As a former heroin addict currently in (buprenorphine) maintenance, this issue clearly means alot to me. But not to most. And I will continue to ask them, why?
Virtually everyone from both sides of the aisle agree that the so-called "War on Drugs" is a failure. But the politicans dare not speak about it. The "War on Drugs" is relegated to some sort of limbo. People are shrugging it off while lives are destroyed due to prohibition. Far more lives ended due to drugs alone in the USA than the current war in Iraq, as the former drug czar points out. Just because it's not news doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and to be quite blunt, I am a little bit offended. Perhaps people just don't realize that Prohibition has not only failed, it is causing deaths, nevermind greater amounts of suffering? I will continue to argue as such throughout these diaries.
Where we go from here will be the topic of another - likely the final - diary. Perhaps no one cares because no one knows what to do about it. Don't worry, we'll get there.
This is Part II of III. For Part I - Drug Prohibition: A History (Part I - Pre-Prohibition)
There are 4 prequels to this diary (in order written):
Treatment for heroin/opiate addiction: a primer.
Drug Prohibition: a Primer on Drugs from my vantage point
Treatment for heroin/opiate addiction: Advanced Edition
Drugs: a Reality-Based Factsheet [future diary - probably will wind up straight into DKospedia]
Future diaries will likely consist of what was just mentioned, one on the present [why the war on drugs is a failure and detailed facts regarding the current situation here and abroad], and one on the future. There will also likely be a diary on presription drugs, as most people don't realize this is a form of prohibition as well - and one that needs to be thoroughly examined - as there is just way too many "winners" ($$) in this system other than us (which is the only justification for a prohibition system even though I disagree than any system is truly justified in a country founded on liberty.) I am not arguing all drugs should be over-the-counter...I think...you'll just have to wait and see. Finally, there will be individual diaries on topics, such as Iran-Contra, as is deemed diary-worthy by my small but loyal readers.
Yep, that's virtually the exact same intro as Part I. It still applies exactly the same, if not moreso. In this diary however, Part II, we will be able to visit some of what was said more directly, and examine everything that led up to today. This is of vital importance for so many reasons, and for one I didn't mention - understanding just how our government works. Drug prohibition is one of the most fundamental concepts to our current government. And it is nothing more than a very clearly unconstitutional, embarrasing relic that we must hold ourselves accountable for and admit, and apologize, for our mistakes [and discontinue the ones still in practice.] People are dying, having their lives ruined, and being shipped off to prison by the truckload [although luckily we are laxing our "no tolerance" policies of past.] Read on and see exactly what I am talking about (in all my diaries!), and form your own opinion.
I hope this diary gets the steam that Part I did not, as it will be less of an encylopedia history lesson. I will take a slightly different approach with this diary, and jump around a little more and include more anecdotes and personal opinion, although all opinion will clearly be marked as such.
The Usual Plugs
A few new plugs and resources today.
The Drug Reform Coordination Network (DRCNET) (reform advocacy organization)
the Drug Policy Alliance (reform advocacy organization)
Common Sense for Drug Policy (an advocacy organization)
American Civil Liberties Union (they oppose drug prohibition in case you weren't aware)
Drug War Facts - a nice site with some great quotes and summaries, completely based in verifiable fact
The NarcoSphere - a journal/blog of sorts, focusing mainly on the WoD
The Vaults of Erowid - Documenting the Complex Relationship Between Humans and Psychoactives - an excellent resource.
The Lycaeum - Entheogenic Database & Community NEW!
Opioids: past, present, and future [with a hedonistic view for the future] - a decent resource, especially for newbies. NEW!
Schaffer Library of Drug Policy - probably the best resource on drug prohibition. NEW!
DRCNET response to the DEA - a total duplication of the DEA Website with a point by point rebuttal to everything they have published. Great stuff. NEW!
Medscape - the source of clinical studies, with free abstracts. (registration req'd.) NEW!
Where We Left Off...
The year was 1878. The Opium Wars were still fresh memories (in which the first ever government ban of opium, and subsequent prohibition occurred, beginning in 1729 in China. As it ended in war, it goes beyond saying that it was a failure.) Opium, alcohol, marijuana, tea, coffee, coca leaves, tobacco, hallucinogenic mushrooms, and peyote, were all used as far back as recorded history. All were used and available in 1878 America (and Europe) except magic mushrooms - they will be re-discovered in 1938, and not re-discovered by the populace at large until the 1960s psychedelic movement, largely spearheaded by the infamous Dr. Timothy Leary. Peyote on the other hand, the psychedelic cactus that will eventually yield mescaline, was fairly popular. Absinthe, a marijuana-like alcoholic beverage made from wormwood, was also available and was discovered (as far as we know) in the middle ages.
In 1805 technology will first meet drugs, who's use remained largely unchanged except the introduction of smoking to opium, and the first 'active ingredient', otherwise known as an alkoloid, will first be isolated from it's natural substance, and morphine will be harvested from opium, and in 1855 cocaine would follow suit, being first isolated from coca leaves. While commercial morphine production will shortly follow it's discovery, hitting the market in 1825 (being called G.O.M. - God's Own Medicine), cocaine would not in the form we know just yet. Morphine had a much more vital role to play in medicine and a wider audience in every respect, and was relatively easy to harvest. It was available in a meriad of different conconctions, and was available at your corner drug store. Cocaine on the other hand was relatively difficult to harvest from coca leaves, and was almost exclusively used, in 1878, in the form of an "elixer" that would be very similar to cocaine, but not completely pure, and was not sniffed. It was available in medical elixers and in popular drinks, such as Vin Mariana, containing 6mg (Europe) or 7.2mg (America) of cocaine per ounce. Cocaine also had a growing use in the medical world, mainly as a local anesthetic, but also as cure for "miscellaneous" problems.
In 1843 the hypodermic needle, or syringe, was discovered, and shortly thereafter became widely used by physicians. It was first believed that by injecting the drug locally, the drug would act locally - not creating dependence. This was obviously blatantly incorrect. Modern medicine had a long way to go - and often morphine was used as a panacea (go whip out the first edition of the Merck Manual and you'll see what I am talking about. I was going to list all the indications it was suggested for, but the list would literally be paragraphs long.) In all fairness, however, morphine was of help, and all they had, for a vast majority of illnesses - if simply for it's calming effects. Morphine was also used as a substitute for alcoholism! And while this might seem somewhat insane to some, it really isn't, and I have outlined why already in other diaries (if you are going to be taking something, you are better off with something that won't kill you and doesn't cause violence, for one.) Modern medicine still has a long way to go, however - perhaps backwards, a little bit.
It should sound familiar, there is always some new drug hailed as a panacea. Right now it is the so-called 'anti-depressants' (SSRIs), of which we are slowly learning may be dangerous, addictive, cause suicides, and may not even work after all (the success rates are about 20% (higher than placebo,) and that's only the studies the drug companies have let us see). There is much more to this, and I have only provided user-friendly links. As long as we keep trying to solve every single problem with a pill, we will see this problem continue. Before the SSRI's, it was the benzodiazepines, the 'minor tranquilizers,' which were hailed as 'not addictive.' They turned out, as considered by some [including (current and former) heroin addicts who have used them], to be a worse addiction than heroin. I look forward to speaking more about this in another diary. You will see this pattern as we examine recent history.
There was a growing movement, the temperance movement, which formed out of the remains of the abolitionist and (not yet in remains) feminist causes. In fact, the Prohibitionist Party was formed out of the remains of the Abolitionist Party. Alcohol, by far, was the most popular drug, and it's use was more of the problematic variety compared to today. Now, why would such noble causes as the feminist and abolitionist movements, who seemed to be fighting for civil rights (of which I strongly argue alcohol and drug use is one,) turn to alcohol as their next target? They considered it the obstacle to bringing about the American Utopia they were hoping to achieve. As noble their intentions might have been, that utopia will probably never exist (and I feel bad they had such high hopes,) and more importantly their efforts were heavily misguided in attempting to ban alcohol rather than work with education and regulation. However, they had no experience with any type of prohibition at the time, so their mistake is understanable (in this sense of it, at least.) It is important to note that the temperance movement was aimed solely at alcohol - not other drugs. In fact, several noted temperance advocates were likely opium addicts. It is also very important to note that it wasn't socially acceptable for women during that time to drink alcohol. You will see more about the division between the sexes in this regard as we explore further.
Unfortunately, the people of the time largely reacted with apathy. While the temperance movement would make headlines with speeches, marches, and even the occassional ax-wielding members taking down a saloon (they had a large problem with the saloon system,) no one would yet try to defend their favorite beverage, and they even ceeded the moral high ground (mostly regarding alcoholism and treatment.) The time, however, was not yet right for the temperance movement to have their day.
One of the reasons I stopped here in Part I was because here we see the first beginnings of American Prohibition, beginning with the second ever ban on opium: and that is in a city, San Francisco, which had a large Chinese immigrant population. It wasn't an outright ban on the drug, it was a ban on smoking the drug (and having anything to do with anywhere opium is smoked, including simply being somewhere where opium is smoked.) Leading up to this point in history, the Chinese were the only ones who smoked opium (in a significant sense, at least according to the government - and at the least the smoking of opium would grow more popular), and the ban was aimed at them (at this point in history the lawmakers didn't hesitate to mention the "heathens.") Apparently a few white people, notably women, were spotted going in to the opium dens, and this sparked major racist fears. Other states followed this practice, and it led to a very, very notable rise in the importation of smoking opium. We will discuss this more as we get there.
The other reason I stopped here was because we are beginning to see a peaking drug problem (the peak was in 1890, and education is the reason for the decline.) Let's take a closer look.
Major developments begin to stir: 1878-1906 (Drug Use in America)
I want to say how interesting it is that although both morphine and hypodermic needles were available over-the-counter, opium was largely the drug-of-choice, and it was eaten, the most ineffective method of using it, and that's among "recreational" users. Among medicinal and pseudo-medicinal users, it was mostly morphine patent medicines (which was often an accidental addiction.) We will explore this in a moment. However, alcohol remained, beyond a doubt, the most popular drug by a long shot, and it will hold that title for the entirety of American History. Of all the substances that were available, the particularly popular were alcohol (as mentioned,) opium and morphine (also as was just mentiond, morphine was often in the form of laudanum in patent medicines,) absinthe (8 million liters imported in 1878,) and the various cocaine elixers. Marijuana and hashish was not very popular at this time among Americans - knowledge of it was largely lost - but very much so in Mexico, the East, France (hash use still is!) and was beginning to take root in Greece (where it also still is very popular.)
Injecting drug use did happen, not very often however, and these people were often known as 'morphinists' (although the term wasn't limited to injecting drug users - the term was for people who were fully 'substance dependent' on morphine - physically and psychologically addicted, among other criteria.) Once pure cocaine came around, the term 'cocainist' applied similiarly. Most drug physical addictions began after medical treatment with the drug, as people in that age simply did not often seek out drugs, and in many cases they remained physical, and not psychological (and thus full 'substance dependence') addictions. This was more common than actual drug addiction at the time, even. Another very, very common beginning for physical morphine addiction was the "patent medicine" business. This often occurred with door-to-door salesmen who would sell things such as 'Doctor Smith's Oil: Good for What Ails You,' and in many cases contained up to 50% morphine (in alcohol,) completely unlabelled as such. Once they discovered how well it worked, for obvious reasons, they could go buy more right over the counter.
Another cause of physical morphine addiction, the final I will mention, was Union soliders (not often confederates, they used alcohol,) who were (over)treated with morphine. It was even termed the "soldier's disease." More recent and/or in depth examinations of this phenomenon, however, have discovered that while the phenomenon did occur, it was pretty rare, and largely overhyped by the (drug) prohibitionists (the government.) For comparison, in Vietnam, 50% of G.I.s used heroin (not morphine!) out there but only 14% continued use when they came back - and of those 14%, many had relatively responsible "recreational" use. This is further backed up by the Surgeon General's Report which notes that 90% of G.I.'s physically addicted to heroin in Vietnam did not become re-addicted in the USA. The sheer numbers we are dealing with in regards to the civil war, however, makes small numbers much more visible.
Many of the people of the time who did develop full 'substance dependence' often successfully kept their use secret [from people other than those close to them, at least] - as it was much easier to do back then, and without prohibition, many if not most of the problems of drugs were non-existant, and almost all of these people still were able to live normal lives. There was often the case such as that of a mother who would drink 'doctor smith's oil', or her baby's opium medication, such as 'Mrs. Winslow's Soothing Syrup', after a hard day's work, but still in many of such cases full 'substance dependence' developing was rare. In many cases people would simply take the drug every day for decades, and never realize they had an addiction, even with the 'hard' opiates of the times. For a modern example, my mother took benzodiazepines (Valium), the "minor" tranquilizers, for at least 10 years - and in large quantities, and never realized she had an addiction. It was simply normal back then. She still takes them today, but no longer in a problematic way in any sense.
Actually, the most common drug addicted demographic in the year 1900 was white women - not men, not minorities [In fact, there was barely a mention of blacks using opiates.] It was likely the second-most common demographic was children, unfortunately, as the danger of opium addiction wasn't widely known as it is today, as I have pointed out, but that will very soon change. Another large reason for the use of the drug among women was that alcohol use by women was severely frowned upon at the time. The men drank at the saloon, the women ate opium/morphine at home. There was also disproportionate use among the wealthy and well-off. And while the smoking of opium was considered immoral and belonging to the "heathen" Chinese, opium eating was not. At worst, it was considered frowned upon as a "vice akin to dancing, smoking [tobacco], theater-going, gambling, or sexual promiscuity." And, quite honestly, that's really what it is - a vice. And in some cases, not even that. Hell, I was an IV using heroin addict, something far worse than an opium eater, and I have seen far worse problems than mine. I am sick and tired of being stigmatized [see my heroin diaries for further information.]
In fact, to back up my claims that the real problem with opiates is the addiction, it was commonly recognized in that time that the problems of opium and morphine weren't discovered until the addict attempted to quit. The opium addict in the 19th and early 20th centuries did not have his life destroyed. He (or she) wasn't fired. He/She wasn't left by his/her husband/wife. He didn't have his children taken away from him. He continued to live as a full member of the community. There was no addict subculture, cut off from respectable society without a "road back" to respectability. This is the type of thing that makes me cringe at the thought of AA/NA. See my other diaries for more on this.
However, in the time the understanding of a drug that can change the brain and cause it's users to relapse, after they were "cured," or commit crimes, lie, steal, etc. to get their drug when some circumstance arose, such as hospitalization for unrelated problems, wasn't understood, a phenomenon commonly recognized today. It was therefore considered "will-weakening" vice - for surely, it was insisted, a man or woman of strong will could stop if he tried hard enough. The folly of such a belief is well known today. Hence there was much talk of the "moral degeneration" caused by the opiates. Despite all this, there was no desire or movement for a banning of the opiates - and there never was.
Then we come to another breakthrough: cocaine (as we know it today.) Merck went from producing 3/4 pound of cocaine in 1883 to 158,352 pounds in 1886. Parke & Davis also being manufacturing cocaine. Freud is a good example of a cocaine user, and published the book On Coca in 1884, in which he recommends the use of cocaine to treat morphine addiction. This was done quite often in the next decade or two, and usually wound up giving people poly-drug addictions - cocaine was a terrible idea for substitution. It was also touted as a fairly harmless substitute for alcohol. Both were examples of how the medical and social community continues to look for some harmless panacea. It also clearly shows how pure cocaine was grossly underestimated and misunderstood at this point in time. Many other drugs will follow in it's path.
"Woe to you my Princess, when I come,
I will kiss you quite red and
feed you till you are plump.
And if you are forward,
you shall see who is the stronger,
a gentle little girl who doesn't eat enough
or a big wild man who has cocaine in his body."
-- Sigmund Freud, On Coca (to his wife Martha)
In 1886, Coca-Cola first debuts, being one of those "cocaine elixers." Yep, Coca-Cola was originally formulated with cocaine - coca leaf extract. It was largely in response to the temperance movement - a drink with the benefits of coca but without the alcohol. It also contained caffeine, and in greater quantities than it did today. In 1903 they removed the cocaine from their soft drink - for reasons I will explain in a moment, but it still contains coca leaf extract to this day (that has been "de-cocainized.") I often wonder what happens to all that cocaine they remove. They still touted the medicinal effects of the de-cocanized elixer, but refuse to comment on any matter regarding the coca in coca-cola.
Cocaine snorting would become fairly popular over the late 1890s and early 1900s - nothing in comparison to today, however. Elixers were still prefered by most. Freud eventually (by 1900) would drop cocaine, both in his private and professional lives, mostly because of what he saw it did to a few of his friends (namely Fleischl.) He was able to control his use, but he saw others could not (further reading). He died of cancer, (likely) from his cigar habit he kept until his death.
By 1890, the addicting and psychosis-producing nature of cocaine was well understood in medical circles, yet for another twenty years it does not appear to have occurred to many people to demand a law against the drug. However, in the 1890s the public would turn against cocaine, out of racism - this time towards the blacks. It seems many plantation owners would give cocaine to their black laborers (or so the government and sensationalists claimed), and this sparked major fears. Newspapers used terms like "Negro cocaine fiends" and "cocainized niggers" to drive up sales, causing a panic of rape. I don't believe there is but one instance of a cocaine-induced rape, as the "nigger" who committed the act would surely be killed quite brutally. The racist fears were so outrageous, that something unbelievable happened: many police forces changed from .32 to .38 caliber pistol because the smaller was supposedly unable to kill "cocanized niggers." This, supposedly, is largely what lead to the removal of cocaine from coca-cola.
Finally, there was heroin. Heroin was finally marketed by Bayer in 1897, (after being re-discovered by Bayer chemist Felix Hoffman,) realizing it's huge marketing potential. The very next year it was exported to 23 different countries. With morphine having such giant uses, heroin would have much of the same. Heroin, on the other hand, is three times more potent than morphine, and is generally "stronger."
It is interesting to note the way heroin works. It is a pro-drug; heroin, diacetylmorphine (morphine 'acetylated'), is completely 100% ineffective; It does nothing. However, it crosses the blood brain barrier much better (and thus more rapidly) than morphine - and then is converted into morphine in your brain. So, that's really all that makes heroin different than morphine - it rushes the brain, working faster and thus producing what is seemingly a much stronger effect. It also has less side effects than morphine, or more that the side-effects aren't as noticable, and it produces less of an allergic (histamine) reaction (IV Morphine has a pretty nasty allergic backlash.)
So we've covered two things Bayer thought would make heroin an excellent and big-time product (other than it's relation to morphine): it's more potent (3x), and it has less side-effects. However, they also believed something that was completely 100% false: it wasn't addictive. Another panacea! It's finally been found!
Creating a brand name was easy. Heroin was tested on numerous employees at Bayer, as well as on Felix Hoffman himself, and several noted that it made them feel 'heroic.' Thus we have heroin.
It is very interesting to note that 2 weeks before his re-discovery of heroin, by using the exact same process he used on morphine to create heroin, he discovered asprin (the first, this time.) It was created by acetylating salicylic acid, the active ingredient in Willow Bark - a drug that was noted by Hippocrates way back in Ancient Greece. It was not marketed until 1898, for fear of competition with it's sure-fire hit, heroin. It was the very first completely synthetic drug (not coming from nature, a plant, heroin came from morphine which came from poppies, and was thus 'semi-synthetic.') This sparked the beginnings of the pharmeceutical industry as we know it. Prior to this, it was the 'patent drug industry', where they would simply mix different amounts of morphine/opium or cocaine and usually alcohol and slap a snazzy trade name on it (more than 500,000 different opium containing medicines were patented by 1905!)
Heroin was even marketed as a cure for morphine addiction. Rather, it was a substitute for morphine addiction, one with very little difference. This whole assumption, that heroin was non-addictive, could possibly be that it has very little effect orally (about 10%), even less than morphine (which is only 30% effective orally.) One of the main uses of heroin was as a cough medicine, something that was desperately needed yet sorely lacking at the time (heroin was quite a decent cough medicine, but was quite obviously overkill.)
Jumping ahead a little bit, by around 1905 (not immediately, one might note,) doctors would start noticing their patients were consuming large amounts of heroin-containing cough remedies, and the AMA would endorse heroin but would acknowledge it was habit-forming. In 1911 Bayer would finally admit that heroin was as addictive as morphine. In East Coast cities a substantial population of recreational users was reported, many former users of morphine. The term "junkie" would originate, due to some of the poor supporting their habits by collecting and selling scrap metal (notice the contrast with the thefts of today.) In 1913, Bayer would cease production of heroin....(forever?)
It's very important to say we don't know, and likely ever will, the exact state - or even sometimes rough outlines - of drug use in America. The American Government launched a major propaganda campaign which just started to take root at about this time, and continues on today. True statistical evidence of drugs and their real use will likely never exist in any form that is legitimate - due to prohibition today, and propaganda campaigns of the past.
"It is in the nature of a military weapon
to turn against its wielder"
-- Lao Tzu, Tao Teh Ching
1906 to 1919 - Federal Regulations Begin.
There was much movement at the state level during the years leading up to the eventual first narcotics law in 1914, and it's very important to take into account. It came in two major forms. The first was the banning of smoking opium. The second was the beginnings of alcohol prohibition - state prohibition laws. There was also plenty going on at the international level, which I will speak about shortly.
State and Federal Regulations (and bans) prior to 1906.
The first drug law, as was mentioned, was the 1887 [possibly 1885, conflicting sourced reports] San Fransisco ban on Opium Smoking. This first law, like every other narcotics law, was a failure - despite the thoroughness and promptness of the punishment. When opium dens became illegal, "The vice was indulged in much less openly, but none the less extensively, for although the larger smoking-houses were closed, the small dens in Chinatown were well patronized, and the vice grew surely and steadily." The new law "seemed to add zest to their enjoyment." Smoking opium - something that wasn't really done all that often - took off.
Virginia City, Nevada passed a similar ordinace the following year. This also failed, and the state passed a more stringent act a year or two later. Other states and cities would adopt statutes soon after.
Needless to say, these laws failed as well, and congress decided to lend a hand. Smoking opium must be specially prepared, and weak opium containing less than the usual amount of morphine is used in its preparation. In 1887 congress prohibited the importation of the kind of weak opium used for preparing smoking opium altogether, and prohibited the importation of any opium by Chinese (and a law three years later limited the manufacture of smoking opium to American citizens.) You can clearly see the racist origins and intents, and can imagine the outcome.
The results of the laws were outlined in a letter in 1888 from the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States to the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The effect had been "to stimulate smuggling, extensively practiced by systematic organizations [presumably the Chinese "tongs" or mutual benefit societies on the Pacific coast.] Recently completed facilities for transcontinental transportation have enabled the opium smugglers to extend their illicit traffic to our Northern border. Although all possible efforts have been made by this Department to suppress the traffic, it is found practically impossible to do so."
It was almost like the folly of the Opium Wars repeating itself, only this time we had organized crime to supply us instead of an imperial power. Despite this, the law was not changed. In fact, the tariff on smoking opium was further increased, from $10 to $12 per pound in 1890. Then, in 1897, they finally realized the folly of the tariff. It was reduced to $6 a pound, "experience having at last taught that it could not bear a higher rate without begetting an extensive surreptitious manufacture or serious smuggling operations." Following the reduction in the tariff, "the amount that passed through the customs houses . . . progressively increased." Unfortunately the lesson wouldn't last too long.
Throughout this period, even though the federal government temporarily stepped out for the most part, states and cities continued to pass laws against opium smoking. By 1914, the year the federal government would pass it's first drug prohibition laws, there were twenty-seven such laws in effect - yet the amount of smoking opium imported into the United States continued to rise steadily. During more than thirty years of city, state, and federal efforts to suppress opium smoking, the amount imported increased over threefold - and that's without taking account of smuggled opium. By 1910, approximately 59,000 opium smokers could be supplied with the amount legally imported. These laws also did harm by causing people to take legal morphine orally rather than smoke opium - and the former is far worse than the latter, especially in this case. It is interesting to note that many of these laws outlawed the pipe used to smoke opium, and those laws were used as the precedent for the laws against posessing syringes without a prescription.
I mentioned the racist demonization of cocaine. In 1903 the American Journal of Pharmacy stressed that most cocaine abusers were "bohemians, gamblers, high - and low- class prostitutes, night porters, bell boys, burglars, racketeers, pimps, and casual laborers."
Cocaine was the second black market we will see. While the over-the-counter products contained cocaine, they only contained under 10% cocaine. Also, a prohibitive tax was imposed by the federal government along with many states. Many users would eventually want and demand pure cocaine at a cheaper price, and the black market began.
Finally, by this point [1905], three states had started the alcohol prohibition movement, outlawing alcohol - North Dakota, Kansas, and Maine. By 1912 it was nine, and by 1916 it was 26 states. Intolerance was growing.
It's also important to note one major crime benchmark we have from the time - the murder rate. The murder rate went from a steady 1 (out of 100,000,) up to a 5 (a 500% increase,) at about this time. The reasons? Likely the state bans on opium smoking and alcohol. It will continue to grow until prohibition is repealed in 1933, peaking at 10, and will fairly rapidly fall back to 5 - not back to what it was (1) before the states and federal government started to make (certain) drugs illegal.
1906: The Pure Food and Drug Act.
The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 is one of the best things that the federal government ever did in this regard - and something actually seemingly within their authority unlike future measures. It required proper labelling of all drugs containing opium, coca, cannabis, and a few other drugs, along with any and all their derivatives (cocaine, morphine, heroin, etc.) It also required the drugs be marked as 'habit forming' on the bottle. Finally, any misbranded or adultered products were outlawed, and violators faced misdemeanor charges.
The patent medicine industry was dealt it's final blow.
This law, combined with the massive wave of public awareness, did more to combat drug abuse and addiction than anything we've done since. The problem of 'accidental addiction' was virtually eliminated. It is likely that by 1914, the year that opium, cocaine, and derivatives were made effectively illegal, that opium use and addiction was the lowest it's been since - and at it's safest. We were also entering, if we hadn't already, a period of intolerance - similar to the one we are in today.
This is the law that paved the way for the FDA - but we have a long way to go before that.
The Phillipines and the UN Conference and Conventions on the Opium Problem.
This is an important backdrop for the drug prohibition laws that were soon to be passed.
Responsibility for the Philippines in 1898 after the Spanish-American War added an international dimension to all of this, as did America's growing power as a nation. The Opium Wars were not really over (even though the fighting was), and the British continued to bring opium from India into China, which the Chinese regarded as third-rate competition against their own opium being forced on them. The Chinese, as well as much of the East - including the Philippines - had a huge opium problem.
Let's talk about the Philippines. Civil Governor William Howard Taft proposed reinstating an opium monopoly in the Philippines - which the Spanish did previously in their colonization of the Phillippines - legal opium from the government - and using the profits to pay for a massive public education campaign. Teddy Roosevelt vetoed the plan. In 1905 Congress mandated an absolute prohibition for opium for any non-medicinal use. They were largely persuaded by the Reverend Charles Brent, an Episcopalian Bishop. This, right here, was the beginning of drug prohibition as we know it.
To work an efficient anti-drug policy, a committee from the Islands visited various territories in the area to see how others dealt with the opium problem. The benefit of controlling narcotics internationally became blatantly apparent. In 1906 China had instituted yet another campaign against opium, especially smoking opium, this time stating that after a six-month "break-off" period, any backslider will be shot. At roughly the same time, anger at the bad treatment of Chinese Nationals in the US turned into a voluntary boycott of American goods by the Chinese. To appease the Chinese, and to deal with the uncontrollable smuggling within the Philippine Archipelago, the U.S. convened the Inernational Opium Comission of 1909, of 13 nations, in Shanghai. This was the beginning of the US global anti-narcotics campaign.
Resulutions noting problems with opiates were adopted, but they did not constitute a treaty. What the US needed diplomatically was a conference not a comission. And the US began to persue one with determination. In 1909, the US would forget it's lessons and follow it's stated goals at the conference and outlaw the importation of smoking opium outright. The idea was that internation control would work where national control could not. Obviously, this idea was flawed - but it eventually created an American world police.
After intense diplomatic activity, a comission was convened in the Hague, the Hague Comission of 1912. 12 Nations were in attendance, and signed a treaty. The convention required each country, whether they were present or not, to enact domestic legislation controlling narcotics trade. The stated goal was a world in which narcotics were for medicinal use only, by restriction. Two other conventions followed, in 1913 and 1914, and by 1914 the world was exploding with war, and the US was able to obtain 44 signatures.
Despite the fact that there was little public opinion in favor of restricting drug use at home, the stage was set. Dr. Hamilton Wright headed the State Department's Efforts, and sought legislation "controlling" the use of opiates, for international posturing more than any other reason. Dr. Wright was famous for 'proving' that beri-beri was a communicable disease. Beri-beri is a vitamin deficiency.
As for the Chinese, the effects were quite apparent. Poppy fields were destroyed, dens were closed, and smoking was repressed. Since smoking opium was punishable by death, with enforcement in the realm of barbaric, and the medicinal forms of morphine and heroin were eventually more available and poorly regulated, the Chinese in large numbers would turn to harder drugs from their less problematic opium smoking (in fact, since the Chinese smoked opium as opposed to tobacco, their lifespan was much longer.) The opiate problem in China would eventually subside, however, as the problem there was greatly exadurated by powerful imperialistic and capitalistic pushers (including many US fortunes) that were no longer part of the equation.
1914: The Harrison Narcotics Act. ([Partial] Drug Prohibition Begins)
With the efforts of Dr. Wright, as an obligation to the treaty we engineered, the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914 was eventually crafted. The chief proponent of the measure was Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan, a man of deep prohibitionist and missionary convictions and sympathies.
The debates lasted several days. Even the supporters of the bill said little in about the evils of narcotics addiction. They talked more about the need to implement The Hague Convention of 1912 - which was a product of our crafting. Even Senator Mann, of Mann Act fame, spokesman for the bill in the Senate, talked about international obligations rather than domestic morality or anything similar.
On its face, the Harrison Act did not appear to be a prohibition law at all, nevermind the granddaddy of drug prohibition. Its actual title was "An Act to provide for the registration of, with collectors of internal revenue, and to impose a special tax upon all persons who produce, import, manufacture, compound, deal in, dispense, sell, distribute, or give away opium or coca leaves, their salts, derivatives, or preparations, and for other purposes."
You see, the federal government doesn't have the power to regulate what we put in our bodies. It still doesn't. It does, however, have the power to regulate interstate commerce. And that's what this act masqueraded as - a tax act. Even those who voted for the bill did not expect what it's outcome would be. In fact, this bill was the framework of prohibitive criminal legislation for the next 50 years (known as a "general criminal law".) Here's how it works:
#1 - Impose a tax on doctors who prescribe opiates or cocaine and derivatives. By paying the tax, the doctor has to obide by the regulations set out in the bill.
#2 - Impose a tax on non-medicinal or other use. Make this tax too high to be realistic. The drug is effectively banned.
And that's what happened. Opiates and cocaine were effectively banned for non-medicinal use. But not any other drugs
There are some important facts to take note of:
- The Democrats took congress for the first time in decades, and this was a Democratic Bill (I hang my head in shame)
- Twenty-Seven states had banned smoking opium, and every single state had some sort of regulations regarding opiates. There was the thought that the states needed enforcement assistance.
- Over-the-counter exemptions were made - "preparations and remedies which do not contain more than two grains of opium, or more than one-fourth of a grain of morphine, or more than one-eighth of a grain of heroin, in one avoirdupois ounce" were exempted.
- Enforcement was placed in the Narcotics Division of the Treasury Department. It was a tax law, after all. And that's what you were guilty of: tax evasion.
- This law was not meant to stifle medical practice in any way.
- It is unlikely that a single legislator realized what would come of this law (I raise my head a little.)
The right of a physician to prescribe was spelled out in what was apparently unambiguous terms: "Nothing contained in this section shall apply ... to the dispensing or distribution of any of the aforesaid drugs to a patient by a physician, dentist, or veterinary surgeon registered under this Act in the course of his professional practice only."
That "in the course of his professional practice only" caveat would be the kicker.
You see, there were now hundreds of thousands of opiate addicts left stranded. Many if not most doctors of the time thought it to be inhumane to leave an addict to the black market, or to straight withdrawals. In fact, narcotics-users were "sufferers" or "patients" in those days; they could and did get relief from any reputable medical practitioner, and there is no suggestion that Congress intended to change this beyond criminalizing the "pushers" outside the medical profession. So opiates were prescribed to opiate addicts for no other reason than because they were addicts, and they continued to be. But not for long.
The clause "in his professional practice only" was used to establish essentially total prohibition. Because addiction is not a disease (which is now recognized as,) the arguement went, the addict is not a patient. He was now a "dope fiend." And because the addict is not a patient, the doctor wasn't prescribing to him in his 'professional practice.'
This interpretation of the clause was initially rejected by the Supreme Court in 1916, even though it was argued that it was required by the Hague and took precedence over State's Rights. The Supreme Court, however, reversed it's decision by a 5-4 margin in 1919 and the crusade began. When the Supreme court ruled that prescriptions for addictions were not legitimate medical practice, the interpretation meant simply that addiction thereby became a federal crime (and it still remains that way.)
Many physicians were arrested, and some were convicted and even imprisoned. Even those who managed to escape conviction had their careers ruined by the publicity. The medical profession quickly learned that to supply opiates to addicts was to ruin their professional lives. And that was essentially the end of that (until now, in some small step.)
The outcome is easy to guess. Within months, a black market sprouted - nice and timely with the beginnings of alcohol prohibition. An era of crime had begun.
Use of "narcotics" (the true opium derivatives, and also cocaine, mistakenly labeled a narcotic by Congress in the 1914 act) continued at relatively the same level as prior to the Act's passage - or even grew according to some estimates. Narcotics use was lowered into the underworld, addicts were forced to migrate to the urban centers of illicit supply. It also forced formerly decent and responsible citizens who had acquired an unfortunate habit to become aggressive and violent criminals. It forced addicts to conform to the image of stigma unwittingly and unwillingly - as they robbed or cheated or prostituted themselves to support the illicit price, they became debauched, corrupt, and depraved. In 1923, as many as 75 percent of the women in federal penitentiaries were Harrison Act prisoners.
Opium use virtually disappeared and morphine and (more slowly) intravenous heroin use skyrocketted - virtually overnight.
In 1918, only three years later, a study by a Congressional committee (which members included Dr. A. G. Du Mez, Secretary of the United States Public Health Service) released these findings:
- Opium and other narcotic drugs [including cocaine] ... were being used by about a million people. [likely an overstatement]
- The "underground" traffic in narcotic drugs was about equal to the legitimate medical traffic.
- The "dope peddlers" appeared to have established a national organization, smuggling the drugs in through seaports or across the Canadian or Mexican borders ...
- The wrongful use of narcotic drugs had increased since passage of the Harrison Act. Twenty cities, including New York and San Francisco, had reported such increases.
These findings were frightening to Congress. The era of fear and stigma had begun. Reports of opiate addiction rose to as high as one million (although those reports were likely an overstatement.) To stem this apparently rising tide, the 1918 committee, like countless foolish committees since, called for sterner law enforcement. It also recommended more state laws modelled after the Harrison Act.
Congress later responded with measures to strengthen the Harrison Act. In 1924, heroin was outlawed completely, even for medical use. The idea was that because of the deteriorating health, behavior, and status of addicts, and the conversion of morphine and opium addicts to heroin, that heroin must be the problem; heroin must be much worse than morphine. This was contrary to several medical findings (and the actual truth.)
The 1924 ban on heroin did not deter the conversion of morphine addicts to heroin as was planned. Quite the contrary, heroin almost completely ousted morphine from the black market after the law was passed, as it is today.
I will end this with some findings from journals of the time.
On May 15, 1915, just six weeks after the effective date of the Harrison Act, an editorial in the New York Medical Journal declared:
As was expected ... the immediate effects of the Harrison antinarcotic law were seen in the flocking of drug habitues to hospitals and sanatoriums. Sporadic crimes of violence were reported too, due usual1y to desperate efforts by addicts to obtain drugs, but occasionally to a delirious state induced by sudden withdrawal....
The really serious results of this legislation, however, will only appear gradually and will not always be recognized as such. These will be the failures of promising careers, the disrupting of happy families, the commission of crimes which will never be traced to their real cause, and the influx into hospitals to the mentally disordered of many who would otherwise live socially competent lives.
Six months later an editorial in American Medicine reported:
Narcotic drug addiction is one of the gravest and most important questions confronting the medical profession today. Instead of improving conditions the laws recently passed have made the problem more complex. Honest medical men have found such handicaps and dangers to themselves and their reputations in these laws . . . that they have simply decided to have as little to do as possible with drug addicts or their needs. . . . The druggists are in the same position and for similar reasons many of them have discontinued entirely the sale of narcotic drugs. [The addict] is denied the medical care he urgently needs, open, above-board sources from which he formerly obtained his drug supply are closed to him, and he is driven to the underworld where he can get his drug, but of course, surreptitiously and in violation of the law....
Abuses in the sale of narcotic drugs are increasing. . . . A particular sinister sequence . . . is the character of the places to which [addicts] are forced to go to get their drugs and the type of people with whom they are obliged to mix. The most depraved criminals are often the dispensers of these habit-forming drugs. The moral dangers, as well as the effect on the self-respect of the addict, call for no comment. One has only to think of the stress under which the addict lives, and to recall his lack of funds, to realize the extent to which these . . . afflicted individuals are under the control of the worst elements of society. In respect to female habitues the conditions are worse, if possible. Houses of ill fame are usually their sources of supply, and one has only to think of what repeated visitations to such places mean to countless good women and girls unblemished in most instances except for an unfortunate addiction to some narcotic drug-to appreciate the terrible menace
An editorial in the Illinois Medical Journal for June 1926, after eleven years of federal law enforcement, concluded:
The Harrison Narcotic law should never have been placed upon the Statute books of the United States. It is to be granted that the well-meaning blunderers who put it there had in mind only the idea of making it impossible for addicts to secure their supply of "dope" and to prevent unprincipled people from making fortunes, and fattening upon the infirmities of their fellow men.
As is the case with most prohibitive laws, however, this one fell far short of the mark. So far, in fact, that instead of stopping the traffic, those who deal in dope now make double their money from the poor unfortunates upon whom they prey. . . .
The doctor who needs narcotics used in reason to cure and allay human misery finds himself in a pit of trouble. The lawbreaker is in clover. . . . It is costing the United States more to support bootleggers of both narcotics and alcoholics than there is good coming from the farcical laws now on the statute books.
As to the Harrison Narcotic law, it is as with prohibition [of alcohol] legislation. People are beginning to ask, "Who did that, anyway?"
To be continued....