‘To enable Harry Anslinger to keep his army of drug enforcers [the Untouchables], he

created a new drug threat, cannabis, which he called marijuana to make it sound
more Mexican.’ Photograph: Tomas Rodriguez/Corbis

Wed 28 Oct 2015 08.00 GMT

Last modified on Tue 21 Nov 2017 11.08 GMT

This is, of course, a flawed question but one that illustrates a major paradox in the UK
and international laws on drugs. Some drugs – such as alcohol, caffeine and nicotine
– are legal, whereas others – such as cannabis, cocaine and opium – are not. This has
not always been the case.

In the 19th century extracts of these three now-illegal drugs were legal in the UK, and
were sold in pharmacies and even corner shops. Queen Victoria’s physician was a
great proponent of the value of tincture of cannabis and the monarch is reputed to
have used it to counteract the pain of menstrual periods and childbirth. Now it is
denied to people with severe enduring spasticity and pain from neurological
disorders and cancer. Why?
Activists to get high together in protest against psychoactive substances ban

Read more

The truth is unpalatable and goes back to the period of alcohol prohibition in the US in
the 1920s. This was introduced as a harm-reduction measure because alcohol was
seen (correctly) as a drug that seriously damaged families and children. But public
demand for alcohol in the US did not abate and this fuelled a massive rise in bootleg
alcohol and underground bars (known as speakeasys) that encouraged the rise of
the mafia and other crime syndicates.

Advertisement

To combat this, the US government set up a special army of enforcers, under the
command of Harry Anslinger, which became known as “the untouchables”. This
army of enforcers was widely celebrated by the newspapers and the acclaim
propelled Anslinger to national prominence. However, when public disquiet at the
crime and social damage caused by alcohol prohibition led to its repeal, Anslinger
saw his position as being in danger.

To enable him to keep his army of drug enforcers, he created a new drug threat:
cannabis, which he called marijuana to make it sound more Mexican. Working with
a newspaper magnate, William Randolph Hearst, he created hysteria around the
impact of cannabis on American youth and proclaimed an invasion of marijuana-
smoking Mexican men assaulting white women. The ensuing public anxiety led to
the drug being banned. The US then imposed its anti-cannabis stance on other
western countries and this was finally imposed on the rest of the world through the
first UN convention on narcotic drugs in 1961.
Mexican soldiers burning marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other drugs in Ciudad Juarez,
Chihuahua. Photograph: AFP/Getty

This process of vilifying drugs by engendering a fear of the “other people” who use them
became a recurring theme in drug policy. Black Americans were stigmatised on
account of heroin use in the 1950s. In the 1960s hippies and psychedelics were
targeted because they opposed the Vietnam war. In the 1970s it was again inner-city
black Americans who used crack cocaine who received the brunt of opprobrium, so
much so that the penalties for crack possession were 100 times higher than those
for powder cocaine, despite almost equivalent pharmacology. Then came “crystal”
(methamphetamine) and the targeting of “poor whites”.

The UK has followed US trends over cannabis, heroin and psychedelics, and led the
world in the vilification of MDMA (ecstasy). In the UK a hate campaign against young
people behaving differently was instigated by the rightwing press. As with past
campaigns, they hid their prejudice under the smokescreen of false health concerns.
It was very effective and resulted in both MDMA and raves being banned. This
occurred despite the police being largely comfortable with MDMA users since they
were friendly – a stark contrast to those at alcohol-fuelled events.

So many people switched from cocaine and amphetamine to mephedrone that deaths
decreased by up to 40%

Since the demise of ecstasy we have seen the rise and fall of several alternative legal
highs, most notably mephedrone. This was banned following a relentless media
campaign, despite no evidence of deaths and with little attempt to properly estimate
its harm. Subsequently we have discovered that it saved more lives than it took
because so many people switched from cocaine and amphetamine to mephedrone
that deaths from these more toxic stimulants decreased by up to 40%. Since
 mephedrone was banned in 2010, cocaine deaths have risen again and are now
above their pre-mephedrone levels.

As young people seek to find legal ways to enjoy altered consciousness without exposing
themselves to the addictiveness and toxicity of alcohol or the danger of getting a
criminal record, so the newspapers seek to get these ways banned too. Politicians
collude as they are subservient to those newspapers that hate youth and they know
that the drug-using population is much less likely to vote than the drug-fearing
elderly. We have moved to a surreal new world in which the government, through
the new psychoactive substances bill, has decided to put an end to the sale of any
drug with psychoactive properties, known or yet to be discovered.

This ban is predicated on more media hysteria about legal highs such as nitrous oxide
and the “head shops” that sell them. Lies about the number of legal high deaths
abound, with Mike Penning, minister for policing and justice, quoting 129 last year in
the bill’s second reading. The true figure is about five, as the “head shops” generally
now sell safe mild stimulants because they don’t want their regular customers to
die.

‘Queen Victoria’s physician was a great proponent of the value of tincture of cannabis,
and she is reputed to have used it to counteract the pain of menstrual periods and
childbirth.’ Photograph: Alamy

The attack on nitrous oxide is even more peculiar as this gas has been used for pain
control for women in childbirth and surgical pain treatments for more than 100
years with minimal evidence of harm. But when a couple of premiership footballers
are filmed inhaling a nitrous oxide balloon, then it becomes a public health hazard.
In typical fashion the press renamed it “hippy crack” to scare people – what could
me more frightening to elderly readers than an invasion of hippies on crack? In
truth, the effect of nitrous oxide is nothing like crack and no self-respecting hippy
 would ever use it. Still, it seems likely it will be banned along with every other mind-
altering substance that is not exempted.

The psychoactive substances bill is the most oppressive law in terms of controlling moral
behaviour since the Act of Supremacy in 1558 that banned the practice of the
Catholic faith. Both are based on a moral superiority that specifies the state will
decide on acceptable actions and beliefs even if they don’t affect other people.
Worse, it won’t work – evidence from other countries such as Poland and Ireland
that have tried such blanket bans shows an increase in deaths as people go back to
older illegal drugs such as cocaine and heroin.

Moreover, it may seriously impede research in brain disorders, one of the few scientific
areas in which the UK is still world-leading. But hey, who cares about the
consequences of laws, so long as the police and the press are appeased?

So the short answer to the question “why are (some) drugs illegal?” is simple. It’s
because the editors of powerful newspapers want it that way. They see getting
drugs banned as a tangible measure of success, a badge of honour. And behind them
the alcohol industry continues secretly to express its opposition to anything that
might challenge its monopoly of recreational drug sales. But that’s another story.

Since you're here ...

... and it's nearly the end of the year, we have a small favour to ask. Millions have turned
to the Guardian for vital, independent, quality journalism throughout a turbulent
and challenging 2020. Readers in 180 countries, including India, now support us
financially. Will you join them?

We believe everyone deserves access to information that’s grounded in science and

truth, and analysis rooted in authority and integrity. That’s why we made a different
choice: to keep our reporting open for all readers, regardless of where they live or
what they can afford to pay. This means more people can be better informed,
united, and inspired to take meaningful action.

In these perilous times, a truth-seeking global news organisation like the Guardian is
essential. We have no shareholders or billionaire owner, meaning our journalism is
free from commercial and political influence – this makes us different. When it’s
never been more important, our independence allows us to investigate fearlessly,
and challenge those in power.

In this unprecedented year of intersecting crises, we have done just that, with revealing
journalism that had real-world impact: the inept handling of the Covid-19 crisis, the
Black Lives Matter protests, and the tumultuous US election.

We have enhanced our reputation for urgent, powerful reporting on the climate
emergency, and moved to practice what we preach, rejecting advertising from fossil
fuel companies, divesting from oil and gas companies and setting a course to achieve
net zero emissions by 2030.
If there were ever a time to join us, it is now. Your funding powers our journalism, it
protects our independence, and ensures we can remain open for all. You can
support us through these challenging economic times and enable real-world impact.

Every contribution, however big or small, makes a real difference for our future. Support
the Guardian from as little as $1 – it only takes a minute. Thank you.