Anti-Drug Legislation in America: Was It Racially
Motivated During the 19th and 20th Centuries?
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 3
PRE-1870 DRUG USE IN AMERICA ....................................................................................................... 4
THE CHINESE IMMIGRANTS ................................................................................................................ 5
OPIUM AND THE “COOLIES” ................................................................................................................ 6
THE OPIUM ORDINANCE OF 1875 ........................................................................................................ 7
THE FIRST AMERICAN ‘WAR ON DRUGS’ ........................................................................................ 8
RACIALLY MOTIVATED ANTI-DRUG LEGISLATION .................................................................... 9
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................10
WORKS CITED ..........................................................................................................................................11
Introduction
Before 1800, opium was readily available to the American public, where users
numbered 250,000 in a population base of seventy-six million.1 Peddled as having
“calming and soporific effects”2, it was frequently used in a wide variety of prescriptions,
especially those concerning menstruation and menopause.3
Yet by the 1870s, California policymakers were reviewing the “moral”
components of the “vice”.4 It seemed that even though opium use was widespread
throughout America regardless of race, politicians were targeting opium dens in
Chinatown as “contaminants” to the otherwise Caucasian population.5 By 1975, San
Francisco had banned opium use6, with the California legislature following suit in 1881,
although the latter law focused solely on opium dens.7
Therefore, based on the presented information and research, this paper will argue
that anti-drug legislation from the late 19th to early 20th centuries in America have been
racially targeted towards minorities in both terms of origin and intent to prevent crime,
using the banning of opium smoking in 1875 as an example.
1
Musto, David. The History of Legislative Control Over Opium, Cocaine and their Derivatives.online at:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/ophs.htm
2
Musto, David. The American Disease: Origins of Narcotic Control, 3rd ed., New York: Oxford University
Press. 3rd. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 70.
3
Ibid, p. 1.
4
Morgan, Patricia. "The Legislation of Drug Law: Economic Crisis and Social Control." Journal of Drug
Issues 8:56 (1978).
5
Ibid, p. 58.
6
Baumohl, Jim. “The ‘Dope Fiend’s Paradise’ Revisited: Notes from Research in Progress on Drug Law
Enforcement in San Francisco, 1875-1915,” Drinking and Drug Practices Surveyor 24:3-12, (1992).
7
Casey, Elaine. History of Drug Users and Drug Use in the United States, Facts About Drug Abuse
Participant Manual, The National Drug Abuse Center for Training Resource and Development, U.S. Govt.
Publication No. 79-FADA-041P. (1978)
Pre-1870 Drug Use in America
Historical and archaeological references on the search for psychoactive materials
suitable for human consumption number in the hundreds, so only a select few can be
mentioned here. From Stone Age man over twelve thousand years ago (mushrooms)8 to
Bronze Age pain-relief (opium)9 to Neolithic cultivation practices (hemp)10, drugs that
exhibit hallucinatory effects have been used extensively for nourishment, energy and
medicinal purposes.11
Drugs, in their various forms, have been used [and debated] in the U.S. since the
first rumblings of the country, including such formative events as the Boston Tea Party of
1773.12 In fact, tobacco was a major financial catalyst to America’s early growth13
through government taxation, as was coffee, alcohol, hemp and opium for most new
nations.14 Having said that, the few drug laws that were in place in 19th century America
(tobacco, pharmacy regulations and alcohol consumption) focused more on the physician
and/or pharmacist responsibility than the end user.15
8
McKenna, Terrance. Food of the Gods: The Search for the Original Tree of Knowledge, New York:
Bantam, p. 47 (1992)
9
Lindesmith, Alfred. The Addict and the Law, New York: Vintage, p. 194. (1965)
10
Rudgley, Richard. Essential Substances: A Cultural History of Intoxicants in Society, New York:
Kodansha, p. 28. (1993)
11
Thomas, Abbie. “Survival of the Druggies,” New Scientist, 30 March 2002, p.11. (2002)
12
Shulgin, Alexander T. Controlled Substances: A Chemical and Legal Guide to the Federal Drug Laws,
Berkeley: Ronin Publishing. (1988)
13
Gately, Ian. Tobacco: A Cultural History of How an Exotic Plant Seduced Civilization, NY: Grove Press.
