Failure or Success: More of the Same

A journalist remarked to me at a conference conducted by the Drug Policy Foundation that he believed that at some point the gap between what the Drug Warriors were promising and what they were achieving would become so apparent that the U.S. citizenry would be forced to seriously consider decriminalization. Unfortunately, I do not share his optimism.

The gap between what the prison system has promised and what it has achieved has been apparent for over a century, but there are few (in this country at least) calling for the abolition of prisons. On the contrary, the Administration is building more and more prisons and a large segment of the public seems to support this extravagant, useless and destructive expense.

The logic behind prisons and the War on Drugs seems to be something like this: prisons have been a failure, more prisons will be a success; punishment has been a failure, therefore, more punishment will be a success; criminalization and enforcement have been a failure, more criminalization and enforcement will be a success. It's not the kind of logic that appeals to every intellect, but it is apparently sufficient for many.

In fact, the political climate of the past decade has produced an increasing willingness to mobilize repressive strategies to deal with many social problems, especially those social problems that most affect the poor and marginalized. The zeal for repression seems to be absent in, for example, sentencing guidelines for corporate criminals, and the prosecution of S&L racketeers and subverters of the Constitution. We seem a very long way from any turn-around in the basic preference for repressive tactics concerning drugs. In state after state, city after city, more and more repressive means are proposed to deal with the "drug problem."

The Governor of Alabama, to give but one example, in January 1990 called for a series of state laws to combat drug use. Included were provisions to:

•    establish the death penalty for drug dealers who kill,
•    mandate a minimum of one year in jail for anyone convicted of dealing or using drugs,
•    mandate 25 years in prison for "drug kingpins,"
•    implement a $1,000 "user fee" to be paid by anyone convicted of using drugs,
•    establish an adult court for 16-year-olds who push drugs,
•    publish drug abusers' pictures in the newspapers,
•    allow drug testing in the workplace, and finally to
•    give confiscated drug money and property directly to police officers (Montgomery Advertiser, 1/10/90a).

These provisions are similar to other provisions being adopted all over the country. The trend then is not toward decriminalization of drugs, or their legalization, but away from it. And one of the beauties of the War on Drugs is that both success and failure can be used to justify doing more of the same.

However, the real road forward is not more of the same. The real road forward must involve a fundamental change in the way we perceive the world and ourselves. We must move away from a cultural predisposition to confront the world and our own problems not as teachers, or as gardeners, but as policemen. We simply cannot continue to confront the world as policemen.

The War on Drugs Is Too Beneficial to Give Up

As I have argued many times, I do not believe the primary intent of the War on Drugs is to stop drug trafficking or drug use. The War on Drugs is a tool in a larger war that is about increased social control. William Bennett, the Drug Czar, (or as some say the Drug Bizarre) said himself that the issue was an issue of authority and control. The Wall Street Journal (12/29/89) echoed Bennett when it editorialized: "This nation is suffering a drug epidemic today because of the loosening of societal control in general..." The real agenda, as the Drug Warriors have so plainly stated, is increased social control.

The Wall Street Journal editorial, for example, continued by arguing that the remedy to the drug epidemic should include maintaining and increasing the stigma of drug use. Drug users should be stigmatized more not less, so that they may be controlled more effectively. Both domestically and internationally, the War on Drugs has been used as a mechanism for vast expansions of state power and state control. This can be seen domestically in moves to allow warrantless searches, allow the introduction of illegally seized evidence, asset seizures, random drug testing, the militarization of housing projects, and the incarceration of pregnant women for drug use, among other measures. Internationally, it can be seen in a disdain for international law, increased use of the military in the Drug War, assassinations, kidnapping, and invasions.

Because the War on Drugs functions as such an effective tool for the expansion of state power, it is too useful to be given up, and I do not see legalization being seriously considered much less coming about in the near future.

Be that as it may, it is necessary that we continue arguing for legalization if for no other reason than to point out the hypocrisy of the Administration's position, and to unpack the lies that are being used to justify this expan sion of state power.

