government has invested considerably in studies whose results could be used to wage the perennial "war on drugs" while to politicians, that war has amounted to nothing more than a perceptual war on poverty and urban crime. Since politicians have had little else of marketable interest to debate over the years, this aggressive attack on drugs has existed as one of their only colorful means by which to create debate, controversy, and campaign fuel. In other words, when balancing the budget and maintaining an effective foreign policy became two boring to handle, Reinarman and Levine assert that the "crack epidemic" became the focus of politicians with the intent of luring public interest to their flashy anti-drug campaigns. Finally, in addition to the media's excess attention on the 'war against drugs,' Reinarman and Levine make the point the constant coverage of crack in the news media has only been counterproductive to the alleged goals of any anti-drug program. With descriptions of the "crack high" that glorify it considerably- the politically-charged media campaigns to fight drugs have worked somewhat ironically as huge advertising campaigns for crack-- increasing public awareness and stimulating the interests of venturous junkies.II. Application of Theoretical Framework While Reinarman and Levine are rather adamant about their findings, they do maintain an overt respect for the reality that crack has had other causal factors and outcomes besides those described by them. Their main concern seems to be calling for a more realistic spotlight to be placed upon the problem- so that we can begin to deal with it as no more and no less than what should be. In order to achieve this goal, it is most useful to understand some crack's socioeconomic origin. According to Rumbarger's economic explanation which was applied in class to prohibition, we can see crack as a problem that may have grown from seeds of a poor macroeconomi...
