DOCSLIB.ORG

Ill-Gotten Gains, the Rockefeller War on Drugs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Ill-Gotten Gains, The Rockefeller War on Drugs How the Rockefellers turned the United States and other countries into police states. By Jean Carter I write this document as a service to all the people of the world but to especially help those who have been so cruelly and unjustly persecuted by the drug war laws or will be in the future. My hope is that this document will help to end for all time the cruel and violent drug wars. Good people working together to end the persecution generated by the punitive drug war, can bring reform to these oppressive and unGodly laws. People have my permission to reproduce this document, partially or in full, and pass it on to others to read so that everyone will know the truth concerning this issue. Most people are not aware that John D. Rockefeller Junior (1874 to 1960) was the man directly responsible for creating and instigating the destructive war on drugs. The war on drugs which has continued for many decades since it was started in the early 1900s was carefully planned and orchestrated to protect the family ownership of a chemically-based pharmaceutical monopoly. The war was first begun by Rockefeller Junior, with the help of his father, John D. Rockefeller Senior (1839 to 1937), taking over the control of all legal narcotics. A few years after Rockefeller Junior had taken over the narcotics business market, they then set their sights on eliminating medicinal marijuana (known as cannabis), because it was a competitive threat to their chemically-based pharmaceutical sales. In addition to the control on narcotics, Rockefeller Junior was also directly responsible for the prohibition of marijuana back during the 1930s, and he was the real reason behind the government-sponsored Reefer-Madness propaganda campaign designed to scare people about marijuana. Rockefeller Junior used as a business tactic the strategy of controlling narcotics by using political influence to get laws passed. He also used the strategy of prohibiting certain medicines, in order to control the entire medical system, which he, with the help of his father was able to accomplish. This was done to insure that the Rockefeller- owned pharmaceutical companies would remain the powerful monopolies that they had become. Hemp/marijuana made plentiful ethanol when distilled and was good for running car engines, generators etc. Hemp/marijuana had many industrial uses such as cloth, paper, ropes, and many, many other uses. Because it made plentiful ethanol it therefore was seen as a competitive threat to the Rockefeller petroleum monopolies, as was the fact that cannabis/marijuana was an excellent natural medicine which presented a serious threat to the Rockefeller monopoly on chemically-based pharmaceutical sales. I do not want to spend a lot of time writing about John Rockefeller Senior or the oil monopoly he built, since this is a research paper about the war on drugs. However, in order to understand the strategies used by Rockefeller Junior in causing prohibition, thus creating the war on drugs, it helps to look at the strategies used by Rockefeller Senior and how he earned his huge oil fortune. Rockefeller Junior learned a lot about how to conduct business from his father. So just a brief but closer look at the elder Rockefeller and his early days follows. From a humble beginning, by the early 1900s John D. Rockefeller Senior was considered to be the richest man in the world; having made a huge fortune in oil. The Standard Oil Company formed by Rockefeller Senior in 1870 was by now so big that the government insisted that it be broken down into several smaller oil companies, which are still largely owned by the Rockefellers today. There have been many name changes over the years of the oil companies formed from the old Standard Oil Company such as BP, Texaco, Exxon- Mobile, Sunoco to name just a few of the oil companies still owned by the Rockefeller family. An excellent book about the early days of Standard Oil is The History of Standard Oil Company, by Ida Tarbell. When her book was published around 1904, it caused a sensation. Rockefeller allies publically labeled Miss Tarbell as a muckraker, and Rockefeller Senior privately made fun of the author and called her Miss Tar-Barrel. However Rockefeller Senior never made any public reference to the book, because he was probably embarrassed, or maybe he just did not care if people knew he was a crook. In any case the Tarbell book contained a detailed account of the early years of Rockefeller building his oil refinery monopolies and she exposed his crooked business dealings in her book. Her book goes into highly documented detail about fraud, secret kickbacks, bribes and ruthless business practices used by Rockefeller Senior in his strategy of deceit and deception to eliminate any competition from others, and which would also guarantee a monopoly for his Standard Oil Company. When Rockefeller Senior started his first oil refinery in Cleveland, one refinery was not enough for him. He was driven to own all the refineries, whether the other refinery owners liked it or not. He was a steam roller. It also was not enough for him to just own all the refineries; he had to take over the distribution routes too, such as the railroads, waterways and pipelines. He took over the distribution of the oil from the refineries to the ports on the east coast, where his ships were waiting to carry the oil to other countries. He built huge storage tanks to hold oil before it was distributed to the customer. He took over the domestic routes, with his own fleet of trucks, delivering oil directly to homes and businesses needing oil. He eliminated any middle men and took their profits as his own. Rockefeller Senior was like a man driven to obtain more and more. He was very smart and shrewd and he knew how to make deals in which he always got the best of the deal, and often leaving the other guy emotionally broken and financially bankrupted. Rockefeller senior had a great ability to create monopolies and to break the spirit of his competitors. Rockefeller Senior's obsession to own everything included owning or controlling the various chemical companies that relied on his petroleum. These chemical companies made various products such as fertilizers, pesticides, explosives, industrial chemicals of all sorts as well as synthetic fibers and pharmaceutical drugs. These chemical companies were totally dependent on Rockefeller petroleum. Rockefeller took over the controlling interest of these companies and ran them. Another thing I want to mention about Rockefeller Senior because it is important to know about. In the early days of building his oil empire, he formed a fake company called the South Improvement Company to carry out shady deals. This was the company Rockefeller would use when he did not want people to know they were dealing with him. This company would make all kinds of shady deals and many people lost their businesses when they signed up with this company. The company looked great on paper and its bylaws looked fair, and many businesses signed up with this company because it looked so good on paper. However, once the unsuspecting businessman joined up with the fake company, he soon realized that according to the fine print he had given up all control and ownership of his company to Rockefeller Senior. The reason I mention this is because years later when the younger Rockefeller Junior was creating the League of Nations, similar wording was used for the conditions of countries to join the League of Nations. In other words just like companies unknowingly gave up all their rights and control of their businesses to the old South Improvement Company which had been formed by Rockefeller Senior, those joining the League of Nations had to also agree to give up their autonomy and to agree to defer any major decisions to the League of Nations. There are many similarities between the formation of South Improvement and the League of Nations. The book, The History of Standard Oil, by Ida Tarbell can be found free on the Internet. This book is a fascinating look at the early oil industry of the Pennsylvania Oil fields and the rise to prominence of Rockefeller Senior. The wealth being produced from oil (kerosene) was enormous even before cars were on the road to use gasoline. Rockefeller Senior began buying coal mines, railroads, steel mills, chemical companies that depended on petroleum products, and many other areas of business and industry. In 1894 he had developed oil ties in Venezuela and had purchased a railroad in Manchuria now in Northeast China. Rockefeller Senior believed that if you made a small investment in another country, it would buy great political influence in that country. He also wanted to retire from the oil business and use his time to do other things such as philanthropy and work on causes. Even before the automobile appeared on the national scene, the Rockefellers were very rich, and once gasoline became needed for automobiles, the wealth of the family became even greater. Eventually Rockefeller did retire and allowed others to run the oil business, although he still had total control over everything his oil companies did By the late 1890s he was retired from the oil business, and looking for new business opportunities, under the guise of philanthropy. This desire to do philanthropy work, while on the surface looked good, also had a more self-serving side. It seemed to satisfy an obsessive need in Rockefeller Senior to create even more monopolies to protect the growing Rockefeller Empire.
Recommended publications
  • Role of Gender and Relationship in Reforming the Rockefeller Drug Laws

