Florian Schuebeler
Ideas and Practice in American Politics
Semester Two 2001-2002

Case Study: Harrison Narcotic Act (1914)

"The treatment of addicts in the United States today is on no higher plane than the persecution of witches of other ages, and like the latter it is to be hoped that it will soon become merely another dark chapter of history."
(Professor Alfred R. Lindesmith, Indiana University sociologist, 1940)¹

The Drug Problem of the United States is increasing and hope for change is low. In the US 400,000 people are dying each year because of the consequences of tobacco consumption, 100,000 a year through the consumption of alcohol. Thus the 10.000 deaths per year due to other drug misuse are not nearly comparable.

The social sector is effected the most by the consequences of drug² prohibition. The number of addicts is increasing thus are drug related crimes and the numbers of prisoners because of drug offences. All these factors are not considered by the "war on drugs" and "no tolerance" policy promoted by the US and exported to many other countries in the world. These results are often fatal for the affected persons and their families. Since the beginning several laws against drugs have been implemented, enforcing the policy of `war′. Obviously it′s the drug users, the addicts affected most by these laws. In the last attack against drug users Regan′s "three strikes and you′re out" policy, meant that nearly 1 million people are arrested annually. This number is higher than arrests related to murder, rape and robbery. Interesting in this context is the fact that 50% of all prisoners of drug crimes were prosticuted for non-violent offences. This `war on drugs′ has been the policy for nearly 100 years. Although the intentions of the Harrison Narcotic Act might have been different to the outcome. However, the developments of laws from there until today are stringent and have the same traditional way of thinking.

The start of this war dates back to the late 19^th century and is strongly related to racism. The highly religious and very moralistic white middle and upper class promoted an honest society with a healthy lifestyle. Drugs, alcohol, prostitution and gambling were high on the political agenda and sooner or later prohibited.
In 1914 the Harrison Narcotic Act finally started the dangerous policy of drug prohibition. Originally the law was intended to be for drug control and special licensing including taxes. Already criticised by doctors from the beginning it turned out in fact to be a law for the prohibition of drugs such as cocaine and opium. This prohibition was to be extended to several other drugs and higher penalties imposed during the following decades. Contraire to this general development is the route alcohol prohibition took. Implemented in the 1920s it lasted only until the next decade before alcohol was re-legalized as a response to the unwanted increase of crime and violence. Lessons learned from the period of alcohol prohibition were not transferred to other drugs and their prohibition. Instead the prohibition policy was pushed further and the Marijuana Stamp Act of 1937 was another step in this direction. Similar to the prohibition of opium and cocaine, this prohibition was related to racism. After the black and Chinese minorities had been partially discriminated against by previous legislation, this time the Hispanic population was next in line. As drugs developed more and more to be a big business³ and new forms were developed, laws were renewed and extended. One of the most recent law enforcements deals with crack, a form of cocaine but much cheaper and highly addictive, implemented extra tough penalties on such drug offences. As crack is cheap compared to other hard drugs, offences are mostly related to the black population. Again there is a connection between racism and drug prohibition - as it was in the origins.
In the following case study I will show the extent of racism involved in drug discussions of earlier times, the problems of the act that were disregarded by the policy makers, and the fact that policy for the next 90 years would be influenced by the legacy of the Harrison Act. The Harrison Narcotic Act of 1914 was the result of a discussion in the late 19^th century. People were mostly very religious so many communities ordered their members to abstain from drugs (incl. alcohol), commercial sex, and gambling. Alongside the belief that an honest life was only possible without these `bad things′ racism played a big role in the prohibition of drugs.
Opium was originally related to the Chinese population, bringing it over from China as they immigrated to the States. Anti drug propaganda portrayed them as `yellow devils′ who enslaved white women by giving opium to them. A broad population of whites believed that opium was forcing sexual contact between the races and that the purity of the white race was in danger. In 1881 the "San Jose Mercury demanded that the practise of opium-smoking has to be `rooted out′ before it could `decimate our youth, emasculate the coming generation, if not completely destroy the whole population of our coast′."⁴
Similar is the case of cocaine prohibition related to blacks. In 1910 the International Opium Commission suggested that cocaine would turn blacks into supernatural beings with immense strength. In 1914 the New York Times reported under the title: "Negro Cocaine `Fiends′ Are a new Southern Menace" and that police swapped from .32 to .38 calibre, fearing that blacks could withstand the smaller bullets.⁵
Aside from the racist issue there are two other points who′s importance shouldn′t be underestimated because of their relevance throughout the process of prohibition - (1.) the language and (2.) the role of the pharmaceutics industry.
(1.) Religious moralists and white racists from the beginning on used the language hysterically in a discussion that was limiting by not accepting or even considering scientific evidence. So stated Richmond Pearson Hobson, initiator of the Alcohol Prohibition, that in the early 20^th century the numbers of heroin addicts would be already over 1,000,000, in fact it was just over 100,000 and he warned:

"In using any brand of face powder regularly, it is a wise precaution to have a sample analysed for heroin."⁶

(2.)The pharmaceutical industry has been benefiting since the launch of the Harrison Act and consequently has been lobbing the war on drugs since. In this context appears the connection between the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN)⁷ in the form of Harry J. Anslinger, who was later nearly dismissed because of his racist statements, and the industry. Permission to use drugs through very exclusive licences increased the benefits from pharmaceutical products rapidly and in return the industry supported the prohibition with its big and powerful lobby.

