by Carl Hart
A redeeming aspect of writing this book was that it afforded me an opportunity to mend family relationships that had been damaged by years of unspoken words and distance. On several occasions I met separately with MH and Carl and got to know them as people and not just parents. From MH, I’m sure I got my twisted sense of humor. She’d frequently poke fun at her grandchildren: “Malik wants to be thug and don’t know how to be one. He ain’t even man enough to pee straight. He better sit his light-in-the-behind-ass down.” She made me laugh constantly when we got together. Another thing that she did was to help keep me connected to people from my past. “You remember Lil’ Mama?” she’d ask. Invariably, I’d say no. MH would continue: “She told me to tell you hello and to remind you that she saved you from getting many ass-whippings.” “Oh yeah, now I remember her, Lil’ Mama,” I’d reply.
My interactions with Carl were equally rewarding but centered primarily on sports. He wanted to make sure that I continued to support the Miami-based professional teams. “What do you think of those Heat?” I didn’t have the heart to tell him that I’ve never been a Heat supporter. The Miami Heat joined the NBA for the 1988–1989 season, four years after I had left the area. So I never developed an emotional bond with that team as I had with the Dolphins. Nonetheless, it’s clear to me that Carl spurred my interests in athletics, and were it not for athletics, this book probably would have never been written. My participation in high school athletics required that I maintain a minimum GPA, which ensured that I would graduate. Carl and I reminisced about the time when we went to see the Muhammad Ali–George Foreman fight, 1974’s “Rumble in the Jungle,” on closed-circuit television at the convention center. It was a special night; it was our birthday. I also learned that he speaks with Tobias on a regular basis, offering guidance and support, and that he hasn’t had a drink in nearly twenty years.
As I spent time with my parents, I couldn’t help thinking about my own young children and the time that I wasn’t spending with them. Damon was now eighteen and preparing to go off to college and Malakai was six years younger, attending a middle school that charges tuition rates comparable to a college. The environment in which Robin and I are raising them is utterly different from the one in which I was raised. This is a source of anxiety and relief. I sometimes worry that we have pampered them too much. Would they be able to fend for themselves should something happen to Robin and me? My siblings and I joke about how MH made it clear to us that we were on our own very early in life, especially if we got into trouble with the law. One of her favorite lines was “If you go to jail, don’t call me.” MH firmly believes that her child-rearing philosophy is the reason for her children’s success in life. Her children, however, have a different perspective.
Robin and I have been fortunate to shield our children from the traps that face so many other black boys, including Tobias and my nephews. Damon and Malakai don’t seem to have the emotional scars that I carried from my childhood. They are thoughtful and verbally expressive, even when emotional. Both have participated in athletics and the arts since they were very young. Each has already read more books than I had upon completion of my undergraduate studies; for them, an undergraduate education is the minimum expectation. They have traveled throughout the United States and have been to foreign countries. Importantly, they are staking their claim in this society. The thing that pleases me most, however, is that they are happy and cheerful. Much of their free time is spent together playing games, laughing and joking. When watching Damon and Malakai interact, I am often reminded of the time when Louie and I were kids climbing the huge sapodilla tree in Big Mama’s yard. “Don’t go too high,” Louie would say. Because he was older, he felt compelled to look after me and make sure I didn’t step on a weak branch and fall.
Billboard.
After saying good-bye to Louie, I sat in the car and cried, because I felt as though I had failed to look after him as he had done for me when we were kids. Prior to writing this book, I hadn’t cried since I was a child. Now, in the car, a flood of tears poured from my eyes. I thought about all of the other Louies we’ve failed to look after. I thought about all the years that I spent away from my Florida family in order to obtain an education that seems inadequate to help solve the problems they face. The tears continued streaming down as I thought about the tremendous promise that Louie once showed; I felt crushed that we both couldn’t have been scientists. After several minutes, I gathered myself and started the car. Johnny Cash was on the radio singing, “There will be peace in the valley for me, dear Lord I pray. . . .” And I slowly drove away.
CHAPTER 17
Drug Policy Based on Fact, Not Fiction
It’s time for America to get right.
—FANNIE LOU HAMER
So, are you saying that we should legalize hard drugs like cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine?” The question was in response to the presentation that I had just given to a group of white, aging New York City hipsters. They were fairly well educated; you know, the NPR type. Some were even professionals such as neurologists, psychologists, and social workers. All had come to a basement bar in Brooklyn to hear me speak at their monthly “secret science club” meeting.
The room was dimly lit, smelled of alcohol, and filled to capacity—several would-be attendees were turned away. Bodies rubbed up against bodies like we were in a popular dance club. Some even reeked of marijuana smoke. And as I stood on the brightly lit stage—so bright that I had to wear sunglasses—I couldn’t help thinking back to my childhood when I was a DJ spinning records in similar settings, except then, the audiences were all black. “I mean I totally agree that war on drugs has been a huge failure. And I even support legalizing marijuana, but I’m not in favor of legalizing the hard drugs,” the attractive thirtysomething woman wearing a Public Enemy T-shirt continued.
I wasn’t surprised by her question and comments. It wasn’t the first time that one of my presentations had been met with skepticism or incredulity. And to be fair, I had just told this audience, many of whom took great pride in their critical thinking skills, that they had been hoodwinked and miseducated for much of their lives about what drugs do and don’t do. I used a mountain of scientific data to call into question some of the purported damaging effects of the “hard drugs” on brain functioning. I explained that there has been an ongoing concerted effort to overstate the dangers of drugs like cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine. The primary players in this effort are scientists, law enforcement officials, politicians, and the media.
While I acknowledged the potential for abuse and harm caused by these drugs, I emphasized that there had been extensive misinterpretation of the scientific evidence and considerable hyping of anecdotal reports. This situation, I explained, has not only wrongly stigmatized drug users and abusers; it has also led to misguided policy making. Does this mean that drug legalization is the only option available to us when we reconsider what drug policies should be in place? Of course not. Drug prohibition, the most prevalent current form of drug policy, and drug legalization are on opposite ends of the drug policy continuum. There are multiple options in between.
One such option is drug decriminalization. Decriminalization is often confused with legalization. They are not the same thing. Here’s the major difference: Under legalization, the sale, acquisition, use, and possession of drugs are legal. Our current policies regulating alcohol and tobacco, for those of legal age, are examples of drug legalization. Under decriminalization, on the other hand, the acquisition, use, and possession of drugs can be punished by a citation much like traffic violations are. Mind you, drugs still are not legal, but infractions do not lead to criminal convictions—the one thing that has prevented so many from obtaining employment, housing, governmental benefits, treatment, and so on. This is crucial when you consider this fact: each year, more than 80 percent of arrests in the United States for drug offenses involves only simple possession.1 Sales of all illicit drugs, however, remain criminal offenses under decriminaliza
tion laws.
Drug decriminalization isn’t a new concept. In fact, a handful of states, including California and Massachusetts, have decriminalized marijuana. Although the specifics vary from state to state, in general the laws read something like this: any person caught with less than an ounce of marijuana or smoking in public is punishable by a civil fine of one hundred dollars. No state has decriminalized other illegal drugs. You might ask, why not? Well, before answering, it might be informative for us to look at the Portugal experiment.
Back in 2001, Portugal took the unprecedented step of decriminalizing all illegal drugs. That’s right, cocaine; heroin; methamphetamine; 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, aka ecstasy and molly); everything. Here’s how it works there. Acquisition, possession, and use of recreational drugs for personal use—defined as quantities up to a ten-day supply—are no longer criminal offenses. Users stopped by police and found to have drugs are given the equivalent of a traffic ticket, rather than being arrested and stigmatized with a criminal record. The ticket requires them to appear before a local panel called (in translation) the Commission for Dissuasion of Drug Addiction, typically consisting of a social worker, a medical professional like a psychologist or psychiatrist, and a lawyer. Note that a police officer is not included.
The panel is set up to address a potential health problem. The idea is to encourage users to honestly discuss their drug use with people who will serve as health experts and advisers, not adversaries. The person sits at a table with the panel. If he or she is not thought to have a drug problem, nothing further is usually required, other than payment of a fine. Treatment is recommended for those who are found to have drug problems—and referral for appropriate care is made. Still, treatment attendance is not mandatory. Repeat offenders, however—fewer than 10 percent of those seen every year—can receive noncriminal punishments like suspension of their driver’s license or being banned from a specific neighborhood known for drug sales.
How has decriminalization been working out for the people of Portugal? Overall, they have increased spending on prevention and treatment, and decreased spending for criminal prosecution and imprisonment. The number of drug-induced deaths has dropped, as have overall rates of drug use, especially among young people (15–24 years old). In general, drug use rates in Portugal are similar, or slightly better, than in other European Union countries.2 In other words, Portugal’s experiment with decriminalization has been moderately successful. No, it didn’t stop all illegal drug use. That would have been an unrealistic expectation. Portuguese continue to get high, just like their contemporaries and all human societies before them. But they don’t seem to have the problem of stigmatizing, marginalizing, and incarcerating substantial proportions of their citizens for minor drug violations. Together, these are some of the reasons that I think decriminalization should be discussed as a potential option in the United States.
“So, why isn’t decriminalization of all illegal drugs given serious consideration in this country?” yelled a deceptively aged man standing in the center of the room. The salt-and-pepper hair and creases in his face suggested he was in his late forties or early fifties, but his skinny jeans and Chuck Taylor Converse sneakers implied he was much younger. I replied, “Of course, the answer to this question will vary depending upon who is being asked to address it. And consideration of all of the possible answers is beyond the scope of this talk.” In the preceding pages, however, I have tried to provide the reader with information that can allow one to address this question in a more critical manner. Briefly, we’re too afraid of these drugs and of what we think they do. Our current drug policies are based largely on fiction and misinformation. Pharmacology—or actual drug effects—plays less of a role when policies are devised. As such, we have been bamboozled to believe that cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, or some other drug du jour is so dangerous that any possession or use of it should not be tolerated and deserves to be severely punished. Decriminalization is inconsistent with this misguided perspective.
In order to begin a serious national discussion about decriminalization, first, the public will have to be reeducated about drugs, separating the real potential dangers from monstrous or salacious fable. While I hope this book is a significant step in that direction, others (for example, scientists and public health officials) will also be needed in our reeducation efforts. And given how entrenched some drug myths are, one should not expect change to occur within a short period. This will engender considerable disappointment and frustration. I am reminded of the words of my dear friend Ira Glasser, former director of the American Civil Liberties Union, when he was asked how long it will take for us to see meaningful drug policy reform. Ira responded, “The fight for justice is not a sprint . . . it’s a marathon relay race. You can’t see where the track ends. You can just take the baton and run as hard as you can and as fast as you can and as far as you can. . . .”
Ira’s comments also remind us that reeducation of the public about drugs will take a team effort. For one, scientists who study illegal drugs can be extremely helpful in this process. But you should also know that scientists are not all equal in their ability to think critically and rationally about drugs. For example, a researcher who studies the neurotoxic effects (causing damage to brain cells) of MDMA in rodents is not necessarily the best person to educate the public about that drug’s effects on people. In their experiments, these researchers typically inject very large amounts of the drug several times a day, for consecutive days. In many experiments, the animal is given as much as ten times the amount of drug that a human would take. So it wouldn’t be surprising that MDMA, given in these large doses, can cause damage to brain cells. What is surprising, however, is that some scientists, on the basis of these results, communicate dire warnings to the public that MDMA should not be used even once because it causes brain damage. With teammates like this, you don’t need opponents. I assure you that if you administered similar excessively large alcohol or nicotine doses to animals, you would observe similar or even more toxic effects. But these findings are probably not relevant to human drug use because we take considerably smaller amounts of drug.
Given the vast amount of conflicting information, I recognize that it can be difficult trying to determine who is a credible drug expert. In your attempt to evaluate the drug information presented, it might be helpful to ask a few simple questions: (1) How much drug was given to the animals and is it similar to amounts used by people? (2) Was the drug injected or swallowed and do people use the drug in this way? (3) Were the animals first given smaller amounts of the drug to allow the development of tolerance, which prevents many toxic effects, or were naive animals just given larger amounts initially? (4) Were the animals housed in isolation or in groups? All of these factors potentially influence drug effects on the brain and behavior. You should be skeptical when “experts” attempt to extrapolate data collected in laboratory animals to humans without appropriate consideration of these critical factors.
Law enforcement is another profession that is frequently called upon to educate the public about drugs. Few efforts have had a more harmful effect on public education and health. In general, police officers are trained to apprehend criminals and prevent and detect crime, in the service of maintaining public order. They don’t receive training in pharmacology, nor do they receive any in psychology or any other behavioral science. As I have consistently pointed out within these pages, the effects of drugs on human behavior and physiology are determined by a complex interaction between the individual drug user and her or his environment. Without the appropriate training it’s extremely difficult to draw conclusions about how a particular drug might have influenced someone’s behavior.
It’s true that cops make numerous drug arrests, but it would be a mistake to assume that they become knowledgeable about the effects of drugs as a result. Being pursued or arrested by the police is an aberrant situation. This, in itself, even without any drugs, can cause heightened suspicion, anxiety, fea
r, and the fight-or-flight response in the suspect. Consider also that some people who are arrested for drugs have preexisting psychiatric disorders, while others may be intoxicated from using multiple drugs, including alcohol. When all of these complexities are added to an already abnormal setting, it is often difficult to tease apart the effects of a particular drug from those of nondrug influences. Yet, in some public education campaigns carried out by police officers, the disturbing behaviors are uncritically attributed to certain illegal drug effects. This is an important vehicle through which drug-related myths are perpetuated. The point is that law enforcement officials are not qualified to serve as drug education experts simply because they make arrests that may involve drugs.
Both the scientists who study toxicity in animals and the police who arrest users and sellers often have a limited view of the complexity of the ideas I have presented to you. No one whose professional experience focuses only on one aspect of illicit drug use can be considered a real expert in the sense of being able to imagine all the intended and unintended consequences of continuing our current policy of treating illicit drug use primarily as a criminal issue.
The media, too, is another major source of drug misinformation. Throughout this book I have provided multiple examples of how the media has generally fanned the flames of drug hysteria. It seems as though there’s a “new deadly drug” nearly every year. And invariably some police officer or politician is interviewed, warning parents about the dangers this drug poses to their children. (Of course, neither cop nor elected official should be the professional educating the public about the potential effects of drugs.) Usually, after the hysteria has subsided, we discover that the drug in question wasn’t as dangerous as we were initially told. In fact, it wasn’t even new. But by then the new laws have been passed and they require stiff penalties for possession and distribution of the so-called new, dangerous drug. I am not optimistic that the media will change its reporting on drugs anytime soon. Drug stories are just too sexy, and sex sells everything from newspapers to documentary films.