A Hundred Years’ Failure: How did a law to regulate heroin traffic turn into the costly, futile War on Drugs?

POLITICO: … A hundred years ago this month, the U.S. government started this fight to rid us of the scourge of opiates. Today, not only have we failed to control drug demand, an entirely new breed of opiate epidemic has flourished in the face of the most draconian drug laws in the world. Aided by aggressive Big Pharma marketing and enthusiastic “pain specialists,” opiate abuse has simply taken on a new shape, moving from urban enclaves and overrunning pockets of New England and the South, from rural Vermont to the suburbs of Dallas, that have little history of widespread drug abuse. Heroin today is cheaper and purer than it was 50 years ago. That’s to say nothing of the 700 percent increase in incarceration of American citizens in the past four decades, the distribution of nearly $450 million worth of military equipment that is used by local and state law enforcement agencies (that “militarization of the police” you’ve been reading so much about lately), and the creation of a wasteful, labyrinthine bureaucracy dedicated to what has proven a perhaps impossible goal: The eradication of drugs.

During the Progressive Era, a culture war was raging over sexuality, alcohol and modern life—as seen in efforts to censure pornography and eliminate “red light” districts—and prohibition offered the best hope of legislating moral certainty. While alcohol prohibition had the largest domestic constituency, drug prohibition fit with foreign policy interests. Years of lobbying by religious groups in both the United States and Britain, who were appalled at opium smoking in China and places to which the Chinese emigrated, culminated in the 1912 Hague Convention, where a dozen countries agreed to regulate the international narcotics traffic and signatories promised to limit opiate use in their own countries.

The 1914 Harrison Act left room for interpretation, and the Bureau of Internal Revenue—the precursor to the IRS—promoted a broad construction of its meaning. Physicians, dentists and veterinary surgeons continued to dispense these drugs, and pharmaceutical companies lobbied successfully to exclude over-the-counter medicines containing small amounts of narcotics from regulation. But questions remained, particularly over one line in the law that stipulated that the tax did not apply to a physician’s “professional practice.” Could a physician prescribe an opiate to maintain a patient-addict? The law also left a broader question unanswered: Was possession of heroin itself a crime?… (more)

Share