In a message to Congress on June 19, 1971, President Richard Nixon proposed the United States government’s highest level of concern as the prevalence of illicit drug use by stating, “If we cannot destroy the drug menace in America, then surely in time it will destroy us. I am not prepared 1 to accept this alternative.” Throughout his term, Nixon and his administration saw the waging drug epidemics of heroin, marijuana, and even cocaine by the time President Ronald Reagan had entered office in 1981. It was evident that the United States government had to act fast to take drugs off the streets and inevitably bring the epidemic to a hard stop. In Nixon’s presidency, the government’s response to the use of illicit drugs stemmed from “tough-on-crime” approaches to law enforcement which prioritized the incarceration of prisoners via mandatory minimum sentences and lengthier prison sentences. However, it was not until Reagan’s administration in 1982 that the term “War on 2 Drugs” was officially coined in response to the rapidly growing cocaine crisis in America. In an attempt to tackle the problem through the most effective means, from Nixon to Reagan and beyond, various legislations were passed by allocating federal spending and making drastic changes to the prison system as a whole, fueling the War on Drugs. Critics have debated the efficacy of the War on Drugs in terms of its original goals and intentions. Beginning in the 1970s into the 1980s, the War on Drugs was not only ineffective relative to their stated policy goals of eliminating drugs, but also exacerbated prisoners’ rights and racial inequality in the United States prison system due to the implementation of a “tough-on-crime” system, the disproportionate targeting of minority groups, and the increased government and private funding of prisons. It is clear in the works of several scholars across different time periods that the War on Drugs worsened the overall American prison system due to a variety of factors. Scholars such as 3 Henrique Cardoso ––who brings in a perspective of international voices to the debate, Josh Gray, 1 Author unknown, The Facts About... p. 31. 2 Ibid. p 34 3 Cardoso, et al., “The War on Drugs Is a Failure: We Should Focus Instead of Reducing Harm to Users and Tackling Organized Crime,” p. 1.

Todd Clear, and Natasha Frost address the arguments of the lack of rehabilitation practices and 4 inefficacies of the “tough-on-crime” approach the War on Drugs had. In this system, overcrowding was a large effect of mass incarceration policies as well, contributing to poor living conditions for prisoners. Cardoso voices the opinions, along with his own, of the Latin American Commission on 5 Drugs and Democracy––made up of former presidents of Brazil, Mexico, and Columbia. Cardoso suggested how the drug policies regarding incarceration were not humane and rather he urged for 6 the importance of education, rehabilitation programs to prevent relapse of prisoners. Gray further stated, “the War on Drugs has resulted in the loss of many more civil liberties protections than it has any other phenomenon in our history, including the results from an attack on New York’s World 7 Trade Center on September 11th, 2001.” Instead of perpetuating education, in prison systems and children alike, Gray claims, there exists a sentiment of selling and consuming drugs because of the War on Drugs system. Clear and Frost shared similar sentiments in their journal article, arguing that very little of the legislation was in fact focused on the underlying problem of drug addiction that 8 actually fueled the drug market. Furthermore, several scholars argued how the War on Drugs disproportionately targeted minorities. For instance, Marylee Reynolds argues that because of the War on Drugs policies regarding incarceration, that women of color, those who were especially 9 socioeconomically disadvantaged, were more likely to have fallen victim to the policies. She states how originally, reforms to sentencing were meant to diminish disparities based on a vast range of demographics. However, Reynolds argues that instead, “ironically, these reforms have done just the opposite; they have disproportionately penalized women–especially poor women of color... due 4 Clear and Frost, “The Punishment Imperative: The Rise and Failure of Mass Incarceration in America,” p. 103. 5 Cardoso, et. al, “The War on Drugs Is a Failure: We Should Focus Instead of Reducing Harm to Users and Tackling Organized Crime,” p. 1. 6 Ibid. 7 Gray, Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It: A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs, p. 36. 8 Clear and Frost, “The Punishment Imperative: The Rise and Failure of Mass Incarceration in America,” p. 103. 9 Reynolds, “The War on Drugs, Prison Building, and Globalization: Catalysts for the Global Incarceration of Women,” p. 73.

chiefly to the War on Drugs, arrests and convictions of women for newly defined drug felonies has 10 skyrocketed and has played a significant part in their escalating rates of confinement.” Furthermore, in his book, Paul Butler cites the work of scholar Michelle Alexander who compared the War on Drugs policies being targeted towards racial minority groups to be analogous to that of 11 the Jim Crow era in the United States, sharing a similar perspective to Reynolds. Alexander states, “a newly freed felon has scarcely more rights and arguably less respect than a... black person living 12 free... at the height of Jim Crow.” As a result of the passing of the War on Drugs act and consequently Ronald Reagan’s reach of the drug war and passing of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, several scholars agreed on the fact that mandatory minimum sentencing rates led to unfair increases in the incarceration rates of racial minority groups, namely Blacks and Hispanics. It is also 13 worthy to mention, another scholar called Jerome Skolnick and James Gray also agree how the War on Drugs perpetuated racial bias towards minority groups. Additionally, several scholars addressed the impact that the War on Drugs had in terms of allocating increased federal funding to prisons, as well as the increase in privatization of prisons as well. In response to Reagan allocating $1.7 billion in his Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 and trillions of spent government money since then, Gray argues that the policy was a failure and, “without medical research lead[ing] to a more effective approach, 14 people are still going to be addicted to those presently illegal drugs.” Skolnick also presents a similar argument in his study where he claims the prisons’ increased fundings inherently led to 15 overcrowding, leading to mass incarceration and poor living environments.

10 Ibid. 11 Butler, “One Hundred Years of Race and Crime,” p. 1045. 12 Ibid. 13 Skolnick, “A Critical Look at the National Drug Control Strategy,” p. 76. 14 Gray, Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It: A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs, p. 36. 15 Skolnick, “A Critical Look at the National Drug Control Strategy,” p. 76.

4 In response to the crack cocaine epidemic in the United States that contributed to the destruction of thousands of lives, Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, along with their administrations, inevitably began to primarily focus on the reduction of the War on Drugs via several means. For one, Reagan focused on the passing of several federal anti-drug laws including the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 and thoroughly expanded the “tough-on-crime” approach to attempt to deter the use of drugs. Several scholars have argued how the “tough-on-crime” approach is based upon deterrence theory which, according to Kenneth Meier, “uses assumptions similar to rational choice to argue that law enforcement actions discourage individuals from using drugs because the 16 cost of using drugs increases.” As a result of this, what the Reagan administration primarily sought to happen was that fewer individuals would be willing to supply drugs if the amount of drug-related arrests increased, and thus, the user would have to spend significantly more time in search of drugs. Further, Meier goes on to argue that if the user decided that “the cost of searching drugs exceeded 17 the benefits, they will refrain from drug use.” It is evident that the basis of using deterrence theory and a “tough-on-crime” approach on cracking down the amount of drug users would increase criminal perception of being caught via the means of certain punishment and incarceration. At its core, the deterrent effect of policing and punishment come into effect when there is an increase in 18 mandatory prison sentencing and occupancy of prisons as well. This is precisely what happened with Reagan’s administration and the “tough-on-crime” approach. Because of the passing of such legislation, during the 1980s, more than 23,900 individuals were incarcerated for drug-related offenses and just within ten years, the contribution of drug offenses to total incarceration growth 19 grew to a staggering 33%.

16 Meier, “The Politics of Drug Abuse: Laws Implementation, and Consequences,” p. 23. 17 Ibid. 18 Loury, “America’s Imprisonment...,” p. 62. 19 Meier, “The Politics of Drug Abuse: Laws Implementation, and Consequences,” p. 22.

5 Additionally, the incarceration growth rates primarily fueled racial inequities within prison systems as according to a survey conducted in 1988 by an organization called Surveys by the National Institution on Drug Abuse, the percentage of Black and white individuals who engaged in the consumption of illicit drugs was approximately equal––in fact white individuals nearly edging out 20 rates of usage by 1%, sitting at an average of 37% and Black individuals, at an average of 36%. However, despite these numbers, arrest statistics as per the FBI also conducted in 1988 reveal that Black individuals comprised almost 40% of prisons due to drug-related offenses, the highest racial minority group to be incarcerated out of any. Historically, due to the cracking down of drug laws because of the “tough-on-crime” approaches, the racial discrimination in enforcement can be attributed with the fact that Black individuals were more likely to be stopped without probable cause, introducing an aspect of inherent racial bias from law enforcement, which inevitably worsened racial inequalities within the prison systems. According to a Chicago Tribune article published in 1987, the federal government needed to 21 “double its prison capacity to prevent an intolerable backup in the criminal justice system” because of the government's aim to take illicit drugs off the street. Even officials of prison systems were recognizing that, “unless prison capacity [was] increased, their ability to arrest more drug traffickers 22 [would] be jeopardized by a reluctance of judges to send convicts to overcrowded prisons.” It is very clear that the War on Drugs, in their legislation, were not concerned at the slightest with mass incarceration and what the consequences of it could be. By neglecting the needs and rights of prisoners, in prison itself, such as the permission of physical space, all the government was focused on was increasing as many prisoners as possible to “help” eradicate the drug problem. The Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Michael Quinlan, in the 1987 article went on

20 Meier, “The Politics of Drug Abuse: Laws Implementation, and Consequences,” p. 26. 21 Kerr, “War on Drugs Straining Jails U.S. Prison Officials See Overcrowding Getting Worse,” p. 1. 22 Ibid.

