← New Books Network
New Books Network
Elizabeth Kelly Gray, "Habit Forming: Drug Addiction in America, 1776-1914" (Oxford UP, 2023)
00:58:50
An interview with Elizabeth Kelly Gray
Loading summary
Transcript76 lines
- [00:00]
A
Olivia Culpo here to tell you all about the launch of the new Abercrombie Spring Denim collection made the way denim should feel. Their denim has always been a staple in my wardrobe and has a wide range of fits, styles and washes. Every jean is available in both their Classic Fit and Viral Curve Love Shop in the app, online and in stores. This message is sponsored by Greenlight with school out, summer is the perfect time to teach our kids real world money skills they'll use forever. Greenlight is a debit card and the number one family finance and safety app used by millions of families helping kids learn how to save, invest and spend wisely. Parents can send their kids money and track their spending and saving while kids build money, confidence and skills in fun ways. Start your risk free Greenlight trial today@greenlight.com Spotify that's greenlight.com Spotify hello everybody, this is Marshall Po.
- [00:59]
B
I'm the founder and editor of the New Books Network and if you're listening to this, you know that the NBN is the largest academic podcast network in the world. We reach a worldwide audience of 2 million people. You may have a podcast or you may be thinking about starting a podcast. As you probably know, there are challenges basically of two kinds. One is technical, there are things you have to know in order to get your podcast produced and distributed. And the second is, and this is the biggest problem, you need to get an audience. Building an audience in podcasting is the hardest thing to do today. With this in mind, we at the NBM have started a service called NBN Productions. What we do is help you create a podcast, produce your podcast, distribute your podcast, and we host your podcast. Most importantly, what we do is we distribute your podcast to the NBN audience. We've done this many times with many academic podcasts and we would like to help you. If you would be interested in talking to us about how we can help you with your podcast, please contact us. Just go to the front page of the New Books Network and you will see a link to NBN Productions. Click that, fill out the form and we can talk. Welcome to the New Books Network.
- [02:04]
C
Hello everyone and welcome back to New Books in Medicine, a podcast channel on the New Books Network. I'm Rachel Pagonis and I'm your host for this episode. Today I'm speaking with Elizabeth Kelly Gray about her book Habit Drug addiction in America, 1776-1914, which is indeed a new book. It's published by Oxford University press this month, January 2023. Elizabeth Kelly Gray is associate professor of history at Towson University in Maryland, US her main research interest is American history in an international context in the early national and antebellum eras, focusing on cultural history and diplomatic history, with particular interest in the history of addiction and American foreign relations. Kelly, welcome to the show.
- [02:50]
A
Thank you so much. I'm happy to be here.
- [02:53]
C
Well, it's great to have you here. This is always a topical topic and so interesting to learn more about its history. So to begin with, you tell us a bit about your own background and how you became interested in the history of drug addiction in the U.S. sure.
- [03:07]
A
It's a slightly indirect way. My training was in the history of American foreign relations. And one of the things that I. One of the incidents that I studied, a conflict from the early 1840s, was a. A war that is known as the First Opium War. This was fought between China and Great Britain in the early 1840s. And the idea is that there had been British merchants who were importing large amounts of. Of opium into China. It was having a demoralizing effect on the population. It was affecting the economy. In 1839, the Chinese tried to end the importation of opium and Great. Great Britain went to war with them and ended up winning that war. So I was studying what did Americans think of this conflict, and I realized I can't really know what Americans thought of an Opium War unless I knew what they thought of opium. And it was this. This widely used medicine, but it had become a problematic addictive drug in China. And I realized really, not many people had looked at drug addiction as an American problem in this early time. So I decided to take it on. I thought that sounded like an interesting topic. And I ended up. At first I was going to go up to about the 1870s, and then I decided to take it up to the 1910s. But that was the origin of it.
- [04:34]
C
Fascinating. Do you mind if I ask, what did Americans think of the Opium War?
- [04:38]
A
It was actually really interesting for the most part, from the perspective of Americans in America. They thought it was this very cut and dried thing that the Chinese were in the right, the British were in the wrong. They see it to a large extent as this challenge to their religious beliefs because they had assumed that since Great Britain was a Christian nation, that they would behave in a, you know, quote, Christian manner. And here they saw the Chinese doing what they believed to be right. At the same time, there were American merchants in China who were selling opium, not that people back home knew that they were. There were American missionaries who were trying to proselytize there. The American community in China was really on the side of the British. But Americans back home were just shocked and disappointed really with, with the British pursuing this because they, they saw it as. As clearly that the Chinese were in the right.
- [05:32]
C
Huh. Interesting. So the book has a timeline as you mentioned. It begins with the nation's, the US nation's inception in 1776 and it ends in 1914 when the har Narcotics Tax act was passed. Why did you decide to make 1914 your end point?
- [05:54]
A
It's such a good question. When I was trying to figure out exactly what this should be. Drug addiction in America is not really publicly discussed until the 1870s, but what was going on is up until 1914, which I think could surprise people, there really were no national laws, overwhelmingly no national laws that limited access to addictive drugs. There were some state laws, but those could be easily gotten around if, you know, I mean, for example, drug laws were rather in the late 19th century were sort of strict in New York, but more lax in New Jersey and people could order things through the mail. So literally, I mean up until the early 20th century, parents could send their 12 year old to the drugstore to buy, to buy morphine and the child could come home with it. So I decided that what would really be most interesting would be to study this period of about 140 years where the drugs to which people could become addicted were freely, for the most part, freely available. And even though, I mean addiction does increase a great deal because they're so easy to buy and inexpensive at the same time, there was no real association of drug addiction with crime because if someone were addicted, you know, they might try to stop and then they'd be disappointed that they couldn't stop, but then they could just go to a drugstore and buy more and do so at pretty low prices. So there are some historians who have looked more at why did we end up moving toward regulation. And I just wanted to sort of study this era when there really were no regular. And again there were state regulations, municipal regulations, but they had comparatively limited effect in terms of actually diminishing use.
- [07:49]
C
Wow. So there really wasn't much of an association with crime at all before the Harrison Narcotics Tax act was passed.
- [07:57]
A
Exactly. And one of the things I found was that there were people who, either doctors who had worked with people who were addicted and, and some other observers who specifically when the, when the. And the Harrison Narcotics Narcotic act said that, which it's passed in 1914, it goes into effect the next year. And it said that nobody may get a prescription, nobody may buy opiates or cocaine unless they have a doctor's prescription. And that the doctor had to be, you know, writing a good faith prescription for it. And there were people at the time who were literally saying, we're going to start seeing an association of drug addiction with crime. Which again, would have been news to the readers of those publications at that point, because it was just not something that had been. That had. That had been an issue at that point.
- [08:45]
C
Yeah, well, and I want to circle back to the, you know, effects of that act at the end of our talk. But first I want to ask you. This is the question that everyone asks me when I tell them I'm reading your book. They want to know what drugs were Americans using at this time.
- [09:00]
A
Okay, sure, sure. I mean, the book is primarily about opiates because those were the ones that Americans were primarily using. An OP is a drug that comes from the opium poppy. And just because of the current opioid epidemic, opioid really more refers to synthetic drugs, but the opiates came from the opium poppy. And their two main sources of value as medicine is for pain relief and helping someone to fall asleep. And so the most common forms were laudanum, which was a combination of opium and alcohol and spices. And this was something called people would have kept on hand the way that we have medicine cabinets today, you know, something that would have been widely, widely used. Morphine is one of the act. It's. It's technically an alkaloid. It's this active property in opium and it gets isolated and morphine injections become a popular method of administration, especially in the. From the late 1860s on and also much later in the century, in the 1890s. Heroin is a semi synthetic opiate and was also again, advanced as having medical value. Initially, all of these were. Okay, so it's mainly about opiates. But for example, there is a chapter about cannabis or hashish. They were never calling it marijuana back then. And it had some medical use. It was said to be useful, for example, with the treatment of convulsions with sometimes advanced as. As treating what we would call alcoholism. And there were. One of the issues with cannabis was that they could never isolate sort of the active quality of it. And so they couldn't give what they regarded as effective doses. But there were products like a product called hashish candy, which is, I think was described as being akin to gumdrops that is sold and it's advertised as something that could treat asthma or what they call nervous diseases, but it's something that people are using just to sort of enjoy its, its effects.
- [11:13]
C
And then that sounds like that sort of rings a bell with the present time.
- [11:16]
A
Oh, yes. Oh, absolutely.
- [11:18]
C
You know cannabis gumdrops that people use.
- [11:22]
A
Yeah, oh, absolutely, absolutely. And there is, and, and with all of these, it was sort of, there was this blurring because some of it, I mean, for example, many women who became addicted to opiates, you couldn't tell whether someone was using it medicinally or not, because they all were advanced as having these medical. And then, and then the hashish candy. Yes. Was, was. I mean, I mean, newspapers in the, late, in the 1860s, the ads for hashish candy were just all over the place. And then toward the end of the century, we see the emergence of cocaine and that was sold as a cure all valued as an anesthetic. And it something where again, someone could go to a drugstore and buy what was called a Qatar cure. And it would be. If someone's really stuffed up, they could buy the stuff that has cocaine as a significant ingredient and just, and I mean, they would be, you know, squirting it up their noses and it just would clear out the sinuses. So those are the main ones. So I figured, yeah, I figured I would cover everything that was used then that now is strictly regulated or banned with the exception of alcohol, which other historians have done a great job of covering.
- [12:39]
C
Yeah. So one of the things that's really interesting is how it took people time to understand or recognize that these substances were addicted or what even is addiction. And so, and you sort of get to that. You talk about this nomenclature and the book subtitle says drug addiction in America. That's the term we use now. But in the book you use the term habituation and you refer to users as habitus, because that was the language you tell us that was employed at the time. And I'm wondering, does that difference in language reflect differences in attitude towards the behavior and towards the users themselves?
