Group of Black Government Employees Calls for End to the Drug War

A group representing black government employees, including a former DEA agent and member of the U.S. Marshals, has released a petition calling for an end to the drug war. Authored by Matthew F. Fogg, a retired DEA agent, the Blacks In Goverment (BIG) petition calls for a "Federal investigation for solutions to eliminate the pretense and continued arrest and incarceration of African-Americans at extraordinarily disparate rates for drug-related charges," as well as for Attorney General Eric Holder and President Barack Obama to immediately end "racial bias drug enforcement operations, provide retroactive reduction in sentences for victims and suggest alternatives to incarceration that may in part, include a model to regulate and control the distribution of some drugs."

Fogg covered D.C. for the DEA during the late 80s and 90s. In a statement from Law Enforcement Again Prohibition, Fogg says, "I personally witnessed racially biased enforcement procedures when I ran a joint DEA task force...When I requested equal enforcement of upscale suburban areas, I met internal resistance." So Fogg never busted down doors in Chevy Chase, McLean, or Bethesda? Shocking.  

More from LEAP's statement

BIG and LEAP have noted that African Americans constitute 53.5 percent of all persons who entered prison because of a drug conviction despite the fact that blacks are no more likely than whites to use drugs.

The BIG resolution calls for “a federal investigation for solutions to eliminate the pretense and continued arrest and incarceration of African Americans at extraordinarily disparate rates for drug related charges.” 

In passing the anti-drug-war resolution, BIG joins other African-American groups that have taken similar positions, such as the NAACP, the National Black Caucus of State Legislators and the National Black Police Association.

“The war on drugs has put blacks behind bars for drug offenses at more than ten times the rate of whites, even though the evidence consistently shows that blacks are no more likely to use or sell currently illicit drugs than whites are,” Fogg added. “It is time to end this virtual race war.”

BIG's petition comes hot on the heels of the NAACP's call for drug law reform

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Restoras||

    We have a Black Government? As in Shadow Government, or as in Black Ops?

  • Gojira (formerly Jim)||

    In the 90s it was called the "African-American" Government. It's not as powerful, but is far cooler than the regular government.

  • Barack Obama||

    And lawdy how we dance!

  • And people here wonder...||

    ...why everyone calls libertoids racists.

  • MiNGe||

    With gems like this it's no wonder the right doesn't get more support among the black community.

  • ||

    Oh yeah, you have to put in the password known only to racists to post a comment here.

    Sheesh.

  • ||

    Turn off the phone. bitch puddin'

  • -||

    Paranoid, obsessed, or a persecution complex?

  • ||

    Why can't it be all three?

  • ||

    I don't wonder at all. Liberals have absolutely no fucking sense of humor, unless the joke is at the expense of someone they dislike.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Another group of people who face no consequences for opposing the War on Drugs have stated their opposition to the War on Drugs.

  • Mainer||

    Where is sarcasmic to tell us why drugs are bad.....?

  • Invisible Finger||

    I don't see this as a call to end the drug war. It sounds more like a call to move the war into other neighborhoods.

  • Brandon||

    It could be a call for quotas.

  • Wayne||

    This is the first call for quotas for whites that NAACP endorses.

  • JD||

    Yeah, with this administration in particular a call to "eliminate the pretense and continued arrest and incarceration of African Americans at extraordinarily disparate rates for drug related charges” is more likely to create pressure from the DOJ to increase arrests of whites than decrease arrests of blacks.

  • Skr||

    Either way it's probably good in the long run (not for poor schmucks that get arrested). If the WOD gets taken to white suburbia in a significant way, public backlash would probably occur and end it faster.

  • ||

    at least anecdotally,i can tell you that where i work, meth is almost exclusively a "white person's drug".

    i've never encountered a black person in possession of it, and i have never even heard of one dealing it.

    i've been in probably a couple of dozen labs. never seen a black person, or even a "person of color" within.

  • ||

    Blacks In Goverment (BIG)--"[P]rovide...a model to regulate and control the distribution of some drugs."

    Nice! A racial collectivist group is making suggestions as to how the government may better regulate and tax substances that Americans voluntarily put into their own bodies. No mention as why the government should have that power, and no call for an across-the-board end to prohibition. Not surprisingly, some libertarians call this progress.

  • Tim||

    The Math is persuasive:

    Perp walks are 53% more effective at scaring idiot voters when black people are the suspects. This means that prosecutors are 53% more likely to become Senators.

  • Amakudari||

    The Blacks In Goverment (BIG) petition calls for a "Federal investigation for solutions to eliminate the pretense and continued arrest and incarceration of African-Americans at extraordinarily disparate rates for drug-related charges."

    This isn't a call to end the War on Drugs. It's a call to arrest and imprison everyone at more equitable rates, and you can get there one of two ways.

