Drug and Alcohol Prohibition (Criminlogy)

Introduction

In standard reference works such as the Oxford English Dictionary, a general definition of prohibition as “the action or act of forbidding” is quickly followed by a definition of Prohibition. This is defined as the US experience with government control of alcohol via “forbidding by law of the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol for consumption; especially such restrictions as imposed in the US under the Volstead Act (1919) . . . the period between 1920 and 1933 when these restrictions were in force.” This bibliography takes national alcohol prohibition, or “Prohibition,” as its first point of reference before a broader consideration of governmental controls on other types of drug use and trades by enforceable bans on some combination of cultivation, manufacture, possession, use, sale, and transport. Although national legislation to prohibit opium was enacted before alcohol prohibition, the movement to restrict alcohol consumption federally in the United States dates to the mid-19th century. As a proper noun, “Prohibition” is so closely associated with US national alcohol prohibition that the editors of the Anchor Atlas of World History found it sufficient to define its supporters and opponents as “wet” and “dry,” without having to name the prohibited commodity in question. In the United States, one of Prohibition’s ironic legacies in the 21st century has been the use of citizen-initiated referenda to remove restrictions on recreational use of cannabis by adults. The “policy entrepreneurs” who successfully campaigned for legal cannabis in Oregon and other state jurisdictions have followed in the footsteps of the “moral entrepreneurs” of the late 19th and early 20th centuries who proposed the initial prohibition, and the eventual repeal of the prohibition, of intoxicating liquor by initiative petition ballot measures. This bibliography is divided into a number of broad topic areas. The first is National Alcohol Prohibition in the United States. It is given special prominence because it is often seen as the paradigmatic form of drug prohibition, whose supposedly self-evident lessons are routinely invoked in discussions of similar policies toward cannabis, heroin, and cocaine. The second is on the prohibition on cannabis use, the illicit drug for which the analogies to national alcohol prohibition are arguably the strongest and the lessons of alcohol prohibition most often invoked. The third topic covers scholarly discussions of drug prohibition and regulatory alternatives to prohibition for drugs such as amphetamines, cocaine, heroin, and MDMA. The fourth topic deals with debates about alternatives to prohibitionist policies toward the opiates, one of the first drugs for which nonmedical use was prohibited in the 18th century, and one of the first drugs to be brought under international control in the early 20th century.

National Alcohol Prohibition in the United States

“Everyone knows” that national alcohol prohibition in the United States between 1920 and 1933 was a quixotic and failed social experiment. It is widely believed to have made alcohol problems in the United States worse, and to have created a black market for alcohol that was supplied by criminals, contributing to the rise of organized crime in the United States; the discussion in Morgan 1991 (cited under Origins and Repeal of National Alcohol Prohibition) typifies this view. Prohibition was repealed in 1933 because the American public came to see it as a manifold and manifest failure. This standard view provides “lessons” that are routinely invoked, as Morgan does, in policy debates about alcohol and other drugs. The following references are organized into a series of topics, namely, the origins and process leading to the repeal of national alcohol prohibition; debates about the effectiveness of prohibition by proponents and opponents between 1920 and 1933; 20th- and 21st-century analyses of the effects of prohibition on alcohol use, alcohol-related harm, and the economy; analyses of the impacts of alcohol prohibition on crime; and the aftereffects of alcohol prohibition on discussions of alcohol policy and the harms to health attributable to alcohol abuse.

The Origins and Repeal of National Alcohol Prohibition

The origins of national alcohol prohibition in the United States are in the early 19th century, with movements to reduce alcohol use and alcohol-related harm. Kerr 1985 provides a detailed history of the most influential of the temperance organizations, the Anti-Saloon League, which campaigned successfully for national alcohol prohibition. Levine 1985 provides a broader economic and sociological account of the origins of prohibition. Aaron and Musto 1981 summarizes earlier historical scholarship on the origins, implementation, and repeal of national prohibition. These histories indicate that the failure of efforts to moderate alcohol use, and of subsequent attempts to prohibit alcohol sales at the local government and state level, led to a campaign for a national form of alcohol prohibition via consitutional amendment. The passage of a consitutional amendment to bring national prohibition into effect in 1919 was faciliated by the de facto prohibition of alcohol sales during First World War. It is easy in retrospect to assume that the repeal of national prohibition was inevitable because the policy is widely seen as having failed to achieve its goal of reducing alcohol-related harm. The historical scholarship of Burnham 1968 and Kyvig 1979 suggests otherwise. Burnham 1968 provided the first revisionist history of national prohibition that critically scrutinized the popular histories written by opponents of prohibition. Kyvig 1979, a history of the repeal of prohibition, makes clear that the leaders of the campaign for repeal thought that modest reform was much more likely than repeal because of the substantial obstacles to reversing a constitutional amendment. Tyrrell 1997 provides a short and accessible summary of of historical scholarship on national alcohol prohibition.

