Hands holding onto bars in a jail cell. Photo by Pixabay.
Ranee Sanford ‘23 graduated from Santa Clara University with a major in political science and minor in economics. Sanford was a 2022-23 Government Ethics Fellow with the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Views are her own.
Introduction:
Crack Cocaine Epidemic:
Crack cocaine, a highly potent and affordable form of cocaine, gained widespread popularity and devastated many urban communities, particularly those inhabited predominantly by people of color. The impact of the crack epidemic on the Black community was especially severe, with devastating consequences that continue to be felt to this day. During this time, the crack epidemic was met with a punitive and aggressive response from the government, fueled by the "War on Drugs" campaign launched by the Reagan administration. The War on Drugs framed drug addiction as a national security issue and adopted a law enforcement-driven approach, emphasizing arrests, prosecutions, and lengthy prison sentences as the primary means of addressing drug-related problems. This approach resulted in the criminalization of crack cocaine, and disproportionately impacted Black communities. One of the most alarming outcomes of the crack epidemic and the subsequent war on drugs was the surge in mass incarceration, particularly among Black men. The punitive sentencing laws associated with crack cocaine, such as the infamous 100-to-1 sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine offenses, led to a disproportionate number of Black individuals being targeted, arrested, and incarcerated. The stringent penalties imposed for crack cocaine offenses, coupled with mandatory minimum sentences, perpetuated systemic inequalities and contributed to the skyrocketing rates of mass incarceration among Black men. This phenomenon not only tore families apart and disrupted communities, but it also perpetuated a cycle of disadvantage and limited opportunities for
socioeconomic advancement within the Black community. The crack epidemic thus exacerbated existing racial disparities within the criminal justice system and entrenched systemic inequalities. According to "A Brief History of Crack Cocaine Sentencing Laws" by Families Against Mandatory Minimums, the United States witnessed some of the harshest drug sentencing practices from 1984 to 1988. In response to concerns about inconsistent federal sentences, Congress passed the Sentencing Reform Act in 1984, abolishing parole and establishing the U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC) with the task of developing mandatory federal sentencing guidelines. Shortly thereafter, policymakers enacted the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which imposed mandatory minimum sentences for drug trafficking offenses, including the notably severe 100-to-1 crack-powder disparity. These measures, enacted between 1986 and 1988, had a disproportionate impact on the Black community. It was not until 1995 that society began to recognize the disparities caused by these policies. The USSC released its first research report to Congress on crack cocaine, highlighting the fact that over 80% of crack offenders were Black and that the 100-to-1 ratio led to excessively harsh sentences, exacerbating racial disparities and fostering a perception of unfairness and inconsistency within the criminal justice system. While the USSC attempted to rectify the guidelines by equalizing the amount of crack and powder cocaine triggering specific sentencing recommendations, Congress rejected the amendment. This disparity in treatment clearly illustrates the racially biased actions of the federal government. Crack cocaine, predominantly used within the Black community, faced severe consequences, whereas powder cocaine, despite its similar chemical composition and greater usage among the White community, did not face comparable repercussions.
The criminalization of crack cocaine and its adverse impact on the Black community have contributed significantly to the high rates of mass incarceration. This racial disparity in drug policy and sentencing practices reveals the deep-rooted racial bias within the criminal justice system by the federal government. It highlights the urgent need for comprehensive reforms that address systemic inequalities, promote racial justice, and ensure equality in the treatment of drug-related issues. By acknowledging these historical injustices and challenging the disparities between the crack epidemic and the current opioid crisis, the federal government can strive towards a more equitable and compassionate approach to drug policy, fostering a system that upholds principles of fairness, justice, and equal treatment for all.
Opioid Epidemic:
The opioid epidemic, which has unfolded over the past couple of decades, is a public health crisis that has predominantly impacted the white community in the United States. It involves the widespread misuse and addiction to prescription opioids, such as oxycodone, hydrocodone, and fentanyl, as well as illicit opioids like heroin. Unlike the crack epidemic, the response to the opioid crisis has largely focused on treating it as a public health issue rather than resorting to criminalization and punitive measures. Recognizing the unique nature of the opioid epidemic, policymakers and public health officials have adopted a more compassionate and harm reduction-oriented approach. This approach emphasizes strategies like expanded access to drug treatment programs, overdose prevention measures, naloxone distribution, and medication-assisted treatment. Rather than focusing solely on law enforcement, there has been an increased emphasis on addressing the underlying factors contributing to opioid addiction, such as overprescription of pain medications, economic and social factors, and inadequate access to healthcare and mental health services.
