Introduction

Current International drug policy is, and has been greatly effected by U.S. drug policy. In an effort to understand and perhaps alter these policies we must look at their historical beginnings. We do this to understand some of the motivations of the U.S. government to create these laws. Literature has shown that racism and discrimination has played a role in policy formation in the United States.

Clearly throughout U.S. history laws have been made to benefit some or discriminate against others. The case that I would like to illustrate is the formation of drug laws in the United States. These laws have in part been created to either discriminate against, or attack specific racial groups, with the purpose of using them as scapegoats for current economic, social, and political trends.

The three cases I will illustrate are the Chinese and opium, Mexicans and marijuana, and lastly Black American and cocaine. These cases take a historical view of the times and conditions which created the need for the minority group to be set upon by the bureaucratic machine.

In all these cases it is best to remember that there are many viewpoints by many different authors with regard to these drug laws, and the role of racism and discrimination has for some, only played a minor part in the formation of these laws. But other authors, have suggested that the role played is substantial in the creation of these laws. The whole purpose is to illustrate the irrational foundations of these laws in an effort to make people aware of the harmful nature of origins and continuation of these types of repressive devices.

The Chinese and Opium

By far, the most published incident regarding drugs is the Chinese opium wars of the 1700s where England sought to balance the trade deficit by introducing opium from their Indian possessions into mainland China. The interesting facet of this introduction is that the Chinese populace were not acquainted with opium use until the English Government introduced it. This is the beginnings of the historical relationship between the Chinese and opium.

Opium is simply, milk from an overripe poppy plant. It is a milky white substance which hardens into a dark brown gum (Abadinski, 1989). This substance is a narcotic analgesic meaning it has properties promoting pain relief as well as sleep. It requires one acre of poppy plants yielding 18,000 plants to make 20 pounds of opium. This plant can only grow in warm moist climates, like the southern United States and Asia/India.

The introduction of opium in the United States came from two sources, the first being the Chinese immigrant, where smoking was the preferred method of use for opium. The second was from the patent medicine industry where it was sold as a drink, "to cure whatever ails ya". The problem with patent medicines was that they took away the ill feelings but left the illness. This also sometimes created a patent medicine addict,which was later to impact on level of illicit drug trade.

During the 19th century the public did not associate the use of opiates as abnormal or criminogenic behavior. In fact, the creation and use of opium dens in the west coast area was seen as no more evil than setting up a saloon. (Abadinski, 1989)

Opium regulation in the United States was first created in response to a local phenomena. The situation that first created anti-Chinese sentiment was the San Francisco depression of 1895-1890. What had happened was that the depression was blamed on the Chinese who had remained after the railroad work ended. This economic downturn was thought to be a product of the surplus of labor and the resulting in a decrease in average wages. A result of this situation was increased activity by labor unions to participate in a smear campaign against the Chinese immigrants.(Kravanek, 1988)

The San Francisco legislation was targeted at the opium dens which were thought to create an atmosphere for the consumption of opium which led to the stimulation of the Chinese to work harder than non-smoking whites. The obvious sentiment was to take away the supposed motivation of the Chinese to work. (Latimer and Goldburg 1981). Another motivation was to just simply make the Chinese as unwelcome as possible, by attacking supposedly Chinese behavior.

The economic conditions then grew to become a costal problem which lead the states to follow San Francisco's lead in creating anti-opium legislation, in an effort to force the surplus Chinese labor force to move. An interesting note is the obviousness of the anti-Chinese sentiment that existed when prosecuting these cases. Take for example, an Oregon district court response for Habeas Corpus relief on a conviction of an opium violation. The court has said that "it may be indeed part of the legislatures intent with these laws to vex and annoy the "heathen Chinese rather than to protect people from the habit" (Bonnie and Whitebread, 1970). However, about this time due to economic and legal forces a new type of addict was created, the white opium smoker. These people were considered to be the dregs of society drawn to the drug as an escape mechanism. Usually these people were engaged in deviant behavior to begin with, so it some what naturally followed that once opium smoking was stigmatized by illegality it was attractive to this deviant population.

Still larger groups began to attack the Chinese as a fall persons for their problems. It is reputed that Samuel Gompers as part of his effort to establish the American Federation of Labor, supported and advanced anti-Chinese sentiments by depicting the "yellow devils" as undercutting wages and breaking strikes, causing organized labor to suffer in its ability to become a national force. Still further legislation was fostered by groundless stories of white women being seduced by Chinese white slavers using the drug as a control technique. (Krivanek, 1988)

In 1883, Congress in an attempt to cut the flow of opium to the Chinese in America put a tariff on opium and further required that it only be sold to Americans. This created a two fold affect, first it increased the price of opium tremendously, around 900 percent and secondly created a smuggling network designed to serve the Chinese populace. As you can see now we are well on the way to creating a criminal enterprise to serve the needs of the user. As well as perhaps creating a criminal populace who committed crime to support a habit.

As a corollary note, it was about this time that the pure food and drug act came about in an effort to control the patent medicine industry who used opium as a secret ingredient in the preparation of their potions. This was to affect the industry greatly in that they now had to list the contents of the bottles which included opium. This had happened just as public sentiment turned against opium, thus causing a reduction in sales volume. Another big issue that was to affect the patent medicine industry was the refusal by many newspapers and publications to carry their ads because of the current public opinion on opium.

In 1901, congress had gone further and enacted the Native Races Act. This act was designed as a gesture to the International missionary organizations who were trying to get a ban on opium in the Far East. Basically this act at first designed to help the Chinese stop American citizens from importing opium through the United States into Chinese lands. The wording of the act is as follows, "no one should sell alcohol or opium to aboriginal tribes and uncivilized races". Later this was expanded to cover uncivilized elements in the United States proper, including Indians, Eskimos and Chinese (Latimer and Goldburg, 1981).

At this point in time the temperance movement started becoming a factor in American life. Some may suggest that the Temperance movement was also organized against opium but this fails to be substantiated. In the area of legislation most anti-narcotics legislation appeared on ad hoc basis while the Temperance movement was a national campaign with a powerful lobby. So the Temperance movement was not a powerful factor in originating anti-opium legislation.

The death knell for opium consumption in the United States was the passage of the Harrison Narcotics Act. The passage of the act was in response the first International drug conference, which was the Hague opium convention in 1912. This conference was precipitated by the United States as a measure to reduce tension and increase trade between the U.S. and China. The Chinese government who had ill feelings toward the United States because of the Chinese exclusion act of 1888, was open to an international agreement toward the control of opium to reduce the English/Chinese trade deficit. A convention was signed and the U.S. response was the passage of the 1914 Harrison Narcotic Act which controlled opium and cocaine to name a few.

The Harrison Act provided for the control of sales, use and transfer of opium and coca products. The act also provided that an excise tax and registration of as well as record keeping of persons handling these drugs. The act also prohibited possession of these drugs by persons not registered under the act, with the exception of medical use (Rock, 1977). This in effect cut off the Chinese population, addicted or not, from legitimate supplies of opium permanently.

After this act the smuggling and illegal use of opium became widespread culminating into the heroin addicts we now have.

The point of the whole movement existed on two levels, the first being anti-Chinese sentiment and the second being economic ties to China. These two factors culminated in making opium, a relatively harmless substance, into a tool of control. I am not denying that opium may have caused problems in American society but the problems were only magnified by criminalization of this substance. It appears that the that the bulk of the harm came from the patent medicine producers who sold tonics that only masked the illness while it still raged in the body.(Kravick 1989) By far the bulk of deaths were created by misuse and ignorance of the power of opium. As I had said earlier, opium is a narcotic analgesic with no curative properties whatsoever. Had the takers of the patent medicines been aware of the properties as the Chinese users were, addiction to the medicines both physiological, but primarily psychological could have been avoided. The point I am trying to make is that the people who used the tonics had psychological addiction to what they assumed was a cure, but really was only an analgesic. When the drug wore off more consumption was necessary to feel well again. This really was the problem with the opium users in that they were unaware of exactly what opium was supposed to do.

Cocaine and The Black American

Cocaine an alkaloid of the coca plant, native to South America, was first used primarily as dietary supplement for the people of the Andes mountains. They would chew coca leaves to help themselves survive in the harsh climate. In fact the coca bush appears to be revered in the history of these peoples. (Grinspoon/Bakalar, 1985)

The world, as well as the United States, was first introduced to the benefits of cocaine when it was isolated and tested by Dr. Mautegazza who wrote papers that would lead the emanate psychiatrist and Physician Dr. Freud to popularize cocaine for the world in his paper "On Coca" in which he details the drug's affects on himself. Also at this time the discovery of cocaine's medical benefits was made by Karl Koller. It was discovered that cocaine, in addition to being a powerful stimulate, it was a powerful anesthesia and could be used in many surgical procedures. (Grinspoon/Bakalar, 1985) These two events would lead to the widespread use of a relatively obscure drug.

It is very important to note that Montegazza and Freud had recommended cocaine as a treatment drug for a variety of illnesses. This would lead to the creation of a patent medicine industry which popularized the general consumption of cocaine. The first such medical entrepreneur was Angelo Mariani who in 1863 patented a wine and cocaine combination that would become the most popular prescription medicine of this time (Grinspoon/Bakalar 1985). This preparation would lead people, like John Syth Pemberton, to create a vast market in which cocaine became an essential ingredient. His particular contribution was coca cola which was sold in soda fountains across the land. It is at this juncture where cocaine began to be seen as potentially harmful.

The widespread use and availability of cocaine tainted products began to create problems when people consumed to much of it. Acute cocaine toxicity is possible when too much of it is taken into the system. At this time cocaine use pervaded all sections of society from high to low. Thus when it came time to remove cocaine's potentially harmful affects from America, the lower classes as well as the racial minorities were seen as an effective tool to motivate change.

There are two arguments which suggest the relationship between the black man and cocaine. The first is that the removal of cocaine from American society was accomplished with the sole purpose of discriminating against the black american (Walker, 1981). The second argument (and by far the most likely) is that the black man was used as a tool to motivate a consensus to give up use and support legislation against cocaine. The black man was used as a scare tactic for the white south to support federal drug legislation and scare white people into supporting enforcement measures (Grinspoon/Bakalar,1985). You have to keep in mind however that the bulk of the consumption of cocaine was by white people who could afford large quantities of the drug. This not to say that it was not used by black americans (it was). But the true abusers were the white populace.

The media and the police department did an excellent job in creating rumors and half truths to motivate the white populace to stop using some of these rumors were:

1. It increased the cunning and strength of the blacks and increased their natural tendencies toward violence.

2. It made blacks invulnerable to bullets.

3. It promoted sexual violence of the black man toward the white woman.

4. It threatened to depopulate the black worker from the southern states, this jeopardizing an important resource.

These factors helped spur the inclusion of cocaine into the Harrison Narcotics Act and insure its ratification in congress by making sure the southern states were behind the legislation. Since then legitimate use has declined greatly.

The use of cocaine has always been a factor in American society since the 1800s and periodically we have eras, usually strong economic upswings, where cocaine becomes once again the drug of choice. This has happened in the 1920s and now in the 80s. This I think is tied to the social situation and the general feeling of the populace. It is interesting to note that enforcement of modern drug laws appears to target the black population rather than the white majority who is by far the larger consumer this seems especially true in urban areas.

Marijuana and The Mexican

Marijuana sometimes called cannabis or Indian hemp is a naturally occurring plant that has psychoactive properties when eaten or smoked. Marijuana in the United States also naturally occurring, was used by Indian peoples.

The theories that attempt to explain the legislation and control in the 1930s are many. Himmilstein (1983) has two different hypothesis to explain the control issue.

The first hypothesis is that of the moral entrepreneur where an individual is able to create a social movement to protect society and rid it of the presumed menace. This hypothesis has merit when we look at the efforts and successes of Harry Anslinger who would control drug policy in America for 30 years. Basically we have a man who capitalized on the condition of the 1930s to create a organization with drug control powers that would dictate drug policy. He appears to have been tremendously effective in creating the marijuana scare. He would become the person most responsible for the marijuana tax act of 1937, which would outlaw marijuana possession and insure the survival of his department. By giving it legislation to enforce.

The second issue, and the one we will focus on, is the Mexican transient as an unwanted resource in the 1930s and the creation of the marijuana laws as an effort to force these people back across the border.

Abel (1980) points out that there was a considerable movement of Mexicans across the border during the 1910s to 1930s, due to the civil strife in Mexico.

The Mexicans in America at this time were seen as low class foreigners with dirty, loud, uneducated backgrounds, who most importantly would work for the lowest wages. Because of this they were seen as strikebreakers.

It is important to keep in mind that marijuana consumption in American was primarily a minority group value and was almost nonexistent in white middle class America. A very effective tool when one wishes to discriminate against a segment of society is the criminalization of those cultural values not shared by the rest of society as a deviant behavior.

The anti-Mexican sentiment came to a head during the depression of the 1930s where the Mexican in the southwest was scapegoated as being some how responsible for the depression (Bonnie & Whitebread, 1974). The response by the southwestern Americans was to use every means necessary to kick the Mexicans back across the border in an effort to revitalize the economy. This was done by harassment and by censuring Mexican customs, like smoking marijuana. This is where the start of the marijuana prohibition movement is first noted (Abel, 1980).

It is interesting to note that big business used the cheap Mexican labor till local labor unions gained strength and displaced the Mexican. The tools used to legislate against marijuana were the same as in the cases of opium and cocaine. The use of marijuana was to supposedly inspire violent behavior in the user and make the Mexican more likely to attack a police officer. It supposedly gives the user enormous strength and makes them likely to engage in criminal behavior. The media machine picked this up and started attributing types of violent crime as being a byproduct of marijuana consumption.

In conclusion it is apparent that although the work of Harry Anslinger was critical in creating federal anti-marijuana laws, the depression and the state of the Mexican in America lent considerable power to the movement to prohibit this supposed dirty foreign custom.

Conclusion

By now it should be readily apparent that a) least in this instance, consensus values are not the motivating force behind this protectionist legislation. The real evil of these laws is that economic factors have determined social policy and that racial groups have typically suffered as a result. The cost to society is large when this happens, as we can see now with the massive amount of resources being expended to prop up policies which historically, have been used as cudgels against racial groups. These laws were created as tools to maintain control over these minorities while removing a sense of cultural identity from them to make them fit better into the social fabric. This is wrong but it was the politics of control for this era.

As we can see these early laws have far reaching effects in that they are almost impossible to remove from the law books. One can say that even now, in a time where conditions are totally different, we are still supporting laws that divide society rather then integrate it.

James T. De Vidts is a graduate teaching assistant in the Department of Criminl Justice at Wayne State University, 2228 F.A.B., Detroit, MI 48202.

Bibliography

1.    Abadinsky, H. Drug Abuse: An Introduction. Nelson Hall, 1989.

2.    Abel, E.L. Marijuana The First Twelve Thousand Years. Plenum Press, 1980.

3.    Bonnie, R.J. and VVhitebread II, C. The Marijuana Conviction. The University of Virginia Press, 1974.

4.    Bonnie, R.J. and Whitebread II, C. "The Forbidden Fruit and The Tree of Knowledge: An Inquiry into the Legal History of American Marijuana Prohibition." Virginia Law Review, 56, October 1970.

5.    Grinspoon, L. and Bakalar J.B. Cocaine: A Drug and Its Social Evolution, rev ed New York: Basic Books, 1985.

6.    Himmelstein, J.L. The Strange Career of Marijuana Politics and Ideology of Drug Control in America. Greenwood Press, 1983.

7.    Krivanck, J. Heroin Myths and Reality. Allen and Unwin, Australia, 1988.

8.    Latimer, D and Goldberg, J. In the Blood: The Story of Opium. New York, Franklin Watts, 1981.

9.    Rock, P.E. Drugs and Politics. Transaction Books, 1977.

10.    Schroeder, R.C. The Politics of Drugs An American Dilemma. Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1980.

11.    Walker, W. Drug Control in the Americas. University of New Mexico Press, 1981.