims but were critical of some CIA and law enforcement actions. The CIA report found no evidence that "any past or present employee of CIA, or anyone acting on behalf of CIA, had any direct or indirect dealing" with Ross, Blandón, or Meneses or that any of the other figures mentioned in "Dark Alliance" were ever employed by or associated with or contacted by the agency.[55] The Department of Justice report stated that "We did not find that he [Blandón] had any ties to the CIA, that the CIA intervened in his case in any way, or that any connections to the Contras affected his treatment."[56] The House Committee report examined the support that Meneses and Blandón gave to the local Contra organization in San Francisco and the Contras in general, the report concluded that it was "not sufficient to finance the organization" and did not consist of "millions," contrary to the claims of the "Dark Alliance" series. This support "was not directed by anyone within the Contra movement who had an association with the CIA," and the Committee found "no evidence that the CIA or the Intelligence Community was aware of these individuals’ support."[57]

A 1989 Washington Post investigative story accused the Bush administration of setting up an 18 year old black man from Baltimore in a sting operation to showcase the drug problem close to home. The DEA, using an undercover agent, pushed a black 18-year-old high school student named Keith Jackson to make a sale of crack outside the White House. In a recorded conversation with the agents Jackson can be heard saying "Where the [Expletive] is the White House?". The agents set up a buy with Jackson in Lafayette Park, across the street from the White House. Jackson was arrested and convicted of felony possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute. He had no prior convictions, but was sentenced to 10 years in prison based on the mandatory minimum laws of 1988. After his conviction Jackson was visibly in tears. U.S. District Judge Stanley Sporkin told Jackson at his sentencing, "Bush used you, in the sense of making a big drug speech. But he's a decent man, a man of great compassion. Maybe he can find a way to reduce at least some of that sentence." Bush, when asked about the story, would tell the Washington Post, "The man went there and sold drugs in front of the White House, didn't he?" "I can't feel sorry for this fellow."[63][64]

Evidence of Mass Incarceration

The focus of the Bush administration's National Drug Strategy (NDS) called for tough, certain punishment for drug dealers and measured response penalties for users". The plan also laid out funding for treatment and education but ultimately believed that, "none of these can be effective unless America restores the rule of law in its cities and holds drug users accountable for the damage they cause society.[65]

The policy laid out by the Bush Administration represented the largest increase in resources for law enforcement in the nations history. Critics have stated that Bush's policy spawned the creation of the prison industrial complex. Bush's NDS allocated nearly 1.5 billion dollars in 1990 for the construction of 24,000 new federal prison beds. This was an increase of 1 billion dollars from 1989.[65]

The policy also increased funding for security in public housing projects from 8 million dollars to 50 million dollars.[65]

By the end of Bush's presidency in 1993 he had presided over the greatest hike in imprisonment in our nation's history. During his four years there was a 56% increase in incarcerations, an increase of 38,869 prisoners from the eight years of the Reagan Administration.[66]

By the end of George H.W. Bush's presidency 9.18% of all black people in the United States were either in prison, on probation or on parole. This compares to 1.76% of the white population in the United States. In 1993, there were 6 times as many black Americans in local jails per 100,000 inmates as there were white Americans. From 1989, when Bush took office, to 1993 when he left the number of black males in American prisons increased by 300,000 people. The number of white males increased by 50,000 inmates. The number of drug sentencings increased from 25,309 in 1989 to 48,554 in 1993.[67]

Scholars have argued that Clinton's tough on crime policies came in an attempt to swing back the tide of white voters who had left the party two decades earlier to vote for Reagan. Clinton's administration articulates that these policies were an attempt to be fiscally conservative and to slash the federal budget deficit.[74]

During Clinton's administration the federal budget saw a reduction in public housing funding by 17 billion dollars. The federal corrections programs received a 19 billion dollar increase. This equates to a 61 percent decrease in public housing funding and a 171 percent increase in federal prison budgeting. Scholars argue that the construction of federal prisons replaced the nations major public housing programs for the urban poor.[75] Clinton's "One Strike and You're Out" policy stated that "From now on, the rule for residents who commit crime and peddle drugs should be one strike and you're out."[76] Any tenant of public housing convicted of any drug related offence would no longer have access to public housing.[77]

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 established a 100:1 sentencing disparity for the possession of crack vs. powder cocaine. Whereas possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine triggered a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence, possession of 5 grams of crack cocaine triggered the same mandatory minimum penalty.[78] In addition, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 established a 1-year mandatory minimum penalty for simple possession of crack cocaine, making crack cocaine the only controlled substance for which a first possession offense triggered a mandatory minimum penalty.[2]

A 1992 study found that, as a result of mandatory minimum sentencing, blacks and Hispanics received more severe sentences than their white counterparts from 1984 through 1990.[79]

In 1995, the United States Sentencing Commission delivered a report to Congress concluding that, because 80% of crack offenders were black, the 100:1 disparity disproportionately affected minorities. The Commission recommended that the crack-to-powder sentencing ratio be amended, and that other sentencing guidelines be re-evaluated.[2] These recommendations were rejected by Congress.[80] By contrast, certain authors have pointed out that the Congressional Black Caucus backed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, implying that that law could not be racist.[81][82]

In 2010, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine from 100:1 to 18:1. The mandatory minimum penalty was amended to take effect for possession of crack cocaine in excess of 28 grams.[83]

Mandatory minimum penalties have been criticized for failing to apply uniformly to all cases of illegal behavior.[84]

2009. Percent of adult males incarcerated by race and ethnicity.[85]

A 2015 report conducted by the Department of Justice found that blacks in Ferguson, Missouri were over twice as likely to be searched during vehicle stops, despite being found in possession of contraband 26% less often than white drivers.[86]

A 2016 report conducted by the San Francisco District Attorney's Office concluded that racial disparities exist regarding stops, searches, and arrests by the San Francisco Police Department, and that these disparities were especially salient for the black population. Blacks made up almost 42% of all non-consensual searches after a stop, though they accounted for less than 15 percent of all stops in 2015. Blacks held the lowest search "hit rate", meaning that contraband was least likely to be found during a search.[87]

A 2016 Chicago Police Accountability Task Force report found that black and Hispanic drivers were searched by the Chicago Police more than four times more frequently than white drivers, despite white drivers being found with contraband twice as often as black and Hispanic drivers.[88]

A 1995 Bureau of Justice Statistics report found that from 1991 to 1993, 16% of those who sold drugs were black, but 49% of those arrested for doing so were black.[89]

A 2006 study concluded that blacks were significantly over-represented among those arrested for drug delivery offenses in Seattle. The same study found that this was a result of law enforcement focusing on crack offenders, on outdoor venues, and dedicating resources to racially heterogeneous neighborhoods.[90]

A 2010 study found little difference across races with regards to the rates of adolescent drug dealing.[91] A 2012 study found that African American youth were less likely than white youth to use or sell drugs, but more likely to be arrested for doing so.[92]

A 2013 study by the American Civil Liberties Union determined that a black person in the United States was 3.73 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than a white person, even though both races have similar rates of marijuana use.[93] Iowa had the highest racial disparity of the fifty states.[94] Black people in Iowa were arrested for marijuana possession at a rate 8.4 times higher than white people.[94] One factor that may explain the difference in arrest rates between whites and blacks is that blacks are more likely than whites to buy marijuana outdoors, from a stranger, and away from their homes.[95]

A 2015 study concluded that minorities have been disproportionately arrested for drug offenses, and that this difference "cannot be explained by differences in drug offending, non-drug offending, or residing in the kinds of neighborhoods likely to have heavy police emphasis on drug offending."[96]

In 1998, there were wide racial disparities in arrests, prosecutions, sentencing and deaths. African-Americans, who only comprised 13% of regular drug users, made up for 35% of drug arrests, 55% of convictions, and 74% of people sent to prison for drug possession crimes.[97] Nationwide African-Americans were sent to state prisons for drug offenses 13 times more often than white men.[98][99]