6 to state, “Overcrowding has meant a doubling up of prisoners at lower-security facilities and a 23 conversion of television rooms into sleeping areas.” However, the overcrowding of the prisoners––due to the influx of them from drug-related crimes––came at a cost. By increasing so many prisoners where there was no space for them, prisons effectively were the breeding ground for inhumane conditions. According to a Los Angeles Times article published in 1981, inmates were living in terrible conditions in dirty cells which measured 4½ by 11½ feet. The article stated how “the prisoners have about the space two people would have if they tried to live together in an average size 24 bathroom.” Furthermore, the article voiced the opinions of Henry Simpson, a 6-foot, 205-pound inmate in San Quentin, California who said, “We’ve got to turn sideways to get in [our cell]... You 25 have no privacy.” If not enough, the overcrowding not only limited the amount of privacy prisoners received––a basic human tenet which should be afforded to a certain degree in prison––but also increased the amount of violence in prisons. Upwards of 250 prisoners died in state prisons in California during the 80s and even gang violence (stemming from racial groups uniting with one another due to the inequality within the prisons) perpetuated throughout state and federal prisons alike across the country. Another Black inmate, part of San Quentin State Prison––which experienced brutal effects of overcrowding/mass incarceration, and violence via racial inequality––shared his perspective in another Los Angeles Times article in 1978 (before Reagan’s era but still post-Nixon, War on Drugs legislation). There were several changes brought about to the violence perpetuated in the San Quentin State Prison which are addressed in this article. The inmate says,“San Quentin is a tough joint... But, it’s a hell of a lot better when you don’t have to worry about some gang member pulling 26 a shank (knife) in your back everytime you cross the yard.” This inmate’s perspective into some of 23 Ibid 24 Hurst, “Plagued by Overcrowding, Violence: 'Model' Prison System Degenerating,” p. 2. 25 Ibid. 26 Hazlett, “San Quentin Crackdown...” p. 2.

7 the changes brought about in San Quentin is significant to consider. Media did not often cover the voices of inmates, especially in maximum-security prisons such as San Quentin, in an attempt to censor their access to the civilian world. However, if one inmate has seen such improvements to the extent of calling their incarceration time “a hell of a lot better” as a result of the reduced gang violence, this serves to be a reference to the urgency of prison reform and notes its efficacy as well. The fact that an inmate expresses a positive view of reduced gang violence suggests that prison reform efforts can be effective and emphasizes the need for further changes––an aspect that was clearly lacking in the existing legislation of the War on Drugs which was simply focused on “tough-on-crime.” The claim made by the Reagan administration is based upon the fact that stricter drug laws would automatically lead to reduced drug availability and increased safety within prisons. However, evidence suggests that the intended outcomes were not realized, raising questions about the efficacy of the approach taken. This observation supports the need for a critical examination of drug policies and the exploration of alternative strategies for addressing drug-related issues within the prison system. To delve further, it is important to consider various factors that contribute to the ineffectiveness of drug laws in the complete eradication of drugs in prisons. These may include the challenges associated with monitoring and controlling the flow of illicit substances within correctional facilities and the adaptation of inmates to alternative substances or methods of obtaining drugs. However, what is truly important to consider is to focus on how the punitive measures taken––incarceration as the primary response to drug use, inherently neglect the underlying factors that contribute to drug use and addiction, such as the lack of access to rehabilitation and treatment programs within prisons themselves. Skolnick argues in his study the unequal distribution of resources for drug treatment and prevention programs. Furthermore,

8 Skolnick’s article notes the argument of the proponents for the “tough-on-crime,” non-rehabilitation focused policies as they “advocate expanding and reshaping the criminal justice system in an unprecedented way with not only more police, but more jails, prosecutors, judges, courtrooms, 27 prisons and administrative staff.” It is clear that instead of focusing on rehabilitation for constant drug users in prison, the United States government was solely focused on punishment via expanding incarceration practices and neglecting the rights of prisoners. An extension of how drug addiction was treated in American prison systems, Ernest Drucker writes in his book A Plague of Prisons about how the War on Drugs contributed to “an exercise in mystification of what drug use means, confounded with a strong dose of guilt and blame, 28 rather than a less judgmental health approach.” Drucker further states in his argument that there was inherently little incentive to offer effective drug treatment in American prisons since there existed a “neglect framed as a part of prison ideology in which inmates must assume ‘personal 29 responsibility’ for their present circumstances.” By focusing less on rehabilitation, the government was merely concerned about the short-term impact of drug-related offenses rather than post-incarceration outcomes. This would increase the permissibility of repeat drug abusers to be re-incarcerated due to the lack of necessary therapy and rehabilitation facilities in prison systems, addressing the root cause of the issue and only contributing to the increased incarceration rates and succumbing to the mandatory minimum sentencing across the board. Furthermore, even in states where there was an extent of medical care for drug addicts who required it, according to a Washington Post article released in 1992, there was a significant strain placed on medical services in several prison institutions, albeit, the ones who even had a level of medical 30 care in the first place. First off, the director of the New York City jail Riker Island, Charles Breslow 27 Skolnick, “A Critical Look at the National Drug Control Strategy,” p. 73. 28 Drucker, Plague of Prisons, p. 120 29 Ibid. 121 30 Boodman, “Prison Medical Crisis...,” p. 1.

9 31 stated how the population increased from 6,000 to 14,000 in 1980, “as a result of drug offenses.” The article even went on about how prisoners were sicker than they used to be because of a lack in medical care and attention. In fact in Illinois, a state with historically the best medical care in prisons, about 70% of 30,000 inmates had drug problems, yet only 400 of them were receiving adequate drug treatment in the first place. It is apparent through all this information that the glaring lack of access to appropriate drug treatment programs within the prison system was an inherent flaw in the legislation proposed by the War on Drugs policies. Despite a substantial portion of the inmate population struggling with drug-related issues, the majority of individuals did not receive the necessary support and resources to address their addiction and work towards recovery. It highlights the discrepancy between the demand for treatment and the available resources, revealing a significant gap in meeting the needs of incarcerated individuals struggling with drug addiction. Overall, it is clear how the overcrowding of prisons and the lack of rehabilitation programs due to the “tough-on-crime” approach to combating the War on Drugs epidemic exemplifies the failure to prioritize comprehensive drug treatment programs and rather exacerbated prisoners’ rights and racial inequality within the correctional system. Furthermore, along with the poor conditions perpetuated in prisons due to mass incarceration, the changes brought about in the United States prison system as a result of the legislation surrounding the War on Drugs systematically targeted minority groups. For example, the practice of stopping and searching individuals without probable cause was very common for law enforcement, especially frisking Black or Hispanic individuals due to racial profiling. Law enforcement's reliance on racial profiling, rather than objective grounds for suspicion, not only perpetuates racial discrimination but also infringes upon civil rights and undermines the principles of fairness and equal treatment for minority groups as compared to white individuals. It creates an 31 Ibid.

10 environment where certain individuals are unjustly targeted solely based on their race, further eroding trust in the criminal justice system. Scholars Lawrence Bobo and Victor Thompson argue how the War on Drugs in terms of the criminal justice system was in and of itself “unfair by design.” They state how the War on Drugs “is most evident in the consequences it has had on the life course 32 of Black Americans, in particular Black males.” Nearly 1 in 10 Black males before they reached the age of thirty were in state prisons and those who were born in the early 1990s faced almost a 1-in-3 33 odds of ending up incarcerated in the future. That number for newborn whites was 1-in-10. This stark contrast between Black males and newborn whites, with a 1-in-10 chance of incarceration, highlights the racial disparities and the unequal treatment experienced within the criminal justice system. The presence of inherent racial bias in drug law enforcement has far-reaching consequences for systemic inequality. It perpetuates the marginalization of minority communities, contributing to a cycle of distrust between law enforcement and these communities which inevitably aggravated minorities within the prison system. The over-policing and disproportionate targeting of Black individuals and other minority groups alike not only leads to higher arrest and incarceration rates, but also can disrupt social and economic progress and further perpetuate the cycle of disadvantage for them. Even from the get-go of the War on Drugs legislation under the Nixon administration, there were ulterior motives to several of the actions that Nixon was partaking in when it came to the legalization of certain drugs. A scholar specializing in the historiography of drugs in the United States named Emily Dufton further how Nixon viewed marijuana to be a historically “black drug” and as a result, pushed for it 34 to become illegal. Furthermore, as a result of the “tough-on-crime” approaches to punishment and crime that Nixon was imposing, there was an increase in the prevalence of mandatory minimum

32 Bobo and Thomspon, “Unfair by Design: The War on Drugs...” p. 456. 33 Ibid., 458. 34 Dufton, “Grass roots : the rise and fall and rise of marijuana in America.” p. 54.

11 sentences for drug dealers, serving upwards of 15 years and even to life sentences. Combined with the statistics of how Black Americans were historically more likely to go to prison as a result of bias from law enforcement, it is abundantly clear how there was a lack of consideration when it came to the equality of several minority groups. This perspective reflects a historical association between marijuana and minority communities, which has been used to justify racially biased enforcement and discriminatory policies. Additionally, the criminalization of marijuana based on racial stereotypes has contributed to the disproportionate targeting and incarceration of Black Americans for drug offenses, even further exacerbated by the perspectives of John Ehrlichman, Nixon’s advisor, who historically was pushing for an anti-Black agenda to go against the legalization of drugs, which as a result, would inevitably target and increase the prison rates for Black individuals. For law enforcement, one large aspect of their work which increased racial tensions were the “stop-and-frisk” searches as discussed previously, which allowed officers to search individuals if they had any “reasonable doubts” or suspicions which was deemed not a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution according to the 1967 35 Supreme Court case called Terry v Ohio. The fact that law enforcement had legislation from the Supreme Court to support them inevitably led to the abuse of power and an impact on civil liberties. The disproportionate targeting of minority communities because of pre-existing biases as well as racial profiling led to tensions within law enforcement and communities of color. Officers could base their searches on this “reasonable suspicion”––which really had no quantitative grounds of measuring––and could thus systemically arrest more minority groups, creating unfair conditions for minority groups and further infringing on the rights of prisoners. In fact, according to Alexander, a previous scholar who compared the War on Drugs to Jim Crow era America, police departments who were making drug-related arrests were actually receiving 35 Author unknown, “A Summary of Supreme Court’s...” p. 1.

12 36 monetary compensation. By thus targeting minority groups as they would have the least power in court to defend themselves, law enforcement thus had the ability to systematically arrest to fulfill a certain quota (and even go beyond) in exchange for money––bribery to an extent. Arthur Benavie also writes in his book Drugs: America’s Holy War that the entire homicide squad in the Metro Dade Police Department in Florida were charged due to bribery, extortion, and the dealing of narcotics in 37 the early 1980s. The fact that police departments were going out of their way in order to arrest individuals not only contributed to the increase in the “tough-on-crime” approach, leading to mass incarceration, overcrowding, etc. but also contributed to the increased systemic oppression against minority groups. To consider the media perspective during the time, The Globe and Mail published an article in 1990 which addressed the views of a Black prisoner regarding the prevalence of racial bias and oppression in the prison system. The prisoner stated in this article, “It’s prejudice at the bottom. If you are walking down the street as a Black person, they will stop you. They’ll plant drugs on you. No 38 one can prove it, because the courts believe the white cop over the Black ‘criminal.’” The prisoner went on to say how no matter the appearance of the Black individual––even if they were in suits and in nice areas––white law enforcement immediately began questioning, “‘What you doin’ here?’ “Where'd you get a suit?” and in fact just due to the color of his skin was, “stopped five times by 39 cops.” The prisoner's claim that the courts tend to believe the white police officer's account over that of the Black individual points to a lack of accountability within the criminal justice system. This lack of accountability erodes trust between communities of color and law enforcement, reinforcing existing disparities and hindering efforts to address systemic inequalities. It supports the argument that the War on Drugs not only targeted minority groups but also allowed for the unchecked abuse 36 Alexander, The New Jim Crow... p. 50. 37 Benavie, Drugs: America’s... p. 71. 38 Morris, “Black Prisoners Speak Out About Racism,” p. 1. 39 Ibid.

13 of power and discrimination by law enforcement––analogous to corruption seen by police departments as well. Additionally, the prisoner’s account is particularly interesting as it also puts into perspective the pervasive nature of racial profiling via the legitimization of discriminatory practices in such minority communities. However, it is also important to consider the perspectives of other minority groups such as Hispanic individuals and women who were also systemically, disproportionately targeted against. 40 Women, faced significant marginalization in the prison systems and even child welfare acts in the United States were victims of racial classifications, provoking the sentiment of racial inequality within prison systems . Developed in response to help American children, Cynthia Honoré-Collins argues that because of increased rates in African American incarceration due to the War on Drugs, 41 the new legislation allowed less time for parents to “relinquish parental rights.” As a result, African American children had to be members of foster care and adoption centers and increased prison sentences created stricter ability to maintain “legal custody of their children due to strict time limits 42 for reunification.” It is truly dismal that Black Americans, because of relatively menial drug-related offenses, had to spend lengthy years in prison (due to the mandatory minimum sentencing laws) and did not even have the ability to reunite with their children and loved ones. Overall, the War on Drugs severely exacerbated systemic inequality in the United States prison system through the targeted discrimination of minority groups in many means. Moreover, the War on Drugs legislation brought about heightened federal funding to the prison system as a whole and contributed to the establishment of private prisons as well. Both these aspects immensely contributed to mass incarceration and were a consequence of ineffectiveness of the legislation as funding was directed in places which solely worsened prisoners’ rights and

40 Reynolds, “The War on Drugs...” p. 76. 41 Honoré-Collins, “The Impact of African American...” p. 110. 42 Ibid., p. 113.

14 contributed to racial inequities. For one, the Reagan administration, during the two-terms of his presidency in the 1980s, increased federal expenditure for narcotic control to such an extent that it 43 reached $4.3 billion annually by 1988. The increased federal expenditure signifies a response to what was widely perceived as a drug crisis during the 1980s. The Reagan administration, through its policies and rhetoric, sought to create a sense of urgency and mobilize resources to address drug abuse and the associated social problems. The magnitude of the financial commitment to narcotic control during the Reagan era had a lasting impact on drug policy and public perception. The large-scale funding shaped the allocation of resources, with a significant portion going toward law enforcement efforts. This reinforced the notion that the drug problem required a punitive response, influencing subsequent policies and public attitudes towards drug control and substantively contributing to pervasiveness of overcrowding and mass incarceration. In addition to his past drug policies, Reagan passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act in 1986 which remains, according to critic Bruge Bagley, “the most comprehensive initiative in modern US history 44 to lower domestic demand and reduce the flow of drugs from abroad.” The legislation increased 45 funding by upwards of $1.7 billion to a total of $3.9 billion just for the fiscal year of 1987. It may seem that because the federal government was allocating such a substantial amount of money towards the prison systems, they were effective in terms of improving drug education, rehabilitation, treatment programs, etc. However, in fact, all the funding was going towards increasing the amount of prison staff which along with the “tough-on-crime” approach, allowed governments to build more state and federal prisons to house more criminals and continue to abuse their rights through mass incarceration. However, just within a few months of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, the government of the United States faced severe fiscal deficits due to the constraints of certain budget

43 Bagley, “US Foreign Policy...” p. 206. 44 Ibid., p. 210. 45 Ibid., p. 198.

15 46 reduction acts. As a result, the Reagan administration was forced to make cuts to their spending. Out of all places to cut the budget, the administration opted on the cutting of already lacking treatment, rehabilitation, and education programs––clearly demonstrating the interests of the government to incarcerate as many prisoners as possible for combating the drug problem. While the increased federal expenditure demonstrates a commitment to narcotic control, it also highlights the limitations of relying predominantly on law enforcement measures. Despite the substantial funding, the drug problem persisted, indicating that the financial investment alone was not sufficient to effectively address the complex issues associated with drug abuse and addiction. For instance, according to a Boston Globe article published in 1983, “despite a tripling in federal spending to cut off the flow of illicit drugs... authorities are seizing less than 10 percent of dangerous drugs entering the country.” The article went on to state the ineffectiveness of the programs themselves as “the low percentage of the drug supply seized, decreasing street drug prices, and increasing drug purity indicate that drug availability, the primary target of interdiction, 47 has not been seriously affected.” The article highlights the discrepancy between the tripling of federal spending and the relatively small percentage of dangerous drugs seized. This suggests that the supply of illicit drugs entering the country continued relatively unabated despite the increased funding for interdiction. The inability to disrupt the drug supply chain effectively raises questions about the efficacy of interdiction efforts in addressing the demand for drugs. The “decreasing street 48 drug prices and increasing drug purity” mentioned in the article point to market dynamics that run counter to the goals of interdiction. This unintended consequence highlights the adaptability of drug traffickers and the challenges in disrupting illicit drug markets solely through supply-side interventions.

46 Ibid., p. 203. 47 Ostrow, “War on Drugs: Report Says...” p. 1. 48 Ibid.

16 The drug epidemic, regardless of federal spending, has continued to perpetuate a lack of the federal government’s effort to combat the root cause and simply increase federal spending. In fact, even administrative officials claimed that treatment was not of utmost importance from the federal spending allocated by the government. According to a Washington Post article published in 1992, the policy director for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Bruce Carnes said, “We are pumping 49 money into treatment in prison, but we do not see that as our first priority.” The article's findings raise questions about the cost-effectiveness of such interdiction programs. Despite the significant increase in federal spending, the limited impact on drug availability indicates the urgency for officials to reevaluate resource allocation––something that the legislation clearly failed in doing. This analysis calls for a more balanced and evidence-based approach that law enforcement and prison officials should have taken that considers not only the direct enforcement measures but also prevention, treatment, and harm reduction strategies that can yield more effective results within available resources. Additionally, the War on Drugs saw a drastic increase in the privatization of prisons within the private sectors. According to a book called Punishment for Sale: Private Prisons, Big Business, and the Incarceration Binge, private-based prisons were coming into existence as a result of the overcrowding which occurred as a result of the “tough-on-crime” approach to incarceration. Donna Selman and Paul Leighton write that “The ideology that business is more efficient than government led to widespread acceptance of the claim that government mismanagement was generating inmate 50 lawsuits rather than to an investigation into the effectiveness of harsher sentencing policies.” Effectively, private prisons were owned by major corporations and actually were monetizing the wealth of the richer individuals, were building prisons, providing the wealthy donors a stake in those prisons, and locking up poor and minority groups for drug-related incidents. The fact that the prison 49 Boodman, “Prison Medical Crisis...” p. 1. 50 Selman and Leighton, Punishment for Sale..., p. 36.

17 system was becoming more of a business indicated the prevailing ideology of a shift in focus away from examining the effectiveness of harsher sentencing policies. This emphasis on efficiency and profit-seeking led to a neglect of critical evaluation and investigation into the outcomes and consequences of such policies. By involving the private sector in the corrections industry, these corporations sought to capitalize on the increasing number of incarcerated individuals. By effectively reducing the prisoner’s ability to live in humane and stable conditions, the involvement of corporations in the prison system created a financial incentive to maintain high levels of incarceration and limit the spending of amenities for the prisoners themselves. Instead of primarily focusing on rehabilitation and public safety, the emphasis on profit-making turned incarceration into a market-driven enterprise. This transformation raises questions about the goals and priorities of the criminal justice system and its ability to address the complex social issues associated with crime effectively. Furthermore, in the media at the time, there were several instances where because of the privatization and increased federal funding of prisons contributing to poor prison environments, several prison officials stated their desires to propagate an Inmates’ Bill of Rights. For instance, one such Bill of Rights was suggested in 1977 to set in stone proposals which would affect the lives of 51 over 60,000 inmates across New York city’s seven prisons, in a New York Times article. However, even with several proponents to the program, the article addresses the thoughts of Benjamin Malcolm, the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections who believes that the changes would 52 “cost many, many millions of dollars and create administrative confusion.” Furthermore, Malcolm brings about the financial concerns to the model by mentioning how it would be an impediment to 53 the “ability of taxpayers to pay and the department to administer.” He further says how singling

51 Raab, “Inmates' 'Bill of Rights' is Proposed to Upgrade City Prison Conditions.” p. 2. 52 Ibid. 53 Ibid.

18 out ‘costly items’ such as hot water in each cell would prove to be a financial burden for the Department of Corrections and taxpayers alike. However, one important consideration is that this Bill of Rights includes basic human and civil rights such as granting prisoners the ability to have their own personal space and prevent overcrowding, setting limits on the amount of hours prisoners can be in their cells, etc. It is worthy to note how Malcolm is only concerned with the interests of the Department of Corrections who is solely concerned about financial burdens. The article does not address how Malcolm considered the likes of the prisoners by providing them the opportunity to achieve such basic civil rights. Overall, with the increased funding of prisons––through federal and private means––the War on Drugs legislation still proved to be ineffective as compared to its original goals for imprisonment. In conclusion, the War on Drugs and subsequent drug reform acts have had far-reaching effects on the United States prison system and society as a whole. Through the prevalence of “tough-on-crime” approaches, leading to poor conditions in prisons for inmates, to the systemic targeting of minority groups via perpetuation of systemic inequality these policies have exacerbated racial tensions and neglected prisoners’ rights, all while demonstrating the failure to effectively address drug-related issues. The evidence presented, including historical perspectives, statistical data, and analysis of primary sources, highlights the inherent flaws and shortcomings of the War on Drugs. It reveals a system that disproportionately affects marginalized communities, perpetuates racial bias in law enforcement practices, and fails to prioritize rehabilitation and public health approaches. The War on Drugs set up a precedent for years to come regarding how America took into account its drug problems. For instance, the War on Drugs has since informed the presidency of George W. Bush and Barack Obama who still faced the effects of the original legislation. Only through such efforts is it possible to begin to rectify the damage caused by the War on Drugs and work towards a fair and more equitable society for all.

Bibliography:

Alexander, Michelle. The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. Place unknown: publisher unknown, 2010.

Author unknown, “A Summary of Supreme Court's Actions.” New York Times (1923-), May 30, 1967. https://exeter.idm.oclc.org/loginurl=https://www.proquest.com/historical- newspapers/summary-supreme-courts-actions/docview/117388315/se-2.

Author unknown. The Facts About “Drug Abuse”. New York: Macmillian Publishing Co. LLC, 1980.

Bagley, Bruce Michael. “US Foreign Policy and the War on Drugs: Analysis of a Policy Failure.” Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 30, no. 2/3 (1988): https://doi.org/10.2307/165986.

Benavie, Arthur. Drugs: America’s Holy War. New York, NY: Rouledge, 2009.

Bobo, Lawrence D., and Victor Thompson. “Unfair by Design: The War on Drugs, Race, and the Legitimacy of the Criminal Justice System.” Social Research 73, no. 2 (2006): http://www.jstor.org/stable/40971832.

Boodman, Sandra G. "Prison Medical Crisis; Overcrowding Created by the War on Drugs Poses a Public Health Emergency: [FINAL Edition]." The Washington Post (Pre-1997 Fulltext), Jul 07, ] 1992. https://exeter.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/new spapers/prison-medical-crisis-overcrowding-created-war-on/docview/307532797/se-2. Dufton, Emily. Grass roots : the rise and fall and rise of marijuana in America. Unknown place: unknown publisher, 2017.

Hazlett, Bill. "SAN QUENTIN CRACKDOWN: NEW WARDEN CUTS VIOLENCE IN PRISON SAN QUENTIN WARDEN WARDEN CUTS PRISON VIOLENCE." Los Angeles Times (1923-1995), Oct 23, 1978. https://exeter.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https:// www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/san-quentin-crackdown/docview/158710382/se- 2.

Hurst, John. "Plagued by Overcrowding, Violence: 'Model' Prison System Degenerating." Los Angeles Times (1923-1995), Jun 08, 1981.https://exeter.idm.oclc.or g/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/plagued-overc rowding-violence/docview/152788653/se-2. Honoré-Collins, Cynthia P. “The Impact of African American Incarceration on African American Children in the Child Welfare System.” Race, Gender & Class 12, no. 3/4 (2005): http://www.jstor.org/stable/41675265.

Kerr, Peter. "WAR ON DRUGS STRAINING JAILS U.S. PRISON OFFICIALS SEE OVERCROWDING GETTING WORSE: [SPORTS FINAL, C EDITION]." Chicago Tribune (Pre-1997 Fulltext), Sep 25, 1987.https://exeter.idm.oclc.org/login?url= https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/war-on-drugs-straining-jails-u-s-prison-offic ials/docview/291060480/se-2.

Loury, Glenn. “America’s Imprisonment Practices Are Racist” in America’s Prisons. Michigan: Greenhaven Press, 2010.

Meier, Kenneth J. “The Politics of Drug Abuse: Laws, Implementation, and Consequences.” The Western Political Quarterly 45, no. 1 (1992), https://doi.org/10.2307/448762.

Morris, Ruth. "Black Prisoners Speak Out about Racism." The Globe and Mail, Feb 02, 1990. https://exeter.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com /newspapers/black-prisoners-speak-out-about-racism/docview/385658601/se-2.

Ostrow, Ronald J. "WAR ON DRUGS: REPORT SAYS FEDERAL AGENCIES ARE HARDLY MAKING A DENT." Boston Globe (1960-), Jun 14, 1983. https://exeter.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/ historical-newspapers/war-on-drugs/docview/1637378462/se-2.

Selman, Donna, and Leighton, Paul. Punishment for Sale: Private Prisons, Big Business, and the Incarceration Binge. Issues in Crime & Justice. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010.

Raab, Selwyn. 1977. "Inmates' 'Bill of Rights' is Proposed to Upgrade City Prison Conditions." New York Times (1923-), May 05, 1.https://exeter.idm.oclc.org/login ?url=https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/inmates-bill-rights -is-proposed-upgrade-city/docview/123372500/se-2.

Reynolds, Marylee. “The War on Drugs, Prison Building, and Globalization: Catalysts for the Global Incarceration of Women.” NWSA Journal 20, no. 2 (2008): http://www.jstor.org/stable/40071275.