George,

The early part of the twentieth century saw more Americans addicted to narcotics than similar addictions in recent years.

From Coca Cola to over-the-counter patent medicines, access to everything from cough medicines laced with opium derivatives to paregoric to rub on young children's gums as a "teething" pain reliever to "snake oil" type medications to relieve everything from lumbago to warts--all had potent addictive drugs as the main active ingredient. Codeine was as easily obtained as aspirin.

You might not be cured, but you would sure feel good in the process.

The main difference between then and now is that addiction and drug dependency then was treated as a medical problem, not a criminal problem.

Probably no public figure had more influence on the "criminalization" of addictive drugs than a "J Edgar Hoover type" bureaucrat named Harry J Anslinger--he was, in essence, America's first "drug czar".

Though his early career was in the area of enforcement of Prohibition laws, his involvement on his personal "war on drugs" got underway around 1930.

Though Anslinger's favorite cause was his war against marijuana, he was instrumental in turning public opinion against all "illegal" drugs. Anslinger was not above distorting evidence and using lurid, often unsubstantiated tales of the nightmarish effects of marijuana use. The movie "Reefer Madness" was the outgrowth of Anslinger's distortion and propaganda.

Anslinger also introduced a racist component to his ravings, often citing the use of narcotics by what he considered "marginal" members of society, ie, Mexicans, jazz musicians and African-Americans. Many of his more lurid distortions would involve African-American males and white females, all high on narcotics and always with a sexual overtone.

Many critics accused Anslinger of being a shill for other interests, William Randolph Hearst and the DuPont Corporation were just a few of his supportive fans.

The tales of Anslinger and his self-promoting tales of the horrors of drug use could fill many books, but, suffice it to say, many experts who have studied the futility of the war on drugs cite Anslinger as a major contributor to this failed effort.

Many health experts saw Anslinger's campaign as a "cure far worse than the disease" and the overwhelming consensus was to return to seeing the use and abuse of addictive drugs as a treatable health issue with far fewer dire consequences. This argument continues today.

It is very easy to recognize the "dire consequences" of the Anslinger approach in our modern War On Drugs.

In a word: FAILURE, with consequences so severe that it is almost impossible to think the American people could stand by and watch the cost in lives, treasure and the undermining of entire institutions in society.

Our prisons, alone, are filled with non-violent drug offenders at an enormous cost in taxpayer dollars and human suffering. One statistic that drives home this point most clearly is, while the United States makes up approximately 5% of the world's population, we warehouse 25% of the world's prison population, many of whom are non-violent drug offenders sentenced under current law. The average annual cost to taxpayers to house an inmate is in the area of 30-37, 000 dollars.

Compare that to the cost of educating our children.

Minimum sentencing guidelines are often more rigidly enforced when applied to drug violations than many other criminal activities. The case of offenses involving crack cocaine are often closely aligned with a racial component, since crack users are mostly from the African-American community, though the amount of cocaine involved is often a fraction of actual pure cocaine usage, a drug of choice by more affluent members of society, that measure for measure carry a far less minimum sentence. The percentage of African Americans caught up in the penal system is far greater than the percentage of the general population, largely because of the inequities of the sentencing for crack cocaine usage

Entire law enforcement departments spend countless hours and millions of dollars, enforcing drug laws that just end up compounding the expense and suffering. A pursuit as useful as plowing the sea, as, like the Sorcerer's Apprentice trying to stop the flooding water buckets, as fast as one outlet for illegal drugs is closed, several more take its place.

Much of the gang violence in the United States is over the rich financial rewards of the illegal drug trade, the only legitimate business profiting is the TV and film industry cranking out seemingly endless portrayals of the violence and mayhem generated by "art imitating life"

National governments, local law enforcement agencies, even military departments are often corrupted by the temptation of a trade awash in easily obtainable cash. .

Money laundering deprives the nation of billions of dollars in revenue, organizations with nefarious intentions use the proceeds from the illegal drug business to bankroll their evil enterprises, financial institutions must have full time employees just for the purpose of preventing illegal drug profits from corrupting their portfolios, the corrosive effects of this illegal trade are boundless.

Mexico is a nation involved in an internal war against drug lords whose principal market lies north of the border in the United States. The police and military are often outgunned by the drug gangs, amply supplied by unscrupulous gun dealers in the U.S. Over six thousand human beings have been brutally murdered in Mexico's drug war.

The thirty five billion dollar drug business in Mexico, alone, is just too profitable for the drug lords to go away without a bloody fight--AND it is effective: entire law enforcement agencies and their commanders are throwing in the towel. I heard one police official say, "the war is lost, the forces against us are too overwhelming!". Just an individual opinion, but six thousand dead is a pretty convincing and frightening number to argue against. , , , , as is thirty five BILLION dollars!

I am only scratching the surface writing about this lost cause, after billions of dollars gone, the drug supply larger than ever, we simply must find a way to decriminalize this menace. I know all too well that the "drug war" to a politician is akin to the old Southern pols use of segregation as a tool to hold office. It will be difficult to overcome. Courage is not a watchword in modern politics and being seen as "soft on drugs" will be trotted out against any leader brave enough to take a sensible position.

It may just be a righteous cause for "We The People"!

Harry Tenney (Electronic mail, March 14, 2009)