Drug Decriminalization and Racial Disparities

1. Introduction

Aggressive drug criminalization policies have disproportionately impacted African American and Latino communities for over half a century. The “War on Drugs”—commonly known as the sentencing laws for non-violent offenses related to drugs—has led to the corpus detainment of many people of color in the US, deprivation of fundamental rights, and the dismantling of the economic, societal, and familial structures of communities. While White and Black US citizens abuse drugs at similar rates, according to Kaminoff (2018), people of color are three to four times more possibly compared to Whites to be charged with possessing drugs. The decriminalization of drugs is one strategy that is frequently suggested to lessen the racial impacts due to the War on Drugs. African Americans and Latinos would be jailed for possessing drugs far less frequently, which would help alleviate some of the racial impacts of the current drug policies. This literature review seeks to assess the non-punitive approaches to simple drug use and possession proposed in various studies and how these approaches can reduce racial disparities. More specifically, how do approaches like decriminalizing drugs impact drug use, the functioning of the criminal justice system in light of racial equality, and other correlated aspects of society? The review also aims at identifying research gaps toward recommending the best course of action

This review is presented as shown; the second part presents statistics on the disparities of drug-related arrests and convictions and a brief history of drug policy in the US, with examples that perpetuate inequalities within the criminal justice system regarding drug arrests. The third section discusses the phenomenon of arrests and punishments for crack and powdered cocaine in the US and the failure of rehabilitation and treatment, as well as outlining approaches assumed by countries towards addressing drug crimes. The fourth section discusses drug courts, current decriminalization strategy, and what drug decriminalization looks like in different states. The final section presents recommendations on drug policies.

This review involves an analysis of crime, criminal justice, racial disparities, and discrimination of current drug policy approaches in the US. This review will incorporate a range of peer-reviewed journal articles from the last eight years, including policy analysis, quantitative and qualitative research, and theoretical discussions on drug use and drug policy from reputable journals in various disciplines such as criminology, political science, sociology, and legal studies. Multiple databases were consulted to locate these articles, with various searches conducted. For instance, searches were conducted on states decriminalizing drug use and possession.

2. Statistical Presentation of Racial Disparities

The US criminal justice system has large, long-standing racial inequalities in drug arrests, with the arrests of people of color due to drug crimes being at a rate 5 times higher than that of Whites (Gaston, 2019). Gaston contends that racial inequalities in drug arrests are caused by reasons besides just drug offenses since drug crime data largely show that people of color are not more inclined to abuse or sell drugs than Whites. Gaston (2019) makes this conclusion by presenting findings from a qualitative and quantitative study on racial differences in drug misuse in St. Louis communities during 2009–2013. The study findings are important as they lend insight into racially-biased policing. This is because racial incoherence is a symptom of racially-prejudiced drug enforcement since people are more at risk of being arrested for drugs when their race contrasts with that of their immediate context. Nonetheless, there is a need for added research since the findings from this research cannot be generalized to the entirety of the US.

Similarly, Gross et al. (2022) state that African Americans amount to 69% of all incarcerated individuals due to drug-related crimes. This indicates that even though people of color and Whites abuse illicit substances at comparable rates, people of color are five to six times that Black people are 19 times more at risk of being convicted of drug offenses. Law enforcement picks which drug offenders to seek as drug offenses are seldom reported to the police. They decide to stop, inspect, and charge people of color frequently and disproportionately. Koch et al. (2019) claim that this constitutes racial profiling. Koch et al. (2019) utilize the “National Longitudinal Survey of Youth” to quantify incarceration for usage and possession of drugs in their study to look into whether there are racial inequalities in drug use arrests. The findings indicated that minority groups have a higher potential of being arrested due to drug use and possession. This research is important as it demonstrates that rather than racial inequalities in the severity or type of drug offense, inequities in drug arrests are the result of institutionalized racial prejudice in drug enforcement. This study offers a comprehensive presentation of data and findings, offering a profound insight into the racial inequalities in drug-related arrests and the need for a policy change toward improving the criminal justice outcomes for these minority groups due to law enforcement racial biases.

2.1 A Brief History of Discriminatory and Racist Policing in America

The history and traditions of American police include the historical marks of racism and associated problems. According to Brown (2019), class and race have persistently been core to the role of law enforcement agencies and criminal justice in society. Similarly, through a systematic review of previous literature on the history of American policing, Hinton & Cook (2019) argues that the policing and prison reforms implemented in the years before Johnson’s 1965 war on crime began were influenced by the persistent criminalization and imprisonment of recently released people and their descendants following the Civil War. Prior, after, and throughout Prohibition, the perpetuation of Jim Crow policies released unprecedented systems for geographical regulation and societal repression at the municipal and federal stages, which ultimately jeopardized people of color’s physical and social mobility, chances in life, and economic possibilities. The research is essential in outlining the systematic discrimination that has been present in American policing. More research is needed, however, to present empirical evidence of this phenomenon.

Similarly, according to Kaminoff (2018), the War on Drugs, initiated by President Nixon, was in such a way that successfully removed the people of color’s political influence. Through a qualitative investigation of how the War on Drugs has impacted support for the legalization of marijuana, Kaminoff (2018) notes that laws criminalizing substance use—the non-violent crimes—have been in the years after this campaign strengthened and have increased the number of minority groups in prisons. This research offers useful insight into understanding the impacts of the “War on Drugs” policy. However, since it is a qualitative study, it does not offer empirical evidence. Therefore, more empirical data is needed to comprehend how these policies persist in impacting Americans’ perception of drug decriminalization.

The implementation of proactive police changes in identified high-risk communities was made possible by national law enforcement initiatives starting in the middle of the 1960s. According to Epp et al. (2017), some racialized groups continue to bear a disproportionate amount of the negative effects of Prohibition. Through a scientifically conducted survey around the Kansas City region, Epp et al. (2017) findings demonstrate that racial discrepancies are contrite in investigative car stops. From their findings, Epp et al. (2017) present that officers disproportionately stopped Black Americans and questioned and searched them. However, while this research offers insights on police racial profiling, its research methodology (self-reported survey) presents issues with bias, thereby making its findings less credible.

Notwithstanding the many nuances highlighted in this brief review of policing in the US, it is difficult to separate institutionalized racism within the US, both historically and currently, from the concurrent progress of the country’s legal and criminal structures. This review is important as it highlights the need to understand US law enforcement in relation to the anti-Black punishing history and, thus, a need for a paradigm shift.

2.2 Factors Perpetuating Racial Disparities in the Criminal Justice System

The disproportionate rates at which minority groups-drug offenders are incarcerated originate in racially disproportionate arrest rates (Weitzer & Brunson, 2015). The war on drugs, as well as the Mandatory Minimum sentence policies been waged in ways that have had the foreseeable consequence of disproportionately targeting minority groups- drug offenders.

2.2.1 War on Drugs (WOD)

Even though the Civil Rights Act was passed, there has been little progress in achieving the goal of equal opportunity (Weitzer & Brunson., 2015. Public policies have kept racial prejudice alive, although in increasingly intricate ways. One example of a governmental policy that exposes systemic racism is the War on Drugs. African American communities were primarily targeted by the policy’s introduction of drug possession, which resulted in the incarceration of many persons from minority backgrounds. Nixon established the War on Drugs, Reagan militarized and nationalized it, and Clinton exacerbated it (Turkington, 2017).

In a study done vis a systematic review of previous work, Ramirez (2022) argues that the WOD was never intended to stop substance usage in the US or stop drug importation into the nation. Instead, the WOD was created to criminalize and marginalize communities of color. To this end, the authors contend that The war on drugs was intended to be a fight against Americans of color. This explains why the WOD continues despite its shortcomings and the ease with which better options are available, all the while causing tremendous anguish for millions of Americans. This study presents qualitative data regarding WOD and its perpetuating impacts on the rates of arrests of people of color in the US. However, the focus on the historical aspect of the WOD policy impedes the research to focus on how this policy impacts drug offenders from minority backgrounds today.

On the contrary, Earp et al. (2021) present findings on how WOD impacts people of color today. Through a comprehensive review of previous literature, Earp et al. (2021) explain how the WOD harms modern communities and feeds systematic racism. The study argues that WOD diminishes the communities’ cohesion and safety, which is further worsened by augmented subjection to state-sanctioned brutality, police enforcement, as well as various different types of policing unfairly targeting Black and Brown communities. The research argues that the incidents of general usage and possession of drugs amongst people of color are the same as those amongst the White populace. Thus, the increased arrest, prosecution, conviction, and incarceration rates amongst minority people can and have resulted in the sustainment of long-lasting vulnerabilities and broadening socio-economic disparities, including the flourishing of illicit markets for drugs. However, while this study suggests decriminalizing drugs to reduce racial inequalities within the processes of criminal justice, it fails to discuss the steps or approaches needed to implement such a paradigm shift. More research is needed to address effective approaches toward the successful paradigm shift of decriminalizing drugs in the US.

2.2.2 The Mandatory minimum sentence

The 1986 “Anti-drug Abuse Act” introduces mandatory minimum penalties for a string of substance-related crimes, frequently longer sentences for comparatively lower degrees of use or possession. According to Gillette (2020), numerous states followed stricter drug crime enforcement legislation, including mandatory minimums. Based on a review of empirical works, Gillette (2020) argues that mandatory sentences disproportionately impact minorities since the recidivism rates are greater amongst racial minorities. While this study does not offer any empirical data, it defines how mandatory minimum sentences should be carefully applied and monitored to minimize racial disparities in the criminal justice process.

Similarly, according to Tuttle (2019), mandatory minimum sentences trigger a considerable sentence for lower than those of high-level drug trafficking. To approximate the extent of bunching at the 10-year mandatory minimum in crack-cocaine drug cases, Tuttle (2019) presents findings from federal cases; the results indicate augmented bunching for minor drug offenders in forms of prosecution discretion. These findings are essential as they demonstrate that the increasing racial disparity cannot be explained by differences in the seized amount of drugs, criminal history, or other factors of the crime, but rather, a measure of state-level racial animus can validate it. Additionally, the study’s conclusions provided insight into how prosecutorial discretion and possible racial prejudice act as contributors to racial inequalities in the sentence. This research has a limitation in that the cases used were not randomly selected, thereby posing a risk of bias in selection, distorting the ultimate bias measure.

3. Crack Vs. Powdered Cocaine Phenomenon

Walker & Mezuk (2018) notes that the 1986 “Anti-Drug Abuse Act” imposes a 5-years mandatory minimum punishment for possessing crack weighing 5 grams. This implies that a sentence for possessing, even if it is an initial crime, would result in incarceration for five years. Contrarily, anyone has to be discovered possessing 500 grams of powder cocaine to serve five years mandatory sentence. This is a 100:1 ratio (Walker & Mezuk, 2018).

However, Lynch & Omari argue that crack’s lower prices, production ease, and distribution manner (small Amounts sold to individuals for personal usage) make it easily available in poor, urban communities, which includes neighborhoods for people of color. Though White people use crack, police efforts to control crack continually focus on urban black communities. Through theoretical frameworks that address the production of inequalities in institutional settings, Lynch & Omari (2018) present that rigorous crack indictments at the municipal level are a good indicator of racial disparities in conviction rates across the board. From these findings, one can infer that these aggressive crack prosecutions offer modest predictors of inequalities in final sentencing outcomes of crack or powdered cocaine-related crimes. However, more empirical evaluation is needed to efficiently uncover the conditions within which inequalities could and do thrive in legal systems.

Similarly, Palamar et al. (2015) investigated the risk of arrest as well as socioeconomic inequalities in the usage of powdered cocaine and crack. By using the “National Survey on Drug Use and Health” data, the study found that people who abuse crack are more likely to experience several recent or lifetime arrests. People of color had a greater probability of lifelong crack usage compared to whites and thus higher risks of imprisonment through the mandatory minimum policy. This study is important as it demonstrates that adults of lower socioeconomic settings (predominantly people of color) are at higher risks of being incarcerated due to crack usage than the more advantaged whites, who are more inclined to powder cocaine instead of crack. Nonetheless, this is a cross-section study; therefore, timing cannot be deduced. Thus, further research is needed to understand this phenomenon permanently to help generalize the findings at the national level.

3.1 Rehabilitation and treatment in the US

The precise composition of addiction treatment systems is influenced by political forces, lobbyists’ influence, and social movements rather than by the relative relevance of addiction-related disorders and their prevalence in society groupings (Klingemann, 2020). Keane (2018) argues that traditionally, aid for the treatment and prevention of substance misuse has been given separately from assistance for general healthcare. People needing rehabilitation or treatment for drug-related complications possess accessibility to a limited variety of medical pathways, commonly not paid for by insurance. This is because drug abuse has traditionally been viewed as a criminal or social issue. This research is important as it clearly demonstrates the failing rehabilitation system in the US. We can thus infer that the best way to deal with drug abuse and its consequences is to properly integrate programs aimed at preventing, treating and recovering.

From a prison perceptive, RecoveryFirst (2022) argues that while drug rehabs have been presented to drastically decrease re-incarceration rates in repeat offenders, Local and State governments and politicians in the US have shown less support to these programs within the prisons, where funding has declined rapidly. By presenting examples of Texas, Kansas, and California, the article demonstrates how recent and dramatic cuts to prison rehab programs have negatively impacted the rehabilitation and treatment systems in the country. This study is based on descriptive data, and thus more research is needed to investigate how cuts in funding of prison rehab programs are contributing to more cases of re-incarceration.

Similarly, Kerrison (2018) presents empirical findings of how rehabilitation programs in US prisons mold racial disparities in drug usage recovery. Using interview narratives, the study shows that White participants were more inclined to ultimately accept the label of an “addict” and talk about benefits and the help received throughout reintegration. Contrary, people of color were more inclined to disregard the treatment discourse and abandon the program. This study shows how treatment providers and the system at large are implicated in reproducing racial inequalities in drug abuse recovery systems. While this study has a risk of self-reported bias, the research provides insight into how the US rehabilitation and treatment system towards drug abuse continues to fail and the urgent need for reforms in service delivery.

3.2 How Other Nations Address Drug Crimes: Australia and Portugal

In 1987, the movement for alternative punishments in Australia started when South Australia decriminalized using and possession of marijuana (28 grams) and cultivating (less than ten plants) with a novel policy – the Cannabis Expiation Notice (CEN) system. In the following years, numerous states have decriminalized or reduced possession of slight volumes of marijuana (Kornhauser, 2018). Through a systematic evaluation of Australian secondary data on Australian drug courts, Kornhauser (2018) mentions that The Illicit Drug Diversion Initiative (IDD) is the most well-known police-based diversion program. Minor drug offenders participating in IDDI are redirected away from incarceration and situated within rehabs or drug education programs. This demonstrates that the Australian drug courts have been prominent in redirecting first-time minor drug offenders away from incarceration and more toward drug treatments and rehabilitation initiatives. While this study focuses on drug courts, it offers insight into the overall criminal system of the country and what needs to be done in the US.

Contrary to Australia’s diversion approach to drug crimes, Portugal employs the decriminalization approach. According to Gonçalves et al. (2015), drug usage in Portugal is commonly defined as a medical rather than a criminal problem. Through empirical evaluation of illegal drugs and their social outlays from the time the “Portuguese National Strategy for the Fight Against Drugs” was executed in 1999, Gonçalves et al. (2015) argue that under this approach, possessing illicit substances is addressed as a civil offense instead of a criminal one and people can possess a supply of drugs that would last a typical user up to 10 days. Law enforcement refers cases of minor possession to panels composed of more than three individuals with knowledge of drug usage and addiction, such as social workers, lawyers, and medical practitioners. This research demonstrates how in Portugal, drug offenders are provided with various non-punitive punishments like community work as well as drug rehabs rather than being criminally processed.

From these two developed economies, it is apparent that the US is far behind in how its criminal justice system addresses drug-related crimes. This further exacerbates the need for a paradigm shift towards a more decriminalized environment to reduce drug-related crimes and racial disparities present within the processes of criminal justice due to the disparate arrests, convictions, and imprisonments of people of color perpetuated by the current policies on drugs.

