The American Crack Epidemic: How the War on Drugs was as Detrimental to Society as Drugs Themselves.
Lucas Carneiro
U.S. History
4/21/2013

Throughout the mid-20th century, Americans have experimented with illicit drugs, from marijuana to LSD. In the late 70s and early 80s, the high cost of cocaine made it the drug of choice for wealthy, elite, White Americans. On the other side of the social spectrum, lower-class African Americans sought an escape from their difficult circumstances in impoverished inner-city neighborhoods. They found refuge in crack, a smokeable form of cocaine, whose low production cost, high addictiveness, and debilitating nature made it the drug of choice for urban African American communities in 1986 (Reinarman, 1997; Watkins, 1998; Fullilove, 1998). The drug contributed to the increase in disease, violence, and poverty in these communities, turning inner-city neighborhoods into “war zones”. The U.S. Government’s War on Drugs campaign did little to solve this crisis, using aggressive, military tactics to address an epidemic surrounded by socioeconomic and health issues. In the 1960s, the Vietnam conflict among several unpopular moves by the U.S. government created a generation of rebellious, young Americans. This generation experimented with drugs in order to alter their state of mind, and to escape from the problems that came with politics and society. The generation of young “hippies” ignited a drug culture in the U.S. As time progressed, people became more and more dependent on drugs, primarily in suburban communities. Between 1973 and 1977, a survey showed that use of marijuana doubled from 12% to 24% (Robinson, 2002). This was proof that drug use was on the rise. In the late 70s and early 80s, cocaine became very popular among upper class Americans. In the early 80s, cocaine was being shipped to the U.S. in large amounts. As the supply increased greatly, the demand began to decline. Cocaine prices dropped rapidly, and dealers sought to maintain the value of their product. Dealers began to produce cocaine freebase, a purer, smokeable form of the drug that was expensive to make, and yielded a much more powerful high (Cooper, 2002, p.8). Despite its potency, freebase did not become very popular due to its extremely high cost. In need of a more profitable product, dealers began to produce a cheap, smokeable form of cocaine, called crack. Crack consumption spread across the U.S. rapidly, which is the reason that its use reached ‘epidemic’ proportions. The way that crack cocaine was marketed made it spread faster than any other drug in the U.S.. Despite the decrease in purity, crack still packed a powerful high. After being introduced to the market around 1985, it spread to every major city in the U.S. within 2 years. It was easily manufactured, could be sold at very low prices, and there was a steady demand as a result of addiction. Whereas powder cocaine tended to be used in private settings among more affluent people, crack was sold by and to a whole new class of people on inner-city street corners (Reinarman & Levine, 1997, p. 184). Crack was different from other drugs because unlike alcohol, LSD, and marijuana, it was highly addictive and created a strong dependency in the user. Because a dose of crack could cost as little as $2.50, poor, urban minorities could sustain an addiction, creating a steady market for drug dealers. The vast amount of people consuming the drug in poor communities inevitably integrated the sale of the drug into the local economy. As stated in a criminal law journal, “Dealers, users, and relatives of both have an interest in maintaining the trade. Indeed, these incentives may become particularly strong if the local drug markets are supported by buyers from outside the community. These revenues will make local drug dealers even more economically powerful.”(Moore, 1991, p. 552). Witnessing the success of dealers firsthand, young African Americans often resorted to dealing as a source of income. Many adolescents joined gangs whose crack dealings became rapidly integrated into the local economy. Association with gangs created a number of problems including increased violence, prostitution, and rampant crack cocaine abuse. Both dealing and consumption of crack resulted in crime or violence. According to an article in the Journal of Black Studies,

“Statistics show that drug users report greater involvement in crime and are more likely than nondrug users to have a criminal record. In addition, persons with criminal records are more likely than those without criminal backgrounds to report being drug users.”(Joseph & Pearson, 2002, p. 427).

Dealers used violence in order to protect themselves and their products, whereas consumers tended to perform criminal acts in order to support their addiction. The many health risks of crack contributed to its crippling effects in low-income communities. Crack itself was a different substance than powder cocaine, and came with many more health risks. When consumed, the user feels a quick and brief sense of euphoria, and then shortly after coming down, depression, anxiety, and withdrawal occurs. This withdrawal makes it very difficult for the user to discontinue consumption. Often, users with severe withdrawal may smoke crack continuously on binges lasting up to several days. Many health professionals believe that crack use contributes to the spread of STDs because it promotes risky sexual behavior. According to a survey of primarily adolescent African Americans, “A history of an STD was more likely to be reported by… those who combined crack use with sexual relations (51%) than those who did not (31%)”(Watkins & Fullilove, 1998, p. 48). Low birth weight was very common among women who consumed crack during pregnancy. The result of the epidemic was a generation of ‘crack’ babies born to mothers who abused crack. The significant health risks of crack brought the drug to national attention. The American people feared the drug, and the government needed to address the issue in order to satisfy the public. Richard Nixon declared a War on Drugs in 1971, in the midst of a counterculture movement. The approach of the War on Drugs at the time was to limit supply from foreign countries such as Colombia and Mexico, while simultaneously reducing demand in the U.S. (Moore, 1991, p. 544) As crack cocaine became an epidemic in 1986, Ronald Reagan sought to eliminate drug culture in the U.S. and to eliminate the demand for drugs within the United States. Rather than focusing on trafficking and foreign affairs, the Reagan administration went after drug dealers, hoping to solve the drug crisis from the ground up. The result was a set of laws that were directed towards dealers and users, which also gave much more severe punishment for crack related offenses compared to other drugs. The government successfully deterred the majority of Americans from drugs, however this approach failed to address the problem where it actually was: poor, urban, and minority communities. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 included a provision that created the disparity between federal penalties for crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses penalizing the possession of an amount of crack 100 times smaller than the amount of cocaine that would lead to a penalty for possession of powder cocaine (United States, 1986). This law blatantly targeted minorities. According to the Journal of Black Studies, The number of arrests for Black youths rose from approximately 200 per 100,000 in 1985 to twice that amount 4 years later, whereas that for White youths declined (Joseph & Pearson, 2002, p. 426). By punishing crack users more than users of powder cocaine, poor African Americans would be incarcerated while wealthy cocaine abusers would be seldom punished. As Craig Reinarman and Harry Levine said, “Politicians typically justified their harsh crack-era laws in terms of the need to deter people from using and selling crack. But in the context of persistently high unemployment and crushing poverty in the inner cities, imprisoning large numbers of people had the paradoxical effect of increasing the total number of youth involved in the illicit drug economy. One person’s arrest was another’s job opportunity. Meanwhile, even after years of unprecedented imprisonment, hard-core drug abuse, overdose deaths, and the spread of AIDS drag on unabated.”(Reinarman & Levine, 2004, p. 183)

This proved that the approach of the government to end the epidemic indirectly contributed to its spread. By incarcerating more street-level dealers and consumers, the government simply opened up job positions for new dealers to fill. This created a continuous cycle of incarceration and gang recruiting, leading to a radically disproportionate number of African Americans in state and federal prisons.
The disproportionate number of African Americans being incarcerated for drug offenses tore apart families and communities. Often, young African Americans resorted to crack dealing in order to support their family. According to a drug law expert, “49% of state and 44% of federal prisoners with children are African American.”(Honoré-Collins, 2005, p. 114). This is a staggering number, considering African Americans only make up about 12% of the total U.S. population. By taking parents away from their families, the U.S. government was effectively creating poor family environments, and putting many African American children into foster care. The representation of African American children in the foster care system exceeds all other ethnic/racial groups represented in the foster care system (Honoré-Collins, 2005, p. 113). By putting African American children in difficult situations, the Government was creating a new generation of adolescents with little sense of purpose or direction, many of whom would resort to crack dealing and abuse in the future. The U.S. government’s approach to the crack epidemic proved to be ineffective, and in some cases, may have worsened the situation. In order to see why the government’s response to the epidemic failed, one could look at the criminal and drug policies of other nations around the world. The Netherlands has the least punitive, most tolerant drug policies in the industrialized world. Despite using few resources and money to combat drug dealing and consumption, crack use remains rare, far less prevalent than in the U.S. (Reinarman & Levine, 1997) Canada, a country that shares many similarities with the U.S., maintains low rates of crime and drug abuse by providing more extensive welfare systems, including universal medical care, and by having a national race relations policy of multiculturalism. Together, these social policies minimize the formation of a large, poverty-stricken underclass in inner-city ghettoes in which African Americans and other minorities are overrepresented. Crack Cocaine was different from any other drug to ever hit the U.S.. From an economic standpoint, Crack was a marketing innovation. It brought money into the local economy of poor neighborhoods, and gave jobs to young African Americans. From a political standpoint, crack was an enemy that needed to be stopped. From a social standpoint, crack was a disease, which spread to poor, inner-city neighborhoods across the country. It contributed to the deaths of many people, due to gang violence or health issues. It put many young African Americans at risk of dying or facing criminal justice. Hundreds of thousands of African Americans were incarcerated in this period of time, many of whom performed nonviolent drug offenses. Although the drug killed many people, the way that the drug was combated ultimately ruined the lives of many more people, while intentionally establishing the position of African Americans in the lower class, and spending taxpayer dollars to pay for prison costs. Had the U.S. government provided more services to aid drug dealers and abusers, then the prison population would decrease, improving the conditions in low income communities while saving the government billons of dollars.

Bibliography

Cooper, Edith F. Emergence Of Crack Cocaine Abuse, The. Hauppauge: Novinka, 2002. Print.

Gross, Jane. "A New, Purified Form of Cocaine Causes Alarm as Abuse Increases." New York Times 29 Nov. 1985, Late City Final ed., sec. A: Print.

Honoré-Collins, Cynthia P. "The Impact of African American Incarceration on African American Children in the Child Welfare System." Race, Gender, & Class 12.3-4 (2005): 107-18. Print.

Joseph, J., and P. G. Pearson. "Black Youths and Illegal Drugs." Journal of Black Studies 32.4 (2002): 422-38. Print.

Moore, Mark H. "Drugs, the Criminal Law, and the Administration of Justice." The Milbank Quarterly 69.4 (1991): 529-60. Print.

Reinarman, Craig, and Harry G. Levine. Crack in America: Demon Drugs and Social Justice. Berkeley: University of California, 1997. Print.

Reinarman, Craig, and Harry G. Levine. "Crack in the Rear-View Mirror: Deconstructing Drug War Mythology." Social Justice 31.1-2 (2004): 182-200. Print.

Robinson, Jennifer. "Decades of Drug Use: Data From the '60s and '70s." Decades of Drug Use: Data From the '60s and '70s. Web. 09 Apr. 2013.

United States. Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Drugs and Crime Facts, 1988. Print.

Watkins, Beverly X., Robert E. Fullilove, and Mindy T. Fullilove. "Arms Against Illness: Crack Cocaine and Drug Policy in the United States." Health and Human Rights 2.4 (1998): 42-58. JSTOR. Web.