Drug Policy

in America
Vijay Raj

2 June 2008
US History pd. 6
 Drug policy in the United States has only been a recent development. Before the 1900s

any type of control over mind-altering substances was virtually absent. During the beginning of

the 20th century, there was a huge rush of laws that basically outlawed drugs. From there drug

laws only got stricter, there were harsher penalties, and the government started to close

loopholes. The laws have been tenuously created, with an objective to curb addiction, and

prevent harm to the individual. But in reality, the drug policy of the United States has many

problems with it; it is baseless and ineffective, up to the point where it is harmful to both the

people and the government.

The initial basis of drug policy is shrouded in racism, and general xenophobia. The

backgrounds of these laws do not indicate a prosperous future at all, and in fact may be

unconstitutional, not to mention harmful to those discriminated against. Before the drugs laws

were instituted, drugs were not treated with the malevolence they are treated with today. They

were simply mood-altering substances, taken when one felt a little tired, drowsy, sick, or lonely.

There was no social stigma surrounding drug consumption. In fact, many children cough

mixtures contained morphine (no operating heavy machinery back then either), and cocaine was

a quick pick-me-up, similar to what caffeine is today. (Cocaine Tooth drops), (Mrs. Winslow).

But when did drugs take the turn for the worse, and become representative of bums and low-

lifes?

The first indication of any type of laws against a drug was the ban of opium in San

Francisco (Kane Opium Smoking). This act aimed to “regulate the sale of opium”, through the

regulation of any narcotic sales without a doctor (Kane Opium Smoking). Yes, opium is an

addictive drug, but was the government actually looking out for the well-being of its citizens?

2
Yes, the government was, but in an extremely convoluted manner. In an attempt to prevent

“white women....from falling in the hands of the yellow [Chinese] peril,” the government sought

to ban opium (Kane Opium Smoking). In matters of other races, blacks were criticized for their

lack of work ethic, and “their poverty and ignorance”. Drugs were seen as the catalyst that

precipitated the innate hysteria within the black man (Williams Negro Cocaine).

Although it was “racial legislation”, at this point in American history, racism was still

rampant and acceptable, and race mixing was severely frowned upon. In this way, many other

drugs were banned throughout the U.S, with the underlying reason to prevent whites from being

harmed by other races (Williams Negro Cocaine). From the taxing of marijuana to “criminalize

the tens of thousands of Mexican farm workers” (Anslinger Marijuana, Assassin), to policing

cocaine, in order to “wage war on the 'Negro cocaine fiend'” (Williams Negro Cocaine),

American banned drugs primarily because of acceptable racism at that time. Therefore, in

modern times, there is no more rational basis for drug prohibition.

The road to drug abolishment was marked by many pieces of important legislations. The

laws and literatures discussed above all propagated many others laws and acts. The first

landmark legislation passed was the Harrison Narcotic Tax Act of 1914. This was only a small

act of “imposing a special tax on all person who produce, import, manufacture, deal in, give

away, opium or cocaine leaves” (Harrison). This act made dealing in any type of narcotics illegal

without a special government issued permission. From there the laws regarding drugs became

more encompassing, with the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.Although these laws did not actually

outlaw these drugs, and they were de facto made illegal. With the government in control of the

taxes, they could chose who they were going to give the drug to and how much to levy the taxes.

If a person was caught with the illicit drugs in question, they could be charged with the federal

3
crime of tax evasion. In this way, the government was able to overcome any binds of the

Constitution, and could and did prohibit the consumption of many recreational drugs.

In current times, the plight of drug prohibition continued, with the institution of more

severe penalties, and oversight offices including the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the National

Office of Drug Policy. Through these agency and further acts including the Comprehensive Drug

Abuse and Control Act, and the Anti-Abuse Drug Act, the government placed more emphasis on

the law enforcement and prosecution of these laws, instead of rehabilitation (Kleiman

Marijuana: Costs). This lead to more justice systems here in the United States to used a zero-

tolerance approach. This approach may actually be causing an increase in drug consumption

because of its affect in buying methods.

Many states have strict drug control laws that impose the maximum punishment on the

simple possession of illegal drugs. There is a decrease in the acceptance of a “casual” drug user,

and as a result, the laws and sanctions have become more stringent. This results in the increase of

government funds into capturing and punishing harmless drug users, instead of tackling the

dealers (Caulkins Zero-Tolerance). Since prison space is limited, “every prison space occupied

by a user is one less space available to punish dealers” (Caulkins Zero-Tolerance). An extremely

strict drug punishment policy, that harshly punishes users that only consume tiny amounts, will

cause the users to marginalize their drug consumption, and buy more, since if they get caught,

they will have to serve jail time (Caulkins Zero-Tolerance).

In order to find a certain punishment method that will reduce consumption, we can

rewrite drugs using as a mathematical model. There are certain fundamental principles behind

this mathematical model. Drug users here are presented as “people who rationally act...to

maximize their individual welfare” (Caulkins Zero-Tolerance). Therefore, the entire concept of

4
buying and selling drugs is treated as a matter of economy. By examining a few variables on

which punishment is based on, such as cost of the drug, search costs, the probability of being

arrested, and past criminal records, we can set a model that, when compared to empirical data

from actual prisons, give an accurate representation of the punishment (Caulkins Zero-

Tolerance).

From the data, we see that a maximum punishment policy is the worst. The police are

constantly spending their time on these harmless drug users, and are wasting prison space on

them. The user will also have adapted to this method, buying as much drug as possible. The best

policy, mathematically indicated, is that of decriminalization, or where there is no punishment

for low amounts of drugs (Caulkins Zero-Tolerance). In this case, the government is not wasting

its time on prosecuting the drug consumers, and can focus on other matters. The users will also

not need to buy as much drug each time.

In many cases, decriminalization is not feasible. Although beneficial for both sides, the

government will not want to lose face to its 300 million citizens. Also the influx of people

coming out of jail would be tremendous. There is a middle ground in drug punishment policy, a

simple, linear-sans-exponential function of punishment (Caulkins Zero-Tolerance). The policy

keeps the punishment low for consumption of small amounts. But, if, for example, a repeatedly

warned felon is peddling massive amounts of drugs to minors, this policy will not take lightly to

him/her.

The current American system of punishment is not ideal for reducing drug abuse. The

suggestion previously given may not be an ideal method of drug punishment since it is only a

mathematical model. A better reference for punishments and policies would be that of other

countries.

5
 Most European countries can be considered to be competent with us on terms of

development. They have strong economies, education, and medicine like America does.

Therefore many of their drug policies would have analogous effects if adopted in the US.

Probably the most famous European drug policy is that of the Netherlands. In the Netherlands,

there is the legal sale of personal and medical cannabis (United Nations Successful Drug). This

seems to be the exact opposite of the American stance. Now, we can hold the results of the

Netherlands drug policy with ours. From a strictly empirical point of view, the U.S. has a 36.9%

lifetime use of cannabis, and a 1.4% lifetime usage of heroin (US Department Substance Abuse).

The Netherlands on the other hand, only has a 17.0% lifetime usage of cannabis, and a 0.4%

usage of heroin (Trimbos Report to the EMCDDA). Even though cannabis is widely available to

all individuals, it is not widely abused at all. In fact, from the statistics given, it is more likely to

be abused when the drug is highly controlled.

The decrease in problems is seen in other countries that adopted a lenient drug policy.

There are many industrialized countries that in this day and age have realized the potential of

many drugs, especially marijuana to have a legitimate medicinal use, and have little to no side

effects, and have as a results of scientific studies, reduce its drug class. But, the U.S. has

staunchly kept marijuana as a Class A drug, and ignorantly affirms that marijuana has absolutely

no medicinal value, and is extremely harmful, and has a high potential for abuse (Fox Canada

Seeks). In the Netherlands not only is cannabis legal, on a side note, prostitution is also, the area

is free from the Judæo-Christian values that predominate a supposedly secular America (United

Nations Successful Drug).

According to a study done comparing drug use, specifically marijuana, in the

Netherlands, to that in San Francisco, where drug use, although still illegal, is accepted, they

6
both had similar usage patterns. The same age group predominately used the drugs, at similar

peaks in weekends, and there was the same drop off in drug use in age as older people “settled

down”. This implies that drug use depends more on the culture at that area than a laws the

government comes up with. An area where drug use is illegal has the same usage patterns as an

area where drug use can be used liberally. Therefore, the penalties imposed by the government

may not really affect drug use (Reinarman Limited Relevance).

By outlawing drugs, the government has made it that much hard to conduct legitimate

scientific research, and atoning possible mislabeled drug. The case in point is marijuana.

According to the Netherlands, it is considered a “soft drug”, and therefore is available for

consumption (United Nations Successful Drug). It seems counter-intuitive why some countries

would accept marijuana as a potential drug, while others (the U.S.) remains so adamantly against

medical marijuana. Some states have allowed for a certain amount of marijuana to be prescribed

as a medicine. Even though it is legal by state law, the Drug Enforcement Agency (the DEA, a

federal agency) continues to direct drug raids on pharmacies, and wreak havoc of people's lives.

There have been many cases where the federal government has directly intervened in the

lives of peaceful people who were only using doctor prescribed marijuana for an otherwise

untreatable disease. The DEA just refuses to accept the state ruling on medical marijuana in

California (AP Feds Raid). The rift between the views of the federal and the state government

shows increasing discord between the views of the people, and the views of the select few

representatives of the state. In one case, even after a direct veto by Governor Don Carcieri, the

people of Rhode Island overturned the veto by popular vote to legalize medical marijuana (Henry

R.I. Senate). This is significant because it shows that the voters are become aware of the outdated

and ineffective laws that are were put into effect by the government almost 100 years ago.

7
 The prosecution of nonviolent offenses, such as drug possession takes a toll on the

country. “According to the American Corrections Association, the average daily cost per state

prison inmate per day in the US is $67.55. State prisons held 249,400 inmates for drug offenses

in 2006. That means it cost states approximately $16,846,970 per day to imprison drug offenders,

or $6,149,144,050 per year” (American 2006 Directory). The money to imprison these drug

offenders come directly from the taxpayers. Instead of trying to correct these individuals, we

stick them in another subculture, the prison subculture, which usually leaves the offenders worse

off than when they came in, the opposite of their supposed “correctional” purposes. Jail may not

be the best place for addicts, drugs can still be obtained. Therefore, the policy should be shifted

to a rehabilitation point of view rather than one of only punishment. This current policy, goes

hand in hand with the maximum punishment policy described before, and hurts the drug user and

the taxpayers, who are paying for his/her incarceration (American 2006 Directory).

There are dissenting opinions of course, people who believe that the current drug laws are

perfect for the nation, and legalization is absolutely inconceivable. Some arguments that anti-

legalizationists give is “legalization is a quick fix to a complex problem” (Rosenthal Cruelest

Hoax). They feel that legalization would be too easy an answer even though it has worked in

countries such as the Netherlands (United Nations Successful Drug).

The key component to opponents of legalization would be that legalization causes more

addictions. With more addictions would come and increase in crime as addicts steal to fund their

addiction. There would be more available to the children who would use the drugs recklessly.

And the $10 billion dollars saved in law enforcement and prison would be overtaken by the

amount the government would need to spend for the health care and rehabilitation of drug

addicts (Rosenthal Cruelest Hoax).

8
 But, their argument has an initial flaw. Legalization does not increase drug usage. Studies

have shown that drug usage varies with culture not the laws regulating it (Reinarman Limited

Relevance). Also pure empirical data shows that countries with legalized drugs have less usage

of marijuana and heroin (US Department Substance Abuse) (Trimbos Report to the EMCDDA).

Legalization simply does not cause an increase in usage, rendering all other points moot.

Overall, we see that the current U.S. drug policy is a bit backwards. It fails to

acknowledge that it is wrong, and worst of all it does not try to adapt. The contumacious attitude

of the government only hurts the citizens. Just as alcohol prohibition created a dangerous

environment, and was later overturned, the current drug policies create many hazardous

situations, whether buying from shady street dealers, instead of a controlled store, to maximum

punishment policies that put people in one of the worst environments, prison. In a similar way,

the current drug laws are paving a way to more lax drug policies in the future. Once the harsh

results of the current drug policy pile up, the citizens will realize that legalization will work if

they take responsibility, and will not depend on the government to act as a nanny.

9
 Appendix

Cocaine Toothdrops: Lloyd Manufacturing Company

http://wings.buffalo.edu/aru/CokeDrops.gif

Mrs. Winslow’s Soothing Syrup

http://www.rigneygraphics.com/lunchmeat/archive/06-03/drugs_mrswinslows.jpg

10
 Works Cited

American Correctional Association, 2006 Directory of Adult and Juvenile Correctional

Departments, Institutions, Agencies and Probation and Parole Authorities, 67th Edition

(Alexandria, VA: ACA, 2006), p. 16

Anslinger, Harry J. “Marijuana, Assassin of Youth.” The American Magazine July 1937: 150-53

Associated Press. “Feds Raid 11 Medical Marijuana Clinics.” CBS News 18 Jan 2007

Caulkins, Jonathan P. "Zero-Tolerance Policies: Do They Inhibit or Stimulate Illicit Drug

Consumption?" Managment Science 39.4 (Apr. 1993): 458-76.

Fox, Michael. “Canada Seeks to Change Drugs Laws.” BBC News 27 May 2003.

Harrison Narcotics Tax Act. 17 Dec. 1914

Henry, Ray. “R.I. Senate Sends Medical Marijuana Bill Back to Committee.” The Boston Globe

13 May 2008.

Kane, Harry Hubbell. Opium Smoking in America and China. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons,

1882.

Kleiman, Mark A. R. Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control. Greenwood Press: Westport,

CT, 1989

Reinarman, Craig, Peter D.A. Cohen, and Hendrien L. Kaal (2004), The Limited Relevance of

Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and in San Francisco. American Journal of Public

Health, 2004;94:836–842..

Rosenthal, A. M. “On My Mind; The Cruelest Hoax” New York Times 3 Jan. 1995.

Trimbos Institute, "Report to the EMCDDA by the Reitox National Focal Point, The Netherlands

Drug Situation 2002" (Lisboa, Portugal: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug

Addiction, Nov. 2002), p. 28, Table 2.1.

11
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. The Successful Drug Policy of the Netherlands: A

Review of the Evidence. February 2007. 1 June 2008

<http://www.unodc.org/pdf/research/Swedish_drug_control.pdf>.

US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Substance Abuse and Mental Health

Services Administration, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Volume I.

Summary of National Findings (Washington, DC: HHS, August 2002), p. 109, Table H.1.

Williams, Edward Huntington M.D. “Negro Cocaine 'Fiends' New Southern Menace.” New York

Times 8 February 1914.

12
Outline—Drug Prohibition
Vijay Raj

Introduction
Thesis-The current drug prohibition is ineffective on numerous
levels up to the point it is actually harmful.
Background of Drug Policy-
- Talk about drug policy, and the basic timeline associated with
it.

- Change in drug laws over time

- Morphine in cough medicine

13
Body Paragraph I
Topic-The initial drug sanctions were based on misinformation, and
racism

Evidence
There were certain drugs that were associated with certain
cultural groups, for example, Banning of opium in San
Francisco, discriminated the Chinese. (Kane Opium
Smoking)

According to a medical journal published at that time

“Negro Cocaine Fiend”, blacks were susceptible to using
cocaine, and when they did they would go berserk, and
would “run amuck”. (Williams Negro Cocaine)

There were other veins of racism in the start of drug

prohibition, with Mexicans, blacks, and Chinese. How can we
justify this today? (Williams Negro Cocaine) (Anslinger
Marijuana Assassin).

14
Body Paragraph II
Topic-Laws that led up to today’s prohibition.

Evidence
Harrison Narcotic Tax Act and Marihuana Tax Act

All aimed to circumvent any questionable legality, by

focusing only on the tax aspect.

There is a further increase in the different law enforcement

agencies. (DEA, National Office of Drug Policy)

This shows an increase in how the US is treating drugs with

a harsher hand. (Kleiman Marijuana: Costs).

Body Paragraph IV
The Zero-Tolerance Policy may not prevent as many people from
taking drugs as a slightly more lenient one would.

Evidence
This study looks at maximum punishment currently
employed by the government and looks at other possible
punishment systems.

This study, by relating drug consumption to its “basic

economic tenets:, through a series of mathematical models
determined the ideal punishment based on a series of
variables that include prior criminal record, and the cost of
the drugs in question.

Adopting a policy with more leniencies to the user, will

“increase their welfare, and simultaneously reduce
consumption”.(Caulkins Zero-Tolerance).

15
Body Paragraph III
Topic-Other countries have different models for dealing with
illegal (in the U.S.) drugs, such as The Netherlands.

Evidence
The Netherlands adopted a “de facto decriminalization” in
1976. They also now have de jure legalization of soft drugs.

There is actually less usage of drugs in the Netherlands

compared to America.

This study found that the drug policy adopted in different

countries did not affect the onset, amount of use, etc.
greatly, suggesting that drug use is dependent on a
separate subculture.

By making low-harm drugs such as marijuana legally

available, could allow for proper restrictions against minors,
and purity regulations. (United Nations Successful Drug)

Body Paragraph IV
Topic-Costs of the Drug War

Evidence
Medical Marijuana and associated research has been stifled.
(AP Feds Raid).

Some states have legalized medical marijuana, but are

receiving opposition from government authorities (Henry
R.I. Senate)

There is also immense costs from prison and law

enforcement. (American 2006 Directory).

16
Counter-Argument
Legalization will only increase the amount of problems.
CON-More addicts would need more money, and would
therefore steal to support their addiction. (Rosenthal
Cruelest Hoax).

CON-Any money saved on government will only be spent to

pay for more costs of addictions. (Rosenthal Cruelest Hoax)

PRO-Actually as seen in other countries legalization won’t

increase consumption. The Netherlands, where drugs are
not seen as rebellious has less marijuana and heroin usage.
(Trimbos Report to the EMDCCA).

Conclusion
Reiterate current problems with drug policy.
Extreme money drain for the government to spend money
on catching criminals that do no more than self-harm

The drug policy does not try to correct itself as can be seen
with the DEA raids on medical marijuana stores.

Possible Changes
Legalization of drugs, once people realize what is
happening.

17