Only at parrot dies could see there are tremendous discrepancies between who is in jail and who is feeling the brunt of the drug war versus the number and diversity of those engage in illicit drug use. If white suburban teenagers noting could gain a large ails the governments explanation would have more credibility. In attempting to account for the origins of the drug war we are in effect attempting to explain this discrepancy. If we find a governments explanation to be woefully incomplete then the story of how and why the drug war can about what restore what is missing. In my book i argue that the drug wars shade, scope and function resulted from certain dilemmas of governance in an age of vastly expanding state power. Story is impossible to tell without the District Of Columbia. Tonight i will focus largely on the 1way street that is the imposition that the federal government made on washington d. C. But i want to make it clear that in reality and in my book fair is much more push back within a city. Even at its most politically important state residents challenge the federal governments plans and by failing to comply by insisting on home rules and offering a different account or explanation of the events than the governments version. The focus on the way the federal government uses the district to craft the modern drugs. First let me give some sense of existing scholarship on the origins of the drug war and where my own work fits in with that literature. Most scholars to have looked at this issue emphasize two things, first classification of certain drugs as narcotics, apps, morphing, cocaine and later marijuana and second their removal from general circulation, all of which took place in the early part of the 20th century and was deeply tied to the reputation these drugs had acquired for Recreational Use among racial minorities. In my own work ive tried to emphasize the steps between these events and punishment and prohibition in your host 70s that provide the legislative and institutional basis for the modern drugs work. Is important to look at the interval of time because to Say Something cannot circulate freely is not the same as saying it is criminally prohibited. Between post world war i and 1970s these drugs used as medicines and various countries had different regulatory approaches to handle them. In the United States cannot contact of 1914 use tariffs and taxes to track and regulate opium production, importation and dispensation down to the fraction of the gramm as one official boasted. After international controls were put in place in the 1930s the illicit users were supplied not only by diversion from listed channel some drug programs but subversion, the clandestine production of drugs in knowing violation of the imam. As the heroin market went underground u. S. Government chased it with a vigor and moralizing spirit embodied in the countrys first commissioner of the u. S. Narcotics bureau, a fixture in republican circles known for its scolding tirades and sensationalized depictions of illicit Drug Trafficking use. Of the course of his long service from 1935 to 1961 the commissioner nominated different racial stereotypes depending on the setting and the situation as the culprit behind narcotics traffic variously designating asians, africanamericans, latinos or italian ethnics as the Guiding Force behind the narcotics conspiracy. Echoing what was popular in his day his script was familiar but his targets changed over time. Before world war i commissioner spent much of his time and energy facing off against doctors challenging their authority and integrity in an attempt to stymie the flow of narcotics from their offices. After the war he continued to send his agents to check on medical narcotic prescriptions throughout the 1915s. Of your credit review found the devoted 20 of its manpower to doing so. The rest pursued illicit details. As he turned his attention and resources to the underground markets he clamored for more severe penalties for the possession of opiates without the appropriate tax stand. Members of congress, especially members of the powerful southern delegation were quick to oblige but only on the assurance that certain kinds of drug deals would be subject to aggressive tactics and not others could thus began a collaborative relationship between the bureau of narcotics and congress intended to construct, enhance and amid the boundaries of the nations grow. Southerners who were well aware of parrot mogul problems with narcotics divers and received assurances that in fact illicit use was limited to the major cities with little of it in small cities and rural areas. Has the commissioner mapped the geography of his intentions the district became the special focus of his effort. In my book that a special attention to washington d. C. Because i am obliged to. To route the 20th century the u. S. Congress tested the tactics of the drug war in d. C. Drafting legislation, shaving the evolution of policing and invoking the racially charged sector of drug induced criminality in the city to help justify the modern drug war. More than anything else this is a consequence of the districts lack of political autonomy. The constitution of the United States grants congress exclusive jurisdiction over washington and for most of its history the city has had little say in the conduct of its business. Between 800, and 1964 d. C. Residents could not even vote for president. Since reconstruction d. C. Was governed by a board of commissioners appointed by the president which served in coordination with Congressional Committee from each chamber assigned to oversee District Affairs. As a result what would be considered a state crime was in d. C. A federal offense. Felony cases were heard before federal Court Appointed to the district. Comprised of basic electoral rights, president s according to the laws that they had no ability to make or to change. D. C. s powerlessness took on greater significance when the city became among the first in the northeast corridor to approach majority black status by the 1950s. Southern congressman made a concerted effort for these demographic changes and a menacing light offering of view of the district as under siege by black criminals who went unchallenged as supporting segregation and social control slackened. Because of this and other similar remarks many scholars assume the link between prohibition and punishment and raise was discussed. Into law and order rhetoric designed to appeal to white ethnics who did be enticed from the democratic fold. Although valid this argument neglects the obvious, the link between the drug war and race was explicit, even mechanical and was initially forged in a symbiotic fashion between Congressional Committees devoted to oversight of the District Of Columbia and those dedicated to the regulation of narcotics. The first and most significant example of this special relationship was the enactment of mandatory minimum sentencing for drug offenses in the 1915s. When it was first proposed the idea was a startling departure from common practice. Mandatory minimums irancontra to commonlaw and celebrated tradition of traditional economy. In a place of judicial discretion the district subcommittee chairman from georgia propose in 1953 that mandatory minimum sentences be attached to a series of offenses that would require a presiding judge to give a predetermined sentence no matter what the judge happen to think. This was to justify the move. We reach the point where it is risky for women and girls to be on the streets after dusk congressman davis concluded. At a time when d. C. s crime rate was one of the lowest of any major city in the country. Despite the crime parrot some congressman voice reservations and urged caution. Pennsylvania democrat herman ever heart pointed out congress was proposing something to the president s of the District Of Columbia that is not required in any state of the Union Comment adding we are attempting in fact to use the District Of Columbia as a guinea pig on which to try out radical departure of new principles. His colleagues were unperturbed by the proposal mostly because they did not care. Because the ec had no power, no representation in congress, there was no possibility of a backlash and no account given to the desires of president s who lived in the city. Only weeks after the bill passed the house the same Chamber Found itself considering mandatory minimums once again this time to apply to a second conviction for narcotics possession without the appropriate tax stamp. If any legislator had reservations over a broader application of this untested proposal then supporters were there to remind them of the district crime bill. In case there should be any doubt to the actual position of those who oppose the bill one congressman chided critics, i ask the house to jog its memory and remember the position taken by someone the District Of Columbia bill was before this body not long ago dealing with the question of mandatory sentences. The bill passed easily in both houses. In this with the district function to lower the threshold of consent when it came to the tactics and tools of the drug war. It supplied a precedent, one of the congressman were quick to establish, site and read purpose at their convenience. The district also served to suggest the targets of counter narcotics efforts but the urban blacks who purchased illicit drug supplied by subversion were by no means alone in their behavior. This point was a surprising addendum to the first highprofile application of mandatory minimums in the district. The 1954 prosecution of catfish turner ran his associates all of whom were africanamericans. His coconspirators had no prior convictions. As a result they were subject to mandatory minimum sentences. With an impressive courtroom victory the two u. S. Attorneys who prosecuted the case might have rested on their laurels. Instead of a and doubt regarding the ultimate benefits of their labor. As it turned out this group consisted primarily of negros, u. S. Attorney thomas told the Washington Post but added narcotic traffic knows no racial or geographic boundaries. We found addiction and paddling among various groups and in many parts of washington. By 1970 the federal government stood poised to put various drug laws into one regime and defect code prohibition of certain narcotics using the powers granted under the Commerce Clause. President nixon was particularly keen to put lawandorder issues at the center of his agenda. In making the district the special focus of his attention he and his allies encountered new leaders of the city now embarked on a path toward Self Governance. A familiar pattern emerge. The ability of police to enter premises without warning if they believed it would result in the destruction of evidence was according to d. C. Police unnecessary for the district yet officials in the Nixon Administration insisted on putting it in the districts anticrime legislation of 1970. Months later the same authority appeared in nixons over all the countrys drug regime, control substances after 1970, the legislative foundation of modern drug war. As approved somewhat controversial proponents were quick to cite a precedent set in the district bill. Congressman springer dismissed opposition by reminding his colleagues they had already consented to it. We had it in the District Of Columbia, he prompted his colleagues, we voted for it than. D. C. More than legislative proving ground for the modern drug war. The