White Addiction’s Softening of the War on Drugs
The War on Drugs has been a hot topic in the mouths of many American politicians for decades. It has been regarded as a literal war, waged against those who would sully American values with the use and sale of drugs. Every generation has felt the sting of this war in different ways, and the results of this “war” have ravaged entire communities. Historically, much of the dialogue around drug use and sale has been racially charged and targeted at the inner city.
The discourse around opioid drug use has been different. Crack was a black problem, so the solution was to be harder on crime. Meth was the drug of poor, rural whites and gay men, so we stigmatize their faces with campaigns that mock them. Now with the opioid epidemic we see politicians rallying to end drug addiction when the face of this epidemic is middle or upper class and most definitely white. In February of 2016, President Obama proposed a 1.1 billion dollar bill to combat the problem. This is a stark contrast to the crack epidemic, where money was allocated to raid black neighborhoods and incarcerate black men for either the use or sale of crack cocaine.
“When the nation’s long-running war against drugs was defined by the crack epidemic and based in poor, predominantly black urban areas, the public response was defined by zero tolerance and stiff prison sentences,” said New York Times journalist Katherine Q. Seelye. Now we see a radical shift, and nowhere is as good a place to look as the 2016 US Presidential election.
Hillary Clinton’s plan is laid out plainly on her website and is much softer than her attitude towards drug addiction in the 1990s. “Substance use disorders are chronic diseases…”, her website states. “Everyone who needs treatment and ongoing support should be able to get it. We should invest in and empower our recovery community organizations.”
Whether or not this change in attitude for Mrs. Clinton is the result of a genuine change in perspective or if there is racism involved can be debated for years, but there is no denying that the discourse surrounding addiction has changed. Trump’s plan, on the other hand, specifically targets Mexican drug cartels, which he claims are responsible for today’s heroin epidemic. This is not unusual for the presidential candidate, who has built much of his platform around building a wall between the US and Mexico. He suggests the need for more funding in law enforcement, and states that the best way to take on the problem is to let law enforcement handle it.
“How does heroin work with these beautiful lakes and trees?”, Trump said at a rally in New Hampshire, a state that has seen the devastation of this epidemic. This statement alone is loaded with racially coded language in a state that is predominantly white.
It should be noted that while it is important to criticise popular attitudes towards drugs, especially that of those who have previously not been on the side of those struggling with addiction, it is still important that these attitudes and perceptions change. We are living in an era of Black Lives Matter, where racial issues have overcome many obstacles in order to reach the light. White America is not the only demographic being ravaged by this epidemic, it is simply the demographic that grabbed attention and sympathy. It is the demographic that forced America to realize drugs are not just the “problem” of black and brown communities. Those struggling with addictions come to these addictions in different ways and for different reasons, but they are people in need of help.
I can only hope that as we discuss race and how to overcome racism, we create policy that is inclusive. Addiction should be regarded as a medical problem for all who are struggling, and decriminalizing the use of these drugs — whether it be heroin, oxycontin, or methamphetamine — would be the most appropriate step towards aiding those who need our help. If we can keep non-violent offenders out of prison and help them through rehabilitation programs, then we as a country can begin the long road towards healing from the hurt opioids and other illicit drugs have caused.
This is an epidemic without a doubt. Lives have been and will be lost, but the numbers do not need to be so high. It is our duty as a nation to help those struggling with addiction, but it is also our responsibility to acknowledge the history behind the War on Drugs. It is our responsibility to acknowledge that attitudes have changed and it is no coincidence that they changed at the resurgence of heroin and opioid dependence. If we are going to change policy, we must reflect. We cannot afford to systematically disenfranchise entire communities in the name of a war we cannot win and a war that does not need to be fought. We cannot afford to act without reflection.