Drug Decriminalization and Racial Inequality in Pop Culture
by Guest Contributor Jeremy R. Levine, originally published at Social Science Lite
Mass incarceration, particularly of black and brown folks, is a hot topic in the social sciences. Hell, it’s a hot topic in nearly every poor, marginalized, urban community of color. Harvard sociologist Bruce Western offers some of the best academic analysis of the carceral state in Punishment and Inequality in America. Western brilliantly details the absurd cost of our contemporary prison system as well as the significant toll incarceration has had on poor communities of color. True unemployment rates are hidden in the “non-economic institution” of the prison, as labor statistics ignore the very existence of prisoners. So, while black male unemployment reached an astounding 17.2% in April of this year, the true percent of unemployed black males is much higher, thanks in part to racial discrimination in the criminal justice system. It’s common knowledge at this point that blacks are more likely to be charged, more likely to be convicted, and more likely to receive longer sentences than whites.
Leaving prison produces even more hardship. After incarceration, men become “permanent labor market outsiders,” as their job prospects are reduced to unstable (if any) employment. Not surprisingly, these outcomes are racialized. Princeton sociologist Devah Pager conducted a fascinating study (“The Mark of a Criminal Record”) in which she sent black and white job candidates with nearly identical resumes to apply for low-level jobs. The results illustrated profound racial discrimination, as black candidates with criminal records were far less likely to receive callbacks for jobs than whites with criminal records. But that wasn’t all; in fact, black candidates without a criminal record were still less likely to receive a callback than whites with a criminal record. Her results suggest that there may be some sort of racial stigma attached to criminal behavior—a racial stereotype that all blacks are perceived as potential criminal offenders.
To combat these inequalities that are decimating urban communities and fragmenting families of color, Bruce Western offers two policy suggestions: decriminalize marijuana and eliminate parole violations for failing drugs tests. His suggestion to decriminalize drug offenses certainly comes at an apt moment in our local history. Given the current political climate in the state of Massachusetts—fresh off a 65% vote in favor of the decriminalization of marijuana—and The Wall Street Journal’s recent report that Obama’s new drug czar wants to “end the ‘War on Drugs,’” Western’s policy suggestion may prove feasible in the coming years. Hell, even the right wingers are on board. Conservative blogger Ed Morrissey recently offered a glowing review on his website Hotair.com of High: The True Tale of American Marijuana, a new DVD advocating the legalization of marijuana. Judging from the blog post’s comments, advocates for decriminalization may find allies among the nation’s right wing base. Growing Libertarian leanings within the Republican Party only add credence to this shift.
So far, so good, right?
Of course, right wing support (especially of the Libertarian variety) only comes when such issues are framed as an attack on big government. If these policies are framed with racialized images, however, support may wane. Seemingly race-neutral political issues, such as welfare and criminal rehabilitation, carry highly racialized images in the collective imagination: With Ronald Reagan welfare became synonymous with black welfare queens; with George H. Bush criminal policy became synonymous with the black rapist Willie Horton.
I worry that drug laws would be no different. Consider popular culture. Movies, music and television sitcoms that depict overt drug use among white youths generally fit into categories of suburban dysfunction, 1960s-era nostalgia, or cautionary tales of “good kids gone bad.” Popular movies such as Traffic and Thirteen fit the suburban dysfunction category. In each, suburban youths from affluent families are lured into experimentation with drugs and are ultimately corrupted by streetwise black males. There’s an implicit assumption that these are “good” kids at heart, and drugs (pushed on them by black males) simply cause them to lose their way. The FOX television show That 70s Show, as well as the film Dazed and Confused, are examples of sanitized, white-washed images of 1960s era drug use. Here, the ‘60s represents fun, carefree, and safe dope smoking among white teens. The pattern is clear: In pop culture, images of whites engaged in drug use depict either wayward teens struggling for identity, or innocent youths safely experimenting in the privacy of their own homes.
By sharp contrast, popular images of black drug use are normally associated with drug selling or public drug use. Examples include the movie Friday, HBO’s The Wire, and far too many contemporary rap music videos. In this genre, black drug use is accompanied by violence, depravity, and predatory behavior. Take Friday. Sure, it’s a lighthearted comedy; but violence is central to the movie’s plot once Smokey breaks Crack Commandment Number 4 and gets high off his own supply. Moreover, when Smokey gets Craig high for the first time, they don’t retreat to the basement of their parents’ house, or even the backyard. Nope, they post up right on the front stoop, out in the open. And for all of the good things about The Wire, it still only portrays two types of black characters engaging with drugs: the dealer or the junkie. The dominant image of black drug use, in The Wire and elsewhere in pop culture, is almost invariably associated with violence or crime.
Here’s the kicker: While white drug use in pop culture is largely confined to the private sphere, images of black drug use are disproportionately relegated to the public sphere. Drug selling is blatant and prominent in The Wire, but private and controlled in That 70s Show. Private drug use is safe, sanitized and white; public drug use is scary, violent, and black. Think about how rare the converse is: Pop culture rarely depicts black youths as innocent experimenters, while white youths are rarely shown as predatory enablers or corruptors. It is this public/private divide where the work of racial inequality manifests. It’s not just race, but how race interacts with our conceptions of drugs, violence, control, and public space. This racialized popular conception of drug use pervades the collective consciousness and may undermine sweeping social policy.
Some conservatives and libertarians may favor decriminalization to further weaken the power of government—but, if pressed, might revert to age-old stereotypes and racist propaganda. All it might take is one commercial depicting (black) drug dealers out on the corner, corrupting innocent (white) kids. Get some financial backing from right-wing policy groups and lobbyists, and another progressive policy may fall victim to our nation’s pervasive, and damaging racial stereotypes.
If Western’s policy proposals reach the national agenda—and I think they should—a nationwide reconceptualization of the popular imagination is in order. In other words, stereotypes of drug use promulgated in pop culture must be confronted and realigned. A re-framing of national drug policy—and criminal policy more generally—is necessary. Progressive drug policy is vulnerable and susceptible to new Willie Horton-style images, and future policymakers will need to navigate this delicate terrain in search of greater racial equality.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Alex wrote:
Great article. It only makes your argument more potent to remember how drugs were made illegal in the US in the first place; opiates, for example, which were initially legal and sold over the counter, were quickly banned after the spread of the ‘opium-induced white slavery’ narrative (which was essentially the same narrative you mention in the article–Chinese men would push opium on innocent white women and men, who would become prostitutes, degraded failures, etc.). Marijuana was also made illegal because it was an ‘immigrant drug,’ which threatened the whiteness of the nation’s youth (it was initially brought into the US mostly by Mexican immigrants, and later became popular at mixed-race jazz clubs and the like).
As long as there have been drugs in the US, that is to say, they’ve been a racialized vice, and until that perception changes, they will never be legalized.
Posted 03 Jun 2009 at 12:45 pm ¶
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist! wrote:
I saw an interesting article last week (linked via Boing Boing) that since weed got legalized in the Netherlands, that so many prisons have been empty, they’re voting to close down prisons and start a trade deal with Belgium to accept their Belgian prisoners (which ironically, have a prison overpopulation problem).
Posted 03 Jun 2009 at 12:55 pm ¶
atlasien wrote:
I agree totally that in popular media, the “happy face” of drugs is white and the “scary face” is black.
However, I think meth complicates the picture a bit. At least where I am in the Southeast, meth is very much racialized… as a white drug.
But meth hasn’t entered the public consciousness in the way that heroin or crack has. There’s no “meth chic” and when I try to think of a stereotype of a meth dealer (as opposed to the archetypal mumbling, tooth-rotted addict), I come up blank. “Breaking Bad” is about the only depiction I can think of.
Posted 03 Jun 2009 at 1:40 pm ¶
jvansteppes wrote:
I’m reminded of the tv show ‘Weeds’ in which a white wealthy suburbanite mother’s zany adventures with the drug world rely on exploitative portrayals of the ever-dangerous POC she encounters as a dealer. Her white privilege consistently saves her from prosecution while the people of color are either monsters or simply willing to put up with her shit for reasons I can’t fathom.
Posted 03 Jun 2009 at 2:02 pm ¶
Abu Sinan wrote:
@atlasien,
I guess it depends on where you come from, both location and socio-economically. When I was growing up, 80s, meth was the drug of choice with us white kids.
We all had our own well known stereotypes of what a “meth fiend” would look like and how they acted.
I guess the difference is that this hasnt been covered in the media too much. I remember spending a lot of my teen years in a neighborhood in AZ called “Sunnyslope” and it was mostly populated by poor Hispanics and poor whites.
Meth was common, mostly cooked and sold in weight by local biker gangs, and weed, along with heroin sold mostly by Hispanic gang members.
So the communities and the narratives are certainly out there, but for some reason the media hasnt hit on it.
Maybe we need a version of “The Wire”( a show I love) that deals with poor whites making and selling meth, drug wars and turf was between various biker gangs, and shoot outs between Hispanic and white youth like I witnessed it AZ.
It certainly is out there, people just dont know if because the media is obssesed with the other skewed narative.
Posted 03 Jun 2009 at 2:09 pm ¶
Solange wrote:
All of America’s drug laws has some form of racialized begining – the banning of opiates were to protect white women from going into the dens, coke was made illegal for fear that it gave blackmen too much strength and they would rape white women – I could go on. America has done itself a diservice by only showing one side of drugs, now you have so many whites in the USA strung out on meth and the rest of America does not know. These small towns can do nothing with the children these addicts left behind. Oddly enough meth has taken the same route the crack epidemic took – however the media still has not demonized it.
Posted 03 Jun 2009 at 2:24 pm ¶
atlasien wrote:
@jvansteppes: God, I hate “Weeds”. I’d heard it was a good show, watched the first couple episodes, and got slammed with practically non-stop stupid racism. A lot of the humor seemed to come from making observations like “Look at the black guy shopping for rims on eBay, it’s funny because that’s exactly what black guys do! And the Asian woman is a slutty slutty slut and the nice white lady is a nice white lady hahahaha yay stereotypes!”
I watched two episodes, years ago, and I’m still angry about the time I wasted on them.
@Abu Sinan: I’ve almost always lived in big cities, and rarely came into contact with meth, so the practices around it are kind of alien to me. I was a lot more familiar with people who did crack, which seemed to be a pretty multiracial drug in reality (if not in popular media depiction).
Posted 03 Jun 2009 at 2:36 pm ¶
Kari wrote:
I agree with pretty much everything in this piece, and with readers’ comments. I think one, somewhat underground-ish, counterpoint might be the show True Blood, on HBO.
While the main drug dealer, La Fayette, is black, he’s generally portrayed in a positive light (and is also a line cook, stripper, hooker, etc.). However, the addicts who really get out of control are both white, and in both cases really get themselves into a lot of serious trouble.
I’m curious to see how the “vampire blood” drug narrative plays out in future seasons, especially around economic/racial/gendered lines.
Posted 03 Jun 2009 at 4:16 pm ¶
Rosa wrote:
The public/private distinction is really important, I think, just because poor people end up doing so much more of their living in front of others. Privacy is expensive.
I notice the kids in my neighborhood, all races but working-class on down, are doing the same stuff the suburban kids are doing – smoking cigarettes and weed, drinking, huffing, flirting, fighting, being loud and rambunctious – but because they are doing it out in the street or on the bus, they’re getting arrested. If they were doing it in the basement of a private home or in a car, they’d be getting yelled at by their parents instead.
Posted 03 Jun 2009 at 4:53 pm ¶
Jeremy wrote:
@Rosa
This line is exactly what I was going for: “The public/private distinction is really important, I think, just because poor people end up doing so much more of their living in front of others. Privacy is expensive.”
I would add, privacy is also a privilege. Not to say that these public behaviors aren’t sometimes negative–but they are certainly more visible, and that racial disparity is problematic.
Thanks for the comment!
Posted 03 Jun 2009 at 5:01 pm ¶
john mccollum wrote:
“Maybe we need a version of “The Wire”( a show I love) that deals with poor whites making and selling meth, drug wars and turf was between various biker gangs, and shoot outs between Hispanic and white youth like I witnessed it AZ.”
We do. It’s called “Breaking Bad,” and it’s a pretty amazing show.
Anyway.
Posted 03 Jun 2009 at 5:04 pm ¶
Miles Ellison wrote:
I disagree with the statement that all of the black characters engaged with drugs in “The Wire” are either drug pushers or drug users.
The interaction with drugs by the black characters was a lot more complex than that. The engagement with drugs extended to politics, education, urban economics, and law enforcement. That’s kind of a reductive statement.
Posted 03 Jun 2009 at 6:54 pm ¶
Tracey wrote:
@atlaism: so true. Black people make up 40% of crack users but 80% of arrests ( I believe those were from the late 90s/early 00s. Courtesy of Prison Industrial Complex book) . Not to mention the double standard in how cocaine is treated.
Posted 03 Jun 2009 at 9:10 pm ¶
Abu Sinan wrote:
@John,
I wasnt aware of “Breaking Bad”. With two three year olds at home I dont watch much outside of cartoons anymore.
I’ll check it out.
Posted 03 Jun 2009 at 10:22 pm ¶
rob sekay wrote:
I was just about to say, I dont think that the author has seen “Breaking Bad”yet. Theres other imagery out there, critically acclaimed to wit.
Posted 03 Jun 2009 at 10:42 pm ¶
prettypithy wrote:
@Rosa:
I think that is a thoughtful and accurate comment.
I took criminal law this past semester and it was tough to listen to some of my privileged classmates voice their conceptions of what constitutes criminal behavior. Students who I personally know to use drugs would refer to drug offenders in our cases as “criminals” or “felons”. My classmates commit the same crimes but because they do them in “safe” places with “safe” people, they don’t view them as crimes. Let the law be applied equally across the board or not at all.
Posted 03 Jun 2009 at 11:03 pm ¶
Jeremy wrote:
@Tracey
There was news about a month ago of the Obama administration urging congress to fix the unequal laws pertaining to powder cocaine and crack possession/dealing: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/obama-crack-sentencing-la_n_192799.html
I hope it happens.
@Miles
I would never suggest that this is The Wire’s fault–David Simon obviously portrays inner city life (and the broader socio-political context) with a ferocious humanity largely unparalleled elsewhere in pop culture. That said, the show reinforces the common image of drugs associated with black criminality. Unintentionally, of course.
But even if we account for the Bunny Colvins, the Carters and the Lester Freamons…black drug use is about crime. And it’s certainly not innocent, in any context. White Mike makes an appearance in Season 2, sure, but most other whites (involved with drug use) are drawn in by blacks. The young woman buying a vile in Hamsterdam in Season 3 that ends up in Bubbles’ NA meeting in Season 5 is a good example.
Great show, nonetheless.
Posted 03 Jun 2009 at 11:09 pm ¶
Miles Ellison wrote:
@Jeremy
The drug use in the wire is seen in the larger context of urban decay. The criminality is a subset of that. There wasn’t anything common or stereotypical about how The Wire dealt with drug use and its participants. That’s what made the show unique. It’s also one of the reasons that not many people watched it.
Posted 04 Jun 2009 at 7:56 am ¶
Jeremy wrote:
@Miles
As some one that studies urban poverty as a career, I can wholeheartedly agree that there is nothing stereotypical about TheWire – it’s an absolutely brilliant (and painfully accurate) show.
So again, not faulting The Wire, but whenever we see black dudes using/engaging with drugs, it’s normally with respect to criminality. And the overall point of bringing all of this up is that progressive drug policy could falter if these pre-existing racialized depictions of drug use are utilized in a negative ad campaign.
Posted 04 Jun 2009 at 8:58 am ¶
Christie wrote:
I remember when we lived in England and there was a short TV blurb about youth crime. One of the several video shots that was played as a background to the commentary (and meant to be illustrative of youth crime somehow) was… a black boy around 12 years old, riding a bicycle. It’s hard to believe that this could have been put in unknowingly or unthinkingly. Who thought this would be a suitable background image for a spot on youth crime??
Posted 04 Jun 2009 at 9:15 am ¶
Stacy wrote:
@ Abu Sinan
I would have to say I would love to see such a show.I am a drug counselor in Tampa. There is no specific face that goes along with drug use. I have a caucasian young rich male, gay, who was a meth head and most of those I come in contact with are caucasian and opiate users, i.e.oxys, roxys, vicodin, etc. Very few timesdo I come across a black male cltwho used pills. So I would almost be inclined to agree, however,in all reality, there is no specific face except for the mass medias portrayal. Not tomention, Plant City is one of our biggest meth areas.
Posted 04 Jun 2009 at 10:08 pm ¶
Natalie wrote:
What about the movie Harold and Kumar go to White Castle? I’m not suggesting this movie doesn’t have its problems, but it does seem to be a very popular movie in which two people of color participate in carefree nostalgia style drug use.
Posted 07 Jun 2009 at 2:29 pm ¶
MC wrote:
@Natalie I think this is where the lines of race and class cross (as they often do). While Harold and Kumar are certainly PoC, they also enjoy some of the white privilege that a middle-class lifestyle affords them. The negative depictions of drug use are strongly tied to both race AND class…it’s a really fine and blurry line
Posted 09 Jun 2009 at 11:32 am ¶