citys evolution in the culture and practices of modern policing was emblematic and in many ways constructive. As they ratcheted up the punishment for narcotics powerful some forces change the metropolitan Police Department from an agency which largely ignored poor black neighborhoods to an agency which largely defined its policing mission through narcotics enforcements in those very same places. I argue that this transformation enabled police to retain vestiges of traditional lawenforcement via discretion, use of force or even corruption while in the midst of profound changes wrought by the professional is Asian Movement within Law Enforcement and civil rights outside of it. As police redefined their presence in the ghetto Drug Enforcement became both their preoccupation and their methodology, not just something to police but a way to police. Initially the fact that lawenforcement did not bother services in poor black neighborhoods was something that was both widely known and widely ignored. In 1947 the Washington Post reported results of an investigation that showed police pocketing crime to be president in the Police Department. Pocketing meant failure to report a crime in an official method which means no effort was made toward solving it. The post revealed in calendar year already more than 300 robberies complaints were placed in secret files in the detective bureau, and additional 300 others recorded in Police Precincts record books were marked told. The d. C. Commissioner charged with overseeing the police, john russell young, officially condoned the practice noting his apathy regarding black on black crime in impoverished neighborhoods was shared by the public and most of the press. Police superintendent Robert Barron refused to do that before the Senate Hearing in response to the newspaper report. Instead admitting confidential files had been used since 1941 and prior to that other methods were used, his statement in the without any elaboration suggests his audience understood him well. What he meant was before 1941, the police employed other methods to deny black Residents Police services. Police operations remained untouched after the expos of pocketing. Is re skepticism regarding chief barons leadership or commissioner youngs oversight since neither of them seem exercised that the npd discarded half of the crime reported. But they remained in office. Also the reliance on tools of social control, namely hundreds upon hundreds of the arrests of africanamericans made each year under the citys disorderly statutes especially as those made when an officer ordered a civilian to move on and if he did not do so at a pace or in the fashion the officer desired he was subject to arrest. These discretionary tools and parrot the police to such a degree that in some neighborhoods, officers could arrest who they wanted when they wanted. Only a few years later the npd came under scrutiny once again this time as the result of coinciding senate and department of justice investigations. The focus on narcotics enforcement and Senate Investigators quickly narrowed their focus to Police Department h h carter, head of the narcotics club. On march 17th, the day of his appearance before the Senate Finally arrived not withstanding the distracting reports of the lieutenants ill health and recent hospitalization. Two local television stations carried the Program Alive and radio stations agreed to broadcast the interview in the evening primetime hours. As with the hearings on organized crimes, an era of anticipation buzz around the committee rooms. Senators confronted carter with his own financial records and asked him to explain 4,000 in deposits to one of his checking account. He claimed he could not recollect making them. Senator neely or miti, such a lapse in memory to be highly suspicious and blurted lieutenant, i am going to probably break the intention of secrecy but i think i should tell you an executive session in this committee will hear evidence of payment after payment of cash that was made to you by dope peddlers for protection. This astonishing accusation shocked some viewers but not others. For many black d. C. Residents the remarkable thing about the testimony was not Police Corruption but the willingness to discuss it publicly. One africanamerican lawyer interviewed admitted the hearings had brought to light when a large segment of the population had known all along. The charges against harper were vindicated the next day when imprisoned dope peddler James Roberts appeared before the senate. The calm demeanor presented some investigators and the public with a picture of a thoughtful if not remorseful man. As he quietly told his story of dealing in illicit drugs and his interactions with d. C. s narcotics squad and at the time. From 1947 to 1949 lieutenant car received 18,000 to 20,000 in payoffs, always in small bills and always paid on a first of the month often by wrapping cash in a newspaper and dropping it in a squad car. So these revelations prompted personnel changes at the top, little about policing in the district changed in subsequent years even as lawenforcement itself underwent a professional is Asian Movement that demanded more training for recruits, new Performance Measures from officers and new methods of bureaucratic oversight. Decade later president Lyndon Johnson was still smarting from criticism he had received from republican challenger Barry Goldwater that johnson had led district descending to a chaos of crime. Despite his triumphant election returns the president was keen to appoint a special committee on crime in the District Of Columbia in july 1965. The task force and a good part of its time assessing the work of the d. C. Metropolitan Police Department and concluded its analysis wi