The attempt to control drugs in the United States has its roots in the 1960s. There have been numerous attempts and approaches that have been used to deal with drugs and try to control its usage and movement in the country. This has come with some failures that suggests a new system must be implemented to improve and enhance the status quo. The purpose of this paper is to critically analyze and review two chapters of a book which describes the relationship between race, drugs and incarceration. This will evaluate the main narratives of the chapters and evaluate the application and implication to the broader realities of the war on drugs.
Chapter 2 of the book discusses the tradition of legislating and ensuring that certain substances that are deemed dangerous are banned. Therefore, the chapter focuses on the Prohibition and the Eighteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. This shows several pointers and features that are linked to the history of this. This chapter is mainly descriptive and from that analysis, prescriptions and dominant trends and patterns are identified and critiqued.
America’s tradition form colonial times was to regulate and legislate to avoid the abuse of substances amongst people who were considered inferior to the Anglo-Saxon American. The standard of prohibition was to prevent the abuse of alcohol and other substances amongst minorities
“The effort to control alcohol spanning a century dominated local, state and national campaigns”. This is because each state used its own powers to create unique laws that prevented the abuse of alcohol. Prohibition was led by the progressives and the religious who thought alcohol was against hard work and prevented slaves, Indians and servants from misbehaving and focusing on work. Thus, Prohibition was mainly viewed in a protectionist and patriarchal context. Apparently, the White majority of America believed the minorities – Blacks, American Indians, lower-class Whites and Chinese had to be kept in check otherwise they would misbehave in America and destroy the country.
There was the need to make laws that will keep the servant class from climbing the social ladder and this culminated in the disenfranchising of this class of people so decisions could be made for them. This view supported prohibition and limitations that were placed on minorities. Prohibition was always defended by drawing harsh comparisons and justifying control over the minorities and servant class.
In the south, it was based on the idea that drinking alcohol destroyed and person and made him a disorderly. In the north, prohibition was justified on the grounds of scientific knowledge which were coercive rather than forced.
Progressives had an agenda of legal reforms and it was meant “to eliminate gambling, prostitution, prizefightings and even spitting and swearing”. These act were all seen as disorderly behavior. Thus, Prohibition and prevention of alcohol abuse was seen as a part of the process towards preventing social decay.
There were issues that were brought to the fore to defend the need for prohibition and this included the Anti-German feeling of World War I which was used as a basis to close German-owned breweries in America. Thus, the campaign for the Eighteenth Amendment got to its peak in 1917 and this opened the door for Prohibition. The lobbying continued and there were several actions that were meant to promote temperance in preparation for a law that would ban certain substances.
Alcoholism was viewed as a problem of the Blacks in America and was seen as something they used as an escapism which prevented them from doing the low-class jobs that were assigned to them in the 1800s and the early part of the 1900s. In a period of segregation, the Black communities were seen as communities with people who had problems, thus, there was a lot of racial scapegoating that was done to link the negatives of alcoholism to Blacks. There was a lot of propaganda against Blacks drinking and this extended to the demand for Blacks to be disenfranchised due to a belief that they are genetically prone to substance addiction.
A white supremacist reverend once said that “Blacks are “child-people” requiring protection from “the perils of liberty””. This was the basis for the patriarchal approach towards patrolling Black communities and preventing them from achieving their normal goals and roles.
Chapter 3 of the book identifies that there were several overlaps between prohibition and the movement to control hard drugs like cocaine, heroin and marijuana. Evidence shows that America prohibits and criminalizes substances on two different phases
“First, the substance must be reconceptualized as dangerous, debilitating, and of no legitimate value, Second, the user must be reconfigured as socially marginal and ignorant, or contemptuous, of community standards and moral decency-the kind who responds only to the stern intervention of the criminal law,”.
These two pointers indicate that the negative elements of a substance is brought to the fore and this is followed by the need to prevent the substance from getting to minorities. This is because minorities are already demonized in America and they are seen as negative people who will abuse and misuse the substance so there is the need to take over and prevent these minorities from literally misbehaving in America.
Chapter 3 shows that the abuse of hard drugs was cancelled and prevented through the presentation of conspicuous empirical evidence that showed the negative effects of hard drugs. The use of hard drugs in America was mainly something that occurred in the 1800s. Opium was brought into America through Chinese migrants and the use of opium was mainly limited to the Chinatowns of America. Since opium was seen as destructive and it was limited to the Chinese, there was no effort to deal with it in the 1800s.
However, it became a problem when it became apparent that opium will leave the Chinatowns and find its way into White America. Also, marijuana was connected to Mexicans who viewed it as the “loco weed” (craze weed). Thus, when it became apparent that Americans could fall for it and abuse it in a recreational sense, there was the need for limiting these drugs. And this came by first presenting the danger and negativity of the drugs.
The fear of medical addiction turning into actual addiction caused a lot of media campaign to be instituted against the abuse of drugs and this led to claims that America could become a drug addicted nation. This was shown empirically and thus, there was the need to find a way to demonize the drug and make it look bad.
In the mid-1900s, the Whites in the southern states feared blacks might start using cocaine and as such, they criminalized it within state legislature. A prominent doctor wrote about the “Negro cocaine fiends”. Part of his work stated that “There is no escaping the conviction that drug taking has become a race menace in certain regions South of the line cocaine frequently drove men insane, and the insane cocaine fiend could turn murderous”.
Marijuana was associated with crime and criminal lifestyles. The Federal Bureau of Narcotics sought to present a case against marijuana because it gave them more power and also fulfilled the anti-Mexican sentiment in America at that time. It was all based on lobby, and the corruption of the youth and the use of propaganda against minorities who were inherently viewed as dangerous
Furthermore, international controls and limits by entities like Great Britain forced America to start controlling opium and other hard drugs. These controls made it imperative for America to act by making laws that criminalized various drugs and substances from getting onto its soil or moving to other lands via its boundaries.
Analysis of the Tone of Chapters
The tone is one of an opinionated paper. It seem to be presenting information in one way to show that minorities are often picked upon. Thus, it can be said that the paper is somewhat focused on proving and using prescriptive systems and processes to identify the ways through which minorities were utilized and abused as a means to get the US to make laws to protect them.
Therefore, it can be said that in the United States, the minorities are the target and the object of the law against drugs. The chapters tend to prove a position that asserts that the United States makes laws that target Blacks, Indians, Mexicans and Chinese because they are seen to be the perpetrators of drugs. This seem to answer the thesis that “America historically made laws against minorities and this was meant to ensure that minorities were kept as an underclass who were credited with all the problems and issues in society. Thus, drug laws were mainly presented in ways that made Blacks and Mexicans as targets even before the law was made. Therefore, it cannot be said that the chapters reviewed in the book are not neutral. They are opinionated and they aim at proving a point rather than using neutral and standardized scientific methods to prove the reason for law enforcement in drug matters.
Empirical versus Normative
Normative statements are about what ought to be whilst empirical statements are about what actually exists. “Ought-to-be” perceptions are about things that the researcher can present on the basis of generally accepted norms on a given subject. On the other hand, empiricism is based on the utilization of scientific methods to critique data within the context of a set of variables in order to draw conclusions on a given subject.
Aspects of the chapters critiqued are normative. This is because they seem to bring together data to prove a given end – that minorities were targeted and used as an excuse to make drug and substance abuse laws in the United States. This suggests that there is some kind of disregard for what actually happened. This is because there might have been many reasons and most of the information could be critiqued in different forms and different angles. However, they were interpreted in ways that sought to present the laws that were made as detrimental to minorities. Thus, it is somewhat prescriptive and normative in outlook.
However, there is overwhelming evidence that the researcher went great lengths to prove what actually existed. This is because there is the use of empirical statistics and information that are duly referenced using the methods of social sciences that shows that there was a great deal of demonizing and presenting a patriarchal position to prevent minorities from corrupting society through the use of drugs. This was done through the conduct of in-depth research into the subject and the identification of the main things that were actually done.
Thus, all in all, it can be said that the research is more of an empirical one. The methodology might make it appear as normative, but in reality, it uses more scientific methods. Although they might appear selective, none of the claim seem to be wrong or poorly presented. There is a general trend towards the use of scientific methods to identify the historic trends and how minorities were treated in the time in question.
Towards Improving the Quality of the Research
There could be the broadening of the scope of the research to cover an array of things that were in vogue in the era under review. This includes the need to bring up information about what actually happened and how there are different competing claims that could have come up.
Also, there are significant aspects of the situation that were not included – like the smuggling and illegal activities that occurred after Prohibition which shows that minorities were less likely to seek banned substances. This shows that statistics could have been presented in a much clearer fashion and this would have presented a better picture than it was presented in the chapters reviewed.
Furthermore, it can be said that there were fewer counter arguments in the chapters. There were different competing claims that people who do not agree with White supremacy might present. None of these arguments were presented and critiqued. Rather, there were explanations that supported claims for minorities and this present a troubling issue in the entire paper.
The Best Way towards the War on Drugs
Drugs are personal offences and crimes that individual commit to themselves. Most people in America are asking for government to stay as far away as possible from the citizens. Therefore, libertarian ideas of allowing people to do as they wish is more appropriate in dealing with the war on drugs. This is because drugs destroy individuals and if there are checks and controls, then there could be ways of dealing with drugs than the current system. There should be the decriminalization of some drugs except the most dangerous ones like cocaine and heroin. Some people need to be given care and attention and helped to prove themselves if they are found with cocaine or heroin. This is because the use of drugs is in itself destructive and on the other hand, asking a person to go to prison after all the stress of going through police procedures is a little disproportionate. So a more medicalized approach could be utilized.
The war on drugs is not very relevant in the 21st Century where the fears of drugs are generally eliminated. From the two chapters, it could be perfectly possible if America focuses on the good of its drug users and then try to criminalize the people who sell and transport drugs. These are people who need to be continuously criminalized because they tend to exploit and abuse the law for drugs. The drug war is winnable through a more compassionate system rather than an adversarial system that targets certain people. Paternalism must stop and a more sensitive system must be put in place.
Surprising Claims in the Paper
The most surprising inferences from the chapters is the fact that minorities were treated with so much paranoia. These were official positions that were very negative towards minorities and very little has been done to restore the positive image of minorities. Thus, it is surprising that the most powerful country in America could do these things and make little or no effort to right the wrongs of the past. More must be done to avoid the abuse of laws relating to minorities and improve and enhance the minorities in their quest for a better life without drugs.
Works Cited
Provine, Doris Marie. Unequal Under the Law: Race in the War on Drugs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007. Print.