(2001)
14
Room, Robin. “Addiction Concepts and International Control,” Global Drug Policy: Building a New
Framework, Contributions to the Lisbon International Symposium on Global Drug Policy, October 2003, p.
15. (2003)
15
“Drug Use in America: Problem in Perspective” (1973), Second Report of the National Commission on
Marijuana and Drug Abuse, p. 14.
For many years, opiates were widely available in prescription medications16, so
neither its widespread use nor addictive properties were topics of concern.17 Plus, it was
only the smoking of opium that later became contentious, rather than its other uses and
variations (morphine, laudanum and prescription medications)18, as they posed a threat to
American values and women’s purity. For instance, the Californian State Senate
Committee heard testimony that, while visiting opium dens the police “…found white
women and Chinamen side by side under the effects of this drug - a humiliating sight to
anyone who has anything left of manhood.”19
The Chinese Immigrants
America, from Reconstruction until the 20th century, grew industrially at
previously unseen rates. As agricultural pursuits slowly diminished and manufacturing
processes took precedence, thousands moved to the West searching for a better life.
America was changing rapidly while twelve states and thirteen million new people settled
in the Union, with two percent of said immigrants hailing from China.
Comprised almost entirely from single men leaving a China that had little to offer
them, those that made the long journey to San Francisco usually had families who would
use their life savings to send one family member to Gold Mountain (California), or gam
saan, in search of prosperity.
16
Brecher, Edward M. Licit and Illicit Drugs, Boston: Little Brown. (1972).
See Baumohl.
18
Davenport-Hines, Richard. The Pursuit of Oblivion: A Global History of Narcotics, New York:
W.W. Norton, pp. 83-88. (2002)
19
Testimony of the San Francisco Police Department recorded in California State Senate Committee,
Chinese Immigration, Its Social, Moral and Political Effects, Sacramento, CA: State Publishing Office,
1878.
17
At first, there was more than enough work to go around during the gold rush, with
the Chinese comprising twenty-five percent of the mining workforce during this time.20
By the 1860s however, the mines started to run dry and the thirty-five thousand Chinese
immigrants along the West Coast quickly found themselves out of work. In 1870 tensions
were high while the number of Chinese had almost doubled from ten years’ previous, and
then again more than doubled by 1880.
Opium and the “Coolies”
Few of the working-class Chinese brought over the practice of smoking opium to
America – which was initially shared with Asian traders from the Brits earlier in the 19th
century. So when there was no more gold to mine and the Transcontinental Railway
project finished, the Chinese became the main focus of widespread hatred in relation to
the work shortage. The Workingman’s Party, for instance, was created merely for such a
purpose, 21 as were other merchant-based organizations looking to provide familyoriented neighborhoods with a safer environment.22
With this in mind, it seems obvious that the new laws banning opium smoking
were not, in fact, related to the opium itself, but rather to set apart a certain racial group
that was deemed a threat during massive employment loss. What is even more interesting
however is that the media and legal focus leaned towards the opium dens where “filthy,
20
Chen, Jack. The Chinese in America, New York: Harper & Row, p. 51. (1991)
See Morgan.
22
See Baumohl.
21
idolatrous” Chinese people came into contact with Caucasians23 and enticed women into
prostitution.24
The Opium Ordinance of 1875
San Francisco, in reaction to the growing concerns regarding the smoking of
opium, its Chinese immigrants and the morality of the American people, passed a first-ofits-kind law. Essentially ignoring all other uses for the drug, it provided a clear message
to the new Asian residents: you are not welcome here. Virginia City, Nevada, followed
suit the next year and made the law a state ordinance soon after. Similar legislation
spread like wildfire throughout the Pacific Coast.
Oddly, none of these first laws banned the substance completely, instead
providing many a loophole for physicians and pharmacists alike to jump through.25 Some
were so challenging that they were impossible to meet, while others seemed allencompassing because of their allowances for use in prescription medicine.26
Even though the laws seemed quite relaxed, they were strictly managed when
dealing with an Asian person. This was the first time in U.S. history where its residents
were arrested for possession of an illegal substance and then quickly disciplined for their
transgressions.27
The legal ramifications of smoking opium were raised in 1883 when import tariffs
were imposed (although other opium uses and imports were left alone)28, and not even
23
Ibid.
See Morgan.
25
See Musto, p. 91.
26
Ibid.
27
See Brecher, p. 43.
28
Terry, Charles E. and Pellens, Mildred. The Opium Problem, New York: Committee on Drug Addictions,
Bureau of Social Hygiene, p. 747. (1928)
24
five years later the specifics were made even clearer: the import of opium in all of its
forms into China was prohibited – but only China.29 Yet another law was passed in 1890
allowing only U.S. citizens to manufacture smoking opium, effectively nailing the case
for any Chinaman with this substance in his possession, shut.30
The First American ‘War on Drugs’
From the very beginning, the U.S. federal opium laws garnered varied reactions.
If their intent was to segregate the Chinese population, it succeeded, as the Chinese
government was so upset by the treatment of its citizens in the U.S. that China threatened
formal sanctions.31 But from the point of view that opium usage was wrong or harmful to
one’s health the legislation fell flat on its face, since other forms of the drug remained
available elsewhere.
U.S. officials weren’t blind to the problems with the legalese: 1888 found the U.S.
Treasury blaming smuggling operations along the coastal waters of California for
continued illegal opium usage.32 Nevertheless, these issues (among others) didn’t stop the
political powers from creating more regulations in the future, either, namely The Pure
Food and Drug Act of 1906 and the prohibition of imported smoking opium in 1909.
29
See Shulgin, p. 244.
See Brecher, p. 44.
31
See Musto.
32
Ibid.
30
Racially Motivated Anti-Drug Legislation
The medical hazards of smoking opium haven’t been discussed in this paper
because there were no legal reasons behind the historical moves that stated one’s physical
condition as being a concern of the Union. Rather, all of the motivating factors previously
listed are congruent with racially-motivated reactions to an economic slump.
Much of the stated logic behind the growing concerns and subsequent curtailed
access had to do with the viewpoint that one’s character would be irrevocably harmed by
associating with such “vicious and depraved” people.33 Yet San Francisco, at the time,
was a heavily trafficked port town known for its rough pubs and bars. At no point were
its sailors or other portside visitors accused of similar atrocities or even condemned for
the same behavior.34
In addition, several studies have shown that the drug problem is not so much a
problem with the drug itself (being an inanimate object with no social consequences
unless ingested by a sentient being), but rather a problem with the social groups that have
perceived threat.35 The U.S. also has a long history (prior-to and since this paper’s
historical context) of “virulent” drug fears, in excess of those found in other countries.36
Gieringer, Dale. “125th Anniversary of the First U.S. Anti-Drug Law: San Francisco’s Opium Den
Ordinance,” Drugsense.org, Nov. 2000. Available at: http://www.drugsense.org/dpfca/opiumlaw.html
34
Kopel, David B. and Krause, Michael. The Drug War Against Civil Liberty and Human Rights, From a
paper organized by the Liberal Institute, Friederich Naumann Foundation, Postdam, Germany, September
18, 2004. p. 3.
35
Himmelstein, Jerome, “Drug Politics Theory,” Journal of Drug Issues 8, (1978), and Duster, Troy. The
Legislation of Morality: Law, Drugs, and Moral Judgment, New York: Free Press. (1970)
36
See Brecher.
33
Therefore it makes sense that the opium ordinance of 1875, and its related legal
documents, was used not as a mechanism to keep the American public safe but rather as a
control mechanism to ensure the elite societies remained that way, out of reach of the
threatening Chinese immigrant.37
Conclusion
In conclusion, there is much more historical research to be done on this topic.
Many references were made in decades past, unable to reference the current American
‘war on drugs’. Even so, there are a great many documents and papers available today to,
in my opinion, prove that the American anti-drug policies of the 18th and 19th centuries
were racially motivated both in origin and intent.
37
See Duster.
Works Cited
Baumohl, Jim. “The ‘Dope Fiend’s Paradise’ Revisited: Notes from Research in Progress
on Drug Law Enforcement in San Francisco, 1875-1915,” Drinking and Drug
Practices Surveyor 24:3-12. (1992).
Brecher, Edward M. Licit and Illicit Drugs, Boston: Little Brown. (1972).
Casey, Elaine. History of Drug Users and Drug Use in the United States, Facts About
Drug Abuse Participant Manual, The National Drug Abuse Center for Training
Resource and Development, U.S. Govt. Publication No. 79-FADA-041P. (1978).
Chen, Jack. The Chinese in America, New York: Harper & Row, p. 51. (1991).
Davenport-Hines, Richard. The Pursuit of Oblivion: A Global History of Narcotics, New
York:
W.W. Norton, pp. 83-88. (2002)
“Drug Use in America: Problem in Perspective.” Second Report of the National
Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, p. 14. (1973).
Duster, Troy. The Legislation of Morality: Law, Drugs, and Moral Judgment, New York:
Free Press. (1970).
Gately, Ian. Tobacco: A Cultural History of How an Exotic Plant Seduced Civilization,
NY: Grove Press. (2001).
Gieringer, Dale. “125th Anniversary of the First U.S. Anti-Drug Law: San Francisco’s
Opium Den Ordinance,” Drugsense.org, Nov. 2000. Available at:
http://www.drugsense.org/dpfca/opiumlaw.html
Himmelstein, Jerome, “Drug Politics Theory,” Journal of Drug Issues 8, (1978).
Kopel, David B. and Krause, Michael. The Drug War Against Civil Liberty and Human
Rights, From a paper organized by the Liberal Institute, Friederich Naumann
Foundation, Postdam, Germany, September 18, 2004. p. 3.
Lindesmith, Alfred. The Addict and the Law, New York: Vintage, p. 194. (1965).
McKenna, Terrance. Food of the Gods: The Search for the Original Tree of Knowledge,
New York: Bantam, p. 47 (1992)
Morgan, Patricia. "The Legislation of Drug Law: Economic Crisis and Social Control."
Journal of Drug Issues 8:56 (1978).
Musto, David. The History of Legislative Control Over Opium, Cocaine and their
Derivatives.online at: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/ophs.htm
Musto, David. The American Disease: Origins of Narcotic Control, 3rd ed., New York:
Oxford University Press. 3rd. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 70. (1990).
Room, Robin. “Addiction Concepts and International Control,” Global Drug Policy:
Building a New Framework, Contributions to the Lisbon International Symposium on
Global Drug Policy, p. 15. (Oct 2003).
Rudgley, Richard. Essential Substances: A Cultural History of Intoxicants in Society,
New York: Kodansha, p. 28. (1993).
Shulgin, Alexander T. Controlled Substances: A Chemical and Legal Guide to the
Federal Drug Laws, Berkeley: Ronin Publishing. (1988).
Terry, Charles E. and Pellens, Mildred. The Opium Problem, New York: Committee on
Drug Addictions, Bureau of Social Hygiene, p. 747. (1928).
Testimony of the San Francisco Police Department recorded in California State Senate
Committee, Chinese Immigration, Its Social, Moral and Political Effects, Sacramento,
CA: State Publishing Office (1878).
Thomas, Abbie. “Survival of the Druggies,” New Scientist, 30 March 2002, p.11. (2002).