That the Harrison Narcotic Act appeared to cause all these problems we are facing today is hard to understand, considering the fact that original the function was to regulate the market of opium, morphine, and heroin. The original fist Chapter reads:

"Chap 1. - An Act To provide for the registration of, with collectors of internal revenue, and to impose a special tax on 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.
[...] It shall be unlawful for any person required to register under the terms of this Act to produce, import, manufacture, compound, deal in, dispense, sell, distribute, any of the aforesaid drugs without having registered and paid the special tax provided for in this section."⁸

Even if the intention was different and some members of Congress perhaps did not even realise that they had just launched the beginning of drug prohibition and the following war against drugs. Thus is once more an example of the misleading form of the discussion. Physicians warned already before the law passed Congress of the possible consequences and its dangers. By implementing this law the responsibility to deal with the drug problem was taken from doctors and handed over to the FBN and police. How problematic this development would be was proved very quickly. Once drug addiction was no longer seen as a disease, people argued that addicts couldn′t be patients and so couldn′t be treated as patients by physicians. The result was that they couldn′t get drugs on prescription anymore. Many physicians were arrested under this interpretation and some were even imprisoned. The New York Medical Journal declared in 1915:

"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."⁹

In 1914 the misuse of drugs had been of equal amount to that of medical use. During the next few years the misuse of drugs increased rapidly. First the increase was a result of migration into the cities by the county population to get access to the black markets. However, in 1924 new law enforcement banned heroin importation and it was prohibited even for medical research. Again the scientists were ignored and the conservative moralistic forces continued with the rule of prohibition without considering scientific or social studies that warned of consequences of this often brutal policy.
Arguments to keep up and push the policy even further are still the same.¹⁰ Most arguments are simply outraged by scientists and doctors. Nevertheless, a few arguments are used so often that they have to be mentioned.
One of the most original arguments is connected to the question of protection and harm. In the late 19^th century the belief was that all drugs are harmful and people must be protected by the state. Alongside the question of self-determination there appears the point of protection and the question if the situation is not more dangerous now? Drugs are available everywhere around the world and are easy to get hold of, but because they are illegal crime and violence appears in relation to drugs. People who are unlucky to be at the wrong place at the wrong time can easily get caught in crossfire. This is only one example that it is arguable if this argument really strikes.
Related to this argument is the idea of a drug free America. There is simply one answer to this - unrealistic! And it is getting more and more unrealistic every day. Even the police argue that there is "no evidence that the increased police effort was having much of an impact on the availability of drugs."¹¹

On the other hand arguments for a change in drug policy are very strong and this not least because the current drug policy has failed its target for the last 90 years and is still creating serious social problems. A physician described it as follows:

"Laws have been suggested and passed, [...]. So far law has failed in its purpose. [...]. A law which fails in its ultimate purpose is ineffective [...] the present law has never aided in the cure of a single addict. [...] So what good effect has this present law? As it stands it is good for revenue only. "¹²

The outcome of the prohibition policy is clear and alarming. There is increasing drug use, as studies from the Netherlands suggest this is a result of the prohibition.¹³ There are an increasing number of drug addicts and as a consequence there is an increase in drug related deaths. As it becomes more and more obvious, this is a problem that can′t be solved by the police - this is a medical problem and has to be solved by doctors. A police officer stated in the 1960s:

"The use of illegal drugs is almost completely a medical problem, which the police are unable to handle. But until the public comes to understand this fact, we′ll continue to go through the motions."¹⁴

Besides these issues directly related to drug use there are several other problems such as crime and overcrowded prisons. These are all consequences of the prohibition along with the costs there are social and economic damages for the people, their families and for society.¹⁵ The US is spending $15 billion per year.

The main problem is that even the drugs problem has not been solved with the aggressive prohibition policy and there is still no change in the ideology and the policy. More and more scientists are demanding a change in the drug policy but it is unlikely to happen.
This fact is very much related to US conservativism, especially in its political elites and also the high relevance of certain moral values. Furthermore it is an example for the lack of social politics by the policy makers. After all these years of emotional discussion and disinformation it is very unlikely that the drug problem will climb up the political agenda in the same way it did nearly 100 years before, when there was a dramatic change in policy. Instead the `war on drugs′ is still promoted even though the war was lost a long time ago and the idea is loosing more and more of its credibility. The US drug and foreign policy are on the one hand very similar in strategy, but on the other hand foreign policy is undermining drug policy, considering for example the case of Panama.
The Alternatives are there and are developing more and more. The US has to integrate these ideas into its policy and realize that they can learn from the Europeans - it is worth at least a try.