Crime statistics show that in 1999 in the United States blacks were far more likely to be targeted by law enforcement for drug crimes, and received much stiffer penalties and sentences than whites.[100] A 2000 study found that the disproportionality of black drug offenders in Pennsylvania prisons was unexplained by higher arrest rates, suggesting the possibility of operative discrimination in sentencing.[101]

A 2008 paper stated that drug use rates among Blacks (7.4%) were comparable to those among Whites (7.2%), meaning that, since there are far more White Americans than Black Americans, 72% of illegal drug users in America are white, while only 15% are black.[99]

According to Michelle Alexander, the author of The New Jim Crow and a professor of law at Stanford Law School, even though drug trading is done at similar rates all over the U.S., most people arrested for it are colored. Together, African American and Hispanics comprised 58% of all prisoners in 2008, even though African Americans and Hispanics make up approximately one quarter of the US population.[102] The majority of prisoners are arrested for drug related crime, and in at least 15 states, 3/4 of them are black or Latino people.

A 2012 report by the United States Sentencing Commission found that drug sentences for black men were 13.1 percent longer than drug sentences for white men between 2007 and 2009.[103]

Professor Cathy Schnieder of International Service at American University notes that in 1989, African Americans, representing 12-15 percent of all drug use in the United States, made up 41 percent of all arrests. That is a noted increase from 38 percent in 1988. Whites were 47 percent of those in state-funded treatment centers and made up less than 10 percent of those committed to prison.[104]

Felony drug convictions often lead to circumstances that carry negative health-related consequences. Employment opportunities (and associated healthcare benefits), access to public housing and food stamps, and financial support for higher education are all jeopardized, if not eliminated, as a result of such a conviction.[8] In addition, a felony distribution charge often precludes a convict from benefiting from most healthcare programs that receive federal funding.[7]

Some authors have suggested that the collateral consequences of criminal conviction are more serious than the legal penalties. In many cases, statutes do not require that convicts are informed of these consequences.[7] Many felons cannot be employed by the federal government or work in government jobs, as they do not meet the standards to gain security clearance. Felons convicted of distributing or selling drugs may not enlist in the military.[7]

Certain states are financially incentivized to exclude criminals from access to public housing. All states receive less federal highway funding if they fail to revoke or suspend driver's licenses of drug-related felons.[7]

Collateral consequences, and felon disenfranchisement in particular, have historically been at least partially racially motivated.[7][109]

The War on Drugs has incarcerated high numbers of African-Americans. However, the damage has compounded beyond individuals to affect African-American communities as a whole, with some social scientists suggesting the War on Drugs could not be maintained without societal racism and the manipulation of racial stereotypes.[110]

African-American children are over-represented in juvenile hall and family court cases,[111] a trend that began during the War on Drugs.[8] From 1985 to 1999, admissions of blacks under the age of 18 increased by 68%. Some authors posit that this over-representation is because minority juveniles commit crime more often, and commit more serious crimes.[112][113]

A compounding factor is often the imprisonment of a father. Boys with imprisoned fathers are significantly less likely to develop the skills necessary for success in early education.[114] In addition, African-American youth often turn to gangs to generate income for their families, oftentimes more effectively than at a minimum wage or entry-level job.[115] Still, this occurs even as substance abuse, especially marijuana, has largely declined among high school students.[116] In contrast, many black youths drop out of school, are subsequently tried for drug-related crime, and acquire AIDS at disparate levels.[115]

In addition, the high incarceration rate has led to the juvenile justice system and family courts to use race as a negative heuristic in trials, leading to a reinforcing effect: as more African-Americans are incarcerated, the more the heuristic is enforced in the eyes of the courts. This contributes to yet higher imprisonment rates among African-American children.

High numbers of African American arrests and charges of possession show that although the majority of drug users in the United States are white, blacks are the largest group being targeted as the root of the problem.[117] Furthermore, a study by Andrew Golub, Bruce Johnson, and Eloise Dunlap affirms the racial divide in drug arrests, notably marijuana arrests, where blacks with no prior arrests (0.9%) or one prior arrest (4.3%) were nearly twice as likely to be sentenced to jail as their white counterparts (0.4% and 2.3%, respectively).[118] Harboring these emotions can lead to a lack of will to contact the police in case of an emergency by members of African-American communities, ultimately leaving many people unprotected. Disproportionate arrests in African-American communities for drug-related offenses has not only spread fear but also perpetuated a deep distrust for government and what some call racist drug enforcement policy.

Additionally, a black-white disparity can be seen in probation revocation, where black probationers were revoked at higher rates than white and Hispanic probationers in studies as published under The Urban Institute.[119]

The War on Drugs also plays a negative role in the lives of women of color. The number of black women imprisoned in the United States increased at a rate more than twice that of black men, over 64% from 1986 to 1991. During that same period, the percentage of females incarcerated for drug-related offenses more than doubled.[120] In 1989, black and white women had similar levels of drug use during pregnancy. In spite of this, black women were 10 times as likely as white women to be reported to a child welfare agency for prenatal drug use.[121] In 1997, of women in state prisons for drug-related crimes, forty-four percent were Hispanic, thirty-nine percent were black, and twenty-three percent were white, quite different from the racial make up shown in percentages of the United States as a whole.[122] Statistics in England, Wales, and Canada are similar. Women of color who are implicated in drug crimes are "generally poor, uneducated, and unskilled; have impaired mental and physical health; are victims of physical and sexual abuse and mental cruelty; are single mothers with children; lack familial support; often have no prior convictions; and are convicted for a small quantity of drugs".[122]

Additionally, these women typically have an economic attachment to, or fear of, male drug traffickers, creating a power paradigm that sometimes forces their involvement in drug-related crimes.[123] Though there are programs to help them, women of color are usually unable to take advantage of social welfare institutions in America due to regulations. For example, women's access to methadone, which suppresses cravings for drugs such as heroin, is restricted by state clinics that set appointment times for women to receive their treatment. If they miss their appointment, (which is likely: drug-addicted women may not have access to transportation and lead chaotic lives), they are denied medical care critical to their recovery. Additionally, while women of color are offered jobs as a form of government support, these jobs often do not have childcare, rendering the job impractical for mothers, who cannot leave their children at home alone.[123]

However, with respect to mandatory minimum sentencing, female offenders receive relief almost 20% more often than male offenders.[124] In addition, female offenders, on average, receive lighter sentences than those who commit similar offenses.[84]

• Herbert J. Gans (1995). The war against the poor: the underclass and antipoverty policy. Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-01991-5.
• The New Jim Crow (2010) by Michelle Alexander www.newjimcrow.com ISBN 978-1595581037
• Jill McCorkel (2013). Breaking Women: Gender, Race, and the New Politics of Imprisonment. New York University Press.

• Martin, Dianne L. (1993). "Casualties of the Criminal Justice System: Women and Justice Under the War on Drugs". Canadian Journal of Women & the Law. 6 (2): 305–327.
• Hall, Mary F. (June 1997). "The "War on Drugs": A Continuation of the War on the African American Family". Smith College Studies in Social Work. 67 (3): 609–621. doi:10.1080/00377319709517509.
• Enid Logan (1999). "The Wrong Race, Committing Crime, Doing Drugs, and Maladjusted for Motherhood: The Nation's Fury over "Crack Babies"". Social Justice. 26 (1): 115–138. JSTOR 29767115.
• Gorton, Joe; Boies, John L (March 1999). "Sentencing Guidelines and Racial Disparity across Time: Pennsylvania Prison Sentences in 1977, 1983, 1992, and 1993". Social Science Quarterly. 80 (1): 37–54.
• JM Wallace (May 1999). "The social ecology of addiction: race, risk, and resilience". Pediatrics. 103 (5 Pt. 2): 1122–1127. PMID 10224199.
• Graham Boyd (July–August 2001). "The Drug War is the New Jim Crow". NACLA Report on the Americas. 35 (1): 18. doi:10.1080/10714839.2001.11722573.
• Deborah Small (Fall 2001). "The War on Drugs Is a War on Racial Justice". Social Research. 68 (3): 896–903.
• Kenneth B. Nunn (2002). "Race, Crime and the Pool of Surplus Criminality: Or Why the War on Drugs Was a War on Blacks". Gender, Race & Justice. 6 (6): 381.
• Gabriel Chin (2002). "Race, the War on Drugs and the Collateral Consequences of Criminal Conviction". Gender, Race & Justice (6): 253. doi:10.2139/ssrn.390109. SSRN 390109.
• Samuel R. Gross; Katherine Y. Barnes (December 2002). "Road Work: Racial Profiling and Drug Interdiction on the Highway". Michigan Law Review (Submitted manuscript). 101 (3): 653–751. doi:10.2307/1290469. JSTOR 1290469.
• Beckett, Katherine; Nyrop, Kris; Pfingst, Lori; Bowen, Melissa (August 2005). "Drug Use, Drug Possession Arrests, and the Question of Race: Lessons from Seattle". Social Problems. 52 (3): 419–441. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.398.3220. doi:10.1525/sp.2005.52.3.419.
• Banks, R. Richard (December 2003). "Beyond Profiling: Race, Policing, and the Drug War". Stanford Law Review. 56 (3): 571.
• Stephanie R. Bush-Baskette (2004). "12. "The War on Drugs as a War on Black Women"". In Meda Chesney-Lind; Lisa Pasko (eds.). Girls, women, and crime: selected readings. SAGE. ISBN 978-0-7619-2828-7.
• Ruiz, Jim; Woessner, Matthew (Autumn 2006). "Profiling, Cajun style: racial and demographic profiling in Louisiana's war on drugs". International Journal of Police Science & Management. 8 (3): 176–197. doi:10.1350/ijps.2006.8.3.176.
• Illya Lichtenberg (March 2006). "Driving While Black (DWB): Examining Race as a Tool in the War on Drugs". Police Practice & Research. 7 (1): 49–60. doi:10.1080/15614260600579649.
• Katherine Beckett; Kris Nyrop; Lori Pfingst (February 2006). "Race, Drugs, and Policing: Understanding Disparities in Drug Delivery Arrests". Criminology. 44 (1): 105–137. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2006.00044.x.
• Bobo, Lawrence D.; Victor Thompson (Summer 2006). "Unfair By Design: The War on Drugs, Race, and the Legitimacy of the Criminal Justice System" (PDF). Social Research. 73 (2): 445–472.
• Andrew D. Black (Fall 2007). ""The War on People": Reframing "The War on Drugs" by Addressing Racism Within American Drug Policy Through Restorative Justice and Community Collaboration". University of Louisville Law Review. 46 (1): 177–197.
• Veda Kunins, Hillary; Bellin, Eran; Chazotte, Cynthia; Du, Evelyn; Hope Arnsten, Julia (March 2007). "The effect of race on provider decisions to test for illicit drug use in the peripartum setting". Journal of Women's Health. 16 (2): 245–355. doi:10.1089/jwh.2006.0070. PMC 2859171. PMID 17388741.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
• Beckett, Katherine (June 2008). "Drugs, Data, Race and Reaction: A Field Report". Antipode. 40 (3): 442–447. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8330.2008.00612.x.
• Fellner, Jamie (2009). "Race, Drugs, and Law Enforcement in the United States". Stanford Law & Policy Review. 20 (2): 257–291.

• Johnson, Devon (2003). "Round Up the Usual Suspects: African Americans' Views of Drug Enforcement Policies". Conference Papers -- American Association for Public Opinion Research.
• Holloway, Johnny (2006). "Past as Prologue: Racialized Representations of Illicit Substances and Contemporary U.S. Drug Policy". Conference Papers -- International Studies Association: 1–19.
• Jeff Yates; Andrew Whitford (2008). "Racial Dimensions of Presidential Rhetoric: The Case of the War on Drugs". Conference Papers -- Midwestern Political Science Association: 1.

• Erik Eckholm (May 6, 2008). "Reports Find Racial Gap in Drug Arrests". The New York Times.
• Webb, Gary. "War on drugs has unequal impact on black Americans." (Archive) San Jose Mercury News. August 20, 1996.