The document discusses the history of drug policies and their disproportionate impact on African Americans, particularly related to crack cocaine. It summarizes how the media in the 1980s associated crack cocaine with African Americans and inner cities, fueling moral panic. Congress then passed draconian drug laws, including sentencing disparities between crack and powder cocaine that punished African Americans more harshly. This led to mass incarceration of African Americans and destabilized their communities despite intentions to curb drug use and violence. The document advocates reforming drug laws and policies to focus more on treatment and harm reduction instead of punishment.

1. 1
Jordan Sanchez
ISP- 321
Nov 15, 2015
Prof. Netherland/Fischer
History and Policies behind Crack Cocaine
Drug policies are put into place in order to protect the public
from the harm associated with illicit drugs. Throughout the
United States’ history, the idea of containing crime and
violence associated with drug use has been one of the narratives
instilled by the media onto the public. The media depicts drug
use and associates it with a specific group of people in order to
influence drug scare onto the public (Reinarman, 1994). In the
1980’s, media associated low income African Americans with
the use of Crack Cocaine, and the blame for the correlated
violence of the drug. Not only that, but the media would depict
African Americans as violent and dangerous people under the
influence of Crack. Policies passed to combat the problems
associated with Crack was seen by many researchers as a means
of oppression against low income African Americans
(Alexander, 2012). One method of oppression is through “target
population”, which is the process of depicting lower class
groups as dangerous and violent, thus constructing the
stereotype of who was associated with drug use and thus
blaming these groups for society’s problems, which led toward
containment with imprisonment (Neill, 2009). African
Americans portrayal in the media with Crack use, resulted in
draconian like policies that not only victimized lower class
African Americans, but influenced a sentencing disparity based
on a 100:1 ratio between Crack and Cocaine possession. While

2. the policies passed to control Crack Cocaine distribution,
possession and use were well intended, they ended up doing
more harm than good, toward low income African Americans in
the United States.
When President Richard Nixon launched his war on drugs in
1971, he linked drug use to violent crimes and the decay of
social order. He proclaimed “America’s public enemy number
one in the United States is drug abuse” this message resonated
with the public, as it became known that drug abuse was a
societal problem needed to be apprehended (Jareki, 2012). One
year before launching this offensive, Congress passed the
Controlled Substance Act which created a classification system
comprising of five scheduling levels for drugs based on their
abuse potential and medical benefits (Neill, 2014). The attorney
general in the justice department decided which drug fell under
which classification category. When power like this is given to
the courts or the criminal justice system, it led to corruption, as
they have the power to say which drug is capable of being
abused or causing more harm than the other (Tiger, 2012). This
strengthened the law and order approach toward drug
containment over treatment and rehabilitation (Neill, 2014). The
Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) was established in 1973 in
order to facilitate federal drug control established by the
Controlled Substance Act and assist law enforcement.
Although Cocaine and Crack are derived from the same drug,
they have different chemical components which sets them apart.
Crack had the form of rocks and was referred as freebase
Cocaine, while Cocaine was in the form of powder. As Carl
Hart (2014) stated, powder Cocaine is known as “Cocaine
hydrochloride” which is a neutral compound. In this form,
Cocaine can be eaten, snorted, and injected when diluted with
water. Crack is the process of removing the “Hydrochloride”
compound in order to smoke it without decomposition. Cocaine
was the “rich man drug”, being used by affluent white males,
while Crack was used amongst low income African Americans
(Hart, 2013)

3. The motivation behind the Anti-Abuse Act of 1986 and 1988,
was fueled by drug scare and hysteria. Galvanized by the media,
when Crack Cocaine appeared in inner cities, it was something
new and unknown to people and researchers. This allowed
hysteria and anecdotes to create a devilish image of Crack
Cocaine (Hart, 2013). The media made a frenzy out of Crack,
often running negative and misconceived stories about Crack
that lead towards a drug scare. This broadcasting tactic that the
media was using was known as "media magnification". This
was the process of media outlets dramatizing the Crack
problem, and manipulating the information or lack thereof, for
the purpose of skewing people's perspectives, thus using
"routinization of caricature" to broadcast and re-craft worst
cases into regular episodic cases a day (Reinarman, 1997).
The negative stories and saturated images of Crack which was
broadcast produced an underlying danger associated with Crack
use and the dangers it pose for people and communities. The
drug scares of the 80’s led toward Congress passing the 1986
and 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Act which put into effect a
mandatory minimum sentencing of five years without parole for
possession of five grams of Crack. This provision also instituted
death penalties for drug traffickers, strengthened asset
forfeiture, and allocated funding from treatment towards prisons
and law enforcement (Neill, 2014). Although these policies
were well-intended in order to deter the use and sell of Crack
(Reinarman, 2004) within poor inner city neighborhoods, it
caused considerable harm toward low income African
Americans and instituted mass incarceration. This act, created a
disparity in sentencing between Crack and Cocaine, based on a
100:1 ratio, meaning. Five grams of crack was needed to receive
the 5 years minimum, as opposed to Cocaine, which required
possession of 500 grams to garner up that same sentencing
(Sirin, 2011). The state prison population with African
Americans grew from 7% to 25% in 5 years since the acts
passing (Sirin, 2011). This created unfair legislation that
created racial disparities for sentencing between Crack and

4. Cocaine, leading towards African Americans being incarcerated
at a higher rate than whites for simple non-violent drug
possession.
In the United States, African Americans amounted to 13% of the
country’s population, but made up 84% of Crack related
offenders (Coyle, 2002). Congress intended to deter major drug
trafficking with the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, but 73% of Crack
defendants were low income African Americans, contrary of
what congress wanted to accomplish. (Coyle, 2002). According
to Coyle (2002), mandatory sentencing did not reduce the
amount of drug trafficking into the U.S. Instead it turned state
level offenses into federal crimes, creating strains on low
income drug violators with long prison sentencing. These hefty
sentences started a long and vicious cycle that resulted in
disenfranchisement of drug offenders, and caused strains on
communities and families. African American men who were
incarcerated, often left their family in a state of despair
resulting in destabilization due to financial insufficiency
(Alexander, 2014). The men that are incarcerated with a felony
drug charge are unable to attain medical benefits, affordable
housing, food assistance, welfare, and thus loses the right to
vote; leading to recidivism and the return to the same activities
that got them locked up, as a means of survival. (Rich, 2011).
When a group of people are identified as the root of societal
problems, they become vilified and are blamed for those
societal problems. An example of the consequences that ensue
from the Anti-Drug Abuse Act and war on drugs toward African
Americans is seen in the documentary "The House I live In".
This documentary presents the 5 links of destruction, which has
been a tactic used in the United States history to associate a
racial group of a low class towards a new drug (Alexander,
2014). In the wake of crack cocaine, the first link in this chain
of destruction is “Identification”, this was the purpose of
identifying a group as the cause of the society’s problems. This
identifying group were linked to an emerging drug which is

5. what happened with African Americans with Crack as they were
to blame for the violence and crime associated with this new
form of Cocaine. In the second link, “Ostracism”, people are
socially constructed to hate the identified group, thus displacing
them from their homes and into ghettos. African Americans
suffered this same fate through redlining and the lack of
economic opportunities, which led towards their placement in
ghettos, where Crack was prominently used within (Alexander,
2014).
The 3rd link in the chain of destruction, “Confiscation”,
consisted stripping people of their liberties and rights. This was
done though drug policy, as The Anti-Abuse Act gave more
power and funding toward law enforcement thus militarizing
them (Coyle, 2002). The 4th link, “Concentration”, involved the
incarceration of the identified dangerous group into prisons,
keeping them away from society. This correlates toward the
racial disparity with prisons as African Americans are
incarcerated at enormous rates as opposed to white drug
offenders. The use on incarceration is also used to strip felons
of their rights, as they lose the right to vote and apply to means-
tested benefits in society (Rich, 2011). Lastly, the final link
“Annihilation”, depicted the indirect or direct causes of the
identified group’s death (Jareki, 2012). The United States had a
hand in causing this in-direct harm towards African Americans
with the emergence of Crack and how the CIA turned a blind
eye and blocked law enforcement from stopping Contra
insurgents from smuggling Crack Cocaine into poverty stricken
neighborhoods (Alexander, 2012). Since Crack arrived in these
neighborhoods, it caused an increase in crime and violence due
to the new market in illicit drug trade that took place. These
heinous links summarizes the consequences left behind by the
war on drugs and the effect it holds toward an entire racial
group in the United States.
One of my policy recommendations is to expand from President
Obama’s Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. This act repealed the five
year mandatory sentences for first time offenders with less than

