Advertisement

Critical Criminology

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 41–56 | Cite as

“The Opium Wars”: The Biopolitics of Narcotic Control in the United States, 1914–1935

  • Saran Ghatak
Article

Abstract

The emergence of the narcotic control regime in the early twentieth century US provides a historical case study of what Michel Foucault has called “biopolitics”. At the collective level, narcotic control policy emerged as a regulatory mechanism to secure the national population from the spread of addictive substances through an elaborate system of surveillance and control. At the individual level, the drug user emerged as a new criminal subject at the center of an array of medico-penal technologies that sought to understand the psychological and somatic dimensions of addiction, and to normalize the addicted person.

Keywords

Drug User Addiction Treatment Crime Control Drug Problem Geneva Convention 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Neil Brenner, Craig Calhoun, Troy Duster, Sarah Kaufman, Elizabeth Pacilio as well as the editor and the reviewers of this journal for their comments and criticisms. The research for this paper was partly made possible by a grant from the Rockefeller Archive Center.

References

  1. Acker, C. J. (2002). Creating the American Junkie: Addiction research in the classic era of narcotic control. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ahl, F. (1930). The economic losses through drug addiction. Overland Monthly and Out West Magazine, 88(9), 267–268.Google Scholar
  3. Anslinger, H. J. (1933). Peddling of narcotic drugs. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 24(3), 636–655.Google Scholar
  4. Anslinger, H. J., & Tompkins, W. A. (1953). Traffic in narcotics. New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company.Google Scholar
  5. Aurin, M. (2000). Chasing the dragon: The cultural metamorphosis of opium in the United States, 1825–1935. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 14(3), 414–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bishop, E. (1919). The drug disease. Literary Digest, 61, 29–30.Google Scholar
  7. Bishop, E. (1921). The narcotic drug problem. New York: McMillan.Google Scholar
  8. Bourgois, P. (2000). Disciplining addictions: The biopolitics of methadone and heroin in the US. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 24, 165–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, L. G. (1931). The sociological implications of drug addictions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 4(6), 358–369.Google Scholar
  10. Calkins, A. (1871). Opium and the opium-appetite. Philadelphia: J.B Lippincott and Company.Google Scholar
  11. Carrabine, E. (2000). Discourse, governmentality and translation: Towards a social theory of imprisonment. Theoretical Criminology, 4(3), 309–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Conrad, P., & Schneider, J. W. (1992). Deviance and medicalization: From badness to sickness. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Courtwright, D. T. (1982). Dark paradise: Opiate addiction in America before 1940. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Cumming, H. S. (1925, November). Control of drug addiction mainly a police problem. American City Magazine.Google Scholar
  15. Dean, M. (1999). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Dickson, D. T. (1968). Bureaucracy and morality: An organizational perspective on a moral crusade. Social Problems, 16(2), 143–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Donzelot, J. (1979). The policing of families. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  18. DOS. (1933, July 15). Press releases. Department of State.Google Scholar
  19. Duster, T. (1970). Legislation of morality: Law, drugs and moral judgment. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  20. Feeley, M., & Simon, J. (1992). The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology, 30(4), 449–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Foucault, M. (1973). Birth of the clinic: Archeology of the medical perception. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  22. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  23. Foucault, M. (1980). The politics of health in the eighteenth century. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/knowledge: selected interviews and other writings 1972–77. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  24. Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality, volume I: An introduction. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  25. Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. Foucault, M. (1996). Foucault live: Collected interviews, 1961–1984. New York: Semiotext.Google Scholar
  27. Foucault, M. (2004). Society must be defended: Lectures at the College de France, 1975–1976. New York: Picador.Google Scholar
  28. Foucault, M. (2008). The Birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the College de France, 1978–1979. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  29. Garland, D. (1997). Governmentality and the problem of crime: Foucault, criminology, sociology. Theoretical Criminology, 1(2), 173–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Geneva Convention. (1933). Convention for the limiting the manufacture and regulating the distribution of narcotic drugs. American Journal of International Law, 28(1), 21–42.Google Scholar
  32. Gordon, A. (1917). The relation of legislative acts to the problem of drug addiction. Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, 8(2), 211–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gordon, C. (1991). Governmental rationality: An introduction. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hamilton, J. A. (1922). The treatment of drug addiction at the correctional hospitals in New York City. Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, 13(1), 122–126.Google Scholar
  35. Harding, G. (1986). Constructing addiction as a moral failing. Sociology of Health & Illness, 8(1), 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hickman, T. (2000). Drugs and race in American culture: Orientalism in the turn-of-the-century discourse of narcotic addiction. American Studies, 41(1), 71–91.Google Scholar
  37. Hunt, A. (1996). Governing the city: Liberalism and the early modern forms of government. In A. Barry, T. Osborne, & N. Rose (Eds.), Foucault and political reason: Liberalism, neo-liberalism, and rationalities of government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  38. Hynson, H. P. (1902). Report of the committee on acquirement of drug habit. American Journal of Pharmacy, 74, 551.Google Scholar
  39. Inciardi, J. (1986). The war on drugs: Heroin, cocaine and public policy. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing.Google Scholar
  40. King, R. (1957). Narcotic drug laws and enforcement policies. Law and Contemporary Problems, 22(1), 113–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. King, R. (1972). The drug hang up: America’s fifty-year folly. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher Ltd.Google Scholar
  42. Kolb, L. (1925). Drug addiction: A study of some medical cases. Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, 10, 171–183.Google Scholar
  43. Kolb, L. (1939). Drug addiction as a public health problem. The Scientific Monthly, 48, 391–400.Google Scholar
  44. Kolb, L. (1962). Drug addiction: A medical problem. Springfield, IL: Thomas Publishers.Google Scholar
  45. Lee, M. (2001). Genesis of fear of crime. Theoretical Criminology, 5(4), 467–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Levine, H. G. (1978). The discovery of addiction: Changing conceptions of habitual drunkenness in America. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 15, 493–506.Google Scholar
  47. Lichtenstein, P. M. (1914). Narcotic addiction. New York Medical Journal, 100, 962–966.Google Scholar
  48. Lindesmith, A. R. (1938). A sociological theory of drug addiction. The American Journal of Sociology, 43(4), 593–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lindesmith, A. R. (1940a). The drug addict as a psychopath. American Sociological Review, 5(6), 914–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lindesmith, A. R. (1940b). The “dope fiend” mythology. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 31(2), 199–208.Google Scholar
  51. Lindesmith, A. R. (1965). The addict and the law. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Los, M. (2002). Post-communist fear of crime and the commercialization of security. Theoretical Criminology, 6(2), 165–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McAllister, W. B. (1999). Drug diplomacy in the twentieth century: An international history. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. McMullan, J. L. (1998). Social surveillance and the rise of the police machine. Theoretical Criminology, 2(1), 93–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Moore, L., & Wenger, L. (1995). The social context of needle exchange and user self-organization in San Francisco: Possibilities and pitfalls. Journal of Drug Issues, 25(3), 583–598.Google Scholar
  56. Mulhall, S. G. (1922a). The increasing drug menace and its serpentine trail. Current Opinion, LXXII(5), 602–605.Google Scholar
  57. Mulhall, S. G. (1922b). Experiences in narcotic drug control in the state of New York. New York Medical Journal, 113, 106–111.Google Scholar
  58. Musto, D. (1989). The American disease: Origins of narcotic control. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Nicholson, S. (1928). Narcotic drug addiction affecting economic progress. Narcotic Rehabilitation, 1(1), 5–9.Google Scholar
  60. NYT. (1909, October 7). Drug habit curable, Says Dr. Lambert. New York Times.Google Scholar
  61. NYT. (1935, May 26). Narcotic farm for 1,400 opened: Dr. Cumming dedicates it to our ‘instinctive demands’ for care of afflicted. New York Times.Google Scholar
  62. O’Malley, P. (1999a). Governmentality and risk society. Economy and Society, 28, 138–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. O’Malley, P. (1999b). Consuming risks: Harm-minimization and government of ‘drug users’. In R. Smandych (Ed.), Governable places: Readings on governmentality and crime control. Dartmouth: Aldershot.Google Scholar
  64. O’Malley, P. (2000). Uncertain subjects: Risk, liberalism and contract. Economy and Society, 29, 460–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Owens, C. J., Jr. (1928). Legislation to establish two federal narcotic farms. Narcotic Rehabilitation, 1(1), 7–8.Google Scholar
  66. Pettey, G. E. (1913). Narcotic drug diseases and allied ailments. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis and Company.Google Scholar
  67. Pratt, J. (1998). Dangerousness, risk and technologies of power. In P. O’Malley (Ed.), Crime and the risk society. Bristol: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  68. Pratt, J. (1999). Governmentality, dangerousness and neoliberalism. In R. Smandych (Ed.), Governable places: Readings on governmentality and crime control. Aldershot: Dartmouth.Google Scholar
  69. Reinarman, C., & Levine, H. G. (1997). Crack in context: America’s latest demon drug. In C. Reinarman & H. G. Levine (Eds.), Crack in America: Demon drugs and social justice. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  70. Rose, N. (1996). Governing advanced liberal democracies. In A. Barry, T. Osborne, & N. Rose (Eds.), Foucault and political reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  71. Rose, N. (2001). Politics of life itself. Theory. Culture and Society, 18(6), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rose, N., & Miller, P. (1992). Political power beyond the state: Problematics of government. British Journal of Sociology, 43(2), 172–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schultz, C. (1930). Report of the mayor’s committee to hon. Richard Patterson, Jr., commissioners of correction, New York City. American Journal of Psychiatry, 10, 433–538.Google Scholar
  74. Sheptycki, J. (1999). Policing, postmodernism and transnationalization. In R. Smandych (Ed.), Governable places: Readings on governmentality and crime control. Aldershot: Dartmouth.Google Scholar
  75. Skocpol, T. (1992). Protecting soldiers and mothers: The politics of social provision in the United States, 1870s–1920s. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Skowronek, S. (1982). Building the New American State: The expansion of national administrative capacities, 1877–1920. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Smart, C. (1984). Social policy and drug addiction: A critical study of policy development. British Journal of Addiction, 79, 31–39.Google Scholar
  78. Stanley, L. L. (1919). Treatment of drug addiction. Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, 10(2), 368–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Stanley, L. L. (1921). Narcotic drugs and crime. Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, 12(1), 110–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Stenson, K. (2005). Sovereignty, biopolitics and the local government of crime in Britain. Theoretical Criminology, 9(3), 265–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Terry, C. E., & Mildred, P. (1970 [1928]). The opium problem. Glen Ridge, NJ: Patterson Smith.Google Scholar
  82. USPHS. (1920, December 3). Public Health Reports, 49(xxxv), 2914.Google Scholar
  83. US Supreme Court. (1920). Jin Fuey Moy v. United States, 254 U.S. 189.Google Scholar
  84. US Supreme Court. (1922). United States v. Behrman, 258 U.S. 280.Google Scholar
  85. US Supreme Court (1925). Linder v. United States. 268 U.S. 5 (1925).Google Scholar
  86. Ventura, H. E., Mitchell Miller, J., & Deflem, M. (2005). Governmentality and the war on terror: FBI project carnivore and the diffusion of disciplinary power. Critical Criminology, 13(1), 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Virginia Law Review. (1920). Harrison narcotic act. Virginia Law Review, 6(7), 534–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Vollmer, A. (1936). The police and modern society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  89. Weber, A. J. (1918). Narcotic addiction serious problem for the government. Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, 9(1), 129–131.Google Scholar
  90. White House. (2009). Administration officials announce US-Mexico border security policy: A comprehensive response and commitment. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Administration-Officials-Announce-US-Mexico-Border-Security-Policy-A-Comprehensive-Response-and-Commitment/. Accessed June 30, 2009.
  91. Wholey, C. C. (1913, June). Psychopathologic phases observable in individuals using narcotic drugs in excess. Pennsylvania Medical Journal, 16, 721–725.Google Scholar
  92. Williams, H. S. (1938). Drug addicts are human beings. Washington, DC: Shaw Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  93. Youngquist, P. (2000). Score, scan, schiz: Dick on drugs. Cultural Critique, 44, 84–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sociology and AnthropologyKeene State CollegeKeeneUSA

Personalised recommendations