The War on Drugs catchphrase and campaign become ubiquitous in the early ‘70s when President Richard Nixon signed the Controlled Substances Act into Law, declaring drug use “public enemy number one”

A half century since President Richard Nixon initiated the War on Drugs, we're still relying on outdated and unsuccessful approaches to curb drug use.

As leaders in our own community (1) lobby for more punitive measures to combat visible drug use – particularly fentanyl – it is crucial to consider the broader historical context of drug policy in the United States.

The War on Drugs catchphrase and campaign became ubiquitous in the early ‘70s when President Richard Nixon signed the Controlled Substances Act into Law, declaring drug use “public enemy number one.” (2)

But who really was the State’s “public enemy number one?”

Nixon’s domestic policy advisor, John Ehrlichman admitted the War on Drugs was initially motivated by racial prejudices and aimed at criminalizing Black people and anti-war activists, in a 1994 interview. (3)

However, drug policies targeting marginalized and impoverished communities date back to the early 1900s.

For example: The Smoking Opium Exclusion Act of 1909 (4) targeted Chinese immigrants and prohibited the importation and use of opium for smoking.

In 1914, the Harrison Narcotic Act taxed regulations for cocaine and other opiates. American missionaries in China led this effort and asserted the racist notion that white people were charged with protecting “inferior races” from drugs. (5)

In the early 1920s the Prohibition Era introduced the 18th Amendment prohibiting the production and sale of alcohol. This led to an unregulated market for bootlegged liquor, which was expensive and mostly accessible to the middle class and wealthy. Thousands of people lost their lives due to the consumption of cheap, potent, and low-quality toxic moonshine. (6)

Sound familiar? Hint: Fentanyl.

The Prohibition Era led to an unregulated market for bootlegged liquor, which was expensive and mostly accessible to the middle class and wealthy. Thousands of people lost their lives due to the consumption of cheap, potent, and low-quality toxic moonshine.

Fast forward to 1937, the Marijuana Tax Act imposed heavy federal taxes and penalties on cannabis users. Harry J. Anslinger, the first commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, led the campaign and promoted racial biases and false claims about its effects on crime. Anslinger deliberately used the term "marijuana" instead of "cannabis" to link the drug with Mexican immigrants. (7)

In 1986, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act took center stage, introducing mandatory minimum sentencing schemes, including that infamous 100-to-1 ratio between crack and powder cocaine sentences. Its encore in 1988 added an overly broad definition of conspiracy into the mix. These laws flooded the federal system with people convicted of low-level and nonviolent drug offenses. (8)

What do all these policies have in common? They failed.

Instead of addressing the root causes of addiction and abuse, these laws embraced punitive measures and criminalization.

On average, every 25 seconds someone is arrested in the United States for drug possession, according to Human Rights Watch. (9)

In 2016, more than 46% of prison inmates were convicted due to drug offenses, that’s about 84,000 people. (10) Jail does not lessen drug use nor does it help those addicted to drugs. Instead, this approach not only fails to curb drug use but also places a heavy financial burden on taxpayers, tearing apart families and wreaking havoc on people's lives.

Mass incarceration also further perpetuates the cycle of poverty. A criminal record poses significant economic obstacles for those seeking reintegration. It hampers employment opportunities, slashes earnings, jeopardizes economic security, and blocks access to public benefits.

Additionally, a 2013 study published in the British Medical Journal (11) found that efforts to control the illegal drug market were ineffective and damaging. Drug manufacturers adapted to legal enforcement, lowered prices, increased potency, and catered to customer demand.

Between 1990 to 2007, the price of heroin dropped 81% while the purity increased 60% and the price of cocaine fell 80% while purity increased 11%. (12)

This War on Drugs is unsustainable and harmful to the public. As drug users fear legal repercussions, they are less likely to report contaminated substances. They are also more likely to seek out stronger substances, thereby increasing the risk of overdose. This fear also deters people struggling with addiction from accessing services.

These policies stigmatize people.

So what do we do?

Empower social workers and medical professionals to advocate in communities for policy changes based on their expertise. This will raise awareness of substance-abuse disorder and the harmful impact of prohibition policies on disadvantaged communities.
Provide funding and resources to local organizations for assisting drug users.
Educate law enforcement and local judiciaries to eliminate racial profiling and discriminatory practices, understand addiction's impact on people's lives, and prioritize rehab over prison sentences.
Establish safe-use sites where needles, gauze, and other tools are available, with staff on hand in case of overdose.
Allocate funding for rehabilitation programs to provide an alternative to incarceration.
Support reintegration programs for individuals after rehabilitation. This is a nationwide issue that reverberates internationally and has not worked. The United States should adopt a strategy that highlights education, harm reduction, and rehabilitation to improve public health, safety, and equality for all.

Sources:

War on Drugs: A Legacy of Injustice

Sisters’ Newest Board Members

Welcome to Sisters, Brenna!