6. 28 grams of Crack Cocaine, and changes the sentencing
disparity for possession of Crack versus Cocaine from 100:1, to
18:1 (Sirin, 2011). I want implement a ratio of 1:1 for Crack
and Cocaine possession. My reasoning for this is because Crack
and Cocaine are chemically the same drug, so it should be
treated as such in the law and towards drug violations (Sirin,
2011). This would cut down on the number of low income
African Americans being incarcerated due to this disparity
being eliminated. My intention is to focus on treatment and
rehabilitation for Crack addicts and abusers, instead of
punishment and incarceration. My method of treatment would
be the use of harm reduction, because this approach doesn’t
place blame or judgment on the user’s drug use; it reduces
further drug harm and prevents the spread of HIV and Hepatitis
C. These type of diseases can be passed onto one another with
the use of Crack pipes for smoking. These pipes can leave burns
or cuts on the user’s lips which can transfer blood onto these
Crack Pipes. If these pipes are shared amongst one another, then
that infected speck of blood can transmit these deadly diseases
onto the other user.
The reduction of infection and HIV contraction is essential for
the health of Crack users and imperative in reducing the harm
associated with Crack smoking. The programs used to prevent
harm and the spread of blood borne diseases include, “Crack
pipe exchange program”, which would provide users with a new
clean pipe for smoking. This is a meant to prevent users from
using a dirty or broken glass pipe which would lead to cuts.
Administering “Crack kits” that would provide equipment for
safe smoking practices, such as heat resistant pipes to prevent
bursting, smoking mouth piece to prevent lip burning, alcohol
pads for after use cleaning, and a metal pipe screen to prevent
chocking from excessive inhalation (Catie, 2008). If we invest
in programs such as these use harm reduction treatment toward
Crack addicts, not only do we reduce the use of Crack for user’s
over time, but we also prevent the spread of HIV and Hepatitis

7. C amongst users, thus helping save lives and curbing addiction.
If we implement these proposals, not only can we curb Crack
substance abuse and addiction, but we can stop the spread of
blood borne diseases and cease the boom in prison population
amongst African Americans.
In conclusion, Richard Nixon stated, "When people think about
drugs, they're just disgusted by it. They just want to lock em up
and throw away the key. But it's more complex than
that"(Courtwright, 2004) Nixon was correct when he stated this,
the concept of drugs is still hated till this day. The level of
deviancy behind drugs and the dangers they pose, not only
toward users but communities, is what stemmed this hate.
People were socially constructed to believe that drugs were the
cause of society’s problems, and the people associated with
drugs wanted to cause harm towards others. This was narrative
media has been instilling onto people for these past 40 years.
The complexity of the drug issue was to approach it with the
intent to treat and rehabilitate people who used drugs, and
targeting peddlers and pushers in order to contain the problem
of drug use (Courtwright 2004). Instead of focusing on societal
issues that lead to peoples drug use, we employed disciplinary
methods, blaming the user and incarcerating them, taking a “law
and order” approach toward the drug problem and inflicting
"force treatment" with imprisonment (Tigers, 2012).
The Anti-Drug Abuse Act caused significant harm toward low
income African Americans, resulting in enormous rates of
incarceration, being admitted to prison on drug charges at 20-50
times greater than white men. This led to the United States
leading in the world’s prison population. Before the start of the
“war on drugs”, there were 300,000 imprisoned and that number
reaching 2 million in prison population in less than 30 years
(Alexander 2012). These are the negative consequences
associated with drug policies and the effect it holds on low
income African Americans. If we focus on societal issues such
as poverty, unemployment, and lack of mobility, within
impoverished communities, then we can eliminate the need for

8. drug use and the dependency for illicit drug markets. By
focusing on harm reduction treatment, we could reduce the use
of Crack for addicts and rehabilitate them back into society, and
stop the spread of blood borne diseases from un-safe Crack
smoking.
Works Cited
Alexander, M. (2012). Excerpt: The new Jim Crow. In The new
Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. The
new press.
Hart, C. (2013). High price: A neuroscientist's journey of self-
discovery that challenges everything you know about drugs and
society. New York, NY: Harper.
Jarecki, E., & Shopsin, M. (Producer). (2012). The House I
Live In [Documentary].
Tiger, R. (2012). Judging addicts drug courts and coercion in
the justice system. New York: New York University Press.
Neill, K. A. (2014, December 21). Tough on drugs: Law and
order dominance and the neglect of public health in U.S drug
policy. World medical and health policy, 6(4).
Reinarman, C. (1994). The social construction of drug scares. In
Constructions of deviance: Social power, context, and
interaction. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Pub.
Reinarman, C., & Levine, H. (1997). The Crack Attack: Politics
and media in the Crack Scare (pp. 47-66). University of
California Press.
Reinarman, C., & Levine, H. (2004). Crack in the Rearview
Mirror: Deconstructing Drug War Mythology (Vol. 31, pp. 182-
199). Social Justice/Global options.

9. Rich, J., Wakeman, S., & Dickman, S. (2011, June 1). Medicine
and the Epidemic of Incarceration in the United States.
Sirin, C. V. (2011). From Nixon's war on drugs to Obama's drug
policy today: Presidential progress in addressing racial
injustices and disparities. Race, gender, & class journal, 18.
Courtwright, D. (2004). The Controlled Substance Act: How a
"big tent' reform became a punitive drug law (Vol. 76, pp. 9-
15). Jacksonville, Florida.
Distributing Safer Crack use kits in Canada. (2008, September
1). Retrieved December 1, 2015, from (n.d.). In catie.ca.
Retrieved December 1, 2015, from
http://www.catie.ca/en/practical-guides/hepc-in-
depth/prevention-harm-reduction/safer-crack-smoking
Coyle, M. (2002). Race and class penalties in crack cocaine
sentencing. Washington, D.C.: Sentencing Project.
Informative Essay 1
Assignment # 2: “Informative Essay”
Vladimir Miletic
ENG 115-English Composition
Professor Michael W. Anderson
November 14, 2015

10. When individuals with similar interest, attitude, and taste come
together to work for a common objective, a team is formed.
Every individual contributes equally and performs his level best
to meet the team targets and achieve the organization’s goal.
Team members strive hard to live up to the expectations of
others and successfully accomplish the assigned task. A team
cannot do well unless and until each and every member is
focused and serious about his responsibilities. For every team
member, his team should come first and everything else later.
Personal interests must take a backseat.
Every individual must feel motivated to perform his level best.
Never impose things on anyone; instead, the individuals must
take the initiative on their own. They should come forward and
accept the challenge.
Team building refers to the various activities undertaken to
motivate the team members and increase the overall
performance of the team. You just can’t expect your team to
perform on their own. A motivating factor is a must. Team
Building activities consist of various tasks undertaken to groom
a team member, motivate him and make him perform his best.
We all are human beings and love appreciation. Any individual
performing exceptionally well must be appreciated well in
public. He feels happy and motivated to perform even better the
next time. If any team member has come out with a unique idea;
treat him with any thing that makes him happy. Never criticize
any team member or demotivate him if he has failed to perform.
Ask him to “Buck up”.
In the following text I want to focus on the work that I am
currently doing, which is the organization of work in a
transportation company. The tasks of everyday work are related
to the organization of the drivers and vehicles that are
available. There are several things that make up the equity in
the whole work. The main things are customers who need our
service and we are trying to do all that they need. On the other
hand we have a driver and certain number of vehicles to be

11. deployed equally. One of the most important things is that the
job must be done and have everyone satisfied. It is very
important and must pay attention not to put enormous pressure
on the drivers and that they should be given as much time and
opportunity to do their part of the whole project. It is also very
important to always have a precise plan for how and what to do.
The precise plan that we have in the beginning it will help us to
be less problems on the end or during the process, and it’s much
easier to finish a certain job. The managers very often do not
have understanding for the problems they look only to the job to
be completed as soon as possible.
Each team must have a plan and work organization, and
this is a model for a longer period. Every time you neglect
certain parts of the organization then become larger and very
often unsolvable. Team working is crucial when it comes to
organizations which are concerned with more aspects. Most
organizations use teams to complete projects and carry out the
necessary work, but teams are only effective when they work
together in a productive way. The key is for the team leader or
management to put in place incentives that encourage team
members to find ways to complete tasks in the best way
possible. Such techniques motivate the team to look for and
implement the problem-solving methods it needs to perform at a
high level of productivity and contribute to the goals of the
organization.
Within the overall management framework, motivation of team
members depends on factors relating directly to their work and
on external factors. The most effective managers combine
management styles to ensure that team members work together
but also carry out individual tasks as required. Work-related or
intrinsic techniques are those related to the work itself while
techniques related to the work environment, or extrinsic
techniques, include those coming from the employer and the
team. The manager motivates team members intrinsically by
making sure the work he assigns matches their capabilities and
expertise and extrinsically with appropriate compensation,

12. rewards and team-building methods.
To inspire your team members, you'll have to talk to them, of
course. I hate meetings, but I love short (seven to 20-minute)
huddles to align and motivate the team. One effective way to
begin or end a huddle is by sharing a quote. You can use quotes
from well-known coaches, athletes, business leaders, and
authors that will compel you and your team members to work
well together.
The goal is not to do your part and after that do not pay
attention to others, everybody have to be in solidarity and
assistance whenever is possible.
Reference:
http://www.job-interview-site.com/teamwork-motivation-how-
to-motivate-a-team.html
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/meaning-building-team-
relationships-31474.html