  • PersonalJustice||

    So is it fair to assume that all these groups have endorsed either Ron Paul or Gary Johnson?

  • JD the elder||

    People, this is politics. We're not likely to get too many 100% ideologically certified allies, especially coming from within the government. So try and take minor rays of hope for what they are, rather than shooting the messenger, huh?

  • Hugh Akston||

    That's exactly the point I make when supporting the Confederacy.

  • Robert||

    Why do something stupid like that? they've been gone a long time and aren't coming back, you know. So what do you gain by taking that side? What would you lose by not?

  • ||

    Exactly.

    The man from BIG mentions that there s/b some thought to "include a model to regulate and control the distribution of some drugs". By definition, that is a step away from prohibition. Without details, we can't know how big the step truly is.

    As more groups come forward against the status quo, the prohibs are put on the defensive. A good thing in my book.

  • ||

    take minor rays of hope for what they are

    Compromises with prohibitionists. Yay!

  • ||

    Has no one every taken into account that while blacks may not use drugs at a higher rate than whites they are prone to doing doing things differently. Perhaps so many blacks would not be in jail for drugs if they didn't stand on street corners and walk up to car windows trying to make a sale. I mean come on how fucking easy do they want to make it for the cops to arrest them. The reason they have such a disparity is due to the fact that white people have enough sense to be a bit discreet in their dealings and don't stand on street corners. I see this as a call for a different kind of Affirmative Action one in which they whites get all the quota slots at the prisons. It would be nice to just end the 100% failed WOD once and for all though.

  • jimmy hat||

    im not sure thats accurate, I think there may be something to the whole idea that black people tend to be poorer and tend be where the five-0 goes to round up their quotas. while the whole black people set up drug stores like on the wire thing may or might not have truth to it, it really highlights how drugs are more of a means than an end for cops. Most PCS arrests i found while interning at a crimal defense firm involved a minor traffic stop, usually a warrant was out, they search the car and find dope on the search incident to arrest.

  • ||

    I think that the drug culture in ghetto areas destroy neighborhoods. Let's face it, no one is arguing that white (or black) drug users (there are blacks in both McLean and Bethesda, I've seen them) are ruining McLean or Bethesda. Drugs should be made legal. The billions spent on their eradication are wasted, and better spent on helping people get off drugs that may be causing problems for them. Wherever they live.

  • Pip||

    I can say from personal experience that what ~ is saying is true. I live in the ghetto and have never seen white ghetto folks dealing on corners. Just blake folk. My white neighbors sell from their homes.

  • Chatroom Crackpot||

    The poor whites are inside their mobile homes where the cops need warrant. I can show you some trailer parks that are just as poverty ridden as any ghetto. But unless they are drunk the residents usually keep activity that attracts the cops inside.

  • ||

    Give the ..... a ceegar!

    This is exactly it.

    A white drug dealer usually runs on a large phone/friend customer network, he's not out hustling on the corner.

    White users tend to party inside, or in isolated outdoor areas--with some notable exceptions--all of which provide the camoflage of large crowds.

    The white drug dealers that get busted tend to be higher up the supply chain than the guy who hands you your drugs--and the drug users that tend to get busted more are those who are more deteriorated, who are letting the drug control them.

    Black dealers sell on street corners, in parks, from their houses(not the call/pickup common with white dealers, but, instead making it known that this is a place where one can buy). They proposition people--relying on their foreknowlge and 'street smarts' to keep them away from cops.

    Black users tend to rely on these 'smarts' as well when it comes to deciding if an area is concealed enough to use in. Open use is much more common among non-deteriorated blacks than it is among whites.

    In short, blacks get arrested more for drug crimes not because they do more drugs, but because they get SEEN with drugs more often.

  • ||

    Black people tend to be poorer than whites. Poor people tend to have other problems besides drugs. That means they are more likely to interact with cops and more likely to get caught. If I am driving around with bench warrants for unpaid tickets or routinely get into it with my girlfriend who then calls the cops, I am more likely to be caught selling or using.

  • Chatroom Crackpot||

    The white guy is more likely to have an old lady to remind him that his ass has to show up for court. Of course once he gets there he might take the 10 days to get a break from the old lady.

  • ||

    cue: Chris Rock...

    "he got weed. he got weeed!"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

  • Invisible Finger||

    The reason they have such a disparity is due to the fact that white people have enough sense to be a bit discreet in their dealings and don't stand on street corners.

    WTF???

    Asset forfeiture put them on the street corners. White dealers don't get arrested as much so they're a little behind the education curve on this.

  • O2||

    even gen mcaffery, after retirement as DEA chief, said the WoD was a failure. >legalizing pot would instantly remove ~50-60% of cartel profits

  • ||

    To bad he waited till he retired, huh?

    Sort of like Bill Clinton saying he thought pot should be legalized in an interview with Rolling Stone in October, 2000. Guess he though that would make him look good with all the cool kids who read RS or something.

  • Wayne||

    General McAffery is so heroic!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    There is too much money to be had waging the War on Drug Users. It will be marginally less impossible to work to remove any bias in drug enforcement (which would no doubt just mean targeting more non-minorities).

  • Joe M||

    Targeting more non-minorities would probably end the WoD faster than anything, as more suburban moms saw their babies start serving time.

  • Hannah's Mom||

    Hannah is a great kid. She has never hurt anyone.

  • ||

    I don't think these guys would care too much about the WOD if the police were arresting Mexicans, Chinamen and white people pursuing it. Sorry, but I don't see how this helps the cause much.

  • Sidd Finch||

    Chinamen is not the preferred nomenclature.

  • Apatheist||

    It is not even an up to date non-preferred nomenclature. Seriously who still says chinamen? (and why would you capitalize it?)

  • ||

    No one. That was the point. I was being fallacious.

  • Joe M||

    facetious

  • Hugh Akston||

    fatuous

  • ||

    Flatulent

  • Almanian||

    Damn Joe M and his monstrously quick hands, and the phone call that interrupted my typing...the gods have it in for me today...

  • Joe M||

    That comment was ferocious.

  • Almanian||

    I think you're looking for a different word than "fallacious", John.

    But maybe not - I'm not judging.

  • ||

    Nor should you.

  • Almanian||

    Don't be fastidious, John

  • Your Favorite Queer||

    I'm positive you meant FABULOUS!

    Kiss Kiss,
    YFQ

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Voluptuous.

  • Al So||

    Callipygian.

  • ||

    You were being felated? I would be distracted as well. You are forgiven.

  • Sidd Finch||

  • Colonel_Angus||

    I'm trying to bring it back. I referred to someone as "Chinaman" (as if it were a proper noun) like two hours ago.

  • ||

    I kind of like it. I don't see what is offensive about it.

  • Chan Li||

    You Gleek plick!

  • Skip||

    The Chinamen are NOT the issue!

  • Sidd Finch||

    When I requested equal enforcement of upscale suburban areas, I met internal resistance.

    I live in an upscale suburban area, and I have no clue which, if any, of my neighbors use or sell drugs. How would a DEA agent go about investigating such places?

    Also, the drug warriors go on about cleaning up neighborhoods and whatnot. Why would it make sense to spend limited resources on places with microscopic (real) crime rates?

  • ||

    I have no doubt that people in upscale neighborhoods use drugs. That money is coming from somewhere. But people in upscale neighborhoods hide their drug use well and tend to have things like jobs and rarely give the police any reason to interact with them. So even if the DEA wanted to, they would have a very difficult time catching rich people who use drugs.

  • DEA||

    Fucking house-to-house searches, how do they work?

  • ||

    Go house to house in some rich white neighborhood and get a bunch of soccer moms spread eagle on the lawn and then explain it to Congress. Good luck with that.

  • O2||

    not soccer moms, rather nanny moms

  • Apatheist||

    I invite you to google spread eagle soccer moms

  • Almanian||

    OK, I'm gonna....whoa...

  • ||

  • Almanian||

    Strangely enough, no

  • ||

    Work on it.

  • Almanian||

    Fuck off, slaver

  • cynical||

    That was much more boring than I anticipated.

  • JD||

    Just explain to the soccer moms that it's for the children and that if you aren't doing anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about.

  • ||

    Again with the soccer moms, John!
    Where did they touch you?
    Where did the soccer moms touch you?

  • Robert||

    I've been thinking about getting into the business -- like that, discreetly, in private. How do you break in? How do you advertise without becoming widely known?

  • daveInAustin||

    The next time a libertarian-leaning politician is accused of being a racist because he doesn't support some aspects of a so-called civil rights act, he should go on the offensive. Measured by the actual effect on people, there is nothing more racist than the war on drugs. It's killing hundreds of Mexican's and unjustly taking thousands of black men in this country out of their homes and into prisons. If we dropped all the civil rights legislation that interferes with a businesses rights to refuse service to anyone, the worst that would happen is that occasionally some people would have to wait a little longer to get a healthy meal at Denny's. Market forces would probably put that to an end anyway.

  • Almanian||

    he should go on the offensive

    Ho ho! MOAR elimunashunistz rhetoricks!! You violent right-wing hater!!

    Market forces

    You'd better watch it - that's straight up hate speech there, buddy.

  • Almanian||

    Also, for noting the skin color of this group of people, RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACIST!

    And for noting they're gov't employees, EELIMUNATIONISTZ RHETORICKSZZ!!!111!!1!!111!

    Now - WTF were we on about again?