    Role of Gender and Relationship in Reforming the Rockefeller Drug Laws

    THE ROLE OF GENDER AND RELATIONSHIP IN REFORMING THE ROCKEFELLER DRUG LAWS EDA KATHARINE TINTO* In recent years, New York's drug sentencing laws-the Rockefeller Drug Laws- have come under attack due to their failure to reduce drug use despite the growing prisonpopulation. The political and academic communities now are debating how best to reform these laws. In this Note, Eda Tinto highlights the absence of a much- needed discussion regarding the sentencing of certain women drug offenders. Qualitative studies have demonstrated that an underlying context of many women's drug crimes is their involvement in an intimate relationship with a partner who uses or sells drugs. Tinto argues that these women drug offenders are often less blame- worthy than other offenders and that therefore the sentences for their crimes are often unjust. Tinto concludes that the context of an intimate relationshipshould be acknowledged in sentencing and proposes reforms of the Rockefeller Drug Laws. INTRODUCTION In 1973, New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller successfully urged the passage of the most punitive drug laws in the country.1 The "Rockefeller Drug Laws" (the Laws) removed the discretion tradi- tionally afforded to judges in sentencing individual offenders and forced judges to sentence drug offenders to extremely long prison terms. 2 While the enactment of the Laws signaled the beginning of * I would like to thank Professor Anthony Thompson, my family, and my friends for their continual guidance and support for this Note and, more importantly, in life. I also would like to thank the staff of the New York University Law Review, especially Dave McTaggart, Maggie Lemos, Janet Carter, and Michael Kasdan.
  • Is It Time to Change the Rockefeller Drug Laws?

    Is It Time to Change the Rockefeller Drug Laws?

    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by St. John's University School of Law Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development Volume 13 Issue 3 Volume 13, Spring 1999, Issue 3 Article 6 March 1999 Is it Time to Change the Rockefeller Drug Laws? Spiros A. Tsimbinos Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/jcred Recommended Citation Tsimbinos, Spiros A. (1999) "Is it Time to Change the Rockefeller Drug Laws?," Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development: Vol. 13 : Iss. 3 , Article 6. Available at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/jcred/vol13/iss3/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. IS IT TIME TO CHANGE THE ROCKEFELLER DRUG LAWS? SPIROS A. TSIMBINOS* I. INTRODUCTION When the current New York State Penal Law1 went into effect in 1965, the provisions dealing with drug offenses were brief and sim- ple. The penalties for these crimes were moderate sentences, in keeping with the general philosophy that non-violent crimes should be treated less severely than those involving violent conduct.2 In the late 1960's and early 1970's, however, as our cities became plagued by the scourge of drug abuse, the public clamored for an- swers to the problem. In New York State, Governor Rockefeller and the Legislature responded by enacting the toughest drug laws in the nation.
  • The Sing Sing Revolt the Incarceration Crisis and Criminal Justice Liberalism in the 1980S

    The Sing Sing Revolt the Incarceration Crisis and Criminal Justice Liberalism in the 1980S

    The Sing Sing Revolt The Incarceration Crisis and Criminal Justice Liberalism in the 1980s Lee Bernstein As 1983 began, New York’s prisons reached a chokepoint: in the past decade the inmate population went from 12,444 to 27,943. Mario Cuomo, who would become the nation’s most prominent liberal politician after delivering the keynote address at the 1984 Democratic National Convention, prepared to take the oath of office to become the state’s fifty-second governor.1 Corrections officials scrambled to find beds for four hundred new people each week in crumbling facilities and repurposed public buildings. This overcrowding occurred, to different degrees, throughout the system—city and county jails, juvenile facilities, and in state-run facilities variously classified minimum, medium, and maximum security. Multi- ple factors converged to create this overcrowding, including the war on drugs, the victims’ rights movement, and new “truth in sentencing” laws.2 In addition, declining tax revenues and the economic struggles of the state’s voters limited the state’s ability to fund new prison construction and to accommodate the educational, therapeutic, and social needs of its bur- geoning prison population. Access to basic needs like warm clothing, blankets, and mail became constrained. The Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) was character- ized by laughably inadequate grievance procedures, insufficiently staffed facilities, anemic responses to ongoing labor-management disputes, rifts between uniformed and civilian employees, and failure to address racist and sexist barriers to fair treatment for employees and the incarcerated population. Recent memory generated a foreboding sense of where all this would lead.
  • Rockefeller Drug Law Reform

    Rockefeller Drug Law Reform

    NEW YORK STATE SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON ALCOHOLISM & DRUG ABUSE Senator Jeffrey D. Klein, Chair Assessing the Effectiveness of Substance Abuse Treatment Under Rockefeller Drug Law Reform February 2012 Introduction On April 2, 2009, the State Legislature passed ground-breaking legislation that effectively swept away an entire era of notoriously harsh drug sentencing schemes known as the Rockefeller Drug Laws. The 2009 reform caused a major change in New York’s drug policy, shifting it away from mass incarceration and toward a public health model. The two most fundamental pieces included in the legislation were an elimination of mandatory minimum sentences, and restoration of judicial discretion to order treatment and rehabilitation as an alternative to incarceration. Two years have passed since these reforms were implemented, and the questions that need to be answered are: have they been successful? Are drug offenders truly being given the treatment they need, and is this treatment producing better outcomes than incarceration as the reforms intended? In order to determine the effectiveness of the 2009 Drug Law Reform (DLR), Senator Jeffrey Klein, Chair of the Senate Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Committee, gathered first-hand information from treatment providers across the State. In collaboration with the New York Association of Substance Abuse Providers (ASAP), an online survey was circulated to ASAP’s membership of 250+ alcoholism and drug treatment providers. The purpose of this survey was to determine whether treatment providers were seeing an increase in the number of patients referred from the criminal justice system, and if so, whether these providers have the capacity and resources to support all clients coming into their program for treatment to overcome their dependency and lead healthy and productive lives.
  • The Rockefeller Drug Laws: Unjust, Irrational, Ineffective

