Hidden
Dangers
of
the
Drug
War
We
are
in
our
second
drug
war.
There
is
a
debate
over
the
amount
of
resources
applied
to
this
war,
the
balance
between
supply
and
demand
side
allocations,
the
extent
of
treatment
facilities
and
the
need
for
more
prison
space.
Butthat
a
war
is
underway
is
generally
agreed.
A
great
change
in
attitude
regarding
drugs
has
taken
place
among
Americans
since
this
war
began
in
the
late
1960s.
The
momentum
has
shifted
from
a
search
for
new
drug
experiences
to
a
fear
of
drugs'
effect
on
the
body
and
mind.
Not
everyone
is
enlisted
in
the
war
and
the
shift
in
popular
sentiment
is
so
gradual
from
one
year
to
the
next
that
change
is
difficult
to
sense.
The
decline
in
consumption
of
alcohol
and
tobacco
and
surveys
of
public
attitudes
regarding
illicit
drugs,
however,
show
a
steady
trend
against
the
use
of
mood-altering
drugs
since
the
high-point
of
toleration
in
1978-79
--
except
for
cocaine
and
crack.
The
crack/cocaine
problem
appears
to
be
flourishing.
Killings,
either
random
or
as
part
of
cocaine-selling
turf
battles,
terrify
residents
of
many
inner-city
neighborhoods.
The
effect
of
cocaine
use
on
the
emotions
and
behavior
of
users
is
frightening.
How
do
we
fit
the
"crack
epidemic"
into
the
anti-drug
attitude
that
has
been
growing
over
the
last
decade?
Is
there
any
precedent
for
the
spread
of
cocaine
across
the
nation?
Are
we
doomed
to
a
continuous
conflagration?
Cocaine
began
to
be
a
topic
for
the
media
and
a
delight
for
the
well-to-do
in
the
early
1970s.
Some
experts
assured
the
public
that
the
drug
was
a
harmless
tonic
and
argued
for
its
legalization
on
that
basis.
Gradually
more
people
began
using
cocaine
as
its
price
fell
and
word
of
its
ability
to
cause
euphoria
spread.
Crack
is
a
smokable
form
of
cocaine
that
delivers
an
intensity
of
stimulation
to
the
brain
rivaled
only
by
direct
injection
into
a
blood
vessel.
The
negative
physical
and
mental
effects
of
cocaine
are
magnified
by
crack
use,
although
to
a
cocaine
user,
the
intensified
effect
is
desirable.
Not
everyone
who
experiments
with
a
dangerous
drug
becomes
addicted
to
it.
The
percentage
of
users
who
get
in
trouble
or
become
confused
or
violent
during
the
early
years
of
a
drug's
introduction
may
seem
insignificant.
Our
natural
sense
of
invulnerability
and
the
pleasurable
effect
of
the
drug
lead
users
to
see
the
chance
of
success
to
be,
say,
90
percent.
Gradually
the
casualties
accumulate
and
users
multiply.
In
the
case
of
cocaine,
it
is
difficult
to
predict
who
is
likely
to
become
addicted.
Addicts
range
from
the
successful
and
powerful
to
the
poor
and
alienated.
Cocaine's
First
Fall
The
time
required
for
a
nation
to
shift
its
attitude
against
a
drug
like
cocaine
can
be
frustratingly
slow,
especially
to
those
who
have
decided
that
it
is
dangerous.
Yet
in
American
history
there
has
been
no
other
drug
widely
used
for
recreational
purposes
which
has
fallen
so
far
in
esteem
as
cocaine.
>From
being
an
ideal
tonic,
cocaine
has
plunged
to
being
the
most
dangerous
of
substances
--
the
model
bad
drug.
This
happened
in
the
first
cocaine
epidemic
which
began
in
1885
and
lasted
until
after
World
War
I.
Moving
from
its
introduction
as
a
harmless
tonic
to
its
popular
perception
as
an
extremely
dangerous
substance
took
about
15
years.
In
1910,
25
years
after
cocaine's
debut,
the
drug
was
called
"more
appalling
in
its
effects
than
any
other
habit-forming
drug
used
in
the
United
States"
in
President
Taft's
report
to
Congress.
When
Americans
begin
to
fear
the
actual
effects
of
cocaine
on
the
mind
--
not
its
cost
or
purity
--
the
perception
of
the
drug's
dangers
to
the
casual
user
shifts
from
optimism
based
on
the
earlier
estimates
of
safety
to
the
possibility
that
anyone
may
fall
to
its
allure.
At
this
stage,
a
10
percent
chance
of
deep
and
irrational
addiction
is
as
frightening
as
riding
in
an
airplane
with
a
10
percent
chance
of
crashing.
Cocaine's
affects
on
the
user
can
create
the
stereotype
of
the
crazed
"dope-fiend:"
impulsive,
violent
behavior
and
bizarre,
paranoid
thinking.
Cocaine
doesn't
even
hold
the
last-ditch
hope
that
distributing
the
drug
will
quiet
the
user's
agitation
and
danger
to
the
public.
Cocaine
taken
on
a
regular
basis
does
not
calm
or
normalize
behavior
as
may
occur
with
opiate
users,
but
only
intensifies
undesirable
traits.
A
Slow
Process
The
combination
of
cocaine's
promise
of
extreme
pleasure
with
its
perception
as
the
ultimate
in
dangerous
drugs
is
a
powerful
persuader
to
the
vast
majority
of
Americans
who
feel
cocaine
is
too
dangerous.
This
attitude
shift
in
a
drug
epidemic,
from
seeing
a
drug
as
valuable
and
safe
if
used
with
expertise,
to
seeing
it
as
dangerous
in
any
amount,
is
fundamental
in
reducting
its
demand.
The
progress
of
this
rejection
percolated
slowly
through
American
society:
it
is
first
noticed
among
those
who
are
alert
to
health
advice
and
want
to
maintain
a
stable
lifestyle.
If
the
last
cocaine
epidemic
is
a
guide,
cocaine
ultimately
is
seen
as
having
no
redeeming
qualities
by
the
vast
majority
of
Americans.
Peer
pressure
for
experimenting
with
cocaine
shifts
to
peer
pressure
against
trying
it
once.
The
power
of
this
shift
in
attitude
is
enormous,
for
cocaine
was
virtually
extinguished
from
American
life
by
the
1940s
until
new,
uninformed
generations
rediscovered
cocaine's
appeal
in
the
1970s.
Contrast
the
almost
total
rejection
of
cocaine
in
any
amount,
as
occurred
during
the
cocaine
prohibition
after
World
War
I,
with
the
divided
attitude
toward
alcohol
during
its
prohibition
from
1920-1933.
At
the
peak
of
alcohol
prohibition
in
the
early
1920s,
it
is
doubtful
whether
much
more
than
a
bare
majority
favored
making
beverage
alcohol
illegal.
Alcohol
prohibition
never
received
the
broad
consensus
that
cocaine
prohibition
achieved.
Drug
Use
Is
Falling
Thus
far,
the
implication
of
the
first
epidemic's
history
is
that
gradually
demand
will
decline,
slowly
but
effectively.
The
recent
National
Household
Survey
reported
a
decline
in
casual
drug
use
of
37
percent
during
the
last
three
years.
However,
serious
cocaine
use
persisted.
This
appears
to
reflect
a
change
in
attitude,
as
does
the
steady
decline
in
regular
marijuana
use
among
high
school
seniors
over
the
last
decade.
The
shift
has
been
accompanied
by
growing
educational
campaigns
against
drug
use,
increased
penalties,
more
arrests
and
incarcerations,
and
increased
public
awareness.
Clearly
the
change
in
attitude
has
been
reflected
in
a
growing
unanimity
against
drugs,
which
has
permitted
controls
impossible
to
enact
in
the
mid-1970s.
The
cohesion
of
communities'
social
structures
--
education,
criminal
justice,
health,
religion
and
media
--
gradually
reduces
drug
use
toleration.
And,
policy-makers
need
to
recognize
that
the
time-line
of
perceptual
change
is
gradual
compared
to
rising
public
fear
of
cocaine
and
anger
at
its
users.
If
we
demand
or
expect
change
to
come
more
rapidly
than
it
can,
we
may
conclude
that
anti-drug
measures
are
failing
when
their
effectiveness
may
be
as
good
as
can
be
achieved
with
a
population
of
a
quarter-billion.
It
is
this
popular
insistence
on
quick
remedies
that
puts
the
drug
issue
into
the
partisan
political
arena.
Parties
vie
for
a
quick
solution.
Politicians'
optimism
or
pessimism
in
describing
the
drug
problem
is
skewed
towards
their
role
in
the
war.
There
is,
however,
an
even
less
perceptible
but
more
serious
error
into
which
we
can
slip.
The
first
cocaine
epidemic
and
other
waves
of
drug
use
illustrate
this
hazard.
Extremely
feared
drugs,
such
as
cocaine,
with
their
dangerous
image
and
multifarious
paths
to
personal
and
social
damage,
easily
merge
in
our
minds
with
our
other
fears
and
problems.
Blaming
Ethnic
Groups
The
public
perception
of
cocaine
peaked
around
the
turn
of
the
century
and
coincided
with
a
rise
in
fear
among
white
Americans
regarding
blacks,
especially
in
the
South.
Lynchings
reached
a
peak
along
with
the
loss
of
black
voting
rights.
Cocaine
became
accepted
as
the
reason
for
black
hostility.
To
many,
cocaine
was
a
black
drug,
although
evidence
exists
that
both
groups
used
cocaine
and
that
blacks
did
not
use
it
more
than
whites.
It
is
evident
that
a
similar
linkage
could
be
forged
in
our
minds
about
drug
use
and
the
inner
city
regions
where
many
blacks
and
Hispanics
live.
Public
anger
at
cocaine
and
its
users
makes
it
tempting
to
blame
its
wrath
on
certain
ethnic
groups.
In
addition,
our
demand
for
punishment
simplifies
the
problem
of
how
to
deal
with
the
inner
city.
It
is
a
short
step
to
saying
--
or
assuming
--
that
the
inner
city
is
composed
of
drug
abusers
who
do
not
deserve
support
for
schools
and
community.
Yet
the
lives
lost
fighting
drugs
and
trying
to
reclaim
streets
from
drug
dealers
and
users
are
predominantly
in
the
inner
city.
The
power
of
drug
imagery
and
the
pressure
we
feel
to
simplify
our
fears
create
what
seems,
almost
a
magnetic
attraction
between
different
social
fears.
When
we
look
at
the
history
of
drugs,
the
connection
may
seem
so
reasonable
at
the
time,
that
we
easily
fall
into
simplistic
explanations.
There
are
many
long-term
damages
as
a
result
of
these
associations.
Of
course,
expressing
our
anger
may
be
not
only
the
easiest
path,
but
it
also
is
satisfying.
Law
enforcement
comes
under
public
pressure
simply
to
make
more
arrests.
In
an
atmosphere
of
fear
and
anger,
investment
in
schools
is
more
difficult
to
justify
than
investment
in
prisons.
Those
in
the
inner
cities
fighting
for
their
neighborhoods
can
be
left
to
wither,
thereby
fulfilling
the
accusations
that
the
inhabitants
are
"just
a
bunch
of
drug
users."
One
of
the
values
of
knowing
the
history
of
drug
use
and
policy
in
America
is
that
we
are
warned
against
indulging
our
most
powerful
instincts.
We
also
are
given
hope
that
demand
for
drugs
--
even
cocaine
--
can
be
constructively
reduced
over
time
if
we
do
not
succumb
to
frustration.
David
F.
Musto
is
professor
of
psychiatry
and
the
history
of
medicine
at
Yale
University.
He
is
the
author
of
The
American
Disease:
Origins
of
Narcotic
Control,
a
history
of
drug
attitudes
and
policy
in
the
United
States.
--
End
--
InfoTrac
Web:
Expanded
Academic
ASAP.
Source:
Journal
of
State
Government,
April-June
1990
v63
n2
p43(3).
Title:
Hidden
dangers
of
the
drug
war.
Author:
David
F.
Musto
Subjects:
Narcotics,
Control
of
-
Analysis
Crime
prevention
-
Analysis
Narcotics
and
crime
-
Analysis
Electronic
Collection:
A9184997
RN:
A9184997
Full
Text
COPYRIGHT
The
Council
of
State
Governments
1990