Custom Search
| Translate | Print | A | A | A |

In Canada, before the twentieth century, drugs were not considered large political or social issues. During the time between 1900 and 1940 there was a significant shift in both the social perception and the legislation created surrounding narcotics. Anti-drug laws were created and enforced in a racially discriminatory campaign supported by wickedly sensationalized anti-drug propaganda. The purpose of this paper is to examine the events and social conditions that led authorities to respond negatively and with force to drugs focusing on the timeframe of the early 1900’s up to 1940. The formation of drug legislation in Canada reflected the attitude held by the majority, white middle to upper class families, based upon ignorance, racial and class stereotypes, and exaggerated social panic over a perceived decay of social order. The authorities enforced punitive aspects of the law with little attention to societal causes of addiction or treatment for addicts, and effectively created and fueled the conditions for the social panic surrounding drugs and their use. Law enforcement used fueled drug hysteria and used it as leverage to increase their power and as an excuse for infringing upon civil liberties.
Drug use was not seen as much of an issue during the early stages of the 1900’s. Drugs such as cocaine and opiates were used as ingredients in many medications, and opium was widely available. One of the first indications of widespread social reaction to narcotics can be seen in the Coca-Cola™ corporations move to remove cocaine from their popular cola beverage in 1903(1). However it was not until the end of World War I that the murmur of anti-narcotic sentiment became a nation wide roar. The first legislation prohibiting drugs was not introduced until the Anti-Opium Act of 1908 as a direct result of anti-Asian race riots in Vancouver. It was the first anti-drug law in North America.
Overwhelmingly the most polarizing attitude towards drugs linked anti-Asian sentiments to anti-drug reform. Particularly the large populations of Chinese immigrants that had been used as cheap labour in mining and railroad construction. During the 1920’s Asian immigrants to Canada continued to face fierce social and political discrimination and were soon being blamed for the new popularity of drugs. They were perceived to be linked to prostitution, gambling, and of course drugs. The opinion was held among the majority of white Canadians that the Asians were inferior to themselves, although clever they did not have morals and were actively corrupting society.
Emily Murphy, a leading female social reformist and leading ant-drug activist, well published works helped to shape Canadian viewpoints. Her view on the effects of drug use reflect the racial discrimination surrounding drug use which results in "amazing phenomenon of an educated gentlewoman . . . consorting with the lowest classes of yellow and black men" (5).
Asian immigrants faced incredible discrimination since they arrived in Canada. They were traditionally given cheap labour or dangerous jobs, especially during the railroad boom of the gold rush era. As work in the labour sectors waned they moved to urban centres, there more anti-Asian sentiments were concentrated and erupted on September 8th, 1907 when white mobs rioted against and damaged several Asian businesses in Vancouver.
The next year William Lyon Mackenzie King then as the Minister of Labour submitted a report to parliament entitled “The Need for the Suppression of Opium Traffic in Canada” which led to the Anti-opium act of 1908. This clearly racist law forbade the sale of opium from Chinese opium dens but made allowances for some white ‘botanical medicine’ shops. It was a direct result of Mackenzie King visiting the aftermath of the anti-Asian riots in Vancouver. Instead of awarding compensation to two damaged licensed opium shops, he blamed the riots on the Opium dens in Chinatown. He claimed that serving ‘white women and girls’ had provoked the attacks.
When Opium trade was severely restricted the demand for opium created underground networks of smuggling and distribution. This led to problems enforcing the Anti-Opium act. The result was the Opium and Drug Act of 1911, which made possession and use an offence for the first time. It also widened the power of police for search and seizure.
The increase in drug use and awareness is attributed to many things. One such cause is thought to be soldiers who were introduced to morphine and cocaine while being treated in army hospitals overseas, one editorial published in 1919 put forward that thousands of servicemen returned home ‘addicts’. There was also concern that as a result of prohibition of alcohol during the war years, and in some provinces almost a decade past, led Canadians to the evils of drug use in lieu of alcohol consumption. It is important to note however that even those who were anti-prohibition of alcohol could also be anti-drug, claiming that alcohol is the far lesser of the evils.
Another reason why there was a heightened sensitivity to drug use was the shift in the users demographic (3). During the nineteenth century opiates were prescribed for medical purposes. This was phased out as doctors realized the dangers associated with addiction. Pain killers such as Bayer’s Asprin, which was patented in 1899 were pushed as alternative to the traditional opiate based medications. This gave way for the social perception of drug use entering the twentieth century as the ‘aristocratic vice’ (4). As the older medical users died out, largely due to the new restrictions on prescription opiates, a younger breed of working class recreational users became the majority of drug users. This shifted views on drugs from that of the ‘aristocratic vice’ to one associated a villainous underworld. It also marked a shift to the recreational use of drugs.
The users were depicted as helpless victims of the pushers who tricked them into being unknowing slaves of the drugs. One sensationalized example used in propaganda illustrates a youthful woman being offered some pills for a headache by an older pusher at a dance, she takes the drugs thinking they are headache medication. The next week she returns and is offered the same pills and before long she is a slave to the illicit substance, and in turn becomes a ‘dope fiend’, insane and highly dangerous to society (3).
In 1920 the Department of Health created the Opium and Drug Branch to enforce narcotics legislation. The RCMP worked closely to enforce anti narcotics laws. Due to their apparent success and large number of arrests they were awarded with further powers for search and seizure as well as increased funding
Emily Murphy published a series of articles entitled “The Grave Drug Menace” these articles profiled various types of users through sensationalized biographies. Most of these articles showed white, often women falling victim to the plots of villainous traffickers. These articles proved to be one of the most influential and widely published sources for information available to the public. Such propaganda spread the anti-drug sentiment across Canada and unified people around the idea that drugs were a sinister threat to civilized life, especially women and Canada’s youth. At the heart of this was also the ever-present link between opium and the Asian community’s within Canada, whom were being blamed for the growing proliferation drugs.
Murphy, who was also the first female magistrate judge, wrote the articles, which were later collected into a full book entitled “The Black Candle”. Released in 1922 the book was a collection of sensationalized reports and articles. Her description of cannabis was used by the RCMP to successfully lobby to criminalize the plant.

