The Devaluation of the Black Body Near Drugs
Author: Mahdi Abdul-Jabbar
P&P Mentor: Henry Jacob
The Devaluation of the Black Body Near Drugs
On February 6th, 2012, Trayvon Martin was shot and killed in a 7-Eleven; 6 weeks later, George Zimmerman was, finally, put on trial for the slaying. Many notable public figures weighed in on Zimmerman’s trial, but, nevertheless, his fate remained in the hands of the justice system. Regardless of the outcome of this trial, and others like it, one would, and should, expect it to be done to the most accurate degree of fairness possible. However, with the addition of several drug related pieces of evidence, alongside other, arguably, questionable things that Martin had done, the trial began to change. Zimmerman’s defense brought up events from Martin’s life, such as his suspension from school and the marijuana in his system. This was done in order to paint Martin in a negative light, thereby transforming him from a victim to a villain. This trend was seen in similar trials involving African Americans and their killers, including Philando Castille’s, and Sandra Bland’s, because the justice system seemed to view drug usage as a sign of delinquency. However, the usage of drugs may not be a helpful, or reliable, indicator of character as many medical professionals stand by the idea that moderate drug usage has little to no adverse effects. Could it be, then, that our perception of drug use is a bit misconstrued? If so, it becomes evident that our due process of law shares this misinterpretation which appears to, unduly, mischaracterize persons of interest who use said drugs moderately.
It's apparent that Numerous doctors believe that using “unnecessary” in relation to the negative portrayal of drugs may just be necessary. Dr Carl Hart is one such doctor, and he mentions that “the deceased's [Trayvon Martin and Philando Castile, among others] toxicology findings, combined with their behavior, revealed drug levels that [he] believes were too low” (Hart pg6); furthermore, he posits that “drugs didn’t make them act so violently that lethal force was reasonable or necessary” (Hart pg6). Therefore, the levels of those drugs, that were found in the toxicology reports of the people in question, shouldn’t have been a deciding factor when inferring their behavior when the slaying occurred, and thus should not be used to justify their slaughter. As a matter of fact, when looking at a paper published in the Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology, we see that certain drugs actually “produced primarily positive effects on psychological measures without producing noticeable adverse consequences” (Hart et al pg25). Therefore, it’s plausible to infer that low levels of any drug in a toxicology report doesn’t necessitate the negative connotation that it does, in the eyes of the law, as their “adverse consequences” are, seemingly, negligible.
Furthermore, according to a study published in the Journal of Neuroethics, many medical professionals are critical of our current model of addiction. An indication of this was seen when an unnamed neuroscientist in the study claimed that “promoting a one-sided, biological approach towards addiction would have the ability to influence policy” (Bell et al pg29), and another claimed that it’d “let politicians off the hook about doing anything in really disadvantaged environments and neighborhoods” (Bell et al pg29). This is due to the fact that, if changed, the definition of addiction would cause addiction itself to then become “something that is still placed within an individual kind of perspective without an environmental, social or political context” (Bell et al pg29); thereby reducing the responsibility of redirecting public policy, to assist addicted individuals, from politicians. However, this also shows the extent to which the rhetoric and studies done by these professionals are carried. To elaborate, the fact that a mere model of addiction can relay certain connotations means that the definition of it can as well. Therefore, when journals and institutions classify recreational drugs as “addicting” and “excessively harmful”, we see these classifications being reiterated in all aspects of society. Thus the “unnecessary” stigmatizing of drugs becomes evident through the models and definitions, specifically the rhetoric within them, that we use to describe them, rather than their actual effects.
On July 9th, 2013, we saw the grave implications of these stigmatizations when the Florida judge presiding over George Zimmerman’s trial allowed the usage of Treyvon Martin’s toxicology report. This report had found marijuana in his system (Sloan), which the Defense claimed was relevant because “the amount found would have affected his judgment that night” (Sloan), an assumption which Dr Hart disagrees with (Hart pg6). Therefore, it seems that through the introduction of drugs, the justice system gains an unfair inclination to become unfavorable towards the person in question. Additionally, this is done despite the fact that the levels of the drug, that was found in the toxicology report, would not have had such a profound effect on the person’s decision-making (Hart pg6). Furthermore, the prosecutors in Zimmerman’s trial claimed that it was an attempt to “backdoor some very negative character evidence into the trial” (Sloan pg1); this bolsters the idea that it’s not the fact that the person in question’s decision-making was, itself, in question, but it’s that the introduction of evidence for drug usage portrays them differently. Thus, we can infer that through this “negative characterization”, that’s brought about via the unnecessarily negative portrayal of drugs, the justice system is inclined to display a bias against the one who used the drug, not for its consequences, but for the mere fact that it was used.
