Research Paper: The Crack Epidemic Jack Tiebout April 3, 2008

The United States Government has been fighting the War on Drugs for decades. Never has it seen a drug as potent and powerful as crack cocaine. What became known as the Crack Epidemic first emerged on inner-city streets in the mid 1980s. From there, it spiraled out of control over the next several years until millions were affected. During these years, from 1985 through the early 1990s, government spent billions of dollars in effort to curtail use of crack. In fact the use of crack subsided dramatically in less than ten years. At first, it might seem the governments crackdown on crack worked; that the vast resources spent on various forms of enforcement achieved the intended effect. But how effective was the governments handling of the crack epidemic really? Many who have studied the crack years of the War on Drugs say the governments efforts actually had little effect on crack use- and that some of the governments remedies not only failed to solve the alarming problems of crack use, but actually created other costly social problems. Crack cocaine first appeared on the streets of New York City and Los Angeles in 1985. It is unclear as to who invented it or whether it was first discovered in New York or Los Angeles. There is no Father of Crack as Stanley Owsley was to LSD. This is because the production of crack is very simple and was most likely created by serendipity by any experimenting cocaine user or dealer. To manufacture crack, one simply must mix powder cocaine with baking soda and water to make a paste of thick consistency. This is then

heated on a stove. The product is a large off-white rock, which is then broken up into smaller rocks that look like clumps of soap or sugar. A few of these rocks are then put into a small vial and are ready for sale. These crack rocks, when smoked, are absorbed into the bloodstream and the effect is much more potent. (Berger 54-57) Because so many little rocks can be made from small amounts of cocaine, vials of crack usually run for $10 and sometimes even as low as $5. The vials are good for one high. One highs worth of powder cocaine usually costs $100. While only the affluent could afford powder, crack was affordable and available in poor inner city communities. Crack had disastrous effects in part because it could be paid for initially by a minimumwage job or even an allowance. It also wasnt rare to see someone cash in a welfare check and go straight to his or her crack dealer. The nature of crack is that the very strong high is brief, and an almost immediate craving for another fix follows it. Therefore, a cheap, shortlived high can quickly turn into an addiction costing upwards of $100 a day. (Berger 29) The effects of crack on the user go way beyond the financial cost. Hospitals were flooded with in the late 1980s with crack addicts experiencing seizures, heart disorders, high blood pressure, paranoia, and severe weight loss. Cracks severe effects on the heart sometimes lead to death on first use. In addition, the psychological and physical effects of crack dependency and withdrawal are as severe as they are for the most powerful drugs available, such as heroin. (Berger 35) Given the dire consequences of crack addiction and the high number of poor female users, women often found themselves doing everything possible to maintain their addictions. The result was a substantial number of women resorting to prostitution to get their fix. These women, often labeled crack whores, often became victims of other

problems, such as sexually transmitted diseases. Furthermore, the devastating combination of women and crack and sex led to pregnancy. This resulted in great numbers of miscarriages and abortions. (Sterk 107) When the babies were born, they were what was became known as crack babies. In 1992, over 100,000 babies were born with pre-natal exposure to crack. Crack babies experienced many developmental problems; many were born with malformed spinal cords, intestines, genitals, and kidneys. After birth, crack babies tremble upon being touched, do not have the natural instinct to suck, and are unable to focus their eyes. Often they die within months. As they grow older, they may experience strokes and seizures, dont grow according to schedule, and suffer emotionally, often picking fights upon reaching school age. (Berger 41) As it proved almost impossible for crack addicts to maintain a job and a crack addiction, many found themselves unemployed and in need of money to fund their habit. As a result, many addicts resorted to crime as a means of obtaining the money to get their fix. Inner city crime rates soared during the late 1980s and into the early 1990s. In 1988, about half of the record 1,867 murders were directly related to crack use. (Berger 44) As the aforementioned disturbing effects of crack cocaine became obvious to the American populace, it soon became a major concern with the government as well. The president at the time of cracks emergence and escalation was republican Ronald Reagan. The Reagan administration saw almost everything related to crack- its manufacture, sale, and use- as a crime. This- and the political need to appear to be solving the crack problemshaped everything the Reagan government did to deal with crack. Very little the administration did, acknowledged that drug addiction is a treatable disease and not a brooding enemy that can be fought.

In the 1986 mid-term elections, about a year into cracks manifestation, the number one concern among voters was drugs (above the Cold War and nuclear weapons). Thus, Ronald Reagan made drugs his own number one priority for his last two years in office. He claimed he would begin a national crusade against drugs. It seemed fair and reasonable that a presidential candidate would make the general publics concern his own concern. However, since the elections, his idea of a crusade against drugs was quickly abandoned. Within months, he proposed to cut $225 million from the 1988 drug enforcement budget, along with a 60% cut from drug education and prevention, while providing no additional money for treatment. (Falco) To make it seem as though he really was tough on drugs, Reagan gave great power to the police, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and prosecutors to lock up dealers and users alike. In 1986, he passed the mandatory minimum laws which specifically targeted innercity crack users. These laws made it so that anyone possessing crack would automatically face jail time. The idea was to scare everyone away from crack and not just let users off with probation. These laws levied penalties as harsh for crack users in the ghetto as those for wealthy suburban businessmen possessing 100 times more powder cocaine. (WallaceWells) The mandatory minimum laws made it seem as though there was somewhat of a racial bias in the U.S. governments treatment of the crack epidemic. This only worsened the social divide of the time. African-Americans couldnt help but think they were being targeted. Many conspiracy theories started to evolve, implying that the government administered crack to oppress them. In New Jersey, a district court judge ruled that the mandatory minimum laws were unconstitutional. She noted that there was a clear bias as

there was a mandatory 4-year sentence for first-time crack users while it was only one year for powder cocaine. She cited that in 1988, 92% of those arrested for crack possession were black while 85% of those arrested with powder cocaine were white. (AP, A Law Distinguishing Crack From Other Cocaine is Upset) Even the dilapidated Ku Klux Klan noticed the ethnic divide associated with crack. In Florida, they began to work vigilante missions for the Florida police to target inner-city crack users in operation Krush Krack Kocaine. (AP, Klans Anti-Drug Drive Raises Suspicion) Although it may have seemed misguided and unfair, the Reagan domestic drug policy barely strayed from its general goal: give the impression that the epidemic is under control and that were toughening up. The mission for a national sentiment of security translated into Reagans foreign drug policy as well. Since the early seventies, the U.S. government has given millions of dollars to countries such as Colombia and Peru, which cultivated and exported coca into the U.S. The goal was to give incentive to divert farmers from growing it and to provide resources for those countries drug enforcement officials and police to take down major cartels. This was largely ineffective as over one million farmers and laborers depend on the cultivation and processing of cocaine to support their families. Thus, no government saw any reason in taking away such an integral part of its economy. Likewise, when the drug police of these countries intervene, farmers, processors, and traffickers abruptly shoot at them, and leftist rebels (supported by drug trafficking money) alike. Government officials say that there was no decline in production in the countries that received the most funding from the U.S. (Berger 67-69) Military action in the Reagans war on drugs extended only to the U.S. border.

Reagan set up special military task forces along the Mexican border and in south Florida; both major hot spots for smugglers. Although several major busts were made, they were rather miniscule in the grander scheme, as there was virtually no impact on the supply or price of cocaine in the states. These few busts were highly publicized to seem significant to placate the American populace. (Berger 72) For many, the most memorable part of Ronald Reagans anti-drug policy was actually that of his First Lady, Nancy Reagan. She pleaded, just say no in her campaign for better drug education and prevention among kids. In an administration defined by contradiction, Mrs. Reagan stood as a shameful example. Over the course of her husbands two terms, funds for drug education and prevention were cut in half. She became somewhat of a joke to many Americans as she chanted the empty proposal, just say no with school kids across the nation. (Falco) Although he didnt follow through on the crusade, Ronald Reagan did everything in his power to make it seem like he was winning the war on drugs. To pacify the weary nation, the government sponsored one-dimensional drug surveys to make it appear as though drug use was declining. These surveys omit school dropouts, users of other drugs, prisoners, and the homeless. This distorts the data to a great degree. For instance, the National Institute of Drug Abuse estimated in 1988 that there were 862,000 users of crack or powder cocaine while official urinalysis tests of arrestees show that about 1.3 million used cocaine in some form weekly. This does not even take into account the vast number of users who dont get arrested. This number, 862,000 was derived from the 65 out of 8,814 people surveyed who admitted to using crack or cocaine weekly. Another flaw was readily pointed out by Professor Mark Kleiman of Harvards Kennedy School of Government; a

lot of people just wont tell the nice man from the government that they smoked crack recently. (Whitman) As it became clear that Reagan himself had little direction with his drug control policies, other than to deceive satisfy the fretful public, congress decided it had to do something. Toward the end of Reagans second term, congress created the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). The idea was to create an organization with some sort of direction with regards to drugs, the director of which would become known as the drug czar. With the creation of the ONDCP, the drug czar in power has defined drug policies of a given era just as much as the presidential administration in power. The first drug czar would be William Bennett. Bennett would remain drug czar two years into George Bush Is administration and through the peak of the crack epidemic. (The Drug Czars Coherent Legacy) William Bennett saw the inefficiency of the Reagan administration drug policy. He believed that the border policing was a waste of money that yielded almost no progress. Bennett had confidence in the high efficiency of community policing to better neighborhoods tarnished by crack. With regards to foreign policy, he set forth a strike at the source policy. His rationale was that if he could bring down production of coca in South America with military efforts, then he would be able to shoot up the prices for cocaine in the states. (The Drug Czars Coherent Legacy) This policy was no more effective than Reagans as even more money was spent and coca production increased. (Berger 69) As Ben Wallace-Wells summed up his policies as czar, if narcotics were the enemy, America would vanquish its foe with torpedoes and F-16s- and throw an entire generation of drug users in jail.

It was during Bennetts reign as drug czar when crack use and demand both dropped significantly, by credible figures. Studies show that there were few first time users of crack in 90 and 91. (Crack May Be Cracking) Did the criminalization of Americas crack epidemic solve the problem? Certainly tough prosecution had some effect. The mandatory minimum laws took many crack addicts off the streets and put them in jail. Border patrols and drug enforcement arrangements with foreign supplier nations interrupted or reduced U.S. drug imports from time to time. Many believe the decline in the first-time use of crack reflects the very nature of addiction to a deadly drug. After several years, the people most vulnerable to crack use those who were exposed to it and tempted by it had tried it. If they became addicted, many died or had gone to jail. A few who were lucky got treatment. (Crack May Be Cracking) The problem, some say, is that criminalization is vastly inefficient, fails to address the nature of the problem of addiction, and sometimes creates new social problems. In 1993, the Clinton administration engaged the Rand Corporation to study the previous 15 years federal drug policies. Rands Susan Everingham, a mathematical modeler, was charged with analyzing the federal governments $13 million drug-war budget and figuring out what worked and what didnt. If you had asked me at the outset, my guess would have been that the best use of taxpayer money was in the source countries in South America, Everingham said, that it would be possible to stop cocaine before it reached the U.S. But the Rand study found otherwise. Overseas military efforts were the least effective way to decrease drug use, and imprisoning addicts was prohibitively expensive.

The only cost-effective way to put a dent in the market, it turned out, was drug treatment. (Wallace-Wells). These governments tough enforcement measures and minimum sentencing laws also fanned the flames of racism in the country. African-Americans felt as though they were being unfairly targeted, and some judges agreed. Lee Brown, an undercover detective at the height of the crack epidemic and former and drug czar under the Clinton administration, believes many tough enforcement measures miss the point. Drug use is a problem of addiction, he says. Treating addicts as criminals just doesnt work. You see very quickly that you cant arrest your way out of this, Brown said. You see the cycle over and over again of people using drugs, getting into trouble, going to prison, getting out and getting into drugs again What impact is all of this having on the drug problem? There has to be a better way. (Wallace-Wells) At least some in drug enforcement, health care and government believe the better way is a way that focuses as much or more on prevention and treatment than criminalization. The costs, both in human terms and dollars, are too great not to. A California study found that every dollar spent by society on drug treatment saved more than $11 in social costs- crime, lost labor productivity, and health care. (Crack May Be Cracking) Thus has the U.S. government wasted billions of dollars and countless lives in this aimless phenomenon we call the crack epidemic.