Content uploaded by Colleen M. Berryessa
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Colleen M. Berryessa on Dec 27, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
DRUG POLICY, DRUG WAR, AND DISPARATE SENTENCING 1
PREPRINT
Cite as: E. Greberman and C.M. Berryessa. (Forthcoming). Drug Policy, Drug War, and
Disparate Sentencing. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Drug Policy, Drug War, and Disparate Sentencing
Emily Greberman and Colleen M. Berryessa
School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ
Summary
The United States (U.S.) and its criminal-legal system have had a historically turbulent
relationship with drugs and substance use. Public rhetoric, political ideology, and resulting
policies, shaped by both rehabilitative and punitive ideals, have served as a foundation for the
criminalization and mass incarceration of those who possess, distribute, and use illegal drugs–
especially the targeting and blaming of communities of color. Early on, though drugs such as
opium had versatile medical benefits, the use of heroin, crack/cocaine, and cannabis by people of
color was quickly shaped into discourse that amplified fear and racist stereotypes and catalyzed
the War on Drugs. Throughout several presidential administrations, the criminalization of drug
crimes disproportionately affected Black individuals, despite White citizens using them at similar
or higher rates. ‘Tough on crime’ policies, policing, and sentencing that resulted from this period
culminated in the mass imprisonment of people of color.
Now trying to repair the harm caused by the War on Drugs and rhetoric from the media
in 2024, there is a strong push for the decriminalization and legalization of several drugs across
the U.S. For cannabis in particular, efforts have been made to advocate for its legalization
federally. In the criminal-legal system, many political leaders and legislators have actively
attempted to advocate for and enforce policies that release individuals from prison who have
DRUG POLICY, DRUG WAR, AND DISPARATE SENTENCING 2
been incarcerated for minor drug offenses or are affected by unjust sentencing practices.
Combined with nationwide efforts to promote research on the use of drugs for medicinal
purposes as well as the problems of drug abuse and addiction, a more progressive and optimistic
approach to drug use has begun and continues to grow across the U.S. The social and political
forces that have historically shaped attitudes towards drug use and punishment are crucial to
understanding the current direction of U.S. drug policies and why the pendulum continues to
swing.
Keywords
Drugs, Sentencing, Sentencing Disparities, Racial Bias, War on Drugs, Punishment,
Politics, Mass Incarceration, Addiction, Sentencing Reform.
Introduction
It is hard to place a ‘start’ and ‘end’ date for the War on Drugs–as its influences are
rooted in racism and its effects are still felt to this day. To understand how and why such events
have occurred, one must understand the foundations of drug policy and the influences of
othering, fearmongering, and policymaker and criminal-legal actor decision-making. Indeed, the
War on Drugs has had vast implications of racial bias in the criminal-legal system, particularly
on biased drug policies, disparities in drug sentencing, and the incarceration of minority
communities. Overall, understanding the reasons behind historical and current drug policies,
sentencing practices, and their effects on individuals and communities in the U.S. is important
when trying to further understand the genesis of the criminalization of drugs. From this
knowledge, the drug policy landscape can learn from past mistakes to move toward current and
DRUG POLICY, DRUG WAR, AND DISPARATE SENTENCING 3
future sentencing reform for drug offenses, including both problem-solving efforts by both
individuals and organizations.
The Origins and Use of Opiates in the U.S.
The history of drug use and consumption in the U.S. begins in the mid-1800s with the
introduction of opium. Opium usage and growth date back to as early as 5,000 B.C. (DOJ &
DEA, 2020; Salavert et al., 2020) in Europe, then carried into the 18th century by the Silk Road
(DEA). By the mid-1800s, Britain smuggled opium into China, which caused addiction rates to
skyrocket and catalyzed the Opium Wars. When people from China were brought over to the
U.S. to work on the railroads, the grueling work environment and conditions contributed to the
increased use of opium (Brecher, 1986; Luna, 1996; DEA) and the creation of ‘Opium Dens’
(places to buy and sell opium) that stretched from San Francisco to New York City. Problems
began to specifically arise when young White women and men were seen entering the dens with
the railroad workers, who were thought to be corrupting them; this birthed one of the first drug
laws in the U.S., which was an 1875 ordinance in San Francisco to lower the likelihood of inter-
racial fraternization and prevent drug use by U.S. citizens (Brecher, 1986). However, U.S.
citizens were pursuing and using opium independently without outside influences (Musto, 1987).
In addition to accusations of moral corruption, White political leaders quickly blamed the
railroad workers for other ailments in the U.S., such as economic and social failures; they were
quickly viewed as criminals, and their identity was associated with menacing acts and violence
(Luna, 1996). While larger dens were shut down, a subculture was forming around the smaller
dens (Brecher, 1986). As more dens were banned, more people continued to frequent them; as
such, 27 cities and a few U.S. states adopted similar ordinances to that in San Francisco in the
late 19th century (Brecher, 1986).
DRUG POLICY, DRUG WAR, AND DISPARATE SENTENCING 4
Since the late 19th century, opiates and the opium poppy led to the development of
morphine, codeine, oxycodone, and heroin (UNODC, 1953; DEA). Often used for inflammation,
food poisoning, parasites, and cholera, they were at first versatile tools (Luna, 1996). When
scientists later developed morphine from opiates, they used a newly discovered single compound
of morphine (as opposed to double); in 1898, the Bayer Company spread its production of the
drug marketed as ‘Heroin’ (UNODC, 1953; Luna, 1966). The name ‘Heroin’ is rumored to have
possibly come from the German term ‘Heroisch,’ which means “large, powerful, extreme, one
with pronounced effect even in small doses” (UNODC, 1953), or named for the ‘heroic’ nature
of the drug (Luna, 1996). When morphine was used in World War I to help soldiers who had
been wounded, they returned home dependent on the drug (Golub & Bennett, 2013).
Heroin was also believed to help individuals who became addicted to morphine (UNODC,
1953), with heroin being viewed as a one-size-fits-all solution. Acknowledgment of drug
addiction only emerged in the late 1870s, and opiates were officially considered addictive by the
end of the 19th century (Luna, 1996). In 1885, cocaine was also used in the medical industry as a
powerful anesthetic and stimulant to treat physical and mental illnesses; cocaine was believed to
treat depression, sexual disorders, and headaches, as well as a cure for opiate addiction (Luna,
1996).