However, some may claim that drug use might be able to determine one’s character, and therefore, that it should be fair to use in order to determine how much of an “upstanding citizen” that the person in question is. This argument invites a question surrounding the morality of drug use, causing one to ask whether drug usage is a sign of delinquency and, therefore, dependent on one’s character. The scientific side of this argument would claim that it’s not, because many drugs can be used in moderation for recreational purposes and provide positive effects (Hart et al pgs23-25 and Hart pg10), thus implying that moderate consumption may be viewed in an unfair manner. However, the fact that these drugs are highly addicting is what leads to overconsumption and, by proxy, the negative effects of said drug. Thus the “morality debate” seems to only apply to overconsumption. What I mean to say is, if drug usage is seen as immoral, for the “negative effects” that they cause, and if moderate consumption doesn’t cause these “negative effects”, then, by definition, moderate consumption doesn’t seem to be immoral. Furthermore, this may be where the “Brain disease model” seems to prove useful as it, essentially, proposes that addiction is a disease, and that the “diseased” have little to no control over the fact that they’re addicted.
However, this model isn’t without drawbacks as it invokes fearful rhetoric around recreational drugs, regarding addicted individuals being seen as “diseased” and thus leading to further stigmatization. Regardless, it’s still inferable that the effects of the moderate and recreational consumption of certain drugs, which is normally seen as immoral, are in fact negligible. This, coupled with the fact that the debate would only be viable when surrounding overconsumption, indicates that moderate consumption is independent from “delinquency”, and therefore should not be seen as an indication of immoral character in the eyes of the law.
Alarmingly, the “unnecessarily” negative portrayal of drugs by the justice system isn’t used against all citizens equally; instead, it’s used against African Americans more than any other race. The advent of the “war on drugs” seems to be where this disparity began as proponents for the “war on drugs” claimed that “street level enforcement would restore a sense of order and civility to neighborhoods where drugs—with all their attendant crime, violence, and decay—have wrought havoc” (Mitchell et al pg56); this invoked an onslaught of arrests and caused the criminal justice system to “expand and reform in an unprecedented way” (Mitchell et al pg57). This “unprecedented way” meant the establishment of policies and practices that caused the increase of both drug related arrests, and the racial disparities between these arrests. There are numerous explanations for these disparities, including the nature of inner-city policing and the reasoning that lower income individuals are more likely to sell drugs due to the lack of economic opportunities in their neighborhoods. However, the research done by Mitchell et al suggests that racial bias seems to be the primary cause of this disparity; they found that, “in comparison with Whites, Blacks were 247% more likely to have experienced a drug distribution arrest by age 29, and Hispanics were 60% more likely to have experienced one by that same time” (Mitchell et al pg60). This doesn’t seem to be the result of a “minority issue” (Mitchell et al) either, which is an issue relating only to the conditions present in minority conditions, as the disparity between Hispanics and Whites could be explained by the control factors of the experiment, while the disparity between African Americans and Whites couldn’t. The control factors were “the degree to which race differences in the extent and nature of drug offending, as well as race differences in nondrug offending and neighborhood context accounting for racial disparities in drug distribution arrests” (Mitchell et al pg61).
This means that the disparity, between white and Hispanic drug related arrests, is summed up by the nature and context of the crime. However, the disparity between White drug related arrests and African American ones remains large even when accounting for these control factors; despite the fact that it should, reasonably, be equal to the White-Hispanic disparity. Therefore, while being unable to empirically measure bias, the researchers reasoned that the large African American-White disparity is consonant with said bias. Thus, it is inferable that, as African Americans are arrested for drug related crimes more than their White and Hispanic counterparts, subsequent stereotyping and unconscious biases result in a bigger, what can be considered, “immorality factor” when any drug is brought up in relation to African Americans. This enlarged immorality factor seems to be what makes the stigmatization of drugs affect African Americans the hardest. To elaborate, it seems that, through the “unconscious stereotypes” mentioned by Mitchell et al, the justice system applies the, unnecessarily, negative stigmatization of drugs to African Americans more than any other racial group. Thus, the stigmatization of drugs, rather than affecting offenders from all races equally, specifically oppresses African Americans.
The situation becomes more dire when we consider cases such as Breonna Taylor’s and Kathryne Johnson’s because it no longer takes the usage of drugs, but the mere proximity of a black body to them, in order to constitute, through the stigmatization of drugs, the justification of murder. When cops broke into Breonna Taylor’s apartment, they did so under the guise that her boyfriend was receiving drug shipments there; therefore, when she was shot and killed, it was directly a result of a black body in proximity to drugs. The same goes for the slaying of Kathryne Johnson whose home was invaded by police under the premise of a drug raid. No drugs were found, and all that was left was Kathryne’s lifeless 92-year-old body. With Trayvon Martin, Philando Castile, Sandra Bland and many others, we saw that it took their consumption of drugs to justify their slayings. However, now said slaying is seen to be justified when done in the mere proximity of drugs, regardless of the “irrational behavior” (Sloan), or lack thereof (Hart), produced by their moderate consumption and perhaps amplified by the “immorality factor” implied in Mitchell et al’s article. In essence, when in proximity to drugs, the deaths of black bodies are given less regard than when they aren’t, and they also appear to be given less regard than their White or Hispanic counterparts that also happen to be in proximity to drugs. Thus, whenever a trial factors in a black body with some form of proximity to drugs, the justice system deploys an unfavorable bias towards said black body, rendering it less relevant than its counterparts.
However, this isn’t entirely the fault of those within the justice system as the misrepresentation of drugs is perpetuated by the misinformation surrounding drug usage (Hart). This is evident in a statement by Volkow et al (Hart pg9) that says “If early voluntary drug use goes undetected and unchecked, the resulting changes in the brain can ultimately erode a person’s ability to control the impulse to take addictive drugs.” Dr Hart refutes this claim by saying that the first clause, of this statement, encourages paranoia around drug use, which is, as shown from his research, unnecessary. He then goes on to say that the second clause sends the alarming message that drug usage inevitably changes the brain and erodes the users’ self-control, which he posits “there is absolutely no scientific evidence, in humans, for” (Hart pg9). Perhaps then, this isn’t the only occurrence of such worrisome rhetoric when relating to drug use; perhaps there are all sorts of sources that spew, what can be considered, scientifically misleading information. This seems to be true, and it’s evident that many scientific journals and institutions spread the idea that all forms of drug use are bad (Hart pg10). Dr Hart refutes this idea and says that “everyone who studies the direct effects of recreational drugs [knows that they aren’t harmful]” (Hart pg10); furthermore, he claims that “some researchers overemphasize the negative in order to enhance the “significance” section of their NIH grant applications and articles” (Hart pg10). Thus, it appears that this “negative overemphasis” leads the public to stigmatize all forms of drug usage; therefore, this same “overemphasis”, which the researchers know to be misleading, causes the advent of oppressive measures against black bodies.
In conclusion, it seems as though using drugs as an indicator of delinquency, which itself is caused by the rhetoric used by medical professionals, allows a misleading view of drugs to be accepted by many members of society. Through this acceptance alongside the amplified “immorality factor” against black bodies, we see a bias against them whenever they are in proximity to drugs. Furthermore, this acceptance not only adversely affects African Americans in the legal system, but also when they try to apply for jobs, loans, or housing. Furthermore, because the rhetoric against drug use seems to be the driving force behind this misinterpretation, perhaps this speaks volumes to the extent at which rhetoric and biases continues to be used against black bodies.
Bibliography
1. Sloan, Amanda. “Judge allows evidence of Trayvon Martin's marijuana use”, CNN, Tue July 9, 2013
2. Hart, Carl. “Exaggerating Harmful Drug Effects on the Brain Is Killing Black People”, ScienceDirect, 22 July 2020
3. Hart, Carl. Gunderson Eric. Perez Audrey. Kirkpatrick Matthew. Thurmond Andrew. Comer Sandra. Foltin Richard. “Acute Physiological and Behavioral Effects of Intranasal Methamphetamine in Humans”, Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology, 2007
4. Bell Stephanie. Carter Adrian. Matthews Rebecca. Gartner Coral. Luckle Jayne. Hall Wayne “Views of Addiction Neuroscientists and Clinicians on the Clinical Impact of a ‘Brain Disease Model of Addiction”, Journal of Neuroethics, 2013
5. Mitchell Ojmarrh. Caudy Michael. “Race Differences in Drug Offending and Drug Distribution Arrests”, Sage Journals, 2015
6. Oppel Richard. “What to Know About Breonna Taylor’s Death”, New York Times, 2020
