Send comments, tips,
and suggestions to:
DrugWarRant
Join us on Pete's couch.
couch

DrugWarRant.com, the longest running single-issue blog devoted to drug policy, is published by the Prohibition Isn't Free Foundation
facebooktwitterrss
June 2021
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  

Archives

Authors

Anniversaries

Sharing with you a post I made today to a different audience…

__________

This is a disturbing anniversary. Today, June 17, is 50 years since President Nixon declared drugs “public enemy number one” — a speech that kicked off a massive and horribly damaging offensive that has continued to this day.

This is also a time when a whole lot of people are outraged at the notion of “critical race theory.” Why? Because they’ve been encouraged/duped by opportunistic politicians who wish to inflame partisan culture wars along with ridiculous non-issues like Mr. Potato Head and Dr. Seuss. (This will connect to the drug war. Patience.)

Many who oppose critical race theory don’t know what it actually means.

Now, when it comes to things like cancel culture and critical race theory and other culture-war fodder, there is an actual need for informed discussion on the nuances and the real-versus-manufactured outrages, but we don’t see much of that. For our purposes here, I will define critical race theory as “a practice that examines America’s history of racism and how it still impacts the country today.” Simple.

That brings us back to the drug war. And while there are a lot of topics I avoid commenting on because I don’t know enough, the drug war is something I’ve been studying and writing about extensively for two decades.

Yes, some call this the 50th anniversary of the war on drugs, but that’s a bit arbitrary. The origins go back much further and they’re almost all steeped in racism. The war on drugs is an essential part of America’s history of racism.

The first anti-opium laws in the 1870s were directed at Chinese immigrants. The first anti-cocaine laws in the early 1900s were directed at black men in the South. The first anti-marijuana laws, in the Midwest and the Southwest in the 1910s and 20s, were directed at Mexican migrants and Mexican Americans.

From a Hearst newspapers national column: “Was it marijuana, the new Mexican drug, that nerved the murderous arm of Clara Phillips when she hammered out her victim’s life in Los Angeles?… THREE-FOURTHS OF THE CRIMES of violence in this country today are committed by DOPE SLAVES — that is a matter of cold record.”

And as marijuana found its way into the jazz scene, some of the animus shifted to blacks (for more on the drug war and jazz, also look up Harry Anslinger and Billie Holiday).

“Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men’s shadows and look at a white woman twice.” (Hearst newspapers, nationwide, 1934)

Attributed to Harry Anslinger: “…the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races… Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.”

Fast forward to the 1970s and racism was still connected to Nixon’s expanded war on drugs. As John Ehrlichman said: “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.”

“But Pete,” you may say, “that’s ancient history — things that only old people like you care about. We don’t do that (or say things like that) anymore.”

OK. Let’s take a look at another piece of history.

Saturday will be the 35th anniversary of the death of Len Bias – a promising University of Maryland basketball player who died of a cocaine overdose. With his death in the news, Tip O’Neil and the Democrats jumped into overdrive to create legislation putting more teeth in the drug laws. The result was the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, crafted by a 44-year-old senator from Delaware named Joe Biden. While the intention of these laws may not have been specifically racist to those writing them, the results were most definitely racist because of other factors in society. These laws resulted in the infamous 100-1 threshold disparity in sentencing between the chemically identical crack cocaine (used more by blacks) and powder cocaine (used more by whites). For more details, read my article about this: Len Bias – the death that ushered in two decades of destruction.

The reason that this history should concern us is that decades of sentencing disparity based on institutional/systemic racism (defined as societal patterns and structures that impose oppressive or otherwise negative conditions on identifiable groups based on race or ethnicity) have resulted in huge numbers of black Americans being disenfranchised (particularly in those states that still do not allow ex-felons to vote) and has, in many areas, dramatically affected family and other societal structures.

Understanding the history of the drug war is an essential element in crafting better ways of dealing with drugs and addiction in the future, and ensuring that laws don’t wittingly or unwittingly affect one group disproportionately.

There were times during my days of writing about the war on drugs when I was under some pressure not to talk about it, particularly since I worked at a university (that pressure never came from the university administration, fortunately). Some of that pressure came from other faculty, some from political leaders. But it turns out that learning history is important. As are facts. Even in education.

Fortunately, grassroots conversations about the history of the drug war have mostly overcome the federal government’s resistance to any meaningful discussion. And people have better come to realize that declaring war is not a good drug policy.

Today, 65 percent of voters support ending the war on drugs and 83 percent say it has failed.

Let’s learn about and understand the dark parts of our history, not for blame assignment, or to make people feel bad about themselves, but to fix the broken things that have resulted (and still persist in often unexpected ways) — and to ensure that we don’t make the same mistakes again.

True patriotism is caring about the health and welfare of our country and working to make it better. It’s not about making empty nationalistic gestures of faux fealty while avoiding learning about our past.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

5 comments to Anniversaries

  • NorCalNative

    Well said Pete.

    One of the fathers of CA MMJ, deceased physician Tod Mikuriya said, “It wasn’t just marijuana that got prohibited, it was the truth about history.”

