# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Contra Costa Community College District - Portal Login

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This video from hip hop legend Jay Z and acclaimed artist Molly Crabapple depicts the drug war's devastating impact on the Black community from decades of biased law enforcement.

The video traces the drug war from President Nixon to the draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws to the emerging aboveground marijuana market that is poised to make legal millions for wealthy investors doing the same thing that generations of people of color have been arrested and locked up for. After you watch the video, read on to learn more about the discriminatory history of the war on drugs.
Stay engaged with action alerts and news about drug policy reform.
The Early Stages of Drug Prohibition

Many currently illegal drugs, such as marijuana, opium, coca, and psychedelics have been used for thousands of years for both medical and spiritual purposes. So why are some drugs legal and other drugs illegal today? It's not based on any scientific assessment of the relative risks of these drugs - but it has everything to do with who is associated with these drugs.

The first anti-opium laws in the 1870s were directed at Chinese immigrants. The first anti-cocaine laws in the early 1900s were directed at black men in the South. The first anti-marijuana laws, in the Midwest and the Southwest in the 1910s and 20s, were directed at Mexican migrants and Mexican Americans. Today, Latino and especially black communities are still subject to wildly disproportionate drug enforcement and sentencing practices.

Nixon and the Generation Gap

In the 1960s, as drugs became symbols of youthful rebellion, social upheaval, and political dissent, the government halted scientific research to evaluate their medical safety and efficacy.

In June 1971, President Nixon declared a "war on drugs." He dramatically increased the size and presence of federal drug control agencies, and pushed through measures such as mandatory sentencing and no-knock warrants.

A top Nixon aide, John Ehrlichman, later admitted: "You want to know what this was really all about. The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying. 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. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."Nixon temporarily placed marijuana in Schedule One, the most restrictive category of drugs, pending review by a commission he appointed led by Republican Pennsylvania Governor Raymond Shafer.

In 1972, the commission unanimously recommended decriminalizing the possession and distribution of marijuana for personal use. Nixon ignored the report and rejected its recommendations.

Between 1973 and 1977, however, eleven states decriminalized marijuana possession. In January 1977, President Jimmy Carter was inaugurated on a campaign platform that included marijuana decriminalization. In October 1977, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to decriminalize possession of up to an ounce of marijuana for personal use.

Within just a few years, though, the tide had shifted. Proposals to decriminalize marijuana were abandoned as parents became increasingly concerned about high rates of teen marijuana use. Marijuana was ultimately caught up in a broader cultural backlash against the perceived permissiveness of the 1970s.

The 1980s and 90s: Drug Hysteria and Skyrocketing Incarceration Rates

The presidency of Ronald Reagan marked the start of a long period of skyrocketing rates of incarceration, largely thanks to his unprecedented expansion of the drug war. The number of people behind bars for nonviolent drug law offenses increased from 50,000 in 1980 to over 400,000 by 1997.

Public concern about illicit drug use built throughout the 1980s, largely due to media portrayals of people addicted to the smokeable form of cocaine dubbed "crack." Soon after Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, his wife, Nancy Reagan, began a highly-publicized anti-drug campaign, coining the slogan "Just Say No."

This set the stage for the zero tolerance policies implemented in the mid-to-late 1980s. Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates, who believed that "casual drug users should be taken out and shot," founded the DARE drug education program, which was quickly adopted nationwide despite the lack of evidence of its effectiveness. The increasingly harsh drug policies also blocked the expansion of syringe access programs and other harm reduction policies to reduce the rapid spread of HIV/AIDS.

In the late 1980s, a political hysteria about drugs led to the passage of draconian penalties in Congress and state legislatures that rapidly increased the prison population. In 1985, the proportion of Americans polled who saw drug abuse as the nation's "number one problem" was just 2-6 percent. The figure grew through the remainder of the 1980s until, in September 1989, it reached a remarkable 64 percent - one of the most intense fixations by the American public on any issue in polling history. Within less than a year, however, the figure plummeted to less than 10 percent, as the media lost interest. The draconian policies enacted during the hysteria remained, however, and continued to result in escalating levels of arrests and incarceration.

Although Bill Clinton advocated for treatment instead of incarceration during his 1992 presidential campaign, after his first few months in the White House he reverted to the drug war strategies of his Republican predecessors by continuing to escalate the drug war. Notoriously, Clinton rejected a U.S. Sentencing Commission recommendation to eliminate the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences.

He also rejected, with the encouragement of drug czar General Barry McCaffrey, Health Secretary Donna Shalala's advice to end the federal ban on funding for syringe access programs. Yet, a month before leaving office, Clinton asserted in a Rolling Stone interview that "we really need a re-examination of our entire policy on imprisonment" of people who use drugs, and said that marijuana use "should be decriminalized."

At the height of the drug war hysteria in the late 1980s and early 1990s, a movement emerged seeking a new approach to drug policy. In 1987, Arnold Trebach and Kevin Zeese founded the Drug Policy Foundation - describing it as the "loyal opposition to the war on drugs." Prominent conservatives such as William Buckley and Milton Friedman had long advocated for ending drug prohibition, as had civil libertarians such as longtime ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser. In the late 1980s they were joined by Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke, Federal Judge Robert Sweet, Princeton professor Ethan Nadelmann, and other activists, scholars and policymakers.

In 1994, Nadelmann founded The Lindesmith Center as the first U.S. project of George Soros' Open Society Institute. In 2000, the growing Center merged with the Drug Policy Foundation to create the Drug Policy Alliance.

The New Millennium: The Pendulum Shifts - Slowly - Toward Sensible Drug Policy

George W. Bush arrived in the White House as the drug war was running out of steam - yet he allocated more money than ever to it. His drug czar, John Walters, zealously focused on marijuana and launched a major campaign to promote student drug testing. While rates of illicit drug use remained constant, overdose fatalities rose rapidly.

The era of George W. Bush also witnessed the rapid escalation of the militarization of domestic drug law enforcement. By the end of Bush's term, there were about 40,000 paramilitary-style SWAT raids on Americans every year - mostly for nonviolent drug law offenses, often misdemeanors. While federal reform mostly stalled under Bush, state-level reforms finally began to slow the growth of the drug war.

Politicians now routinely admit to having used marijuana, and even cocaine, when they were younger. When Michael Bloomberg was questioned during his 2001 mayoral campaign about whether he had ever used marijuana, he said, "You bet I did - and I enjoyed it." Barack Obama also candidly discussed his prior cocaine and marijuana use: "When I was a kid, I inhaled frequently - that was the point."

