Lessons From the Viral ‘Crack Pipe’ News Cycle

The Biden administration rushed to deny claims by conservative media outlets, only to anger advocates of harm reduction measures.

By
194

If you’ve run across the term “crack pipe” in the news this week, odds are you’ve encountered one of two stories.

Story one: In a fit of nanny-state bravado, the Biden administration is launching a new program to fund the delivery of drug paraphernalia like crack pipes to “underserved communities,” in the name of advancing “racial equity.”

Story two: That allegation is a right-wing lie, an attempt by unscrupulous conservative-media actors to smear an innocuous program intended to blunt the health harms of illicit drug use as something far more insidious.

Well, they can’t both be true, right? Let’s walk through the saga as it unfolded.

You're out of free articles
Create an account to unlock 1 more articles
By signing up with your email, you agree to The Dispatch’s privacy policy and terms and conditions
Already have an account? Sign In
194
By
Comments (194)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    “ (It’s a thin pretense; as any pipe-smoker will tell you, glass and tobacco make a very poor pairing.)”

    Do you smoke tobacco, Andrew?

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Stephanie

    So--we still don't know if there are crack pipes?? This whole story seems like a swing and a miss.

    Collapse
  3. Raincheck

    Thank you, Andrew. Seems like a lot of people need put down the crack pipe on this one.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Billy Wright

    I think you're all missing or skirting the real issue, which is not the DISTRIBUTION of pipes, it is "racial equity" deployed as the JUSTIFICATION for distributing pipes. This is itself just another demonstration of the condescendingly racist bigotry of this administration and "progressives" generally. Multiple levels of government have been distributing clean syringes forever and, as you note, this policy is not different.

    Collapse
    1. Midge

      Racial equity is not the justification for the harm-reduction program distributing safer-use paraphernalia (which is unlikely to include pipes). Whether you agree with harm reduction or not, it is its own justification. These harm-reduction grants existed before Biden, and before "racial equity" became a hot-button issue.

      Now that "racial equity" is a hot-button issue, grant distributors have made reassuring noises about more of these grants going to underserved communities in the name of equity. But that is a minor change (possibly only cosmetic) to a longstanding program. Had the equity noises not been made, the program would still have gone on as it has for a while now.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Billy Wright

        I agree there are good reasons for the program. You are simply wrong when you say the Biden administration did not cite equity as a justification for this particular program. What I’m saying is that these are two different arguments, and should be treated as distinct.

        Collapse
        1. Midge

          You said, "'"racial equity' deployed as the JUSTIFICATION for distributing pipes."

          That's pretty misleading if all you're trying to say is that equity is somehow distinct from harm reduction, which it isn't in this case anyhow, since the point of the "equity" would be more "equitable" distribution of harm-reduction kits. Without the harm-reduction policy, there'd be nothing to distribute more equitably here.

          What is your source?

          And are you saying the distribution of harm-reduction supplies will now be condescending when it wasn't before? Or more condescending than it was before?

          Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Ian Fillmore

    Thanks for the in-depth explainer. I was puzzled by the freakout on the right, and the embarrassed defensiveness on the left. We've had clean syringe programs for a long time. What's the difference? Why wasn't there a freakout about the clean syringes that are mentioned in the same policy? The only difference I can think of is that crack is particularly associated with the destruction of urban Black communities in the 1980s (fairly or unfairly). And there's a lot of concern that we are returning to 1980s crime levels too, so the words "crack pipe" just set off alarm bells in people. But that's pure speculation on my part.

    Collapse
  6. Tinacrevello1

    Great story. I had questions when I heard about this last week. What exactly IS in the safe smoking kits?

    Collapse
    1. Midge

      "[S]afe smoking kits typically consist of several other items [that is, instead of pipes], including: a rubber mouthpieces for glass pipes, in order to prevent burns and cuts; brass screens, in order to filter out potentially harmful contaminants or debris; as well as disinfectant wipes."

      https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-crack-pipes-racial-equity/

      Other sources mention lip balm and ointment. The rubber mouthpiece is meant to reduce burns if you already have and use a pipe. Items to disinfect the mouthpiece to reduce disease spread if the pipe is shared and to treat lip burns and related injuries are not items that, by themselves, can be used to take drugs. The rubber mouthpiece, by itself, couldn't, either, though it's closer to drug paraphernalia than lip balm would be.

      Collapse
      1. Mathew A

        I had a "friend" that might have done a bit of partying when he was younger. You don't need a rubber mouth piece for a glass pipe to not get burned. Where do people come up with this crap

        Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Anne W (Raw5254)

    Thanks for *clearing that up.* Honestly, I do appreciate it, but I’m still confused. What I’d like to really know is HOW do we do something about STOPPING drug addiction in the first place. I understand that it’s never going away, and it’s probably always been around in some form, but now it seems to be worse than ever. Why? Providing clean needles (and maybe pipes) somehow doesn’t seem like an answer, but I don’t claim to know what is.

    Collapse
    1. Mathew A

      There's no 100% solution, but it's been shown that addiction is usually only a problem if something's not going on right with your life.

      For example, why do millions of people use opioid's each year just fine, without getting addicted, but why do some people get addicted. Usually it's the people who are using the drugs to escape life, instead of just having fun once in a while.

      To put it another way, it's one thing to party on the weekend, but when you make it an everyday thing to escape/deal with life that's a problem

      https://www.ted.com/talks/johann_hari_everything_you_think_you_know_about_addiction_is_wrong?language=en

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Anne W (Raw5254)

        And some people do seem easily addicted. It often runs in families. In my late teens and too much of my 20s I partied a lot. Mostly alcohol and pot, but I tried some other things. Fortunately, I couldn’t handle much without getting sick, so I was always limited.

        Still, I worry that it’s getting worse. Meth has really taken hold, even in smaller communities. Thanks for the link. I’ll check it out.

        Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    MarqueG68

    The moral of the story is that the Free Beacon once again ended up owning the libs.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Tele

    In the late 70’s early 80’s there was a “head shop” at Woodfield Mall. One day, their massive display of bongs had cigarettes sticking out. They also stopped selling their pipes with screens, so we had to go to a hardware store and cut our own.

    Sometime after Nancy said to say no, the shop was closed.

    A head shop in a mall seems unbelievable today. Yet…Illinois now has weed shops, so things are coming full circle.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Jean-Christophe Jouffrey

    Dear Andrew Egger,

    "As stated above, the Beacon had in fact made one undeniable mistake: Contrary to what the original story alleged, no official government spokesperson had confirmed that pipes would be part of the smoking kits."

    Irrespective of the goods or ills of this bill, one thing is clear, it is not "a mistake", it is "a lie", per your own reporting.

    1) "Then, the line that would generate controversy: “A spokesman for the agency told the Washington Free Beacon that these kits will provide pipes for users to smoke crack cocaine, crystal methamphetamine, and ‘any illicit substance.’”"

    2) "The spokesperson had not, however, explicitly confirmed that the kits contained pipes. (Both the Free Beacon and HHS provided The Dispatch with the email exchange at issue.)"

    3) "The Free Beacon, it’s worth noting, disputes that any of its reporting was in error."

    4) well, yes, this is a lie, not an error: "A spokesman for the agency told the Washington Free Beacon that these kits will provide pipes..."

    Whether it is by the The Washington Free Beacon or The NYT, a lie is a lie, whatever the subject matter, the intention, and how bad the subsequent answers to the lie are.

    Collapse
Load More