Though the drug market and drug usage had largely been left unregulated despite the
opium den ordinances, the emergence of addiction constituted a large-scale problem as the U.S.
entered the 20th century. It was not until the passage of the Pure Food and Drugs Act in 1906 that
companies were mandated to provide ingredient listings of their food and medicine; with this,
people began avoiding medicines with addictive substances (Musto, 1987; Luna, 1996). Later in
1909, Congress outlawed the importation of opium, which thrust forward illegal drug smuggling
DRUG POLICY, DRUG WAR, AND DISPARATE SENTENCING 5
and selling (Brecher, 1986). Additionally, as opium was now prevented from entering the U.S.,
many individuals turned to other more potent opiates such as morphine and heroin, leading to
several ricocheting effects.
The Criminalization of Drugs and People in the Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries
New public recognition of drug addiction naturally led to passionate public opinions; the
public viewed people with addiction as burdens to society and impediments to the political and
financial growth of the country (Luna, 1996). Quickly they were seen as a nuisance and
deplorable, which escalated to associating people addicted to drugs with deviant behavior and
eventually violent crime (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2016).
Negative perceptions of people who used drugs ran rampant; soon, they were stereotyped as
unproductive members of society who defied the typical ‘American Dream’ work ethic and were
slowing down the progress of the country (Luna, 1996).
While public opinion was forming, major restrictions to drug sales and distribution came
to the U.S. stemming from the implementation of the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914 under
President Woodrow Wilson; manufacturers, sellers, and distributors of narcotics were now
required to register with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (DEA; Hart, 2014). This was a
component of international treaty obligations agreed upon by the U.S., Philippines, and China to
regulate opium traffic–catalyzed by a concerned public and an international opium conference in
1908 called by previous President Theodore Roosevelt (Renborg, 1947; Brecher, 1986). This
was the first time in the U.S. that whole classes of drugs were regulated by law; opiates and
cocaine were now harder to get without a prescription from a registered medical professional.
Here, the criminalization of people addicted to drugs historically began in the U.S. After the
implementation of the Harrison Narcotics Act, physicians would be arrested if they prescribed
DRUG POLICY, DRUG WAR, AND DISPARATE SENTENCING 6
opiates to addicts (Brecher, 1972). Given that medical professionals now faced serious
consequences for providing opiates to those without medical needs, they began avoiding
individuals seeking opiates and denying them medical attention; addicts would then seek them
out via illegal sources (Brecher, 1986). The Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914 is believed to be a
key catalyst for the creation of the illicit drug market in the U.S. and the beginning of the War on
Drugs (Musto, 1987; McNamara, 2011).
During the early 20th century, politicians and the media also played an important role in
generating negative portrayals of certain communities and associating their drug use with violent
crimes. Chinese and Black men fell victim to vicious accusations by Hamilton Wright (appointed
as opium commissioner by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1908). He publicly blamed opium as
the reason why White women were having sexual relations with Chinese men (by coercion) and
also accused Black men of exhibiting violence due to cocaine use (Booth, 1996; Provine, 2011).
These harmful stereotypes were not new for minority communities and reinforced long-existing
perceptions that Black men were more likely to be associated with violent, as compared to
nonviolent, crimes (Oliver & Fonash, 2002). This led to serious consequences, such as the
suspicion of Black individuals using cocaine being used as justification for lynching proceedings
(Hart, 2014).
Harmful inflations of the effects of cocaine also began circulating in the late 19th and
early 20th centuries; suddenly, individuals in Congress believed that cocaine gave Black
individuals larger egos that disillusioned them with super-human strength and indestructability;
some even believed it made them bulletproof (Luna, 1996). These lines of thinking followed
already existing racist ideologies and beliefs–reinforcing prejudices and deleterious assumptions
such as the ‘angry Black woman’ (White, 1999) or the ‘violent Black man’ (Russel-Brown,
DRUG POLICY, DRUG WAR, AND DISPARATE SENTENCING 7
2009). Different media outlets produced several articles that grossly exaggerated the use of
cocaine and its connection to criminal behavior; to this day, biased reporting of Black
communities as it relates to crime originates from these early types of articles (Hart, 2014).
Oliver (2003) emphasizes the role that media portrayals and global entertainment have played in
fueling the stereotype that Black men are ‘dangerous’ and ‘criminal.’ When rhetoric shifted to
less blatant racism because it was less socially acceptable, language by media outlets and
political authorities shifted to passive ‘code words’ to describe the condition of the Black living
experience (Hart, 2014; Netherland & Hansen, 2016). Fear-mongering was prevalent and
minority groups were the chosen scapegoats, with descriptors such as ‘urban,’ ‘poor,’ and
‘ghettos’ often publicly correlated with problems related to cocaine and crack.
During the late 1800s and early 1900s, cannabis was often a part of the national
conversation but the federal government had little interest in regulating it on a national scale;
while individuals attempted to group cannabis alongside other narcotics, the drug was not seen as
a threat and was not a major concern in the U.S. (Musto, 1987). Throughout the early 1900s to
the mid-1930s, cannabis constantly shifted from not being a priority of the federal government to
national rumors of its exaggerated effects and consequences. The early 1920s saw a stark
increase in immigrants from Mexico to the Western U.S. and eventually their spread to the
Midwest and Northern regions. Reports from federal officials as early as 1919 accused cannabis
of causing increased violence by Mexican individuals who were incarcerated in the South
(Musto, 1987) –tying violence to cannabis and cannabis to Mexican immigrants. Now considered
one of the most violent narcotics, a lack of immigration control was to blame. This is a central
reason why the drug is known by many as ‘marijuana;’ an NPR article covering the historic use
of ‘cannabis’ and ‘marijuana’ notes the heavy use of the word ‘cannabis’ pre-1900 and a stark
DRUG POLICY, DRUG WAR, AND DISPARATE SENTENCING 8
departure from using that word and replacing it with the term ‘marijuana’ post-1900 (Thompson,
2013). The change of label primarily came with a change in discourse, with the use of
‘marijuana’ perceived to be strategic by prohibitionists to reinforce the connection of the drug to
Mexican immigrants (Gettman, 2018). However, because alcohol was banned during this time, a
likely unintended side effect of prohibition occurred: many people who previously drank were
now switching to substances such as opium, cocaine, and cannabis (Thornton, 1991).
Presidential Administrations, Public Attitudes, and Drug Sentencing in the 20th Century
In 1930, Harry Anslinger was appointed as the first commissioner of the Federal Bureau
of Narcotics (FBN), where he actively pushed the notion that drug addicts should be thought of
and seen as serious criminals (Provine, 2011). He initially focused on more serious narcotics but
eventually shifted his attention to cannabis–following suit with public attitudes–and put forth the
Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, which went against the recommendations of the American Medical
Association (Musto, 1987). The Tax Act regulated the importation, cultivation, possession, and
distribution of cannabis federally and required importers to register and pay annual taxes (U.S.
Customs and Border Protection). While the discourse around ‘killer marijuana’ amplified, the
FBN sought to end this rhetoric under the guise that the threat of cannabis was under control to
alleviate fears that younger people would not be drawn to such a substance (Musto, 1972).
However, little changed after the passage of the Marijuana Tax Act when it came to the
widespread use of marijuana.
In the years leading up to and during World War II, increases in drug abuse and addiction
necessitated the reemergence of medicine and psychological treatment. Anslinger feared that the
end of the war, and later the Vietnam War, would mirror historical issues of returning soldiers
turning to or continuing their use of narcotics (Musto, 1987). To prevent major downfalls post-
DRUG POLICY, DRUG WAR, AND DISPARATE SENTENCING 9
war, Anslinger sought out mandatory punishments through criminal sentencing; what was once a
medical issue was now solely viewed and treated as a criminal issue.
In 1951, Anslinger aggressively advocated for the passing of the Boggs Act and later the
Narcotics Control Act in 1956, in which cannabis was now added to the list of narcotics
(Provine, 2011). This also amplified the blame on Mexicans and continued to associate them
with cannabis. The Boggs Act of 1950 required two-to-five year sentences for first-time
offenders and five-to-ten years for their second offense. It would increase by a minimum of five
years minimum for each new offense thereafter (DEA; Musto, 1987). The Narcotics Control Act
of 1956 made it so one’s first offense of illegal distribution of narcotics carried a mandatory
minimum of five years and subsequent crimes would result in 10 to 40 years minimum with no
chance of diversion from incarceration (DEA; Musto, 1987). In addition, a jury could sentence
the death penalty for people over the age of 18 who were found guilty of selling heroin to
someone under 18 (Public Law 728; Musto, 1987; Provine, 2011).
According to Musto (1987) in his book The American Disease: Origins of Narcotic
Control, these two statutes represented “the high point of federal punitive action against
narcotics” (p. 231). After the Boggs Act, narcotic sentences in 86 district courts doubled from
two to four years; after the 1956 changes, the average sentence length rose from four to six years
(DEA; Musto, 1987). Musto (1987) also explains how this period mirrored that of the 1920s,
when addiction was not tolerated and a sympathetic public was replaced with societal fear.
Quickly met by criticism from the AMA and the American Bar Association (ABA), these strict
sentencing structures were recognized as problematic. Too little and too late, a new generation of
people addicted to heroin was emerging in primarily impoverished communities of color in
which basic necessities such as healthcare were sparse. If White individuals were using drugs,
DRUG POLICY, DRUG WAR, AND DISPARATE SENTENCING 10
they were met with privileged support from their families and recovery services that were not
provided to minority communities, which emphasized their continued social isolation
(Cortwright, 2001).
Regardless, the late 1950s to 1970s saw the decreased and then increased use in treatment
and medical approaches to drug addiction–with the Supreme Court declaring addiction as a
‘disease’ in 1962 (Musto, 1987; Cortwright, 2001; Provine, 2011). Money and research were
poured into mental health care and addiction and, by the end of the 1970s, 11 states had
decriminalized small possessions of cannabis (Provine, 2011). When cannabis became less
demonized–via a decrease in fear-mongering and an increase in accurate medical information–
the drug became more widely used as people realized it did not have the dangerous and
hyperbolic effects that they had been led to believe; at the same time, mass cocaine use
reemerged, which was also considered in discussions related to decriminalization, and LSD use
emerged during protests of the Vietnam War and the Woodstock era (Cortwright, 2001).
Drug use quickly became the symbol of rebellion against conventional authorities and
norms–and with it came increases in cannabis arrests. In five years, cannabis arrests increased
from 18,000 in 1965 to 188,000 in 1970 (National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse,
1972). In this period, President Richard Nixon was elected and tasked with curbing drug use. His
campaign focused on the return of ‘law and order’ and dismissed civil rights activists
(Alexander, 2011a). Even though Nixon highlighted heroin as the enemy, societal and policy
concerns were still focused on treatment (Provine, 2011). Large amounts of government funding
were still being used for drug treatment, including the use of methadone as a way to curb heroin
addiction and limit drug-related crime but also to tackle the seriousness of addiction; Nixon also
DRUG POLICY, DRUG WAR, AND DISPARATE SENTENCING 11
increased the use of law enforcement to cut off the supply of drugs, while simultaneously
continuing to fund treatment centers (Musto, 1987).
When Gerald Ford rose to the presidency in 1974, he was much less concerned with drug
use; cannabis acceptance was rapidly increasing and cocaine use was gradually making its way
into mainstream culture. At the same time, while heroin use began to decline during the Nixon
presidency, it rose again under President Ford due to new poppy fields emerging in Mexico
(Musto, 1987). During Ford’s and Carter’s presidential administrations, drug toleration was
high–except for when parents gained a heightened awareness of their children partaking in
substance use. Leading with an abstinence-first mindset, any drug use was not acceptable. When
President Ronald Reagan and his wife Nancy took office under their tough-on-drugs rhetoric, the
parental movement was happy to see this shift in attitudes (Musto, 1987).
Under President Reagan, government funding for law enforcement responses to drug use
skyrocketed, while money for drug treatment and research suffered. From this point, legal
enforcement to reduce the availability of drugs was now prioritized over treatment and
education. Within four years (1980 to 1984), FBI anti-drug resources increased from $8 million
to $95 million, while the budget for the National Institute on Drug Abuse fell from $274 million
to $57 million (Beckett, 1999). In 1982, Reagan officially declared his administration’s ‘War on
Drugs’ (Alexander, 2011a). By 1986, 80% of the federal budget went to increasing the use of
law enforcement (Cortwright, 2001). Reagan wanted to tackle crime and welfare, both of which
continued to feed negative Black stereotypes, and he helped perpetuate the term ‘welfare queen’
that paints the picture of Black women as ‘lazy’ and ‘greedy’ by abusing the welfare system to
make money instead of pursuing legitimate means (Alexander, 2011a).
DRUG POLICY, DRUG WAR, AND DISPARATE SENTENCING 12
In the 1980s, offenses involving crack took center stage. Crack was a smokable form of
cocaine hydrochloride (usually snorted) that was often combined with other substances like
baking soda to give it a rock-like structure (Hodgman-Korth, 2024). Regardless, cocaine and
crack are both pharmacologically identical (Musto, 1987; Provine, 2011). Crack was cheaper, did
not require a needle, and was faster-acting–with its origination associated with the Black urban
‘ghetto,’ while cocaine was associated with wealthy White demographics (Provine, 2011).
Sentencing disparities for crack and cocaine were catalyzed in 1986 under the Anti-Drug Abuse
Act, which was motivated by the death a star basketball prospect Len Bias when he was assumed
to have overdosed on crack the night he was drafted into the NBA (Baum 1996). Having actually
died from a powder cocaine overdose, the false narrative of his story was dispersed by the media
and politicians and used by them to advocate for the Anti-Drug Abuse Act (Gelber, 2021;
Ashraf, 2023). The Act changed the threshold for a five-year sentence for drug possession, which
varied based on whether the individual possessed crack or cocaine. One needed to possess 500
grams of cocaine to receive 5 years, whereas only 5 grams of crack triggered the same sentence.
This was the first time mandatory minimum sentences were triggered by quantities of cocaine
(ACLU, 2006). The now infamous 100:1 ratio of powder to crack cocaine raised eyebrows about
racial bias in sentencing decisions and policymaking (Provine, 2011) and immediately provoked
sentencing disparities. Before the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, the average federal drug sentence for
Black people in America was 11% higher than for White people; within just four years of the
Anti-Drug Abuse Act, the average sentence for Black individuals was 49% higher (Meierhoefer,
1992). During this time, even though many users of crack were also White, 85% of individuals
serving time for crack cocaine offenses were Black (Hart, 2014). By 1990, the average sentence
DRUG POLICY, DRUG WAR, AND DISPARATE SENTENCING 13
for crack-related offenses was 3.5 years longer than the sentence for similar cocaine-related
offenses (Windham, 2010).
In the 1970s and 1980s, arrests and convictions for cannabis also increased across the
U.S. By 1970, several states had implemented various penalties and a federal conviction for
selling cannabis triggered a mandatory minimum five-year sentence that could go up to 20 years
(with a second conviction starting at a minimum of 10 years and going up to 40 years) (Brecher,
1972). In Illinois, the penalty for a first conviction of selling cannabis carried a minimum
sentence of 10 years and a maximum of a life sentence–and one would get a mandatory life
sentence if caught a second time; in Texas in the 1970s, one could receive a life sentence for a
felony first-possession offense of cannabis (Belcher, 1972).
These examples illustrate how various states, in the 1970s and 1980s, used sentencing
policies to push a ‘tough on crime’ attitude towards even non-addictive drugs–creating pathways
to long periods of incarceration. By 1989, drug abuse was viewed as the number one problem in
the U.S. according to 64% of respondents in a Gallup poll of the American public (Goode &
Ben-Yehuda, 1994). Instead of people learning more about drugs, they feared them and fought
for their eradication, as well as the regulation and control of minority communities and their
behaviors; when people trace the origins of mass incarceration in the U.S., the incarceration of
people of color living in poverty and charged with nonviolent drug-related crimes often
represents a key starting point to this phenomena (Alexander, 2011).
Over-policing and racial profiling in drug-related law enforcement activities became a
prominent issue in the 1980s and 1990s, which fueled mass incarceration for drug crimes
(McNamara, 2011). The over-policing of communities of color, and the heightened focus on
their drug use, helped to fuel distrust of legal authorities, concerns surrounding procedural justice
DRUG POLICY, DRUG WAR, AND DISPARATE SENTENCING 14
in law enforcement interactions and court processes, and tensions between police and
communities (McNamara, 2011). Another major contributing factor to high arrest rates for drug
crimes in communities of color was the Comprehensive Crime Act of 1984 and its following
amendments, which allowed law enforcement agencies to keep proceeds gained from searches
and seizures during drug raids (Benson, 2009; Alexander, 2011a). Benson (2009) found that
states in which police kept seizure proceeds averaged more than 300 more drug arrests per
100,000 people, as compared to states that did not keep the proceeds.
Conservative political strategists have admitted that fueling racial fears was key to
gaining political dominance in the drug policy sphere during the 1980s and 1990s (Alexander,
2011a). This led to a moral panic toward drug offending (Goode & Ben-Yehuda, 1994;
Berryessa, 2023), not only about drug use but specifically as it pertained to drug use by racial
minorities and the resulting threats of violence. Over time, some advocacy and policy groups
began to notice how policies specifically affected minority communities and supported efforts to
reduce the racial disparities seen in drug enforcement and sentencing (Provine, 2011). For
example, in the 1990s, the U.S. Sentencing Commission provided four reports to Congress where
they recommended reducing or eliminating the disparities in sentencing for crack versus cocaine
possession; they received pushback from Congress in 1994 and were instead told to be harsher
on crack (Provine, 2011). This was the first time Congress had ever rejected a recommendation
from the Commission (Provine, 2007). Later in 2002, the Sentencing Commission reported that
the initial ratio of crack to cocaine possession was founded upon certain beliefs about drugs that
current research did not support and reinforced that these laws, which predominantly affected
Black communities, were rooted in racial bias and false stereotypes (Chin, 2002). The majority
of people incarcerated for crack have nonviolent records and only 2.3% of people charged with
DRUG POLICY, DRUG WAR, AND DISPARATE SENTENCING 15
crack offenses actively used a weapon (ACLU, 2006). Indeed, evidence suggests that there were
no violent or dangerous differences between individuals who used crack versus cocaine–it was a
decision that largely fell victim to fear-mongering and othering (ACLU, 2006).
The 2000s and Collateral Consequences for Drug Crimes
By 2001, over two million people were locked up in the U.S. carceral system and its
racial distribution was grossly unrepresentative of the population as a whole; while Black people
made up roughly 13% of the country’s population in 2001, they accounted for 46% of
incarcerated individuals (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2001). The general population to
incarcerated women ratio also disproportionately varied by race: per every 100,000 in the
population, 34 White, 60 Hispanic, and 205 Black women were incarcerated (Chin, 2002).
Further, while White individuals were the largest users of every type of illegal drug, they were
significantly less likely to be arrested and, even if arrested, they were significantly less likely to
be convicted and face incarceration as compared to those belonging to other racial groups (Chin,
2002). A trend of high arrest rates of Black individuals carried into the 2000s, with drug arrests
in 2006 three-times the rate from 20 years prior (Benson, 2009). This had a tremendous impact
on Black communities, particularly surrounding the collateral consequences of drug-related
incarceration (Chin, 2002).
Chin (2002) defines collateral consequences as penalties, disabilities, or disadvantages
that occur automatically due to a criminal conviction other than the sentence itself, as well as
acknowledges the impact of sanctions on societal reintegration; when individuals are arrested
and incarcerated on such a large scale, entire communities are disrupted and this often leads to
the removal of many of their liberties such as voting rights, the right to serve on a jury, the right
to own a gun, employment limitations, and housing constrictions. While statutes that impose
DRUG POLICY, DRUG WAR, AND DISPARATE SENTENCING 16
these extra consequences are directly race-neutral, the targeting of people of color through
different drug enforcement and sentencing policies suggests that collateral consequences from
drug crimes have been disproportionately experienced by minority communities; people
convicted of drug possession or distribution can be denied all federal benefits and governmental
assistance, which includes grants, contracts, loans, licensure, Food Stamps, federal education aid,
and more than 750 other benefits (Chin, 2002).
There is significant evidence that reduced access to these benefits has been acutely felt by
people of color and this has had lasting impacts on minority families and communities (Chin,
2011). By the year 2000, there were more Black men in U.S. jails and prisons than in higher
education (Burkeman, 2017). Indeed, Schiraldi & Ziedenberg (2002) argue that drug sentencing
policies are a major contribution to the instability and disruption of the Black family. In 2007,
1.5 million children had a parent incarcerated in prison, with 46% of them being Black fathers
(Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). The incarceration of a parent has had huge implications for their
children, as a child who has experienced parental incarceration is significantly more likely to
also be incarcerated (Conway & Jones, 2015).
Since the early 2000s, drug use by minority communities has also been amplified by the
media and portrayed themes of crime, violence, and poverty (Luna, 1997). As anti-drug rhetoric
continued to spread through more modern media, the media re-emphasized labels such as
‘ghettos’ and ‘thugs;’ as Dow (2016) calls it, the male body can be a ‘symbolic liability,’ in
which the image of the ‘thug’ sources its power from the intimidation of Black individuals to
excuse the violence or unjust proceedings that they face in drug sentencing and in the criminal-
legal system more generally. This also has contributed to the further stigmatization of people
addicted to drugs. The public’s moral panic toward drug users as ‘disruptive’ and ‘wasteful,’ if
DRUG POLICY, DRUG WAR, AND DISPARATE SENTENCING 17
not harmful, results in double stigmatization when they are also persons of color; researchers
believe that this double stigmatization mentality has seeped into other social infrastructures,
including many central social determinants of health such as employment, education, housing,
social benefits, and child welfare (Cohen et al., 2022). Considering the implementation of drug
testing, mandatory reporting, and zero-tolerance policies, the War on Drugs has become
embedded within our social and healthcare supports, leading to lasting collateral consequences,
particularly for people of color (Cohen et al., 2022).
Drug Sentencing Reform in the 21st Century
Given the extensive impact and influences of the War on Drugs, solutions to the
problems it has exacerbated have come in many different forms. Despite several reports by the
U.S. Sentencing Commission highlighting the injustice of having a 100:1 ratio and suggesting
lowering it to a 20:1 ratio, Congress continued to ignore them (ACLU, 2006). Even continuing
into the early 2010s under the presidency of Barack Obama, the budget for the Federal Bureau of
Prisons was increased by $500 million (Provine, 2011). All over the U.S., investment in
incarceration steadily increased in the early 2000s, even while crime was decreasing. Despite this
direction, several organizations such as the Sentencing Project, the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the
Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and the National Association of Criminal Defense
Lawyers made active efforts to reduce rates of incarceration and change drug sentencing policies
(Provine, 2011).
While the Sentencing Commission attempted to bring attention to the disparate outcomes
of the War on Drugs in 2004, the first major reform came in 2010 with the implementation of the
Fair Sentencing Act; it now took 28 grams (one ounce) of crack cocaine to result in a five-year
DRUG POLICY, DRUG WAR, AND DISPARATE SENTENCING 18
minimum sentence and 280 grams (instead of 50) to result in a 10-year minimum sentence
(Exum, 2021). The original ratio, 100:1, was now 18:1. In 2011, the Commission voted to
retroactively apply the new guidelines to people sentenced before the enactment of the law,
which would affect the sentences of an additional 12,000 people–85% of which were Black
(ACLU). Their cases would be reviewed by federal judges, but it was not guaranteed that their
sentences would be reduced. In 2018, the First Step Act (FSA) was passed, which allowed for
the retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act and also increased the threshold for prior
convictions to trigger higher mandatory minimums (BOP). It reduced the 20-year minimum to a
15-year minimum and reduced the life-in-prison mandatory minimum to a 25-year minimum. In
addition, the FSA required the development of a risk-and-needs assessment that would allow
more educated and accurate decisions to be made about one’s likelihood of recidivism and how
reoffending could be lowered through recidivism-reduction programming (BOP). Also, the FSA
allowed courts to sentence people with nonviolent drug offenses and minor criminal histories to
less than the mandatory minimum for an offense (BOP).
Further, as outlined by Berryessa (2021a, 2021b, 2022) several avenues have been
explored that can give ‘second chances’ to drug offenders via various mechanisms that can
shorten one’s length of incarceration. Several states have implemented retroactive sentencing
policies, such as California’s Proposition 47 which reclassified some drug-related offenses as
misdemeanors instead of felonies that could result in suspended, versus incarceration, sentences
(Grattet, 2017). As of 2017, about 4,700 people have been released under California’s
Proposition 47 (Mauer, 2019). Another route is through executive clemency, which can be
applied to individuals serving life sentences or ‘virtual life’ sentences due to previous mandatory
minimums and three-strikes laws for drug crimes (Berryessa, 2021b). This was seen in 2014
DRUG POLICY, DRUG WAR, AND DISPARATE SENTENCING 19
when the DOJ announced a clemency initiative to reduce the dramatically long sentences people
were serving for drug offenses in federal prisons; this resulted in 1,715 commutations and 212
pardons (Berryessa, 2021b). Additionally, pardons are a central way to minimize and/or repair
the collateral consequences triggered by felony convictions, as pardons restore all civil rights and
liberties (Mauer, 2019). Lastly, several states have good time credit systems in which people can
shorten their prison sentences through good behavior via educational programming and other
rehabilitative efforts; this has been viewed as another key way to reduce sentence length for drug
crimes (Berryessa, 2021b). Despite these various policies and efforts, Exum (2021) emphasizes
that these policies do not undo nor provide the systemic changes, on a federal or state level, that
have been caused by mass incarceration, particularly for drug offenses.
Researchers and policymakers have also advocated for the decriminalization of cannabis
across the U.S., as many states have already done. As 23 states, two territories, and D.C. have
legalized recreational cannabis (Bryan, 2024) and 38 states and three territories have approved it
for medicinal use as of 2023 (State Medical Cannabis Laws), its decriminalization and the
widespread public recognition regarding its lack of harm have allowed individuals to use
cannabis without risking criminal-legal contact or facing harsh sentences for its use or
possession. In addition to cannabis, a push for the legalization and regulation of MDMA,
psychedelics such as LSD and psilocybin, opioids, and crack/cocaine have also been discussed
(Earp et al., 2021). In fact, Oregon and Colorado have already decriminalized psychedelics such
as psilocybin (Samenow et al., 2023). In addition to decriminalization, efforts are being made in
drug research to explore their therapeutic utility; specifically, the use of psilocybin has been used
to treat anxiety, depression, PTSD, and substance abuse (Lowe et al., 2021). Ketamine has also
DRUG POLICY, DRUG WAR, AND DISPARATE SENTENCING 20
shown beneficial uses in treating mental disorders such as major depression (Liebrenz et al.,
2007; Mandal et al., 2019).
In the present day, the U.S. continues to face problems with opioid use and addiction.
Other countries in Europe have utilized Safe Injection Sites or Drug Consumption Rooms, which
are facilities where individuals can use illicit drugs in a safe and hygienic location and are
supervised by healthcare workers to monitor possible overdoses (Hyatt et al., 2022). Such sites
have been slowly integrated within the U.S., with one officially opening in New York in 2021
(Mays & Newman, 2021) and Rhode Island approving their first site in 2024 (Casey, 2024).
However, Hyatt et al. (2022) emphasize the importance of community trust in the success of safe
injection sites, as ‘Not In My Backyard’ rhetoric is still common as it relates to drug use. This
was a problem for the city of Philadelphia when attempting to implement such a site that was
banned in 2023 (Ovalle, 2023a). Ovalle (2023b) highlights why these facilities have been so hard
to implement in the U.S., as they do not fit every community and some policymakers continue to
highlight the fears and threats of drug use in their jurisdictions. A major hesitation surrounding
safe injection sites has been that they go against drug prohibition–suggesting that drugs are
allowed, but only in certain areas and at certain times (during facility hours); researchers and
historians remind us that prohibitions do not minimize individuals’ interests in using drugs and
resolving problematic use should be achieved through ulterior means, such as drug courts and
treatment, that divert individuals from the traditional criminal-legal system (Earp et al., 2021).
Within the criminal-legal system, efforts have also been made in the pursuit of specialty
courts and diversionary programs for people who struggle with drug addiction and that recognize
that drug use is a contributing factor to their involvement in illegal activities; the use of drug
courts, which are specialized treatment-oriented diversion programs, has become extremely
DRUG POLICY, DRUG WAR, AND DISPARATE SENTENCING 21
attractive to politicians, Department of Corrections employees, and people advocating for reform
(Eaglin, 2016). The goal is to promote sentencing reforms for individuals with low-level,
nonviolent drug offenses (Eaglin, 2016). Another benefit of drug courts is that they can foster
perceptions of procedural legitimacy and deservingness of individuals with drug addiction.
Berryessa & Krenzer (2020) found that community members perceive procedural justice as
important for drug offenders in drug court, regardless of whether they believe their problems
with addiction are purely psychological or also biologically influenced. With the push towards
viewing drug addiction as a public health crisis and disease as opposed to it simply being a
‘choice’ (Hinders, 2021), the U.S. criminal-legal system has begun to utilize these courts to
address problems of drug use head-on as compared to using prison as an ineffectual way to
handle addiction and substance abuse issues.
Conclusion
Overall, to truly repair and prevent the harms caused by the War on Drugs in the U.S.,
many policymakers and researchers conclude that it will require actions by governmental
leaders, the increased use of community-building programs, stronger social support, and the
prioritization of evidence-based programming. To do this democratically, Roberts (2021)
suggests it is necessary to monitor the effects of legislative changes and policy trials, as well as
continue to document the ongoing harms of the War on Drugs. In 2024, some organizations are
already doing this work, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, The Sentencing Project,
Drug Policy Alliance, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Although
people and organizations continue to push for drug education, reform, and fair sentencing,
restoring the harm caused by the War on Drugs and previous political administrations does not
happen overnight. Yet, a heightened focus on research surrounding drug use, drug crime, and the
DRUG POLICY, DRUG WAR, AND DISPARATE SENTENCING 22
ways that criminal-legal actors and policymakers choose to punish or rehabilitate individuals
who use illegal drugs can help us to better understand how to address and prevent the use of
these substances, particularly using more equitable, effective, and appropriate policies, moving
forward.
Further Reading
1. Alexander, M. (2011) The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of
Colorblindness. The New Press.
2. Berryessa, C. M. (2021b). Public Support for Using “Second Chance” Mechanisms to
Reconsider Long-Term Prison Sentences for Drug Crimes. Federal Sentencing
Reporter, 34(1), 71-79.
3. Exum, J. J. (2021). Reconstruction sentencing: reimagining drug sentencing in the
aftermath of the war on drugs. American Criminal Law Review, 58(4), 1685-1714.
4. Grisel, J. (2020). Never Enough: The Neuroscience and experience of addiction. Anchor
Books.
5. Hinton, E. (2017). From the War on Poverty to the war on crime the making of mass
incarceration in America. Harvard University Press.
6. Mallea, P. (2014). The War on Drugs: A Failed Experiment. Dundurn.
7. Messenger, T. (2021). Profit and Punishment: How America Criminalizes the Poor in the
Name of Justice. St. Martin’s Press.
8. Provine, D. M. (2007). Unequal Under Law: Race and the War on Drugs. University of
Chicago Press.
9. Provine, D. M. (2011). Race and inequality in the war on drugs. Annual Review of Law
and Social Science, 7, 41-60.
DRUG POLICY, DRUG WAR, AND DISPARATE SENTENCING 23
10. Wallace, K. A., Belshaw, S. H., & Dmello, J. R. (2022). The Need for Weed: Marijuana
Policy & Public Politics in the Criminal Justice System. Kendall Hunt Publishing
Company.
References
ACLU. (n.d.). Fair Sentencing Act. American Civil Liberties Union.
https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/fair-sentencing-act
ACLU, J Vagins, D., & McCurdy, J. (2006). Cracks in the System: 20 Years of the Unjust
Federal Crack Cocaine Law. https://www.aclu.org/documents/cracks-system-20-years-
unjust-federal-crack-cocaine-law
Alexander, M. (2011a). The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.
The New Press.
Alexander, M. (2011b). The failed drug war has created a human rights nightmare — How can
this happen in our country and go virtually undiscussed? Medical Marijuana 411.
https://medicalmarijuana411.com/the-failed-drug-war-has-created-a-human-rights-
nightmare-how-can-this-happen-in-our-country-and-go-virtually-undiscussed/
Ashraf, R. (2023, June 21). Len Bias: The NBA draft star and his overdose - a death that changed
America. BBC Sport.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/basketball/65953921#:~:text=%22Bias%20didn't%20use%20
crack,people%20perceived%20at%20the%20time.%22
Baum, D. (1996). Smoke and Mirrors: the War on Drugs and the Politics of Failure. Little
Brown
Beaver, A. L. (2010). Getting A Fix on Cocaine Sentencing Policy: Reforming the Sentencing
Scheme of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. Fordham Law Review, 78(5), 2531-2576.
DRUG POLICY, DRUG WAR, AND DISPARATE SENTENCING 24
Beckett, K. (1999). Making Crime Pay: Law and Order in Contemporary American Politics.
Oxford University Press.
Beckett, K., & Sasson, T. (2003). The politics of injustice: Crime and punishment in America.
Sage Publications.
Benson, B. L. (2009). Escalating the war on drugs: Causes and unintended consequences.
Stanford Law & Policy Review, 20, 293-358.
Berryessa, C. M., & Krenzer, W. L. (2020). The stigma of addiction and effects on community
perceptions of procedural justice in drug treatment courts. Journal of Drug Issues, 50(3),
303-328.
Berryessa, C. M. (2021a). “Second chance” mechanisms as a first step to ending the war on
drugs. The American Journal of Bioethics, 21(4), 54-56.
Berryessa, C. M. (2021b). Public Support for Using “Second Chance” Mechanisms to
Reconsider Long-Term Prison Sentences for Drug Crimes. Federal Sentencing
Reporter, 34(1), 71-79.
Berryessa, C. M. (2022). A tale of “second chances”: an experimental examination of popular
support for early release mechanisms that reconsider long-term prison sentences. Journal
of Experimental Criminology, 18(4), 783-824.
Berryessa, C. M. (2023). Examining Underlying Reasons for Continued Public Support for
Punitive Sentencing for Drug Offenses in the US: Preliminary Results from Three
National Experiments. Ohio State Drug Enforcement and Policy Center Grant Report,
Ohio State University School of Law.
Booth, M. (1996). Opium, a History. Simon & Schuster.
BOP (n.d.). First Step Act overview. https://www.bop.gov/inmates/fsa/overview.jsp
DRUG POLICY, DRUG WAR, AND DISPARATE SENTENCING 25
Brecher, E.M. (1972). Licit and Illicit Drugs. The Consumers Union Report on Narcotics,
Stimulants, Depressants, Inhalants, Halluncinogens, and Marijuana—Including Caffeine,
Nicotine, and Alcohol. Little, Brown and Compan.
Brecher, E. M. (1986). Drug laws and drug law enforcement: A review and evaluation based on
111 years of experience. Drugs & Society, 1(1), 1-28.
Burkeman, O. (2017). More black men in jail than at college in US. The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/aug/29/usa.oliverburkeman
Casey, M. (2024). Providence approves first state-sanctioned safe injection site in
Rhode Island. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/safe-injection-site-opioids-rhode-
island-06f7483df7c12199c29587d2a86ffcd1
Chin, G. J. (2002), Race, the War on Drugs, and the Collateral Consequences of Criminal
Conviction. Journal of Gender, Race & Justice, 6, 253-278.
Cohen, A., Vakharia, S. P., Netherland, J., & Frederique, K. (2022). How the war on drugs
impacts social determinants of health beyond the criminal legal system. Annals of
Medicine, 54(1), 2024–2038.
Conway, J. M., & Jones, E. T. (2015). Seven Out of Ten? Not Even Close. A Review of
Research on the Likelihood of Children with Incarcerated Parents Becoming Justice-
Involved. The National Resource Center on Children and Families of the Incarcerated.
https://imrp.dpp.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3351/2021/09/March-2015-Seven-
out-of-ten.pdf
Courtwright, D. T. (2001). Dark Paradise: A history of opiate addiction in America. Harvard
University Press.
Curry T.R., & Corral-Camacho, G. (2008). Sentencing young minority males for drug offenses.
DRUG POLICY, DRUG WAR, AND DISPARATE SENTENCING 26
Punishment and Society, 10(3), 253-276.
DEA. (n.d.). The Early Years. Drug Enforcement Administration.
https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2018-05/Early%20Years%20p%2012-29.pdf
Department of Justice [DOJ] & Drug Enforcement Administration [DEA]. (2020). Drug Fact
sheet - Opium. https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/Opium-2020.pdf
Dow, D. M. (2016). The Deadly Challenges of Raising African American Boys: Navigating the
Controlling Image of the “Thug”. Gender & Society, 30(2), 161-188.
Earp, B. D., Lewis, J., Hart, C. L., & with Bioethicists and Allied Professionals for Drug Policy
Reform (2021). Racial Justice Requires Ending the War on Drugs. The American journal
of bioethics, 21(4), 4–19.
Exum, J. J. (2021). Reconstruction sentencing: reimagining drug sentencing in the
aftermath of the war on drugs. American Criminal Law Review, 58(4), 1685-1714.
Gelber, J. (2021, June 30). How Len Bias’s death helped launch the US’s unjust war on drugs.
The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/jun/29/len-bias-death-
basketball-war-on-drugs
Gettman, J. (2018, March 12). Marijuana vs. Cannabis: Pot-Related Terms to Use and Words We
Should Lose. High Times. https://hightimes.com/culture/marijuana-vs-cannabis-pot-
related-terms-to-use-and-words-we-should-lose/
Glaze, L., & Maruschak, L. (2008). Parents in prison and their minor children.
Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. U.S. Department of Justice.
Goode, E., & Ben-Yehuda, N. (1994). Moral panics: Culture, politics, and social
construction. Annual Review of Sociology, 20(1), 149-171.
Golub, A., Johnson, B. D., & Dunlap, E. (2007). The race/ethnicity disparity in misdemeanor
DRUG POLICY, DRUG WAR, AND DISPARATE SENTENCING 27
marijuana arrests in New York City. Criminology & Public Policy, 6(1), 131-164.
Grattet, R., Bird, M., Nguyen, V., & Tafoya, S. (2017). California Jails under Realignment and
Proposition 47. California Journal of Politics and Policy, 9(3), 1-15.
Hodgman-Korth, M.. (2024). Crack vs Cocaine: What’s The Difference Between
Crack & Cocaine? American Addiction Centers.
https://americanaddictioncenters.org/cocaine-treatment/differences-with-crack
Hart, C. (2014). How the Myth of the ‘Negro Cocaine Fiend’ Helped Shape American Drug
Policy. The Nation.
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/how-myth-negro-cocaine-fiend-helped-shape-
american-drug-policy/
Hinders, D. (2021). Addiction Is Not a Choice. St. Joseph Institute for Addiction.
https://stjosephinstitute.com/addiction-not-choice/
Hyatt, J. M., Andersen, S. N., Greberman, E., Andersen, L. H., & Christensen, I. (2023).
Developing harm reduction policies: Evidence from Copenhagen's drug consumption
rooms. Drug and Alcohol Review, 42(1), 3-6.
Kansal T, Mauer M. 2005. Racial Disparity in Sentencing: A Review of the Literature.
Sentencing Project.
Kovandzic, T. V., Sloan III, J. J., & Vieraitis, L. M. (2004). “Striking out” as crime reduction
policy: the impact of “three strikes” laws on crime rates in US cities. Justice
Quarterly, 21(2), 207-239.
Liebrenz, M., Borgeat, A., & Leisinger, R. (2007). Intravenous ketamine therapy in a patient
with a treatment-resistant major depression. Swiss Medical Weekly, 137(1516), 234-236.
Lloyd, C. (2013). The stigmatization of problem drug users: A narrative literature review. Drugs:
DRUG POLICY, DRUG WAR, AND DISPARATE SENTENCING 28
Education, Prevention and Policy, 20(2), 85-95.
Lowe, H., Toyang, N., Steele, B., Valentine, H., Grant, J., Ali, A., ... & Gordon, L. (2021). The
therapeutic potential of psilocybin. Molecules, 26(10), 2948.
Luna, E. G. (1996). Our Vietnam: The Prohibition Apocalypse. DePaul Law Review, 46, 483-
568.
Mandal, S., Sinha, V. K., & Goyal, N. (2019). Efficacy of ketamine therapy in the treatment of
depression. Indian journal of psychiatry, 61(5), 480-485.
Mauer, M. (2019). Long-term sentences: Time to reconsider the scale of punishment. The
Sentencing Project. https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/longterm-sentences-
time-reconsider-scale-punishment/.
McNamara, J. D. (1973). The History of the United States Anti-Opium Policy. Federal
Probation, 5(37), 15–21.
McNamara, J. D. (2011). The Hidden Costs of America’s War on Drugs. Journal of Private
Enterprise, 26(2), 97-115.
Meierhoefer, B. S. (1992). The general effect of mandatory minimum prison terms: A
longitudinal study of federal sentences imposed. Federal Judicial Center.
Musto, D. F. (1972). The 1937 marijuana tax act. Archives of General Psychiatry, 26(2), 101-
108.
Musto, D. F. (1987). The American Disease. Oxford University Press.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Understanding Stigma of
Mental and Substance Use Disorders. In Ending Discrimination Against People with
Mental and Substance Use Disorders: The Evidence for Stigma Change. National
Academies Press.
DRUG POLICY, DRUG WAR, AND DISPARATE SENTENCING 29
National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse. (1972) Marijuana: A Signal of
Misunderstanding. Government Printing Office.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/ Library/studies/nc/ncmenu.html
Netherland, J., & Hansen, H. B. (2016). The war on drugs that wasn’t: Wasted whiteness, “dirty
doctors,” and race in media coverage of prescription opioid misuse. Culture, Medicine,
and Psychiatry, 40, 664-686.
State Medical Cannabis Laws. (2023). National Conference of State Legislatures.
https://www.ncsl.org/health/state-medical-cannabis-
laws#:~:text=As%20of%20Apr.,medical%20use%20of%20cannabis%20products.
Oliver, M. B., & Fonash, D. (2002). Race and crime in the news: Whites’ identification and
misidentification of violent and nonviolent criminal suspects. Media Psychology, 4, 137–
156
Oliver, M. B. (2003). African American Men as “Criminal and Dangerous”: Implications of
Media Portrayals of Crime on the “Criminalization” of African American Men. Journal
of African American Studies, 7(2), 3–18.
Ovalle, D. (2023). Philadelphia council bans safe-injection sites in most of the city. Washington
Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2023/09/14/safe-injection-site-
philadelphia-opioids/
Provine, D. M. (2007). Unequal Under Law: Race and the War on Drugs. University of Chicago
Press.
Provine, D. M. (2011). Race and inequality in the war on drugs. Annual Review of Law and
Social Science, 7, 41-60.
Public Law 728. (n.d.). The Narcotic Control Act of 1956. National Library of Medicine.
DRUG POLICY, DRUG WAR, AND DISPARATE SENTENCING 30
https://collections.nlm.nih.gov/catalog/nlm:nlmuid-9918351284206676X266-doc
Roberts, J. T. (2021). Ending the War on Drugs: Public Attitudes and Incremental Change. The
American Journal of Bioethics, 21(4), 26-28.
Renborg, B. A. (1947). International control of narcotics. Law & Contemporary Problems, 22,
86-112.
Russell-Brown, K. (2009). The color of crime (Vol. 45). NYU Press.
Salavert, A., Zazzo, A., Martin, L., Antolín, F., Gauthier, C., Thil, F., ... & Vostrovská, I. (2020).
Direct dating reveals the early history of opium poppy in western Europe. Scientific
Reports, 10(1), 20263.
Schiraldi, V., & Ziedenberg, J. (2002). Cellblocks or Classrooms?: The Funding of Higher
Education and Corrections and Its Impact on African American Men. Justice Policy
Institute.
Stevenson, B. (2011). Drug policy, criminal justice and mass imprisonment. Global commission
on drug policies.
Thompson, M. (2013). The mysterious history of “Marijuana.” NPR.
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/07/14/201981025/the-mysterious-history-
of-marijuana
Thornton, M. (1991). Alcohol prohibition was a failure. Cato Institute Policy Analysis.
Retrieved from http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa157.pdf
UNODC. (1953). Bulletin on Narcotics. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/bulletin/bulletin_1953-01-
01_2_page004.html
U.S. Customs and Border Protection. (2019). Did you know. . . marijuana was once a legal
DRUG POLICY, DRUG WAR, AND DISPARATE SENTENCING 31
Cross-Border import? U.S. Customs And Border Protection.
https://www.cbp.gov/about/history/did-you-
know/marijuana#:~:text=His%20campaign%20against%20Cannabis%20led,an%20annua
l%20tax%20of%20%2424.
U.S. Department of Commerce. (2001). Profiles of General Demographic Characteristics, 2000.
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/dpl/2kh00.pdf.
White, D. G. (1999). Ar’n’t I a woman. WW Norton & Company.
Windham, C. (2010). After 20 years, the debate over mandatory minimum sentencing laws for
cocaine heats up. Human Nature Magazine.
http://www.humannaturemag.com/index.php?option=com_content
&view=article&id=131:after-20-years-the-debate-over-mandatory-minimum-sentencing-
lawsfor-cocaine-heats-up&catid=38:political-science&Itemid=598