2265 words

Bibliography

· Brecher, Edward M. (1972). The Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs. Chapter 8. The Harrison Narcotic Act (1914). Consumer Reports Magazine.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/
cu/cu8.html

· Brecher, Edward M. (1972). The Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs. Chapter 9. "Tightening up" the Harrison Act. Consumer Reports Magazine.

http://www.drugtext.org/reports/cu/CU9.html

· Bullington, Bruce. (1998): "America′s Drug War: Fact or Fiction?" In Coomber, Ross (Ed.) (1998). The Control of Drugs and Drug Users. Reason or Reaction? Amsterdam.

· Densten, J. C. "Drug Addiction and the Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act." New York Medical Journal, Vol.105: p.747- 48. http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ae9c1eb317d.htm

· Harding, Wayne M. (1998): "Informal Social Controls and the Liberalization of Drug Laws and Policies." In Coomber, Ross (Ed.) 1998). The Control of Drugs and Drug Users. Reason or Reaction? Amsterdam.

· Harrison Narcotics Tax Act, 1914.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/e1910/
harrisonact.htm

· Hartnoll, Richard. (1998): "International Trends in Drug Policy." In Coomber, Ross (Ed.) (1998). The Control of Drugs and Drug Users. Reason or Reaction? Amsterdam.

· MacGregor, Susanne. (1999): "Medicine, Custom or Moral Fibre: Policy Responses to Drug Misuse." In South, Nigel (Ed.) (1999). Drugs. Cultures, Controls and Everyday Life. London.

· Murji, Karim. (1999): "White Lines: Culture, `Race′ and Drugs." In South, Nigel (Ed.) (1999). Drugs. Cultures, Controls and Everyday Life. London.

· Nadelmann, Ethan A. (1995): " Switzerland′s Heroin Experiment."
http://www.lindesmith.org/library/tlcnr.html

· Robson, Philip. (1999). Forbidden Drugs (2^nd Ed.). Oxford.

· South, Nigel. (1999): "Debating Drugs and Everyday Life: Normalisation, Prohibition and′Otherness′." In South, Nigel (Ed.) (1999). Drugs. Cultures, Controls and Everyday Life. London.

· Woodiwiss, Geoffrey. (1998): "Reform, Racism and Rackets: Alcohol and Drug Prohibition in the United States." In Coomber, Ross (Ed.) (1998). The Control of Drugs and Drug Users. Reason or Reaction? Amsterdam.

1 Brecher, Edward M. (1972). The Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs. Chapter 8. The Harrison Narcotic Act (1914). Consumer Reports Magazine.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/
studies/cu/cu8.html

2 When I′m using the term `drugs′ this includes only illegal drugs under the US law

3 it did so especially because drugs are illegal

4 Woodiwiss, Geoffrey. (1998): "Reform, Racism and Rackets: Alcohol and Drug Prohibition in the United States." In Coomber, Ross (Ed.) (1998). The Control of Drugs and Drug Users. Reason or Reaction? Amsterdam: p.14.

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid: p.22.

7 The FBN was abolished later on. As it turned out in the early 70s the institution was highly corrupt and deeply involved in drug trafficking. In 1973 the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) replaced the FBN and most of its employees.

8 Harrison Narcotic Tax Act, 1914.

9 Brecher, Edward M. (1972). The Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs. Chapter 8. The Harrison Narcotic Act (1914). Consumer Reports Magazine.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/
cu/cu8.html

10 Woodiwiss, Geoffrey. (1998): "Reform, Racism and Rackets: Alcohol and Drug Prohibition in the United States." In Coomber, Ross (Ed.) (1998). The Control of Drugs and Drug Users. Reason or Reaction? Amsterdam: p.22.

11 Brecher, Edward M. (1972). The Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs. Chapter 9. "Tightening up" the Harrison Act. Consumer Reports Magazine.
http://www.drugtext.org/reports/cu/CU9.
html

12 Densten, J. C. "Drug Addiction and the Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act." New York Medical Journal, Vol.105: p.747- 48.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ae9c1eb
317d.htm

13 Since Cannabis was legalized back in the 1970s consume is decreasing, after a short period of increase during the 70s. That this study is only about Cannabis consumption makes it even more significant as 95% of all drug offences in the US are related to Marijuana.

See: Robson, Philip. (1999). Forbidden Drugs (2^nd Ed.). Oxford: p.256.

14 Brecher, Edward M. (1972). The Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs. Chapter 9. "Tightening up" the Harrison Act. Consumer Reports Magazine.

http://www.drugtext.org/reports/cu/CU9.html

15 As an experiment in Zurich shows, there is a quite high possibility to re-integrate even heroin addicts into society. People with a stable social environment are more likely to be cured.

See: Switzerland′s Heroin Experiment
http://www.lindesmith.org/library/tlcnr.html