The difference in response to the opioid epidemic, compared to the crack cocaine epidemic, highlights a shift in societal attitudes and policy approaches. Instead of criminalizing individuals struggling with addiction, there has been a recognition that substance use disorders are complex health issues requiring a comprehensive public health response. This acknowledgment has led to increased funding for prevention, treatment, and harm reduction initiatives, as well as the implementation of programs that prioritize recovery and support rather than punishment. By addressing the opioid crisis as a public health concern, society has taken steps toward reducing stigma, providing support for individuals seeking recovery, and working to prevent further harm. This approach underscores the importance of considering the social and racial dynamics at play in drug policy, as well as the need for equitable and compassionate responses that prioritize health, well-being, and access to appropriate care for all communities affected by drug addiction.
In response to the opioid crisis, several important bills have been passed to address the issue and provide support for patients and communities affected by addiction. According to “The Opioid Crisis and Recent Federal Policy Responses”, by the Congressional Budget Office, The Support for Patients and Communities Act, signed into law in 2018 aimed to combat the opioid epidemic through various measures, including expanding access to treatment and recovery services, enhancing prescription drug monitoring programs, increasing funding for research and prevention efforts, and promoting initiatives to reduce overprescribing of opioids. The SUPPORT Act also prioritized the expansion of medication-assisted treatment options and provided resources for overdose prevention, such as the distribution of naloxone, a life-saving opioid overdose reversal medication. By enacting this legislation, policymakers acknowledged the urgent need for a comprehensive response to the opioid crisis, focusing on public health strategies, evidence-based interventions, and support for individuals and communities affected by addiction.
Overall, the opioid epidemic has significantly impacted the white community and has been treated as a public health crisis rather than being met with criminalization. The response to the opioid crisis has emphasized compassionate and harm reduction approaches, including increased access to treatment, overdose prevention measures, and medication-assisted treatment. In contrast, the crack cocaine epidemic, which predominantly affected the Black community, was met with punitive measures, criminalization, and harsh sentencing. This stark contrast in responses underscores the racial disparities and systemic inequalities within drug policy and highlights the urgent need for equitable and compassionate approaches to address substance abuse and addiction.
Comparative Analysis:
The comparative analysis between the opioid and crack epidemics reveals significant disparities in how these crises were approached and addressed, highlighting the importance of ensuring equality across all communities. The crack epidemic, primarily affecting the Black community, was met with punitive measures, aggressive law enforcement tactics, and harsh sentencing laws that led to mass incarceration and perpetuated racial disparities. The response to the crack epidemic was rooted in stigmatization, criminalization, and systemic inequalities, which further marginalized an already vulnerable community.In contrast, the opioid epidemic, which primarily impacted the white community, was largely recognized and treated as a public health issue. It prompted a shift towards compassion, harm reduction, and evidence-based approaches. Policymakers and public health officials recognized the complexities of addiction and prioritized expanding access to treatment, implementing harm reduction strategies, and addressing the underlying factors contributing to the crisis. This more empathetic response emphasized the importance of saving lives, supporting recovery, and reducing the stigma associated with substance abuse disorders.
The divergent responses to these epidemics underscore the systemic biases and racial inequalities ingrained within drug policies. The unequal treatment of crack cocaine and opioids demonstrates the urgent need to address and rectify these disparities. Ensuring equal treatment and opportunities for all communities, regardless of race or socioeconomic status, is essential for promoting fairness, justice, and societal well-being. By striving for equality in drug policy, the Federal Government can work towards dismantling systemic biases, challenging racial disparities, and fostering inclusive and compassionate approaches to addressing addiction and substance abuse. Recognizing the importance of equitable responses to drug epidemics is not only vital for the well-being of affected communities but also essential for building a more just and equitable society as a whole.