The Holes in the Legalization Argument

There are, however, as I see it, a number of serious holes within the legalization argument, and these holes have been and continue to be used to discredit the legalization movement. Briefly,! see three major holes in the legalization argument which must be addressed. First, the legalization of drugs will not solve the fundamental social problems that exist in this society, or the fundamental problems that exist in relation to the Third World. Those of us arguing for legalization, therefore, must constantly stress that even though legalization will alleviate some of the social problems we are now experiencing, the fundamental problems of social and economic inequality and injustice will remain after legalization. Calls for legalization, therefore, must include a call for fundamental social and economic change: a call for social justice.

Second, legalization cannot be perceived of, and cannot afford to be a middle class movement. Legalization is, or should be a human rights issue, an issue of the right of people to determine their own lives. Legalization cannot be a movement focused on decriminalizing the drugs of preference of the middle class while condemning the'users and sellers of other drugs to harsher and harsher police control, surveillance and punishment. The legalization movement must be a movement for the legalization of all drugs, not just soft end drugs like marijuana.

Third, those in the legalization movement must consider carefully the terms of any legalization deal that may eventually be offered. We cannot and must not accept the legalization of drugs at any cost, for example, at the cost of an even greater erosions of civil and constitutional guarantees. And this is the outline of any legalization deal I can envision given the present political context.

Calls for Legalization Must be Accompanied by Calls for Socioeconomic Justice

The road forward must include measures to decrease social and economic inequality and a serious consideration of the quality of life in a society characterized by rampant drug abuse, legal and illegal. The standard of living of the poorest segments of the population in this country has decreased substantially in the past decade. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has produced figures indicating that in 1987, the poorest fifth of U.S. families received only 4.6 percent of the national family income. The richest fifth received 43.7 percent (Bell, 1)14/90). The top 10 percent of the population holds nearly 65 percent of the national wealth (Prowse, 1990). The gap between rich and poor families (a gap which had consistently been related to high crime rates) was larger than any in the last 40 years. The number who were without adequate housing, poorly educated, and without health care was also the largest reported in forty years (Bell, 1/14/90).

As Henry Aaron, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., has noted: "We went backward on poverty and homelessness, and the distribution of income became dramatically less equal" (Prowse, 1990). In the late 1970s an estimated 25.5 million U.S. citizens lived below the official poverty level. In 1988, that figure was almost 32 million. This means that the percentage of the population living in poverty (as officially defined) rose from 11.5 percent to over 13 percent of the population. This figure includes almost a fifth of all children. And blacks and Hispanics are the most affected. Over 25 percent of Hispanics live below the official poverty line, and a third of all blacks (Prowse, 1990). The poor, or near-poor who rent housing, spend roughly 70 percent of their incomes on rent and utilities (Prowse, 1990).

The Administration's policies exacerbate the problems of hopelessness and poverty which make drug trafficking a more viable option, and drug taking as one of the few reliefs from the dismal conditions of life for marginalized populations.

In May of 1990, roughly half the states began cutbacks'on caseloads for the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children. Vouchers given under this program supply 4.5 million expectant and new mothers, and children with supplemental food. Many States began cutting caseloads by eliminating women and young children who though undernourished showed no signs of malnutrition. It was expected that these women and children would be put back on the rolls when they did show signs of malnutrition. This pathetically short sighted policy forces women and children to become more unhealthy in order to receive benefits. The WIC program has been one of the most successful governmental programs — decreasing infant mortality and preventing illness (Pear, 5/29/90).

Doing something about social and economic injustice means more than making speeches about a "kinder and gentler" America, (or a "kinder and gentler" PDF for that matter), or photo-ops in housing projects, or token social programs.

George Bush, for example, received praise for proposing to add $500 million to the budget for Head Start in 1990, the largest budget increase in the program's history. But one-year pre-school programs for impoverished children will not solve the problems of inequality, of poverty. They will not even solve the problems of a few Head Start children. Several studies have indicated that the gains children make in such programs do not last throughout their school careers. Other problems such as the dismal quality of schools Head Start children eventu ally attend, family disintegration and the disintegration of neighborhoods due to the economic and social policies of the past decade, are part of the reason why (Chira, 2/14/ 90).

