THE NEVERENDING DRUG WAR

More than 1 million people will be sent to prison this year on drug
charges. Sentences in drug cases have accounted for about 40 percent
of the increase in the prison population in the past two decades.
Despite the fact that there is no difference in the rate of illegal
drug use according to race (some recent surveys find whites with
higher rates of use than blacks), blacks are 40 percent of those
arrested on drug charges, and about 70-80 percent of those sent to
prison on such charges. The black incarceration rate is about eight
times greater than for whites, mostly because of the drug war. All
available evidence points to patent racial bias in our drug laws and
their enforcement. All of these points (and many more) help explain
why a young black man named Lashawn Banks is at the center of a case
to be heard soon by the U.S. Supreme Court.

According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal (March 3), about five years
ago the police arrived at the front door of the home of Mr. Banks with
a search warrant based on evidence that he probably had "illegal"
drugs in his possession, which he did, as it turned out. They knocked
on the door and waited about 15 seconds before breaking it down. Mr.
Banks was taking a shower at the time and obviously could not hear the
knock at the door. He was an admitted drug user and does not deny it
(he had 11 ounces of crack cocaine, but denies he was a dealer). He
was convicted of possession with the intent to sell--in other words,
he was allegedly "trafficking" in illegal drugs.

What will be argued before the high court is whether Mr. Banks' civil
rights were violated because the cops forcibly entered his apartment
before he had a chance to let them in. It will be argued, quite
reasonably, that it would take a normal person more than 15 seconds to
get to the door, even if he or she was not in the shower. The police
will argue--very logically--that many drug users and/or dealers will
try to get rid of the drugs before the police enter. The 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Banks' verdict (he was convicted
in federal court and sentenced to 11 years at Lompoc, Calif.--more on
this issue shortly) and ruled that the police did not wait a
"reasonable period of time."

As usual, some more important, larger issues will not be subject to
close inspection in this case. What will not be questioned is the drug
war itself and its effects on not only every stage of the criminal
justice system but the entire society. The "war on drugs" cost
taxpayers more than $35 billion last year and this figure will no
doubt be even higher this year, since expenditures have risen every
year for the past 20 years. The result? Consider these figures:

1. Convictions for drug law violations (mostly possession) accounted
for more than one-half of the increase in state prison inmates during
the 1980s and early 1990s. Between 1985 and 1995 the number of
prisoners in state institutions who had been convicted of drug
offenses went up by 478 percent, while the number in federal prisons
went up by 446 percent.

2. Drug arrests tripled between 1980 and 1997. During this same
period, the number of people going to prison for a violent crime went
up by only 82 percent; for a nonviolent crime, up 207 percent; for a
drug offense, up 1,040 percent.

3. The crackdown on drugs has perhaps most seriously affected women.
Between 1986 and 1996 the number sentenced to prison for drug offenses
increased tenfold; arrests of women (mostly minorities) for drugs went
up by 95 percent during this time, compared to a 55 percent increase
for men; currently the most serious offense for 40 percent of the
women in prison is a drug offense.

4. During a three-year period (1992-1995), out of 2,400 people charged
in federal courts with crack cocaine violations, not a single one was
white and all but 11 were African-American.

5. Meanwhile, illegal drug use continues and the profits flowing into
the major drug cartels are as high as ever, and drug trafficking is a
$400 billion-per-year industry, equal to about 8 percent of the
world's trade, while drug prices have decreased.

This is just a small sample of facts that I could quote. A very high
percentage of court cases, especially when police actions are involved
(and in particular cases of police corruption), are connected in some
way to illegal drugs. This is inevitable when there is a commodity
much in demand, but is prohibited.

Technically Mr. Banks' case is before the Supreme Court because he
possessed a "dangerous drug" and because the police broke down his
door after only 15 seconds, but he is really there because the
American legal system (starting with Congress) decided that some drugs
should be made illegal, and such laws have specifically targeted
racial minorities. The most dangerous drugs, causing more than a
half-million deaths each year (tobacco and alcohol), are perfectly
legal. Need I mention the hundreds of prescription drugs that cause
great damage, yet are perfectly legal? Why are some drugs deemed
illegal while others are not? Check out the class and race of the
typical users. A short study of the history of drug legislation shows
that it has always been the poor and/or racial minorities whose drug
use has led to legislation. Too bad the Supreme Court will not dwell
on these issues.