This paper traces the evolution of American drug policy from the early 1900s, when accidental addiction was widespread due to patent medicines and post-Civil War morphine use, through landmark federal legislation including the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, the Harrison Act of 1914, Alcohol Prohibition, and a series of anti-drug bills in the 1980s. It also examines major pharmaceutical regulatory milestones — the 1938 Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the 1962 Kefauver-Harris Amendments — and concludes by evaluating the modern harm reduction model, arguing that effective drug policy must combine supply control, prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation.
The paper demonstrates effective use of direct quotation to introduce competing expert perspectives on harm reduction. By quoting DuPont and Voth alongside Drucker, the author acknowledges the theoretical appeal of harm reduction while setting up the critical assessment in the conclusion — a classic technique for presenting a nuanced policy argument rather than a one-sided claim.
The paper opens with context on the scale of early drug addiction, then moves through chronological legislative history covering supply reduction efforts from 1906 to the 1990s. A separate section addresses pharmaceutical regulation and consumer safety milestones. The final sections introduce harm reduction theory and conclude with a call for a multi-pronged national drug policy. This two-track structure — criminal law history and pharmaceutical regulation history — converges effectively in the conclusion.
This paper examines the history of the non-medical use of drugs in the United States. It is interesting to note that in the early 1900s there were far more people addicted to drugs in this country than there are today (Whitebread, 1999). Estimates reveal that between two and five percent of the entire adult population of the United States was addicted to drugs in 1900.
There were two main reasons for this dramatic level of drug addiction (Whitebread, 1999). The first was the use of morphine and its various derivatives in legal medical operations. People received morphine as a painkiller during and after surgery, and often came out of the hospital addicted to it. In addition, the use of morphine in battlefield operations during the Civil War was extensive. As a result, many Union veterans were addicted to morphine, and the popular press frequently referred to morphinism as the "soldier's disease."
The second cause of the high level of addiction in the early 1900s was the growth and development of what is now known as the patent medicine industry (Whitebread, 1999). As late as 1900, in rural areas where medical resources were scarce, it was typical for salesmen to travel the countryside offering cures of all sorts. However, they failed to tell their customers that many of these products were up to fifty percent morphine by volume. The medicines worked for most people in the sense that morphine relieves all types of aches and pains, but at a serious hidden cost.
For these reasons, almost all addiction at the turn of the century was accidental (Whitebread, 1999). People were consuming drugs they did not know they were taking and did not understand the consequences. Thus, there was more drug addiction than there is today, and much of it was unintentional.
In an effort to address this problem, the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act was passed (Whitebread, 1999). This law did more than any other to reduce the level of drug addiction in the United States. It was not a criminal law, but it accomplished three important things:
First, it created the Food and Drug Administration in Washington, which must approve all foods and drugs intended for human consumption. The immediate impact was that patent medicines were not approved for human consumption once they were tested. Second, the Pure Food and Drug Act stipulated that certain drugs could only be sold by prescription. Third, the act required that any drug that could be potentially habit-forming carry a warning on its label: "Warning — May be habit forming." The labeling requirements, the prescription requirements, and the refusal to approve patent medicines effectively ended the patent medicine business and removed a major source of accidental addiction.
Since then, numerous policies have been put in place to control drugs in the United States. The first criminal law at the Federal level to criminalize the non-medical use of drugs was the Harrison Act (Whitebread, 1999). This paper aims to provide a comprehensive look at the history of drug policies in the United States.
The history of United States drug policy can best be reviewed by examining supply reduction — the reduction and control of the supply of drugs through legislation, law enforcement, interdiction, sentencing, and incarceration.
There are many different points at which the history of supply reduction in the United States may have begun (Harrison, Backenheimer, and Inciardi, 1999). The year 1906 marked the Congressional passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act, which prohibited the interstate transportation of adulterated or mislabeled food and drugs. However, this policy did not prohibit or outlaw the use of cocaine and opiate drugs. Rather, it created standards of quality and truth in labeling and led to the demise of much of the patent medicine industry, since the ingredients of such medicines now had to be disclosed (Inciardi, 1992, p. 15).
A key legislative act concerning drugs occurred in 1914 when Congress approved the Harrison Act, which became the standard and the basis of narcotic regulation in the United States for the next fifty years (Harrison, Backenheimer, and Inciardi, 1999). This act was based upon the constitutional authority of the Federal Government to raise revenue and to tax and regulate the distribution and sale of narcotics. The Harrison Act aimed to make illegal the non-medical use of morphine and cocaine. Under the terms of this law, all people who imported, manufactured, produced, compounded, sold, dispensed, or otherwise distributed cocaine and opiate drugs were required to register with the Treasury Department, pay taxes, and record all transactions.
While this act was defined as a revenue act, the Harrison Act served to criminalize the approximately 200,000 users of narcotics in the United States (Harrison, Backenheimer, and Inciardi, 1999). As a result, many citizens were suddenly labeled addicts. Doctors could no longer write a narcotic prescription for addicted patients for the purpose of maintenance. A later ruling stated that a narcotic prescription for an addict was illegal even when the intent was part of a cure program. This decision was reversed in 1925 but, by that time, doctors were wary of prescribing narcotics to addicts and an illegal drug distribution chain had become well established.
By 1920, an illegal drug economy was prominent in the United States, deriving income mainly from sales of cocaine and heroin (Harrison, Backenheimer, and Inciardi, 1999). In 1922, the Jones-Miller Act was passed to address this issue. The act imposed fines of up to $5,000 and jail time for any person found guilty of participating in the illegal importation of narcotics. However, the legislation had little effect on the illicit drug marketplace except to increase the price of heroin and cocaine.
Several other legislative efforts in supply reduction served to establish more severe penalties for violations of drug laws and to tighten controls and restrictions over legally manufactured narcotic drugs (Harrison, Backenheimer, and Inciardi, 1999). A Manufacturing Act created a system of licensing manufacturers and quotas for classes of drugs. In 1961, the United States became one of fifty-four nations to participate in the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which aimed to modernize and coordinate global narcotic control.
In the 1970s, two more laws were passed to control drug abuse (Harrison, Backenheimer, and Inciardi, 1999). The first was the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations law (RICO) and the other was the Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) statute. Both aimed to forfeit ill-gotten gains — removing the rights of drug traffickers to personal assets or property, including real estate, cash, automobiles, and jewelry, obtained by or used in a criminal enterprise.
In the 1980s, four major anti-drug bills were passed (Harrison, Backenheimer, and Inciardi, 1999). All four addressed supply reduction. The first was the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, which expanded criminal and civil asset forfeiture laws and increased federal criminal sanctions for drug offenses. The second was the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which enabled treatment and "restored mandatory prison sentences for large-scale distribution of marijuana, imposed new sanctions on money laundering," and included other demand reduction components (BJS, 1992, p. 86). The third was the 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Amendment Act, which increased sanctions for crimes related to drug trafficking and developed new federal offenses. The fourth was the Crime Control Act of 1990, which focused on supply reduction and law enforcement, increasing appropriations for drug law enforcement grants to states and localities and strengthening forfeiture and seizure statutes (BJS, 1992, p. 86).
The 1920s marked the culmination of alcohol prohibitionist efforts. During the previous two centuries, support had been growing for prohibition, and by 1900 there was significant public pressure on the topic (Recreational Drug Information, 1999). The Women's Christian Temperance Union, anti-saloon leagues, and allied anti-alcohol crusaders aimed to convince Americans that the continued use of alcohol threatened the country's wellbeing.
The Eighteenth, or Prohibition, Amendment passed both houses of Congress in 1917 and was ratified by three-fourths of the forty-eight state legislatures a year later (Recreational Drug Information, 1999). From 1920 until 1933, the manufacture, sale, and consumption of alcohol was prohibited in the United States. As with tobacco, the opiates, and cocaine, legislation did not create a general climate of abstention. Where there were willing consumers, supply was still able to keep pace with demand.
Alcohol remained available throughout Prohibition (Recreational Drug Information, 1999). People still drank, still became alcoholics, and alcohol was still a fixture at social gatherings. Drunk drivers were still a frequent hazard on the highways, and courts, jails, hospitals, and mental health institutions were still filled with people suffering from alcohol-related problems. However, instead of drinking beverages manufactured under state and federal standards, people now drank "rotgut," which was often contaminated. The use of methyl alcohol — a poison — because ethyl alcohol was unavailable or too expensive led to illness and death.
In addition, even seedier speakeasies replaced disreputable saloons (Recreational Drug Information, 1999). There was a shift from relatively mild light wines and beers to hard liquors, which were less bulky and therefore less dangerous to manufacture, transport, and sell on the black market. Young people — and especially respectable young women, who had rarely been seen drunk in public before 1920 — were now staggering out of speakeasies.
While saloons had legal closing hours, speakeasies stayed open night and day. Organized crime syndicates took control of alcohol distribution, establishing power bases that would endure for decades. Marijuana, a drug previously little used in the United States, was also first popularized during the period of Alcohol Prohibition.
Despite rigid federal efforts to enforce the Eighteenth Amendment, alcohol prohibition proved unenforceable (Recreational Drug Information, 1999). Americans and their European forebears had been drinking for centuries and were unwilling to stop. The amendment repealing prohibition passed Congress in February 1933 and was ratified by the requisite number of states in less than one year.
The Twenty-First Amendment gave individual states the power to retain statewide alcohol prohibition and made it a federal offense to ship alcoholic beverages into a dry state (Recreational Drug Information, 1999). However, the states had also learned how impossible it was to prevent people from drinking. One by one, each state repealed its local anti-alcohol legislation, with Mississippi the last to do so — in 1966.
Until 1920, when Alcohol Prohibition was legislated, there were few accounts of marijuana in the media, and those that did exist portrayed marijuana as used recreationally (Harrison, Backenheimer, and Inciardi, 1999). After Prohibition was enacted, marijuana markets began to appear in a few cities, particularly New Orleans and New York (Brecher, 1986, p. 14). Soon, Congress passed the Marijuana Tax Act, which was signed into law in 1937. Like the Harrison Act, the Marijuana Tax Act placed marijuana in the same category as cocaine and opium. It was now illegal to import marijuana into the United States (McWilliams, 1991). However, this law was ineffective in curbing marijuana use (Brecher, 1986, p. 14).
By the early 1940s, narcotic addiction had significantly declined in the United States (Harrison, Backenheimer, and Inciardi, 1999). However, this was not the result of legislative initiatives. Instead, it was because World War II was "cutting off the supplies of opium from Asia and interrupting the trafficking routes from Europe" (Inciardi, 1992, p. 24).
The Harm Reduction model for drug policy is widely used today and has replaced many earlier approaches. However, it remains an ineffective policy on its own (Santamaria, 1999). Some of its apparently successful programs — such as needle and syringe exchange programs and methadone maintenance services — are ones that require critical review.
There is a major need for adequate treatment services for the truly addicted, for effective primary prevention programs, for early intervention, and for appropriate restrictive laws combined with good diversionary programs designed to deter and treat (Santamaria, 1999). Control of both supply and demand is essential, and rescuing individuals from the drug subculture is key to successful intervention. The United States needs to address the contributing factors that create at-risk populations and to help those populations rediscover meaningful engagement in society.
Today, it is unnecessary to dismantle restrictive drug policies. Instead, a strong national policy should aim to reduce the harm of drug use through harm prevention — for example, by building robust drug-prevention programs — and harm elimination, by developing broader interdiction and rehabilitation efforts. Such a policy should also improve efforts to reduce the use of alcohol and tobacco as well as currently illegal drugs. This approach should pay particular attention to especially vulnerable persons in the community, with a major emphasis on young people.
You’re 64% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.