When I belatedly discovered the war on drugs as a political cause in
1995, it had already compiled a long and complicated history. Although
the selection any such date is always arbitrary, the most obvious
starting place for any history of federal drug policy had always seemed
the Harrison Narcotic Act (HNA) of December 1914. In most
considerations of Harrison, the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act (PFDA) had
often been held up as an example of its opposite: a ‘wise’ regulatory
measure that had actually done some ‘good' by reducing inadvertent
opium addiction among the nation’s housewives by requiring patent
medicine labels to list ingredients.
Thus, it was with some mild surprise that I recently (and belatedly)
discovered a movement afoot to consider the PFDA as the historical
origin of current US 'drug control’ policy; however the more I
think about it, the less that should have surprised me. The ‘other
side’
in this uneven propaganda contest has enormous advantages of money and
time; however, they must also be aware of their policy’s
vulnerabiity: most Americans consider the drug war a hopeless
failure. With that in mind, a campaign to parley the FDA’s
Centennial and the public’s generally higher regard for it to
brighten the the drug war's image is, at least, logical. What is
staggereing, however, is the absolute contempt for truth with which the
campaign is being orchestrated.
Such a campaign would also explain the FDA’s ridiculous 4/20 ‘statement’
explaining why “Medical Marijuana” will never be approved (it has to be
smoked!). Even more blatant wasa gathering of ex-drug czars held on June 17 to commemorate
the
‘appointment’ of psychiatrist Jerome Jaffe to be the first such
functionary (although he was called a Presidential ‘Advisor at
the time and Dan Baum's 1996 'Smoke and Mirrors' succinctly explained
the panic behind his appointment).
A just-published report
by John Burnham, its quasi-official ‘historian’
on the gathering, with much emphasis on its significance (a celebration
the drug war's ‘victory') just appeared in yesterday's Columbus
Dispatch.
It makes for fascinating reading but, so far, has provoked little
notice from reformers. Are they out to lunch? Whatever the explanation,
their failure to
note- and respond- to such blatant revisionism, cannot be regarded as a
sign of political strength.
