THE MOVEMENT, PART I

People of Color Standing Up, Speaking Out for Harm Reduction

ACTIVISTS OF ALL STRIPES AND PERSUASION — drug policy reformers, AIDS activists, liberals, rogressives, even conservatives — often use the term "empowerment" to legitimize their speaking for communities not yet actively speaking for themselves. Many social and political movements originated with an empowered class speaking for a disempowered class. However, such "ventriloquism" can only be temporary. Sooner or later, disempowered classes must take ownership of their issues and develop their voices if they want to bring about lasting change.

A prime example is the United States Congress. Although these elected officials pledge to uphold the Constitution — which originally identified people of color as a fraction of people of European descent — the Congressional Black Caucus and the Hispanic Caucus have emerged from within this body as the main articulators of the interests of people of color.

The power dynamics of racism and sexism are omnipresent — even among the most progressive movements. And so it is with our movement: harm reduction and drug policy reform. However, as our movement grows and matures, those communities most impacted by the drug policies of this country — communities of color — must develop their own voices.

Historically, communities of color have been absent from the drug policy reform movement for various reasons. Whatever those reasons, we can all agree that for the movement to be successful, it must include all communities affected by the harmful drug policies developed and executed (no pun intended) in this country. And the movement must reach out to them — rather than sitting by, waiting for those on the outside to approach us.

The historical reluctance of both African-American and Latino communities to embrace harm reduction and alternatives to prohibition stems, in part, from their lack of accurate information about the entire subject area and, in part, from their basic distrust of solutions posed by groups not representative of their communities. Communities of color, then, need to be involved in the development of alternatives and solutions, not merely the recipients of someone else's ideas on the subject.

True, there are those in communities of color who will never understand nor accept basic drug policy reform — as in the majority community. However, those of us in the movement must bear some responsibility for the current situation. We have to carry the message to communities of color. And we have to carry a message that acknowledges their realities and then gains their interest, their respect, and eventually their trust.

Imani Woods, of Progressive Solutions in Seattle and, in many ways, a spiritual leader for people of color, spoke to these issues more than a year ago in a column in The Drug Policy Letter entitled, "Black Folk: We Got to Wake Up!" As usual, Imani hit the nail right on the head placing responsibility in exactly the right place: "Five years ago, it occurred to me that, since black folks catch the most hell because of the way America reacts to drug use, I ought to be right up front in the struggle to institute harm reduction practices in the U.S.A."

The Harm Reduction Coalition's conference in Oakland last September was an historic opportunity for people of color to meet and discuss how to voice their concerns in this movement, and Imani took the lead in establishing the dialogue. Out of the various informal meetings, a group came together to acknowledge the lack of voice and take responsibility for changing that. This initial meeting allowed people to vocalize their differing perceptions of the drug policy reform movement and to set a course of action to involve communities of color. The group met again in Washington, D.C., at DPF's 10th International Conference on Drug Policy Reform to develop a structure for the group's efforts.

At the DPF conference, Clarence Lusane, author of Pipe Dream Blues, a political exploration of the drug war's impact on communities of color, joined us.' He enthusiastically agreed to work with us as a political mentor. Conference activities and responsibilities relegated us to only a few hours of discussion, but the time we shared yielded rich benefits: We picked a working title for the group; we agreed upon a political orientation; and we set some goals for the group.2 Further meetings and group planning await grant funds since we have full-time jobs in other parts of the movement, but our commitment to "People of Color in Harm Reduction" (POCHR) is firm.

POCHR' s basic thrust will be to build a network of organizations based in and working for communities of color that will act in concert — both within and outside the movement — to further the interests of communities of color concerning substance abuse and AIDS concerns, from a political context. We will develop materials, position papers and reading lists; we will become repositories of information concerning people of color and substance abuse and AIDS, and encourage specific research on these issues. Our most ambitious goal is to sponsor opportunities for communities most impacted by drug policy to come together to develop their own strategies and solutions. POCHR's founding sterns from our deeply held conviction that drug policy reform, harm reduction, and AIDS policymakers must consider and respond to very different political and economic realities within communities of color.

Viewing a reform idea like drug legalization from the context of neighborhoods devoid of employment opportunities, devoid of stable families due to unemployment and incarceration, devoid of relevant educational opportunities, devoid of proper housing, and subjected to the most virulent forms of racism, you see that the consequences of drug policy reform are vastly different for this type of community. Consequently, communities of color are concerned about different issues and see the issues from a different perspective; therefore, they must be approached quite differently.

For communities of color, harm reduction and drug policy reform are part of a larger "mosaic" — "a struggle for social justice," as Joyce Rivera Beckman, executive director of St. Ann's Corner of Harm Reduction in the Bronx, told the Oakland HRC meeting attendees. And the mosaic must include poverty, racism, sexism, homophobia, and so on. Taken out of that context, drug policy reform and harm reduction are philosophies that "cut both ways," which leaves communities of color ambivalent about supporting naked drug policy reform. POCHR understands and acknowledges this, and will provide the necessary political context. We are committed to developing the vehicle to move this agenda forward.

1 'Some other attendees included: Cheryl Simmons of NIA Consulting Services in Oakland, Calif.; Paula Santiago of the Harm Reduction Coalition in New York City; lmani Woods of Progressive Solutions in Seattle; Meredith Benson of the Linde-smith Center in New York City; and Adam Smith of the Drug Reform Coordination Network in Washington, D.C.

2 'Some goals include: (I) Network/Political Organizing: fostering communications, publishing a newsletter, monitoring political developments; (2) Grass-roots Activities: developing education materials, coordinating public education events and a speakers' bureau, writing position papers, facilitating research, and building group alliances. Other long-term goals available upon request.

Cheryl Epps directs DPF's Government Affairs Program in Washington, D.C., and Keith Cylar is the director of Housing Works Inc. in New York City.
For more information on other members of People of Color in Harm Reduction, see the next page, or contact Cheryl Epps. someone else's ideas on the subject.