The Reagan Administration new demand front undermined its intentions to deter drug use
During the War on Drugs in the 1980s, the Reagan administration weaponized propaganda in an effort to drive down demand on drugs which would in turn drive down the supply. The intention being that if there was no demand then the supply would cease to exist and the War on Drugs would be won. During President Reagan’s first term, the Reagan administration would attack the War on Drugs on this new front: the demand side armed with Mrs. Reagan’s famous slogan, “Just Say No.” One issue that arose from the demand front was that by using propaganda that misrepresented the dangers of drugs and created the allusion through propaganda and domestic policy that anyone who uses drugs is a bad person, the government lost the credibility of the people. Another issue was that domestic policy that treated drug abuse as a law and order issue rather than a health issue undermined any efforts to reduce such demand. The Reagan administration’s addition of a new demand-oriented front in the War on Drugs would prove to be unsuccessful because its propaganda and domestic policy undermined its intended purpose of detering drug use.
Previously the War on Drugs had been viewed as a war on supply. Economist George P. Schultz explained the rationale as being “because drugs are bad for people, they should be difficult to obtain. As a result, it became a war on supply.” A war on supply meant that the United States had to use the draconian measures of interdiction and eradication. The U.S. State Department defines eradication as “the physical destruction of illicit crops” that “remains an important tool for decreasing the production of illegal drugs and preventing them from entering the United States, or other drug markets.” The state department defines interdiction as the prevention of “illicit drugs from reaching their destination.” The first interdiction policy was initiated during the Nixon administration to stop drugs from flowing from Mexico. The US spent billions of dollars closing up the Rio Grande border and pressured Mexico to regulate its own drug control. This interdiction policy failed because after Mexico regulated itself, Colombia became the major supplier of marijuana to the United States.
During President Reagan’s first term, the average yearly amount for funding for eradication and interdiction programs nearly quadrupled that of the Carter administration by growing from $437 million to $1.4 billion. Clearly this was one way that Congress and the Reagan administration was using to fight the growing crack epidemic of the 1980s. However, as the funding for eradication and interdiction programs significantly increased, the funding for programs of education, prevention, and rehabilitation were dashed by nearly 25 million from $385 million during the Carter presidency to $362 million in Reagan’s first term. Slashing the funds for education, prevention, and rehabilitation during a time where crack use was increasing was dangerous and ill-intended.
Armed with Mrs. Reagan’s “Just Say No,” slogan, the Reagan administration used propaganda to convince the American people, especially American youth, that drugs would destory lives. The Reagan administration called upon the media’s “undeniable responsibility to become full partners with the Government and the public in the war against illicit drug use.” One of these government partners was the Partnership for a Drug-Free America who created one of the most memorable anti-drug PSAs ever, the “this is your brain on drugs” PSA in the summer of 1987. The PSA began as the man addressed the viewer with the question; “Is there anyone out there who still isn’t clear what doing drugs does? Okay, last time.” The man then held up an egg and said, “This is your brain.” He then pointed to the smoking hot frying pan, “this is drugs.” Next he cracked the egg and dropped the contents into the frying pan where it immediately started to fry with smoke billowing up as he said, “this is your brain on drugs.” The camera then panned up to man’s face as he asked, “Any questions?”
This PSA was intended to provoke an emotional and fearful response on the part of the viewer; the intention was that viewers, especially impressionable schoolchildren, would believe that drugs could literally break and cook their brains. Both the image and the powerful metaphor of the egg frying in pan was an attempt to drive that metaphor home; this is what doing drugs does, it fries your brain, it destroys your life. The issue with this metaphor was that it was massively misleading and harmful. In a Los Angeles Times’ op-ed, neuroscientist Dean Burnett would describe this metaphor as “completely inaccurate” when he explained how drugs affect the brain. Burnett also claimed that the use of such a metaphor only “encouraged the belief that anyone who uses drugs, in any capacity, is reckless, thoughtless and just plain stupid.”
