The widely publicized killings of alleged Venezuelan drug traffickers by the Pentagon is not an act without precedence, but instead the latest in a campaign with a long pedigree of terror, rooted in racist tendencies. This campaign is that of the anti-drug offensive, a brutal ideology characterized by the terrorization of populaces by their own government, the wholesale butchering of human rights, and the spread of an ideological agenda accepted as fact.
The prosecution of drugs at large was preceded by the temperance movements of the mid-1800s, which sought to close saloons and federally prohibit the sale of alcohol. Despite the popularity of some groups, they failed at any meaningful federal prohibition because of the widespread unpopularity of such policies, and the large tax revenues collected by provincial governments.
This paradigm was shifted as increasing numbers of Asians, especially Chinese people, immigrated to Vancouver and other parts of Canada seeking work, notably on projects like the Canadian Pacific Railway. To many Canadians who had come to see Canada as a white, Christian nation, Chinese people represented the degradation of Canada’s moral fibre. Exacerbating this deeply ingrained racism was the widespread employment of Chinese people as labourers and the fear of unemployment it generated among many white labourers.
At this time, opium use was rising in China. The drug had exploded in popularity after Britain had been importing massive quantities from India to gain trade leverage against the Chinese. This culminated in the two opium wars of the 19th century, both of which China lost, leading to the unadulterated spread of the drug across the country. As such, some late 19th century Chinese immigrants brought it to Canada. Opium, providing euphoria while sedating its user, was the antithesis of the Puritanical belief in happiness through hard work.
Opium was ripe for the targeting. After a group of 9 000 protesters marched to Vancouver city hall, garnering international attention, Prime Minister Wilfred Laurier sent a government official to investigate. This official was Mackenzie King, future tenth Prime Minister of Canada. After meeting with the group, King declared:
“The Chinese with whom I converse on the subject assured me that almost as much opium was sold to white people as Chinese, and the habit of opium smoking was making headway, not only among white men and boys, but also among women and girls… to be indifferent to the growth of such an evil in Canada would be inconsistent with those principles of morality which ought to govern the conduct of a Christian nation.”
King’s statement exemplifies the cultural strategy moral reformists used to prohibit opium, and later many other drugs. First, drug use is portrayed not as a public health issue, but as a racial issue. This tends to be used in situations where a racial divide already exists, stoking ongoing tensions. Second is framing the problem as one that only affects innocent, blameless groups, in this case women and children. In this way, blame can be shifted from those consuming the drugs to a malicious other, one who is taking advantage of those most vulnerable. The third is making an unjustified moral claim, which is backed not by its validity, but by the sheer volume of people who believe it. Especially in contemporary society, if these moral claims were validated with religious ethos, they would be invalid for large portions of the population. As such, they must remain nebulous to apply to as many people as possible.
Combining the Puritanical hatred of the drug with the white general public’s fear of the Chinese population was a masterstroke, and opium was quickly banned.The Opium Act of 1908 was Canada’s first prohibition legislature, and some of the first in the modern world. It punished those who sold, imported or manufactured opium, and not those who used, effectively targeting the Chinese who ran opium dens and grew opium for a living. Just three years later this was followed by the Opium and Drug Act (1911), prohibiting cocaine and morphine, among other drugs.
Much of this process was mirrored in the U.S., with some notable differences. Cities like San Francisco, which also had large Chinese populations, employed a similar strategy to essentially criminalize cultural practices of racialized peoples. However, the strategy for the prohibition for drugs like cocaine, especially in the Southern States, was slightly different.
In the deep South, where racial tensions already existed, politicians and police used a much more direct strategy, saying that “drug-crazed, sex-mad negroes” were immune to small caliber weapons.,
While this had no true scientific or medical basis, it was widely reported by newspapers like the New York Times and used to scare racist white voters into accepting otherwise baseless laws.
The widespread acceptance by white Americans of these laws denotes their true aim. Had the reduction of drug use been their only concern, it would have served to disenfranchise the large population of voting, drug-using, white people. Instead, the primary goal of these drug laws was to target racial minorities and left large avenues to the relatively rich white population to continue using.
