Image taken by Tom Gralish, Staff Photographer for The Philadelphia Inquirer
A fear of excessive policing can kill people already at risk of over overdosing. The article linked here written by Elise Von Scheele discusses this topic in more detail.
As Moses states, forcing the individuals in the encampments to move does not solve the underlying problem of homelessness or addiction. Fortunately, the city has recently shifted toward a more harm-reduction-centered approach, where city officials and police tried to place those remaining in encampments into shelters, housing programs, or treatment centers (Wolfram). See https://pathwaystohousingpa.org/ to learn more about providing housing to those suffering from addiction.
Image: “Outreach workers move from tent to tent, helping Emerald Street residents gather their possessions” (Emma Lee, WHYY)
Kensington’s encampments, gone as of early 2019, consisted of large numbers of individuals who were homeless and addicted to opioids. There were four major encampments cleared by the city of Philadelphia, of which Emerald Street was the oldest and largest (Wolfram).
Image: “Protest flyers in English and Spanish are pasted on the wall of Emerald Street railroad overpass, the site of an encampment long used by heroin addicts” (Emma Lee, WHYY)
Moses’ words reveal the serious, palpable consequences false narratives have for people. As Netherland & Hansen discuss in their paper: “In this sense, the popular press is helping to create a form of narcotic apartheid that is inscribed not only on divergent narratives of the human qualities, family, and community lives of white compared to black or brown addicted people, but that is also inscribed on racially divergent legal codes and local, State and Federal policies.” Media reinforced misconceptions and incomplete narratives can translate into disastrous real-world consequences for those who are misrepresented.
An example of how the media is perpetuating this misconception can be seen in Jennifer Percy’s New York Times article: ‘“They call this the Badlands,” Elvis Campos, 47, said about Kensington. “Good people are held hostage in their homes.”’ The wording demonizes those suffering from the negative impacts of the opioid epidemic as perpetrators forcing the ‘innocent’ non-addicts to remain in their homes, rather than describing addicts as individuals in need of help.
Additionally, Patricia Medej in her article in The Philadelphia Inquirer further addresses the stigma of the label ‘Badlands’ when she writes: “Although the word has become media shorthand for the Fairhill and West Kensington neighborhoods of North Philadelphia, it is seen as pejorative and condemnatory by many people who live in those areas and work toward their rebirth. It may be used in quotations but is to be avoided otherwise” (Medej)
Articles often lead with an opening like this: ““Have you ever wondered why the few blocks between Allegheny, Lehigh, and Kensington Avenues became the “badlands” — one of the busiest open-air drug markets in the Northeastern United States and most violent neighborhoods in Philadelphia?” (Gutman). Media reports like The New York Times’ ‘Walmart of Heroin’ article and The Philadelphia Inquirer’s “Philadelphia’s racist past and bad policy made Kensington’s Puerto Rican community extra vulnerable to violence” often cite the violence and open air drug markets as the reason that Kensington gained such a title. As Moses explains, this is not entirely truthful and often reinforces the moral judgements underlying many articles on North Philadelphia.
This point is especially clear when comparing the government’s differing responses to the crack and opioid epidemics. As reported by Netherland and Hansen: “The primary policy response to crack was to lock up hundreds of thousands of black and Latino people for possession and sales. To date, we have seen no move to similarly criminalize white suburbanites for their illegal use of prescription opioids and heroin, even though the scope of this epidemic far exceeds that of crack in the 1980s and 1990s.”
A 2015 paper sought to understand this double standard by investigating the impacts of “social wars” on communities. Social wars “broaden state power by producing a constant threat that is never fully identifiable,” thus allowing for more aggressive measures that blur the line between “policing and warfare” (Massaro, 372). In regards to the war on drugs, the “block” has been constructed as the front lines, and “the battle for control of these semi-public spaces occurs between residents and officials . . . through militarized policing, mass incarceration, and state sanctioned violence” (Massaro, 373).
Interestingly, Massaro in her paper on “The Intimate Entrenchment of Philadelphia’s Drug War” states that those in power viewed “Poverty, unemployment, and under-education” as “curable through the elimination of the drug economy.” This view is the exact opposite of how Moses and the growing body of literature on the issue suggest the drug crisis should be handled. Many hold the misconception that drugs are the cause of societal issues such as poverty, unemployment, and poor education, however, the inverse is often true. The above markers predispose communities to having high incidences of substance abuse (Gutman). Consequently, addressing these problems would be a better alternative to the harsh policing methods of the past.
In the mid 1980’s, the rise of crack was portrayed as an “urban” or non-affluent problem. In response to this, rather than addressing “the range of economic (and social) issues plaguing increasingly marginalized inner-city neighborhoods across the country,” the Reagan administration further escalated the War on Drugs (Massaro, 373).
However, the harshest penalties and consequences for drugs were reserved for racial minorities and the poor. For example: “In 1988, the Omnibus Anti-Drug Abuse Act expanded the law to allow for harsher criminalization of crack cocaine users. A possession of 5 g would result in a five-year minimum sentence, while powder cocaine possession [the drug of choice for more affluent individuals] for the same amount would only result in a one-year maximum sentence” (Santoro & Santoro).