The documentary Meth Storm follows
an impoverished family of meth addicts in rural Arkansas who are struggling to
manage their addiction and stay out of prison. The son, Teddy, has found
religion during his sixth stint in prison in the past ten years, and he promises
the mother of his children that he will get sober and get his life back on
track. Teddy’s mother said this commitment to sobriety was unlikely to last. She
says her son has merely found “jailhouse religion” and will be back on meth
shortly after he gets out. Disappointingly, Teddy’s mother is right. A few
months later Teddy is arrested again for possession and finds himself in prison
for a seventh time.
On the other side of the drug war, DEA agent Johnny Sowell acknowledges
that every time they arrest a drug dealer, a replacement springs up shortly
thereafter. Still, he hopes that this latest round of arrests of low-level drug
dealers, dubbed Operation Ice Storm, will lead to the source of the super-potent
meth coming in from Mexico. Johnny busts as many low-level dealers as he can,
for selling as little as a gram of meth. He pumps them for information until he
finally catches a direct connection to the cartel in a dangerous high speed
chase. The connection refuses to snitch. If he does, the connection’s entire
family in Mexico will be killed. Another dead end in the drug war.
Teddy and Johnny have something in common besides their decaying
town. They both keep doing the same things they have always done, in futile
hope of a better result. Teddy keeps trying to turn his life around, but always goes
back to drugs. Johnny keeps arresting people like Teddy to stop the flow of
drugs, but he never gets any closer to the source. Like characters in a modern Greek
tragedy, it is impossible for anybody in this community to avoid the cruelty of
their own fate. The war on drugs rages on, regardless of the
participants efforts to resist.
So what is to be done for communities ravaged by drugs like
the one in Meth Storm and their urban
counterparts? What is needed is compassion in the law for addicts and drug
users, one that recognizes their humanity and decouples it from race or income
level.
But what does this compassion look like in policy terms? To
start, we must create avenues for drug users to course correct before they are
trapped in the cycle of addiction and incarceration. For example, drug courts
which emphasize treatment instead of just punishment have shown promising drops in
rates of recidivism among drug users. Well maintained and funded pretrial
diversion programs are also effective in preventing users from being
rearrested.
We also need to reform how we treat drug users who find
themselves incarcerated. A study from 2002 indicated that over half of all
prisoners in the US met the criteria for a diagnosis of drug abuse or dependence,
but only 15 to 20 percent of those who would benefit from treatment received it. Part of the reason is that the current criminal justice system focuses on punishment, rather than treating addiction as a disease. When prisons spend their resources in accordance with this assumption, the inevitable result is that many of the incarcerated do not get the help they need. Every addict who goes to prison should receive treatment for their addiction,
otherwise it is only a matter of time before many will return.
Another reform that has been gaining traction is ending mandatory
minimums that were a result of the tough-on-crime stances of the 1980s and
1990s. Although the end of the racially
tinged 100:1 ratio in sentencing for crack cocaine versus cocaine was a
welcome reform, this was a band-aid policy for a specific drug and not a
permanent solution. The law still maintains a grossly unfair 18:1 sentencing
ratio between crack cocaine and cocaine, and the vast majority of mandatory
minimums have not been addressed. For example, the mandatory federal minimum
sentence for distribution of five grams of methamphetamine is five years, even though
that amount could be as little as a week’s supply to a heavy user.
In addition to ending mandatory minimums, we must go further
to ensure that there is something worth returning home to after former dealers
and users have served their sentences. We need to invest in job training for
prisoners and provide opportunities for these returning individuals to work in their communities and become
contributing members of society.
Another consideration is that sentences for using or selling
even a small amount of drugs can last much longer than the period of incarceration
or parole, because hiring managers discriminate against those with drug
convictions. We must destigmatize non-violent drug convictions in hiring and
allow rehabilitated drug offenders to have their slate
wiped clean. Without these reforms, the reality is that in an area with no jobs
like Faulkner County, Arkansas in Meth Storm, the only
way the formerly incarcerated can make money is in the
drug trade, which will further ingratiate themselves into the cycle of
addition and incarceration.
So how do we obtain the political capital to get these
policy outcomes in place? We need to humanize drug users and, yes, even
low-level drug dealers. The first step is to encourage the positive trends of humanizing
opioid users. For people of color whose communities have been criminalized
for decades as a result of the war on drugs, it may be difficult for many to
square the injustice of only granting compassion to wealthier
and whiter
opioid users. However, the reality is that many Americans continue to otherize drug
users, by saying drug use is something that only poor whites, Latinos, or Black
folks do.
In order to help build a broader coalition of support, we
need the public to believe that addiction can affect their own family and
friends, so any humanizing narratives about drug use and addiction are helpful. For example, when rockstar and drug addict Tom Petty died of an accidental overdose, there was an outpouring of support and much credit given to his family for making his cause of death public. However, when a poor addict like Teddy dies in rural Arkansas, its doubtful that there will be similarly affectionate support. It will just be another sad statistic in the war on drugs. With
greater recognition that drug use is not attributable to someone’s
characteristics of being poor or a racial minority, we can enact policies that
will change the fates of people like Johnny and Teddy in Meth Storm.
This is an extremely important issue that needs to be addressed in the United States of America. The opioid crisis has come to light in the mainstream media in recent years but is not generating enough concern in my opinion. I think there is a lot of low hanging fruit for headlines (Trump in the white house, Trump's failure to substantiate many outlandish claims, immigration...) that this issue has been pushed under the rug.
ReplyDeleteThe war on drugs has been deemed a massive failure by many scholars and economists. The cost to prosecute a massive number of non-violent drug offenders and then the further cost to incarcerate them costs tax payers billions per annum. Then to your point, this does nothing to actually break the cycle. They are addicts, not violent criminals who need to be separated from society. They need mental health and emotional support. The war on drugs has also statistically been proving to affect minority groups and the white working class more than those of a higher class. The war on drugs has also not produced evidence of reducing the amount of drugs available, crime rates, or helping the actual individuals that are being harmed.
I agree with your point that humanizing the offenders is the first place to start. This policy needs to arise out of passion and understanding.
I agree that treating addiction as a health issue rather than addressing it with retributive punishment would significantly decrease recidivism and be far better for us as a society. It would be hugely impactful for people like Teddy. It seems unlikely, though, to help Johnny avoid dead-ends in his work. We have tried to attack the supply side of drugs for a long time, by prosecuting dealers more harshly and trying to follow their connections back to the source. It doesn't seem to be working and, as you point out, a conviction follows a person around and ends up closing off -- perhaps for life -- pathways to recovery. Should we abandon attempts to restrict the supply of drugs entering our society and instead focus solely on attempts to reduce demand, such as addiction recovery? Or are both needed? If so, how can we change the paradigm of Johnny's work to make it healthier and more successful, just as we hope to change the paradigm of Teddy's life?
ReplyDelete