HaCKeRz KrOnIcKLeZ 3/HaCKeRz_KrOnIcKLeZ.iso/drugs/historical

Internet Message Format | 1996-05-06 | 12KB

From: [e-mail] (Neil Johnson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: NCADI Admits Drug Prohibition Intent is Racist
Date: 9 Mar 1995 16:28:15 -0500
Message-ID: <3jnrtf$[e-mail]>


National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information admits the
intent of drug laws are racist.


------begin quote-------
The history of nonmedical drug use, and the development of policies in response
to drug use, also extends back to the early settlement of the country. Like
alcohol, the classification of certain drugs as legal, or illegal, has changed
over time. These changes sometimes had racial and class overtones. According to
Mosher and Yanagisako, for example, Prohibition was in part a response to the
drinking practices of European immigrants, who became the new lower class.
Cocaine and opium were legal during the 19th century, and were favored drugs
among the middle and upper classes. Cocaine became illegal after it became
associated with African Americans following Reconstruction. Opium was first
restricted in California in 1875 when it became associated with Chinese
immigrant workers. Marijuana was legal until the 1930s when it became
associated with Mexicans. LSD, legal in the 1950s, became illegal in 1967 when
it became associated with the counterculture.
------begin quote-------

------begin full text----------
Historical Overview of Prevention

Alcoholic beverages have been a part of the Nation's past since the landing of
the Pilgrims. According to Alcohol and Public Policy: Beyond the Shadow of
Prohibition, a publication commissioned by NIAAA and prepared by the National
Academy of Sciences, the colonists brought with them from Europe a high regard
for alcoholic beverages, which were considered an important part of their diet.
Drinking was pervasive because alcohol was regarded primarily as a healthy
substance with preventive and curative powers, not as an intoxicant. Alcohol
was also believed to be conducive to social as well as personal health. It
played an essential role in rituals of conviviality and collective activity,
such as barn raisings. While drunkenness was condemned and punished, it was
viewed only as an abuse of a God-given gift.

The first temperance movement began in the early 1800s in response to dramatic
increases in production and consumption of alcoholic beverages, which also
coincided with rapid demographic changes. Agitation against ardent spirits and
the public disorder they spawned gradually increased during the 1820s. In
addition, inspired by the writings of Benjamin Rush, the concept that alcohol
was addicting, and that this addiction was capable of corrupting the mind and
the body, took hold. The American Society of Temperance, created in 1826 by
clergymen, spread the anti-drinking gospel. By 1835, out of a total population
of 13 million citizens, 1.5 million had taken the pledge to refrain from
distilled spirits. The first wave of the temperance movement (1825 to 1855)
resulted in dramatic reductions in the consumption of distilled spirits,
although beer drinking increased sharply after 1850.

The second wave of the temperance movement occurred in the late 1800s with the
emergence of the Women's Christian Temperance Movement, which, unlike the first
wave, embraced the concept of prohibition. It was marked both by the
recruitment of women into the movement and the mobilization of crusades to
close down saloons. The movement set out to remove the destructive substance,
and the industries that promoted its use, from the country. The movement held
that while some drinkers may escape problems of alcohol use, even moderate
drinkers flirted with danger.

The culmination of this second wave was the passage of the 18th Amendment and
the Volstead Act, which took effect in 1920. While Prohibition was successful
in reducing per capita consumption and some problems related to drinking, its
social turmoil resulted in its repeal in 1933.

Since the repeal of Prohibition, the dominant view of alcohol problems has been
that alcoholism is the principal problem. With its focus on treatment, the rise
of the alcoholism movement depoliticized alcohol problems as the object of
attention, as the alcoholic was considered a deviant from the predominant
styles of life of either abstinence or "normal" drinking. The alcoholism
movement is based on the belief that chronic or addictive drinking is limited
to a few, highly susceptible individuals suffering from the disease of
alcoholism. The disease concept of alcoholism focuses on individual
vulnerability, be it genetic, biochemical, psychological, or social/cultural in
nature. Under this view if the collective problems of each alcoholic are
solved, it follows that society's alcohol problem will be solved.

Nevertheless, the pre-Prohibition view of alcohol as a special commodity has
persisted in American society and is an accepted legacy of alcohol control
policies. Following Repeal, all States restricted the sale of alcoholic
beverages in one way or another in order to prevent or reduce certain alcohol
problems. In general, however, alcohol control policies disappeared from the
public agenda as both the alcoholism movement and the alcoholic beverage
industry embraced the view, "the fault is in the man and not in the bottle."

This view of alcoholism problems has also been the dominant force in
contemporary alcohol problem prevention. Until recently the principal
prevention strategies focused on education and early treatment. Within this
view education is intended to inform society about the disease and to teach
people about the early warning signs so that they can initiate treatment as
soon as possible. Efforts focus on "high risk" populations and attempt to
correct a suspect process or flaw in the individual, such as low self esteem or
lack of social skills. The belief is that the success of education and
treatment efforts in solving each alcoholic's problem will solve society's
alcohol problem as well.

Contemporary alcohol problem prevention began in the 1970s as new information
on the nature, magnitude, and incidence of alcohol problems raised public
awareness that alcohol can be problematic when used by any drinker, depending
upon the situation. There was a renewed emphasis on the diverse consequences of
alcohol use--particularly trauma associated with drinking driving, fires, and
violence, as well as long term health consequences.

The history of nonmedical drug use, and the development of policies in response
to drug use, also extends back to the early settlement of the country. Like
alcohol, the classification of certain drugs as legal, or illegal, has changed
over time. These changes sometimes had racial and class overtones. According to
Mosher and Yanagisako, for example, Prohibition was in part a response to the
drinking practices of European immigrants, who became the new lower class.
Cocaine and opium were legal during the 19th century, and were favored drugs
among the middle and upper classes. Cocaine became illegal after it became
associated with African Americans following Reconstruction. Opium was first
restricted in California in 1875 when it became associated with Chinese
immigrant workers. Marijuana was legal until the 1930s when it became
associated with Mexicans. LSD, legal in the 1950s, became illegal in 1967 when
it became associated with the counterculture.

By the end of the 19th century concern had grown over the indiscriminate use of
these drugs, especially the addicting patent medicines. Cocaine, opium, and
morphine were common ingredients in various potions sold over the counter.
Until 1903, cocaine was an ingredient of Coca-Cola(R). Heroin, which was
isolated in 1868, was hailed as a nonaddicting treatment for morphine addiction
and alcoholism. States began to enact control and prescription laws and, in
1906, Congress passed the Pure Food and Drug Act. It was designed to control
opiate addiction by requiring labels on the amount of drugs contained in
products, including opium, morphine, and heroin. It also required accurate
labeling of products containing alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine.

The Harrison Act (1914) imposed a system of taxes on opium and coca products
with registration and record-keeping requirements in an effort to control their
sale or distribution. However, it did not prohibit the legal supply of certain
drugs, especially opiates.

Current drug laws are rooted in the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. Under this
measure drugs are classified according to their medical use, their potential
for abuse, and their likelihood of producing dependence. The Act contains
provisions for adding drugs to the schedule, and rescheduling drugs. It also
establishes maximum penalties for the criminal manufacture or distribution of
scheduled drugs.

Increases in per capita alcohol consumption as well as increased use of illegal
drugs during the 1960s raised public concern regarding alcohol and other drug
problems. Prevention issues gained prominence on the national level with the
creation of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) in
1971 and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) in 1974. In addition to
mandates for research and the management of national programs for treatment,
both Institutes included prevention components.

To further prevention initiatives at the Federal level, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act
of 1986 created the U.S. Office for Substance Abuse Prevention (OSAP), which
consolidated alcohol and other drug prevention activities under the Alcohol,
Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration (ADAMHA). The ADAMHA block grant
mandate called for States to set aside 21 percent of the alcohol and drug funds
for prevention. In a 1992 reorganization, OSAP was changed to the Center for
Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP), part of the new SAMHSA, retaining its major
program areas, while the research institutes of NIAAA and NIDA transferred to
NIH.

The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) was established by the
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. Its primary objective was to develop a drug
control policy that included roles for the public and private sector to
"restore order and security to American neighborhoods, to dismantle drug
trafficking organizations, to help people break the habit of drug use, and to
prevent those who have never used illegal drugs from starting." In early 1992
underage alcohol use was included among the drugs to be addressed by ONDCP.

While Federal, State, and local governments play a substantial role in
promoting prevention agendas, much of the activity takes place at grass roots
community levels. In addition to funding from CSAP's "Community Partnerships"
grant program, groups receive support from private sources, such as The Robert
Wood Johnson "Fighting Back" program.

While alcohol and other drug problems continue to plague the Nation at
intolerably high levels, progress is being made. National surveys document a
decline in illicit drug use and a leveling off of alcohol consumption. And
indicators of problem levels, such as alcohol-involved traffic crashes, show
significant declines.

[-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
]

References

A Promising Future: Alcohol and Other Drug Problem Prevention Services
Improvement. CSAP Prevention Monograph 10 (1992) BK191

National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Main Findings 1990 (1991) BKD67

Mosher, J.F. and Yanagisako, K.L. "Public Health, Not Social Warfare: A Public
Health Approach to Illegal Drug Policy," Journal of Public Health Policy
12(3):278-322, 1991

[-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-]

[Image] Return to the Index

[Image] Healthy People 2000

[Image] Impaired Driving