  • Chan Li||

    BIG does not have a Chinaman's chance of ending the WOD.

  • ||

    Stop being fortuitous.

  • ||

    Stop being fortuitous.

  • Chan Li||

    You mean "foltuitous".

  • Amakudari||

    * folutsuitasu

  • doomboy||

    sure its not notorious?

  • doomboy||

    Especially since he's been dead since 1997.

  • ||

    Yeah arrest whitey!

    Wait, what?

  • Eric Holder||

    Now I be conflicted.

  • ||

    Speaking of war, this is quite awesome:

    http://www.firstshowing.net/20.....ill-chart/

  • Matthew Fogg||

    Yes, but how many killed were Chinamen, I mean, Blacks?

  • ||

    That is awesome.

    "This is not the first time you have described your life in the way of John Rambo."

  • Warren||

    Why couldn't they have named their group Negroes in Government?

  • ||

    So they'd'a been called NiGs? Or NiGgers, collectively.

    My dead daddy's laffin' in his grave.

    CB

  • Gabby Johnson||

    The Sheriff is a nig....!

  • Wayne||

    RAAACCCCIIIISSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!

    It does make for a good name, though.

  • ||

    I find it disappointing, but not surprising, that apparently a fair number of LEOs think the War on Drugs is bad, mmmkay, but are never willing to say so until after it won't put their paycheck at risk.

    Hmm - participate in massive violation of freedom and get paid for it, or oppose massive violation of freedom and risk my paycheck?

    Apparently this isn't even a tough call in the LEO community, because I don't recall a single LEO go public with his opposition till his pension was fully vested.

  • ||

    LEOs think the War on Drugs is bad, mmmkay

    I think it's funny how you pretend to be a South Park character.
    That's why I love this blog!

  • Heidi||

    you wanna park your hot mercedes in my garage, big boy?

    http://news.yahoo.com/german-c.....44020.html

  • ||

    The federal marijuana prohibition is a bad law from yesterday. As someone who lives today and sees the prohibition harming so many people without returning any benefit back to us at all, I say END it. End it - it's old, useless, doesn't work and causes massive harm. End it and let our supermarkets sell legally-grown marijuana to adults at prices too low for the drug dealers and cartels to match. END IT!!

  • dunphy||

    trollmeter = 0.000001

    The W.O.D. provides me a paycheck. How can you say there is no benefit?

  • ||

    it's "troll-o-meter"

    and fwiw, i am consistent on this. the drug war is a miserable failure and it's bad policy. it should be stopped.

    now

  • ||

    Found this interesting.

    Map shows pot laws don't affect prices.

  • Fortisuce P. Smythe-Smythe||

    B.I.G. is a notorious group.

  • ||

    I look forward to their endorsement of Ron Paul and/or Gary Johnson.

  • ||

    Whatever the exact dynamics involved, these racial disparities are a direct result of drug-prohibition and are quite clearly unacceptable. This moronothon has done nothing but breed generations of incarcerated and disenfranchised Afro Americans and any citizen not doing their utmost to help reverse this perverse injustice may duly hang their head in shame.

    Prohibition does nothing but bankroll dangerous criminals, corrupt whole law enforcement agencies and generously arm international terrorists. Alcohol prohibition (1919-1933) was a casebook example of such dangerous folly. Today, alcohol is taxed and regulated and the shoot-outs over turf and the killing of innocent bystanders are no longer a daily part of the alcohol trade. So how come so many of us lack the simple ability to learn from such an important historical lesson, and are instead intent on perpetuating the madness and misery that prohibition has always invariably engendered? 

    It is clearly our always-doomed-to-fail policy of prohibition that is causing this intense misery. We need to fix ourselves (start thinking clearly) and in doing so, we will not only help rid ourselves of this terrible self-inflicted curse but also help to heal the whole planet.

    Are we really such an adolescent nation that we can expect neither maturity nor cognitive thought from either our leaders or our populace? This is not a war on drugs; it's an outright war on sanity!

    Colombia, Peru, Mexico or Afghanistan, with their coca leaves, marijuana buds or their poppy sap, are not igniting temptation in the minds of poor weak American citizens. These countries are merely responding to the enormous demand that comes from within our own borders. Invading or destroying those countries, creating more hate, violence, instability, injustice and corruption, will not fix this problem. We need to admit that It is ourselves who are sick. Prohibition is neither a sane nor a safe approach. Left unabated, it's devouring inferno will surely engulf every last one of us!

  • Uncensored Rev.||

    This sounds more like a call to equalize drug-related arrests and incarcerations than a call to eliminate the war on drugs altogether. Carefully read the original document: http://www.bignet.org/regional....._2011R.pdf

  • mad libertarian guy||

    How much do we want to bet that, rather than voting with their feet, they'll all just vote for Obama and call it a day?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement