For anyone interested in seeing the rest of the great documentary I showed in class, here is the information (and it should still be on Netflix):
"The House I live In"
By Eugene Jarecki
I would like to thank everyone for being so engaged in class! It turned out way better than anticipated.
Reflecting back on the question that Prof. Stein posed to me after the clip, I failed to mention that while I do support the "War on Drugs," I do so for its purpose/principles rather than its current application and administration. I can already hear Prof. Waterston asking me to specify and define the principles, so I will do so: to stop the problem of harmful drug use and addiction, and to eliminate the illicit drug economy along with all the all the dangerous criminal activity that maintains it. Where I disagree with the WOD is the overwhelming racial discrimination, the misguided and suspicion criminalization of marihuana (a substance proven not to be deadly), and the fact that it distracts from root causes which create the need for self-medicating. Moreover, I am disgusted by the obvious misuse of police discretion and power as well as the harmful impacts the WOD has had on indignant communities nationwide. Nevertheless, whether or not this was the case initially, drugs are now a problem that must be addressed (look to the multi-billion dollar drug industry for evidence of such). Rather than doing away with the WOD, I think it must be refocused. Perhaps changing the name or removing those who profit would help to address these issues. Moreover, perhaps funds previously used for treatment can be restored to their original purpose.
With that said, I would ask the class to focus on possible solutions, not the problem we already know exists. What are some creative ways we can address the issue of how to fix the WOD? The issue of drug abuse? For this exercise, I ask that you try and be as specific as possible and remain on the topic of drugs (as opposed to poverty, flaws of capitalism, etc.)
And to help, here is what should be a familiar quote from Einstein taken from last semester's lesson on Charity: "you can't solve a problem with the same mindset that created it."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Since our class, I have been obsessed with hope. Despite what I said in seminar, I keep thinking about myself and Anthony and the way in which our lives embody and reflect that concept. You got me.
We each grew up in circumstances that were, perhaps, short on hope. Maybe there were long odds that we would avoid bad outcomes. I am sure many in the class could say the same of their own lives. But here is Anthony, in college, so smart, clearly going on to do something important. And me? Although I had a few incidents that led me to mandated dispositions as a juvenile, I largely escaped the system, probably because I was white. At 30, I got a GED, then a BA, then a Ph.D. I believe that the "new" me has helped many people: clients, students, people who are caught up in various systems. Had a cop or judge made just one different decision, things may have gone a totally different way.
So my hope is that no one ever has to end up in the criminal justice system. I see no value in it at all. There are many ways to make people safe without treating other people like animals.
I do not know how creative the solution is, Anthony, but in some ways, it is very simple. Whether we have the will to do it is another story.
P.S. A model where we legalize marijuana and regulate more dangerous drugs (most, but not all, of which are currently legal) would be a good start to getting rid of this supposed problem. Marijuana possession and distribution, while it has a large deleterious impact on people's lives through the criminal justice system, is far less dangerous than either alcohol or tobacco in terms of health outcomes, costs, and deaths. The "dangerousness" of marijuana stems from the fact it is illegal rather than being an inherent characteristic of the drug itself.
Hello Everyone,
Anthony, I do not believe there is a clear-cut “solution” to the war on drugs. I always make a joke about the “war on drugs” being the longest war fought in American history. In some ways, the statement is correct and the war has gone on long enough with no clear solution. Similar to statements made in Ana’s class about the purpose of deinstitutionalization, we should go back to the original purpose of the reform. We need to understand why certain consequences occurred and how particular “unintended” consequences came to exist. I also believe that the solution needs to be collaborative effort because the war on drugs affects many facets of life. I feel like we need to decrease mandatory minimums, treat each case individually, and look deeper into a person’s character about ties to the community. Many individuals use drugs and have much lower rates of incarceration of men and women of color. The programs need to change because the war on drugs has become a war on race and shows characteristics of an inverse post racial society. I believe policy makers need to reassess the war on drugs and ask several questions: Has the war on drugs fulfilled its original intend? Are the issues of President Nixon’s administration still relevant in the contemporary world? How will the reestablishing of the mission of the war on drugs change the outcomes of the system at large?
J.T
Thank you for your post, Anthony.
I did an Internet search on the War on Drugs to see if I could find any official government documents that describes WOD as an official policy. I found nothing. The only references to the WOD as an official policy dated back to the time when Nixon first announced the program. Further, The U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy makes NO reference to the War on Drugs. Instead of the War on Drugs, there exists a National Drug Control Strategy. But as we know, there IS an ongoing War on Drugs, whether or not the current administration overtly describes its drug combating efforts as a war. This is scary, and it rules out the name change as being a step towards a more effective governmental response to the drug problem.
In order for the War on Drugs to be refocused, there must some changes from the legislative branch of government. Specifically, we would need the legislature to change the draconian drug sentencing policies that are inconsistent with the provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Hopefully such changes will inspire the judiciary to abandon its position as an ally in the Federal Government’s drug war and dispense impartial justice instead.
The law enforcement dimension is the toughest to address. My suggestion in this regard is that the FG should issue new guidelines that dictate exactly how law enforcement agencies nationwide should wage this war on drugs. I do not know how, but these new guidelines must incorporate and emphasize the respect of civil liberty in the enforcement of drug law. Further, the federal government should define specific objectives and performance measures upon which funding for drug enforcement programs will be based. Hopefully, with specific guidelines, objectives, and performance measures, we can rein in the arbitrariness of execution of the drug war, which currently engenders profiteering.
Thank you.
Thank you Anthony for a great class.
I'm not sure how to solve the the problem as described by Anthony but I think part of the solution lies with the judicial branch of government. Based on the excerpts that we've read, the judges have been slowly chipping away at citizens' civil liberties. They need to change the way they make decisions so that the defense arms of government like DEA etc do not have so much leeway and thus be able to abuse the power entrusted to them.
The true change begins with the individual in that police uniform, or judicial robe etc. I advocate that it begins with us, each individually. If we decide that we dislike the injustices that are taking place and determine to be a paragon of honesty, discretion, fairness etc (the list can go on, then the true change will happen. I want to believe there is hope but it is just so difficult when we look at the past and present behavior and policies by those we have chosen to lead us. True change begins with each of us individually and our determination to really effect change. Look into the past so we can learn from those mistakes and try to leave the world a little better than we met it, whether on a small or large scale. Change begins with us. When I think about the future, it seems so daunting but I'm determined to do my part to be part of the change as I am sure my fellow Verons are.
Thank you for the wonderful class discussion Anthony. How can we address the issues of fixing the war on drugs… I believe the problem of drugs and the use/abuse of drugs is underlined by the social and economic dysfunctions which may lead to violence and addiction. The response to fix or address the war on drugs we must attempt to strengthen communities and improve public safety, health, education, and the creation of employment programs. It should be the responsibility of the local government, businesses, and non governmental organization create such opportunities. By offering these opportunities it creates a healthy community and increase the participation of community members to play an active role in fighting crime and drugs. The challenge is to get the local government to invest and provide resources in these communities.
Hi All,
Anthony thanks for a stimulating, great class!
I'd like to start out by saying that I don't think it is possible to focus on solutions for the "War on Drugs" without discussing poverty and capitalism. I don't think we should even be asking the question of how to address the drug issue. That seems overwhelmingly inferior in importance to poverty and racial inequality, the roots of drug use. This idea of the roots vs. the symptoms of a societal problem is one that we have discussed numerous times in class, and probably one of the most important and practical discussions. How can we solve a problem without truly understanding the problem?
I do see rampant drug use as an issue because of its effects on families, the economy, health, etc. However, as many of us said in class, it is a distraction that criminalizes and ostracizes the poor, making them the "undesirables" of society that we all want to avoid and lock up. Its the best way to turn us all against each other.
umm..Yeah! The U.S government wants to divide and conquer!
For a cross-cultural look at these issues, please check out Didier Fassin’s Enforcing Order: An Ethnography of Urban Policing (Paris is the setting).
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0745664806.html.
In an article Fassin just published in the February issue of American Ethnologist (which I read with great interest because it is about “revisiting the boundaries between ethnography and fiction”), he includes this observation that I think have relevance and resonance with our discussions:
“History shows, for instance, how, in the 1980s, two logics developed in parallel in France: On the one hand, the restructuring of the economy and the rise of unemployment following the oil crisis produced a decline in social mobility and an increase in social inequality, which affected working-class families of immigrant backgrounds living in the housing projects in particular; on the other hand, after the victory of the Left in the general elections, the emergence of the Far Right led the Conservatives to radicalize their positions on immigration and security issues. New forms of policing developed with the creation of special units and the deployment of specific methods principally oriented toward the neighborhoods where the most disadvantaged populations, usually those belonging to ethnic minorities, were concentrated. “
His research revealed the following (note: this is a long quote so my entry will continue in a second post):
“Having observed, for almost a year and a half, the practice of law enforcement in the outer cities of Paris, I came to realize that the police did not do what people generally thought or said they were doing or were even supposed to do. Special units, most notably, the anticrime squads, and specific operational techniques, including the practice of stop and frisk, had been deployed by the government to respond to the alleged sentiment of insecurity and risk of disturbances in urban areas. These units and these modalities were targeted almost exclusively at housing projects. Statistical data indicated, however, that these disadvantaged neighborhoods did not have higher crime rates than the surrounding territories and that serious crime had consistently declined during recent decades throughout the country. But beat officers compensated for the relative lack of infractions by focusing on two types of minor offenses: drug-law violations and violations of immigration laws, which allowed them to reach arrest quotas they were supposed to attain under the so-called politique du chiffre, that is, “politics of number,” initiated by the Ministry of the Interior to demonstrate its efficacy against crime. Marijuana users and illegal aliens were easy prey, but they barely corresponded to the sort of nuisance the population had in mind when expressing concern about crime. Moreover, this focus contributed to the banalization of racial profiling in police work, either indirectly, through the exclusive frisking of youths from the projects, who happened to be predominantly of North African or Sub-Saharan background, or directly, via the phenotypical identification of probable migrants for the purpose of checking their residence permits.”
continued....
continued from previous entry....
“Seeking these offenses was not the only reason for the harassment of the residents of the disadvantaged neighborhoods, though. It was clear that the main objective of repeatedly stopping and searching the same youths, whom
the officers knew, was not to verify an infraction but, rather, to provoke one: Indeed, a verbal or a physical reaction could lead to an arrest for “insulting and resisting a representative of public authority,” an offense whose occurrence had soared during the past two decades, following official incentives from the Ministry of the Interior. Sometimes these encounters developed into violent confrontations between neighborhood inhabitants and officers. Thus, whereas the official legitimization of the presence of special units and the use of specific techniques was to prevent insecurity and disturbances, this policy functioned as a self-fulfilling prophecy, finding its justification in the trouble it caused. It therefore contributed to the stigmatization and marginalization of populations and territories already affected by discrimination and poverty. In sum, rather than performing their expected law enforcement role, the police were simply enforcing order—an unequal order that engendered urban disorder.”
Thank you for the great class and blog post Anthony!
I am not sure I necessarily agree with you when you say that we can “look to the multi-billion dollar drug industry” as evidence that drugs are a problem that must be addressed. I can here the echo of Professor Stein from our class in the back of my mind advocating that drugs are not necessarily a problem. I would even go as far as to say the fact that there is a multi-billion dollar drug industry says less about drugs being a problem, and more about it being a legitimate economic opportunity if regulated. I therefore believe “refocusing” the “War on Drugs” is not the best course of action. When you ask us how to fix the WOD, my honest reaction is why fix a “program” (if we can even call it that) that took an inherently wrong approach from the start. To reference your quote from Einstein, I believe attempts at “fixing” the WOD is justifying the war’s existence in the first place, and therefore maintaining the flawed mindset that created all the problems that have arisen from the “program.” I think when we say we need to tweak any government program, we are essentially acknowledging the good of the program, and in the context of the WOD, I simply do not agree that this is something that must be tweaked, but scrapped entirely.
With all that being said, I do recognize the point of this blog is to focus on the issue and come up with some type of solution, so I think my suggestion, which would go in line with my above comments, would be that the biggest problem with the WOD is the approach. I believe the first step towards a solution to the problems that arise from this program would be to formally end the “War on Drugs,” and thus rename whatever drug program this war has become. Although we discussed in class how a large percentage of the funds for this “war” have gone towards treatment, I believe this is vastly overshadowed by the adversarial nature that causes a lot of the injustices that are typical of the WOD. I believe a big reason why law enforcement is so adversarial is because this is a “war” which makes any suspected drug users the “enemy.” If the WOD was to be formally ended, and whatever program remains is renamed, I believe this would force judicial actors and law enforcement officials to change the way they perceive drug users (depending on the new name of the program of course) and subsequently how they treat them. I also agree with a lot of what has been said, and of course we would also need to make a variety of structural changes to our drug policies (such as no longer allowing the violation of civil liberties), but I just wanted to highlight how changing what we call the program can also be important for changing the culture around its enforcement.
Thank you Anthony for a very interesting class on the plight drugs have had on all of our neighborhoods.
In finding a solution, I agree with Professor Stein’s assertion in class that drugs are NOT in itself a PROBLEM. The problem humanity has is not with drugs but with addiction and the short term satisfaction we get from things that distract us from our less than satisfying reality. The same reason someone would binge drink is the same methodology behind someone binge eating during depression. People use whatever they need to feel better about their current situation without actually addressing it and drugs are often an easily acceptable gateway. Of course, there are issues of how easily drugs are available in low income communities where the need to escape current circumstances is at its peak. Still, if hard drugs were not available, we would have a bunch of ice cream addicts drowning their sorrows outside of supermarkets instead of liquor stores (Because Alcohol is a drug to!).
The solution I would provide is pretty predictable of me but I do believe releasing stress through art can bring significant change to people’s lives. To be able to create something outside of the constraints of work/school life is a more gratifying release than any short term fix.
P.S. The selling of drugs is also addictive and not gratifying in the long run as well as I have seen many of my friends fall on both sides of addiction.
Hello All.
I just wanted to share this with you. We've talked about prisons and their ineffectiveness to rehabilitate the offender (I hope I'm not mixing up my classes). My supervisor at URI brought this case to my attention so I wanted to share it with you. It was a well kept secret for many years because the offender is super wealthy. He is the white heir to the Dupont fortune. He pled guilty to raping his 3 year old daughter (at the time of the incident) but the overseeing judge sentenced him to 8-years probation instead and "to pay $4,395 to the Delaware Violent Crimes Compensation" (Daily News). Judge Jurden said “Defendant will not fare well in Level 5 setting...” In Delaware, level 5 means prison. To add insult to injury, the public defender, Brendan J. O’Neill, admitted the ruling may cause the public to be skeptical about equal sentencing despite socioeconomic standing but defended the judge by saying "sometimes people need help more than they deserve to be punished.It’s an extremely rare circumstance that prison serves the inmate well,” he told the paper. “Prison is to punish, to segregate the offender from society, and the notion that prison serves people well hasn’t proven to be true in most circumstances.”
SO WHY DO WE HAVE PRISONS AGAIN? AND WHY ARE THEY OPERATED THE WAY THEY ARE, IF IT IS KNOWN THAT THEY DON'T WORK?
Here is a link to it if you are in case you may have the time to browse them.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/woman-sues-ex-husband-du-pont-heir-dodged-prison-raping-3-year-old-daughter-article-1.1740180
Hi all! Sorry I'm jumping in so late, it's been a trying week.
Anthony, first, your class was great, and I'm enjoying reading everyone's comments above.
In regards to your question about how we can "fix" the war on drugs without focusing on poverty and other socioeconomic factors, I was stumped. There is no way to fix a "war" that has been flawed since conception. Instead of trying to fix something that is a) obviously not working; b) broken and ineffective in every capacity; and c) focusing on the wrong aspects of this "problem" with drugs, we need to scrap it and start again. If we addressed issues such as poverty, lack of education and resources to some groups over others, and whom we target when enforcing these policies, we wouldn't NEED a "war" on drugs! The entire system in place is used only to criminalize certain groups and pacify others by leaving a mirage of action/change/justice(!).
Also, in regards to Simonne's last comment about the man who raped his 3 year old- I almost pulled my teeth out when I read that the judge could rationalize that he would not "fare well" in prison, yet our entire system bears no issue with throwing entire populations behind bars for minor offenses.
Green speaks the loudest before the bench.
I am way too late to the party: sorry! But a heads up that I'm bringing a copy of an editorial written by Susan Sontag on the dangers of the "war" metaphor. Sontag -- a brilliant woman and writer -- was very much on my mind last week when we were talking about this.
Thanks to Anthony for leading a fascinating and lively seminar!
Post a Comment