Over the next 70 years prohibition continued its slow creep, with notable occurrences including the brief prohibition of alcohol within Canada (1916-1917) and the U.S. (1920-1933). However, 1984 marked a significant change in U.S. drug policy, and the world at large.
The demarcation for this change was the election of Ronald Reagan. Reagan and his wife, Nancy, were both born-again Protestants and were hugely influential in the contemporary outlook on drugs. Nancy was responsible for important, yet almost completely ineffective, initiatives like the D.A.R.E. program, which sent local police officers into the classrooms of millions of children across both the U.S. and Canada to teach children about narcotics., The messaging of the program primarily relied on fear, attempting to scare children as young as ten into abstinence.
More importantly, however, were Ronald Reagan’s introduction of draconian mandatory minimum sentencing and possession laws. These laws created harsher sentences and punishments for minor drug infractions like drug possession.
While they appeared racially unbiased, in practice these laws served to harshly target Black and impoverished people. This was primarily the result of two factors, namely the characteristics of drug acquisition and types of drugs used. Many of the drugs that were heavily legislated against, like cocaine, were accessible through legal channels, but at high expense. This effectively allowed the rich to avoid any criminal activity despite using the same drugs.
Moreover, drugs like cocaine hydrochloride, or crack, came with sentences 100 times harsher than those for normal cocaine. Crack had two main differences from cocaine: the removal of a hydrochloride salt that allows the drug to be smoked, and its prevalence in low-income Black neighbourhoods. While this was reduced by the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, it remains at an 18:1 ratio, despite being nearly the same drug.
Reagan’s “War on Drugs” fell within the larger “Tough on Crime” prerogative. In tandem, the two dramatically elevated the prison population, raising drug-related incarceration by nearly ten times, and disproportionately increasing Black incarceration numbers., The effects of these policies are still felt to this day within many disadvantaged communities across North America.
Today, it is not only the legacies felt within these communities, but the effects of new drug policies that systematically discriminate against low-income people, allowing powerful middle class voting blocs strategic access to certain drugs, while simultaneously criminalizing drug use for many impoverished people. This shift is almost more sinister than the first, in the fact that it placates many people who would be anti-discrimination into believing that they are actively solving the problem, when they are really strengthening discriminatory norms.
In America, an early example of this “modern era” discrimination is cannabis legalization. In California, where it was first legalized within North America, it was for medical use only. This meant that potential users had to go through the expensive and time-consuming process of getting the drug prescribed, essentially limiting use of the drug to those with a higher income. While cannabis does have many medicinal benefits, the actual driving factor behind this substantial change was not newfound research proving these benefits, but instead an acknowledgement of gradual cultural shifts within upper-class society into accepting the drug.
This is also evident with the widespread use of drugs like ketamine in clinics across the United States. While technically for “therapeutic” use, this distinction is almost completely semantic, masking the real difference: rich against poor. Legal ketamine access requires expensive doctor visits, deep pockets, or comprehensive medical insurance, effectively limiting legal use to the wealthy.
Right now in much of North America, many people are advocating for the legalization of psychedelics like psilocybin and LSD. However, much of their advocacy work is rooted in discrimination. The newfound interest in psychedelics does not represent a recent discovery in medical research, but a cultural shift of the monied class, who gradually began accepting psychedelics.
This fact becomes even more apparent when the historical context is considered. Just 50 years ago these very same drugs were demonized by the upper class. As such, it was widely understood that they were evil drugs, and medical research generally surrounded their induction of psychosis, and occasionally schizophrenia, into users. The medical potential at the time was the exact same as now, but there was one important difference: the monied class resented the drug.
With the horrible legacy of prohibition made clear, the current system which is treated as a necessity of everyday reality can finally be examined. Laws that could help drug users, and society at large, remain out of reach because decades of propaganda has convinced citizens that drugs are best stamped out.
.png){kind=small}