Aaron, Paul, and David Musto. 1981. Temperance and Prohibition in America: A historical overview. In Alcohol and public policy: Beyond the shadow of Prohibition. Edited by Mark H. Moore and Dean R. Gerstein, 125–181. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Two leading social and medical historians provide an excellent summary of scholarship on the origins of the temperance movement and Prohibition in the United States to the late 1970s. Commissioned by a panel appointed by a US government panel on alcohol problems (the Panel on Alternative Policies Affecting the Prevention of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism), its review of the political and cultural history of drinking in the United States aimed to foster an understanding of the Prohibition experience relevant for contemporary alcohol policy in the United States.
Aaron, Paul, and David Musto. 1981. Temperance and Prohibition in America: A historical overview. In Alcohol and public policy: Beyond the shadow of Prohibition. Edited by Mark H. Moore and Dean R. Gerstein, 125–181. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Find this resource:
Burnham, John C. 1968. New perspectives on the Prohibition “experiment” of the 1920’s. Journal of Social History 2:51–68.
DOI: 10.1353/jsh/2.1.51Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This was one of the first revisionist histories of national alcohol prohibition. It challenged the standard account of Prohibition as a thorough-going failure, calling on other scholars to clear away the remnants of opposition propoganda and myth that had become part of standard accounts of Prohibition. Burnham’s hopeful prediction that the perpetuation of the myth of Prohibition as a mistake doomed to failure was no longer politically necessary to pro-alcohol political interests proved optimistic.
Burnham, John C. 1968. New perspectives on the Prohibition “experiment” of the 1920’s. Journal of Social History 2:51–68.
Find this resource:
Kerr, K. Austin. 1985. Organized for prohibition: A new history of the Anti-Saloon League. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This is a scholarly account of the campaign for national alcohol prohibition successfully waged by the Anti-Saloon League. As the title suggests, Kerr’s analysis focuses on the League’s pioneering adoption of business organization and managerial techniques in support of social reform. He attributes Repeal to factionalism within the League and its lack of a clear strategy to consolidate the passage of national prohibition.
Kerr, K. Austin. 1985. Organized for prohibition: A new history of the Anti-Saloon League. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.
Find this resource:
Kyvig, David E. 1979. Repealing national prohibition. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This is a scholarly history of the origins and activities of the successful campaign for the repeal of national prohibition that was in many ways modeled on the activities of the Anti-Saloon League. It makes clear that the success of Repeal was not perceived to be inevitable by those who led the campaign for Repeal.
Kyvig, David E. 1979. Repealing national prohibition. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Find this resource:
Levine, Harry G. 1985. The birth of American alcohol control: Prohibition, the power elite, and the problem of lawlessness. Contemporary Drug Problems 12:63–85.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This article provides an influential sociological and historical analysis of the social origins of national alcohol prohibition in the United States. In Levine’s view, Prohibition initially found favor among wealthy upper-class interests as a way to erode saloon culture that was associated with the labor movement. Repeal became the preferred policy of the same wealthy interests after the onset of the Great Depression and mass violations of the law in relation to illegal alcohol trading.
Levine, Harry G. 1985. The birth of American alcohol control: Prohibition, the power elite, and the problem of lawlessness. Contemporary Drug Problems 12:63–85.
Find this resource:
Morgan, John P. 1991. Prohibition is perverse policy: What was true in 1933 is true now. In Searching for alternatives: Drug policy control in the United States. Edited by M. B. Krauss and E. P. Lazear, 405–423. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Morgan has campaigned for more liberal and less repressive policies toward many currently illicit drugs, such as cannabis, cocaine, and heroin, using the putative failures of the national prohibition experience to argue for repeal of these contemporary forms of prohibition.
Morgan, John P. 1991. Prohibition is perverse policy: What was true in 1933 is true now. In Searching for alternatives: Drug policy control in the United States. Edited by M. B. Krauss and E. P. Lazear, 405–423. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution.
Find this resource:
Okrent, Daniel. 2010. Last call: The rise and fall of Prohibition. New York: Scribner.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This popular history by a former New York Times editor focuses on anti-immigration politics and wealthy industrialists. Members of the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment claimed Repeal would provide a windfall from excise great enough to allow the elimination of personal and corporate income tax; the author later called for skepticism about analogous claims that legal cannabis would fill government coffers and ease the tax burden.
Okrent, Daniel. 2010. Last call: The rise and fall of Prohibition. New York: Scribner.
Find this resource:
Tyrrell, Ian. 1997. The US Prohibition experiment: Myths, history and implications. Addiction 92:1405–1409.
DOI: 10.1080/09652149736558Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This article provides a short summary of important historical scholarship on Prohibition. It was written to disabuse addiction researchers of many misconceptions about the origins, effects, and reasons for the repeal of national alcohol prohibition.
Tyrrell, Ian. 1997. The US Prohibition experiment: Myths, history and implications. Addiction 92:1405–1409.
Find this resource:
Contemporary Debates during National Alcohol Prohibition

During Prohibition, there was a lively debate between eminent supporters, such as the leading economist Irving Fisher (Fisher 1930), and leading oppponents of the policy, such as John C. Gebhart (Gebhart 1930). Relatively disinterested voices, such as Warburton 1932, were rare. Clark Warburton was an economist who provided a more dispassionate analysis of the economic effects of alcohol prohibition that holds up well in the light of more recent economic analyses of the same data. The report of the US National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement (the Wickersham Committee Report) was an important contemporary analysis of how to improve the effectiveness of the enforcement of national prohibition, whose results inadvertantly contributed to Repeal.

Fisher, Irving. 1930. A critical examination of certain Prohibition statistics. In Statistics in social studies. Edited by Stuart A. Rice and The American Statistical Association Committee on Social Statistics, 159–169. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This is an analysis of the evidence on the impacts of Prohibition, written by a leading US economist who defended national alcohol prohibition. Fisher was aware of the limitations of Prohibition enforcement, but he nonetheless argued that it had substantially reduced alcohol-related harm.
Fisher, Irving. 1930. A critical examination of certain Prohibition statistics. In Statistics in social studies. Edited by Stuart A. Rice and The American Statistical Association Committee on Social Statistics, 159–169. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.
Find this resource:
Gebhart, John C. 1930. Prohibition: Statistical studies of enforcement and social effects. In Statistics in social studies. Edited by Stuart A. Rice and The American Statistical Association Committee on Social Statistics, 111–149. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This is an analysis of the evidence on the impacts of Prohibition by a social scientist who advocated for repeal on behalf of the Association for the Repeal of the Prohibition Amendment. Gebhart presented the case for the failure of Prohibition, often in counterpoint to a defense provided by Fisher.
Gebhart, John C. 1930. Prohibition: Statistical studies of enforcement and social effects. In Statistics in social studies. Edited by Stuart A. Rice and The American Statistical Association Committee on Social Statistics, 111–149. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.
Find this resource:
US National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement (Wickersham Commission). 1931. Report on the enforcement of the Prohibition laws of the United States; Issued as House document no. 722 (71st Congress, 3d Session). Washington, DC: US GPO.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This commission was appointed by President Herbert Hoover to advise him on how he could improve the enforcement of national alcohol prohibition. Its results were widely interpreted as documenting Prohibition’s failure, because many of the commission members publicly expressed skepticism about whether its effectiveness could be much improved by better enforcement.
US National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement (Wickersham Commission). 1931. Report on the enforcement of the Prohibition laws of the United States; Issued as House document no. 722 (71st Congress, 3d Session). Washington, DC: US GPO.
Find this resource:
Warburton, Clark. 1932. The economic results of Prohibition. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This book provided a scholarly, even-handed analysis of the evidence on the economic impacts of Prohibition. It provided a careful analysis of the impacts on Prohibition on alcohol production, indicators of alcohol consumption, and economic productivity.
Warburton, Clark. 1932. The economic results of Prohibition. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.
Find this resource:
Recent Economic and Political Analyses of the Effects of National Alcohol Prohibition

