xpended in trying to cure those addicted to drugs. Because of this, no cure or prevention for drug addiction had been found.Although at a glance, the reasoning behind the further and further devotion to a non-working policy seems nonexistent, upon closer examination, an understanding of our government’s motives become clearer. In looking into the first restrictions on drug use, the banning of smoking opium in designated “dens” and “houses,” one fact becomes immediately apparent. The Chinese, targets of past governmental discrimination and social scorn, were the typical owners of these opium Dens. The reason that the smoking of opium be banned in a private, secluded place, and left permissible in public streets had to be based almost purely on social discrimination. Nearly twenty years later, Chinese importation of opium was banned altogether. This is a prime example of our government acting socially irresponsible with a drug law. The next restriction fell in the form of a tariff increase on legally imported opium. This action of raising a tax would directly increase our government’s revenues. As reductions in use were nowhere to be found, our government decided to raise taxes a little more, one hundred percent to be exact. Perhaps this was a valid attempt to curb the usage, but consider this situation. If a business sells out of a product at a given price, they will raise that price to meet the demand in order to increase profits. If the price gets too high, and a competitor enters the market offering an equivalent product at a lower price, the initial seller will lower their prices once again in order to regain their sales. Back to the issue at hand, after a few years, and the development of underground markets, the United States Government lowered the greedy tariff back to six dollars per pound. By this time our government had already devoted significant time, effort, and resources to ...
