Talk:Harrison Narcotics Tax Act

fix this sentence
Although technically illegal for purposes of distribution and use, the distribution, sale and use of cocaine was still legal for registered companies and individuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp0 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this a contest? =) I'd think an "individual" or "unregestered" is the missing word. -LlywelynII (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Where would you put those words? Nearly 14 years later, this sentence still doesn't make sense. Kismetjim (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Question about constitutionality
It'd be nice to see a discussion of how the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act managed to get around states' rights and issues of personal space. Does anybody know the answer(s) to these questions? Much thanks... --chodges 06:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw a show on the history channel that claimed, much to my suprise, the Harrison Act was racially motivated. I guess right before it was passed, Southern States demanded that it be added because "the drug caused African Americans to become violent and rape white women."  I was appaulled!  If this information is true, why hasn't the NAACP challenged it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.104.244 (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Need source for 1917
The article says: ''The act appears to be concerned about the marketing of opiates. However a clause applying to doctors allowed distribution "in the course of his professional practice only." This clause was interpreted after 1917 to mean that a doctor could not prescribe opiates to an addict, since addiction was not considered a disease.'' I am looking for a source that names 1917 for the change in interpretation. I cannot find it in Spillane, Musto, or in the Supreme Court record. The US v. Jin Fuey Moy ruling of 1916 was in favor of the defendant, and it seems not until US v. Webb and US v. Doremus in 1919 that the Supreme Court changed its perspective. I have no reason to doubt the article's assertion that the change occurred in 1917, since it is consistent with other information available to me; in fact that is why I am interested in finding the source. A5 (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Domestic Background
"Addicts of opium were very frequent. It has been estimated that one US. citizen of 400 was an addict of opium in 1914, much more frequent than today, and the number had increased fast for a number of years". Wrong Wrong Wrong. 0.25% is not even close to as large as the REAL percent of the population addicted to an opiate today. The percentage is also much higher now than it was in 1914. A source is needed for this entire quote, because the one listed can not be verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brantunger (talk • contribs) 01:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is a transcript of a speech by Prof. Chas. Whitebread (heh), USC Law School, on "The History of the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in the United States" to the Calif. Judges Assoc. 1995 annual conference. He lists pretty impressive credentials and research in the intro & cites larger figures:
 * If you are interested in the non-medical use of drugs in this country, the time to go back to is 1900, and in some ways the most important thing I am going to say to you guys I will say first. That is, that in 1900 there were far more people addicted to drugs in this country than there are today. Depending upon whose judgment, or whose assessment, you accept there were between two and five [ie, not 1 in 400, but 8-20 in 400] percent of the entire adult population of the United States addicted to drugs in 1900.


 * Now, there were two principal causes of this dramatic level of drug addiction at the turn of the century. The first cause was the use of morphine and its various derivatives in legitimate medical operations. You know as late as 1900, particularly in areas where medical resources were scarce it was not at all uncommon for you to say, let's say you would have appendicitis, you would go into the hospital, and you would get morphine as a pain killer during the operation, you would be given morphine further after the operation and you would come out of the hospital with no appendix but addicted to morphine.


 * The use of morphine in battlefield operations during the Civil War was so extensive that, by 1880, so many Union veterans were addicted to morphine that the popular press referred to morphinism as the "soldier's disease". Now I will say, being from Virginia as I am, that the Confederate veterans didn't have any problems about being addicted to morphine because the South was too poor to have any, and therefore battlefield operations on the Confederate Army were simply done by chopping off the relevant limb while they drank a little whiskey. But the Northern troops heavily found themselves, as the result of battlefield operations and the use of morphine, addicted to morphine.


 * Now, the other fact that I think that is so interesting about drug addiction at the turn of the century, as opposed to today is who the addicts were, because they were the exact opposite of who you would think most likely to be an addict today. If I were to ask you in terms of statistical groups who is most likely to be involved with drugs today, you would say a young person, a male, who lives in the city and who may be a minority group member. That is the exact opposite of who was most likely to be addicted to drugs at the turn of the century.


 * In terms of statistical groups, who was most likely to be addicted to drugs at the turn of the century? A rural living, middle-aged white woman. The use of morphine in medical operations does not explain the much higher incidence of drug addiction among women. What does is the second cause of the high level of addiction at the turn of the century -- the growth and development of what we now call the "patent medicine" industry.
 * More at source, obviously. -LlywelynII (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

additional Citation Needed

 * Dr. Hamilton Wright, appointed by Theodore Roosevelt, stated that "cocaine is often the direct incentive to the crime of rape by the Negroes of the South and other sections of the country," even though there was no evidence to support this claim.

While the evidence used may have been entirely spurious, it is highly doubtful he would've made this claim on no basis whatsoever as claimed, particularly as the article already lists numerous (albeit biased and objectionable) sources he might have cited in his argument. The actual evidence used (preferably with its debunking) is needful. -LlywelynII (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * here is the full text of the report where he wrote that http://archive.org/stream/cu31924032583225/cu31924032583225_djvu.txt
 * he actually doesn't cite any evidence. he simply claims that "it has been authoritatively stated" to be true.


 * i've updated the page to reflect this. -24.205.37.152 (talk) 08:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

William Jennings Bryan
How is it possible that William Jennings Bryan was the chief proponent of the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act but this person is not mentioned in this article? --A2323545 (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC) William Jennings Bryan was NOT a legislative proponent of the Harrison Act as he was Secretary of State and not in Congress at the time. Bryan was a prominent advocate of alcohol prohibition, however. Dgieringer (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 17:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harrison Narcotics Tax Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705050104/http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3042936.html to http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3042936.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)