How Drug Criminalization Worsens Addiction
Written by Eva Merritt
One aspect that makes the U.S legal system stand out globally is its historically punitive approach to crime and punishment. A major question frequently debated is the United States’ punitive attitude towards crime more harmful than it is beneficially? In the realm of drug offenses, the answer is clear. A study shows that half of people in state prisons had a substance use disorder, but only 1 in 10 received treatment. The criminalization of drugs not only unfairly and disproportionately imprisons those struggling with addiction—but it deepens social conditions linked to addiction and legally mistreats the issues of extreme drug usage. As experts seek better addiction policy, reform in the form of decriminalization is vital to achieve better policy.
One of the most notable policy failures in response to addiction is Richard Nixon’s War on Drugs initiative. For some context, in the 1960s, the usage of recreational drugs rapidly increased, leading to targeting substance abuse to be a central focus of Nixon’s presidency. In the early stages of the War on Drugs, Nixon introduced many strict initiatives, like increasing federal funding for drug-control agencies, mandatory prison sentencing for drug crimes, and the creation of the Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention (SAODAP) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Many questioned Nixon’s motives behind the War on Drugs, even more when domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman, claimed in an interview that Nixon’s campaign targeted two groups specifically, ”the antiwar left and black people”, adding, “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.” Ehrlichman’s comments suggest that race and stigmatization played a huge role in Nixon’s campaign for substance control. However in the mid-1970s, the War on Drugs halted, following Jimmy Carter’s campaign to decriminalize marijuana and the decriminalization of marijuana possession in eleven states. Despite Carter’s efforts, they were short lived, as in the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan reinvigorated many of Nixon’s War on Drugs Policies, launching campaigns like “Just Say No” and passing the Anti-Drug Abuse Act. Regan’s policies were heavily criticized for further deepening racial disparities and targeting certain demographics. Reagan’s remodeled drug policies contributed to mass incarcerations for nonviolent drug crimes, as data shows The policies led to a rapid rise in incarcerations for nonviolent drug offenses, from 50,000 in 1980 to 400,000 in 1997. As the War on Drugs shifted the public's perception on drug addiction from a medical issue to a criminal one, marginalized communities became increasingly vulnerable to arrest, and it left many of these groups disadvantaged in the long-run. Despite the rates of illicit drug use being roughly similar between Black and White Americans, people of color have been widely incarcerated in comparison to their white counterparts. According to the National Library of Medicine, nationally, the rate of persons admitted to prison on drug charges for Black men is 13 times that for White men, and in 10 states, the rates are 26 to 57 times those for White men. The increased incarceration of Black communities bled into other aspects of community life, as it led to systematic disenfranchisement and long-term harm.
The way law treats and views drug addiction has become a central topic in terms of criminal justice reform. Drug criminalization plays a major role in talks surrounding sentencing reform and incarceration policy. Drug laws vary drastically across different jurisdictions. Federally, possession, use, or distribution of illicit drugs is prohibited, with strict penalties accompanying drug convictions, like mandatory prison terms for numerous offenses. On the state level, it is parallel to federal laws, but can vary. For example in Washington, those convicted of manufacturing, delivering, selling, or possession of a controlled substance, can serve up to 5 years in prison, no more. Whilst federally, offenders convicted of drug possession of illegal substances are subject to up to 1 year in prison and a minimum fine of $1,000 for first time offenders. Another polarizing topic in the scope of drug laws is the criminalization of marijuana. There are many varying arguments behind why some believe marijuana should or shouldn’t be illegal. Many oppose the criminalization of marijuana due to its historically racist roots. At the start of the Mexican Revolution in 1910, many Mexicans that came to the U.S. brought marijuana alongside with them. As many feared Mexican immigrants, many states enforced laws banning pot. Additionally, the term cannabis was replaced with marijuana, which many believe was done so to showcase the "foreignness" of the drug. Furthermore in the 1930s, Harry J. Anslinger, head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, sought to federally ban the drug and launched a campaign—which was heavily rooted in racism. Anslinger relied on much racist rhetoric, like that the majority of pot smokers were minorities; marijuana had negative effects on “degenerate races”; and that white women smoking pot would result in them having sex with black men. As Anslinger’s rationalization for banning cannabis was much more preconceived than scientific, many cite his claims to justify why cannabis should be legalized, as it wasn’t banned for scientific reasons in the past, but rather biased. Legalizing cannabis would also make it more viable and legit, versus the illegal market many obtain it through. Overall, legalizing cannabis would work well in favor of communities of color and minorities, as drug laws generally have been utilized to criminalize these communities. As 38 states have legalized medical cannabis and 23 legalized recreational cannabis, highlighting how drug criminalization clashes with medical and scientific reasoning. The medical benefits and consequences of cannabis have been another contributor deciding why it should or shouldn’t be illegal. Evidences points to many different answers, as on the pro side, cannabis can be used to help with seizures and side effects of cancer, like nausea. Contrastly, cannabis is also known to worsen mental health issues, as it can trigger psychotic symptoms. Additionally, evidence reveals that usage of cannabis on the developing brain can make someone more vulnerable to substance usage in the future. Yet some argue that cannabis helped their quality of life. If we look at it from a medical perspective, it can be understood that the effects of cannabis are very mixed, and have their share of pros and cons, and with cautionary use, it can be very beneficial. However, the legal system classification of drug usage fails to align with medical evidence. Many drug laws unfairly target under-resourced communities, and historically have racist connotations. Modernly, the legal system still fails to aid the damage drug laws have done to minority communities. In order to reform drug laws, a stronger presence of medical rationale needs to be utilized and better classify the issue of addiction in the legal system.
Another major issue with drug criminalization is the harm it inflicts on incarcerated individuals and the legal barriers they face after release. Behind bars, unregulated drug use is a regular occurrence, and its implications are worrying. Many individuals convicted of drug crimes already struggle with drug addiction, and the moment they step in their cell, it only gets worse. In jails and prisons, overdose deaths have become one of the most endemic issues in the U.S. A datapoint from the Marshall Project shows that from 2001 to 2018, the number of people who died of drug or alcohol intoxication in state prisons increased by more than 600%. In these facilities, many dangerous drugs are present without any regulations, and those who use drugs are often reluctant to ask for help or medical intervention. Even when they do, medical care has much room for improvement, as it is scarce and mediocre. This reveals a disturbing truth about how the U.S legal system treats drug abuse: displacing those with drug addiction into an unstable environment that lacks treatment. While states like California have enforced treatment programs including Suboxone and methadone—the most effective medications for opioid abuse—nationally, prisons and jails have been slow to follow their footsteps. This slow approach only further deepens the overdose crisis in jails and prisons. Many administrators refute this with the belief that incarceration helps inmates “get clean” and that it's harder to obtain drugs compared to their past situations. But is that really true? Numerous statistics suggest otherwise. Data states that From 2007 to 2009, an estimated 58% of state prisoners and 63% of sentenced jail inmates met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition criteria for drug dependence or abuse. Oftenly, life behind bars only opens another paradox for drug addiction without adequate treatment. But what happens when inmates serve their time? The trajectory of their lives become defined by their offenses, as incarceration only increases post-overdose risk and criminals' records limit access to jobs, housing, and education. Not only do their offenses hold them back, but so does the stigma that accompanies those incarcerated. Formerly incarcerated people are welcomed back by a severe affordable housing crisis in the U.S, as fair market rents have increased at a rate that has outpaced wages so much that there is a state in the country where a full-time minimum wage job is enough to rent a two-bedroom unit. Incarceration only worsens the risk of homelessness and housing instability in an already expensive and dementing housing market. Additionally, those formerly incarcerated are often turned down by landlords or employers due to their criminal record. While there is individual fault, it is also the result of policies that consider incarceration or criminal history as a legal and valid reason to deny housing, despite even if it is less-severe offenses. The structural stigma that is attached to incarceration deafens any chances of rehabilitation or re-entry into society. As mentioned earlier, the War on Drugs produced many of these punitive policies. For example, ’One strike’ policies federally and locally restrict formerly incarcerated access to housing, as mandatory bans are imposed on those invited for drug involvement and expanded authority given to landlords to evict tenants and restrict access because of criminal records or prior incarceration. Stigma not only deprives those of economic prosperity and housing, but self-worth and value, as they are economically and socially rejected of a spot in society.
Drug laws also construct unequal impacts across race and income. Incarceration is more than just a sentence—its a generational curse. Data suggests that High rates of incarceration also result in growing numbers of black children with an imprisoned parent, and those children are more likely to have symptoms of depression, behavioral problems, and lower school achievement. Even smaller offenses produce collective disparities for numerous communities. Furthermore, Delores Jones-Brown says policing strategies such as broken windows policing has resulted in increased arrests of people of color for nonviolent, low-level offenses that negatively affect their ability to participate in civic life. Drug laws only further facilitate the over-policing of marginalized communities, and this systematically harms the ability and resources of these communities. Additionally, incarceration has negative effects on the economic aspect of minority communities. For example, In 2019, the median wealth of Black families with an incarcerated family member was only about $3,970 to $50,400 for white families with an incarcerated family member. This suggests that drug and other offenses have a disproportionate financial impact on minority households. Additionally, Black and Hispanic households have much higher rates of criminal legal system contact, meaning they are more likely to have family members who were incarcerated or arrested compared to White households. As minority households are more likely to be vulnerable to over-policing and wealth inequality, drug law reform must find a way to dismantle its racist roots. But how do we decide what behaviors should be deemed as ‘criminal’? Historically, race has played a big role in deciding is criminalized. Drug laws have been used as a systematic tool against minority communities, as these laws often targeted activities that these communities were more likely to engage in. A report from the National Academies explains that Criminalization can produce disproportionate impacts on racial groups because laws, policing, and prosecution are shaped by social context. For example in the 1980s and 1990s, drug laws expanded rapidly as drug use became a more popular activity, intensifying punishments in ways that affected Black and Latino communities the most. Additionally, as police increased arrests for low-level drug offenses (like the War on Drugs), Black and Latino individuals were more likely to be arrested when drug laws became more punitive. Overall, drug laws have historically been and still are extremely disadvantageous to minority communities, as they worsen the social conditions that enable addiction. Unfortunately, they create an impermissible cycle of socioeconomic harm to these communities. When trying to figure out answers as to how to reform this system, one of the biggest questions arises—how can we break a cycle that we created?
Drug criminalization has been proven ineffective at addressing addiction and instead has only intensified it. Rather than providing treatment, the legal system punishes those who struggle with substance abuse and only worsening the social conditions around them. Treating drug use as a public health issue, not a punitive one, is essential to meaningful reform. The legal system continuously ignores the medical realities of addiction and life that follows incarceration. Continuing the same punitive path only promises more damage.