The legalization of drugs would decrease many of the problems we now see in the inner cities — the violence of competition for turf, uncontrolled dosages of drugs, uncontrolled prices, organized crime involvement — but it would not eliminate the problems of poverty, unemployment, and underemployment, and despair all of which are associated with crime.

The Legalization Movement Must Take into Consideration the Concerns of the Black and Hispanic Communities

Another hole in the legalization argument, seized on recently by the right, lies in its failure to draw the black and Hispanic communities into the movement and the movement's failure to adequately speak to the concerns of these communities. Some leaders in the black community have joined in charges that legalization is a frivolous issue discussed by "intellectuals" at "cocktail parties." Some have gone as far as charging that legalization would be a form of genocide.

I respectfully submit the following reasons why this unholy alliance over the drug issue between some segments of the black community and the likes of Orrin Hatch and Bill Bennett has come about.

First, some segments of the legalization movement feed the charge of class based advocacy by working for the legalization of some drugs off the backs of other types of drugs, arguing that the drug they want to legalize is safe, unlike all the rest of the dangerous drugs which should remain illegal. This leaves the impression (perhaps not false) that the middle class essentially is seeking to decriminalize its drugs of choice while abandoning the users and sellers of other drugs. The Wall Street Journal expressed this argument forcefully in an article about decriminalization (12/29/89): "The unspoken thought behind many of the calls for surrender is that the middle classes can take care of themselves and the ghettos are hopeless."

Second, after a decade of social service cuts and neglect of marginalized groups the situation of despair and hopelessness, anger and alienation, in the inner cities is so great that any attempt at any solution especially to the violence that is associated with illegal drug trafficking is welcomed. This is the reason why we see residents of housing projects inviting the National Guard into their neighborhoods. In addition, the drugs that are the cheapest at the moment, are also the most destructive and the black and Hispanic communities are seeing a destruction of their members which is even more serious than that traditionally experienced as the result of racism and discrimination.

Third, Administration propaganda has influenced the black and Hispanic communities as well as the general population. Because of this, the problems in inner city neighborhoods are seen by many not as primarily problems of social and economic injustice or the problems caused by the illegality of drugs, but as problems caused by the drugs themselves. This is the case even though much of the violence that is associated with drugs is violence over turf and violence that is always associated with the control of an illegal workforce, and not violence committed by those solely under the influence of drugs.

The fourth major reason for this unholy alliance over the drug issue, I would suggest, is political exhaustion. The black community fought an heroic struggle in the 1960s, only to see many of the gains they had fought and indeed died for, eroded. The prospect of once again taking on the real enemy, the state, is more threatening than fighting the drug dealers. The drug dealers are on the street, George Bush, Ronald Reagan, and the Supreme Court are not.

The legalization movement is not effectively taking on the issues of social and economic exploitation of the marginalized segments of the populace which are related to the legalization issue, and consequently the movement is not receiving the support it should from these segments of society.

This fact leaves the legalization movement open to charges of triviality. The Wall Street Journal in an editorial at the end of 1989 stated that: "...these otherwise illustrious citizens are essentially frivolous in their advocacy..." (12/29/89).

Legalization Must Not be Accepted at Any Cost

The establishment of the prison system holds a great many lessons that should be heeded by the legalization movement. The prison system was established by reformers, people who wanted to leave behind the barbarity of corporeal punishment. However laudable their intentions, however, their efforts brought about unintended consequences — the establishment of an even more coercive and insidious form of social control. The reforms that eventually led to the establishment of the prison were not designed to punish less, but to punish more effectively. What is likely to happen with the legalization of drugs is similar only worse. The measures currently being proposed and implemented seem to be designed to both punish more and to punish more effectively. The present trend in the criminal justice system and in the society in general is a bifurcation of the population — a dividing of the population into manageable, tractable individuals on the one hand and "social dynamite" or "social junk" on the other. The social dynamite will be increasingly repressed and social junk will be increasingly abandoned, and the repression and the abandonment will be justified by drugs.

One of the real dangers of the decriminalization movement is that advocates, in their zeal for decriminalization, will be willing to accept decriminalization at any cost — the further erosion of civil and constitutional guarantees, the abandonment and destruction of marginalized populations, the acceptance of increased state surveillance and control.

An increasing part of the Drug War rhetoric is this bifurcation of the population — the innocent and the guilty — the law abiding citizen and the criminal — us and them. It is a dangerous trend which can lead to the demonizing of a whole segment of the population and a consequent license to take any measure desired to deal with them.

Political Awareness

It is evident that we have a severe problem with political awareness in this country, a disturbing problem of a populace which seems increasingly willing to accept easy answers to complex problems. In a Washington Post poll at the end of 1989, for example, less than half of the adults interviewed were aware of the fact that the government's role in the Iran Contra affair had been to sell arms to Iran and divert part of the proceeds to the
Contras. 28 percent thought that it was the reverse — that the government sold arms to the Contras and diverted money to Iran. In comparison, in the same poll, 75 percent of adults could name a football team that had played in the Super Bowl in the 1980s (Morin, 1/1/90). Tom Wicker, writing in The New York Times (10/10/90) asserted that: "Nothing so damages government credibility and public trust as the exposed lie of a formerly trusted leader..." But, this is obviously not true. Perhaps this is because there are no trusted leaders anymore, former or otherwise, or because the population in general seems not to know, or care, that a lie has been exposed.

Which ever, this is not a culture which encourages intellectual activity, or communicates the joy of a conflict in ideas. Robert W. Pittman, the creator of MTV has noted that in developing the cable network, he and others were merely capitalizing on a profound difference between how younger people receive and process information, and how the pre-TV generation did. He argued that the "TV babies" do many things at once — watch TV, do their homework, talk on the telephone — all at one time (Pittman, 1124/90). Although he argued that this is characteristic of the TV babies, it increasingly is characteristic of the population as a whole. The pace of life has increased to such an extent that people want information quickly, in the least complicated form possible. This is perhaps why Ronald Reagan was considered "the great communicator."

And, increasingly people want images — people communicate not through discourse, but through images. There is a kind of impatience with discourse, with anything that cannot be absorbed immediately with the least amount of work possible. MTV and politicians are well aware of this. It has become apparent that one image of Willie Horton is worth fifty well reasoned arguments. This also explains the frustration in the media with Jimmy Carter who insulted the country by holding to the notion that the world was a complicated place, by failing to reduce every issue to black and white, the good guys and the bad.

The right has become very adept at capitalizing on this tendency. They have attempted to reduce the legalization argument to several images — professors at cocktail parties, surrender, crack babies, distributing "crack in the pabulum," and "putting heroin in milk" — to mention but a few.

The legalization movement has a great deal of work to do. It must refine its arguments, close the holes, create its own images, and embark on an endeavor of aggressive education. Most importantly, however, the legalization movement must develop a political coherence that will give its arguments increased credibility in what has become a desperate struggle for the hegemony of ideas.

References

Bell, Derrick (1/14/90) Stuart's Lie: An American Tradition. New York Times: 23A.

Chira, Susan (1/14/90) Preschool Aid for the Poor: How Big a Head Start? The New York Times: 1A.

Montgomery Advertiser (1/10/90) Hunt Calls for Pay Hikes, Tough Drug Laws: 7A.

Morin, Richard (111/90) Americans Ill-Informed in Information Age. Montgomery Advertiser: 1A.

Pear, Robert (5/29/90) Many States Cut Food Allotments for Poor Families. The New York Times: 1A.

Pittman, Robert W. (1124/90) We're Talking the Wrong Language to "TV Babies." The New York Times: A15. Prowse, 1990. The Wall Street Journal (12/29/89) The Devil You Know: A6.

Wicker, Tom (10/10/90)