10 Ways the US Government Used the Crack Epidemic to Justify the War on Drugs

crackuser
Myth 3: Crack Is Especially Addicting
According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse survey in the late 1980s, of those who had ever tried crack, 80 percent had not used it in the past year, and over 90 percent had not used it in the past month. Eventually, the same media that originally made false or misleading claims about crack being “instantaneously addicting” later admitted as much. In 1990, for example, Newsweek wrote: “Donʼt tell the kids, but thereʼs a dirty little secret about crack; as with most other drugs, a lot of people use it without getting addicted. In their zeal to shield young people from the plague of drugs, the media and many drug educators have hyped instant and total addiction.”
drugshooting

Myth 4: Crack Causes Crime and Violence

The media and drug control officials repeatedly claimed that crack was so powerfully addictive that it drove users to desperate acts of crime and violence. Politicians repeated these claims to justify their uniquely punitive new laws against crack. It turns out, however, that this allegation, too, wasn’t true. Of the 414 homicides in New York City in 1988 that the police defined as drug-related, only 7.5 percent were psychopharmacological in nature, where a drugʼs effects were said to be the cause. Most of those were alcohol-related. Nearly three-fourths (74.3 percent) of the total had to do with the dangers of doing business in a black market rather than with the direct behavioral effects of crack or even with crimes born of a craving for crack.

Democracy needs journalism it can trust.

This election season, the stakes are higher than usual — and so is the pressure on newsrooms to soften their coverage, stay quiet, or just disappear. Independent reporting, the kind that answers to readers instead of advertisers or political pressure, matters more in a moment like this, not less.

For over 14 years, Atlanta Black Star has stayed independent and reader-funded. We have no corporate owner and no shareholders telling us what to cover or how to cover it. That independence is also our biggest vulnerability: nothing protects it except readers choosing to fund it directly.

Newspaper ad revenue has fallen more than 80% since 2005, and local newsrooms are closing at a rate of roughly two a week nationwide. When outlets go under in a moment like this, it's rarely the independent, reader-funded ones that get to stick around.

We know a request for support isn't why you came here. But without readers choosing to fund this work directly, the depth of reporting we can do at home and abroad shrinks along with everyone else's. If you're not in a position to give, that doesn't change how much we value you as a reader.

If you are able to, a recurring contribution does more for us than a single one-time gift, because it lets us plan the next investigation instead of just the next invoice. It takes about 30 seconds, no long form, no account. Thank you for continuing to support independent journalism and freedom of the press.

Back to top