The War on Drugs

Sound familiar? In the United States, this will often bring back memories from multiple generations. From Nixon’s attempts at controlling drugs to Reagan and his wife Nancy amping up the War on Drugs. It might also conjure up memories of the D.A.R.E. program or Drug Abuse Resistance Education that many students were taught while in elementary or middle school, often by a police officer. It was all an attempt to target children at an early age to educate and prevent drug abuse. This war did not start in the 1960s, 70s, 80s or 90s. It started closer to the turn of the century in 1914. The Sixty-Third Congress established the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act which regulated and taxed narcotics. It was passed by the House and Senate and promptly signed by President Woodrow Wilson.

---

---

---

The Act was introduced by and named after United States Representative Francis B. Harrison of New York. Harrison was Governor-General of the Philippines, under Woodrow Wilson, and noticed a burgeoning dissemination of opium. Generally speaking, opium was not a new creation, but it was increasingly popular to the United States around the Civil War and near the start of the 19th-century. The explosion in popularity resulted in companies, including established pharmaceutical companies, creating products containing opium or cocaine. Products ranging from cigarettes to cosmetics were infused with cocaine or other substances. Some of these were also marketed towards infants and children. It was America’s new fad and, to some, a cure-all for any malady.

Just as quickly as America’s love affair with narcotics came to fruition it would eventually come to a screeching halt. A federal survey in 1910 noted that, “cocaine is often the direct incentive to the crime of rape by the Negroes in the South and other sections of the country.” The 1903 Committee on the Acquirement of the Drug Habit reported from the blue-ribbon citizens’ panel, “If the Chinaman cannot get along without his dope, we can get along without him.” These seeds of doubt and fear meant that Americans had to rethink their position on how ‘fantastic’ narcotics really were. Initially, it appears, it was less about education and more about fear tactics. Closer to home, those with legitimate medical conditions, requiring an opioid, for example, would sometimes be demonized or ridiculed. It would be a source of shame and fear to get a narcotic for some. Similarly, some physicians were limiting or avoiding narcotic use in treatment altogether. And this left a sudden gaping hole with hundreds of thousands of addicts across the country with little or no access to any treatment but a burgeoning branch of punitive approaches at the disposal of Federal and State governments. Ultimately, however, it was clear that America had a problem with drugs and the time for debating the root causes or placing blame was now over.

Early Medical Impact in Kentucky and Finding Fast Fixes

March 1, 1915 is when revenue collectors began enforcing the new “anti-narcotic” law. In Kentucky, within the first week of March of 1915, hospitals and private sanitariums became overwhelmed with patients seeking some sort of treatment for drug addiction since they were no longer able to obtain drugs, legally or otherwise. Louisville’s City Hospital began admitting six to eight patients per day to the psychopathic ward. They eventually had to compile a waiting list. The superintendent of City Hospital, Dr. J. W. Fowler made a plea to the Board of Public Safety to develop a plan to assist with the rapid change. According to Dr. Fowler, most of the cases that were received by City Hospital were in poor circumstance and told “pitiful stories.” Women patients outnumbered the men at the hospital.

“Effects of the new law did not become pronounced [in Louisville] as soon as in other large cities. Hospital and police officials in St. Louis, Pittsburg, and Philadelphia have adopted important relief programs; in Memphis a special “dope” hospital has been equipped and will begin its work to-day, while in Chicago, Gov. Dunne has taken a hand.”

A new treatment was adopted by physicians in which belladonna was given to the patient in the same manner as he or she previously took the drug. Over a period of about ten days, strong medicine was given to the patient by injection, orally, or through the nose. According to reports, those receiving treatment were made very ill and ate nothing for several days. However, it was reported that this “cure” was a permanent one. Other approaches included gradually cutting off the “dope” until the patient no longer had a need or craving for it. Louisville jail physician Dr. L. P. Spears reported that, for years, he gave inmates “harmless powder,” gradually titrating the dose, and when they admitted they no longer needed it he revealed that it was not cocaine or morphine they had been getting.

---

Kentucky ‘revenue collector,’ T. Scott Mayes conducted initial provisions under the new law and more than 1,100 names of druggists and physicians were placed on the government’s books prior to March 1, 1915, with a small penalty after that date. Manufacturers and importers had to furnish sworn inventories of quantities made or purchased. It was required of wholesale druggists to do the same, including quantities sold and to whom. Physicians were unable to purchase anything except with written order on the “narcotic order blanks” provided from the Collector of Internal Revenue. Consumers were unable to purchase except upon the prescription by a physician. Additionally, records had to be maintained and preserved for a minimum of three years and made available for inspection upon request by federal authorities. Penalties were set at $2,000 fine or give years’ imprisonment or both for violations or evasions of the new law.

By October of 1915, revenue collector T. Scott Mayes and his various deputies had reported that there were several Kentucky druggists fined for violations of the narcotic act. These were also referred to the United States District Attorney. Infractions were reported across the state but, overall, most physicians and druggists in Kentucky were following the new law without issue. Narcotic order blanks were made available to “reputable” druggists and physicians by the revenue collector and his deputies for one cent per blank. Kentucky revenue collector T. Scott Mayes reported that. “In despair because of their predicament in being unable to obtain drugs since the Harrison law went into effect, have accosted the collector on the street and demanded order blanks, while others have besieged the collector’s office in vain attempts to secure the forms, the only means by which narcotics may now be purchased.”

---

---

---

Kentucky courts were also preparing for the changes. Judge James P. Gregory of the Criminal Court of Louisville gave implicit instructions to juries that,

“It is the duty of the court to instruct you in regard to violations of the law regulating the sale and distribution of drugs. There has been placed recently in force supplementing our State laws and Federal law which has done much toward aiding to the enforcement of these wholesome restrictions. It is a sad commentary upon our concept of law, upon our respect for our local institutions, that the State or city may pass laws and provide officers for their enforcement and where a few base and vile men can find profit in violating those laws their violation is widespread, but when the Federal Government can supplement those laws there is very wholesome respect paid to the Federal law, where contempt has been shown for the State or the municipal law. This is not due to the fact that the Federal law is any stronger or better than the State law, but due wholly to an unfortunate conception which we have of our State laws, which allow them to be violated without in each instance requiring the party violating them to answer before the bar of justice.”

Conflicting Reports

By the 1920s, the approach to enforce and combat drug abuse was well-established. In 1923, George Cunningham, chief of the Richmond Division of the Federal Narcotic Enforcement Bureau, said that “Dope is easier to get in Kentucky than in any other state in the division, which includes Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Tennessee.” Cunningham noted a report by the Courier-Journal that alleged that half of the population of Somerset were drug addicts, a claim he called “ridiculous” in the face of figures presented by the publication. Additionally, he noted, “ten ounces of morphine a month were used in Somerset.” On a rough calculation, he said, “twenty average addicts would use that amount of the drug in a month.” The Courier-Journal’s investigation in Somerset disclosed nineteen addicts. Cunningham also mentioned that in the same Courier-Journal report that they compared the amount of narcotic drugs to be used monthly in Somerset with the amount used in large hospitals. He said this was “ignorant” and unfair because drug patients in institutions [were] under careful watch and control.

In the same year, Cunningham, and his team of fifteen agents led a raid in Louisville where they made twenty arrests. Cunningham said that he had found a larger number of physicians violating the laws. “Illegal dispensation of drugs in the state is divided about half and half between physicians and peddlers.” According to Cunningham, the Kentucky cities with the most disreputable doctors catering to drug addicts were Lexington, Paducah and one or two other smaller cities. He also made it clear at the time that describing Kentucky as the worst “dope state in his division,” he did not want to leave the impression that narcotic use was on the rise in the state (one would presume he’s talking about ease of access to narcotics by both doctors and “peddlers”). He also promised to send more men into the state to “clean up.” The Federal Government was limited in prosecuting cases of persons in possession of narcotics. For the purpose, it had to be proven, of sale or to persons who evaded the taxes imposed on drugs; this was another complication with the Harrison Act.

Cunningham was a transplant Federal Narcotic Agent from New Orleans where he made a record 242 narcotic drug convictions in less than one year. By the end of the fiscal year in 1923 in Kentucky only twelve convictions had been obtained. He also believed that state and federal laws should make way for giving life sentences to drug peddlers. “That sort of man is worse than a murderer. When he is caught, he ought to be put out of the way for the rest of his life.” Over the years, other federal agents were quoted about Kentucky being the “worst state in the territory” for dope trafficking.

---

A Glimpse into Indictments and Convictions of Prescribers

---

Post-Harrison

A number of laws have been passed since the 1914 Harrison Act to culminate in the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. Many of these were in response to the original Harrison Act, some cases going as far as the United States Supreme Court. The 1925 case of Dr. Charles O. Linder v. United States resulted in important case law ruling that, according to Associate Justice James C. McReynolds, the federal government did not have the power to regulate the practice of medicine in states. There was an exception, however, and that included Schedule 1 drugs; these drugs are considered not safe, even under direct medical supervision and include, but not limited to, heroin, marijuana, MDMA and psilocybin. Cocaine is classified as a Schedule 2 drug.

Narcotic drugs were only one of many substances that have been targeted over the years. One of the most famous (perhaps infamous) is the 18th Amendment, prohibiting alcohol. Gambling, Marijuana, and many other drugs have been at the center of debates, laws, and repeals over the years. Some view the Harrison Act as a main contributor to the black-market of drugs. Various reports and studies have also shown an increase in narcotics after the Harrison Act, comparing it to prohibition and its later repeal. Some may argue that the Harrison Narcotic Tax Act was born of good intent. Others see a foundation based in fear, racism, xenophobia and discrimination. As polarizing as it was, it’s clear that Kentuckians and Americans at large had addiction issues before, during, and after 1914. Subsequent legislation revealed that the original Harrison Act had problems of its own. Well into the 21st-century and we still have a public health crisis related to drug abuse despite more than a century of attempts to legislate and intervene.

Author’s note: Please keep in mind to view some of the preceding information with a historical lens. This blog is not intended to demonize or minimize anyone’s experience with substance use (irrespective of opinions, points of view or beliefs). It’s a very brief look at the early beginnings of the “War on Drugs” and its impact on Kentucky.

Contributed by Shawn Logan | contact@kyhi.org

---

⁘ Works Cited ⁘

• Harrison Narcotic Act, ch. 1, 38 Stat. 785 (1914)
• Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5 (1925)
• Terry, C. E. The Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act. American Journal of Public Health (N Y). 1915 5(6):518.
• The Harrison Narcotic Act. (1920). Virginia Law Review, 6(7), 534–540.
• The Courier-Journal, Louisville, Kentucky 6 April 1915
• The Courier-Journal, Louisville, Kentucky, 8 May 1915
• The Courier-Journal, Louisville, Kentucky, 27 October 1915
• The Courier-Journal, Louisville, Kentucky, 2 November 1916
• The Courier-Journal, Louisville, Kentucky, 7 December 1916
• The Courier-Journal, Louisville, Kentucky, 11 January 1923
• The Courier-Journal, Louisville, Kentucky, 6 February 1923
• The Courier-Journal, Louisville, Kentucky, 5 October 1924

---

Important note:
If you would like to use any information on this website (including text, bios, photos and any other information) we encourage you to contact us. We do not own all of the materials on this website/blog. Many of these materials are courtesy of other sources and the original copyright holders retain all applicable rights under the law. Please remember that information contained on this site, authored/owned by KHI, is provided under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Photographs, text, illustrations and all other media not authored by KHI belong to their respective authors/owners/copyright holders and are used here for educational purposes only under Title 17 U.S. Code § 107.