Federal and state regulation of drugs and drug enforcement in the United States began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Over the past 200 years, our understanding of addiction and narcotics policies has significantly evolved. However, with the continuous influx of new synthetic drugs, we must stay open to adapting our treatment and regulatory approaches.
History of Drug Enforcement
Surprisingly, before the 20th century, many now-illicit substances like cocaine, opium, heroin, and cannabis were readily available for purchase in drugstores across America. These unregulated drugs remained popular throughout the 19th century, with no federal oversight, and doctors commonly prescribed cocaine and morphine with relative ease. However, by the late 19th century, growing public concern over the societal impact of these substances began to prompt change.
Interestingly, despite its current reputation as one of the most liberal and progressive states, California was the first state to enact drug enforcement laws in the United States. In a move tinged with irony, San Francisco passed the first enforcement measures in 1875, effectively banning opium dens. The law was steeped in racist undertones, with the San Francisco Chronicle reporting that the measure was enacted after supervisors learned of “opium smoking establishments kept by Chinese” and sought to make it illegal for “any white person to smoke in the place.” Fears of racial mixing spurred similar laws in Idaho, which specifically targeted white individuals who operated opium dens or sold the drug to other whites.
In the years that followed, several states began passing laws prohibiting the consumption and distribution of cocaine, starting with Oregon in 1887, followed by Montana in 1889, Colorado in 1897, and Massachusetts in 1898. These laws were often fueled by fears that white users were falling victim to these drugs due to the perceived immoral influence of minority groups, including Chinese, African Americans, and Mexicans. In fact, many subsequent drug laws, including those passed in recent years, have been driven by underlying racist sentiments. At the time, headlines frequently perpetuated racist stereotypes, claiming that drugs turned Mexicans and African Americans into crazed, physically enhanced criminals.
Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914 / Marijuana Tax Act of 1937
The first federal drug prohibition was introduced with the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914. This act required distributors of cocaine and opium to register with the Department of the Treasury and pay a special tax on these drugs. It also led to the creation of the Narcotic Division within the Internal Revenue Bureau, a precursor to the modern DEA, which focused on shutting down unlicensed clinics nationwide. Enforcement agents from this division became known as “narcs.” During the 1920s, as Prohibition gained momentum, the newly established Federal Bureau of Narcotics assumed these enforcement powers.
The next significant federal action against narcotics came with the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. This act imposed stringent regulations and high taxes on the sale of marijuana, leading states to quickly follow suit by making marijuana illegal across the country.
Boggs Act of 1951 / Narcotic Control Act of 1956
In the mid-20th century, the United States intensified its legislative efforts to combat narcotics, introducing severe criminal penalties for distribution and use. While President Nixon popularized the term “War on Drugs” in the 1970s, it was during the 1950s that the country began imposing its harshest penalties for drug possession and distribution. The Boggs Act of 1951 marked the first legislation to establish mandatory minimum sentences for drug convictions, including the death penalty for selling heroin to minors. This act was a response to the sharp rise in narcotics arrests and violations following World War II. It was later reinforced by the Narcotics Control Act of 1956, which further increased minimum sentences. A first offense for possession carried a minimum of 2 years in prison, escalating to 5 years for a second offense and 10 years for subsequent offenses. Selling narcotics resulted in double the prison time. The ongoing debate over whether harsher penalties for drug possession and trafficking reduce or exacerbate drug-related crime and recidivism remains highly contested to this day.
The Presidential Commission on Narcotic and Drug Abuse
In the 1960s, opposition to harsher drug penalties began to gain momentum, influenced by the civil rights and gender equality movements. Organizations like the American Bar Association advocated for less severe penalties and increased federal funding for treatment. The 1963 Presidential Commission on Narcotics and Drug Abuse recommended allocating more funds to research treatment options, reducing strict drug punishments, and dismantling the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN). During this period, there was a growing emphasis on treatment over punishment. However, despite these recommendations, harsh penalties persisted and even intensified under the Nixon Administration.
The Bureau of Drug Abuse and Control was established within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, focusing on researching and providing effective treatment for addicts. Despite this focus on treatment, federal drug enforcement efforts were also expanded during this time.
The War on Drugs / Controlled Substances Act
President Nixon is notorious for spearheading the “War on Drugs,” a policy approach that has shaped much of U.S. drug legislation. In 1970, Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act, which created the legal framework for regulating the production, possession, and distribution of controlled substances. This act also introduced the classification system for narcotics, categorizing them into five levels known as “schedules.”
Schedule I
The federal government classifies Schedule I substances as drugs with no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. These include:
Schedule II
Schedule II substances are classified as drugs with a high potential for abuse, though lower than Schedule I, and their use can lead to severe psychological or physical dependence. These include:
Schedule III
Schedule III substances are defined as drugs with a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence. These include:
Schedule IV
Schedule IV substances are classified as drugs with a low potential for abuse and a low risk of dependence. These include:
Schedule V
Schedule V substances are defined as drugs with a lower potential for abuse compared to other schedules. These include:
In July 1973, President Nixon authorized the creation of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to enforce the Controlled Substances Act. The DEA was established as the central authority for coordinating federal drug enforcement efforts with state, local, and foreign law enforcement agencies. It became responsible for overseeing regulatory compliance and administering criminal provisions related to unlawful drug possession.
Crack Cocaine and the Reagan Era
The growing popularity of cocaine and its cheaper counterpart, “crack,” sparked renewed public panic and concern over drug consumption in the United States. After Jimmy Carter’s efforts to roll back mandatory sentencing for drug possession and decriminalize marijuana, President Reagan adopted a strict drug enforcement approach that led to the incarceration of hundreds of thousands of Americans. Between 1980 and 1986, federal drug convictions more than doubled, primarily for trafficking, importation, and distribution, with fewer than 20% related to possession.
In 1984, Congress passed the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, which enhanced penalties for drug violations and introduced criminal forfeiture provisions, allowing the government to seize forfeited property to fund state, local, and federal drug enforcement efforts. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 further increased criminal penalties for possession and introduced the infamous crack versus powder cocaine distinction, which required 100 times more powder cocaine than crack to trigger the same penalties. Since crack disproportionately affected poorer communities, this law led to the unjust imprisonment of many low-income individuals. Federal sentencing for drug offenses has been heavily influenced by these laws, with approximately 50% of the federal inmate population incarcerated for drug-related crimes.
The Rise of Methamphetamine and Ecstasy
As cocaine’s popularity began to decline in the late 1980s, partly due to the highly publicized cartel wars in South America, methamphetamine abuse started to surge. Because meth could be produced using legally available items, small-scale meth labs began popping up in homes and private locations across the country. The Clinton Administration responded by creating special task forces to address the rise in methamphetamine, particularly in the Southwest, where abuse was most prevalent. Congress also enacted special provisions to address the dangers associated with meth production, including enhanced criminal penalties and stricter federal regulation of substances like pseudoephedrine.
Heroin and the Prescription Drug Epidemic
The past two decades have witnessed a significant rise in prescription opioid and heroin abuse. From 2004 to 2013, the number of heroin users surged by approximately 300%. This increase is largely due to the boom in prescription opioid use and the subsequent law enforcement crackdown. As heroin is both cheaper and more readily available, it has become a common alternative for those addicted to opioids. In response to this growing crisis, the DEA has doubled the number of its Tactical Diversion Squads, specialized units that collaborate with local, state, and federal law enforcement to target controlled pharmaceuticals and heroin.
In 2016, nearly 64,000 people died from drug overdoses, with opioids accounting for almost two-thirds of these deaths. Since 1999, opioid-related deaths have nearly quadrupled, while fatalities specifically linked to fentanyl and other new synthetic opioids have more than doubled in just the last two years. These overdose deaths now exceed the all-time highs for annual deaths caused by motor vehicle collisions, HIV, and firearms. The opioid crisis has undeniably become a severe public health emergency.
The spread of the opioid and heroin crisis follows a distinct pattern. Before the 2000s, opioids were less widely used, with abuse initially concentrated in the Southwestern United States. From 2000 to 2015, usage skyrocketed, likely driven by increased manufacturing and higher prescription rates. The regions most affected are the Southwest, Appalachia, and New England.
In the 1960s, roughly four out of five heroin addicts started with heroin. By 2000, however, three out of four heroin addicts had begun with prescription opioids. This shift indicates that these drugs are entering the streets either through illegal diversion or overprescription. Studies show that in 2016, most people who abused pain relievers obtained them from a friend or relative, with the second most common source being a prescription from a doctor. This suggests an oversaturation problem, with too many pills remaining available after being prescribed.
Drug Enforcement Today
Currently, the U.S. government allocates a similar amount of tax dollars to both treatment and law enforcement efforts. In fiscal year 2016, approximately 36.6% of the total budget was dedicated to treatment, while domestic law enforcement accounted for about 34.5%. Prevention, which includes educational and awareness programs nationwide, made up only 5.5% of the budget. The Office of National Drug Control Policy divides the federal budget into demand reduction and supply reduction. Demand reduction, which includes treatment and prevention efforts, represents about 42.2% of the total budget, while supply reduction, encompassing domestic law enforcement, interdiction, and international enforcement, accounts for roughly 57.8%.
Next Steps
At Sunrise Recovery, we advocate for drug and alcohol policies that are evidence-based and prioritize treatment over punishment. Overcoming addiction is a challenging and ongoing process, but with the support of treatment specialists at qualified drug and alcohol addiction treatment centers in Indiana, it can be made more manageable.
