Arguably THE most progressive Republican prior to the arrival of George W Bush, President Theodore Roosevelt in 1905 vetoed a plan laid out by then-Civil Governor to the Philippines, William H Taft. Having recently acquired the Philippines via The Treaty of Paris at the conclusion of the Spanish-American War, Taft was appointed to his position towards the effective establishing of a Filipino-led, independent, self-governing Philippines. Taft’s plan, subsequently vetoed, called for the reinstating of the Spanish opium monopoly, a plan that would have established Congress essentially as opium merchants. Taft would have seen the American government collecting revenue via the marketing of opium to the merchants of the barbiturate, similarly as had the Spanish colonial government, had Roosevelt not intervened.
Roosevelt’s veto prompted Congress instead to declare an opium embargo on the Philippines, establishing for the first time an American anti-drug policy. Opium would become illegal for any use other than medicinal. This measure was mirrored by China in 1906 towards modernizing its people to be better suited for the battle against “Western encroachments”.
With America and China at odds during this period, a full boycott of all U.S. goods into the Eastern nation went into effect, causing mounting pressure on Congress. Compounding the international issues, opium was being smuggled, uncontrollably, throughout the Philippines. The combined crises prompted an American-led international meeting of regional powers. This successful diplomacy formally established a global narcotics embargo; a trafficking policy that extended throughout the reign of subsequent international governing organizations, to include today’s U.N., had begun.
By 1909, as the globe realized mounting negative issues arising from the use of particular barbiturates, the International Opium Commission (IOC) was formed. This Commission, a body of 13 nations, presided over by the Protestant Episcopal bishop Charles Henry Brent, met in Shanghai to establish opium and opiate resolutions. And while these resolutions formed no formal treaties between the participating nations, the Commission proved the need for an American spearheaded Conference. Determined to counter their domestic narcotics crisis, the United States quickly and earnestly launched efforts to formalize such a Conference.
The American led antinarcotics Conference was justified in the United States on several grounds. Not the least of which was the calming of the waters with China towards the re-establishing of sufficient trade, other arguments made by the United States government in favor of a global drug embargo included domestic relief from drug abuse. If the global community joins together for the controlling of crops as well as trafficking, thought the State Department, domestic illegal narcotics use would be severely curtailed.
Before the signing of an international agreement could be reached, the remaining 12 nations that had formed the IOC would have to settle upon a common goal. To that end, in 1912, the IOC nations (at a meeting in The Hague) concurred that each participating government would enact their own domestic policies. The plan was to erect global policies that would result in the criminalizing of narcotic use for any means other than medicinal. But how would the United States, a country governed by the philosophy of federalism, enact such sweeping legislation over the states?
Harrison Act of 1914, was taxation
The answer, known as the Harrison Act of 1914, was taxation. Unlike today’s progressive, liberal administration that often circumvents States’ rights, the turn-of-the-century Congress realized that it was bound by the Constitution from demanding of the medical community that it adhere to restrictive, federal laws. Through the taxation of barbiturates, an act allocated to the federal level by the Constitution, opium and coca imports, sales and distribution to patients would be controlled and monitored. The Act would prove a lightening rod, and the Supreme Court became involved from 1916 to 1919.
The Harrison Act forbade the use of narcotics for the purpose of patient maintenance unless there existed cause. Unless a patient was suffering from cancer or tuberculosis, barbiturates controlled under the Act were illegal. In 1916, the Supreme Court ruled against the Act, allowing doctors to prescribe opium for purposes to include the maintaining of a patient’s addiction. Unscrupulous doctors who had been the catalyst for addiction were allowed to proceed as before.
Finally, by 1919 under the leadership of Oliver Wendell Holmes (a progressive Republican jurist who believed in the practice of moral skepticism), the Harrison Act would be upheld. Arguing that prescribing narcotics purely for the sake of addiction maintenance is beyond customary medical bounds, the Court reversed the 1916 decision. Additionally citing the fact that patients who received narcotics for non-medicinal purposes were merely addicts (as opposed to classically defined patients), the Court ruled that such occurrences defrauded the government of taxes as outlined in the Harrison Act. By a 5-4 vote, the Act was upheld.
The far-reaching effects attributable to two visionary progressive Republicans, Holmes and Roosevelt, included a decline in the use of morphine and heroin throughout the 1920s and 30s. Continuing its efforts, the United States aligned with the British government after WWI to include the Hague Convention as a portion of the Versailles Treaty. By ratifying the Treaty, the Convention was authorized in the U.S. and a domestic narcotics law was adopted. And though the British in actuality had no opiate problems at the time (contrary to misconceptions in the States), they would enact the Dangerous Drug Act as a result of the Treaty ratification.
During these years, generated by reports in the medical community and papers published by notable neurologists, cocaine use in America was going virtually unchecked. Promoted as a harmless stimulant, cocaine would be included as an ingredient in Coca-Cola from 1886 to 1900 and likewise appeared in adult beverages marketed under the names of “cocaine wine” and Vin Mariani. Capitalizing on its meteoric rise in popularity, drug firms quickly brought to market cocaine cigarettes as well as cocaine for sniffing, proudly announcing a harmless drug that “can supply the place of food, make the coward brave, the silent eloquent, and render the sufferer insensitive to pain.”
As reports of wide-spread negative effects of cocaine use began to arise in the years leading up to the Harrison Act of 1914, state legislators realized the need for intervention. In New York, even the Democrats in office recognized an imperative need to curtail the abuse of cocaine. Passing laws to control the distribution (determining that cocaine would be managed through medical prescriptions) New York would be among the first states to attempt regulation and taxation of cocaine. By 1910, supported by states’ activities, President Taft declared cocaine use the most serious problem facing America. And by 1914, President Woodrow Wilson signed into law the Harrison Act – which also limited cocaine to prescription and outlawed the use of the substance in patented consumer products. By 1930, New York’s Mayor declared cocaine addiction had ceased to be a problem.
During these times of drug intolerance – public policies that in part prompted governmental legislation – marijuana was introduced. Its popularity would be curtailed, however, until the 1960s because of domestic perceptions linking marijuana use to the illegal immigrant community. This community was widely recognized as an added burden during the age of the Great Depression, leading to further ostracizing of marijuana. So reviled was marijuana in fact that Western states pleaded with the federal government to intervene. And once again, through taxation (and based on the demands of its citizenry) the American government instigated an embargo. Marijuana, cocaine and heroin would become illegal at the request of the populace.
Drug use in America continued to decline through the 1950s
Drug use in America continued to decline through the 1950s. Due in part to ever-stricter punishments for drug use and distribution (the death penalty was at one time available to the government in cases of distribution to minors), as well as imbedded public perceptions based on medical studies, etc, illegal drug use in the United States was at an all-time low. Then there was Woodstock.
By the 1960s, based in part on the ravenous desires of the youthful, U.S. administrations faced another illegal drug dilemma. The actions of a sector of society acting consciously and deliberately in contrast to mainstream America would force federal intervention. So influential on the liberal administration was this movement that by the late 1970s President Carter advocated the use and possession of marijuana. This position held, however, ran contrary to the American perception.
By the 1980s, as polls were conducted, less than 30% of Americans favored the legalization of marijuana, while nearly 70% favored harsher punishments for its use and distribution. Criminalizing marijuana was born from not only public demands, but also the rise in use among younger and younger Americans. Fines, penalties and enforcement grew more punitive as public outcry climaxed. Anti-drug legislation followed the path of anti-drug sentiment.
Today however, in part due to the curtailing of drug awareness campaigns and in larger part due to a failed public memory of the nations past as it relates to illicit drugs, a new-found sense of tolerance is emerging. Flamed by the irresponsible rhetoric of anarchistic legislators improperly posing as libertarians, conservative American values based on a century of anti-drug policies (policies born from the desire of not only the citizenry but likewise the States) are being compromised.
“Free the dope” politicians would be well-advised to research this nation’s long-standing position opposing the use and distribution of illegal drugs. After all, as studies indicate, those most inclined towards drug abuse / experimentation fall between 15 and 25 years of age. And let’s face it: that’s an age group not particularly prone to support “the man” – whether or not he’s inclined to alter a nation’s historically-held anti-drug sentiments.
[url=http://www.mediaite.com/tv/quote-of-the-gop-debate-rep-ron-paul-defends-heroin-as-an-exercise-of-liberty/]http://www.mediaite.com/tv/quote-of-the-gop-debate-rep-ron-paul-defends-heroin-as-an-exercise-of-liberty/[/url]
[url=http://www.drugtext.org/library/articles/musto01.htm]http://www.drugtext.org/library/articles/musto01.htm[/url]
