Pubdate: Mon, 22 Feb 2016
Source: McGill Daily, The (CN QU Edu)
Copyright: 2016 The McGill Daily
Contact:  http://www.mcgilldaily.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2638
Author: Laura Xu
Note: Laura Xu is a U2 Political Science student.

THE COLOUR OF POT

Racism and Ignorance Are Behind Illicit Drug Prohibition

The federal Liberal government's campaign pledge to legalize 
marijuana has come under scrutiny as the long-standing debate over 
drug prohibition continues. The focus of this debate is often on 
avoiding usage among youth, or on the health and social effects of 
cannabis. What is often overlooked is the racist roots of laws that 
prohibit the use of marijuana and other illicit drugs, which continue 
to disproportionately target poor people of colour both in Canada and the U.S..

In the U.S., the regulation of cannabis began in the 17th century, 
but it did not take the form of prohibition at the national level 
until 1937. Many would probably assume that marijuana was made 
illegal through a thoughtful debate in Congress, where health experts 
scientifically evaluated the effects of the substance. However, that 
is not what happened; instead, the decision was rashly made based on 
unsubstantiated information. And, most importantly, there is good 
evidence that racism fuelled the move.

During the Great Depression, resentment toward Mexican immigrants 
soared as they were scapegoated for economic problems. Mexican 
workers' use of cannabis became a basis for discrimination and 
condemnation, and state after state outlawed marijuana, specifically 
targeting the Latino population. As one state senator said on the 
floor of the Texas State Senate, "All Mexicans are crazy, and this 
stuff [marijuana] is what makes them crazy."

Harry J. Anslinger, the first commissioner of the Federal Bureau of 
Narcotics (FBN) for most of the Great Depression, transmitted the 
notion that marijuana users posed a significant danger to health and 
social order, targeting particularly Black and Mexican Americans. 
Using the mass media as his forum, Anslinger propelled the 
anti-marijuana sentiment at the national level. Using racial slurs in 
many of his statements, he wrote that the main reason behind 
marijuana prohibition was the substance's effects on racialized 
people, as it made them "think they're as good as white men." He 
further insisted on using the Mexican Spanish word "marijuana" 
instead of a more common word like "hemp," obscuring the natural 
origins of the substance and creating a pejorative, racist connotation.

After incredibly short congressional hearings, the Marihuana Tax Act 
(MTA) was passed in 1937. Looking back, the lack of scientific debate 
on the matter in Congress is astonishing, with representatives 
relying mostly on racist anecdotes that Anslinger provided. As 
anticipated, violations of the MTA expedited the deportation of 
Mexican nationals, already increasing in the 1930s.

Prohibition acts for other drugs followed the same trajectory of 
targetting certain racial groups. Cocaine was associated with Black 
Americans, while laws prohibiting opium demonized Chinese railroad 
workers. Yet, opium had been widely used among the white middle 
class, especially women, for medical and recreational purposes 
without any racial associations being made.

Predating similar development in the U.S., Canada prohibited 
"non-medicinal" uses of opium through the 1908 Opium Act, in the wake 
of white supremacist attacks on East Asian immigrants in Vancouver. 
Another racist drug panic over opium took place in the 1920s, leading 
to laws, such as amendments to the Opium and Narcotics Act of 1920, 
that not only mandated harsher sentencing, but made drug trafficking 
punishable by deportation.

What is similar across all these cases is that drug usage was 
conceptualized in different ways depending on the identity of the 
user. Drug addiction is a medical problem when the typical user of a 
drug is, for instance, a middle or upper-class white person, but it 
turns into a criminal justice problem when the average user is a 
poorer person of colour.

Since the origins of these drug prohibitions are racially driven, it 
is not surprising that in practice, the court system 
disproportionately penalizes the poor and people of colour. Michelle 
Alexander, in her book The New Jim Crow, reveals how the American 
court system disproportionately incarcerates Black people on drug 
charges. In some states, Black people have been sent to prison on 
drug charges at rates 20 to 57 times higher than those of white men, 
depending on the state. This stark disparity is especially worrying 
because research has shown that Black and white people use drugs at 
similar rates. Stricter penalties for crack cocaine than powder 
cocaine, which many believe are two forms of the same substance, 
inevitably criminalize Black people at a higher rate, as poorer 
people are more likely to consume cocaine in the much cheaper crack 
cocaine form, and Black people are disproportionately affected by poverty.

Both in the U.S. and Canada, the adoption of minimum sentencing, 
financial support from the federal government for anti-drug 
initiatives, and the ample discretion given to authorities create a 
high risk of racial profiling in the investigation of drug crimes, 
influenced by prevailing racist stereotypes and biases. Once charged, 
poor people of colour are often provided with inadequate legal 
defence and pressured into plea bargains, lacking the financial 
resources and expertise to win in a court hearing.

Alexander concludes that the U.S. government uses the war on drugs as 
a tool to discriminate against and repress racialized groups, serving 
as a "racial caste system." While some might argue that there are 
legitimate motives driving the war on drugs, which could have some 
positive effects on reducing narcotics addiction, the racial 
discrimination embedded in these drug prohibition efforts is often 
ignored. Indeed, if an incarceration rate similar to that among Black 
people in the U.S. had ever occurred among the white middle class it 
would have triggered a political backlash a long time ago. The 
unaddressed racial injustice in the American criminal drug code shows 
systemic oppression based on race and socioeconomic status.

In both Canada and the U.S., the evolution of drug prohibition has 
elements of irrationality and discrimination. Moving away from it 
requires scientific and unprejudiced investigation. As the debate on 
marijuana legalization unfolds, it is important that the government 
take conscious steps to address the bias and inequality in current 
legislation and to avoid the danger of reintroducing such biases in 
its new policies.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom