The part that stuck out to me in Chapter 2 of Harm Reduction Around the World was “The Dutch Model.”  Even though the system seems to work in Amsterdam, with fewer drug users in general and high school students using considerably less cannabis than 59% of American high schoolers, it astounded me that a system like that would purposely exist.  Maybe because I am an American and our government deals with drug use differently, but I am surprised that anyone would use the Dutch Model.  Sometimes, we talk about drugs in my classes and people say that legalizing drugs will make people less attracted to them.  It’s just like how the Prohibition increased alcohol consumption and how that decreased when the ban was revoked.  In that sense, it makes sense that the Dutch model would work.  However, the idea is still strange to me because of how strict drug policies are in America.  I am interested in visiting Amsterdam just to see how things are there and how the system works.  Is there anyone else who shares this interest?

In Harm Reduction Around the World, one part that stuck out to me was the mention of drug tourists in Amsterdam. Because of how lax the laws and/or the following of them was, Amsterdam would get a special type of tourist. I understand that tourism is good for the economy, but is the reputation that comes with and gets spread around by them really worth it? Instead of a reputation for the culture and history Amsterdam possesses, it gets one for its red-light district and drug availability.

It was interesting to read Harm Reduction Around the World because one is able to see the different attitudes of varying countries towards drug related crimes. The fact that countries like Holland and the United Kingdom had mitigating polices made me wonder if there is an ulterior motive behind mass incarceration in the United States? If one logically reasons why the United States does not have a reductionist policy, no real answer surfaces. It just seems so logical to follow a reductionist approach rather than a intransigent stance.

Furthermore, as Albert mentioned in his post, America’s policy on handling methadone when compared to that of Amsterdam’s is much more stringent. It is definitely discouraging for an addict, in America, to somehow seek help because of the stigma. The whole methadone story reminded me of the controversial Needle Exchange Program. Interestingly, this program was first started in 1983 in Amsterdam. Just like, Amsterdam’s policy on mandatory condom use in sex work, this program helped curb HIV transmission rates among citizens,  On the other hand, the Needle Exchange Programs still remains controversial and in a sense tightly regulated in the United States. It just seems like there is an unfortunate pattern that is observable in the United States’ attitude towards drug regulation policies.

Don’t we want all drug addicts to recover and eventually become productive members of society? How can we expect a person to recover if his mean to recovery are impossibly difficult?

Reading chapter two of “Harm Reduction Around the World” by Alan Marlatt was very eye opening for me, especially with the harm prevention programs the Dutch and United Kingdom have in terms of drug related crimes. It made me wonder why the United States can’t apply such a model to itself especially with positive results from these two main examples. Holland separates drugs into soft and hard drugs and allows drug addicts to purchase soft drugs in designated locations in order to prevent them from going to dealers who may recommend them hard drugs such as heroin or cocaine. The harm prevention programs in Amsterdam and Holland also gives out methadone in an easier way, where the individual would merely go into a specialized van and take the dosage. It is more efficient than America’s policy where everything is highly regulated to the point where individuals are stigmatized and discouraged from receiving treatment via methadone. Amsterdam’s sex business also prevents many individuals from being harmed, with mandatory condom use and patrolling police offices that protect both worker and client. These methods prevent the contraction of H.I.V. and prevent both the escort and client from being harmed. However, I believe the best harm prevention policy in the chapter was U.K.’s policy of not handing out an arrest on the first time someone is caught with a drug, but instead they give a warning and resources to assist the individual with their addiction.

Government in urban areas should enact many of these harm prevention programs in order to combat the public health crisis many of these areas face. Compared to the United States, where drug addicts and sex workers usually have no way to rehabilitate their way into society because of taboo and threat of imprisonment, harm prevention provides a safe environment for these individuals. Although the chapter stated that it might not work in the United States because of scalability, it would be interesting to see if pilot programs would be put in place in order to test the effectiveness of the program. Plans that provide prescription grade drugs to individuals would prevent them from taking a drug that has been contaminated with fillers. Nevertheless, in order to enact these programs, the government must agree. The article “Emerging Strategies for Health Urban Governance” provided suggestions for what government can do. Ideas such as allowing more people to participate in government planning, having networked organizations, having concentrated goals, and having a way to enforce planning are all good ideas. The article also noted that many urban areas have a government with limited funds and uneducated government officials. I think potential cabinet members who are experts in what they do should be appointed in order to inform and suggest to the government leader of the area what the best course of action would be.

I remember last seminar’s seminar: Science and Tech in NYC, I had to research about the Gowanus Canal’s restoration efforts. Their task is insanely difficult to the point I said aloud that it would be clean when my great-grandchildren become adults. Michelle Alexander’s solution to the incarceration crisis similar to the Gowanus Canal’s mess because it would involve a very long-term effort in order to solve the solution. In fact, if her changes were proposed either by politicians or public interests groups, many of the policies that she is challenging will have lobbyists blocking every attempt. It may be stalled to such an extent to the point where public support has died out and many of the politicians who originally proposed the plan may no longer be in office. In other words, the solution to mass incarcerations of young Black men involves a long winding road.

I believe Alexander’s plan involves taking on too many interests groups for one organization to handle. For instance, she wants to remove financial incentives for police stations, federal grant money from law enforcement, and reeducation for law enforcement personnel just to name a few. According to the Department of Justice, in 2008 there were over 800,000 sworn officers. She also wants to close prisons and prevent the creation of new ones. If one were to avoid the stockholders of private prisons, there are over 400,000 correctional workers according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics. The overwhelming number of workers that she plans to affect, coupled with public support, as many Americans do believe that prisoners should be in jail where they rightfully belong, that plans that she propose are not the type that are right for the type of government in the United States.

When Alexander spoke about African American civil rights lawyers and Rosa Parks, it was a shock to me because I never knew about the other two individuals who refused to give up their seat. It all comes down to marketing a cause or belief because voters and public opinion can affect the United States government. If the United States were a dictatorship, Alexander’s proposals would get across easily because red tape wouldn’t be involved. However, because of voters and lobbyists the obstacles that Alexander wants to do would take a very long time. I believe in order to solve the mass incarceration crisis, education through social media and viral videos must educate the public before proposing Alexander’s wants for change. As she said, many white and middle class families are unaware of the affects the War on Drugs is having on us today.

After listing several similarities between mass incarceration and Jim Crow, Michelle Alexander admits that her argument is not foolproof. One limit that caught my eye was where Alexander points out that while the perpetrators and supporters of Jim Crow were undoubtedly racist, she is not calling those in favor of mass incarceration racist, but rather racially indifferent. However, is someone racially indifferent if they are ignoring the plight of other races? Wouldn’t it count as racism by default if one sits and back and lets others discriminate and be discriminated against?

At one point within the chapter, Michelle Alexander notes that a notable difference between Jim Crow and mass incarceration is that the current system of control receives, or rather seems to receive, the support of African Americans. In society, blame is placed on the individual that arrested: because they chose to commit crimes, they are incarcerated. However, Alexander makes the argument that all of us are essentially criminals, and the current system exploits the fact that everyone makes a mistake at some point in their lives. An illusion of culpability is created, it isn’t that the urban poor are more likely to make mistakes, it’s that they are more likely to be targeted by the system of control. While political policies and judicial proceedings may be at fault for playing a part in the system of control, wouldn’t the law enforcement agencies have the largest part in targeting individuals to be prosecuted?

I thought Michelle Alexander had a very interesting writing style, where she presented information in each, which she then combined with information from previous chapters, effectively reframing the issues chapter by chapter.  I found this to be a bit repetitive at times, but I understand her purpose for doing so, as it sort of mirrored the compilation of injustices which add up to an overarching racist system.  However, I appreciated that Alexander ended the book with lists of the similarities and differences to the Jim Crow era. As many have said, she comes off a bit biased at times, and for me this helped demonstrate that she does understand that her arguments will be met with some controversy and has thought through the strengths and weaknesses of her analogy.  Most notably, I was relieved that she mentioned that whites are also affected by the drug war, which was something that hadn’t quite fit with the Jim Crow metaphor until she expanded upon it.

I was also glad that she addressed what some had criticized in class, how she was protesting mass incarceration and the drug war so intensely without proposing policy suggestions.  However, she states towards the end that The New Jim Crow is not intended  to reach such bounds, but rather to start the conversation. I think this was a wise choice overall, because she only did what she felt qualified to do and what she knew could be handled in the scope of one book.  That being said, what does everything think are possible ways to change the flawed system of mass incarceration?  Also, how do we prevent discrimination from simply taking a new form in the next chapter of United States judicial policy?

-Jacqui Larsen