    Any and all, patriotic impulses I may have go towards liberating and normalizing cannabis. How? If I’m in speaking distance of a medical professional I’m yakking about medicinal benefits.

    Racism is a huge and integral part of drug prohibition, so much so that the the real intended benefits to Christian Imperialism go mostly overlooked by society.

    I can’t imagine the Pentagon is rooting for legalization of all drugs. That’s exactly what we need to do.

    • Son of Sam Walton

      It’s only logical for the Pentagon to support the end of the drug war. Take away X% of a very large and growing threat along the border and in Mexico and Central America. And it will defund 60% of the entire annual revenue of all the worlds’ terrorist organizations, gangs, and mafias, while also reducing Billions in money that governments use for covert operations. It also reduces inner crime and local/Federal corruption that makes National Security a threat and knocks out what the banks have been doing ever since the War on Drugs began. If the big banks are laundering money to the Pentagon’s very enemies, then chances are, American troops will still be in the Middle East past 2011, let alone well past 2014. And if the War on Drugs is 60% of our enemy’s funding and that kind of money goes much further over there than over here, then well over 60% of the $2 Billion a week the Pentagon was spending for Iraq and Afghanistan is because of drugs. Cleaning up costs more than destroying it. So, for Their 60%, we’ve got to waste 80% of all our military’s spending for just drugs between 9/11 and today. People forget that an ounce of good blow in Oxford England usually goes for about 200,000 Euros/British pounds at roughly 100 euros/pounds per gram and 28 grams per ounce. That’s how much drugs cost society when they are illegal and forced to play war.

  • darkcycle

    Hey Pete….do you still have a Cafe Press store? Cannot find the link, and I need to replace my fabulous 4:20 clock. Old one has bit the dust.

  • Servetus

    Critical race theory is a science. Evidence from 2015 to 2021:

    28-DEC-2015 — “…In America, race and ecology are somewhat confounded — whites are more likely to live in relatively hopeful ecologies, and blacks are more likely to live in relatively desperate ecologies,” said Williams. “We wanted to examine whether Americans were actually using race as a cue to ecology, and if so, whether providing ecology information independently from race information would lead people to decrease their use of race stereotypes.” […]

    …the researchers note several important caveats for interpreting their findings.

    First, said Neuberg, “although in present-day America blacks are more likely than whites to be from desperate ecologies, and whites are more likely than blacks to be from hopeful ecologies, this association between race and ecology is far from perfect, meaning that race is an imperfect cue to ecology. Second, even stereotypes that do possess meaningful kernels of truth are rarely perfect representations of any particular individual. Third, because people are biased to exaggerate perceived threats, stereotypes of those from desperate ecologies are likely to be more extreme than is warranted by the actual behaviors of people living within those ecologies.”

    Findings of this study have potentially important implications for understanding the content of race stereotypes in America.

    “Race stereotypes have far-reaching consequences,” said Williams. “Stereotypes about groups can lead to negative prejudices and discrimination directed towards members of those groups. If we can understand why American race stereotypes take the particular forms they do, we may be able to find new ways of reducing racial prejudices and discrimination.”
    AAAS Public Science News Release: Researchers find that in race stereotypes, issues are not so black and white

    And recently from Cornell University:

    3-MAR-2021—…In new research published Feb. 22 in Philosophical Transactions of Royal Society B, Krosch used neuroimaging to show that this effect seems to be driven by white conservatives’ greater sensitivity to the ambiguity of mixed-race faces rather than a sensitivity to the Blackness of faces; this sensitivity showed up in a neural region often associated with affective reactions.

    Taken together, these study results suggest white political conservatives might overcategorize mixed-race faces as Black not because of an aversion to Blackness, but because of an affective reaction to racial mixing more generally, Krosch said. The study appears in a special issue about political neuroscience.

    “We knew from our previous work that conservatives tend to categorize more mixed-race faces as their ‘socially-subordinate’ race, or according to hypodescent,” Krosch said, “a principle closely related to notorious ‘one-drop’ rules, used to subjugate individuals with any nonwhite heritage by denying them full rights and liberties under the law from the earliest days of American slavery through the Civil Rights Era.”

    In the new study, Krosch said, she and the other researchers wanted to figure out why this is the case: “Specifically, we wanted to know if conservatives and liberals differ in the way they are literally seeing, thinking or feeling about mixed-race faces.” […]

    In the results, conservatives exhibited a lower threshold for seeing mixed-race faces as Black and this was related to their higher sensitivity to racial ambiguity in the anterior insula. Conservatives also made decisions faster than liberals. Together, these results indicate that conservatives might feel an aversion to racial ambiguity of any kind which causes them to resolve racial ambiguity “quickly and in the most culturally accessible or hierarchy-affirming way – that is, according to hypodescent,” Krosch writes.

    Notably, conservatives and liberals did not differ in their responses to ambiguity or face Blackness in brain regions related to lower-level visual processing or social cognition. “Rather than visually perceiving or thinking about mixed-race faces differently, conservatives might maintain a stricter boundary around whiteness (compared to liberals) because of the way they feel about racial ambiguity,” Krosch wrote. […]

    AAAS Public Science News Release: Neuroimaging reveals how ideology affects race perception

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>