Public opinion has shifted dramatically in favor of sensible reforms that expand health-based approaches while reducing the role of criminalization in drug policy.

Marijuana reform has gained unprecedented momentum throughout the Americas. Alaska, California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana for adults. In December 2013, Uruguay became the first country in the world to legally regulate marijuana. Canada legalized marijuana for adults in 2018.

In response to a worsening overdose epidemic, dozens of U.S. states passed laws to increase access to the overdose antidote, naloxone, as well as "911 Good Samaritan" laws to encourage people to seek medical help in the event of an overdose.

Yet the assault on American citizens and others continues, with 700,000 people still arrested for marijuana offenses each year and almost 500,000 people still behind bars for nothing more than a drug law violation.

President Obama, despite supporting several successful policy changes - such as reducing the crack/powder sentencing disparity, ending the ban on federal funding for syringe access programs, and ending federal interference with state medical marijuana laws - did not shift the majority of drug policy funding to a health-based approach.

Trump Era: DPA Pushes Forward Despite Challenges

The Trump administration threatened to take us backward toward a 1980s-style drug war. President Trump started building a wall to keep drugs out of the country, and called for harsher sentences for drug law violations and the death penalty for people who sell drugs. He also resurrected disproven "just say no" messaging aimed at youth.

2020 brought the additional challenge of the COVID-19 pandemic - a public health crisis that exposed the systemic issues within our society and revealed just how deeply the drug war permeates these systems. People who interact with these systems are unable to take the most basic of steps to prevent the spread of COVID-19 - including those in jail or prison, the homeless, people with substance use disorder, those who rely on access to medication-assisted treatment or medical marijuana, and immigrants. During this crisis, it is harder for them to engage in social distancing, and to access necessary medication assisted treatment - such as methadone or buprenorphine, or medical marijuana - as well as other health and harm reduction resources.

Despite these obstacles, we at the Drug Policy Alliance pushed forward with monumental drug policy reforms in the 2020 elections. In a historic, paradigm-shifting win and arguably the biggest blow to the war on drugs to date, Oregon voters passed Measure 110, the nation's first all-drug decriminalization measure. This confirms a substantial shift in public support in favor of treating drug use with health services rather than with criminalization.

Marijuana reform also won big. Voters in Arizona, New Jersey, Montana, and South Dakota passed measures to legalize marijuana for adult use. It was also a historic year for medical marijuana, with victories in Mississippi and South Dakota.

All across the country, in liberal states and conservative ones, people made their voices heard. And they said loud and clear that it is time to end the drug war.

New Administration, New Opportunities

Joe Biden has been elected the next President of the United States - and with every new administration brings new opportunities.

Biden has stated that it was a "mistake" to support legislation that ramped up the drug war and increased incarceration, including the '94 crime bill, when he was in the U.S. Senate. He now says we need a compassionate approach to problematic drug use.

At the Drug Policy Alliance, we agree. And we're ready to make change. We look forward to working together on a humane approach to drugs that reduces the role of criminalization and increases access to health based treatment and harm reduction services for people who need them.

We look forward to a future where drug policies are shaped by science and compassion rather than political hysteria.
Learn about DPA's victories in marijuana reform, criminal justice reform, and harm reduction.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This video from hip hop legend Jay Z and acclaimed artist Molly Crabapple depicts the drug war's devastating impact on the Black community from decades of biased law enforcement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
America is at war.We have been fighting drug abuse for almost a century.Four Presidents have personally waged war on drugs.Unfortunately, it is a war that we are losing.Drug abusers continue to fill our courts, hospitals, and prisons.The drug trade causes violent crime that ravages our neighborhoods.Children of drug abusers are neglected, abused, and even abandoned.The only beneficiaries of this war are organized crime members and drug dealers.

History of U S Drug Policy

Drugs first surfaced in the United States in the 1800's.Opium became very popular after the American Civil War.Cocaine followed in the 1880's.Coca was popularly used in health drinks and remedies.Morphine was discovered in 1906 and used for medicinal purposes.Heroin was used to treat respiratory illness, cocaine was used in Coca-Cola, and morphine was regularly prescribed by doctors as a pain reliever.

In 1930, the Treasury Department created the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.Harry J. Anslinger headed the agency until 1962 and molded America's drug policy.Under his tenure, drugs were increasingly criminalized.The Boggs Act of 1951 drastically increased the penalties for marijuana use.The Narcotics Control Act of 1956 created "the most punitive and repressive anti-narcotics legislation ever adopted by Congress.All discretion to suspend sentences or permit probation was eliminated.Parole was allowed only for first offenders convicted of possession, and the death penalty could be invoked for anyone who sold heroin to a minor (McWilliams, 1990, p.116)."Anslinger was critical of judges for being too easy on drug dealers and called for longer minimum sentences.He established a punitive drug policy with a focus on drug law enforcement.

The Modern Drug War

Reagan's demand side initiatives focused on "getting tough" on drugs.The program became known as the "zero tolerance" program, where punitive measures against users were emphasized.The 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse gave the drug user full accountability.Drug users were to be prosecuted for possession and accordingly penalized.Although some block grants were given for drug treatment, the rehabilitative efforts were insufficient to meet the overwhelming amount of drug abuse.Reagan's demand side drug policy largely reflects the colonial, or moralist view of addiction.

The Drug Debate

The National Institute on Drug Abuse estimated that in 1993 as many as 2.5 million drug-users could have benefited from treatment.Only about 1.4 million users were treated in 1993.Almost half of the nation's addicts were ignored.The government spent only $2.5 billion on treatment programs compared to $7.8 billion on drug law enforcement.The government needs to shift its funding from costly, unproductive drug eradication programs to meet treatment demands.
The War on Drugs:Is it a War Worth Fighting?
The UnitedStates has been engaged in a "war" for nearly 25 years. A war in which there is a great deal of confusion as to why we are engaged in it, and if we are in the war for the right reasons. The resolution of the war is curtailed by varying opinions and subjective statistical proof. The war which has been a continuing struggle, is the "war on drugs"At the heart of this war is a fundamental question:Is this a battle the United States can win?It is likely everyone will agree drugs are harmful, they have serious medical side-effects. Drugs are addictive; can ruin a family, a job, a life.I agree that drugs have very negative side effects, but is the solution to fight a very costly and ineffective battle to eradicate drugs entirely?Is this even a possibility?I am not so sure, and this paper will show that the war on drugs has likely caused much more harm than good.Further, it will explain why not all drugs are the same, explore some options, and look at the future of the United States, and of the world

We spend $50 billion per year trying to eradicate drugs from this country. According to DEA estimates we capture less than 10 percent of all illicit drugs. In this regard, I have a two part question 1) How much do you think it will cost to stop the other ninety percent?Too much.2) Does $50 billion a year for a 90% failure rate seem like a good investment to you?I am sure the answer is no.Has the cost of the War on Drugs in terms of billions of dollars, blighted lives, jammed prisons, intensified racism, needless deaths, loss of freedom etc., produced any significant change in drug availability or perceived patterns of drug use?Unfortunately not.Abraham Lincoln said "Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and make crime out of things that are not crimes."It is estimated that 45 million U.S. citizens have tried an illicit drug at least once. How many of the 45 million drug users do you feel we must incarcerate in order to win the war on drugs?Why does the FDA stand up for the right of adults to smoke tobacco, which is highly addictive and causes over 400,000 deaths per year, while decreeing that adults have no right to smoke marijuana, which is non-addictive and kills no one? Alcohol costs thousands of lives, and alcoholism is an accredited disease, but anyone age 21 or older can go to the liquor store and buy alcohol.Drug use is an acknowledged fact of life in every prison in the country. If we can't stop prisoner use of drugs, how can we rationally expect to stop average free citizens from using them?Despite signatures from 85 prominent groups and individuals, why has the Hoover Resolution (a call for an independent panel to revue existing drug policies) not been considered, accepted, or initiated? What lessons from alcohol prohibition lead you to believe that the current drug war will end in victory? At a time when working people are being asked to tighten our belts in order to help balance the budget, how do you justify increasing the funding to the drug law enforcement bureaucracy? Explain why supporting a failed policy of drug law enforcement has a greater priority than student loans or drug education programs.There are so many questions, with so few answers.Now we must consider the solutions.First one must understand what we are dealing with.

Certain drugs are much more serious than others.LSD was originally produced as an elephant tranquilizer and can obviously cause very violent and serious effects.There have been incidents of people, high on LSD, ripping their hands out of hand-cuffs, by breaking every bone in their hands.The scary things is these people didn't even feel it.Cocaine and crack are much more prevalent, very addictive, and can kill you the very first time you try them.Many will remember the great promise of basketball player Len Bias, whose life was taken after one night of experimentation with Cocaine.Heroine use is very addictive, leaves its users feeling and looking empty, and the spread of AIDS is proliferated by the sharing of needles for this drug.So all these drugs can be lumped into the "very serious/addictive" category, with obvious varying extremes. Should Marijuana fit into this category?A scientific study funded by the White House says no.The study showed, "Marijuana's active ingredients seem to have many medical benefits including pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation"(Rolling Stone, pg.32). The study also rejected the notion that marijuana is a "gateway drug."Many experts believed that using Marijuana is a stepping stone and once people can't get a high from pot, they will move on to more serious drugs.The study gave no proof that this gateway phenomenon existed, and seemed to point in the direction of at least reconsidering our current position on Marijuana.It is clear to me that Marijuana does not belong in the same category as the other drugs, and the proposition of legalization should be seriously considered.

What do we have to enjoy from legalizing Marijuana, and possibly other drugs, or at least regulating there use?Consider the experiences of Holland--a country where drugs fall under the jurisdiction of health agencies, not law enforcement, which has seen a decline in chronic use of hard drugs and casual use of soft drugs since decriminalization.If illegal drugs are so obviously harmful to people's health, why is it necessary to put so many American adults in prison to prevent them from using these drugs?If people want to take drugs, people are going to find a way to get drugs.The problem is the war on drugs is not attacking the right people.The people being hurt are the recreational users who get busted for having $50 worth of pot or cocaine in their pockets.These people aren't drug dealers, they aren't gang-bangers, they are people with families, that use drugs, and are put away for decades.Consider some simple figures:"The number of federal prisoners who are drug offenders is 55, 624, 50% ofwhom are non-violent first time offenders.59% of federal prisoners are incarcerated for drug chargers, compared to only 2.5% incarcerated for violent crimes.717, 720 Americans were arrested in 1997 for murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault (combined), while 695,200 were arrested for marijuana offenses alone" (Playboy, pg.47).I feel the last figures are the most telling.It just seems like the purpose of the war on drugs has been lost, and as a result of the powers that be not accepting an alternative, other battles are being lost as well. Jimmy Carter once said, "Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself"(Playboy, pg. 47).Currently this is not the case, and this is just another example of a need for change.

Where do we go from here?Clearly major steps need to be taken.I believe the first step is an admission by the administration that our current system doesn't work.The next step must be to find out what the opinion is on the streets and in the schools.Do the education and awareness efforts work?What makes someone decide to try drugs?What is the biggest influence on the child?Maybe by taking note of what other countries have done, for example Holland which was mentioned earlier, the U.S. can get ideas for some sort of compromise.It seems to me that the U.S. is set in its ways that drugs will not be tolerated and that this is a battle we must win.What must be realized is that changing our policies is not an admission of defeat.This shouldn't be a matter of egos or overly conservative opinions.The bottom line is that drug use needs to be reduced, the murders must be brought down, and the number of people incarcerated must be decreased.

References:

Collett, Merril.1989.The Cocaine Connection: Drug Trafficking, and Inter-American

McWilliams, John C.1990. The Protectors: Harry J. Anslinger and the Federal Bureau

Nadelmann, Ethan.(1991)."The Case for Legalization," in James Inciardi, ed., The

NY: HarperCollins College Publishers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
America is at war.We have been fighting drug abuse for almost a century.Four Presidents have personally waged war on drugs.Unfortunately, it is a war that we are losing.Drug abusers continue to fill our courts, hospitals, and prisons.The drug trade causes violent crime that ravages our neighborhoods.Children of drug abusers are neglected, abused, and even abandoned.The only beneficiaries of this war are organized crime members and drug dealers.

# data[].attributes.headline
“Community Dignity Takings”: Dehumanization and Infantilization of Communities Resulting from the War on Drugs 

# data[].attributes.subject
“Community Dignity Takings”: Dehumanization and Infantilization of Communities Resulting from the War on Drugs 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Contra Costa Community College District - Portal Login

# data[].attributes.headline
The War on Drugs as Harm to Persons: Cultural Violence as Symbol and Justification

# data[].attributes.subject
The War on Drugs as Harm to Persons: Cultural Violence as Symbol and Justification

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Contra Costa Community College District - Portal Login

# data[].attributes.headline
Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies

# data[].attributes.subject
Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
drug decriminalization in portugal: lessons for creating fair and successful drug policies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies by Glenn Greenwald :: SSRN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On July 1, 2001, a nationwide law in Portugal took effect that decriminalized all drugs, including cocaine and heroin. Under the new legal framework, all drugs

# data[].attributes.headline
What Can We Learn From The Portuguese Decriminalization of Illicit Drugs? 

# data[].attributes.subject
What Can We Learn From The Portuguese Decriminalization of Illicit Drugs? 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Can We Learn From The Portuguese Decriminalization of Illicit Drugs?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Abstract. The issue of decriminalizing illicit drugs is hotly debated, but is rarely subject to evidence-based analysis. This paper examines the case of Portug

# data[].attributes.headline
Drug Policy in PortugalThe Benefits of Decriminalizing Drug Use

# data[].attributes.subject
Drug Policy in PortugalThe Benefits of Decriminalizing Drug Use

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Drug Policy in Portugal: The Benefits of Decriminalizing Drug Use is the second in a series of reports by the Open Society Foundations' Global Drug Policy Program that documents positive examples of drug policy reform around the world (the first being From the Mountaintops: What the World Can Learn from Drug Policy Change in Switzerland). Drug Policy in Portugal describes the process, context, ideas, and values that enabled Portugal to make the transition to a public health response to drug use and possession. Now, with a decade of experience, Portugal provides a valuable case study of how decriminalization coupled with evidence-based strategies can reduce drug consumption, dependence, recidivism, and HIV infection, and create safer communities for all.
Conclusions
After 10 years of decriminalization, the subject of drugs has ceased to be controversial in Portugal. While a few lone voices continue to criticize the policy for political ends, their arguments have little traction with the general public or the legislature. Even though the IDT may be facing a cut in its budget at the present time, this is the consequence of the general economic crisis only, and not a reflection on support for the policy.

The evidence of the last decade has quelled even the fiercest opposition. Fears have not materialized. Portugal has not become, even to the smallest extent, a destination for drug tourists and decriminalization has not caused a sharp rise in consumption. João Goulão, the chairman of the IDT and main proponent of the Portuguese drug policy, believes that one of the greatest achievements of the policy is in fact the decrease in consumption among the most at-risk age group of 15- to 19-year-olds. Although this is not direct proof of the effectiveness of Portuguese policy, it is certainly, as the policymakers argue with satisfaction, a promising coincidence.

The government can be commended for both its patience and its decisiveness: refuting emergency policy options when the drug problems first arose in favor of a substantive inquiry into what would make for an effective strategy; articulating the philosophy behind the strategy so that the country could understand the approach but pushing it through decisively nevertheless, despite opposition; creating the necessary infrastructure and making the required financial investment to enable the policy to be put into practice; and, finally, having the patience to allow the years to pass so that the impact of the policy could be properly monitored and an evidence base developed.

It is vital to properly understand the drug policy phenomenon in Portugal. Decriminalization is not treated as a magical solution. In order to reduce drug use, legal solutions must be supported by a comprehensive policy that helps drug consumers to reduce harm, undergo treatment, and return to life in health and in society.

Governments worldwide can learn a lot from Portugal's experience. The Global Commission on Drug Policy's report points to Portugal as proof that decriminalization does not result in significant increases in drug use or dependencies, and urges governments to "replace the criminalization and punishment of people who use drugs with the offer of health and treatment services to those who need them." A special issue of the British medical journal The Lancet has also showcased Portugal as proof that humanitarianism and pragmatism can work in achieving a decline in HIV infections, drug consumption, and addictions.

Perhaps the greatest lesson of the Portuguese decriminalization policy is that it demonstrates that there are ways to overcome the lack of will among political elites and societies made afraid by the fear-mongering propaganda of the "war on drugs" and, in doing so, to constructively build rational and humanitarian drug policies.

Open Society Foundations
August 2011

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Drug Policy in Portugal: The Benefits of Decriminalizing Drug Use is the second in a series of reports by the Open Society Foundations' Global Drug Policy Program that documents positive examples of drug policy reform around the world (the first being From the Mountaintops: What the World Can Learn from Drug Policy Change in Switzerland ).

# data[].attributes.headline
Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?

# data[].attributes.subject
Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?

# data[].attributes.headline
The Ethics of Legalizing Medical Marijuana

# data[].attributes.subject
The Ethics of Legalizing Medical Marijuana

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ethical Inquiry: July 2013 | Brandeis University

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In recent years, the legal landscape in the United States regarding medical marijuana has shifted considerably, but the question of whether legalization is the right path is far from settled. Do detrimental effects outweigh therapeutic benefits? Are there non-medical factors that justify one approach or another? How should competing concerns be reconciled?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Drug use and abuse: the ethical issues. - PubMed - NCBI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
During the 20th century, support for a deontological approach to illicit drugs grew steadily. As a deontological framework was invoked, how goals were...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
People of color experience discrimination at every stage of the criminal justice system.

The drug war has produced profoundly unequal outcomes across racial groups, manifested through racial discrimination by law enforcement and disproportionate drug war misery suffered by communities of color.

Many different communities of color bear the impact of the discriminatory enforcement of drug laws. This impact may vary across cities and regions. Nationwide, some of the most egregious racial disparities can be seen in the case of African Americans and Latinos.

Higher arrest and incarceration rates for these communities are not reflective of increased prevalence of drug use, but rather of law enforcement's focus on urban areas, lower income communities and communities of color.

Disparities in arrests and incarceration are seen for both drug possession law violations as well as low-level sales. Those selling small amounts of drugs to support their own drug use may go to jail for decades. This unequal enforcement ignores the universality of drug dependency, as well as the universal appeal of drugs themselves.

Watch DPA's Executive Director Kassandra Frederique speak about how drug policy and the Black Lives Matter movements intersect at our 2017 International Drug Policy Reform Conference.

A History of the Racist War on Drugs

We believe that the mass criminalization of people of color, particularly young African Americans, is as profound a system of racial control as the Jim Crow laws were in this country until the mid-1960s.

This video from hip hop legend Shawn "Jay Z" Carter and acclaimed artist Molly Crabapple depicts the drug war's devastating impact on the Black community from decades of biased law enforcement.

The video traces the drug war from President Nixon to the draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws to the emerging aboveground marijuana market that is poised to make legal millions for wealthy investors doing the same thing that generations of people of color have been arrested and locked up for.

The Facts

The Drug War Drives Racial Disparities in the Criminal Justice System

Misguided drug laws and draconian sentencing have produced profoundly unequal outcomes for communities of color.

People of color experience discrimination at every stage of the criminal justice system and are more likely to be stopped, searched, arrested, convicted, harshly sentenced and saddled with a lifelong criminal record. This is particularly the case for drug law violations.

Nearly 80% of people in federal prison and almost 60% of people in state prison for drug offenses are black or Latino.

Research shows that prosecutors are twice as likely to pursue a mandatory minimum sentence for black people as for white people charged with the same offense. Among people who received a mandatory minimum sentence in 2011, 38% were Latino and 31% were black.

Black people and Native Americans are more likely to be killed by law enforcement than other racial or ethnic groups. They are often stereotyped as being violent or addicted to alcohol and other drugs. Experts believe that stigma and racism may play a major role in police-community interactions.

Other racial groups are also impacted by the drug war, but the disparities with these highlighted groups are particularly stark and well documented.

Learn about how the drug war has affected Latinx communities.

The Fentanyl Era

Despite the recent emergence of fentanyl in the illegal market, lengthy sentences have been on the books for decades. They have not stopped the spread of fentanyl. At the federal level, pre-existing penalties range from a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for a first offense to life without parole for a third conviction. With the majority (75%) of those currently federally sentenced for fentanyl trafficking being people of color, these laws threaten to only exacerbate racial disparities in the criminal justice system.

See our fentanyl report to learn about health-centered solutions to the overdose crisis.

The Drug War Fuels Widespread Detentions and Deportations

For noncitizens, including legal permanent residents, any drug law violation can trigger automatic detention and deportation - often without the possibility of return.

People deported for drug law violations are sent back to their countries of origin, where they may no longer have any ties to family or community. They may lack basic survival needs like food, housing and health services, and may face serious threats to their security. They are usually barred from reentering the United States, often for life. The result is thousands of families broken and communities torn apart every year.

More than 250,000 people were deported from the United States for drug law violations between 2007 and 2012.

A 2015 report by Human Rights Watch found that deportations for drug possession offenses increased by 43% from 2007 to 2012.

Simple marijuana possession was the fourth most common cause of deportation for any offense in 2013, and the most common cause of deportation for drug law violations. More than 13,000 people were deported in 2012 and 2013 just for marijuana possession.

The Drug War Produces Lifelong Collateral Consequences

Punishment for a drug law violation is not only meted out by the criminal justice system, but is also perpetuated by policies denying child custody, voting rights, employment, business loans, licensing, student aid, public housing and other public assistance to people with criminal convictions.

These exclusions create a permanent second-class status for millions of Americans. Like drug war enforcement itself, they fall disproportionately on people of color.

One in 13 black people of voting age are denied the right to vote because of laws that disenfranchise people with felony convictions.

One in nine black children has an incarcerated parent, compared to one in 28 Latino children and one in 57 white children.

Our Priorities

The Drug Policy Alliance is committed to exposing discrimination and disproportionate drug law enforcement, as well as the systems that perpetuate them. We work to eliminate policies that result in the unfair criminalization of communities of color by rolling back harsh mandatory minimum sentences and by addressing on the rampant over-policing of these communities.

We advocate for:

Decriminalizing drug possession to remove a major cause of the disproportionate arrest and incarceration of people of color. This would help more people receive drug treatment when appropriate and redirect law enforcement resources to programs that help build healthier communities.

Eliminating policies that result in disproportionate arrest and incarceration rates. This includes changing police practices, rolling back harsh mandatory minimum sentences, and eliminating sentencing disparities.

Ending policies that permanently exclude people with a drug arrest or conviction from key rights and opportunities. These include barriers to voting, employment, loans, financial aid, child custody, public housing and other public assistance.

Providing access to wraparound services outside the criminal justice system so that police don't end up being the only place people can go for help.

Adopting pre-plea diversion programs that allow people with minor drug charges to successfully participate in treatment or other programming without having to enter a guilty plea - since a guilty plea is often what triggers federal immigration consequences, including deportation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The drug war has produced profoundly unequal outcomes across racial groups, manifested through racial discrimination by law enforcement and disproportionate drug war misery suffered by communities of color. Many different communities of color bear the impact of the discriminatory enforcement of drug laws. This impact may vary across cities and regions.

# data[].attributes.headline
Comparing Black and White Drug Offenders

# data[].attributes.subject
Comparing Black and White Drug Offenders

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

Despite knowledge of racial bias for drug-related criminal justice involvement and its collateral consequences, we know less about differences between Black and White drug offenders. We compare 243 Blacks and White non-violent drug offenders in New Haven, CT for demographic characteristics, substance use, and re-entry services accessed. Blacks were significantly more likely to have sales and possession charges, significantly more likely to prefer marijuana, a less addictive drug, and significantly less likely to report having severe drug problems. For both races, drug treatment was the most common service accessed through supervision. These comparisons suggest different reasons for committing drug-related crimes and thus, different reentry programming needs. While drug treatment is critical for all who need it, for racial justice, we must also intervene to address other needs of offenders, such as poverty alleviation and employment opportunities.

Keywords: race difference, drug of choice, drug offense, drug treatment, reentry

Introduction

The overwhelming increase in incarceration, attributed to the drug war, has disproportionately impacted Black communities. In 2011, Blacks were incarcerated at a dramatically higher rate than Whites (5-7 times) and accounted for almost half of all prisoners incarcerated with a sentence of more than one year for a drug-related offense ( Carson and Sabol 2012). Accordingly, researchers and policy analysts have sought to understand both the causes and effects of the nation's war on drugs and its implications for racial equality ( Ghandoosh 2015; Travis, Western, & Redburn 2014; Alexander, 2012; Drucker 2013; Mauer 2006). They have explored racial bias in the criminal justice system and criminal justice outcomes, including police practices, arrest rates, convictions, sentence lengths, diversionary opportunities, and community supervision; judicial policies and laws such as precedent-setting court cases and mandatory minimum sentences; and media trends and their influence on public opinion. This literature demonstrates greater likelihood of Black involvement in the criminal justice system through policing practices and sentencing policies for drug-related crime, differences in sentencing practices and case processing, and the heightened disadvantage Blacks face once they are removed from their communities, and upon return, as labeled felons and drug offenders.

