8/3/2019 Drug Use and Anti-drug Legislation

1/2

Well Researched,Factual Information

About Drugs

VOLUME 4, NO.8 OCTOBER 197

Drug Use and Anti-Drug Legislat ionEvery society has its own constellation of drugs and medi-cines and has a well-dcf'ined, if frequently shifting, line separa-ting t hose which are acceptahle and those which arc not. AndfurthcrIllore, every society must determine ilow it will treatusers oj" unapproved drugs. Society's response to a drug lIserrests as much on social custom and historical events as on whatis known about a drug's intrinsic pharmacological effects. Thushot chocolate is acceptable as a children's drink even though itcontains caffeine, a psychoactive drug which, on the otherham!. Illakes coffee inappropriatl' for children. More signifi-cantly, these same customs and events affect the user's sub-jective reaction to the drug.The social, economic or racial characteristics of identifiedusers Illay influence how they arc treated and how society re-acts to the drug(s) they use. Dangerous drugs such as alcohol

may cOllie to be seen as harmless after years of con tinuous useor advertising, while relatively harmless substances may bethought of as, and eventually become, dangerous due to puni-tive legislation and '"authoritative" propaganda. An example ofsuch authority may be seen in the following descriptions, madein the early 1900's, when a different set of expectations pre-vailed:

The su/J('rer is trelilulous, ami loses his sel{commalld;he is suhject to fits of agitation and depression, he losescolor awl has a haggard appearance. The appet ite fallsoj]; and ~ : l ' l I l p t u m s ofgastric catarrh may be manifested.The heart also su/fers; it palpitates, or it intermits. Aswith other such agents, a rCllewed dose o f the poisongires relic./: hut at the cost o f jutllre lIlisery.

(T.C. Allbu t t and W.E. Dixon, A System o f !I1edi-cille, Vol. II, PI. I, r 91\6,1(09)(the druX) is used Iwt as all idle or vicious illdulgCllce, hut as a reasonable aid in the work of /i/('. Thepatiellt (consumed the dmg) every morning and epel}'eVClling /i)r the last /ifteen years (Jfa long, laboriolls, anddistinguished career. He {)ersisted in this habit as heing

one which gave him IlU cOllsciullS gratification or diJ'cr-sioll, but which toned alld strengthened him ji)/- his deliberatiolls and engagements,(ihid., p. 987)

The first is a description of coffee-drinking, the se

8/3/2019 Drug Use and Anti-drug Legislation

2/2

dicts, some of whom had no legal means of obtaining it.Prohibitory interpretations which further aggravated thissituation soon became apparent. The lIarrison Act was en-forced as a denial of the supply of narcotIcs to addicts. Addic-tion was no t classified as a disease. and therefore could not betreated by a physician "in the course of his professional prac-tice." Doctors who continued to supply narcotic, l'()\lld beconvicted and illlprisoned. In 1914 there were about onc mil-lion habitual narcotics uscrs in the country, many of whomhad been maintained by doctors through legal prescription.When this source suddenly dried up the void was filled by anunderground network of "dope-peddlers". Four years afterpassage of the lIarrison Act, most major cities had reported anet increase in narcotic drug use, and in crime associatcd with it.The response of Congress to this increasing drug use was toenact increasingly restrictive legislation. In 1919 an amend-ment explicitly prohibited the prescription of narcotics to ad-dicts, and strongly curtailed over-the-counter availability ofmany drug preparations containing codeine. Users were moret han ever at the mercy of black market connections, and leftunprotected against adulteration and contamination of theirdrugs, as were alcohol users under Prohibition. With the Narcotic Drug import and !;xport Ac t of 1922, Congress prohibi-ted the importation of any opium product not required formedical practice and changed the maximum penalties fromfive years imprisonment to ten.In 193() Congress created the Bureau of '\Iarcotics, recog'nizing that drug abuse was an increasingly widespread problem.Its new cOlllmissioner, Ilarry Anslinger, immediately sought tocontrol the use 01' drugs not ment ioned in the liar rison Actand which had recently entered the domain of popular usc.Marijuana was an early target:

While opium can be a hlessillg or a curse depending 0/1ils use, marijuana is onlv alld aI-ways a scourge whichundermines its victims alld degrades them mentally, morally, and physically. Medical experts agree 0/1 the complete unpredictability of the etj('ct o f marijuana ondifferellt individuals. A small dose taken by olle subjectmay bring about intense intoxication, raving fits, criminalassaults. Another subject can cOllsume large amountswithout experiencing any reaction except stupefaction. "(\ LJ Anslinger, The Trafjic in Narcotics, p. 1611,1(53)

The Manjuana Tax A cl was passed into law in Ill3 7, brillgingmarijuana under stern controls similar to those regulating theopiates and cocaine. This was an economic measure designedto control by limiting all use specifically to the practice ofmedicine. Ilowever, an intensive propaganda effort aimed atdiscrediting the medical utility of marijuana and raising ques-tions as to its safety caused the medical use of marijuana tovirtually disappear. [n the public mind, marijuana became adangerous drug, and it joined heroin and cocaine as a target ofincreasingly strict penalt ies.By the end of the 1940's official strategy in dealing withdrug use was undergoing an explicit transformation from anemphasis on economic controls \0 punitive measures. [n 195 Ithe Boggs Ac t established for the first time minimum penaltiesfor all narcotic drug offenses and removed judicial discretionfor second offenses. Whereas the Ullijimil Anti-Narcotics Ac tof 1932 had been designed to allow individual States to legis-late their own narcotics laws, passage of the Boggs Act wasfollowed by most states enacting "little Boggs Acts" whichimposed penalties often far more stringent than those stated inthe federal law. Moreover, many of these state laws definedaddiction per se as a crime.In 1956 the Narcotic Drug Control A ct further increasedpenalties for illicit drug use and for the first time made a distinction between drug possession, drug sale, and drug sale tominors. It also established mandatory minimum penalties byeliminating suspended sentences, probation, and parole. Sub-sequently, the government also attempted to restrict the manu-facture of synthetic narcotic drugs with the Narcotic Manu

facturing Ac t of 1960. [n 1962 the Supreme Court intervenedin the tide of narcotic law-making and ruled that imprison-ment merely for being an addict was cruel and unusual pun-ishment: however, the related acts of purchase and possessionremaincd punishable.Over the years, drug technology has expanded, with a pro-liferation of many types of drugs for various purposes. Manydrugs that are useful ami acceptably safe under medical super-vision have shown abuse potential within one or another Amer-ican subculture. Sedatives, stimulants and tranquilizers wereall developed for mcdical use. but are frequent ly used witllllutmedical supervision. To deal with these numerous unsanctioneduses, Congress enac ted the f)rug Ahllse Control Amendmentsin 1965, extending drug laws (0 include these psychotropicdrugs and, later, ill I()6h. hallucinogens such as LSD. mes-caline, peyote and psilocybin.Along with the elaboration of the drug laws themselves hascome a series of reorganizations of the enforcement agenciescharged with administering the law. [n 1966 the Bureau of DrugAbuse Control was established, under the aegis of the FDA, toenforce laws pertaining to these amendments. This left theBureau of Narcotics (Treasury Department) with the respoIl-sibility of enforcing the "hard" narcotics and marijuana laws.Two years later these two often-conflicting bureaus were COI11-bined into a single administrative body, the Bureau of Narcoticsand Dangerous Drugs (BNDD). answerable to the Departmentof Justice.

Lastly, in 1970, the COllzprelU'llsiI'e Drug Abuse Prel'elltio/land Control Ac t ~ l b o l i s h c d the p ~ l t c h w o r k of over 55 y e ~ t r s ofamendments to the lIarrison Act and replaced this with anexplicit categorization of drugs. seemingly the result of poli-tical c o m p r ( J m i s e ~ ; rather than scientific evaluation. By thisact. drugs were classil'ied mlo five schedules according to theirabuse potential and therapeutic value: additions and reclassi-fications are made at (he behest of the Attorney General.In 1974 another administrational rearrangement dissolvedthe BNDD along with several competing satellite groups suchas ODALE (Office of Drug Abuse Law Enforcement), LEAA(Law blforcement Administration Agellcy) and t hose parts ofthe ClIstoms Service which were concerned with the smugglingof drugs into the country. A new agency, the Drug Enforce-ment Administration (OrA) was created and given the powerto enforce the regulations set forth in the 1970 act. This re-organization of ascncies reflects and reinforces the conceptthat the "drug problem" er:colllpasses all illicit drug lise. thatall illegal substances arc inextricably linked and part of a sin-gle phenomenon. In con t rast. alcohol remains subject to econo-mic control through thl' Internal Revenue Service. In publicattitudes, alcohol b e ~ m little resemblance to any of the drugsregulated by the DI'A: it remain, in many respects a "nOll-drug" .Historically. illicit drug use has received increasing publicattention alongside steadily escalating penalties. Most illicitdrugs are still available- laws don't seem to have stemmedthe tide. Some experts feel that prohibitive measures have onlyled to the expansion of a black market which is free to raiseits prices, adulterate its drugs, and introduce new and morehazardous substances, all of which have indeed made drug uscan increasingly dangerous act.E.M. Brecher in Ucil and Illicit Dmgs has fairly evaluatedthe present situation:

77,ere is little likelihood that filrther tinkering with thelaws -- will preJl'e more successfid than the hundreds ofsuch laws already 0/1 the hooks. I,egislators who trust insllch measures are failing to face the facts. Narcotic addiction remains endemic despite the most ingenuouslaws alld vigorous law enforcement. The time has cometo end our dependence 011 repressive legislation and lawenforcement as a clIre fl)r the narcotics evil, and to explore more ratiollal alternatives.Alexander T. Shulgin, Ph.D. PharmChem Research Foundation 1975

2 -