The tactics that were put into practice during the height of the drug war are believed to be a contributor to the overrepresentation of minorities in U.S. prison populations.  

African Americans were targeted during the height of the drug war as crack cocaine became the main target in the 1980’s, and previously during when heroin was targeted in the 1960’s and again during the 1970’s when cocaine was the main focus of anti-drug coalitions.  Crack cocaine was believed to be more likely used by African Americans and thus police focused their efforts on minorities.  Racial profiling also contributed to the disproportion of minorities in prisons.  Race relations were redefined at the height of the drug war.  As African Americans were targeted for crack cocaine- a substance regarded as predominately used by poor, black individuals- racial tensions occurred and caused a great divide.
In the case of the drug war, the problem of abuse is heavily associated with minorities and with individuals of low socioeconomic standing.  However, we know that this association is not necessarily well-founded, as only one in nine of the millions of crimes reported annually to the police result in a criminal conviction.  An interdiction between class and racial disparities in the criminal justice system clearly exists.  
According to the Bureau of Census, the incarceration of blacks is over six times higher than for whites.  A discriminatory court process can also account for the disproportionate population of African Americans in U.S. prisons.  This sort of distortion leads to racial inequalities and injustices, leading to a distrust of the criminal justice system by minorities. The reactive model to a punitive system has led to more arrests.  Instead of focusing on ways to prevent illicit drug behaviors from occurring, apprehending criminals engaging in this criminal activity is the focal point.  This type of approach is punitive rather than rehabilitative because more offenders are being sent to prisons than are being treated through community rehabilitative programs.  
As a result of the drug war, zero-tolerance laws were implemented in many states, in which automatic punishments are induced on an individual for certain drug-related crimes.  This led to longer sentencing and therefore a longer stay in prisons by these offenders.  Indeterminate sentencing, of which definite prison duration is not given, but rather a range of time became mandated in numerous states, as well.  This type of sentencing can be individualized in that the judge is able to exercise discretionary power by controlling the minimum term of imprisonment.    Legislatures with little guidance increase a judge’s discretionary powers through determining the sentence length.  As a result, the parole board’s discretionary power is restricted.
Legalization and decriminalization have both been offered as alternatives to the drug war, as well as a solution to the overcrowding in prisons and an answer to the economic perils caused by the drug war.  However, legalization and decriminalization are subjection to speculation regarding whether or not this would increase the rate of drug abuse in the United States.  Drug legalization removes the punishments for all drug-related offenses.  Decriminalization decreases the stigma of the drug offense. Although money could be made through legalization via tax, these alternatives are frequently responded to with public aversion and a concern for public safety.  If drug offenders are incarcerated, the idea is that the offender is kept off the streets and the general public is protected.  