While a decades-long war on drugs has ravaged Black communities, lately attention has turned to the recent surge in heroin and painkiller use and overdose among Whites, particularly those in suburbs. Local police and state governments are alarmed and are working to address the epidemic as a health issue, reexamining criminal justice policies and the decades-long emphasis on punishment ( Seelye 2016). Many are advocating for the return of the rehabilitative role in judicial and correctional efforts as it relates to drug-related offenders ( National Institute on Drug Abuse 2014). The Comprehensive and Addiction Recovery Act of 2015 will be considered by Congress to help states address the dramatic increases in prescription opioid and heroin use in the United States through prevention and rehabilitation efforts. The response to the current opioid epidemic, a public health crisis with a "white face," has been contrasted to the crack epidemic that hit Black communities hard in the 90s and was met with war tactics in affected communities rather than compassion for offenders ( Yankah 2016). Such contrasting policy responses have prompted some to raise the question of racially biased motivations and their implications ( Mauer 2016). We need race-specific research that is sensitive to differences among offenders in their drug trade involvement to understand the impact of our criminal justice policies. To ensure that policies do not reflect racial bias and continue to perpetuate race-biased outcomes, it is important to consider the demographic, drug use, and service need differences between Black and White drug offenders.

With this analysis we contribute to the dialogue on racial bias in the criminal justice system by comparing characteristics of Blacks and Whites convicted of a non-violent drug offense in New Haven, CT. Specifically, we describe racial differences in the characteristics of offenders, charge, drug of choice, severity of drug problem, and reentry opportunities that were mandated or referred by probation or parole, and consider their implications for criminal justice reforms.

Methods

Study overview

Data for this analysis comes from a larger study, Structures, Health And Risk among Reentrants, Probationers and Partners (SHARRPP) that aims to analyze whether movement between the criminal justice system and the community is associated with Black/White disparities in HIV-related sexual risk. Non-violent drug offenders (N=302) in New Haven, CT were eligible for the parent study if they were over 18, and released from prison or placed on probation within one year of screening (conducted from July 2010 through February 2011) for a non-violent drug-related charge. We verified their charges with the Department of Corrections (DOC) or Court Support Services Division (CSSD). When the charge was not for a violent crime, but not obviously related to drugs (e.g. not a charge related to possession or sales of drugs), participants were asked if the crime was committed in order to buy drugs, if the crime was committed while high, or if the crime was drug-related in some other way and then were asked to give an explanation.

After eligibility was established, research staff explained to participants the study's purpose, procedures, risks, and benefits, as well as measures taken to protect the confidentiality of subjects, as detailed in the informed consent form. If participants were still interested in and willing to participate, they signed the consent form and then took a computer-based structured survey of about 90 minutes in length that included questions on family history, criminal justice history, and history of housing, employment, drug use, sexual activities, and health problems. Participants were paid US$40 in compensation. Four rounds of follow up interviews were conducted at 6-month intervals, although for this paper, we rely only on baseline data. The study protocol was approved by IRBs at both Yale University and American University.

Sample

Because the primary aim of this paper is to focus on differences between Blacks and Whites in the crimes they are charged with, drug-use profiles, and services they access, this analysis is restricted to the 243 participants who self-identified as Black (n=146, 60%) or White (n= 97, 40%).

Measures

Services Accessed during Reentry

To understand accessibility of drug treatment programs compared to other reentry programs during community supervision, we looked at responses to the question, "Has a Probation or Parole officer ever helped you to access any of the following services? (Choose all that apply): Outpatient drug treatment, Inpatient drug treatment, Housing subsidy, Job training, Education (adult education, G.E.D., college), Mental Health Services, Bus passes, Government benefits (SAGA, food stamps, or welfare, etc), Social service organization/case manager, Access to Recovery (ATR), Other, No, PO never helped me to access these services.

Analysis

We used chi-square and t-tests to describe the differences across Blacks and Whites in terms of demographics, drug use and services accessed while involved in the criminal justice system. We used multinomial logistic regression techniques to estimate whether race was associated with the likelihood of having a particular drug-related charge, using "other charge" as the referent group. SAS (version 9.4, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) was used for all analyses.

Results

As seen in , we found significant differences between Blacks and Whites for the following sociodemographic characteristics: gender, number of children, education, and homelessness. More Blacks were male, and Blacks had more children on average than Whites. Whites were more likely to have at least their high school diploma or general education development (GED) equivalency, but were also more likely to report ever having been homeless.

Table 1

There were also substantial race differences in criminal justice histories. As seen in , Blacks were convicted significantly fewer times than Whites (8.43 vs 11.29 times), but they had significantly more sentences resulting in incarceration than Whites (9.09 vs 6.15) and significantly longer last sentences than Whites (1.74 vs .71 years). As seen in , the charge for the most recent incarceration differed significantly by race. Blacks were more frequently charged with drug sales or possession than Whites (27% vs 4%; 20% vs 16%, respectively). Whites had more charges indirectly related to drugs, such as committing a crime in order to buy drugs, or being high while committing a crime (80% vs. 53%). Further, as seen in , Blacks were 2.2 times (95% OR: 1.07-4.55) more likely than Whites to have a possession charge as compared to an "other" charge even after adjusting for other sociodemographic factors. Similarly, Blacks were 8.24 times more likely than Whites to have a sales charge as compared to an "other" charge, after adjusting for other sociodemographic factors (95% OR: 2.73-24.90). Finally, while Blacks were significantly more likely than Whites to have been arrested most recently for drug sales, we found no statistical race difference in self-reports of ever having sold drugs (79% of Blacks vs. 70% of Whites).

Table 2

Table 3

Because addressing drug abuse is a key component of rehabilitative initiatives for offenders, yet drugs vary widely in addictiveness and effect, it is important to understand drug of choice among drug offenders. In our sample, drug of choice differed significantly by race (p <.0001) (see ). Blacks were significantly more likely to prefer marijuana (49%) while Whites were more likely to prefer heroin (52%). Crack was the second most likely single drug of choice for both racial groups (28% of Blacks and 13% of Whites).

Table 4

Further, we see differences in Black and White self-report of drug use, severity of drug problem, and drug treatment (see ). Blacks and Whites report similar rates of any drug use in the six months before their most recent criminal justice event (90% of Blacks and 89% of Whites). However, self-report of having a drug problem in the month prior to incarceration or placement on probation differed significantly by race (p<.0002). Thirty-seven percent of Blacks and 13% of Whites reported experiencing no drug problems in the month before their most recent criminal justice event. Twenty percent of Blacks and 51% of Whites reported experiencing a drug problem all thirty days in the month before the most recent criminal justice event. On average, Whites experienced drug problems on 19 (SD=12) of the 30 days while Blacks experienced drug problems on 9 (SD= 12). Finally, the majority of both Blacks (80%) and Whites (94%) report having ever been in drug treatment, though significantly more Whites report being in in drug treatment at some point in their life (p<.004).