The overall message behind this PSA would echo in similar PSAs throughout the 1980s and in the D.A.R.E program by exaggerating three main points: that all drugs are bad, that if you took one drug, you would become instantly addicted, and that marijuana was a gateway drug to all other drugs.
The Partnership for a Drug-Free America had allocated $500 million annually for their anti-drug campaign. During the White House Conference for a Drug-Free America in July 1988, the Media and Entertainment Committee recommended that “media messages must also increasingly target people who do not now use illicit drugs.” This meant that despite having almost a 100 million more dollars than the entire funding for education, prevention, and rehabilitation programs in Reagan’s first term ($362 million), the media ignored an important audience who needed help the most: people who already used drugs. However, the Reagan administration would make its greatest misstep in the war on drugs when President Reagan signed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 on October 27, 1986.
The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 created two important laws; it established mandatory minimum sentencing for drug offenses and authorized federal block grants for substance abuse and addiction services. These mandatory minimum sentencing for drug offenses were harsh and unfair. For example, the act established a mandatory minimum of a five-year prison sentence without parole for possession of 5 grams of crack whereas the same sentence would be applicable to possession of 500 grams of powdered cocaine. These sentences were also discriminatory as most crack users were blacks, while many affluent white males used powered cocaine. These mandatory minimum sentences sent two powerful messages. First, by setting mandatory minimum sentences, Congress took judicial power away from those entrusted to provide sentencing, criminal court judges. Federal judge Mark Bennett explained that:
“These mandatory minimums are so incredibly harsh, and they're triggered by such low levels of drugs that they snare at these non-violent, low-level addicts who are involved in drug distribution mostly to obtain drugs to feed their habit. They have a medical problem. It's called addiction, and they're going to be faced with five and 10 and 20-year and sometimes life mandatory minimum sentences.
I think that's a travesty.”
The travesty of mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent crimes was also implicit in the message it said to the American people; if you use drugs, then you should go to prison. By criminalizing drugs, the Reagan administration and the 99th Congress told the American people that drug users deserved to be punished by being sent to prison.
The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 granted $20 million in grants toward “effective models for the prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation of drug abuse and alcohol abuse among high risk youth.” Compared to the Partnership for a Drug-Free America’s annual budget of $500 million, this allocation of funds was a massive slight to the young people who needed treatment and rehabilitation of a health issue, not a legal issue. The Reagan administration’s lack of foresight into treating drug addiction as a health issue would haunt the War on Drugs and President Reagan’s legacy for years to come. This fundamental lack of understanding and compassion for those afflicted with drug abuse would be compounded in March of 1987 when President Reagan proposed massive budget cuts in anti-drug education, drug abuse prevention, and treatment programs. The previous budget had allocated $1.16 billion dollars toward education, prevention, and treatment programs and Reagan’s proposed cuts would nearly cut that budget into half with $665 million. Again, while this was no small sum, it was only $165 more million dollars that the Partnership for a Drug-Free America used in their anti-drug messages.
In conclusion, President Reagan and First Lady Reagan’s endeavor to focus on fighting the War on Drugs by focusing on the demand side proved to be ineffective because their tactics of propaganda and domestic policy did not deter drug use. When First Lady Nancy Reagan coined her famous slogan “just say no,” it launched the Reagan administration admirable but flawed attempt at eliminating the demand side of the War on Drugs. The Reagan administration believed that they could convince people that drugs would ruin their lives by using propaganda in the form of PSAs with exaggerated and inaccurate metaphors. With the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, the Reagan administration would make its most serious misstep by criminalizing drugs in the establishment of mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug possession. This use of propaganda and the criminalization of drugs would contribute to President Reagan losing the trust and credibility of the American people who were realizing that drug addiction was not a legal issue, but a health issue that the US government was ignoring. When the Reagan administration slashed education and treatment program budgets it brought its credibility into question and once the government’s credibility is questioned, people lose faith in the government and its efforts.