- [13:26]
A
It absolutely does. And I decided to use the word addiction in the title of the book because I figured I would focus on addiction, communicating what the book was about, and habituation would have been a more accurate term. But I thought, you know, they really are talking about what we would call addiction, but they, they really did not use that term. And their, their option. I, I, There is a lot of attention to the language that is used like now. You know, there is this emphasis on referring to someone who has an addiction, you know, is having a substance abuse Disorder. And, and there have been terms that are very pejorative that have been used in the past. And, and, and back then, the term habitue was connected to the idea of. Of it being a habit. And the use of the referring to it as a habit connoted that it was something that a person could end their use just by summoning willpower. And I remember reading. And again, this is when the Harrison act goes into effect and, and people who are addicted are not going to be able to get their drugs. There was someone who was saying that this is, this is not that in essence, that being addicted to. To a drug is not like, as he put it, it's not like biting your nails. You know, that it really was. And it's interesting because there are people who are working with, who are close to people who are addicted. Maybe they're. They are their doctors or their relatives who can see that it is on this other scale. And physicians and researchers now recognize that drug addiction is a brain disease. That when someone uses a drug in an ongoing manner, their brain changes, and that's why the cravings endure and quitting is so difficult. Back then, there was none of that real recognition. There were some people who realized that it was much harder than that, and there were people who themselves were addicted who couldn't understand why they couldn't stop using it. So. So I like using the term habituate because it was something that even though it was connected to the idea of a habit, it didn't seem to have a pejorative connotation the way some other language does. And in fact, I found sometimes where they would say, well, only people in this particular group should be referred to another phrase that got used as dope fiends. And there were some terms that had a much more sort of positive connotation. And so I figured I would use habitue.
- [15:52]
C
Yeah, habituate sounds kind of like aficionado, like someone who's.
- [15:56]
A
Yes.
- [15:58]
C
You know, dabbling in it, enjoys it. But.
- [16:02]
A
Yes.
- [16:02]
C
Yeah. But from some of the stories that you, you know, histories that you've written of people, correspondences, it sounded like maybe people who didn't use drugs thought habituae. That's not a pejorative term. But for the people who were actually using them, a lot of them and their family members did realize how difficult it was to stop using them.
- [16:29]
A
They did, they did. And yes. And again, we're quite mystified at this because it was something that was. I mean, certainly addiction is a concept we all understand to some extent today, but back Then addiction was not. Addiction in America was really not discussed as a problem until the 1870s. And so before then, there really is this mystery and people thinking, oh, that they should be able to just reduce the dose over time. And there would be cases where. I remember one incident I read about where there was. I don't know if he was a husband or a brother, but anyway, there was a woman who was addicted, and her family, in essence, locked her in her room without the drug to try to get her to end her use. And it was. She had her nightgown on and it was freezing outside and there's snow, and yet she, you know, jumped out the window to try to find. To try to find a supply of it. So there is this assumption that if there's just this kind of, you know, strong method used, that the person can end their use. And then. And then seeing these, you know, this behavior that indicates just how intense the addiction could be.
- [17:42]
C
Yeah. So what happened in the 1870s that.
- [17:46]
A
It'S really interesting I've tried to pinpoint. Part of me thinks, and no one actually says this at the time, part of me thinks that it just. Once the Civil War is over, there's more space in publications to write about this. And I don't know if. Because it seems like that's part of the timing. Drug use, especially opiate use, had been escalating for the middle third of the 19th century. And we know this because opium was never produced in large amounts in America. It was imported, and they begin tariffs on it in. In the 18, early 1840s. And so what we see is that while the population of America is growing, the amount of opium being imported into the country is growing at a much faster rate. And. And there are people who are. Who are directly say, stating in the late 1860s that this was not prior. I mean, there was a lot of opium use, certainly as a consequence of the Civil War with injuries and illnesses. But. But there are authorities who are specifically saying that, no, no, the vast majority of this was unrelated to the war. And so in 1860, and what I see before 1867, let's say, is occasionally someone will say, oh, that there's, you know, there are many people who are addicted to opium. I found one article that many people are addicted to opium in New York City. This is from 1857. And that, you know, the person who's waiting on you, the person who, you know, might be taking care of you or the minister, you don't know, you know, that it's widespread. But then there's nothing more. And it's just. You just see these glimpses. In 1868 in particular, there's a man named Horace Day who himself had been addicted, and he was a physician. He writes a book called the Opium Habit with solutions to the remedy. And he is, of course, describing his own experiences and what could potentially work. And it's after that we see a steady stream of other works by other people who had been addicted by other physicians. And they're noting that this is a huge problem. And so that's when it kind of breaks into this, this major sustained story and the sources become, of course, much more abundant. And again, I think it's a combination of the fact that this had been growing and there were just whether it was focus on the Civil War, whether, you know, whether they just needed one person to kind of come forward and tell it, you know, from a firsthand perspective. But that's when it really becomes a public issue.
- [20:29]
C
And at that time, were they still saying habituation? Did anybody use the term addiction?
- [20:36]
A
I occasionally, very, very seldom I will see the term addiction. But overwhelmingly they are still referring to it as a habit. And addiction, I would say, I mean, it's really, I would say more like late 1890s and certainly early 20th century that addiction becomes the preferred term. And. And so I would say, but at that point, it would still be referred to as a habit. And there is still this effort to kind of understand what it is, but still more likely to use the term habit in those initial years.
- [21:15]
C
Yeah. So in chapter two, which is called American Drug use quietly escalates. This is the period you're talking about in the mid-1800s. And you write that opiate use increased, particularly among affluent white women who have been prescribed the drugs by their doctors. So this raises a couple of questions for me. And first is why this demographic. And second is, do you see any parallels here to today's opioid epidemic? I know it's always dangerous comparing historical periods, but today's opioid epidemic involving middle class people becoming addicted following prescriptions by their doctors.
- [21:54]
A
Oh, I think. I think definitely. And so there are two. So with regard to why it ends up being middle class white women in particular, who are the most likely to become addicted. The vast, vast majority of cases of addiction at this time, and I'm talking like 1860s, 1870s, 1880s, is from someone seeing a doctor. There is a physician toward the end of the century who literally, he estimates that approximately 90% of the cases of addiction originated with a doctor's visit and part of this was because morphine had been isolated, the syringe had been invented, and doctors loved, or I don't want to say loved, but doctors frequently, frequently resorted to morphine injections when they would have a patient who was dealing with pain or sleeplessness. Because it seemed to be almost magic that giving an injection of morphine, the person would feel almost instant relief. So the patient is happy, the patient's family is happy. And so doctors frequently resorted to it. And there was this belief that a person could not become addicted to something unless they had tasted it. So if they ate it or drank it, but the idea was, well, if it's an injection, then obviously they never taste it. But we now know that a morphine injection was one of the most, one of the ways that a person was most likely to end up addicted. And so doctors would, were using this excessively. So there's. Part of it is that. And part of it is that white middle class women were the most likely to go to a doctor in part because there was an idea that it was sort of unmanly for, you know, like a man should not go to a doctor if he's, if he's ill, he should just sort of tough it out, just endure it until the, the, the illness goes away. And also at this time, you know, America in the 19th century was a much more rural country than it is today. Forms of communication were not great. And so most Americans would not have had access to a doctor either because they couldn't afford to see one, or even if they could afford it, they might not necessarily have easy access. And members of the middle class were more likely to live in proximity to a doctor and see one. So it ends up being women. And again, partly because men were, there's sort of the idea that they shouldn't go to a doctor. And also because many of the problems women had were what we would, what were referred to frequently as female complaints for which there was no treatment. And so the doctors would, you know, at least could do some pain relief. So we end up with overwhelmingly it being an issue for middle class women and them being white women and race, class and gender play this sort of ongoing role in terms of perceptions. The parallel with the opioid epidemic is certainly to a large extent what we've seen with the opioid epidemic is that it has, not only does it originate with medical treatment, but also that it has been identified as a problem that has in particular hit the white middle class. And there has been this focus on how many of the parents, for example, have pressed for a focus on treatment rather than a focus on the criminal justice system as a response. And I think that that is the right response. But what we also see is that when addiction, if we go back 30 years, let's say 30 or 35 years, when there was this perception of addiction as being an issue primarily among people of color, that the focus was on mass incarceration. And so what we see is, and again, I believe that the, you know, the. I, I have great sympathy for anyone who is addicted and for their families. And I believe that treatment is the approach. But what we see is that the response is often shaped. There was a historian named David Courtright who said that people's attitude towards addiction depends on their perception of who is addicted. And I think that that is. That there is definitely that. That is something that seems to be a recurring. A recurring theme for sure. Hey, it's Brooklyn Adams, and I'm partnering with Abercrombie to tell you about the newest drop from their active brand. Your personal best. YPB leggings are made with buttery soft fabrics that hug you in all the right places. And come in Abercrombie's viral curve love fit designed to eliminate waist gap, paired with sports bras and super soft sweatshirts. It's activewear that supports every part of my busy lifestyle and gives me my best butt ever. Head into the new year feeling your personal best. Shop Active by Abercrombie in the app, online and in stores.
- [27:09]
B
It's time to hit reset. Not the snooze button, reset the crank it up. Start fresh. Go big. Reset. Dave's killer bread believes greatness starts with killer taste, killer nutrition. And now a shot to rock your reset for real. Kick off the new year with an epic enter for a chance to win VIP concert prize packs with round trip airfare, luxury hotel stay, and much more. So reset your routine, reset your own soundtrack, reset your expectations. Enter and see full rules for the rock your reset sweepstakes@daveskillerbread.com reset.
- [27:39]
C
Yeah, yeah, that was a really telling quote. And so the women got morphine injections from their doctors, but what did they have in their medicine cabinets at home that they were taking?
- [27:54]
A
They would have had, I mean, to a large extent, other opiates would have been available. One thing is that morphine was something that they could keep buying. And so the doctor might give the person morphine injections over time or might just let them know that this is what it is. And there were also. And again, this Is something. Why the 1870s things become sort of different. There were a lot of companies that began marketing medicines to a national audience, and many of these were really quack remedies. That many of these were quack remedies. And until passage of the Pure Food and Drug act in 1906, no manufacturers had to tell what was in them. And so literally, there were things. Someone might sell what they claimed was a cure for morphine addiction, and the product contained morphine. And so the person thinks it's working and doesn't realize why. Now, those, for the most part, go away in 1906. But there are people who are observing in the later 19th century that there are many people who were just sort of trying anything because the drugstores would be full of these cures, the newspapers would be full of ads for these cures, and people could mail away for them, which. Which gave them a degree of anonymity if they were not wanting people to know that they were dealing with addiction, for example. And of course, the fact that these were being sold did imply that they were safe. Another piece of this is there is a figure from the 19th century, the image of the invalid, the woman who is in bed all the time, and she has this bed table with all these bottles on it.
- [29:40]
C
And.
- [29:41]
A
And I do wonder to what extent those were. That seems to fit exactly with what I've read about cases of morphine or of opiate addiction where, you know, maybe after she had her last child, she had some sort of problem in childbirth and has been in pain since, and she can't be treated. And so she become, you know, and so all they know is that she just doesn't do much work and she's in bed so much. So that would be another part of dimension of this.
- [30:11]
C
Yeah, yeah. And do you know what people were doing if the woman or her family wanted to stop using so many drugs? What were they doing aside from locking her in the room in her nightgown?
- [30:28]
A
Right, right. There were. There were sanitaria where they would, like wealthier women could. Could go to these places where the focus was on reducing their use and helping them to end their use. And for some, that would have been success. There was. And this goes back to. This is actually a British case in the 1830s where there's a doctor who is asserting that there are. He knows of women who might be in their 70s or 80s who remain, again, what we would call addicted, but they're still able to kind of, you know, walk long distances and visit friends and sort of do things. And so the usage doesn't end, but. The usage doesn't end. But the, but it, they still have some, you know, degree of a good quality of life. But so there were programs that were for again, the wealthier women, these sort of impatient places. There were also some who were pointing out that if the woman has. And again, or this would be for anyone who was addicted, if they do have an underlying ailment that the person is really self medicating, if, you know that if we cure the underlying ailment, that then the person could potentially end their use. So there is some, there are some cases addressed that way. Another thing is that the number of cases diminishes by the mid-1890s. And frankly, part of that would be because doctors were just becoming much more conservative in their use of morphine and therefore the number of new cases of addiction was dropping. So there would have been some who were helped, but again, the programs that existed were really more for those who had the money for a lengthy stay at a sort of a residential kind of a program. And again, unfortunately for those who were not as well off, they might have been sending away for these quack remedies that really did nothing. And then they would have been, in many cases they were not reporting that these were not helping because they didn't want their addiction to be known.
- [32:48]
C
Yeah, yeah. So moving on to cannabis and hashish, in chapter three, you write that much of Americans understanding of cannabis came from accounts of its use in the global East. And would you tell us about some of these perceptions and how they impacted on the use of hashish by Americans?
- [33:13]
A
Okay, sure. One of the things about there is this, the international context is really crucial in terms of understanding what Americans thought of addiction. And part of this is that they don't really see it for a lot of this time as a domestic issue, but they're hearing, you know, travelers accounts of, of use in other parts of the world. They find this, you know, at least they find it interesting. Now, I will say that scientists today still disagree as to whether cannabis sativa and cannabis indica are the same species or not. In the 19th century they had this perception that they were definitely too distinct species and that cannabis sativa, I mean it was cultivated widely in colonial America, referred to typically as hemp. And it doesn't have that much of what they were growing, really wouldn't have had much of the sort of narcotic principle, the THC in it. Whereas cannabis indica associated with other parts of the world, and particularly in hotter locales. And the idea that it, it did have more of that psychoactive effect and that it inhibited productivity. And what we see is that there is this awareness of sort of what is the drug of choice of people in different parts of the world. And they would see Americans drug of choice as tobacco. But when they're looking at this, what some were kind of contrasting was that the US Was a very productive country and others were not that productive, ambitious. And sometimes it gets associated with the drug of choice, the idea that hemp was used to make rope and you know, rope is used on ships so that the nation can trade or explore. And that the form that was, that was instead used for its narcotic value. You know, that there, there wasn't that much accomplishment. And that, and, and that, that, you know, that, that these other societies were, were just not as active was the, was the perception. And, and there are, there, there was a book published in 1857 by A, A man named Fitzhugh Ludlow. And he had been, nowadays they refer to people experimenting with drugs. He really, I mean back then they really were, would really be like, what is going to be the effect of this? And he, and he was using hashish, which he got from a friend, was a druggist and had a, you know, he got it from that pharmacy. And in his work, which is this sort of full length work of his, of what he experienced and then his efforts to stop, he includes in it a critique of sort of what he sees as an excessive focus in the United States on profit, that there wasn't enough celebration of nature, but instead there was this tendency, you know, to build factories and mills that might mess up the local water supply, et cetera. And so it does seem like because the drugs would inhibit the person's productivity for some time and often were used in an effort to sort of explore the person's own mind, the idea of seeing it as opposed to more of a focus on productive society, capitalist focus. And, and I'm not saying that the drug inspired that perspective, but there is this sort of ongoing theme of drug use being associated, non medical drug use being associated with critiques of mainstream society, I guess.
- [36:50]
C
And what was the name of the man who was using it to expand his mind? And.
- [36:58]
A
We have Fitzhugh Ludlow wrote the Hashish Eater Service. And there was another writer named Bayard Taylor who would more sort of, he goes to the city of Damascus, he travels internationally and uses it there and then describes and he takes too much of it. Then he's sort of describing his experiences and these writings were very popular. But again, Americans were not seeing this as a problem in America, but they just thought this was an interesting thing to read about. That's something that they associated with other cultures.
- [37:32]
C
Yeah, but there was some sort of use. Looking at consciousness altering use of the drug. Yes. Yeah. As opposed to. And maybe I'm wrong in saying this, but it seemed like the opiates were more for getting rid of pain, making you fall asleep, or just kind of making you feel drowsy. Good. But not expanding the mind.
- [37:55]
A
Right. Yeah. Well, the opiates are interesting. One of the earliest known account we have where it's a first person account of someone who became addicted to a drug and described what he went through was a book called Confessions of an English Opium Eater, which a man named Thomas de quincey published in 1821, and it's very soon thereafter available in America. And so the definite purpose of the opiates officially was their value as a painkiller and a sleep aid. But he was in pain one day and bumped into a friend of his who suggested he take opium. And in his account of it, and he also describes some terrible consequences and these horrible nightmares he has. But initially he experiences the euphoria before he even really is out of the drugstore. And so he's describing that. And he also, he was a very bright guy. And partly we know this because he certainly wasn't shy about pointing that out. And he indicates that he had these remarkable dreams as a consequence of his opium use, but it was a combination of his opium use and the fact that he already had an amazing mind. And he has this rather condescending attitude where he says the line is something like, if a man spends his day with oxen, he will dream about oxen. And that therefore there would be this correlation of what the effects of the drug would be with how bright, imaginative, et cetera, the person is. And we do see later in the 19th century cases of Americans who read this and then they want to try it themselves just because they're kind of curious what it will do for them. And again, it wasn't hard for them to buy it.
- [39:55]
C
Yeah. So that's a good place to move on to part two, which is called learning from a world of users. And if I understand right, that refers largely to what Westerners learned from the Eastern world of drug use. So what were some of the things that Westerners did learn? And because you make this connection, I'll make this connection. How did this knowledge relate to colonialism?
- [40:19]
A
Okay. There are a couple of interesting things, Gwen, because it is truly the case that almost no references to drug addiction in America until about the late 1860s, but before then, there had been many, in particular, European men who would travel to parts of what is now the Middle east, travel parts of Africa, Asia, and they would describe. They would write travel journals of what they saw and that they would include what they observed. And this was very interesting to Americans, again, not seeing it as a domestic problem. But what they would describe, for example. For example, in Turkey becomes very much associated. That Turks become very much associated with opium use. And the idea that it was that there were some who would use opium in public and that there would be a crowd of people almost sort of watching these people behave in this really eccentric way as a consequence of their usage. And that this was something that was used to kind of, and to a degree understood as being used to some extent the way that some Americans would drink alcohol as something to kind of. Something kind of enjoy. At the same time, there would be accounts of. They would describe how anyone who is addicted to opium could be immediately recognized because they are emaciated and they can't stand up straight. And this sort of suggestion that they would be in such awful condition that they would be instantly recognizable. Which also helps explain why people didn't recognize cases in America, because we wouldn't necessarily have to be that. That obvious. But they would also describe what we would now recognize either as addiction, you know, that this person will be in a. A very dull mood until he has his next dose, or what we would call drug tolerance, where, you know, someone would start off with a small amount, and then they need more and more if they're going to feel the sex and also withdrawal. And again, they aren't using those terms. But there was a Frenchman named Jean Chardin who traveled to Persia, which is now Iran, in the late 17th century, and wrote a book called Travels in persia. And literally 100, 200 years later, Americans are still using his description, including American doctors, because that's the information they have about addiction. And again, parts of it are inaccurate because they describe. I mean, some of them literally say that anyone who is addicted to an opiate will not live to the age of 30. And so they have some accounts that are inaccurate, but other parts would ring true. And it really just fills this void where it's something that clearly physicians wanted to be informed about and the public found interesting, and where they get it is from these international travelers.
- [43:25]
C
Yeah, fascinating. So all this medical knowledge coming from a travelogue that was translated exactly.
- [43:32]
A
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
- [43:35]
C
And how about the relation to colonialism?
- [43:38]
A
Oh, right. With colonialism there are. What we see is that the association. And there had been this enduring idea with regard to drug use that if it is being used medically, if a person feels lousy and taking the drug will make them feel, will restore health, that's good because the person is returning to productivity. But if the person already feels fine and they're using it to sort of feel better than fine, it being criticized because then the person is sort of privileging their own enjoyment or something else. And so what gets used is the suggestion of associating the pleasure seeking use of a drug with a lack of industriousness, with a lack of productivity. And again, what seems unfair is that, I mean, the drinking, you know, alcohol use in America for part of the 19th century was about three times what it is today. And something that people either use because they don't need to be working every waking minute, or it's used as something to kind of, you know, something that someone might have at the end of a rough day to kind of relax. There's, it's seen being used in other countries as a sign of that. Here's a population that isn't making good use of their society. They aren't making good use of the land. And that therefore it's used as a justification for colonialism that the colonial power will increase productivity. And yet, for example, in South Africa, some of the farmers there or some of the, some of the South African native residents were compelled to work excessively for Dutch farmers when they would be plowing fields all day and then be required to guard cattle at night. And they would, some of them would, would use cannabis to cope with those conditions. And we see examples where there was that productivity. And yet the fact that there is this other use going on gets used as an excuse to move in rather than, as I say, regarding it as the US was very. A lot of productivity in 19th century America, but also a lot of drinking that could certainly be criticized or would be criticized otherwise.
- [46:18]
C
Yeah. And was alcohol considered a drug as well?
- [46:23]
A
It, alcohol definitely is a drug. And yet they don't have that same perception. And it's one of those things that I find really interesting because they even had a lot in the earlier 19th century of what we would call binge drinking. And yet there's never that sort of taking a step back and seeing that this. And part of it was that back then they didn't have a whole lot of non alcohol drink options like we have today. You know, kombucha.
- [46:57]
C
Yeah.
- [46:57]
A
Yes. And for example, for a while, I think it might have been in not until maybe the 1820s or 1830s that there was even a recognition that beer was indeed an alcoholic beverage. And also they thought of water as something that would be more for animals. And you know, beer and wine comes from grain and fruit and therefore the idea that it had some nutritive value. So. So they saw it in a different way. And again, very high consumption and part of it would be sort of drinking something just along the course of the day, but also binge drinking at various times. So it is. But I see, even though I can see people writing about some excessive drinking, they don't seem to place it in that. That perspective. Well, everybody uses something and you know, they use what they use and we use what we use. And. And there also is this persistent idea that some people. And again, it's along lines of class, it's along lines of race. The idea that members of the upper or middle class can use a drug in a responsible way and that others cannot and that therefore want to get more strictly regulated with some people than with others. And I think that could also extend with them the colonial approach of. In terms of justifying that this is probably not being used in a way that would be necessarily responsible or productive solely on the basis again of whether it's race or class or both.
- [48:30]
C
Yeah. So I now want to circle back to the effects after the Harrison Narcotics act, which went into effect in 1915. As you said, what were its immediate effects and then what were its longer term impact? What was its longer term impact on drug addiction and drug use in America?
- [48:50]
A
It's such an important question. I don't think that in general people are familiar with the Harrison narcotic. I think it's one of those things that's among the most important things pieces of legislation that Americans in general haven't heard of, because before then, you know, drugs for the most part were available. And the Harrison act said that people cannot have access to opiates or cocaine unless they have a medical prescription and that it has to be a legitimate reason for them having it, a legitimate medical need. And I'll just briefly note there had been an earlier piece of legislation that only affected the type of opium that is used for smoking in opium dens and that really didn't have medical value. So that's. It's really sort of a different thing. But the issue was to what extent can doctors prescribe it what if a person is addicted? Wouldn't that be a legitimate medical need? And it goes to the Supreme Court and they rule just a few years after passage of the act that. No, that, that it is. That the goal has to be that if a person is being provided with the doses, then the doses have to be in ever diminishing amounts. That the goal has to be for those people to be drug free. And, and now unless the person does have a documented medical need as a painkiller and that type of thing. And what they find is that it's not that again, it's along lines of, along lines of race, along lines of class. That. And that's when people begin saying this is going to lead to cases of. This is going to lead to drug. Drug addiction being associated with crime. Because these people are really given no way to end their use or no way to rather to continue their use. And there's really no way to end their use because at this time there wasn't a lot of confidence that a cure was possible. And so there were people who were poorer. And there's one, there's one policeman who's in charge of what they call the dope squad in New York. And he says that, and he, I mean, I'm quoting him, he says something like the people who we refer to as the bums are the ones who can't get it because they used to buy it from peddlers and now the peddlers can't operate. And yet buying it from a. There were doctors who were sometimes referred to as dope doctors who would write a prescription for anybody, but it would be. They would require quite a. Quite a hefty sum to do that. And the people can't afford that. And so you end up with a huge illicit market growing to provide the drugs to these people. And sometimes they would enter various programs that cities were establishing. But the problem was that the amount of the drug that they were being provided was not nearly what was needed to keep the craving away. And the doses were supposed to drop. And so it does not succeed. And so you have this huge increase at that time of addiction. And I will say that, that there are different things that go into this because the Harrison act actually require results from an international scenario where the US was trying to get European countries to restrict the opium trade. And they thought, well, we need some legislation. The drug addiction rate in America had actually been dropping. But part of what makes the legislation possible is that the perception of the quote, quote, typical addicted American at this point was no longer a middle class, middle aged white woman who was addicted to morphine. It was more likely to be associated with a young man who was using heroin. Far less sympathetic group. And I, and from the research I've done, it seems clear that some people didn't mind if they were not alone, not just inconvenienced, but were suffering from having the drug access removed. But the fact still remains that you end up, you know, we end up with the creation of an illicit market. And, and that, you know, there is a lot more support for what I would call restorative drug use by some people than by others. And, and so, and so there's this opposition to that use. And then we have the illicit market and, and drug association being associated with crime where I think to a large extent it seems almost, they would seem almost inextricable at this point. But you know, until 1914, they were, they were not connected.
- [53:32]
C
Yeah. So are we still feeling those effects today?
- [53:36]
A
I think absolutely, because I think that, and I will say I'm. One problem in the 19th century was that addiction did grow rapidly in part because the drugs were so widely available. But the problem in terms of the response, I mean, I think that the response where the focus is on treatment and on maintenance, which means providing people who are addicted to drugs with doses of their drugs is not only good for the people who are addicted, but also makes a society safer. Because again, drug addiction and crime do not need to be inextricably linked. I think that's part of what this shows. But what we also see again is that continuum and in America, for example, there's far more resistance to methods of so called harm reduction where the focus isn't on a person necessarily ending their use altogether. But how can this happen in a way that will be as. That will do as little damage either to the, to the user or to the society. And so we see this, but, but it is, it is at that time that we see this. And then they switched to the schedule of drugs in 1970. But, but of course they're just responding to what had been growing at that point for several decades.
- [54:59]
C
Yeah, yeah. And addiction has continued to rise among. I correct.
- [55:05]
A
In saying that because of the opioid epidemic. And again, that is something that is that we can trace directly to the. Well, I would say to the medical community, but to pharmaceutical companies who advanced, we could call them at least extremely, extremely misleading and knowingly misleading physicians in terms of the degree of addiction of the drugs, emphasizing a focus on people, on doctors, trying to gauge Patients pain and then treat it. And this is something that's been going on now for more than 20 years. So there is that resemblance for sure. But again, coming as it was in the late 19th century from medical use, that then keeps going.
- [55:59]
C
Yeah. So it'll be interesting to read 100 years from now. You may not write it, but somebody will. The History of Drug Addiction in America, Part two.
- [56:08]
A
Exactly. Exactly. Yes. Yes.
- [56:11]
C
Yeah. Well, Kelly, we've taken up a lot of your time today, but I do want to ask what you're working on next.
- [56:17]
A
I am. My next work will not be focusing on drugs. It will be focusing. Actually, it'll be a study of the. On antebellum Baltimore. And a study of. What I'm trying to do is a study of all the different. I don't want to use the word storylines. There were so many things going on in antebellum Baltimore in terms of. You see the rise of the abolitionist movement, which partly begins there. You see Baltimore at that time being the nation's third largest city. And I'm trying to see if I can do sort of a study of a city in its entirety with all the different. With all the different themes of American history that are going on in the city at that time. And it's not just a study of the time, but also perhaps a way to present history almost in more sort of a novel format is my goal. So that is the next project.
- [57:26]
C
When you say novel format, do you mean novel as in new or novel as in a book of fiction?
- [57:31]
A
Good question. Actually, kind of both. I want it to read as much like a novel while being 100% grounded in the historical sources. Yeah. And so that is my. And I've chosen as my focus this, you know, Baltimore at a very interesting time in its history when so much was going on in the city and the nation as a whole.
- [57:55]
C
Yeah. Fabulous. And do you have a personal connection to Baltimore?
- [57:59]
A
Yes, it is my hometown, and also I'm living in the suburbs of the city, so I see it as something that I can be exploring both through the historical sources and also sort of almost from a geographical perspective of just what remains from that time. So that is the focus of the next project.
- [58:26]
C
All right. Wow, that sounds like a really interesting project, and I'm looking forward to reading your next book.
- [58:32]
A
Thank you so much.
- [58:34]
C
Well, everyone, I want to remind you, the book is Habit Drug addiction in America, 1776-1914, written by Elizabeth Kelly Gray and published by Oxford University Press, and it is well worth a read. And Kelly thank you so much for speaking with us today.
- [58:52]
A
Thank you so much. I enjoyed it.
- [59:05]
B
This episode is brought to you by Dead Man's Wire, the new film from Roquet Entertainment. Dead Man's Wire is the incredible true story of the 1977 kidnapping that turned an aspiring entrepreneur into an outlaw folk hero. Directed by legendary filmmaker Gus Van Sant, dead Man's Wire stars Bill Skarsgrd, Dacre.
- [59:24]
A
Montgomery, Cary Elways and My halla with Colman Domingo and Al Pacino.
- [59:28]
B
Now playing in select theaters everywhere. January 16th.