    The Rockefeller Drug Laws: Unjust, Irrational, Ineffective

    The Rockefeller Drug Laws: Unjust, Irrational, Ineffective A Call for a Public Health Approach to Drug Policy 125 Broad St. New York, NY 10004 212.607.3300 www.nyclu.org CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION: NEW YORK’S JIM CROW LAWS ........3 II. THE ROCKEFELLER DRUG LAWS: UNJUST, IRRATIONAL, INEFFECTIVE ...................5 III. THE HARMS ...................................11 IV. MAPPING OF INJUSTICE .........................17 V. PARADIGM SHIFT ...............................30 VI. MOVING TOWARDS A PUBLIC HEALTH MODEL: RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................36 THE NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION The Rockefeller Drug Laws │ Unjust, Irrational, Ineffective 2 I. INTRODUCTION: NEW YORK’S JIM CROW LAWS here has emerged over the last decade a broad consensus among policy experts, criminal justice scholars and lawmakers that the War on Drugs, with its singular emphasis on incarceration, has failed. In 1993, on the 20th anniversary of the Rockefeller Drug Laws, New York State Corrections Commis- T 1 sioner Thomas Coughlin, III, said the state was “lock[ing] up the wrong people … for the wrong reasons.” Former Republican state senator John Dunne was a sponsor of the state’s mandatory sentencing scheme for drug offenses. He subsequently organized a coalition that has advocated for fundamental reform of the Rockefeller Drug Laws. In 2004 he observed, in a television spot, “the Rockefeller Drug Laws have been a well-documented failure.”2 Yet, as the 36th anniversary of these laws approaches, the state continues locking up the wrong people for the wrong reasons. This report presents and marshals the empirical evidence that demonstrates New York’s mandatory-min- imum drug sentencing scheme has failed, utterly, to accomplish its stated objectives.
  • Three Reasons to Re-Evaluate the Rockefeller Drug Laws Susan Herman

    Three Reasons to Re-Evaluate the Rockefeller Drug Laws Susan Herman

    Brooklyn Law School BrooklynWorks Faculty Scholarship 2000 Measuring Culpability by Measuring Drugs? Three Reasons to Re-evaluate the Rockefeller Drug Laws Susan Herman Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/faculty Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Food and Drug Law Commons, and the Other Law Commons Recommended Citation 63 Alb. L. Rev. 777 (2000) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of BrooklynWorks. MEASURING CULPABILITY BY MEASURING DRUGS? THREE REASONS TO REEVALUATE THE ROCKEFELLER DRUG LAWS Susan N. Herman* The so-called Rockefeller drug laws,1 enacted in 1973, have been New York's principal weapon in the war against drugs for the past three decades. The statutory design, like the reasoning upon which it rests, is simple and straightforward. The legislature chose to impose lengthy and frequently mandatory sentences for possession and distribution of controlled substances, on the assumption that harsh and certain punishment would deter and reduce drug abuse and related crime. 2 Under this system, drug offenses are graded according to the dangerousness and the quantity of the drug involved. 3 Dangerousness of a drug is determined by consulting * Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School. B.A., Barnard College, 1968; J.D., New York University, 1974. The author would like to thank Paul Gangsei and David Yassky for their helpful comments, Chris Fowler for his excellent research assistance, Jim Peluso for his extraordinary efforts in coordinating this symposium, and Brooklyn Law School for the continuing support of its research stipend program.
  • Examining the Effect of Drug Law on the New York State Prison Industrial Complex