4. Drug Courts: Application of Utility of Drug Courts

In order to prevent people with substance misuse disorders from ending up in local jails or prisons, one alternative to imprisonment is the employment of drug courts. This helps to decrease prison congestion, relapsing on the part of offenders, and recidivism. According to Sloas & Atkin-Plunk (2019), drug courts seek to abolish drug abuse and related criminal activity. Drug courts support rehabilitation by taking a collaborative effort with offenders who are dependent on alcohol and other drugs. To investigate how drug courts apply the utility of drug courts in terms of balancing the provision of rehabilitation and sanction-centered strategies to drug users, Sloas & Atkin-Plunk survey the criminal justice and criminology, undergraduate students. The study investigates the respondents’ attitudes toward punitive measures for violent and nonviolent drug crimes. Results show that there is equal support for punitive and rehabilitative-focused programs. This study, therefore, stresses the essentiality of the general public view on punishing drug-related offenses.

Accordingly, drug courts also offer easier accessibility to resources for drug treatment programs, rehab, and abstinence monitoring. According to Belenko (2018), the treatment starts within the courtroom and persists via the person’s engagement in the drug court. Through a systematic review, Belenko (2018) makes a case for the drug court’s value in fostering recovery and abstinence. The study argues that drug treatment courts offer a rehabilitative paradigm of justice that focuses on social and individual factors that could impact absitence and recovery. This study is essential as it demonstrates how drug courts integrate and employs numerous procedures and interventions that are conceptually correlated to recovery and desistance. However, this research has limitations in that it relies upon qualitative information. Thus, more study is required to understand how drug courts address numerous aspects associated with reductions in criminal conduct and drug use.

Also, the system of criminal justice has a unique capacity to influence an individual shortly after being arrested and thus persuade them to enter and remain in treatment. Shannon et al. (2018) investigate this drug court utility by identifying the program performance in terms of recidivism among the drug court participants. Using secondary data and assessing two-year recidivism, the study presents that graduates- 37.6% and those who abandoned the program- 95% had 2-years reoffending. These findings are essential as they demonstrate that early intervention and targeting of the drug court participants can enhance influence towards persuading the program participants and result in better outcomes.

4.1 How the Current Decriminalization Strategy Operates?

Increasingly, nations worldwide are changing their drug policies by eliminating the criminalization of those discovered possessing substances for individual usage. According to Rego et al. (2021), decriminalization eliminates criminal punishments for infringement of drug laws. These offenses are then reclassified as administrative violations. Thus, people possessing a small amount of drugs do not enter the criminal justice system; rather, they might be reproached with civil fines, drug treatment or drug education. According to Rego et al. (2021), decriminalization has paid off in Portugal, where drug offenders are treated like patients. As an outcome, hardly any novel addicts are registered while existing users are supported. The study analyzed national and international legal instruments concerning drugs. While the outcomes show that these policies are marked with contradictions and uncertainties, they positively impact harm reduction.

In April 2022, the National Drug Control Strategy was launched. The strategy is a decriminalization approach focused on high-impact harm reduction interventions such as Naloxone. In order to encourage the spread of harm reduction initiatives across the country, this plan asks on state policies to reform, as well as cooperation on harm reduction between public safety and public health authorities (White House, 2022). Currently, within the US, Individuals should not be imprisoned for using illegal drugs only. Rather, the federal courts will refer drug-using offenders to drug courts to receive the appropriate treatment to address their substance use disorder (Epp et al., 2021). This approach aims to encourage drug courts at the national level, where states can assist addicted people to get the aid and support needed.

4.2 Decriminalization policy in practice

4.2.1 Oregon Measure 110

Oregon is the one state with a policy decriminalizing the possession of drugs. As a result of the new legislation in Oregon, it is now a civil offense rather than a criminal one for personal possession of all restricted narcotics. In examining how the policy can be monitored for performance, Netherlands et al. (2022) note that the legislation, named Measure 110, lists a few exceptions even though it applies to all restricted drugs. For instance, it is still illegal to possess some drugs in greater quantities or in a manner that constitutes a “commercial drug crime.” Those discovered possessing restricted drugs may be fed up to $100 in civil court. Instead of paying the fine, offenders can undergo wellbeing evaluations, such as a test for drug usage disorders and might lead to proposed (but not required) treatment. Notably, there are no further penalties for failing to pay the fee or finish the evaluation (criminal or civil). Nonetheless, Netherlands et al. (2022) warn against earlier deductions regarding the policy’s success or failure, citing that the legislation’s effectiveness cannot be determined in a 1-year implementation period. While this study provides essential insight into Measure 110, it is speculative regarding its effectiveness. Thus, more data is needed to ascertain how effective the decriminalization policy really is.

Other studies are reporting the positive impact of the decriminalization policy. In empirical research, the Drug Policy Alliance (2022) presents that after a year of decriminalizing drugs, access to services via “Measure 110” has been used by 16000 individuals, where hundreds have escaped drug-related convictions. Contrary, Spencer (2022) notes that the policy has resulted in increased drug overdose fatalities. Via the synthetic control approach, the study findings indicate that Oregon’s decriminalization legislation resulted in 206 added drug-related fatalities during the remainder of 2021, representing a 27% augmentation. These findings are essential as they demonstrate that while the decriminalization policy has positive outcomes, it can also present negative results. However, it is impossible to obtain accurate findings when the policy has been operating for only one year. Additional studies are required to gain deeper understanding of the policy’s effect on drug-related offending in the long term.

4.2.2 Washington State Decriminalization Approach

While the decriminalization legislation has not been passed yet in Washington state, the state signed a bill earlier in 2022 that made drug possession a misdemeanor instead of a felony as it was under the old laws. This move allowed the system to respond to possession from a behavioral health perspective rather than a criminal perspective. According to Cannon (2022), under Washington’s Supreme Courts, arrest and conviction due to possession of a small amount of drug are deemed unconstitutional. If adopted, the decriminalization bill in Washington State will address drug offenders by referring them to drug rehabilitation, mental health programs, and other society social service initiatives without levying fines or other criminal sanctions (Santos, 2022). While these articles inform on the landscape for drug decriminalization in Washington state, there is a lack of scientific or empirical research that can reinforce these claims.

5. Recommendations

On the whole, drug possession decriminalization of would not jeopardize public safety or health. Instead, decriminalization reduces the risks and injustices related to drug arrests and incarceration while also making drug usage safer. As the case of Portugal demonstrates, drug users may obtain governmentally-sanctioned health data on the risks associated with the usage of drugs and seek social, and medical support services when they are not worried about facing criminal charges (Rego, 2021). From the above literature review, this paper, therefore, recommends the following;

• The most argent step is eliminating the War on Drug policy that persists in effect in the US.
• The second most urgent step is Decriminalizing personal use and small-scale possession of all currently illegal substances.
• Remove any incarceration possibility as a result of defaulting in civil fines payment. This would help in reducing the rates of incarceration.
• The third step involves finding ways toward safe and legal regulation of the manufacture, sale, handling, supply, and usage of said substances. This is because decriminalization effectively reduces incarceration rates, particularly amongst minorities; decriminalization alone cannot eliminate the negative effects of black markets (Koch et al., 2016). Additionally, decriminalization sans legalization would keep drug users vulnerable to civil penalties, such as fines, which might still result in racially disproportionate incarceration in the event of fine defaults.
• Combining decriminalization and legalization would permit governments to establish “safe supply” programs for said drugs towards reducing the adverse impacts of illegal markets, eradicate the stigma surrounding drug users and enhance the accessibility of treatment options for drug use disorders.
• Governments might implement drug safety rules in cooperation with academics, legislators, and local officials, with competent officials examining manufacturing and distribution facilities to ensure compliance.
• Local and state authorities should offer government-sanctioned health advice and instructions regarding safe usage and possible risks. Additionally, they might restrict promotion, and advertising, establish suitable age restrictions, prohibit sales to intoxicated individuals, and more.

6. Conclusion

While the US legislators no longer explicitly draft laws with racial discrimination that characterized the Prohibition era, this literature review has demonstrated that even neutral-looking legislation can have a disparate effect on people of color. For instance, as mentioned above, the War on Drugs resulted in an immense and disproportionate racial impact. It gave rise to other legislations, such as mandatory minimum sentences, which have continually resulted in diverse effects depending on race. Outside of policies and laws that unfairly target people from minority groups, biases from specific players within the processes of criminal justice, such as jury panels, judges, prosecutors, and police, also can disparately affect people from minority groups. As a result, these people encounter greater rates of being stopped, inspected, and arrested. They also encounter greater rates of detention, tougher pleas, and stiffer penalties than White people in the same circumstances.

This review has also revealed how sentencing of crack and powdered cocaine disproportionately impacts people of color based on crack’s low cost and easy availability compared to Whites, who are inclined to use powdered cocaine, which is more expensive. Moreover, we have seen how the US deals with drug crimes compared to countries such as Australia and Portugal; from this analysis, it is clear that the US criminal justice system needs reform in how it addresses drug crimes. This includes more use of drug courts.

This paper suggests the combination of drug decriminalization and legalization to lessen the racial inequalities in drug-related arrests, convictions, and incarceration in the US. This is because while decriminalization effectively reduces incarceration rates, particularly amongst minorities, decriminalization alone cannot eliminate the negative effects of black markets. Additionally, decriminalization sans legalization would keep drug users vulnerable to civil penalties, such as fines, which might still result in racially disproportionate incarceration in the event of fine defaults.

7. References

Belenko, S. (2019). The role of drug courts in promoting desistance and recovery: A merging of therapy and accountability. Addiction Research & Theory, 27(1), 3-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/16066359.2018.1524882

Brown, R. A. (2019). Policing in American history. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 16(1), 189-195. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X19000171

Drug Policy Alliance. (2022). One year of drug decriminalization in Oregon: Early results show 16,000 people have accessed services through Measure 110 funding and thousands have avoided arrests. Press Release. https:// drugpolicy.org/press-release/2022/02/one-year-drugdecriminalization-oregon-early-results-show-16000-peoplehave

Earp, B. D., Lewis, J., Hart, C. L., & Bioethicists and Allied Professionals for Drug Policy Reform (2021). Racial Justice Requires Ending the War on Drugs. The American Journal of Bioethics, 21(4), 4-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2020.1861364

Epp, C. R., S. Maynard-Moody, and D. Haider-Markel. 2017. Beyond profiling: The institutional sources of racial disparities in policing. Public Administration Review 77 (2):168–78. Doi: 10.1111/puar.12702. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12702

Gaston, S. (2016). Race, neighborhood context, and drug enforcement: a mixed-method analysis of racial disparities in drug arrests. University of Missouri-Saint Louis.

Gillette, Caroline (2020) “Do Mandatory Minimums Increase Racial Disparities in Federal Criminal Sentencing?,” Undergraduate Economic Review: Vol. 17 : Iss. 1 , Article 9. Available at: https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/uer/vol17/iss1/9

Gonçalves, R., Lourenço, A., & da Silva, S. N. (2015). A social cost perspective in the wake of the Portuguese strategy for the fight against drugs. International Journal of Drug Policy, 26(2), 199-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.08.017

Gross, S. R., Possley, M., Otterbourg, K., Stephens, K., Paredes, J., & O’Brien, B. (2022). Race and Wrongful Convictions in the United States 2022. Available at SSRN 4245863.

Hinton, E., & Cook, D. (2021). The mass criminalization of Black Americans: A historical overview. Annual Review of Criminology, 4(1), 261-286. Https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-060520- 033306

Kaminoff, Benjamin S. (2018) “Do Black and White Americans Hold Different Views on Marijuana Legalization? Analyzing the Impact of “The War on Drugs” on Racialized Perceptions of Legalizing Marijuana,” Butler Journal of Undergraduate Research: Vol. 4 , Article 8. Retrieved from: https://digitalcommons.butler.edu/bjur/vol4/iss1/8

Keane, H. (2018). Facing addiction in America: The Surgeon General’s Report on Alcohol, Drugs, and Health US DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE SURGEON GENERAL Washington, DC, USA: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2016 382 pp. online (grey literature): https://addiction. surgeongeneral. gov. Drug and alcohol review, 37(2), 282-283. Doi: 10.1111/dar.12578.

Kerrison, E. M. (2018). Exploring how prison-based drug rehabilitation programming shapes racial disparities in substance use disorder recovery. Social Science & Medicine, 199, 140-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.08.002

Klingemann, H. (2020). Successes and failures in treatment of substance abuse: Treatment system perspectives and lessons from the European continent. Nordic studies on alcohol and drugs, 37(4), 323-337. https://doi.org/10.1177/1455072520941977

Koch, D. W., J. Lee, and K. Lee. 2016. Coloring the war on drugs: Arrest disparities in black, brown, and white. Race and Social Problems 8 (4):313–25. Doi: 10.1007/s12552- 016-9185-6.

Kornhauser, R. (2018). The effectiveness of Australia’s drug courts. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 51(1), 76-98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865816673412

Lynch, M., & Omori, M. (2018). Crack as proxy: Aggressive federal drug prosecutions and the production of black–white racial inequality. Law & Society Review, 52(3), 773-809. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12348

Netherland, J., Kral, A. H., Ompad, D. C., Davis, C. S., Bluthenthal, R. N., Dasgupta, N., … & Wheelock, H. (2022). Principles and Metrics for Evaluating Oregon’s Innovative Drug Decriminalization Measure. Journal of Urban Health, 99(2), 328-331. DOI: 10.1007/s11524-022-00606-w

Spencer, N. (2022). Does Decriminalization Cause More Drug Overdose Deaths? Evidence from Oregon Measure 110. Evidence from Oregon Measure, 110. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4275672

Palamar, J. J., Davies, S., Ompad, D. C., Cleland, C. M., & Weitzman, M. (2015). Powder cocaine and crack use in the United States: An examination of risk for arrest and socioeconomic disparities in use. Drug and alcohol dependence, 149, 108-116. Doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.01.029

Pratt, T. C., & Turanovic, J. J. (2019). A criminological fly in the ointment: Specialty courts and the generality of deviance. Victims & Offenders, 14(3), 375-386. https://doi.org/10.1080/16066359.2018.1524882

RecoveryFirst. (2022). Drug Rehab Programs in the US Prison System. https://recoveryfirst.org/blog/treatment/drug-rehab-programs-in-the-us-prison-system/

Rêgo, X., Oliveira, M. J., Lameira, C., & Cruz, O. S. (2021). 20 years of Portuguese drug policy-developments, challenges and the quest for human rights. Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy, 16(1), 1-11. https://substanceabusepolicy.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13011-021-00394-7

Santos, M. (2022). Washington Could Become the Second State to Decriminalize Drugs. https://crosscut.com/news/2021/02/washington-could-become-second-state-decriminalize-drugs

Shannon, L. M., Jones, A. J., Newell, J., & Payne, C. (2018). Examining individual characteristics and program performance to understand two-year recidivism rates among drug court participants: Comparing graduates and terminators. International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology, 62(13), 4196-4220. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18769602

Sloas, L. B., & Atkin-Plunk, C. A. (2019). Perceptions of balanced justice and rehabilitation for drug offenders. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(7), 990-1009. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403418762532

Turkington, C. H. (2017). Louisiana’s Addiction to Mass Incarceration by the Numbers. Loy. L. Rev., 63, 557.

Tuttle, C. (2019). Racial disparities in federal sentencing: Evidence from drug mandatory minimums. Available at SSRN. http://econweb.umd.edu/~tuttle/files/tuttle_mandatory_minimums.pdf

Walker, L. S., & Mezuk, B. (2018). Mandatory minimum sentencing policies and cocaine use in the US, 1985–2013. BMC international health and human rights, 18(1), 1-10.

Weitzer, R., and R. K. Brunson. 2015. Policing different racial groups in the United States. Cahiers Politiestudies 6 (35):129–45.

White House (2022). National Drug Control Strategy that Outlines Comprehensive Path Forward to Address Addiction and the Overdose Epidemic. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/04/21/fact-sheet-white-house-releases-2022-national-drug-control-strategy-that-outlines-comprehensive-path-forward-to-address-addiction-and-the-overdose-epidemic/