Limits of Recent Drug Policy Reforms to reduce Mass Incarceration:
Although the Crack epidemic is not as prevalent today, the consequences still live on. In America today, Black Americans are still incarcerated at the highest rates due to drug policies. In order to correct this, more has to be done. Chapter four of Katherine Beckett’s Ending Mass Incarceration, examines why recent drug policy reforms have had an insufficient impact on drug arrests and incarceration. The beginning of Limits of Recent Drug Policy Reforms, dives into the history of the war on drugs campaign and its detrimental lingering effects. Beckett elucidates on the disproportionality, racialization, and high incarceration rates the Black community faced due to this campaign. When the crack cocaine epidemic hit the Black community, no empathy was shown. Instead of trying to help the ones addicted to this substance, lawmakers criminalized them instead. Politicians at the federal level amplified criminal sanctions for the use and distribution of drugs from 1980 to 2006, and placed immense emphasis on crack. In recent years, many have begun to question the viability of this campaign and the success of its initial goals. Moreover, politicians have become more aware of the dire consequences and negative impacts this campaign has caused.
Author Beckett goes on to explain that since 2006, all states have enacted at least one drug policy reform to reduce drug penalties. However, this has not had a sufficient impact on drug arrests and incarceration for multiple reasons. The first reason is because lawmakers are only focusing on reducing drug penalties for possession, which is only 3.5% of the prison population. The next reason is because states have implemented more punitive measures for drug distribution. Moreover, there is still heightened commitment to drug war practices in rural suburban areas. And lastly, drug courts are the most prevalent type of “reform”, but these courts are more likely to increase drug arrests and enhance racial disparities. Beckett goes on to expand on how drug distribution has been characterized as a “violent” crime. For example, many states have defined drug distribution that results in an overdose, as a homicide. Media coverage of this subject also plays a role in furthering this attitude.
Beckett transitions to discuss effective results of drug reform happening in King county. In 2000, more than ⅓ of Washington’s drug arrests took place in King county, however in 2015 this figure dropped to 15.8%. This is due to D.A. Dan Satterberg reclassifying drug cases and creating a law enforcement assisted diversion program. Beckett spends the rest of the time discussing the limitations of drug courts. According to author Beckett, drug courts do more harm than good. Beckett criticizes drug courts inability to be accessible to all drug users, its inability to sustain full completion of the course, its racial disparities, and its enhancement of drug-related arrests and incarceration.
Overall, Katherine Beckett was able to show readers how important it is for politicians to focus on more impactful drug policy reforms. Politicians and lawmakers need to learn from the mistakes of the war on drugs campaign and steer away from punitive measures for drug distribution.
Conclusion with Virtue & Justice Lens :
In conclusion, the disparities between the crack epidemic and the opioid crisis highlight the urgent need for more effective drug policy reform from both the virtue and justice lenses. Through the justice lens, it becomes evident that equal treatment and fair allocation of resources are crucial in addressing public health crises. The Black community was not afforded the same level of compassion and support as the white community during these epidemics, revealing a clear violation of the principle of equal treatment. For true ethical decision-making, both epidemics should have been approached with equal attention and resources.From the virtue lens, it is apparent that the actions of the federal government during these epidemics were inconsistent with the virtues embedded in the U.S. Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ethical actions should align with virtues that foster the full development of humanity, such as fairness, justice, and equality. By treating the crack epidemic with punitive measures and stigmatization while responding to the opioid crisis with compassion and public health strategies, the government acted in contradiction to these virtues. To uphold their own ethical principles, policymakers must ensure that drug policy reform is consistent with the virtues enshrined in the foundational documents of the nation.
Therefore, it is imperative to enact more effective drug policy reform that upholds the principles of virtue and justice. This includes equal treatment and allocation of resources across communities, addressing systemic biases, promoting racial justice, and providing comprehensive support and healthcare services for those affected by addiction. By aligning drug policy with ethical frameworks rooted in fairness, equality, and the development of our humanity, we can strive towards a more just and equitable society where all individuals, regardless of race, receive the support and care they deserve.
Sources:
"Families Against Mandatory Minimums. 'A Brief History of Crack Cocaine Sentencing Laws.' 13 Apr. 2012, https://famm.org/wp-content/uploads/FS-Brief-History-of-Crack-Laws.pd
Congressional Budget Office, and Phillip L. Swagel. "The Opioid Crisis and Recent Federal Policy Responses." September 2022, https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-09/58221-opioid-crisis.pdf.
Beckett, Katherine. Ending Mass Incarceration: Why It Persists and How to Achieve Meaningful Reform. Oxford University Press, 2022.
