FEDERAL BUREAU OF SLEEPY TIMES

The Word "Narcotics" Distorts The Drug Debate

On Aug. 3, President Felipe Calderon of Mexico called for a national
debate on the legalization of drugs.

Shortly afterwards, former president Vicente Fox demanded the outright
legalization of all drugs in order to remove the monopoly guaranteed
to the drug trafficking organizations by the current state of
prohibition. A year earlier, three other former Latin American
presidents--Fernando Cardoso of Brazil, Cesar Gaviria of Colombia, and
Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico--issued a report explaining why Latin
American nations and the United States should abandon the "War on
Drugs" and consider legalization as part of an initiative to begin
treating drug use as a public health issue rather than a criminal issue.

The debate in the United States has not yet reached this stage: no
politician with presidential ambitions could imply support for the
legalization of marijuana--let alone all drugs--and hope to win even the
nomination of either of the major parties.

Most of this discrepancy in attitudes between the US and its southern
neighbors can be explained by the much larger threat presented by
drug-related crime in those countries. Much of the rest of this gap is
best understood in the context of the United States' peculiar drug
enforcement history.

In 1937, the Marihuana Tax Act was passed, marking the beginning of
marijuana prohibition in the U.S. This fact itself, however, is less
notable than the circumstances under which the bill was passed.

In 1919, The New York Times published an editorial warning that,
unless a law was passed to prohibit it, an unknown new drug known as
marijuana originating from Mexico would soon replace heroin and other
"hard narcotics" (restricted five years earlier by the Harrison Act)
as the addict's drug of choice.

The article made no mention of the actual effects of marijuana; it
merely associated it with heroin and "narcotics." In doing so, it
provided the American public's first impression of marijuana as a drug.

Fast forward back to 1937. During the hearings preceding the passage of
the Marihuana Tax Act, Commissioner Harry Anslinger of the Federal
Bureau of Narcotics quotes in front of Congress, "Marihuana is an
addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and
death." This statement went unquestioned by those observing the
proceedings. No debate took place preceding the bill's passage in the
Senate, and the bill was passed in the House of Representatives after
the following exchange between a representative from New York and
Speaker Sam Rayburn: "Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?" "I don't
know. It has something to do with a thing called marihuana.

I think it's a narcotic of some kind."

With this information in mind, consider the etymology of the word
"narcotic." From the Greek "narkotikon" meaning "making stiff or
numb," "narcotic" denotes drugs that put people to sleep.

This label fails to describe the most common illegal drugs present in
the US today; in fact, drugs such as cocaine and methamphetamine do
precisely the opposite. How, then, does the word "narcotic" affect the
national discourse on drugs?

Imagine for a moment the reaction of the average American parent after
having just been informed that X percent of people under the age of 18
use recreational drugs.

Now imagine their reaction after being informed that the same
percentage of people use narcotics.

Not quite the same, is it? "Narcotics" seem foreign, they seem
inherently dangerous, and they seem unforgivably criminal.

The word "narcotics" is hardly ever used in a positive light: it
appears almost exclusively in association with criminal activity or
the law enforcement designed to combat it. "Drugs," on the other hand,
is a morally neutral word, referring to anything from opium or alcohol
to essential medicines such as penicillin or aspirin.

Although the Federal Bureau of Narcotics has since been renamed as the
Drug Enforcement Agency, its legacy in the popular consciousness lives
on in the form of countless references to "narcotic drug abuse" in
legislation such as the Controlled Substances Act, which continues to
serve as the core document of drug law in the US.

It is both inaccurate and unjust to continue referring to all illegal
drugs as narcotics.

Such rhetoric distorts rational thinking on the subject and stalls
efforts to reach a better solution.

Discussing the most effective way to regulate controlled substances
can therefore be done in a less misleading and more honest way under
the label of "drug law" than "counter-narcotics."

Christopher M. Lehman '13 is a Crimson business editor in Currier
House. His column appears on alternate Wednesdays.