“...persons using this narcotic smoke the dry leaves of the plant, which has the effect of driving them completely insane. The addict loses all sense of moral responsibility. Addicts to this drug, while under its influence are immune to pain. While in this condition they become raving maniacs and are liable to kill or indulge in any forms of violence to other persons, using the most savage methods of cruelty without, as said before, any sense of moral responsibility.” (6)

This clearly sensationalized account of the effects of cannabis was the only information most people received on the subject.
Extreme legislation was introduced in 1923 by John Edwards, who clearly mirrored Emily Murphy’s sentiments, the new legislation allowed judges to administer lashes to opium traffickers who sold to children and deport any alien that was convicted of drug charges. Cannabis was also added to the growing list of restricted narcotics. This legislation shows that the sentiment found in Emily Murphy’s “The Black Candle” of the innocent victims and the imagined threat produced by the Asian traffickers being expressed through legislation.
The enforcement of the anti-drug laws showed a clear racial and class bias. In 1929, the government continued their campaign against drugs and the minister of Health declared that in order to show compassion for the ‘innocent victims’ by agreeing not to convict addicts. However of the 614 people convicted in 1929 for drug offences, three quarters were for possession of opium or equipment, frequenting an opium den, and smoking opium with only 16 trafficking convictions. 506 of the people charged were of Chinese decent, clearly even if the law was not aimed at the user the target of enforcement is, with special discrimination towards the Chinese. The working-class the focus of enforcement with up to 85.9% of drug convictions between 1921-28 being of working-class or unemployed populations. In terms of marijuana, there were fewer than 100 arrests per year before 1966.
  The organized crime rings increased their weath and power largely as a result of prohibition of alcohol in Canada and the United States. The smugglers developed complex underground smuggling networks for smuggling illegal alcohol into the United States. These networks also provided the perfect infrastructure for the distribution of drugs. Due to massive migrations to urban centre’s, with over half of Canada’s population living in cities, and the increase in drug use among Canada’s white majority law enforcement began to target the organized crime rings. Most of the gangs were divided by ethnic groups leading to an the police to expand their racially bias enforcement to target Italians, and eastern Europeans profiling them as organized criminals.
The power of private drug corporations over narcotic policy is worth noting. John D. Rockefeller influenced the ‘Flexner Report’. The report outlined standards for medical practice, and resulted in the abolition of traditional and herbal medicines out of medical schools. Rockefeller who had substantial investments in pharmaceutical companies could see the potential competition in traditional herbal medicines that have been practiced for years. Rockefeller became large a substantial contributor to both the Mackenzie King and his counterpart in the United States, Franklin Roosevelt. Although Rockefeller may not have directly worked against illegal drugs, he did support synthetic pharmaceuticals and helped to steer modern medicine away from the use of narcotics as medicine.
  The Canadian authorities reacted strongly and negatively to narcotics in Canada. Their policies were first created and enforced as an obvious attack on Asian immigrants. Sensationalized propaganda was the only source of information that people had available which created a climate of fear and intolerance towards drugs. The paranoid fear allowed the law enforcement agency’s to expand their powers of search and seizure and were rewarded for their racially and class bias in their enforcement. The Canadian authorities did little to curb the socio-economic causes of drug use, most of their efforts resulted in further attacks on the working class especially immigrants. Due to the strong reactive policies, a stigma was created based in social ignorance and bandwagon following of anti-drug activism remains today.