War on Drugs

For about a century, the federal government of the United States has been involved in a variety of activities to combat the production, distribution, and sale of illicit substances, known collectively as the “War on Drugs.” Dealing with a great number of vital issues we face today, the War on Drugs is controversial as it has implications for the size and scope of government, the status of civil liberties, the health of the society, crime, and potentially, the War on Terrorism. Although the question "why, given the realities of its social uselessness, is there a 'War on Drugs'?' carries with it a great weight, it remains unasked, both at the public and governmental levels. This question necessitates sociological answers, which become more complex the deeper one delves into the literature, and reveals more factors which seem to vary over both time and space. Various sociological theories have been applied to explore the War on Drugs, and all have explanatory value but none seem to fully explain it.

Sociologists view the War on Drugs from three major sociological perspectives. Those who subscribe to the Interactionist Theory believe that the drug problem emanates from the relationships people have, rather than from a desire to commit crime. They claim that it should be tackled by addressing the societal factors that cause people to do drugs.

Adherents of the Conflict Theory think that the War on Drugs should be viewed in the context of class warfare. They maintain that the rich elite use the drug laws to oppress the lower class and minorities who are more likely to be involved in the drug trade. The Conflict Theory advocates draw public attention to the statistics that show that a dramatically higher percentage of African-Americans are in prison, as opposed to whites. For instance, in seven states, between 80 and 90 percent of all drug offenders in prison are African-American, and nationwide, 13X as many African-Americans are sent to prison for drug offenses than whites.

Moreover, the Conflict theory can identify the groups that profit from anti-drug legislation, whether it be the economic benefits made by multi-national pharmaceutical companies (as Johns (1991) argues), or symbolic gains made by the dominant social group, or even a moral superiority that often comes entirely at the expense of those who suffer as a result. As soon as these gains are made, unmeant effects of the laws (which may be much more punitive than the laws themselves) are justified through a feeling of mere satisfaction of seeing some of these laws affect only a certain, despised group in society.

However, conflict theory then allows for a certain amount of speculation on the motives of those in power. For instance, it is considered by some that rhetoric in the U.S. war on drugs helps presidents construct policies which are targeted toward blacks and minorities without reference to race and polarize the electorate among racial lines and weaken the traditional economic divisions between Democrats and Republicans without communicating unconcealed intolerance or anti-black effect to whites. (Edsall and Edsall, 1991, pp. 138-139)

Johns (1991) writes that "the enforcement tactics of the War on Drugs are focused on minority populations" (p. 155). In her paper, she suggests that the War on Drugs is waged to distract attention from the factors which underlie the problems of drugs and trafficking, in part because the "more powerful segments in society" (p. 150) do not want attention focused the poor job they are doing to cure the social ills. The dichotomy between those in power and minorities and the poor is self-perpetuating, in that these groups have a limited upward mobility, and, consequently, crimes like trafficking in illicit drugs becomes appealing to them. When they try to enrich themselves through illicit means, those in power regard that as justification for minorities and the poor being in the position they are in.

Early marijuana legislation in the United States appeared to be a result of increased crime in the jurisdiction of enforcement officials, who viewed marijuana as an easy scapegoat in their explanation of the problems. Anti-Mexican sentiment was used to create a menacing mythology surrounding marijuana use only during a campaign to have anti-marijuana laws established. This doesn’t fit the Conflict theory explanation, because the real focus was initially on marijuana, and not on a minority group.

Therefore, it appears to be problematic to explain why there is a war on drugs from the perspective of the Conflict Theory. However, it may find out the reason (as Johns (1991) successfully does) why a War on Drugs goes on in the U.S. It is obvious that in the United States there is a strong mythology of a racial link with drugs, and it could well be that those with power in the U.S. have bought wholly into the