Racial Bias in the War on Drugs

The US government initiative to address the scourge of drug addiction is the focus of an article that Ojmarrh Mitchell authored. This article seeks to establish if there is any racial bias in the policies that the government has implemented in its war on drugs. Mitchell begins with an introduction of the history of the war on drugs. He describes how the government of Ronald Reagan made combating drug addiction and the drug trade a key priority (Mitchell, 2009). Mitchell then states that while the war on drugs was initially a noble effort, it has had negative impacts on certain communities. He argues that communities that suffer political and social marginalization have borne the brunt of the war on drugs. Essentially, Mitchell is contending that the war on drugs is partly responsible for the racial disparities and incarceration. The African American community has seen thousands of its members arrested and sent to prison for non-serious drug offenses (Mitchell, 2009). In addition to the policies applied in the war on drugs, Mitchell attributes the disparities to the extensive media attention and the hysteria surrounding the war on drugs. The decision to focus on individuals who commit non-serious drug-related crimes also receives blame for the disparities.

In an effort to explore if there is racial bias in the war on drugs, Mitchell reminds his readers about the history of the war on drugs. Apart from describing how the Reagan administration drew inspiration from the drug crisis to declare war on drugs, Mitchell also gives focus to the role of the media and the impact of political rhetoric. He notes that the media sensationalized the drug trade (Mitchell, 2009). As a result of the biased media coverage, the American public began to regard drug abuse as one of the greatest challenges that the nation faced. Mitchell also identifies the policies that the government adopted in its quest to stamp out drug trade. For example, US Congress enacted laws that introduced more punitive penalties for drug-related violations (Mitchell, 2009). Moreover, Congress challenged law enforcement to be more aggressive in its pursuit of criminals involved in the drug trade. Another measure that Congress passed was providing financial support to states in an effort to enhance their capacity to tackle the drug problem. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act (1986) is among the numerous laws that Congress passed. Through this law, Congress introduced mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses (Mitchell, 2009). These changes focused the attention of law enforcement agencies away from international drug peddlers to low-level distributors. Since a majority of these distributors were from the African American community, the war on drugs effectively affected this community disproportionately. Its members constitute the bulk of the prisoners convicted of drug offenses.

Having described the history of the war on drugs, Mitchell proceeds to explore different approaches that help to explain racial disparities. The first approach focuses on the history of arrests among the black and white communities. He observes that even before the war on drugs, more blacks than whites were arrested (Mitchell, 2009). This observation appears to contradict the position that there is some racial bias in the war on drugs. The focus on low-level offenders is another explanation that Mitchell offers to explain the racial disparities in arrests and incarceration. He notes that drug markets that law enforcement agencies focused on were located in black neighborhoods (Mitchell, 2009). Combined with the focus on street-level drug distribution and use, this fact helps to explain why more black people were arrested and sent to prison for drug offenses. Essentially, Mitchell holds that the racial disparities do not amount to racial bias. This bias is the result of factors that are not necessarily related to this war.

Personal reaction 

I must admit that I found Mitchell’s argument that the war on drugs is not racially biased to be very surprising. Before examining his support for this argument, I felt that the mere fact that more African Americans were arrested suggests that there is some bias in the war. However, after carefully scrutinizing her arguments, I agree that this war was a fair and balanced policy that sought to rid the United States of the drug problem. One of the defenses that Mitchell offers to support his argument is that even before the US declared war on drugs, more black people were being arrested. Therefore, the war cannot be blamed for the higher rates of incarceration and arrest among the black community.

While I fully support Mitchell’s arguments that the government was not deliberately biased i its pursuit of criminals involved in the drug trade, I still think that there are some measures that the government could have taken to ensure fairness and balance. For example, instead of focusing on low-level distributors, the government should have targeted higher-ranking individuals whose involvement in the drug trade is more significant. As it targets these individuals, the government would have been able to effectively tackle the drug problem without sending thousands of black men to prison. I also think that the mandatory minimum sentences that the government introduced were an ineffective policy. Thanks to this policy, thousands of individuals convicted of minor drug offenses faced years behind bars. It is indeed unfortunate that an overwhelming majority of these individuals are from the African American community. In their analysis of the impacts of the war on drugs, individuals need to maintain sobriety and objectivity. As they examine this issue with a clear mind, they will be able to understand that the war on drugs was a noble, though ineffective, effort to protect Americans against dangerous drugs.

Reference

Mitchell, O. (2009). Is the War on Drugs Racially Biased? Journal of Crime and Justice, 32 (2),

49-75. DOI: 10.1080/0735648X.2009.9721270