Tyeera Blair

CCJ 4997: Senior Capstone in Criminal Justice

December 4, 2025

Writing Assignment 4

I. Pre-Existing Policies

The "War on Drugs" in the U.S. kicked off in the 1970s - sparking debate ever since. Its

aim? Cutting down street-level drug supplies while cracking down on users or dealers.

Things got serious when President Nixon labeled drugs the top threat to public safety back in

'71. Before that, a key shift happened in 1970 with new federal rules sorting substances by

risk and medical value. That system shaped how courts and cops handled drugs from then on.

However, things really changed in the 80s because of the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act.

Fear around crack cocaine and rising violence pushed this law forward. It brought tougher

penalties for drug crimes - no soft touch here. Mandatory minimums took effect, tying

judges’ hands when giving out time. Just a tiny bit of crack could land you five years, even if

it’s your first slip-up. The idea was to scare people off crime, yet instead jails started filling

fast. More arrests for drugs packed cells across the country - one after another.

How Harsh Sentencing Led to Rising Prison Numbers

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act, along with other rules from the '80s and '90s, shifted how people

got punished for drug crimes. Once mandatory minimums kicked in, even minor users - like
those found with a small bag - faced years behind bars. That speeded up the surge in U.S. jail

numbers, which were climbing anyway but shot way up at that time.

Earlier, courts often handed out mild punishments for drug crimes - things like probation or a

few months behind bars. Yet once stricter rules arrived, folks started getting stuck in prison

much longer. Starting in the '80s, inmate numbers shot way up across America. Today, the

country locks up more people than nearly any other nation. Come 2008, the total number of

prisoners had jumped fivefold, driven mostly by charges tied to drugs.

The Racial and Economic Impact of Drug Laws

One major result of the War on Drugs? It hit Black and Latino neighborhoods harder -

especially those with less money. Despite similar usage levels, people from these groups got

busted way more often compared to whites, landed convictions easier, then ended up behind

bars at far greater numbers.

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 helped widen the gap. It set up a harsher penalty for crack

versus powder - 100 times tougher - even though they're basically the same drug. Crack

showed up more in low-income city neighborhoods; powder, on the other hand, popped up

more among richer, often white crowds. Getting nailed with only five grams of crack brought

the same required jail time as half a kilo of powder. Because arrests focused heavily on Black

neighborhoods, those communities took the biggest hit from these rules.
The Disproportionate Impact of Drug Laws on Minority Groups

Stats reveal big race gaps in drug arrests and jail time. Take this - Black folks get busted for

drugs way more often than white people, even though they use at about the same level. From

1980 to 2000, imprisonment among Black individuals shot up by 550%, compared to just

200% for whites. That meant whole neighborhoods lost many members to prison over small-

time drug charges, sparking serious ripple effects on jobs, families, and community stability.

Meanwhile, it got obvious how expensive these rules really were. Those hit hardest? Folks

with less money - usually minorities - caught in tough drug penalties. Since fixed jail terms

left no space for fairness, judges couldn't adjust based on someone's story; so poor folks

ended up locked away for years, wrecking futures fast. Homes fell apart while neighborhoods

lost countless members straight to cells.

The Long-Term Effects and the Need for Reform

Nowadays, you can still see how the War on Drugs messed things up across America. In the

last few years, the country tried cutting jail time for folks caught with small amounts of drugs

- yet fixing years of tough rules isn’t simple. More people now back loosening penalties for

some substances while calling out unfair treatment based on race. That harm? It's stuck

around. Not only did prisons fill up, but entire neighborhoods got trapped in hardship, locked

out and punished over and over. Poor Black and brown communities feel this pain most

today.
II. Policy Alternatives and Research

A. How the drug war shifted lives along with spending

The fight against drugs has hit people and neighborhoods hard - both in cash and daily life,

more than most understand. Cynthia Brown’s book Beyond the Money (2017) shows how

efforts to stop drug use ended up costing way more than planned. Instead of fixing addiction

or reducing crime, heavy spending on arrests, trials, and jail time ate through city and

national funds. As Austin and others pointed out in 2016, locking up huge numbers for minor

drug charges became a money sink. Running jam-packed jails, clearing delayed court cases,

plus covering legal help for trapped individuals adds up fast. Focusing more on punishment

instead of helping people change means lots end up with records blocking job chances or

fitting back into daily life. Because of this loop, those affected struggle - on top of costing

communities money repeatedly.

Beyond just spending money, the drug war tore apart neighborhoods - especially ones where

people of color live. Harsh policing broke down everyday life in those areas. Moms and dads

get taken away from their families, so kids end up struggling without support. After prison,

steady jobs are hard to find; because of that, some fall back into old patterns instead of

moving forward. Over years, the divide grows - both socially and financially. Being poor

sticks around longer this way, trapping folks who’re trying to make a change. These

problems don’t just affect one group - they ripple out, weakening trust across entire societies.

Brown’s work, along with findings from Austin and team (2016), shows the War on Drugs

didn’t bring safety; it brought deep damage - hurting lives while draining social resources.

In places beyond the U.S., tough drug laws have caused ripple effects worldwide. Back in

1988, Nadelmann wrote about how America’s hard-line tactics spread abroad. Instead of
working together, Washington pushed countries - especially across Latin America - to copy

its harsh stance on drugs. Because of that pressure, nations such as Mexico and Colombia

saw more bloodshed, dishonest officials, and abuse of basic rights. When these strict rules

traveled overseas, they didn’t just damage diplomacy - they also weakened everyday systems

and markets.

B. Checking out various drug policy examples next to each other

A key piece of this talk means looking at how America handles drugs versus places in

Europe. Patten (2016) lines up the tough U.S. stance against softer European methods meant

to lower damage. Instead of locking people up, nations like Portugal or the Netherlands go

for care and recovery help. There, using drugs isn't seen as a crime but more like needing

medical support. In 2001, Portugal made personal drug use legal for tiny quantities - since

then, fewer people have died from overdoses or caught HIV through needles, while overall

usage dropped sharply. Instead of punishment, they focus on care, stopping problems before

they start, plus helping users rebuild their lives; this shift brings stronger results over time,

both for citizens and communities.

Kilmer, Midgette, but Saloga (2015) look at how U.S. drug rules have changed lately -

people are starting to see harsh penalties don't really stop drug use or sales. Even though

there's more focus now on treating addiction instead of just punishing it, old ideas about strict

punishment stick around in many laws. The push to make marijuana legal shows this change

clearly, since more states are going along with it, hinting the country might rethink its overall

attitude. Still, when compared to Europe, America hasn’t gone nearly as far in using

strategies that reduce harm from drugs.

Looking at Europe versus the U.S., places focusing on healing and wellness tend to cut risks

while keeping communities safer. Shifting focus from jail time toward support-based

strategies might just offer longer-lasting fixes when dealing with drug problems.

C. Race along with ethical angles

Race plays a big role in how the War on Drugs gets carried out. Farber (2022) looks at the

ways bias shows up in drug law enforcement - especially when it comes to targeting Black

and Latino neighborhoods. Even though people from every background use or sell drugs,

those who aren't white, particularly African Americans, face much higher chances of getting

arrested, prosecuted, or locked up. According to Farber, these unfair patterns come from old

racial divides and keep going because police work and courts still carry deep-seated

prejudices.

Rosino along with Hughey (2018) push the idea deeper, looking at how race shapes the War

on Drugs - showing it’s tied to systemic bias. Instead of treating drug issues neutrally, they

say, laws were built around images linking non-white groups to crime. Because of this

framing, false assumptions took hold, fueling harsher law enforcement in neighborhoods of

color. The study reveals the campaign didn’t just miss its health goals - it actively widened

racial gaps, locking many into ongoing hardship and exclusion.

Bobo with Thompson in 2006 dug into how race shapes whether folks see the justice system

as fair. Their findings suggest the War on Drugs made many lose faith in the whole setup -

especially among Black and Brown neighborhoods. Since minority groups face the harshest

outcomes from this policy, their confidence in law enforcement has weakened over time. This
part highlights it's not only about laws - it’s about right and wrong too, making us ask who

gets treated fairly and why.

D. Evidence-Based Alternatives

As talk about drugs shifts, more people back solutions built on help instead of jail. Kilmer

and team (2015) point out that approaches centered on lowering risks, stepping in sooner, or

backing local care tend to work better than old-school penalties. These rules try to tackle

deep reasons behind substance use - like pain, lack of money, or emotional struggles - by

offering aid well before legal trouble starts, not just punishing actions after.

Programs giving therapy, work prep, learning chances, or help with substance abuse tend to

cut down repeat crimes while boosting personal success over time. Some findings point out

that rehab efforts - especially ones focusing on healing through group support - work better at

cutting drug habits and stopping new crimes compared to locking people up. Take drug

courts, for instance - they swap jail time for treatment in cases involving non-violent users -

and data shows these setups result in fewer relapses plus stronger recovery results.

Bobo plus Thompson (2006) point out rising curiosity in proof-backed solutions helps restore

faith in law enforcement, especially among groups hit hardest by anti-drug campaigns.

Instead of focusing on penalties, their study shows methods built on care and recovery cut

down prison expenses while easing societal strain. These strategies also boost chances for

people leaving jail to reconnect with community life.

In short, moving to a system that focuses on rehab - backed by real proof - might seriously

cut down the social and financial toll of the War on Drugs. Helping folks early, before they

get stuck in court cycles, builds a fairer way to handle addiction across the U.S.