The characterization of Prohibition as a policy failure is often regarded as so uncontroversial that those who invoke it usually do not bother to cite any sources. This consensus differs from the views of revisionist historians beginning with David Kyvig in 1979 with Repealing National Prohibition (Kyvig 1979, cited under the Origins and Repeal of National Alcohol Prohibition). Kyvig focused on debunking this myth in Kyvig 1985. Contemporary alcohol policy analysts argue—for example, in Blocker 2006, Cook 2007, and Hall 2010—that Prohibition was successful, if considered solely as a public health policy, in that it very substantially reduced alcohol use and alcohol-related harm while it was in effect, even if its effects were attenuated over time as sources of illegal alcohol supply developed. The analyses by Miron and his colleagues—Dills and Miron 2004 and Miron 1998—show that even economists who are skeptical that Prohibition had a net economic benefit grudgingly concede that it may have reduced alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harm. Schrad 2010 provides a comparative institutional analysis of the reason for the global spread of alcohol prohibition as a policy idea in the first two decades of the 20th century. This work attempts to explain why prohibition was implemented in the United States and the Soviet Union but not in Sweden.

Blocker, Jack S., Jr. 2006. Did Prohibition really work? Alcohol prohibition as a public health innovation. American Journal of Public Health 96:233–243.
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2005.065409Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Blocker is a medical historian who argues that Prohibition was successful if judged solely as a public health intervention because it substantially reduced alcohol use and alcohol-related harm.
Blocker, Jack S., Jr. 2006. Did Prohibition really work? Alcohol prohibition as a public health innovation. American Journal of Public Health 96:233–243.
Find this resource:
Cook, Philip J. 2007. Paying the tab: The economics of alcohol policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Cook provides an economic analysis of the impacts of different alcohol control policies (e.g., taxation, restrictions on availability and promotion, minimum legal drinking age, drunk driving laws). He includes a brief economic analysis of the effects of Prohibition using contemporary methods of analysis.
Cook, Philip J. 2007. Paying the tab: The economics of alcohol policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
Find this resource:
Dills, Angela K., and Jeffrey A. Miron. 2004. Alcohol prohibition and cirrhosis. American Law and Economics Review 6:285–317.
DOI: 10.1093/aler/ahh003Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This paper examines the impacts of alcohol prohibition on heavy drinking in the United States as reflected by time series data on liver cirrhosis—a sensitive indicator of sustained heavy drinking in a population. The results show that Prohibition produced a substantial reduction in liver cirrhosis deaths, and that this reduction was sustained for much of the period that Prohibition was in effect.
Dills, Angela K., and Jeffrey A. Miron. 2004. Alcohol prohibition and cirrhosis. American Law and Economics Review 6:285–317.
Find this resource:
Hall, Wayne D. 2010. What are the policy lessons of national alcohol prohibition in the United States, 1920–1933? Addiction 105:1164–1173.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.02926.xSave Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This paper reviews the competing interpretations offered by contemporary analysts and more recent economic analyses of the evidence on the impacts of Prohibition on alcohol use and alcohol-related harm in the United States. It provides data on trends in alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harm that show substantial reductions during Prohibition.
Hall, Wayne D. 2010. What are the policy lessons of national alcohol prohibition in the United States, 1920–1933? Addiction 105:1164–1173.
Find this resource:
Kyvig, David E. 1985. Sober thoughts: Myths and realities of national prohibition after 50 years. In Law, alcohol, and order: Perspectives on national prohibition. Edited by David E. Kyvig, 1–20. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This chapter includes Kyvig’s reflections on the preceding 50 years of historical scholarship on the history of Prohibition, its effects, and the reasons for its repeal.
Kyvig, David E. 1985. Sober thoughts: Myths and realities of national prohibition after 50 years. In Law, alcohol, and order: Perspectives on national prohibition. Edited by David E. Kyvig, 1–20. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Find this resource:
Miron, Jeffrey A. 1998. An economic analysis of alcohol prohibition. Journal of Drug Issues 28:741–762.
DOI: 10.1177/002204269802800310Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This paper provides an economic analysis of the impacts of national alcohol prohibition on a variety of indicators of alcohol use, alcohol-related mortality, and crime. Miron grudgingly concedes that he cannot exclude the possibility that Prohibition reduced alcohol use and harm, but he argues that this was achieved at an unacceptable economic cost in terms of increased crime.
Miron, Jeffrey A. 1998. An economic analysis of alcohol prohibition. Journal of Drug Issues 28:741–762.
Find this resource:
Schrad, Mark Lawrence. 2010. The political power of bad ideas: Networks, institutions, and the global prohibition wave. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195391237.001.0001Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Schrad provides an institutional analysis of the international spread of alcohol prohibition in the early 20th century. He includes detailed histories of the implementation and abandonment of alcohol prohibition in Russia and the United States, and describes how an alcohol rationing system was developed by Bratt as an alternative to prohibition in Sweden.
Schrad, Mark Lawrence. 2010. The political power of bad ideas: Networks, institutions, and the global prohibition wave. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Find this resource:
Effects of National Prohibition on Crime

An evidential double standard is apparent in appraisals of the effects of national alcohol prohibition on alcohol use and alcohol-related harm, on the one hand, and on crime and violence on the other. Those analysts who are reluctant to accept that the substantial decline in alcohol use and alcohol-related harm during Prohibition can be attributed to the policy (as in Miron 1998, cited under Recent Economic and Political Analyses of the Effects of National Alcohol Prohibition) nonetheless confidently attribute rising crime during the 1920s and 1930s to the same policy, and they do so by using much the same type of evidence to draw this causal inference, as Miron 1999 does. More detailed analyses of the crime statistics in the Chicago of Al Capone from Asbridge and Weerasinghe 2009 and of US national crime statistics cited by Jensen 2000 suggest a more nuanced view by an appreciation of the limitations of crime statistics coverage.

Asbridge, Mark, and Swarna Weerasinghe. 2009. Homicide in Chicago from 1890 to 1930: Prohibition and its impact on alcohol- and non-alcohol-related homicides. Addiction 104:355–364.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02466.xSave Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This paper uses historical data on homicides in Chicago over the period 1890–1930 to assess the effects of Prohibition on murders in one of the US cities where Prohibition was most flagrantly violated by organized crime figures. It suggests that Prohibition did increase murder rates but not as substantially as popular accounts would suggest.
Asbridge, Mark, and Swarna Weerasinghe. 2009. Homicide in Chicago from 1890 to 1930: Prohibition and its impact on alcohol- and non-alcohol-related homicides. Addiction 104:355–364.
Find this resource:
Jensen, Gary F. 2000. Prohibition, alcohol, and murder: Untangling countervailing mechanisms. Homicide Studies 4:18–36.
DOI: 10.1177/1088767900004001002Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This paper uses time series analyses of murders in the United States to disentangle the effects of Prohibition, alcohol use, and other factors on murder rates. It found evidence that Prohibition reduced liver cirrhosis while increasing murder rates.
Jensen, Gary F. 2000. Prohibition, alcohol, and murder: Untangling countervailing mechanisms. Homicide Studies 4:18–36.
Find this resource:
Miron, Jeffrey A. 1999. Violence and the US prohibitions of drugs and alcohol. American Law and Economics Review 1:78–114.
DOI: 10.3386/w6950Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This paper uses time series analyses to assess the effects of prohibitions on alcohol in the 1920s and on cannabis, cocaine, and heroin in the 1970s and 1980s on crimes of violence in the United States. It argues that the prohibition of all drugs increases murder rates and violence.
Miron, Jeffrey A. 1999. Violence and the US prohibitions of drugs and alcohol. American Law and Economics Review 1:78–114.
Find this resource:
Post-Repeal Effects of Alcohol Prohibition

Some of the effects of Prohibition endured well after Repeal. A major effect was on alcohol policy. The standard accounts of the failures of Prohibition have been used to discredit any alcohol policy that attempts to reduce alcohol-related harm by restricting the availability of alcohol (e.g., via trading hours) or by increasing taxes. This enduring effect of Prohibition on policy discourse is briefly outlined in Moore and Gerstein 1981 and discussed in more detail in Room 1984. Another legacy of Repeal was “public amnesia” about the adverse health effects of alcohol. After Repeal, any suggestion that heavy drinking was bad for health was dismissed as temperance propaganda. Katcher 1993 describes this as an “eclipse” in knowledge about the effects of alcohol on liver disease and serious mental disorders. A third legacy was the use of lessons from Prohibition to advocate for more liberal policies toward the regulation of other drugs. An abundance of publications could be cited to illustrate this use of Prohibition, but this paper cites one influential example, Levine and Reinarman 1991, written by two leading US drug policy scholars. This paper was aimed at readers interested in social factors in health policy.

Katcher, Brian S. 1993. The post-Repeal eclipse in knowledge about the harmful effects of alcohol. Addiction 88:729–744.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1993.tb02088.xSave Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This paper describes the loss of knowledge about the adverse health effects of heavy alcohol use (e.g., liver disease and psychosis) in the United States for several decades after the repeal of Prohibition.
Katcher, Brian S. 1993. The post-Repeal eclipse in knowledge about the harmful effects of alcohol. Addiction 88:729–744.
Find this resource:
Levine, Harry G., and Craig Reinarman. 1991. From prohibition to regulation: Lessons from alcohol policy for drug policy. Milbank Quarterly 69:461–494.
DOI: 10.2307/3350105Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This paper analyzes the lessons for drug policy of national alcohol prohibition. It is coauthored by a leading social historian of alcohol policy in the United States who has argued for the repeal of the prohibition on cannabis.
Levine, Harry G., and Craig Reinarman. 1991. From prohibition to regulation: Lessons from alcohol policy for drug policy. Milbank Quarterly 69:461–494.
Find this resource:
Moore, Mark H., and Dean R. Gerstein. 1981. Alcohol and public policy: Beyond the shadow of Prohibition. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This was a major review of the alcohol policy literature by scholars in criminology, economics, epidemiology, and the social sciences. It included an attempt to rebut common misconceptions about the lessons of Prohibition, which the authors believed were undermining public and political support for alcohol control policies that increase the price and restrict the availability of alcohol, which are effective policies in reducing alcohol-related harm.
Moore, Mark H., and Dean R. Gerstein. 1981. Alcohol and public policy: Beyond the shadow of Prohibition. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Find this resource:
Room R. 1984. Alcohol control and public health. Annual Review of Public Health 5:293–317.
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.pu.05.050184.001453Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This is a review of the evidence on the effectiveness of alcohol control policies by a leading alcohol policy scholar who contributed to Alcohol and Public Policy (Moore and Gerstein 1981).
Room R. 1984. Alcohol control and public health. Annual Review of Public Health 5:293–317.
Find this resource:
Cannabis Prohibition

The putative policy lessons from the failures of national alcohol prohibition are probably most often invoked in cannabis policy debates. An early outstanding example was provided by Kaplan 1970, written by an otherwise conservative jurist who argued for repeal of cannabis prohibition. Cannabis prohibition arguably shows the strongest analogies to alcohol prohibition in that it is the most widely used illicit drug, and is almost as easy to produce illicitly as is alcohol (and certainly much easier to do so than opiates or cocaine). Hall and Lynskey 2009 and Hall and Pacula 2010 discuss the difficulties in arguing that cannabis should be prohibited under threat of criminal sanctions because of its adverse health effects, because these are arguably less severe than those of alcohol, and certainly less serious than those of other illicit drugs like the amphetamines, cocaine, and opiates. Bewley-Taylor, et al. 2014 describes how cannabis prohibition as a policy has also been progressively liberalized at the global level by soft defections that remove, reduce, or fail to enforce criminal penalties for use or small-scale retail sales; MacCoun 2011 provides an analysis of the effects of liberalizing cannabis policy in the Netherlands. Room, et al. 2010 provides comparative analyses of the effects of different forms of liberalization of cannabis policy and discusses how international drug treaties may be modified to allow cannabis policy experiments. Some groups campaigning for the repeal of cannabis prohibition, such as the Transform Drug Policy Foundation, now propose regulatory regimes much like those for alcohol (see Transform Drug Policy Foundation 2014).

Bewley-Taylor, David R., Thomas Blickman, and Martin Jelsma. 2014. The rise and decline of cannabis prohibition: The history of cannabis in the UN drug control system and options for reform. Amsterdam: Transnational Institute (TNI).
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This report provides a history of how cannabis came to be included under international drug control treaties in 1961. It also describes the progressive liberalization of cannabis policies in many developed countries over the past forty years or so, leading to recent moves to legalize medical and recreational cannabis use in several US states and Uruguay. Copublished by TNI and the Global Drug Policy Observatory (Swansea).
Bewley-Taylor, David R., Thomas Blickman, and Martin Jelsma. 2014. The rise and decline of cannabis prohibition: The history of cannabis in the UN drug control system and options for reform. Amsterdam: Transnational Institute (TNI).
Find this resource:
Hall, Wayne D., and Michael Lynskey. 2009. The challenges in developing a rational cannabis policy. Current Opinion in Psychiatry 22:258–262.
DOI: 10.1097/YCO.0b013e3283298f36Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This paper summarizes evidence on the harms arising from both cannabis use and cannabis prohibition. It also outlines the competing values—protecting public health, respecting adult autonomy, ensuring equal treatment before the law—that need to be balanced in formulating a rational policy toward cannabis use. It argues that cannabis policy inevitably involves political tradeoffs between these competing values.
Hall, Wayne D., and Michael Lynskey. 2009. The challenges in developing a rational cannabis policy. Current Opinion in Psychiatry 22:258–262.
Find this resource:
Hall, Wayne D., and Rosalie L. Pacula. 2010. Cannabis use and dependence: Public health and public policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This book analyzes evidence on the harmful effects of cannabis use on users and others, and on the adverse social and economic effects of cannabis prohibition. It outlines and discusses potential alternative policies to prohibition and includes a detailed discussion of how a legal cannabis market could be regulated in ways to minimize harmful patterns of cannabis use. First published 2003.
Hall, Wayne D., and Rosalie L. Pacula. 2010. Cannabis use and dependence: Public health and public policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Find this resource:
Kaplan, John. 1970. Marijuana: The new prohibition. New York: World.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This book is a very clearly written summary by a conservative US jurist of the case for legalizing cannabis in the United States. It was based on what little was known about its adverse health effects when very few users were regular users, and it stressed the adverse social effects of imposing criminal penalties on young adults who used the drug in the early 1970s.
Kaplan, John. 1970. Marijuana: The new prohibition. New York: World.
Find this resource:
MacCoun, Robert J. 2011. What can we learn from the Dutch cannabis coffeeshop system? Addiction 106:1899–1910.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03572.xSave Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This paper provides an analysis of what can be inferred about the effects of cannabis policies in the Netherlands on cannabis use. It is written by a leading US drug policy scholar and provides a critical appraisal of the evidence on the effects of the policy.
MacCoun, Robert J. 2011. What can we learn from the Dutch cannabis coffeeshop system? Addiction 106:1899–1910.
Find this resource:
Room, Robin, Benedikt Fischer, Wayne D. Hall, Simon Lenton, and Peter Reuter. 2010. Cannabis policy: Moving beyond stalemate. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This collaborative study examines the adverse health effects of cannabis; the effectiveness of current prohibition policies and cannabis policies that have reduced or eliminated penalties for cannabis use and small-scale retail sales. It outlines alternative cannabis policies to prohibition and discusses how the major international drug control treaties could be amended to allow states to undertake policy experiments in regulating cannabis use.
Room, Robin, Benedikt Fischer, Wayne D. Hall, Simon Lenton, and Peter Reuter. 2010. Cannabis policy: Moving beyond stalemate. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Find this resource:
Transform Drug Policy Foundation. 2014. How to regulate cannabis: A practical guide. Bristol, UK: Transform Drug Policy Foundation.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This book provides a detailed set of proposals for the regulation of cannabis by a leading British organization that has campaigned for the legalization of cannabis and other currently prohibited drugs. Its major novelty is that it develops regulations that are designed to protect public health, as opposed to more libertarian proposals that would allow any adult to use the drug with a minimum of regulation.
Transform Drug Policy Foundation. 2014. How to regulate cannabis: A practical guide. Bristol, UK: Transform Drug Policy Foundation.
Find this resource:
Cannabis Legalization in the United States

The most radical cannabis policy experiments internationally are now underway in the United States, where citizens in four states have voted to legalize the production, commercial sale, and use of cannabis by adults. These referenda followed earlier citizen-initiated referenda that legalized the medical use of cannabis in a large number of states. Some of these states also allowed the legal supply of cannabis to persons with a doctor’s recommendation via dispensaries. It is still too early to evaluate the impact of these policy experiments on cannabis use and cannabis-related harm. Drug policy analyses provided by Caulkins, et al. 2012 discuss the probable future effects of these policies on cannabis prices, use, and harm. Room 2014 argues that proposed regulations in the states that were first to legalize will not protect public health. Pacula, et al. 2014 suggests ways in which cannabis may be regulated in a legal market to minimize harmful patterns of use that draw upon historical experience with regulating legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco.

Caulkins, Jonathan P., Angela Hawken, Beau Kilmer, and Mark Kleiman. 2012. Marijuana legalization: What everyone needs to know. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This book provides an accessible popular guide to the issues raised by the legalization of adult use of cannabis for recreational reasons in the United States. It was written by a leading group of US drug policy researchers affiliated with the RAND Corporation and was intended to inform citizens living in states that were considering initiatives to legalize cannabis.
Caulkins, Jonathan P., Angela Hawken, Beau Kilmer, and Mark Kleiman. 2012. Marijuana legalization: What everyone needs to know. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Find this resource:
Pacula, Rosalie Liccardo, Beau Kilmer, Alexander C. Wagenaar, Frank J. Chaloupka, and Jonathan P. Caulkins. 2014. Developing public health regulations for marijuana: Lessons from alcohol and tobacco. American Journal of Public Health 104:1021–1028.
DOI: 10.2105/ajph.2013.301766Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This paper summarizes the views of leading US public health and drug policy researchers on how cannabis could be regulated in the interests of public health. It makes use of knowledge gained from research on the effectiveness of different ways of regulating alcohol and tobacco to design plausible regulatory regimes to minimize the harms of cannabis use after legalization.
Pacula, Rosalie Liccardo, Beau Kilmer, Alexander C. Wagenaar, Frank J. Chaloupka, and Jonathan P. Caulkins. 2014. Developing public health regulations for marijuana: Lessons from alcohol and tobacco. American Journal of Public Health 104:1021–1028.
Find this resource:
Room, Robin. 2014. Legalizing a market for cannabis for pleasure: Colorado, Washington, Uruguay and beyond. Addiction 109:345–351.
DOI: 10.1111/add.12355Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This paper analyzes the public health implications of policies to regulate retail sales of cannabis to adults in the US states of Colorado and Washington and in Uruguay. It argues that the US regulations give a much lower priority to protecting public health than the proposed regulations in Uruguay.
Room, Robin. 2014. Legalizing a market for cannabis for pleasure: Colorado, Washington, Uruguay and beyond. Addiction 109:345–351.
Find this resource:
Illicit Drug Prohibition, Pro and Con

Scholarly debates about the successes and failures of drug prohibition and the likely benefits of alternatives to prohibition have been a feature of the literature for the past several decades. Nadelmann 1989 advocates for a more liberal US drug policy, outlining familiar arguments about the economic and social costs of the US “war on drugs.” This paper drew a response in the form of Goldstein and Kalant 1990, which defended a more nuanced set of policies toward different illicit drugs. Courtwright 1991 offers a considered defense of a less draconian form of enforcement of drug prohibition that was informed by the author’s historical research on US drug policies. Bewley-Taylor 2013 describes the formidable obstacles to producing even modest changes in the way that the international drug control treaties deal with traditional coca leaf chewing. The debate between Weatherburn and Wodak provides a good recent illustration of the principal arguments used for and against a continuation of prohibitionist policies toward different illicit drugs by articulate spokespersons for each view. Weatherburn 2014a and Weatherburn 2014b defend prohibition, while Wodak 2014 argues for its repeal.

Bewley-Taylor, David R. 2013. Towards revision of the UN drug control conventions: Harnessing like-mindedness. International Journal of Drug Policy 24:60–68.
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2012.09.001Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
A political scientist analyzes the reasons for Bolivia’s failure to get an exemption under the Single Convention to allow coca leaf chewing. The author explains how supporters failed to withstand US disapproval. He argues for harmonizing drug treaties with international treaties on human rights, religious freedom, and cultural practices.
Bewley-Taylor, David R. 2013. Towards revision of the UN drug control conventions: Harnessing like-mindedness. International Journal of Drug Policy 24:60–68.
Find this resource:
Courtwright, David T. 1991. Drug legalization, the drug war, and drug treatment in historical perspective. Journal of Policy History 3:42–63.
DOI: 10.1017/S0898030600007429Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This is an extended essay on US policy debates about a war on drugs and drug legalization. It is informed by a deep knowledge of the history of illicit drug use and drug policy responses in the United States. It makes a nuanced case for a less draconian enforcement of prohibition that would deter use but provide a more humane response to the often socially disadvantaged people who develop problems after using illicit drugs.
Courtwright, David T. 1991. Drug legalization, the drug war, and drug treatment in historical perspective. Journal of Policy History 3:42–63.
Find this resource:
Goldstein, Avram, and Harold Kalant. 1990. Drug policy: Striking the right balance. Science 249:1513–1521.
DOI: 10.1126/science.2218493Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This article presents a detailed defense of current drug prohibitions by two leading North American pharmacologists. It was written in response to Nadelmann 1989, an earlier article in Science that advocated drug legalization as an alternative to prohibition in the United States. It proposes different forms of prohibitionist policies toward cannabis, cocaine, and heroin.
Goldstein, Avram, and Harold Kalant. 1990. Drug policy: Striking the right balance. Science 249:1513–1521.
Find this resource:
Nadelmann, Ethan A. 1989. Drug prohibition in the United States: Costs, consequences and alternatives. Science 245:939–947.
DOI: 10.1126/science.2772647Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This paper presented an influential argument in favor of drug legalization that was published in the leading US science journal. The author at that time was a professor of political science at a leading US university who subsequently campaigned for the repeal of cannabis prohibition in the United States via initiatives to allow the medical use of cannabis.
Nadelmann, Ethan A. 1989. Drug prohibition in the United States: Costs, consequences and alternatives. Science 245:939–947.
Find this resource:
Weatherburn, Don. 2014a. The abject failure of drug prohibition? Really? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 47.2: 202–206.
DOI: 10.1177/0004865814524425Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Weatherburn replies to the analysis presented by Wodak 2014. He remains convinced that the benefits of prohibition still outweigh the costs, and argues that Wodak ignores or downplays the benefits of prohibition and misunderstands its effects. He concludes that the legalization of any addictive illicit drug would be an unjustified and potentially dangerous leap in the dark.
Weatherburn, Don. 2014a. The abject failure of drug prohibition? Really? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 47.2: 202–206.
Find this resource:
Weatherburn, Don. 2014b. The pros and cons of prohibiting drugs. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 47.2: 176–189.
DOI: 10.1177/0004865814524423Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Weatherburn is a leading Australian criminologist and drug policy researcher. He critically analyzes claims made for and against drug prohibition and questions the claim that prohibition causes more harm than good. He offers a considered defense of prohibition as a policy for drugs like heroin and cocaine.
Weatherburn, Don. 2014b. The pros and cons of prohibiting drugs. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 47.2: 176–189.
Find this resource:
Wodak, Alex. 2014. The abject failure of drug prohibition. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 47.2: 190–201.
DOI: 10.1177/0004865814524424Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Wodak is an Australian addiction physician who has long advocated for the repeal of drug prohibition. He succinctly states the case for repeal that he has developed over a lengthy career in drugs policy and advocacy, in opposition to Weatherburn.
Wodak, Alex. 2014. The abject failure of drug prohibition. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 47.2: 190–201.
Find this resource:
Drug Policy Analyses

The emergence of a scholarly literature on the analysis of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different approaches to illicit drug policy is a relatively new phenomenon. Kleiman 1992 was an early and influential contribution to this literature that was novel for discussing policies toward both licit and illicit drugs. MacCoun and Reuter 2001 expands the analysis by looking for lessons for policies from the management of other vices (gambling and prostitution) that could be used to suggest new approaches to regulating illicit drugs. Babor, et al. 2010 represents an effort by an international group of drug policy researchers to do for illicit drug policy what had been done earlier for alcohol policy; namely, assess the evidence base for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different demand, supply, and harm reduction policies toward illicit drugs. The book highlighted the limitations of the available evidence on the effectiveness of many policies, including those favored by most governments; namely, repressive law enforcement approaches. Manski, et al. 2001 provides a detailed analysis of the limitations on the available evidence on the effectiveness of US illicit drug policies. Courtwright 2001 provides an overarching comparative history of psychoactive substances from the 15th to the 21st centuries. He attempts to explain why some drugs (alcohol and tobacco) became legal global commodities while others (cannabis, cocaine, and heroin) were eventually prohibited under international drug treaties. McAllister 2000 explains in detail how these international drug control treaties came into being during the 20th century. Room and Reuter 2012 provides an analysis of the extent to which these international drug control treaties have achieved one of their stated goals: protecting the public health. Wilkins 2014 describes the challenges faced by the New Zealand government in legislating to allow the regulated sale of new psychoactive substances to adults for recreational use.

Babor, Thomas, Jonathan P. Caulkins, Griffith Edwards, et al. 2010. Drug policy and the public good. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This book reports on a collaborative study of illicit drug policies by an international group of drug policy scholars. It deals with the adverse health effects of illicit drugs; the adverse effects of prohibition policies; and the evidence on the effectiveness of law enforcement, treatment, prescription, harm reduction, outreach (e.g., needle exchanges), and prevention policies.
Babor, Thomas, Jonathan P. Caulkins, Griffith Edwards, et al. 2010. Drug policy and the public good. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Find this resource:
Courtwright, David T. 2001. Forces of habit: Drugs and the making of the modern world. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This global history of commerce in alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, opiates, cocaine, coffee, and sugar explains their central role in European colonization in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. It explains why some drugs became global legal commodities while others were prohibited under international drug control treaties.
Courtwright, David T. 2001. Forces of habit: Drugs and the making of the modern world. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
Find this resource:
Kleiman, Mark. 1992. Against excess: Drug policy for results. New York: Basic Books.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This book presents a comparative analysis of policies toward alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, heroin, and tobacco. It makes a case for regulating psychoactive commodities in ways that trade off the harms caused by their use against the harms caused by different drug control policies.
Kleiman, Mark. 1992. Against excess: Drug policy for results. New York: Basic Books.
Find this resource:
MacCoun, Robert J., and Peter Reuter. 2001. Drug war heresies: Learning from other vices, times and places. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511754272Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This is a seminal scholarly work in comparative drug policy by two leading US drug policy analysts. They sought to draw policy lessons for the regulation of currently illicit drugs from the history of attempts to manage other vices, such as alcohol abuse, tobacco smoking, gambling, and prostitution.
MacCoun, Robert J., and Peter Reuter. 2001. Drug war heresies: Learning from other vices, times and places. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Find this resource:
Manski, Charles F., John V. Pepper, and Carol V. Petrie, eds. 2001. Informing America’s policy on illegal drugs: What we don’t know keeps hurting us. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This is a collaborative study of the shortcomings of evaluations of the effectiveness of US drug policy by a blue ribbon panel of US drug policy analysts, economists, political scientists, and statisticians. It avoided an explicit analysis of US policy in favor of providing detailed recommendations on how to improve the data available for drug policy appraisal. Most of its recommendations were subsequently ignored.
Manski, Charles F., John V. Pepper, and Carol V. Petrie, eds. 2001. Informing America’s policy on illegal drugs: What we don’t know keeps hurting us. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Find this resource:
McAllister, William B. 2000. Drug diplomacy in the twentieth century: An international history. London: Routledge.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This book provides a history of the emergence in the 20th century of international drug control treaties—the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961), the Convention on Psychotropic Substances (1971), and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (1988)—that prohibit the nonmedical use of cannabis, cocaine, opiates, and synthetic psychotropic drugs in all developed countries.
McAllister, William B. 2000. Drug diplomacy in the twentieth century: An international history. London: Routledge.
Find this resource:
Room, Robin, and Peter Reuter. 2012. How well do international drug conventions protect public health? Lancet 379:84–91.
DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(11)61423-2Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This paper by two leading drug policy scholars provides a critical analysis of the extent to which the international drug control treaties have served their intended purpose of protecting public health and providing access to drugs for medical use.
Room, Robin, and Peter Reuter. 2012. How well do international drug conventions protect public health? Lancet 379:84–91.
Find this resource:
Wilkins, Chris. 2014. The interim regulated legal market for NPS (“legal high”) products in New Zealand: The impact of new retail restrictions and product licensing. Drug Testing and Analysis 6:868–875.
DOI: 10.1002/dta.1643Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Wilkins describes an attempt that was made in 2013 in New Zealand to establish a regulated market for new “legal highs” by passing the Psychoactive Substances Act. The paper outlines the challenges that governments faced in implementing this policy with the aim of reducing the harms arising from the sale and use of these products.
Wilkins, Chris. 2014. The interim regulated legal market for NPS (“legal high”) products in New Zealand: The impact of new retail restrictions and product licensing. Drug Testing and Analysis 6:868–875.
Find this resource:
Opiate Prohibition

The opiates became one of the first of the now illicit drugs to be brought under international control; Barop 2015 describes the history of the first international treaty to prohibit the opiates, the Shanghai Treaty of 1912. Windle 2013 makes the point that the opiates were first prohibited in a number of Asian societies in the 17th and 18th centuries. Berridge 1999 and Courtwright 2001 provide histories of opiate use and policy in the United Kingdom and the United States, respectively. As Berridge 1999 explains, the opiates were also one of the most profitable commodities traded by Britain and other great powers in the 19th century, and were widely used with a minimum of medical supervision in Britain throughout the 19th century. In Anderson and Berridge 2000, the authors describe the evolution of increasing medical control over the use of the opiates into the 20th century as a slow process despite the passage of dangerous drugs legislation in the 1920s. They find evidence of pharmacists continuing to exercise considerable discretion in levels of use that persisted after the end of the Second World War and beyond the 1948 establishment of the National Health Service in Britain. Courtwright 1986 and Courtwright 2001 remind readers that users of the opiates have been subject to punitive social policies in the United States that have included imprisonment and compulsory treatment. In Kalant 2000, the author’s tribute to the 1928 report The Opium Problem, Kalant describes its lasting legacy for the drugs field in combining scientific rigor with a “compassionate social conscience” that was to inspire future scholarly public policy advocacy for methadone maintenance treatment. Critical assessments of these punitive policies in the United States in Lindesmith 1968 and Kaplan 1983 advocated for more humane treatment of persons with opiate dependence, such as providing oral or injectable opiates under medical supervision. The latter policy has often been described as the “British system,” which, its advocates claimed, had limited the scale of opiate addiction in Britain. Strang and Gossop 2003, a collection of articles on the British system, raised major doubts about how systematic the British system of opiate prescribing was, and about how effective it was in limiting the spread of opiate addiction in Britain.

Anderson, Stuart, and Virginia Berridge. 2000. Opium in 20th-century Britain: Pharmacists, regulation and the people. Addiction 95:23–36.
DOI: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2000.951234.xSave Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This article follows Berridge 1999 into the period still in the reach of living memory. It combines an oral history of community pharmacy with an analysis of documentary sources. The authors found that increasing restrictions instigated by drug control treaties heralded a slow process of change in Britain in which pharmacists retained a significant degree of discretion as dispensers of medicines.
Anderson, Stuart, and Virginia Berridge. 2000. Opium in 20th-century Britain: Pharmacists, regulation and the people. Addiction 95:23–36.
Find this resource:
Barop, Helena. 2015. Building the “Opium Evil” consensus: The International Opium Commission of Shanghai. Journal of Modern European History 13:115–137.
DOI: 10.17104/1611-8944_2015_1_115Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
The author describes the first attempt at global narcotics control in 1909. She explains how Britain, China, and the United States perceived opium as a domestic problem and trade interest, and shows how international narcotic control became an unintended legacy of the great powers’ use of military force to end opium prohibition in China.
Barop, Helena. 2015. Building the “Opium Evil” consensus: The International Opium Commission of Shanghai. Journal of Modern European History 13:115–137.
Find this resource:
Berridge, Virginia. 1999. Opium and the people: Opiate use and drug control policy in nineteenth and early twentieth century England. Rev. ed. London: Free Association.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This is a classic history of opium use in England that describes the evolution of more restrictive policies toward the medical and nonmedical use opiates in 19th- and early-20th-century England, culminating in the effective prohibition of nonmedical opiate use after First World War as part of the Versailles Treaty.
Berridge, Virginia. 1999. Opium and the people: Opiate use and drug control policy in nineteenth and early twentieth century England. Rev. ed. London: Free Association.
Find this resource:
Courtwright, David T. 1986. Charles Terry, The Opium Problem, and American narcotic policy. Journal of Drug Issues 16:421–434.
DOI: 10.1177/002204268601600308Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
A leading US historian of drug use and policy looks back at a 1928 report (reprinted 1970) that is now rightly regarded as a classic. Terry was uniquely prepared to study the drug problems of his time by a liberal education, rapid success and seniority in medicine, and a public health posting. Courtwright notes that Terry’s compassion for opiate users made it hard for him to concede that there were changes in the characteristics of the opiate user population over time.
Courtwright, David T. 1986. Charles Terry, The Opium Problem, and American narcotic policy. Journal of Drug Issues 16:421–434.
Find this resource:
Courtwright, David T. 2001. Dark paradise: A history of opiate addiction in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This is a classic history of opiate addiction and policy responses to opiate use in the United States from the mid-19th until the mid-20th century. It was written by a leading US historian of drug use and drug policy who has since published on the global history of drug policies.
Courtwright, David T. 2001. Dark paradise: A history of opiate addiction in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
Find this resource:
Kalant, Harold. 2000. Classic texts revisited: The Opium Problem by Terry and Pellens. Addiction 95:1585–1587.
DOI: 10.1080/09652140050151407Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Kalant provides a counterpoint to Courtwright’s commentary by concentrating on this report’s drug policy legacy. He observes that the report began in obscurity and later became influential because later scholars in addiction studies (such as Lindesmith) used it to make a case for more humane treatment of addicts in methadone maintenance programs.
Kalant, Harold. 2000. Classic texts revisited: The Opium Problem by Terry and Pellens. Addiction 95:1585–1587.
Find this resource:
Kaplan, John. 1983. The hardest drug: Heroin and public policy. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Kaplan was a conservative jurist who carefully analyzed heroin policy in the United States in the 1980s. He rejected arguments in favor of legalization but advocated for a modified form of prohibition in which heroin use would not be a criminal offence but the heroin supply would remain illegal. He argued that methadone maintenance treatment should be provided to persons who became addicted to heroin.
Kaplan, John. 1983. The hardest drug: Heroin and public policy. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Find this resource:
Lindesmith, Alfred Ray. 1968. Addiction and opiates. 2d ed. Chicago: Aldine.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Lindesmith was a sociologist who criticized the dominant theory of heroin addiction in the United States between the late 1930s and the 1960s. He was very critical of punitive US policies toward heroin addiction and advocated for a form of the British system as the most humane and effective alternative policy.
Lindesmith, Alfred Ray. 1968. Addiction and opiates. 2d ed. Chicago: Aldine.
Find this resource:
Strang, John, and Michael Gossop, eds. 2003. Heroin addiction and the British system. Vol. 1, Understanding the problem. London: Routledge.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
First of two edited volumes that provide a detailed history of the “British system” of opiate prescribing often advocated as an alternative to the war on drugs by US drug policy analysts. (Vol. 2, Treatment and Policy Options published the same year). Leading British addiction and policy researchers argued that injectable opiate prescribing was never very extensively implemented because there was very little opiate addiction until the late 1950s. Heroin addiction among younger drug users in Britain in the 1960s prompted more punitive policies that were more like those in the United States. It led to increased restrictions on injectable opiate prescribing, and a move to oral methadone maintenance treatment instead of heroin prescribing.
Strang, John, and Michael Gossop, eds. 2003. Heroin addiction and the British system. Vol. 1, Understanding the problem. London: Routledge.
Find this resource:
Windle, James. 2013. How the East influenced drug prohibition. International History Review 35:1185–1199.
DOI: 10.1080/07075332.2013.820769Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Windle contests the thesis, often implicitly accepted, that drug prohibition is a Western form of cultural imperialism. He shows that it was first adopted in Thailand (1663), Viet Nam (1665), and China (1729). American missionaries may have brought the idea of prohibition to the United States from China in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Windle, James. 2013. How the East influenced drug prohibition. International History Review 35:1185–1199.
Find this resource: