Is the War on Drugs the New Jim Crow?

During the Reagan Administration, the War on Drugs campaign was launched. The campaign included new laws which would leave little to none judicial discretion when it comes to sentencing. The War on Drugs is often seen as another way for getting minorities, mostly blacks, off the streets. Is the War on Drugs just modern day Jim Crow laws? This article will tackle the issues of the War on Drugs and show the similarities of the laws created with those of the south's Jim Crow laws.

In the post-Civil War era, there were many laws created to prevent freed slaves from enjoying their basic civil liberties, such as the right to vote. There were poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, and the ability to understand clauses found in the state constitutions. When the 15^th Amendment was ratified, which prohibited the denial of voting rights based on race, the south sought out a new way to hinder blacks from voting. The southern states adopted felon disenfranchisement laws near the end of the 19^th and the beginning of the 20^th centuries. Felon disenfranchisement was the most roundabout way to keep African Americans from voting, yet it is the only one which has survived with little or no regard.

What does this have to do with the War on Drugs? Well, according to the statistics, African American men who fall into the age group of 20-29 are being locked up at a rate of one in three. This is eight times more than white Americans when it comes to drug-related crimes. Further, two-thirds of all drug offenders in the United States are not African-American, yet they account for about 80% of drug convictions. This shows there is some bias when it comes to sentencing African-Americans for drug offenses.

The drug laws have made it easier for politicians to drain the political power from the disadvantaged communities, in which many poor people of color live. The drug laws have given police and prosecutors the power to arrest, charge, and convict the low men on the totem pole: drug pushers and abusers. Since simple possession is generally a felony in most states, this means prison time and the loss of voting rights for those convicted. The drug laws have no focus on the king pins of the drug trade, mainly because they do not carry drugs.

Felon disenfranchisement is seen as the key to keeping one particular party in control of the country: the Republicans. Since convicted felons lose their rights to vote while incarcerated in 47 states; 32 states bar parolees from voting; 29 states bar probationers from voting; and 15 states bar most ex-offenders from voting for life, it is obvious one party is gaining more than the other. Most African-Americans, who live in the poorer and crime rampant communities, usually vote democratic, making it even more important to keep felon disenfranchisement a legal law.

Felon disenfranchisement should be seen as an unconstitutional law, as all citizens should be afforded the basic right of voting as an act of citizenship in a democracy. Voting gives the people the power, but if the power is taken from the people, or a group of people, the best interests of the people are not taken into account. Every group of people deserves to have a voice and they should not have that voice taken from them based on a technicality that is not even constitutional to begin with.

In conclusion, is the War on Drugs the new Jim Crow? This writer seems to believe there is a disproportionate representation of African-Americans in prisons for drug-related offenses, while their white counterparts usually get probation. The War on Drugs just makes it legal to deny the right to vote based on one's race by making it a law for all felons and then seeking out to punish minorities more severely. So in this writer's opinion the War on Drugs = Jim Crow = Legalized Racism.