    Examining the Effect of Drug Law on the New York State Prison Industrial Complex

    Syracuse University SURFACE Syracuse University Honors Program Capstone Syracuse University Honors Program Capstone Projects Projects Spring 5-1-2010 The Commodification of the Modern Black Man: Examining the Effect of Drug Law on the New York State Prison Industrial Complex Alexis Kinney Follow this and additional works at: https://surface.syr.edu/honors_capstone Part of the Human Geography Commons, Nature and Society Relations Commons, and the Other Geography Commons Recommended Citation Kinney, Alexis, "The Commodification of the Modern Black Man: Examining the ffE ect of Drug Law on the New York State Prison Industrial Complex" (2010). Syracuse University Honors Program Capstone Projects. 404. https://surface.syr.edu/honors_capstone/404 This Honors Capstone Project is brought to you for free and open access by the Syracuse University Honors Program Capstone Projects at SURFACE. It has been accepted for inclusion in Syracuse University Honors Program Capstone Projects by an authorized administrator of SURFACE. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Abstract This Capstone project examines the effect of New York State’s prison industrial complex on local economies. The prison industrial complex is a system of imprisonment that, through various methods, transforms prisoners into commodities. The complex involves endorsing legislation to create more crimes and longer sentences for those crimes, thus increasing the number, and term length, of incarcerated citizens. In New York, the creation of the Rockefeller drug laws resulted in a revitalized diligence in the war against drugs, leading to the promotion of prisoner- based upstate economies. Through engagement with United States drugs laws, historical accounts of drug use and addiction, and statistical analysis and research in regards to race, wealth, gender, and drug use this Capstone provides original maps that illustrate the racist nature of the Rockefeller drug laws, New York’s main drug law set, and the spatial organization of the prison system itself.
  • POSITION PAPER: Race and the War on Drugs

    POSITION PAPER: Race and the War on Drugs

    POSITION PAPER: Race and the War on Drugs number blacks five to one and color have been a primary target WITH OUR HISTORY both groups use and sell drugs at of anti-drug policies and rhetoric. of racial injustice, the similar rates,2 African-Americans Beginning in the early 1900s, United States cannot comprise: drug warriors invoked the image and should not tolerate of black men high on drugs to laws that systematically • 35% of those arrested for pass the nation’s earliest drug target communities drug possession; laws.8 By 1930, 16 western states of color. Yet, this is • 55% of those convicted for prohibited marijuana as a way to precisely the outcome drug possession; and target the growing Mexican com- of the current War on • 74% of those imprisoned munity that had flooded the U.S. 3 9 Drugs. Even though for drug possession. job market. In 1951, the Boggs drugs remain as Act established stringent nar- This skewed enforcement cotics penalties in response to the available as ever, we of drug laws has a devastating threat of “communist opium” are continuing policies impact. One in three black men from Asia.10 In 1973, with a man- that have a devastating between the ages of 20 and 29 are date from the public to “get tough effect on African- currently either on probation, on crime,” New York enacted the American and Latino parole, or in prison. One in five Rockefeller drug laws, requiring communities. The time black men have been convicted severe prison terms for drug has come to reverse of a felony.
  • Deconstructing Carmona: the U.S. War on Drugs and Black Men As Non-Citizens

    Deconstructing Carmona: the U.S. War on Drugs and Black Men As Non-Citizens

    Valparaiso University Law Review Volume 47 Number 3 Spring 2013 pp.89-129 Spring 2013 Deconstructing Carmona: The U.S. War on Drugs and Black Men as Non-Citizens Brian G. Gilmore Reginald Dwayne Betts Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Brian G. Gilmore and Reginald Dwayne Betts, Deconstructing Carmona: The U.S. War on Drugs and Black Men as Non-Citizens , 47 Val. U. L. Rev. 89 (2013). Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol47/iss3/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Valparaiso University Law School at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Valparaiso University Law Review by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Gilmore and Betts: Deconstructing Carmona: The U.S. War on Drugs and Black Men as N DECONSTRUCTING CARMONA: THE U.S. WAR ON DRUGS AND BLACK MEN AS NON- CITIZENS Brian G. Gilmore* Reginald Dwayne Betts** I. COLONIAL CITIZENS AND THE U.S. WAR ON DRUGS The Negritude movement poet, Aimé Césaire of Martinique, wrote in his book, Discourse on Colonialism, “A civilization that proves incapable of solving the problems it creates is a decadent civilization.”1 Césaire, at the time, was critiquing colonial rule of Europe over developing societies all over the world and had declared that Europe was “stricken” and “dying” as a civilization due to its tactics to maintain that rule.2 Europe’s problem was the working class (the workers) of these nations and the inability and unwillingness to resolve the issue.3 For purposes of our discussion below, Césaire’s analysis is relevant because of the current criminal justice system policy that has incarcerated over one million black men at the present time and over two million citizens overall.4 While some contend that these black men violated federal and state controlled substances laws and should be incarcerated, this viewpoint lacks thoughtful analysis.
  • Rockefeller Drug Laws Quick Facts Updated February 2009

    Rockefeller Drug Laws Quick Facts Updated February 2009

    Rockefeller Drug Laws Quick Facts Updated February 2009 • Enacted in 1973 under Governor Nelson Rockefeller, the Rockefeller Drug Laws require extremely harsh prison terms for the possession or sale of relatively small amounts of drugs. • The penalties apply without regard to the circumstances of the offense or the individual's character or background. Whether the person is convicted for the first-time, for instance, is irrelevant – the harsh sentences still apply. • Most of the people incarcerated under these laws are convicted of low-level, nonviolent offenses, and many of them have no prior criminal records. Today almost 12,000 people are locked-up for drug offenses in NY State prisons, comprising over 21% of the prison population. This costs New Yorkers over $525 million per year in criminal justice costs alone. • Of the 6,148 new prison commitments under the Rockefeller Drug Laws in 2007: 44% were in prison for possession alone, 66% had never been to prison before, and 94% were convicted of the four lowest offenses – B, C, D, and E felonies. For example, Over 1,200 people are locked up for simple possession of a ½ gram of cocaine, a Class D felony. • Over 42% of the people incarcerated for drug offenses in New York State prisons are locked up for simple drug possession alone. That’s more than 5,000 people. • It costs approximately $44,000 to incarcerate a person for one year. Treatment costs average from $1,200 for outpatient treatment to $19,000 for residential treatment per year, and treatment is proven to be more 15 times more effective at reducing crime and recidivism.
  • Mandatory Minimums, Crime, and Drug Abuse: Lessons Learned, Paths Ahead

    Mandatory Minimums, Crime, and Drug Abuse: Lessons Learned, Paths Ahead

    POLICY BRIEF Mandatory Minimums, Crime, and Drug Abuse: Lessons Learned, Paths Ahead Greg Newburn Director of State Policy, FAMM & Sal Nuzzo Vice President of Policy, The James Madison Institute n the 1970s, three states – New York, Michigan, and Florida – Iadopted mandatory minimum sentencing laws in efforts to deter drug trafficking and crime associated with the drug trade. Decades later, their experiences offer guidance to policymakers still searching for answers to the same problems. www.jamesmadison.org | 1 The Origins of Mandatory reaction. Law enforcement officials in New York City expressed skepticism, and some even opposed the bill.9 Others around the Minimum Drug Laws state rallied in support, including police officials in Syracuse and 10 In 1973, New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller addressed Buffalo. In Michigan, “a good deal of support for the 1978 legisla- New York City’s rampant drug abuse and violent crime problem. tion came from the law enforcement community, including police The year prior, accidental drug overdose deaths in New York State agencies, the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan, and 11 were six times what they had been in 1960,1 and Governor Rocke- judges’ associations.” Florida law enforcement groups cheered feller promised a new strategy. New York adopted “severe and the new mandatory minimum law, too, arguing that it sent “a clear mandatory penalties for narcotic drug offenses at all levels and for signal to traffickers in illegal drugs that they would pay a heavy the most serious offenses involving many other drugs.”2 Those new price if caught with large amounts of marijuana, cocaine or her- 12 sentences would become known as the “Rockefeller Drug Laws,” oin.” then the harshest drug sentencing laws in the country.

  • Opioid Overdose Timeline Infographic

    POLI CI ES I MPACTI NG A NUMBER OF POLICIES, INCLUDING AND BEYOND DRUG POLICY, HAVE IMPACTED THE T HE OVERDOSE EPIDEMIC IN THE UNITED STATES. THE EFFECTS ARE EVIDENT IN COMMUNITIES OF OPIOID COLOR. HERE'S A TIMELINE OF WHY. 1696, 1705... Laws were put in place to dehumanize African OVERDOSE Americans and sanctify their white slave owners. EPIDEMIC In 1696, South Carolina included language in the law that slaves had "barbarous, wild, savage natures." 1875 In 1705, Virginia passed a law to ensure that white people would not be criminalized for killing a slave. A San Francisco ordinance criminalized the "smoking of opium in smoking-houses or dens", mainly owned by Chinese immigrants. 1880-1920 1914 First cocaine epidemic Harrison Narcotics Tax Act was the first congressional action countering 1930 the United States drug trade, limiting 16 states banned marijuana, with the intent of the opiate production, sale, and distribution, even law being against Mexican immigrants. by physicians, imposing taxes and the police as enforcement mechanisms. 1934 National Housing Act established the Federal Housing Administration, solidifying and exacerbating redlining. 1969 President Nixon called a War on Drugs, creating first methadone program. Funding focused on 1970 treatment and on law enforcement intended to Controlled Substance Act negatively affect Black communities, creating justice Replaced over fifty pieces of drug legislation, inequities. establishing system of control for narcotics and psychotropic substances. "We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black [people], but Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and black [people] with and Control Act heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities.