The debate over whether or not cocaine is addictive is ongoing and complicated. The majority of mental health professionals take the view that regular cocaine users cannot voluntarily stop taking the drug. In this sense, cocaine meets the definition of an addictive drug. Moreover, these experts believe that cocaine use leads to physical changes in the brain that encourage continued use. Journalist Norbert R. Myslinski reports: According to Prof. Karen Bolla of Johns Hopkins University, cocaine impairs memory, manual dexterity, and decision making for at least a month. Her study suggests damage to the brain’s prefrontal cortex, leading to loss of control over consumption of the drug. A deadly spiral is set up, making it more and more difficult for the addict to quit. Continued drug abuse becomes increasingly a matter of brain damage and less a matter of weak character. Another study performed by researchers at Rockefeller University in New York City confirms Bolla’s conclusions and provides a detailed explanation of the brain chemistry of a chronic cocaine user. The Rockefeller University investigators found that repeated exposure to cocaine causes a change at the molecular level that alters a brain protein called Read more [...]

After more than two decades of relative obscurity, cocaine re-emerged on the American drug scene in the early 1970s. Deterred by the obvious addictiveness and social stigma of drugs like heroin and the occasional “bad trip” associated with hallucinogens such as LSD, some Americans saw cocaine as a relatively harmless “recreational” drug. Its potential for harm was downplayed, especially since markedly successful individuals in the entertainment industry seemed to use the drug with impunity. As movie stars, rock musicians, and sports heroes openly admitted using cocaine and enjoying its euphoric effects, its popularity and image soared among the general population. Cocaine quickly occupied a niche in American popular culture. The rock song “Cocaine,” recorded by Eric Clapton, Richie Havens, Dave Van Ronk, the Jack Saints, and DRG Compilations, bolstered the drug’s cool image. More songs with “cocaine” in the title followed, performed by some of America’s most popular singers. Dozens of movies appeared featuring scences that both destigmatized and satirized the use of the drug, depicting cocaine users as fun, successful people. A scene in Woody Allen’s film Annie Hall, for example, depicts guests at a party comically Read more [...]

Anslinger became the first Commissioner of Narcotics in 1930, although he had had only sporadic contact with narcotic control.1 Nonetheless, his more than ten years of government experience affected his attitude toward law enforcement and addicts. Anslinger was born in 1892 in Altoona, Pennsylvania. His father worked for the Pennsylvania Railroad, and while Anslinger went to high school and then to Pennsylvania State College, he also worked for the railroad during the summers, doing maintenance and landscaping and occasionally investigating suspicious incidents for the railroad’s captain of police. Later, when the police captain became the state fire marshal, he offered Anslinger a job compiling statistics and investigating instances of suspected arson. In 1917, after the United States declared war on Germany, Anslinger was employed in Washington in the Ordinance Division of the War Department, where his chief task was to oversee government contracts. Ordinance officers were unpopular in Washington; the public expected young men to fight abroad and, when the opportunity came, Anslinger volunteered to the State Department which was looking for reliable German-speaking employees to work in Holland. He recalls being assigned Read more [...]

In late 1929 the League of Nations called for a new conference to consider how manufactured drugs might be better controlled.7 The State Department wanted to participate but it faced Representative Porter’s objection that participation might imply that the United States had shifted its stand from demanding a limit on raw production to the secondary issue of manufacturing, the issue which had led to Porter’s departure from Geneva in 1925. Finally, Porter was persuaded to permit John T. Caldwell of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs to be present at the Advisory Committee meetings in early 1930 which would consider a preliminary conference to be held in London later that year — provided that Caldwell took no part in the preparations. At the preliminary conference in October and November eleven nations discussed a plan for estimating their requirements for manufactured narcotic drugs and a means by which the manufacturers could divide the market. Although agreement was not reached then, the following May, at the Geneva Conference on the Limitation of the Manufacture of Narcotic Drugs, fifty-seven nations agreed on a Convention. The American delegation consisted of Caldwell as chairman, two other federal officials Read more [...]

During its first few years, the bureau, as judged from its annual reports, minimized the marihuana problem and felt that control should be vested in the state governments.24 The report published in 1932 commented, This abuse of the drug is noted among the Latin-American or Spanish-speaking population. The sale of cannabis cigarettes occurs to a considerable degree in States along the Mexican border and in cities of the Southwest and West, as well as in New York City, and, in fact, wherever there are settlements of Latin Americans. A great deal of public interest has been aroused by newspaper articles appearing from time to time on the evils of the abuse of marijuana or Indian hemp, and more attention has been focused upon specific cases reported of the abuse of the drug than would otherwise have been the case. This publicity tends to magnify the extent of the evil and lends color to an inference that there is an alarming spread of the improper use of the drug, whereas the actual increase in such use may not have been inordinately large. In 1932 the Federal Bureau of Narcotics strongly endorsed the new Uniform State Narcotic Act and repeatedly stressed that the problem could be brought under control if all the states Read more [...]

The AMA’s role in narcotic legislation reflected its stage of institutional development. By 1913 the American Medical Association, from a relatively small group centered mostly in the eastern states, was well on its way to consolidation of American medical practitioners. Like the American Pharmaceutical Association, it represented a group desire to strengthen the education and raise the status of physicians. Although founded in 1847, it did not begin its period of rapid growth and powerful influence until this century. Membership increased from 8,500 in 1900 to 36,000 in 1913, and to more than 44,000 by 1920. The American Medical Association realized the need to enter into political activity in order to achieve its professional goals. It maintained surveillance on laws affecting its interest at each political level. The battle for the Pure Food and Drug Act in the first decade of the century whetted the AMA’s legislative weapons, and from then on it knew when, how, and whom to contact in the state, local, or federal echelon involved. The Council on Health and Public Instruction, created in 1910, contained within it the Bureau of Legislation, headed by Dr. Woodward. This bureau was permitted to use its discretion in Read more [...]

The presidency of Woodrow Wilson began in March 1913, with Democrats now in control of both Houses. Initially Wright was delighted with this change. Wilson and Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan supported strict regulation of narcotics and seemed to have nothing but admiration for America’s initiative in international control. Wright gave a glowing report of his first meetings with Bryan. According to Wright, his account of the fight for worldwide narcotic control was repeatedly punctuated by Bryan’s amazed exclamation: “How did you manage it?”16 A joint committee set up by the State and Treasury Departments attempted to write a bill acceptable to the drug trades, the medical profession, and the Internal Revenue Bureau, which would have enforcement responsibility. Wright felt he was close to the end of a three-year fight with trade interests. At last, on 10 June 1913, the chairman of the National Drug Trade Conference signed a draft of the bill, which was then introduced into the first session of the 63rd Congress by Harrison as HR 6282, destined for eventual passage as the Harrison Act.17 The descendant of the stricter Foster bill, the Harrison bill of 1913 had incorporated numerous compromises. Records Read more [...]

The interaction among the biology of addiction, market economics, and other aspects of cultural context also has been observed repeatedly in the United States. In the years after World War II, over-the-counter drugs containing methamphetamine were widely available in the United States. Amphetamine tablets were available without prescription until 1951, and amphetamine-containing inhalers were available over the counter until 1959- During the 1950s, persons in various walks of life including college students, long-haul truck drivers, individuals trying to lose weight, and athletes trying to enhance their performance used methamphetamine in legal tablet form for nonmedical purposes. Amphetamines were extremely popular with the general public as dieting and “pep” pills. Benzedrine was available without a prescription and was regarded as harmless. Famous musicians, film stars, and writers believed that their talents would be enhanced with amphetamine use. WH. Auden, James Agee, Graham Greene, Philip K. Dick, John-Paul Sarte, and Jack Kerouac all used stimulants to improve their stamina and literary output. As the use of the drugs expanded, so did the number of people who became addicted. The relaxed cultural attitude Read more [...]

The December sessions heard arguments in support of strict control of habit-forming drugs, and several members of the drug trades favorably inclined toward the Foster bill appeared at the hearings. After the Christmas recess the opposition was heard. A week before hearings were resumed, Wright came to New York to conciliate doubtful medical and pharmaceutical interests. The drug-trade leaders gathered at the home of Dr. William J. Schieffelin, president of the National Wholesale Druggists Association (NWDA) and a prominent member of various national reform movements.88 After this meeting, trade representatives hoped that modifications would be made in the bill. Druggists, however, continued their attacks. The Drug Trade Section of the New York Board of Trade came out in opposition to the Foster bill, which it now described as pleasing no one except Dr. Wright. The section also correctly predicted that no action would be taken during the last session of the 6ist Congress.89 Attitudes toward narcotic control varied considerably within the drug industry. Restrictions on small amounts of narcotics that could make a best seller out of an otherwise slow item (mainly proprietary medicines) were opposed by retail drug interests. Read more [...]

Congress had failed Wright, and now prospects for the great international conference were filled with uncertainty. Delay after delay marked planning for its opening session. Wright and some of the State Department staff began to suspect a conspiracy against the American crusade. He was tempted to push a little harder, but from the American Embassy in Paris came the warning that the other nations were tired of American insistence. Now as Ambassador to France, Robert Bacon reminded the anxious planners that “everyone else has so much more at stake than we, they cannot be driven too hard.” 94 The doctor turned to publicity for support of the American proposals. He told his brother-in-law Frank Baldwin of the Outlook that he was willing to write an article on the economic aspects of the opium question, but the Outlook editors preferred something more “picturesque” on opium; for example, “selling girl babies into slavery.” 95 Wright rejected that idea. Dr. Lambert’s aid was enlisted to get Theodore Roosevelt, the Outlook’s contributing editor, to write an article on opium.96 Nothing ever came of this, although Wright tried constantly to get at least a stirring editorial paragraph out of Roosevelt. Even more disheartening Read more [...]