Table 5

Number of Days of Drug Problems in Month Before Most Recent CJE .0002

At Least One Day but Less Than 30 Days of Drug Problems in Month Before Most Recent CJE

43% (57/133)

36% (31/86)

30 Days of Drug Problems in Month Before Most Recent CJE

20% (26/133)

51% (44/86)

A sizeable share of both Blacks (19%) and Whites (25%) reported that a probation or parole officer has never helped them access services. Among those who had been helped, participants described a wide range of services that probation or parole officers helped them access (See ). Of these, outpatient and inpatient drug treatment were the most common, with half of Blacks and Whites indicating that probation or parole officers had helped them access outpatient drug treatment, and approximately one-third of Blacks and Whites reporting they had help in accessing inpatient drug treatment. It is notable that while more Whites reported ever having been in drug treatment, roughly equal percentages of Blacks and Whites report accessing this service through their probation or parole officer. We found significant differences between Blacks and Whites for the categories of job training, education, and government benefits, with Blacks accessing these services through their probation or parole officer more often.

Table 6

Discussion

These findings point to differences between Blacks and Whites in a non-violent drug offender population in New Haven, CT. These differences, in turn, have important programming and policy implications.

First, relative to Whites, Blacks in our study were at an economic disadvantage, as demonstrated by their lower income and education levels. Consistent with these findings, in 2011, Black men were unemployed at a rate of 25% in the city of New Haven compared to 12% for White men ( Rawlings 2013). The median income for Black families was US$37,547 compared to an average White family income of US$77,443 ( Rawlings 2013). It is reasonable to suggest, as others have ( Friedman, Flam, et al. 2003; Saxe, Kadusshin et al. 2001), that the involvement of Blacks in the drug trade may be at least partly a response to their poverty and lack of employment opportunities. To ensure Black drug offenders will fully benefit from criminal justice diversionary, prison, or reentry programming, it is important to be cognizant of the economic reasons for their involvement in the drug trade and address their economic needs. Accordingly, investment in quality inner-city education, youth programming, and effective job generation, training and placement should be an important part of efforts to address crime prevention and recidivism.

Second, Blacks were more likely to be charged with possession and sales, while Whites were more likely to be charged for illegal activity related to drug use, such as stealing to support their drug habit. Yet, Whites and Blacks in our study both reported the same degree of drug sales. Drug sales may be more visible in inner city, overcrowded Black neighborhoods where they are more likely to take place outdoors ( Stark 1987). Recent research in the ecology of crime has focused our attention away from individual characteristics and social capital within neighborhoods to the characteristics of neighborhoods themselves, such as the activity level on streets ( Browning and Jackson 2013). The widespread and well known over-policing of Black neighborhoods during the war on drugs ( Cooper 2015, Goffman 2014, Rios 2011) can further stigmatize and disillusion those in contact with police, and lead to more law-breaking ( Wiley, Slocum, and Esbensen 2013) and punishments beyond their sentences. For example, with regard to the latter, to the extent that Blacks in our study were more likely to be incarcerated on charges explicitly labeled as drug-related, Blacks would also be more likely to suffer the collateral consequences specifically associated with drug charges, such as exclusion from certain forms of financial aid, housing benefits, and job screening scrutiny ( Drucker 2013).

Third, Blacks in our study reported preferring marijuana to harder drugs, and having less serious drug problems. Though almost equal percentages of Blacks and Whites in our study reported using drugs in the thirty days before their most recent criminal justice event, Blacks reported experiencing significantly fewer drug problems. The latter could be due to the way in which we defined drug problem: craving, withdrawal symptoms, disturbing effects of use, or wanting but being unable to stop. To the extent that marijuana does not cause the same withdrawal symptoms or disturbing effects that heroin or cocaine causes but can still be abused, problems related to marijuana use may not have been reported, a potential weakness of the study. Alternatively, lower self-reported drug problems in the 30 days prior to participants' most recent criminal justice event could be related to increased criminal justice involvement for Blacks during those 30 days in the form of incarceration, probation, or parole, which may lessen their ability to use drugs. We were unable to control for criminal justice involvement in the 30 days prior to most recent criminal justice event, as we did not ask participants about this in the survey. However, the finding may point to real differences in use and severity of drug problem, and thus real differences in the need for and subsequent fit of drug treatment. Research suggests that in general, the community supervision system is blind to drug type and severity when offering drug treatment programs, which may account for why program success is less common for marijuana users mandated by probation to treatment ( Taxman & Thanner, 2006). Future research should explore the specific treatment needs of marijuana users and whether available drug treatment programming reflects adequate attention to marijuana abuse. As our country turns toward decriminalizing marijuana in some states, we will also need effective tools for discerning the difference between abuse and recreational use. Without attention to these issues, racial bias in the criminal justice system is likely to continue.

Finally, both Blacks and Whites reported that drug treatment was the service most accessed through parole and probation officers. Certainly, drug treatment for criminal justice involved populations is a necessary rehabilitation service, and it is vital for drug offenders to be able to access drug treatment services through the criminal justice system. However, treatment needs of Blacks and Whites may differ by drug type and severity of problem. Race-sensitive research is needed on the types of services offered, client-centered perspectives on such treatment, and degree of success of treatment, in order to enhance systems of drug treatment accessed through the criminal justice system. Further, it is critical that our criminal justice policies acknowledge the overall context of drug offending. The Second Chance Society Bill, passed in Connecticut in 2015, is an example of an integrated approach that attempts to address the structural issues offenders face ( State of Connecticut 2015). It incorporates criminal justice reform with education, employment and housing opportunities for ex-offenders while working to reduce the school to prison pipeline through expansion of a school based diversion program.

The small sample size of this study and location within a single city are limitations that caution against the generalizability of findings. More research is needed on differences between Black and White drug offenders in multiple and diverse locations and with larger samples. As noted earlier, more explicit questions related to drug problems may have enhanced our ability to understand the nature of drug use among our study sample. Finally, further information about criminal justice involvement during the 30 days prior to the most recent criminal justice event may have helped us to understand differences in reported drug problems during this period for Blacks and Whites, but we did not collect this information.

The findings from our study point to the different characteristics of Blacks and Whites within the criminal justice system and suggest a need to acknowledge these differences in the provision of services to both populations. It also suggests that as long as there are distinct penalties and post-incarceration consequences associated with possession and sale of drugs, there will be disproportionate negative consequences for Blacks. If we don't specifically pay attention to race, when race is a fundamental organizing principal of society, our policies regarding treatment and reentry services will by default guarantee racial inequality. As Alexander (2012) writes in The New Jim Crow: "....racial caste systems do not require racial hostility or overt bigotry to thrive. They need only racial indifference, as Martin Luther King Jr. warned more than forty five years ago."

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the study participants for their time and contribution to this project; the Connecticut Department of Correction and Court Support Services Division for their support in implementing the project; and Gia Badolato, Justin Morgan, Penelope Schlesinger, and Weihai Zhan for their research assistance.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The project described was supported by 5R01DA025021 (Principal Investigator [PI]: Blankenship, Kim) from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). Structures, Health And Risk among Reentrants, Probationers and Partners' (SHARRPP's) implementation benefited from services provided by Yale University's Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS (National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) P30MH062294, PI: Cleary, Paul). This publication also was made possible, in part, by services provided by the District of Columbia Developmental Center for AIDS Research, an NIH-funded program (P30AI087714), which is supported by the following NIH Co-Funding and Participating Institutes and Centers: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, NIDA, NIMH, National Institute on Aging, Fogarty International Center, National Institute of General Medicine Sciences, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and the Office of AIDS Research.

Biographies

Alana Rosenberg, MPH, is a research associate at the Yale School of Public Health. She has managed a number of mixed methods research projects at the Yale School of Public Health and is interested in using research to better understand structural barriers to health and promote social justice.

Allison K. Groves, PhD, is a research assistant professor at the Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel University. She has spent the past 10 years working to improve women's reproductive health globally. She uses qualitative and quantitative research methods to better understand the contextual and interpersonal processes that contribute to women's risk of poor reproductive health.

Kim M. Blankenship, PhD, is a professor and the chair of the Department of Sociology; the director of Center on Health, Risk and Society at American University; and the director of Social and Behavioral Sciences Core of the District of Columbia Center for AIDS Research. Her research and publications focus on social determinants of health and structural interventions.

Footnotes
Authors' Note
The funders played no role in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute on Drug Abuse or the National Institutes of Health.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Carson EA, Sabol WJ. Prisoners in 2011. U.S. Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice Statistics; [Accessed March 9, 2016]. [http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p11.pdf. NCJ 239808. Published December 2012. Google Scholar]

Friedman SR, Flam PL, Kottiri BJ, Neaigus A, Sandoval M, Curtis R, ... Des Jarlais DC. Drug dealing and attitudes and norms about drug dealing among young adults and their peers in a high-risk community. International Journal of Drug Policy. 2003;14(3):261-268. [Google Scholar]

Stark R. Deviant places: A theory of the ecology of crime. Criminology. 1987;25(4):893-910. [Google Scholar]

Wiley SA, Slocum LA, Esbensen FA. The unintended consequences of being stopped or arrested: An exploration of the labeling mechanisms through which police contact leads to subsequent delinquency. Criminology. 2013;51(4):927-966. [Google Scholar]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Comparing Black and White Drug Offenders: Implications for Racial Disparities in Criminal Justice and Reentry Policy and Programming

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Despite knowledge of racial bias for drug-related criminal justice involvement and its collateral consequences, we know less about differences between Black and White drug offenders. We compare 243 Blacks and White non-violent drug offenders in New Haven, CT for demographic characteristics, substance use, and re-entry services accessed.

# data[].attributes.headline
RACE, DRUGS, AND POLICING: UNDERSTANDING DISPARITIES IN DRUG DELIVERY ARRESTS

# data[].attributes.subject
RACE, DRUGS, AND POLICING: UNDERSTANDING DISPARITIES IN DRUG DELIVERY ARRESTS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Please check your email for instructions on resetting your password. If you do not receive an email within 10 minutes, your email address may not be registered, and you may need to create a new Wiley Online Library account.

# data[].attributes.headline
Addressing Racial Disparities in Incarceration 

# data[].attributes.subject
Addressing Racial Disparities in Incarceration 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This article reviews the current trends and impact of mass incarceration on communities of color, with a focus on criminal justice policy and practice contributors to racial disparity. The impact of these disproportionate incarceration rates on public safety, offenders, and communities are discussed. Recommendations for criminal justice and other policy reforms to reduce unwarranted racial disparities are offered.

Crow, M., Johnson, K. (2008). Race, ethnicity, and habitual-offender sentencing. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19, 63-83. |
Google Scholar SAGE Journals

Crutchfield, R. D., Bridges, G. S., Pitchford, S. R. (1994, May). Analytical and aggregation biases in analyses of imprisonment: Reconciling discrepancies in studies of racial disparity. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 31, 166-182.
Google Scholar

Delaware Criminal Justice Council . (2010, April). Declaration of leading practices to protect civil rights and promote racial and ethnic fairness in the criminal justice system. Wilmington, DE: Author. Retrieved from http://adwww2.americanbar.org/sections/criminaljustice/PublicDocuments/RJFairnesspressre
Google Scholar

Krivo, L. J., Peterson, R. D. (1995). Extremely disadvantaged neighborhoods and urban crime. Social Forces, 75, 619-648.
Google Scholar

McCleskey v. Kemp 481 U.S. 279, 107 S. Ct. 1756, 95 L. Ed.2d 262 (1987).
Google Scholar

Spohn, C. (2000). Thirty years of sentencing reform: The quest for a racially neutral sentencing process. In Horney, J. (Ed.), Criminal justice, (pp. 427-501). Washington DC: US Department of Justice.
Google Scholar

Steinhauer, J. (2010, January 6). Schwarzenegger seeks shift from prisons to schools. New York Times, p. A21.
Google Scholar

Tonry, M., Melewski, M. (2008). The malign effects of drug and crime control policy on Black Americans. In Tonry, M. (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 1-44). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar

Truman, J. L., Rand, M. R. (2010). Criminal victimization, 2009. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
Google Scholar

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
criminal justice policy and practice and racial disparity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Addressing Racial Disparities in Incarceration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article reviews the current trends and impact of mass incarceration on communities of color, with a focus on criminal justice policy and practice contributors to racial disparity. The impact of these disproportionate incarceration rates on public safety, offenders, and communities are discussed.