Wasted States - Scholar

Transcription

HI
ST
OR OF
Y
A
AME
N
I
R
A
nU
n
d
e
r
g
r
a
d
u
a
t
eRe
s
e
a
r
c
hPr
o
j
e
c
t
V
i
r
g
i
n
i
aT
e
c
hDe
p
a
r
t
me
n
to
fHi
s
t
o
r
y
F
a
l
l2
0
0
9
CA
I
I
NT
OX
I
CATI
ON
WASTED
STATES
Wasted States
Wasted States
A Cultural History of Intoxication
By:
Ryan D. Chafe
Michael A. Giancola
Kyle Gochenour
Matthew H. Kroetch
Joseph S. Mehfoud
Caitlin Murray
Richard Mustain, Jr.
Angela Neiman
Katie Nicholson
Alexander Novak
Brianna Rhodes
Philip Siegle
Matthew C. Simpkins
Timothy L. Sparling
Erin Weiss
Anderson S. Wise
An Undergraduate Research Project
Virginia Tech Department of History
Fall 2009
THE COLLECTION COPYRIGHT © 2009 DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY, VIRGINIA
TECH.
INDIVIDUAL CHAPTER COPYRIGHT © 2009 IN THE NAMES OF THEIR AUTHORS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
NO PART OF THIS BOOK MAY BE REPRODUCED OR UTILIZED IN ANY FORM OR
BY ANY MEANS, ELECTRONIC OR MECHANICAL, OR BY ANY INFORMATION
STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL SYSTEM, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION
FROM THE PUBLISHER. PLEASE CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY,
VIRGINIA TECH, 431 MAJOR WILLIAMS HALL, BLACKSBURG, VIRGINIA, 240610117.
THE ONLY EXCEPTION TO THIS PROHIBITION IS “FAIR USE” AS DEFINED BY U.S.
COPYRIGHT LAW.
Contents
Preface, Robert P. Stephens, vii
List of Abbreviations, ix
Section One:
1. Kyle Gochenour, Laudanum: The Peaceful Bringer of Death, 1
2. Brianna Rhodes, Tennessee Temperance: A Statewide Fight, 14
Section Two:
3. Erin Weiss, A New Deal for Junkies: Changing Peceptions of Addiction and
Treatment, 1945-1974, 32
4. Richard Mustian, Jr., MKULTRA & The Death of Dr. Frank Olson, 49
Section Three:
5. Caitlin Murray, Naked Lunch and the Rise and Fall of the Beat Movement, 69
6. Philip R. Siegle, III, The Real Promised Land: Claude Brownʼs Manchild in the
Promised Land and Life in Harlem, 88
Section Four:
7. Anderson S. Wise, Nixon Takes Aim at Narcotics Use: Vietnam and the War on
Drugs 1966-1973, 103
8. Matthew C. Simpkins, The Golden Flow: High Times in the Navy, 118
Section Five:
9. Katie Nicholson, Overdose: The Heroin Deaths of Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix, 137
10. Angela Neiman, The Rise and Fall of Studio 54: Cocaine, Celebrity, and Scandal,
151
Section Six:
11. Alexander Novak, Chrome on Reels: Easy Rider and the American Counterculture,
164
12. Timothy L. Sparling, Comedic Commentary: Cheech and Chong and the Genesis of
the Stoner Movie, 176
Section Seven:
13. Ryan D. Chafe, Drinking and Thriving: The Rise of Intoxication Tourism in the Napa
Valley, 193
14. Joseph S. Mehfoud, Alcohol and Virginia Tech: Crisis and Continuity, 210
Section Eight:
15. Matthew H. Kroetch, Niggaz With Attitude: Los Angeles during the Crack Epidemic,
226
16. Michael A. Giancola, The Prodigal Son Returns: Marion Barry and the Crack
Epidemic, 242
Preface
Conceived, researched, written, and edited in fifteen short weeks, this collection
of essays highlights the work of sixteen young historians who participated in a senior
seminar on the Cultural History of Intoxication during the Fall semester 2009.
There are exceedingly few constants in history. Things change. Among those
rare continuities, however, is the human penchant for intoxicating substances.
Throughout history, individuals and groups have sought refuge, explored the mind and
spirit, or simply tried to escape through the use of intoxicants. Getting wasted seems to
escape time and place. Yet, as you will see from this volume, both the experience of
intoxication and the meaning ascribed to it have changed over time and tend to be
specific to discrete locations and groups. The chapters in this volume focus on the
United States over the last two centuries, and they run the gamut from temperance
movements to urine tests, and from suicides to movies. Although the individual
contributions vary substantially in topic, they all revolve around the notion that
intoxication illuminates various aspects of the human experience, that “getting wasted”
is more than just a distraction.
The idea for this daunting project emerged from discussions with my colleague
Mark Barrow during the summer of 2008. Since we were both scheduled to teach a
seminar in the fall, we decided to embark upon an experiment. Committed to the notion
that even young historians ought to have the opportunity to actually “do” history, we
dedicated ourselves to helping our classes, from start to finish, build a book. This
tangible and lasting product, then, could be placed in the library and made available for
scholars to consult in the future. We hoped that this experience, and the book it
produced, would serve to motivate students to work harder and smarter, but we also
believed that our students would begin to understand exactly what we, as professional
historians, actually do. In short, we wanted them, in a brief timeframe, to become
practicing historians.
This experiment is now in its second year. Mark Barrow and I worked together
again this semester to craft a set of assignments that might push our students to think
clearly and creatively, work diligently and efficiently, and write carefully and even
gracefully. We started with background readings and repeated iterations of chapter
proposals. These proposals – three conceptually distinct ideas with disparate sources –
generated an enormous number of really creative and interesting topics. Like any
research project, some of these ideas led down rabbit holes or blind alleys; indeed,
several had to begin afresh more than once. And although that cost precious time, it
has always been that way with research: sometimes the stars fail to align; the sources
disappear; the concept gives way to the hard realities of empirical research, or the ideas
fall apart in the face of contradictory evidence. By mid-semester, the students
presented fully articulated bibliographies and abstracts. The research and writing
followed. The authors produced three drafts each. As you can imagine, this proved to
viii be an enormous amount of work for all of us. In my estimation, the effort has paid off.
These sixteen young women and men have produced in fifteen short weeks a polished,
valuable book.
The authors in this volume, as they would surely tell you at length, worked very
hard on this project. They worked together, offering not only feedback in class, but also
peer evaluations of the chapters. They took a substantial amount of criticism and grew
from the process. I am enormously proud of their efforts and the final product: this
book.
My thanks go out to the authors. I have deeply appreciated your hard work and
commitment to this project. I would also like to thank Professor Kathleen Jones, whose
experiment several years ago served as the model for this process; she took the time to
share her experience with us so that we could traverse the pitfalls inherent in something
so ambitious as a book in fifteen weeks. Thanks are due as well to Ron and Sue
Crawford, whose grant for the support of undergraduate education provided the financial
support that allowed this project to come to fruition. Finally, I would like to thank Mark
Barrow who made this collaboration both a success and a pleasure.
Robert P. Stephens
ix List of Abbreviations
Many of the contributions to this collection made extensive use of primary sources from
databases. To avoid frequent duplication in the notes and bibliographies, the authors
have used the following abbreviations.
AHN – Americaʼs Historical Newpapers, http://infoweb.newsbank.com/
EBSCO – EBSCO, http://web.ebscohost.com
LN – Lexis/Nexis Academic, http://www.lexisnexis.com
PHN – Proquest Historical Newpapers, http://proquest.umi.com
PQ – Proquest, http://proquest.umi.com
Chapter 1
Laudanum: The Peaceful Bringer of Death
Kyle Gochenour
On a snowy, blistery morning on January 1, 1866, young Anna
Davis left her home in Philadelphia and strolled to the nearest apothecary.
At the drugstore on Tenth Street, Davis purchased a small bottle of
laudanum for ten cents.1 She walked a few blocks away, and on the edge
of a stoop, downed the bottle and began to cry. The young woman
attempted to commit suicide. A local passerby noticed this sobbing girl on
the stoop and stopped to help. Upon further investigation, he realized what
exactly had occurred. He, along with others from the local church service,
did their good Christian duty and carried Anna to another nearby
apothecary where medicines were administered to save her life.2
To understand this averted tragedy, one must first start at the root,
in this case, with opium, and trace the problem to the act. Laudanum, from
its creation, has been an addictive concoction. Made from powdered
opium, wine, cinnamon, and saffron, laudanum became the one-time cure
all for diseases.3 “If the doctor couldnʼt cure it, buy laudanum and treat it
yourself,” was a common theme amongst people in the 19th century. Even
though it was used for medicinal purposes, it still had an addictive quality
to it. To compound this issue, a bottle of laudanum cost anywhere
between six cents per ounce (or, as in Anna Davisʼ case, ten cents per
bottle) making it an inexpensive remedy. In order to understand laudanum
suicide, the act must be broken down further into a number of varied
topics and aspects. These topics range from the history and economy of
opium, laudanum usage in the 19th century, suicide rates during the
1800s, to the perception of women in the Victorian Era.
The height of opium addiction occurred in the late 1800s.4 Historian
David Courtwright reports that in 1880, Charles W. Earle asked roughly 50
pharmacies throughout Chicago exactly how many addicts frequented the
1
"Attempt at Suicide," Philadelphia Inquirer (Philadelphia), January 1, 1866, AHN.
"The Late Attempt at Suicide," Philadelphia Inquirer (Philadelphia) January 2, 1866,
AHN.
3
Barbara Hodgson, In the Arms of Morpheus (Buffalo: Firefly Books, 2001), 2.
4
For a history and study of opium and opium addiction see, Virginia Berridge and Griffith
Edwards, Opium and the People, (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1981); Martin Booth,
Opium: A History, (New York: Martin's Press, 1996); David Courtwright, "The Hidden
Epidemic: Opiate Addiction and Cocaine Use in the South, 1860-1920," The Journal of
Southern History 49.1 (1983): 57-72.; Barbara Hodgson, In the arms of Morpheus the
tragic history of laudanum, morphine, and patent medicines, (Buffalo, N.Y: Firefly Books,
2001); Keith McMahon, The Fall of the God of Money, (New York: Rowman & Littlefield,
Inc., 2002); Paul L. Schiff Jr, "Opium and its alkaloids." American Journal of
Pharmaceutical Education (2002). 1 Nov. 2009.
2
2
stores. Earle reported that there were roughly 4.70 per store, or 235
addicts total in Chicago (using 50 pharmacies). 5 The repercussions of this
opium pandemic were readily felt in the early twentieth century with the
start of drug addiction clinics. In a 1924 report, there were a total of 515
addicts visiting a single Atlanta addiction clinic. New Orleans, on the other
hand, only reported 250 individuals; a much smaller number, yet coming
from a town with over 180,000 more citizens than Atlanta. 6
Due to the British defeat of the Chinese in the Opium Wars of the
mid-1800s, opium prices plummeted. The Chinese government lost the
ability to limit the trade. However, the lowering in the United Kingdomʼs
import duty in 1836 brought the markets to their knees. No longer was
opium being charged a four shilling duty, instead, that price was lowered
to only 1 shilling per pound. Therefore, “common good opium” as Thomas
Herring put it, could be bought for roughly twenty shillings a pound (plus
the duty fee). 7 Charles Stillman, in the 1830s, reported that he was
buying his laudanum for two cents per ounce, and reselling the same
ounce for only 6 cents.8
Suicide in the nineteenth century took on a far different appearance
than today. With suicide there are a number of different aspects that must
be studied. From gender, to age, to mode of execution, each plays an
important part in understanding the fuller picture. During the 1800s,
women committed suicide primarily due to reasons surrounding love and
heartbreak. For women in the 19th century, image was of particular
concern. From physical body image to the publicʼs perception of an
individual, women consistently tried to strive for the utmost favorable
opinion. So, when committing suicide, all of these factors thus played a
fairly substantial role, something that both Howard Kushner and Joan
Brumberg in their work have studied extensively.9
A comprehensive examination of laudanum based suicides and
women has never fully been undertaken. Yet, newspapers from
Philadelphia, to Richmond, down to Georgia have reported laudanum
suicides by women. Nevertheless, nothing published to date fully
examines why laudanum was so frequently used by women.
5
Courtwright, 10.
Courtwright, 13.
7
Berridge, 10.
8
Charles Stillman, Medical Book, 1830s, “L”, Rare Book, Manuscript, and Special
Collections Library, Duke University.
9
For a comprehensive study in female suicides see, Victor Bailey, This rash act suicide
across the life cycle in the Victorian city, (Stanford, Calif: Stanford UP, 1998); Joan
Jacobs Brumberg, Body project an intimate history of American girls, (New York: Random
House, 1997); Kathleen Jones, Personal interview, 28 Oct. 2009; Howard I. Kushner,
Self-destruction in the promised land a psychocultural biology of American suicide, (New
Brunswick [N.J.]: Rutgers UP, 1989); Howard I. Kushner. "Women and suicide in
historical perspective,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture & Society 10, no. 3 (1985):
537-552, AHN.
6
3
This chapter will examine the history of laudanum; from the
discovery of the opium plant to the production of laudanum in
apothecaries. Further, there will be a brief examination of the economic
side of the drugʼs use, particularly delving into why the drug became so
inexpensive. Then female suicides during the 19th century will be
examined. Lastly, in this chapter, I will attempt to bridge the gap between
the drug itself and suicides. Laudanum suicides by women occurred
because the drug was very cheap, most individuals could afford it,
because it was the most convenient tool, and because it was the
“cleanest” way to commit suicide.
Opium: A brief history
Opium originates from the poppy plant, which is classified
botanically as Papaver somniferum.10 The origins of the name come from
both Greek and Latin, with the species, notably, being Latin for “sleep
inducing”. The first mention of the poppy as a classified plant came in the
Swedish Botanistʼs, Linnaeus, book Genera Plantarum in 1737.11
Opium comes from the dried sap of the P. somniferum plant.
Straight from the plant, opium has a bitter and gummy taste and comes in
a few colors, primarily dark brown. This sap can be eaten, smoked, ground
into a powder or chemically modified to form the potent drug morphine.12
In medical tablets from King Asurbanipal, a seventh-century BC
Babylonian royal, ʻpoppy juiceʼ is mentioned numerous times.13 Yet, the
first mention of it being used as a true drug comes from Hippocrates, the
fifth century Greek physician. Physicians of the time soaked the poppy
heads in water and gave the solution to patients complaining of dropsy
(swelling and difficulty in breathing).14
Opiumʼs usage as a medicine in the 19th century was extensive.
Opium was used to treat diarrhea, addiction, induce sleep, relieve pain,
dropsy, to calm children, bronchitis, asthma, kidney stones, colic, and to
cure ulcers.15 Yet, the French actor and playwright, Moliere, put it best in
his play LʼAmour Médecin, when he discusses a theriac named lʼorvietan.
Can all the gold of all the climbs that surround
the ocean ever pay for this important secret?
My remedy cures through its rare excellence –
more ills than you can count in a year: The Itch,
Scabs, scurvy, Fever, Plague, Gout, syphilis,
10
Hodgson, 1.
Booth, 1.
12
Hodgson, 1-2.
13
Booth, 2.
14
Hodgson, 18, 20.
15
McMahon, 27, 39; Berridge, 24-33; Booth, 19.
11
4
Measles, and stooping…Oh the tremendous
power of snake oil [orvietan].16
Doctors prescribed opium infused medicine frequently and often
considered it neither dangerous nor deadly, but rather crucial to the
healing process.17 The frequency of prescription, use, and availability
could be compared to aspirin today.18
In the 19th century, China and Turkey capitalized and drove the
market in opium production and trading. In England, between 1827 and
1869, roughly 80 to 90 percent of the imported opium came from Turkey.
Shipped directly from Turkey to England, buyers typically paid between
twenty to twenty-five shillings per pound or opium. This drug could then be
broken down and sold in smaller quantities such as ounces. Ounces were
far more affordable to the average consumer than pounds, since the
average weekly wage for laborers was roughly twenty shillings.19
In China, the story was slightly different. Unlike Turkey, China
adopted the practice of using their product far more than they reasonably
should. Opium dens flourished in 19th century China. Dens attracted all
levels of society, only fueling addiction in the country more. While China
produced a fair amount of opium on its own, the importation of opium
fueled addiction in the country. England had tried for decades to find an
adequate product to trade for Chinese tea, silk and other goods. By the
end of the 1700s, opium, however, had become king. The addictive
properties of the drug had taken hold of the Chinese people and became
as important as money itself. Chinese writer Zhang Changjia in 1878
phrased this dilemma best by saying, “the rise of the opium demon has led
to the fall of the god of money;” putting its place in international trade into
perspective.20
Opium use in China came to a head in the early to mid-1800s.
Rulers at the time, sensing the opium problem spiraling out of hand,
enacted a prohibition of the product. The Daoguang ruler further ordered
the confiscation and destruction of any opium in the country. The British,
outraged that their main trading product was no longer considered legal,
took action and attacked in June 1840. The Chinese were no match for
British superiority and the country was quickly overrun in what is known as
the Opium Wars. In 1858, the trading of opium was legalized in China, yet
the wars of years before had already done their damage to the opium
market. The Wars sent opium prices plummeting. Opium could now be
16
Moliere, "The Love Doctor," World Public Library Association, Act II,
http://worldlibrary.net.
17
Berridge, XXV.
18
Hodgson, 37.
19
Berridge, 4, 10.
20
McMahon, 2, 15, 23.
5
bought for bottom prices, only increasing its availability and affordability
even more.21
To understand the sheer quantity of opium entering China, one
need only look to nearby India. Indian opium, while slightly less superior,
was heavily traded to China. Between 1821 and 1830/31, the number of
chests of opium sold jumped from 5,000 to 18,760. In the years leading up
to the Opium Wars, chest totals occasionally hit 26,000.22 This massive
trading of opium truly backed up Changjiaʼs claim that opium paid for
whatever England wished to trade for.
In England and America, opium use increased. Opium and its
byproducts were readily available to anyone who could buy them. Found
in both high-end apothecaries to lowly, street corner shops, cheaply priced
opiates filled the shelves. Not only did the local drug stores buy opium in
mass quantities, they also produced their own individual potions to sell to
the public. With such names as Fire Brigade Mixture, Kendal Black Drop,
and Doverʼs Powder, opium came in many different preparations for the
many different uses it had. 23 Yet, out of all the mixtures that were created
containing opium, the drug of choice for Miss Anna Davis became the
most popular to both customers in America and in England.
Laudanum was first introduced in the 1660s in England.24 Thomas
Sydenham, a London plague survivor, concocted laudanum, as we
presently know it, soon after the plague. Before this time, laudanum had
been sold in a more solid form. The Renaissance physician, Paracelsus,
came up with a pill that he referred to as laudanum; yet, no one is sure if it
contained opium. Later, in 1618, the London Pharmacopoeia listed a pill,
also called laudanum, consisting of “opium, saffron, castor ambergris,
musk and nutmeg.”25
The laudanum that Anna Davis chose, however, was in liquid form,
much like Sydenhamʼs. Laudanum appeared dark in color (ranging from a
dark red to brown), smelled horrible, and tasted even worse. Anyone who
had a means of selling laudanum sold it. Comprised mainly of powdered
Turkish opium, laudanum also contained a form of alcohol, as well as a
number of other ingredients (recipes varied wildly depending if the product
was a “name brand” or made “in-house”).26
The sale of laudanum was widespread in the 1800s. Laudanum
was the most readily available and cheapest form of opiate on the market.
In England, for a penny, twenty to twenty-five drops could be purchased.
21
McMahon, 37-40.
McMahon, 37-40.
23
Berridge, 21-25.
24
McMahon, 39.
25
Hodgson, 45-46.
26
Hodgson, 13, 48.
22
6
Often, there were neither age nor gender limitations as to who could
purchase it.27
In America, much like Europe, laudanum prices were extremely low
in the 19th century. Charles Stillman, in his medical book from the 1830s,
kept a pricing guide for items that he bought and sold. Stillman purchased
laudanum at the rate of two cents per ounce, and yet, resold the item for
six cents, thus making a four cent profit. By contrast, Stillman purchased a
pint of Madeira Wine for 2 dollars and resold it for $2.50 and bought a pint
of port wine for $1.50 and sold it for two dollars.28
Stores in 19th century America readily stocked laudanum. American
druggists also came up with their own blends of medicines featuring
laudanum. In a “Valuable Prescription for Cholera,” the recipe called for
two ounces of laudanum, two ounces of spirits of camphor, half-an-ounce
of tincture of capsicum, once ounce of tincture of ginger, two ounces of
essence of peppermint and two ounces of Hoffmanʼs anodyne. Another
recipe, titled “Hammerʼs Liniment,” mixed laudanum with sweet oil, tincture
of camphor, aqua ammonia, turpentine, oil of origanum, oil of sassafras,
and oil of cedar.29 Judging by old recipes, every liniment solution
contained laudanum as one of its primary ingredients.
Doctors also administered laudanum to their patients. Thomas
Eskridge, a merchant in Staunton, Virginia, catered to many of the doctors
in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia in the mid-1800s. His ledger books
show doctors frequently buying laudanum in large quantities. Dr. William
H. Eldon purchased a bottle of laudanum on September 29, 1854, and
then just a few days later on October 3, purchased another.30 Nearly every
doctor that entered Eskridgeʼs store purchased laudanum and kept a
substantial stockpile on hand.
During the American Civil War, laudanum, and the many other
opium by-products, were used regularly. The Union army alone used
500,000 opium pills, and over 2.8 million ounces of opium tincture and
powder.31 Laudanum and morphine became staples in the medical tents of
both armies. With little else for anesthetic, morphine and laudanum
became lifesavers for many going under the knife.
Self-medication with laudanum arose as a problem in the 19th
century as well. Doctors prescribed laudanum for all conditions and
symptoms; especially if there was no known cure for an ailment.
27
Berridge, 29-30.
Stillman, 1830s, “L,” “W.”
29
McConnell and Hardcastle, McConnell & Hardcastle Prescription and recipe book,
1866, Nashiville, Sec A, Rare Book, Manuscript, and Special Collections Library, Duke
University.
30
Thomas P. Eskridge, General Ledger, 1854-1860, Staunton, pg 50, Rare Book,
Manuscript, and Special Collections Library, Duke University.
31
Paul L. Schiff Jr, "Opium and its alkaloids," American Journal of Pharmaceutical
Education (Summer 2002), 189.
28
7
Laudanum was a drug that was so readily available and cheap that
anyone could purchase it. Because of this, people would often buy
laudanum and attempt to treat themselves. One disastrous case of selfmedication occurred in 1892. Famed Arctic explorer, Lieutenant Frederick
Schwatka for years leading up to this event, had constant stomach
problems that forced him to purchase small bottles of laudanum and take
drops of it as needed to settle his stomach. On November 1, 1892,
Schwatka, having in all accounts a good time, left a party he was attending
to purchase some laudanum to ease his stomach pains. At 3:00 am on
November 2, Schwatka was found dead on the street from an apparent
overdose.32 Cases such as Schwatkaʼs were all too common throughout
the 1800s. Neither medically prescribed, nor needed, individuals would go
to the local apothecary for aid, buy some cheap laudanum, become
addicted, and then one day overdose on the famed medication.
Opium addiction appeared to reach an all new high in the 19th
century. Due to price drops throughout the mid-1800s, a steady rate of
addiction continued. In 1880, Chicago boasted having 4.70 addicts per
pharmacy (with a pharmacy for every 1,850-2,250). From 1880 to 1890,
the U.S. roughly purchased between 10.0 – 15.0 ounces of opium per
1000 people. However, after the 1880s, the importation of opium took a
drastic plunge.33 This drop came largely in part to a crackdown on
addiction with the introduction of treatment centers.
Suicide and Addiction in the 19th Century
Anna Davisʼ case, much like many others in the 19th century, was
not an accidental overdose. Instead, her case was a suicide attempt. Most
deaths occurring with opium were indeed not via overdoses, but rather,
suicides. Suicide in the 19th century took many forms. From hanging,
drowning, slitting of the throat, to poisoning, individuals wishing to die had
many different avenues to take.
Documented suicides throughout the 19th century listed numerous
reasons for the cause of death. In the latter 1800s, half of men who
committed suicide used a firearm, while 47.1 percent of women resorted to
poisoning.34 During the American Civil War, the common mode of suicide
appeared to be slitting of the throat by razor blade.35 Other methods such
as drowning and hanging did occur, but it was the separation between
lethal and non-lethal that raises particular interest.
32
S.S. McClure Papers,1892. Special Collections, University of Virginia Library.
Courtwright, 11-25.
34
Kushner, Self-destruction, 106.
35
Nettleton-Baldwin Family Papers, 15 Feb1862, MS Box 2, Rare Book, Manuscript, and
Special Collections Library, Duke University; Eugene Marshall Papers, Diary #8, 11 Dec
1861, Box 4, Rare Book, Manuscript, and Special Collections Library, Duke University.
33
8
In 1843, a study completed by E.K. Hunt stated that 67.5 percent of
suicides by men utilized highly lethal means. These methods came in the
form of hanging, firearm, or by cutting of the throat. The other 32.5 percent
resulted from other approaches, most notably poisoning. This creates an
interesting paradox that will help describe suicides amongst women. While
67.5 percent of males chose a lethal route, only 36.6 percent of women
did.36 Why was this level so low? To answer, one must examine the
femaleʼs place in society during the 19th century.
Women throughout the 19th century placed emphasis on selfimage. Meticulous in their appearance, women focused on their physical
appearance via hair and clothing, and also on their perception out and
about in the community. In Joan Jacobs Brumbergʼs book, The Body
Project, Brumberg analyzes the concept of womenʼs image in society. In
one description, a character example preened in front of a mirror for hours,
getting her hair just right, picking out the clothes that best accentuated her
features, and even changing her hand writing to give off a “better” image.37
In the latter 1800s, however, women also viewed beauty as a more
spiritual entity. Beauty to them encompassed moral character, spirituality,
and health.38
Women in the 19th century began to believe that to commit any selfdestructive acts would be “selfish.” One of the major reasons why female
suicide rates amongst married women in the 1800s were lower than those
of unmarried women was because most married women had children. To
commit suicide as a mother would be thought of as extremely selfish
because this would thus leave their children motherless. 39
Perception alone played a significant role in female suicides. In the
eyes of the public, suicide by a mother would be deemed the lowest of the
low. Therefore, the more common reasons associated with suicides
amongst women centered around unmarried women and their love and
love interests.
It was not uncommon for a jilted young lover to come home and
attempt to kill herself so she would not have to face the publicʼs response.
In a highly publicized story, Laura Shanke committed suicide by laudanum
after being separated from her love interest. Miss Shanke became a
notable in Washington society in the early 1870s. Considered the “most
beautiful woman in that part of the city, if not the district,” Miss Shanke
was engaged to a young man named Joseph Alliston. After receiving a
letter from an individual stating they saw Alliston flirting with one female
36
Brumberg, 104-107.
38
Brumberg, 70.
39
37
9
and courting another, Shanke decided that she could not live with “these
lies.”40
Suicide rates were indeed higher in England than the U.S. for a
very similar reason. One nation motive as to why female suicides in the
U.S. were so low is because divorce was legal in the U.S. during the 19th
century. While men may wish to kill themselves over finances or the like,
women are prone to act due to “domestic unhappiness.”41
Women thus chose their method of suicide in a manner that would
best preserve their public image. Women chose poison because it was
less lethal and because it did not disfigure the body if it was successful.42
Women at the time who wished to commit suicide may also have desired
to spare their family the grief of admitting that the individual did indeed
commit the act. To “cover up” a suicide, poisoning was by far the easiest
method to cover up.43 Within a cityʼs social elite, it was much more
desirable to have an individual die of “natural causes” than by suicide.
Since poisoning did not have an outward effect on the body, this excuse
could then easily pass. Due to this strong urge to cover-up suicides, many
female suicides simply went unreported.44
The reported cases of suicides by poisoning present a unique
statistic, especially during the 1860s. In Philadelphia, in a ten year period
from 1860-1870, 138 out of 200 suicide attempts and accidental deaths
involved laudanum. In the same study, out of 60 reported successful
suicides, laudanum accounted for 46 of them.45 Laudanum was easily the
easiest form of suicide for women and, therefore, was the most common
way to carry it out.
Many women had ulterior motives to committing suicide. By
choosing death by opium, these women chose a less lethal means of
doing so. Many women might not have wished to actually kill themselves
but rather sought an intervention of sorts or sought to gain attention.46
Women were absorbed into a “familial sphere,” even if they did not have
children. Problems women had were often pushed to the side so they
could assume some matriarchal role. Feeling subjected, these women will
used the threat of harm to their bodies to get what they wanted.47 In Keith
McMahonʼs book female suicide in China “emblemizes opium use at the
collective level as an act of abandoning oneʼs placement in the social-
40
“Love and Laudanum,” Washington Evening Star (Washington, D.C.), August 1, 1871,
AHN.
41
Kushner "Women,” 537-552.
42
Kathleen Jones, interview by author, October 28, 2009.
43
Bailey, 44.
44
45
Hodgson, 72.
46
47
10
symbolic order.”48 These women simply attempted to get out of the place
in life they were currently in. If they wanted to attempt suicide to bring
attention to themselves, then of course, an action similar to overdosing on
laudanum would suffice.
Other evidence to support this claim of feigning suicide is evident in
newspapers. In Baltimore in 1861, one girl, came to the conclusion that
she had no friends and decided to rid herself from this earth. After
consuming a small amount of laudanum and arsenic, she then began to
wail and moan until a passerby finally took pity and acknowledged the
youth. As soon as someone came to her aide, she confessed loudly what
she had done and asked for mercy.49 Later on in that same month in
Baltimore, another girl named Barbara Backer attempted suicide by
laudanum after a young love left her. As soon as she consumed the
laudanum, Miss Backer proceeded to tell her mother what she had done,
and then she went to her bedroom to wait until the doctors arrived.50
In 1869, in New Orleans, a high-society woman suffering from “love
and despair” decided to also attempt suicide by laudanum. However, no
sooner than she had taken the liquid, the woman called out for help and
the doctors arrived immediately to save her from any further harm.51 In
1870, a former music teacher had her heartbroken and mistreated by her
husband. Left horribly treated by her husband and without any relatives,
she attempted suicide in the streets of San Francisco.52 Most of the time
women did not wish to actually carry out the act, but simply to bring
attention to themselves.
Conclusion
The examination of laudanum-based suicides by females has
encompassed the history of opium, the economic trade related to the
drugs production, an examination of the history of addiction in the 19th
century, a brief study on suicides rates and forms at the time, and lastly,
the perception of women in society. Women who attempted suicide by
laudanum had either two intentions: to kill themselves or to gain attention.
Laudanum throughout the 19th century was at an all-time economic
low, as reported in countless ledgers and apothecary books. For a few
cents, anyone of any age or gender could purchase as much as they
need. It was readily available not just in stores but in homes throughout
America in the 19th century.
48
McMahon, 179.
“Attempted Suicide,” The Sun (Baltimore), January 10, 1861, AHN.
50
“Attempt at Suicide,” The Sun (Baltimore), January 22, 1861, AHN.
51
“A Young Lady Attempts Suicide,” The Daily Picayune (New Orleans), March 20, 1869,
AHN.
52
“A Mysterious Affair,” Daily Evening Bulletin (San Francisco), January 10, 1870, AHN.
49
11
Since people used what was most convenient, women reached for
laudanum, which was much more available than a gun or even rope for
hanging. Opting for laudanum instead of a gun or a rope, females had a
sense of image that they needed to protect, even in suicide. Laudanum did
not disfigure or maim the body like a gunshot wound would or leave burns
or bruising like a rope around the neck.
Lastly, laudanum was the easiest to clean up. Either figuratively in
the sense of a cover up, or literally due to lack of bloodshed, death by
laudanum was hassle free. Combining these unique qualities together,
laudanum became the perfect mode of choice for females. It was
convenient, painless, and it was the least deadly.
12
Bibliography
“A Mysterious Affair.” Daily Evening Bulletin (San Francisco), January 10,
1870, AHN.
“Attempt at Suicide." Philadelphia Inquirer (Philadelphia), January 1, 1866,
AHN.
“Attempt at Suicide.” The Sun (Baltimore), January 22, 1861, AHN.
“Attempted Suicide.” The Sun (Baltimore), January 10, 1861, AHN.
“A Young Lady Attempts Suicide.” The Daily Picayune (New Orleans),
March 20, 1869, AHN.
Bailey, Victor. This rash act suicide across the life cycle in the Victorian
city. Stanford, Calif: Stanford UP, 1998.
Berridge, Virginia, and Griffith Edwards. Opium and the People. 1st ed.
New York: St. Martin's Press, 1981.
Booth, Martin. Opium: A History. New York: Martin's Press, 1996.
Brumberg, Joan Jacobs. Body project an intimate history of American
girls. New York: Random House, 1997.
Courtwright, David. "The Hidden Epidemic: Opiate Addiction and Cocaine
Use in the South, 1860-1920." The Journal of Southern History 49.1
(1983): 57-72.
Eskridge, Thomas P. General Ledger, 1854-1860, Staunton. Rare Book,
Hodgson, Barbara. In the arms of Morpheus the tragic history of
laudanum, morphine, and patent medicines. Buffalo, N.Y: Firefly
Books, 2001.
Jones, Kathleen. Personal interview. 28 Oct. 2009.
Kushner, Howard I. Self-destruction in the promised land a psychocultural
biology of American suicide. New Brunswick [N.J.]: Rutgers UP,
1989.
13
Kushner, Howard I. "Women and suicide in historical perspective." Signs:
Journal of Women in Culture & Society 10, no. 3 (1985): 537-552.
AHN.
“Love and Laudanum.” Washington Evening Star (Washington, D.C.),
August 1, 1871, AHN.
Marshall, Eugene Papers, Diary #8, 11 Dec 1861, Box 4, Rare Book,
McClure, S.S. Papers, 1892. Special Collections Library, University of
Virginia Library.
McConnell, and Hardcastle. McConnell & Hardcastle Prescription and
recipe book. 1866, Nashville, Sec A. Rare Book, Manuscript, and
Special Collections Library, Duke University.
McMahon, Keith. The Fall of the God of Money. New York: Rowman &
Littlefield, Inc., 2002.
Moliere. "The Love Doctor." World Public Library Association. Web. 02
Nov. 2009. <http://worldlibrary.net/eBooks>.
Nettleton-Baldwin Family Papers, 15 Feb1862, Box 2, Rare Book,
Schiff Jr, Paul L. "Opium and its alkaloids." American Journal of
Pharmaceutical Education (2002), 66:186-194.
Stillman, Charles. Medical Book, 1830s. Rare Book, Manuscript, and
Special Collections Library, Duke University.
"The Late Attempt at Suicide." Philadelphia Inquirer (Philadelphia) January
2, 1866, AHN.
Chapter 2
Tennessee Temperance: A State-Wide Fight
Brianna Rhodes
On November 9th, 1908 newspapers across the country, even from
as far away as South Dakota, reported the tragic death of Edward
Carmack. The Aberdeen Daily Americanʼs, in Aberdeen, South Dakota,
headline read, “Former U.S. Senator Carmack is Shot and Killed on Street
of Nashville by Son of Political Opponent.”1 Carmack death marked one of
several crimes that transpired during the Tennessee Temperance
movement. In the nineteenth century, and overflowing into the twentieth
century, temperance and prohibition ideas helped carve Tennesseeʼs
history. There were both peaceful and violent acts carried out to help rid
the state of alcohol, and Carmackʼs death marked one of the most notable
violent acts carried out during the fight for prohibition. Yet the struggles in
the temperance movement continued; social class problems, religious
ideas, political ideologies, and economic conflicts combined and led to the
elimination of alcohol throughout the state. Women, African Americans,
the poor, and all other walks of life experienced affliction by this fight in
one way or another. The principal reason people sought to rid the state of
Tennessee of alcohol, however, was to eradicate crime problems, which
were commonly associated with alcohol abuse among poor whites and
blacks. The Knoxville Sentinel, for instance, reported on February 6,
1907, that, “If the southern states adopt prohibition it will be largely
because of the necessity of keeping whiskey from the colored man."2
From 1820 to 1910 people died, friendships were broken and made, and
politics changed greatly all due to the Tennessee temperance movement.
There have been a number of works published on the Tennessee
temperance movement and state prohibition. Paul Isaacʼs book,
Prohibition and Politics: Turbulent decades in Tennessee, 1885-1920,
explores the political, religious, and social aspects of the temperance
movement and later prohibition. Isaac presents many different points of
view from many who were involved in this fight. He also covers the
legislation acts put in place to try and regulate alcohol. Several other
scholarly articles exist that explore the broader spectrum of the
temperance movement. Some of these issues include the problem of
African Americans and poor whites and the fears that were sparked by
1
“Former U. S. Senator Carmack is Shot Killed on Street of Nashville by Son of Political
Opponent,” Aberdeen Daily American, November 10, 1908,1.
2
Calvin Dickinson, "Tennessee Encyclopedia: Temperance," Tennessee Historical
Society, http://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/imagegallery.php?EntryID=T012. (accessed
October 25, 2009).
15
their alcohol use. Several sources focused directly on the politics of the
movement, and the controversy between Democrats, Republicans, and
other parties.3 Along with political sources, many works focus on the
religion aspect of the movement.4 There are also many works that focus
on the races and their relationships during the temperance movement.5
Overall the works previously written examine the causes and effects of the
temperance movement and prohibition. Many present clear evidence of
the struggle throughout the state and what happened during these
turbulent times.
This chapter will examine how alcohol caused positive and negative
changes in relationships throughout the state of Tennessee. The main
focus will be on politics and religion and how these two forces created
conflicts throughout the state over alcohol. Several different temperance
societies formed, and many laws were enacted. This chapter will focus on
how temperance organizations and other groups promoted legislative
reform that helped evolve into prohibition. The significance of this chapter
is to see the relationships that were formed, and to see how everyone in
the state was affected. Temperance and prohibition, created temporary
alliances, but race became the main factor for the success of prohibition.
Early Temperance Organizations
The year 1829 marked the beginning of the close relationships
between Tennesseans that would form and last for a lifetime. Nashville,
3
On the political issue during the Temperance movement see, Paul Isaac, Prohibition
and politics turbulent decades in Tennessee, 1885-1920 (Knoxville: University of
Tennessee Press, 1965); Tennessee Historical Society "Tennessee Temperance,"
Tennessee Historical Society, http://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/
imagegallery.php?EntryID=P011; John C. Gebhart, “Movement against Prohibition,”
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 163 (1932): 172-180;
Leslie Roblyer, “The fight for local prohibition in Knoxville, Tennessee, 1907.” East
Tennessee Historical Societyʼs Publications (1954): 37; Eric Lacy, “Tennessee
teetotalism: social forces and the politics of progressivism,” Tennessee Historical
Quarterly (1965): 240; Yao Foli Modey, “The Struggle over Prohibition in Memphis, 18801930” Dissertation Abstracts International 44 (1983); Kay Baker Gaston, “Robertson
County Distilleries, 1796-1909,” Tennessee Historical Quarterly 393 (1998): 49-67;
Margaret Wolfe, “Bootleggers, drummers, and national defense: sideshow to reform in
Tennessee, 1915-1920,” The East Tennessee Historical Societyʼs Publications 49 (1977):
91.
4
On the religion aspect of the Temperance movement see, Charles Israel, Before
Scopes: evangelicalism, education, and evolution in Tennessee, 1870-1925 (Athens:
University of Georgia Press, 2004); Ann-Marie Szymanski, “Beyond Parochialism:
Southern Progressivism, Prohibition, and State-Building,” The Journal of Southern History
69 (2003): 107-136.
5
On the race issue during the Temperance movement see, H. Walton, “Another Force for
Disfranchisement: Blacks and the Prohibitionists in Tennessee,” Journal of Human
Relations 18 (1970): 728-738; Thomas H. Winn, “Liquor, Race, and Politics: Clarcksvile
During the Progressive Period,” Tennessee Historical Quarterly 49 (1990): 207-217.
16
Tennessee marked the location of one of the first temperance unions, a
branch of the national group referred to as the American Temperance
Society.6 The American Temperance Society inducted its first members
on August 31, 1829, and united to fight alcohol use throughout the state.
Over the course of the nineteenth century the American Temperance
Society fought to promote temperance, but one of the most significant
efforts came in 1892 when they decided to oppose any state legislation
that merely regulated alcohol, instead of prohibiting it.7
The Sons of Temperance provide one of the best examples of a
group who held relationship building events. Members of the Sons of
Temperance came together and formed a unit in 1846 and influenced the
rest of the town of Temperance Hall to become a model community, which
started as a single structure and later formed an entire town.8 The Sons of
Temperance demonstrated characteristics such as being by very
secretive, having passwords, rituals, strict regulations, and distinct
emblems.9 The Constitution of the Sons of Temperance listed their
purpose as removing, “the many dreadful evils of intemperance by
abolishing the use of intoxicating liquors as a drink.”10 These men
demonstrated “outstanding character, strong positive influences, and
perseverance.”11 Some of the noteworthy names of the group include:
Stephen Robinson, Samuel Caplinger, Alex Robinson, Nicholas Smith,
Daniel Ford, John Mason, John Corley, James Simpson, Matthew
Simpson, John Lamberson, George Kelly, Jack Reynolds, Peter Reynolds,
Isaac Hayes, along with many others.12
The Sons of Temperance later outgrew Temperance Hall, but this
did not stop the men from creating things such as a general store, hotel,
and funeral service out of the establishment in the mid-1850s.13 This
came partly due to the fact that the men in the temperance union wanted
to keep the citizens of the community close to one another. This tactic
proved successful for the Sons of Temperance; due to its assistance in
helping the community become united. Since the community followed the
lead of the Sons of Temperance, many of the citizens shared similar
political and religious ideas. This society did not want to lose anyone to
alcohol, and for this reason in 1868 the men began pledging children, and
6
"An Early Temperance Society at Nashville (Meeting Minutes)," Tennessee Historical
Magazine, October 1919, 142-144.
7
"Tennessee Prohibitionists," The Knoxville Journal, March 24, 1892, 1.
8
Majorie Hayes, Temperance Hall Remembers (Temperance Hall, Tennessee:
Temperance Hall Community Club, 1990), 6.
9
Grace Leab, “Tennessee temperance activities, 1870-1899,” East Tennessee Historical
21
Societyʼs Publications (1938): .
10
21
Leab, .
11
Hayes, 6.
12
Hayes, 6.
13
Hayes, 6.
17
helped organize the Daughters of Temperance.14 An article in the
Memphis Daily Avalanche reported that the Sons of Temperance grew to
over eighty divisions with more than four thousand members, and each
division showed great resemblance to that of a family.15 Evidence of the
importance of the Temperance Society appeared on a regular basis in
various newspapers. Even though many articles were short, the meeting
minutes, new members, and new office appointments could be found in
the newspapers, and these were published to advertise to potential new
members. For example the Memphis Daily Avalanche ran an article to
announce a new temperance division, those newly appointed to offices
within the new division, and to spread the news about the upcoming
meeting in hopes that new members would join.16
In Dekalb County, the location of Temperance Hall, members of the
community did not like to support anyone outside their county. For
example, Temperance Hall later incorporated its own blacksmiths, and
citizens in the area only used those blacksmiths.17 The original
Temperance Hall building served as a funeral home, hotel, general store,
and provided several other services to the community. Temperance Hall
not only grew as an establishment, but it later grew into being the entire
town.18 The Sons of Temperance did not want people to use any outside
sources, because they believed that community members would be
influenced negatively.19 The Sons of Temperance had a successful union,
but by 1874 their existence began to disappear.
The Good Templars
In 1874, The Good Templars rose to prominence in Tennessee,
after creating a branch from the New York group. This society displayed
many of the same traits as the Sons of Temperance: they wanted to ban
alcohol, and they pushed to form lasting relationships in order to avoid the
evils of alcohol. Two of The Good Templars greatest attributes included
their attempt to form positive relationships with the “negroes of the state”
and their focus on youth temperance.20 The goal to educate youth about
alcohol led to the Good Templars establishing the Juvenile Templars. The
Good Templars biggest asset may have been their journal which was
published around 1873 in East Tennessee to help spread the word about
the troubles of alcohol.
14
21
Leab, .
"Temperance," Memphis Daily Avalanche, January 25,1868, 3. AHN
16
"A New Temperance Division," Memphis Daily Avalanche, January 31, 1867, 3. AHN.
17
Hayes, 14.
18
Hayes, 17.
19
Hayes, 17.
20
“A Good Templars “Journal”,” The East Tennessee Historical Societyʼs Publications 31
(1959): 84.
15
18
The Good Templars differed slightly from the Sons of Temperance
in that they favored local option, in which counties and cities would decide
whether or not to enact total prohibition.21 This group believed that local
option gave individuals the most personal protection.22 One of the
historical highpoints for the Good Templars was their assistance in
passing the Four Mile Law of 1877. The Four Mile Law said that alcohol
could not be dispensed within four miles of an “incorporated institution of
learning.”23 The Good Templars involvement with this legislation tied them
directly to one of the largest stepping stones for state prohibition. Along
with other temperance societies, they argued that even though some
measures had been taken, they still did not appear sufficient enough to
end the temperance movement.24
During the temperance fight, not everyone agreed, and this caused
increased tension among the citizens of Tennessee. Many citizens of the
state shared similar ideas with the Sons of Temperance, while others
strongly disagreed with their ideas, especially the cause of prohibition.
Many politicians opposed prohibition. In 1855, for instance, supporters of
prohibition questioned gubernatorial candidates, Meredith P. Gentry and
Andrew Jackson. Meredith P. Gentry, of the Whig party, chose to support
the proposition on prohibition of intoxicants, while he also believed it
should be a local option. Democrat Andrew Johnson strongly opposed
prohibition and did not believe that the state of Tennessee should follow
Maine with its enactment of prohibition.25 Yet limited numbers of
prohibitionists supported Gentry because he would not commit to statewide prohibition, which led to his defeat.26 In 1856 state and local
prohibition failed in the state of Tennessee.27
During the Civil War, temperance and prohibition took a backseat to
the war. Soldiers and the general public chose to consume several
varieties of alcohol during the stressful war period. An editor for the
Richmond Examiner wrote, “…whiskey rather than the Yankee would be
the master of the Confederacy.”28 The opposition to liquor sparked a new
battle in itself, due to the falsifications of the appropriate papers and taxes
required in order to obtain alcohol. This led to illegal saloons, where many
soldiers visited and developed drinking habits, which added to the
problems of war. Union and Confederate soldiers both consumed alcohol
21
Calvin Dickinson, "Tennessee Encyclopedia: Temperance," Tennessee Historical
Society, http://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/imagegallery.php?EntryID=T012. (October 25,
2009).
22
“A Good Templars “Journal”,” 84.
23
“A Good Templars “Journal”,” 84.
24
"Temperance," The Knoxville Journal, October 28, 1888, 2. AHN.
25
8.
Leab,
26
21
Leab, .
27
21
Leab, .
28
21
Leab, .
19
at these illegal saloons. This caused authorities to order all Nashville
saloons to close immediately, or strict measures would be taken.29 Even
after this order and threat many saloons refused to close, which resulted in
the military forcing prohibition in Nashville.
The Churches
During the Civil War and reconstruction period, churches and the
press served as main players in the temperance movement. Most
southern churches supported the temperance movement and did
everything in their power to promote it. Churches created special
committees, published journals, and held conventions to help advertise
their opinion on alcohol and the troubles it led to. Many Christians
believed that voting for prohibition should be part of their Christian duty.30
The Methodist Episcopalians, an African American denomination,
demonstrated their opposition to alcohol use at their general conference.31
For example, they held a “Crime its cause and cure” conference in1894,
which featured several reverends speaking about alcohol and its
association with high crime rates.32 The Methodist Episcopalians clearly
stated that they opposed the “manufacture, sale and use of intoxicating
liquors,” and they also said they would continue to present the idea of
prohibition as a moral issue. They also vowed to “strive with all good
citizens …to banish the horrible evil from our beloved Church and
country.” 33 The temperance issue even forced some like Rev. Dr. Kelly, a
Methodist Episcopalian, to choose between religion and politics, and Rev.
Dr. Kelly chose religion.34
The Tennessee Methodists also proved to be great supporters of
the temperance movement and fervently endorsed the Four Mile Law of
1877. Methodists believed that it would take political action to rid the state
of alcohol and the evils it brought. The Tennessee Methodists felt it was
their responsibility to form a strong relationship with politicians in order to
liberate the state of this immoral substance.35 Political relationships with
clergymen appeared evident with Methodist Governor Brownlow and his
direct association with the church. Brownlow participated in many
Methodists conventions, where church officials chose him to speak about
29
21
Leab, .
"Prohibition Unconstitutional" The Knoxville Journal, September 16, 1888, 1. AHN
31
Methodist Episcopalians are a group of African American who chose to follow
Methodist practices.
32
"The Local Temperance Movement," The Knoxville Journal, April 18,1894, 3. AHN.
33
Isaac, 20.
34
"The Prohibition Candidate Will Stick to His Pulpit and Quit Politics," The Knoxville
Journal, July 16, 1890, 8. AHN.
35
Isaac, 21.
30
20
alcohol and all its evilness.36 Several ministers believed that, “Christian
Rum was the King of Crime,” and that “liquor was the great anaconda,
which wrapped its coils around home altars and crippled them…”37
The Baptists did not form the same relationships by forming
temperance committees within the church, but they did share some of the
same ideas as other denominations. As with the Methodists, the Baptists
felt that prohibition was necessary in order to stop crime and to save
Christianity. They also shared the theory that the church would have to
establish a healthy relationship with politicians in order to rid the state of
this poison.38 But the Baptists believed that the prohibition matter should
be handled outside of church and should not be spoken of in church or on
the Sabbath day. They did not feel that it was right to bring political issues
into the house of the Lord.39 The editor of the Tennessee Baptist
presented his concept that any Baptist who took part in the selling of
alcohol should be punished for their “unchristian conduct,” and this idea
surfaced often throughout the church.40 At an 1886 Baptist convention,
the Baptists pledged to support the expansion of temperance unions, and
they believed that the time had come for all Christians to commit
themselves to enacting prohibition.
In 1861, the Presbyterians of Tennessee also decided to unite with
the Baptists and Methodists, and pledge themselves to the eradication of
alcohol.41 In the 1880s the Presbyterian General Assembly demanded a
constitutional prohibition.42
The Womenʼs Christian Temperance Union evolved from many
different denominations and possessed many similarities with the other
temperance societies. The W.C.T.U held many conferences to bring
women together to fight alcohol. For example, the Shelbyville District
Conference in 1886 determined that intoxication and drinking while calling
oneself a Christian was a sin, and they decided alcohol to be “expressly
forbidden by the word of God and the doctrine and discipline of the
church.”43 The women involved in most churches expressed the idea that
liquor had become one of the greatest foes of Christianity and slowed its
advancement. The W.C.T.U of Knoxville strongly stressed that young
ladies should not become involved with alcohol, and they pushed for
36
"Letter from Hardeman. The Way Radicals Explain the Condition in Tennessee."
Memphis Daily Avalanche, July 25, 1867, 2. AHN; "Governor Brownlow's Message. He
Opposes the Traffic in Liquor. He Favors the Loyal Indemnity Bill," Memphis Daily
Avalanche, October 9, 1867, 2. AHN; "...Brownlow vs. Palsy-National Temperance,"
Memphis Daily Avalanche, May 23, 1868, 1. AHN.
37
Isaac, 21.
38
Isaac, 22.
39
Isaac, 21.
40
Isaac, 22.
41
Isaac, 23.
42
Isaac, 23.
43
Isaac, 22.
21
everyone to support the youth by denying them alcohol.44 At the 1892
Lebanon District Conference, the women proclaimed that the reasons for
temperance and prohibition included the love for God and preservation of
human race.45
All of the Christian denominations had to come together during the
temperance movement in order to help fight for prohibition. They even
held various joint rallies throughout the temperance movement to help
convince others to join their fight. Lake Ottoses was reported as one of
the most memorable rallies on record, in part due to the speech given by
reverend Sam Jones.46 Throughout the state, reports described this rally
as a huge success.47
At many of these church conventions, alcohol and its connection to
the church filled the agenda. One of the biggest debates came from the
controversy over the use of wine for communion. Many Christians
believed that if they consumed alcohol during communion that they would
not be able to resist the temptation of the poison later.48 For these
reasons, the Methodist Episcopalians held a convention and voted to have
only unfermented wine for communion, and this became the common
practice among all denominations, except the Lutherans.49
Womenʼs safety became one of the hot topics among churchgoers
and the citizens of Tennessee in the fight against alcohol. Many
Christians believed, and sometimes found it true, that alcohol exacerbated
the gap between genders. Many reported that men mistreated women
more when they were under the influence of alcohol. In one article, written
by a prohibitionist, a single motherʼs two sons beat her and refused to help
support the rest of the family. The author claimed the entire cause of this
abuse and neglect came dually as the result of alcohol.50 Stories like this
one helped form the negative ideas about alcohol use, and the idea that it
caused violence against women.
Anti-Prohibition Groups
44
"Ladies to Appeal. To Supreme Court About Liquor and Hygienic Law," The Knoxville
Journal, March 7, 1896, 3. AHN; "Will Work it Hard. Ladies Interested in Temperance
Actively Engaged," The Knoxville Journal, December 25,1892, 3. AHN.
45
Isaac, 24.
46
"Great Temperance Rally. To be Held at Lake Ottoses-Sam Jones," The Knoxville
Journal, January 15, 1894, 5. AHN.
47
"Wrestling with Rum. The Jones-Stuart Combination in Town Yesterday," The Knoxville
Journal, May 3, 1894, 1. AHN.
48
Isaac, 25.
49
"Evils of Liquor. Sweeping Resolutions Adopted by Tennessee Methodists, South," The
Knoxville Journal, 26 October 1892, 1. AHN.
50
"A Suggestion in the Interest of Temperance," The Knoxville Journal, April 24, 1892, 6.
AHN.
22
Despite the opposition of temperance and religious groups some
citizens favored the use of alcohol. Some anti-prohibitionists protested the
temperance movement peacefully, while others did not. For example, in
1886, a Nashville liquor dealer handed out “Errors of Prohibition”
brochures, which detailed the negative aspects of prohibition. This
pamphlet argued:
Prohibition is making a stir in our state, but we will be well
organized here when the fight is on and hope to win. At present
much wind work is being done by a lot of fanatics and cranks
and ignorant preachers, and we desire to give some or our
newspapers a little information on the other side of the
question.51
The anti-prohibitionists formed lasting relationship just as the prohibitionist
did. In 1886, those who were in favor of alcohol formed the State
Protective Association of Tennessee. This group pledged, “to safeguard
and uphold the manufacture and sale of whiskies, brandies, wine, ale, and
beer as at present regulated by law against the aggressions of the
prohibition movement in the state.” 52 The Protective Association also
argued that prohibition would only be detrimental to the Tennessee
economy, due to the destruction of the liquor industry. They believed that
alcohol would still be transported in from other states, and that state
prohibition would not solve any of the problems.53 Liquor dealers, the
main members of this group, claimed that it was their civic duty to protect
the rights of the citizens, and if prohibition passed it would reduce the
rights of the people. In 1886 this organization expanded its relationship
and community to join the National Protective Association.
Temperance and Racism
Racism was a key factor in the alcohol fight. African American
alcohol use served as one of the major reasons for the temperance
movement. White Tennesseans tied alcohol and African American crime
together. White prohibitionistʼs believed that African Americans should be
controlled and alcohol should not be accessible to them. Although slaves
originally had the right to consume alcohol, in the 1830s the law changed,
and slaves had to get written permission from their masters in order to
possess alcohol.54 The white Prohibitionists tried to convince slaves that
51
"Bonfort's Wine and Spirit Circular," Bonfort's Circular XXVI, 1886, 163. PHN.
“State Protective Association Tennessee,” Nashville Union, October 12,1886. 3. AHN.
53
Isaac, 29.
54
Edward Scott, Laws of the State of Tennessee (Knoxville: 1821), 245-248.
52
23
prohibition was morally right.55 White prohibitionist even set up a Negro
W.C.T.U and allowed African American prohibitionists to speak at their
conventions. In the 19th century joint conventions were largely unheard of,
but during the temperance movement they tried to unite to fight alcohol.56
E. E. Folk, an African American Bishop, argued in an article in the Daily
Chronicle, that whites caused the problem with alcohol and African
Americans, white men ran the saloon and served the white manʼs liquor to
the black men, who were then prosecuted by the white man. If the white
men would stop serving the black men his white man liquor, there would
be no problems. Bishop Folk believed that alcohol should be eradicated
and that doing so would help bring peace between the races.57 Other
preachers, like J.C. Price preached that African-Americans should fight
alcohol because it took away from their newly awarded freedoms, rights,
and their duties as citizens.58
Some African Americans referred to themselves as antiprohibitionists, and they publicly expressed their ideas. The African
American anti-prohibitionists did not unite with the whites as the
prohibitionists did. They formed their own independent groups and voiced
their opinions through publications such as the Watchman, the Memphisʼ
“Negro” paper.59 Many of the so-called “wet” African Americans called
themselves Christians and claimed that they did not see it as sinful to
consume alcohol. Many African Americans claimed that if prohibition
passed that it would be revoking some of their freedom. The “wets”
believed that evil presented itself with prohibition too. African American
anti-prohibitionists often referred to prohibitionists as being, “cranks and
crackpots” and as being hazardous to safe living.60
During the temperance movement, a great deal of prejudice against
the African Americans appeared, and it only worsened when the
prohibition amendment failed in 1896.61 The amendment failed with a vote
of 145,000 opposing prohibition, and only 118,000 for it. Approximately
90,000 of 145,000 opposition votes came from African-Americans.62 The
prohibitionistsʼ felt that their efforts to help the African-Americans had
backfired, and at a 1909 convention prohibitionists decided to strip the
55
"The Black Flag. Evangelist Stuart Has Raised it in His Temperance Fight," The
Knoxville Journal, January 15, 1894, 1. AHN.
56
H. Walton, “Another Force for Disfranchisement: Blacks and the Prohibitionists in
Tennessee,” Journal of Human Relations 18 (1970): 731.
57
“E. E. Folk,” Daily Leaf Chronicle, August 12, 1907. 1. AHN.
58
Walton, 732.
59
Walton, 732.
60
Andrew Sinclair, Prohibition: The Era of Excess (Boston: Little Brown Publishing,
1962), 28-29.
61
James H. Timberlake, Prohibition and the Progressive Movement 1900-1920
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963), 119-122.
62
“African Americans to Blame,” Nashville Tennessean, June 16, 1908,1. AHN.
24
right to vote from blacks.63 People like Edward Carmack, a prohibitionist,
believed that African-Americans and alcohol created a bad combination.
Carmack argued that black men often became intoxicated and committed
sex crimes against white women.64 Will Irwin, in Collierʼs magazine in
1908, argued that liquor companies promoted promiscuous women in their
liquor advertisements, which enticed black men to rape white women.65
According to Andrew Sinclair, author of Prohibition: The Era of Excess,
prohibition gave the whites a, “moral refuge from their guilt feelings about
blacks…”66 White Prohibitionists also believed that when blacks
consumed alcohol it caused them to renounce their inferior status, and for
this reason it became crucial to deny them any form of alcohol.67
Local Movement
Although there were relationships formed by societies, races,
genders, and churches, many towns came together to fight against alcohol
too. One of the towns most noted for this was Harriman, Tennessee.
Harriman shared characteristics with prohibition towns like Temperance
Hall. They held temperance meetings, which drew some of the largest
crowds in the state. The Knoxville Journal ran a special article in May of
1890 to announce that the extraordinary attendance at a temperance
meeting in Harriman, “was the largest temperance meeting ever held in
the state…and was most interesting.”68 One of the most advertised
meetings was “The Harriman Convention” held on September 1, 1892,
where new officers were elected to the Prohibition Party.69 Temperance
became so popular in Harriman that the citizens of the town started their
own temperance university, Harriman University. The university held its
first graduation in May 1864.70 Zero tolerance of alcohol in Harriman
became the policy accepted by all, and the close relationships in the town
made escaping the anti-alcohol movement all but impossible. For
example, a Harriman police officer once caught selling whiskey, found
63
Walton, 736.
B.T. Washington, “Prohibition and the Negro,” Outlook. March 14, 1908. AHN.
65
Will I. Irwin, “More About Nigger Gin.” Collierʼs. August 15, 1908,147-148. AHN.
66
Sinclair, 28-29.
67
James E. Taylor and Hanes Walton Jr., "Black and the Southern Prohibition
Movement," Phylon 32(1971): 255.
68
"Temperance Meeting Harriman, Tenn. May 7," The Knoxville Journal, May 8,1890, 1.
AHN.
69
"The Harriman Convention. Hon. Will A. Mcteer Nominated for Congress by the
Prohibs," The Knoxville Journal, September 2, 1892, 1. AHN.
70
"Harriman University. The Great Temperance School's First Annual Commencement,"
The Knoxville Journal, May 14, 1894, 5. AHN.
64
25
himself arrested. The people of Harriman showed him no mercy, and he
was later prosecuted for his actions.71
Other towns throughout the state did not share the same
commitment as the citizens of Harriman. For example, in Greeneville
many friends ended their friendships over politics and alcohol. Greeneville
became a battleground between the Democrats and Republicans during
the temperance movement. The Knoxville Journal ran what they referred
to as the “Greeneville Letter” often, and this normally reported on the
disagreements between Democrats and Republicans and their positions
on alcohol.72
Party Politics
There was the political factor that played a major role in the
movement towards prohibition. In 1883, the Tennessee Prohibition Party
formed, after the Democrats and Republicans refused to accept prohibition
as a serious matter.73 Members of the Prohibition Party often referred to
the Democrats and Republicans as the, “rum-ruled parties.”74 The
Prohibition Party consisted of mainly church leaders, and these church
leaders believed that proposed plans such as local option were not
acceptable. The Prohibition Party strongly disagreed with both Democrats
and Republicans, but they often intensely opposed the Democrats.
Prohibitionists claimed that Democrat Governor Robert L. Taylor had
falsely promised to join their opposition to alcohol. Governor Taylor sided
with the Tennessee Protective Association, while claiming he sided with
the prohibitionist in 1886. Issues like this one made Democrats worry that
the Prohibition Party would cause the election to go to a Republican.75 In
the long run, the Prohibition Party demonstrated great weakness, and this
was especially evident in 1888 elections across the state. The Prohibition
Party did not receive nearly as many votes as they had hoped for.76 This
caused the Methodists to stop supporting the Prohibition Party.
Two years later, in 1890, the Prohibition Party gained power in
politics when the party received twice as many votes as the Republicans,
71
"A Harriman Policeman Arrested for Selling Whiskey," The Knoxville Journal, March 1,
1891, 8. AHN.
72
"Greeneville Letter. Election Echoes-Notes and Comments-Farmers Alliance in Greene
County-Republican Candidate for Representative" The Knoxville Journal, August 8, 1888,
3. AHN; "Greeneville Letter. The Prohibitions at Work Politics and Side Show Suicide of
James M. Hunter Deaths Local Items" The Knoxville Journal, September 26, 1888, 3.
.
AHN
73
Isaac, 61.
74
Isaac, 61.
75
Isaac, 63.
76
Charles A. Miller, The Official and Political Manual of the State of Tennessee (Chicago:
Marshal and Bruce Stationers, 1890), 259-262.
26
but they still lost to the Democrats.77 Yet the power gained by the
Prohibition Party was short lived, because in 1892 voters favored the
Republican and Democratʼs ideas over the prohibitionists. The
prohibitionist would not reach their goal of state-wide prohibition until
1909, and then thanks to the Republican prohibitionists.78
Edward Ward Carmack, described as being an exceptional editor,
orator, crusader, statesman, patriot, brilliant, and very chivalrous, was a
key player in the Tennessee temperance movement. Carmack, whose
main interests were in journalism, ran in the 1905 Senatorial race, and lost
the position because of his support for prohibition.79 Later, Carmack
chose to run in the Tennessee gubernatorial race against Governor
Malcolm R. Patterson. Both of these candidates had been Democrats, but
this is an example where alcohol ended a relationship. The two candidates
attacked each other and their stands on the alcohol issue. Patterson
became a controversial candidate in the governor race. When he ran for
governor the first time, he supported the temperance movement, but in
1909 he had changed his mind on the alcohol issue.80 Carmack could not
be described as a true prohibitionist either; he favored regulation more
than prohibition, but later joined the prohibitionists.81
Carmack lost the 1909 race to Malcolm Patterson, but the fight did
not end. After the election, Carmack accepted the offer to be editor of the
Nashville Tennessean, a prohibition newspaper. Soon after he accepted
the position, Carmack began to take stabs at rival editor of the Nashville
American, Duncan B. Cooper. Carmack chose to go after Cooper due to
his close friendship with Malcolm Patterson. After continuous negative
comments about Cooper in Carmackʼs editorials, Cooper ended the battle
for good. On November 9, 1908, Edward Carmack encountered Duncan
Cooper and his son Robin on their journey home. This confrontation
ended in shots being fired by Carmack and Robin Cooper, and Carmack
died.82 The death of Edward Carmack caused pandemonium throughout
the state of Tennessee. Many accused Patterson of being the main
perpetrator behind the slaying of Edward Carmack. This caused political
disaster for him, especially after he granted a pardon for Duncan and
Robin Cooper for the murder of Carmack.83 This sparked many
77
Miller, 259-262.
Isaac, 168.
79
Guston T. Fitzhugh, Oration on the Occasion of the Unveiling of the Statue of Edward
Ward Carmack (Nashville: 1925), 1.
80
Timothy P. Ezzel, "Tennessee Encyclopedia: Malcolm R. Patterson," Tennessee
Historical Society. http://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/imagegallery.php?EntryID=P011.
(accessed October 30, 2009).
81
Eric Lacy, “Tennessee teetotalism: social forces and the politics of progressivism,”
Tennessee Historical Quarterly (1965): 240.
82
“Cooper Shoots Carmack,” Nashville Tennessean, November 10,1908. AHN.
83
“Cooper Trials,” Nashville Tennessean, February 28-March 5, 1909. A summary of
each dayʼs testimony during the Cooper Trial. AHN.
78
27
individuals who were not in favor of prohibition to join the prohibitionists.
Carmackʼs death acted as one of the final blows that helped end alcohol in
Tennessee. As Historian Ferdinand Iglehart stated, “The shot that killed
Carmack killed the saloons in Tennessee.”84
Conclusion
The temperance movement ultimately proved to be a success.
Prohibition passed in 1909 due to the efforts of Christians, women,
temperance societies, and politicians who opposed alcohol. Other groups,
like the State Protective Association of Tennessee, put up a strong fight
before they were defeated by the prohibitionists. The persistence of
complicated race relations in Jim Crow Tennessee proved to be a
significant factor in the establishment of the new prohibition regime, and
Edward Carmackʼs death acted as a catalyst that led to the passage of the
prohibition act. African-Americans proved to be the victims, they received
the blame for the initial failure, and this exacerbated racial tensions and
led to their disenfranchisement. While the Republican victory over alcohol
came in 1909, soon after Carmackʼs death, temperance became more
than just a political issue, it evolved into a religious matter, a gender
matter, and most importantly a racial battle.
84
Ferdinand Inglehart, King Alcohol Dethroned (Westerville, Ohio: The American Issue
Publishing Company, 1917), 235-236.
28
Bibliography
"A Good Templars “Journal”." The East Tennessee Historical Society's
Publications 31 (1959): 84.
"An Early Temperance Society at Nashville (Meeting Minutes)."
Tennessee Historical Magazine, October 1919.
“African Americans to Blame.” Nashville Tennessean, June 16, 1908,1.
AHN.
"A Harriman Policeman Arrested for Selling Whiskey." The Knoxville
Journal, March 1, 1891, 8. AHN.
"A New Temperance Division." Memphis Daily Avalanche, January 31
1867, 3. AHN. http://www.calvin.edu/library/knightcite/index.php
"A Suggestion in the Interest of Temperance." The Knoxville Journal, April
24, 1892, 6. AHN.
"Bonfort's Wine and Spirit Circular." Bonfort's Circular XXVI, 1886, 163.
PHN.
"...Brownlow vs. Palsy-National Temperance." Memphis Daily Avalanche,
May 23, 1868, 1. AHN.
“Cooper Shoots Carmack.” Nashville Tennessean, November 10,1908.
AHN.
“Cooper Trials” Nashville Tennessean, February 28-March 5, 1909. AHN.
Dickinson, Calvin. "Tennessee Encyclopedia: Temperance." Tennessee
Historical Society. http://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/
imagegallery.php?EntryID=T012. (October 25, 2009)
Edward Scott, 2 Laws of the State of Tennessee (Heiskell and Brown,
1821).
“E. E. Folk.” Daily Leaf Chronicle, August 12, 1907.1. AHN.
"Evils of Liquor. Sweeping Resolutions Adopted by Tennessee Methodists,
South." The Knoxville Journal, 26 October 1892, 1. AHN.
29
Ezzel, Timothy P. "Tennessee Encyclopedia: Malcolm R. Patterson."
Tennessee Historical Society. http://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/
imagegallery.php?EntryID=P011. (October 30, 2009)
Fitzhugh, Guston T. “Oration on the Occasion of the Unveiling of the
Statue of Edward Ward Carmack.” Nashville, 1925. 1.
“Former U. S. Senator Carmack is Shot Killed on Street of Nashville by
Son of Political Opponent.” Aberdeen Daily American, November
10, 1908, 1. AHN.
Gaston, Kay Baker. “Robertson County Distilleries, 1796-1909.”
Tennessee Historical Quarterly 43, no. 1 (1984): 49-67.
Gebhart, John C. “Movement against Prohibition.” Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science 163 (1932): 172-180.
"Governor Brownlow's Message. He Opposes the Traffic in Liquor. He
Favors the Loyal Indemnity Bill." Memphis Daily Avalanche,
October 9, 1867, 2. AHN.
"Great Temperance Rally. To be Held at Lake Ottoses-Sam Jones." The
Knoxville Journal, January 15 1894, 5. AHN.
"Greeneville Letter. Election Echoes-Notes and Comments-Farmers
Alliance in Greene County-Republican Candidate for
Representative." The Knoxville Journal, August 8, 1888, 3. AHN.
"Greeneville Letter. The Prohibitions at Work Politics and Side Show
Suicide of James M. Hunter Deaths Local Items." The Knoxville
Journal, September 26, 1888, 3. AHN.
"Harriman University. The Great Temperance School's First Annual
Commencement." The Knoxville Journal, May 14, 1894, 5. AHN.
Hayes, Marjorie. Temperance Hall Remembers. Temperance Hall,
Tennessee: Temperance Hall Community Club, 1990.
Inglehart, Ferdinand. King Alcohol Dethroned. Westerville, Ohio: The
American Issue Publishing Company, 1917.
Irwin, Will I. “More About Nigger Gin.” Collierʼs. August 15, 1908. AHN.
30
Isaac, Paul. Prohibition and politics turbulent decades in Tennessee,
1885-1920. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1965.
Israel, Charles. Before Scopes : evangelicalism, education, and evolution
in Tennessee, 1870-1925. Athens: University of Georgia Press,
2004.
Lacy, Eric. “Tennessee teetotalism : social forces and the politics of
progressivism.” Tennessee Historical Quarterly. (1965): 240.
"Ladies to Appeal. To Supreme Court About Liquor and Hygienic Law."
The Knoxville Journal, March 7, 1896, 3. AHN.
Leab, Grace. "Tennessee temperance activities, 1870-1899." East
Tennessee Historical Society's Publications, 1938.
"Letter from Hardeman. The Way Radicals Explain the Condition in
Tennessee." Memphis Daily Avalanche, July 25, 1867, 2. AHN.
Miller, Charles A. The Official and Political Manual of the State of
Tennessee. Nashville: Marshal and Bruce Stationers, 1890.
Modey, Yao Foli. “'The Struggle over Prohibition in Memphis, 1880-1930.”
Dissertation Abstracts International 44, no. 4 (1983).
"Prohibition Unconstitutional." The Knoxville Journal, September 16, 1888,
1. AHN.
Roblyer, Leslie. “The fight for local prohibition in Knoxville, Tennessee,
1907.” East Tennessee Historical Society's publications, (1954): 37.
Sinclair, Andrew. Prohibition: The Era of Excess. Boston: Little Brown
Pulishing, 1962.
“State Protective Association Tennessee.” Nashville Union, October
12,1886 3. AHN.
Szymanski, Ann-Marie. “Beyond Parochialism: Southern Progressivism,
Prohibition, and State-Building.” The Journal of Southern History
69, (2003): 107-136.
Taylor, James E., and Hanes Walton Jr. "Black and the Southern
Prohibition Movement." Phylon 32, no. 3 (1971): 255.
"Temperance." The Knoxville Journal, October 28, 1888, 2. AHN.
31
"Temperance." Memphis Daily Avalanche, January 25,1868, 3. AHN.
"Temperance Meeting Harriman, Tenn. May 7." The Knoxville Journal,
May 8,1890, 1. AHN.
"Tennessee Prohibitionists." The Knoxville Journal, March 24 1892, 1.
AHN.
"The Black Flag. Evangelist Stuart Has Raised it in His Temperance
Fight." The Knoxville Journal, January 15, 1894, 1. AHN.
"The Harriman Convention. Hon. Will A. Mcteer Nominated for Congress
by the Prohibs." The Knoxville Journal, September 2, 1892, 1. AHN.
"The Local Temperance Movement." The Knoxville Journal, April 18,1894,
3.
"The Prohibition Candidate Will Stick to His Pulpit and Quit Politics." The
Knoxville Journal, July 16, 1890, 8. AHN.
Timberlake, James H. Prohibition and the Progressive Movement 19001920. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963.
Walton, H. “Another Force for Disfranchisement: Blacks and the
Prohibitionists in Tennessee.” Journal of Human Relations 18
(1970): 728-738.
Washington, B.T. “Prohibition and the Negro.” Outlook March 14, 1908.
AHN.
"Will Work it Hard. Ladies Interested in Temperance Actively Engaged."
The Knoxville Journal, December 25,1892, 3. AHN.
Winn, Thomas H. “Liquor, Race, and Politics: Clarksville During the
Progressive Period.” Tennessee Historical Quarterly 49, no. 4
(1990): 207-217.
Wolfe, Margaret. “Bootleggers, drummers, and national defense :
sideshow to reform in Tennessee, 1915-1920.” The East
Tennessee Historical Societyʼs Publications 49 (1977): 91.
"Wrestling with Rum. The Jones-Stuart Combination in Town Yesterday."
The Knoxville Journal, May 3, 1894, 1. AHN.
Chapter 3
A New Deal for Junkies: Changing Perceptions of Addiction and
Treatment, 1935-1974
Erin Weiss
Dream Castle, Big Shot Drug Farm, Alpha Government Home, US
Greatest Gift to Lift Mankind Sanatorium, Beneficial Farm, and
Courageous Hospital: these were some of the readersʼ entries a local
Lexington, Kentucky newspaper received in response to its contest to
name the new institution believed to be the solution to the nationʼs drug
addict problem.1 The United States government, instead, chose a less
colorful name for the institution. On May 25, 1935, officials welcomed
attendees to the opening ceremony to the “United States Narcotic Farm,”
commonly referred to as the Lexington Narcotic Farm. Eventually, the
nickname “Narco” became locally ubiquitous for the home of the over
50,000 drug addicts who passed through the doors during its tenure in
Lexington. The wide variety of names for the institution that existed during
its forty years of existence, official and unofficial, represented the changing
perception of drug addiction and the path to a cure. This chapter utilizes
“Narco” to investigate the changing perception of narcotic addiction and
treatment from the 1920s to the 1970s.
The recently completed documentary produced by J.P. Olsen and
Luke Walden and its corresponding book, written by Dr. Nancy Campbell,
Olsen, and Walden, serve as the best comprehensive history of the
Lexington Narcotic Farm.2 Together, they explore the institution from its
initial authorization by Congress in 1929 until its closure as a hospital for
narcotic addicts in 1975. Patients volunteered or were court mandated to
participate in “the cure” to treat their addiction. Within Lexingtonʼs walls a
co-ed compilation of jazz musicians, doctors, nurses, businessmen,
lawyers, authors, dealers, ministers, and prostitutes resided.3 The
institution and its sister hospital in Forth Worth, Texas, became a central
part of a subculture of drug addicts in America. Both works also examine
the significance of the Addiction Research Center (ARC) housed as part of
the Narcotic Farm in Lexington. For more than four decades, scientists
1
Nancy D. Campbell, JP Olsen, and Luke Walden, The Narcotic Farm (New York:
Abrams, 2008), 36-37.
2
On the history of the Lexington Narcotic Farm, see Campbell, Olsen, and Walden;
Olsen and Walden, DVD, The Narcotic Farm (Hollywood, CA: PBS 2008); Caroline Jean
Acker, Creating the American Junkie: Addiction Research in the Classic Era of Narcotic
Control (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002); Robert S. Weppner, The
Untherapeutic Community: Organizational Behavior in a Failed Addiction Treatment
Program (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1983).
3
Campbell, Olsen and Walden, 12, 88.
33
and physicians at the ARC worked to understand the fundamental causes
of addiction, document the effects of narcotics on the human body, and
demonstrate potential for addiction in newly developed pharmaceuticals.
Several scholarly works examine the medicalization of drug
addiction, particularly comprehensive histories of addiction.4 The
perception of drug addiction directly influences the attempts at treating
drug addicts. From the beginning of its conception as a widespread
societal problem, ideas about treatment formed from the perceptions of
addictionʼs fundamental causes. It was a widespread belief that addiction
resulted from a personʼs immoral character and a conscious “falling away
from a respectable life.”5 Governmental officials believed criminalization
and punishment was the solution to a drug addictʼs weak character and
the means to an end of the vice of narcotic addiction. Yet by the latter half
of the twentieth century, most regarded drug addiction in a medical
context. The therapeutic and medical treatment model of “Narco” formed
from the underlying medical understanding of drug addiction.
This chapter explores the Lexington Narcotic Farm and its
significance in the transition to the medicalization of drug addiction and
treatment. First, it examines the perception of the problem of addiction in
the 1920s and 1930s by the public, scientific communities, and by the
government. The second section traces the Lexington Narcotic Farm
through its tenure and the internal transitions from a medical prison to a
communally therapeutic hospital. Finally, the third section investigates the
changing perceptions of drug addiction as a medical problem and the
emergence of new forms of treatment. The United States Narcotic Farm
in Lexington, Kentucky, served as a pioneer in the transition of narcotic
addiction and treatment as a moral predicament to a medical context.
Narcotic Addiction and Treatment Perception, 1920s-1950s
Narcotic addiction treatment, in its infancy before the opening of the
two federal narcotic farms, normally consisted of abrupt withdrawal from
the drug, though other substances were occasionally used to treat early
abstinence, including sodium bromide, cocaine, cannabis, and alcohol.
4
On the history of the medicalization of addiction and treatment, see Acker; Sarah
W.Tracey and Caroline J. Acker, eds., Altering American Consciousness: The History of
Alcohol and Drug Use in the United States, 1800-2000 (Amherst, Mass: University of
Massachusetts Press, 2004); H. Wayne Morgan, Drugs in America: A Social History,
1800-1980 (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1981); Weppner; Nancy D.
Campbell, Discovering Addiction (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2007); Jill
Jonnes, Hep-cats, Narcs, and Pipe Dreams (Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1999); David F. Musto, The American Disease: Origins of Narcotic Control, 3rd ed
(USA: Oxford University Press, 1999); David T. Courtwright, Dark Paradise: Opiate
Addiction in America before 1940 (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1982).
5
Acker, 23.
34
Physicians often even prescribed a daily dose of morphine, maintaining a
level of drug dependence. From 1919 until 1923, controversial clinics
could be found in various cities of the United States that dispensed
narcotics to addicts in an attempt to prevent them from reverting to crime
and drug trafficking to receive their next narcotic dose. Due to increased
enforcement of the Harrison Act of 1914, narcotic law violators in the
twenties amounted to about one third of all federal prisoners. By 1928, the
problem of overcrowding in many federal prisons, inflated by narcotic law
violators, prompted the Superintendant of Prisons to recommend the
establishment of federal institutions for narcotic treatment and
rehabilitation. The result was the introduction of a bill by Pennsylvania
Congressman Stephen G. Porter to establish two of these institutions.6
Many people in the early twentieth century perceived narcotic
addicts as “degenerates” of society.7 Considered a vice, narcotic
addiction mirrored other vices of society, like alcohol and prostitution,
combated during the Progressive Era. Many believed a weak personality
and poor morals led individuals straight into addiction. In the early 1930s,
Bingham Dal, a student of the University of Chicago who published a
report and survey on the Bureau of Narcotics, described the mind of an
addict is “infantile.”8 “It was thoroughly indoctrinated that addicts were the
lowest form of creature…,” said Marie Nyswander, a surgical intern at the
Lexington Narcotic Farm, “they had some kind of wild, maniacal
pleasure…for which they should be punished.”9 In her autobiography,
Janet Clark, a narcotic addict sentenced to time at “Narco,” wrote about
protestors outside her trial for narcotic possession. “Throw them in jail!”
they shouted. “Get rid of them, preying on society!”10 The public
considered incarceration and punishment the best and most effective way
to remove the menacing problem of narcotic addiction from society in the
early 20th century.
Medical and government officials shared the overwhelming
perception of addicts as inferior beings and addiction as a vice. In 1918,
health officials reported in a questionnaire that the majority of physicians
regarded addiction as a vice as opposed to a disease.11 A member of the
6
William R. Martin, M.D. and Harris Isbell, M.D., eds., Drug Addiction and the U.S. Public
th
Health Service: Proceedings of Symposium Commemorating the 40 Anniversary of the
Addiction Research Center (Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, 1978), 218-219.
7
Campbell, Olsen and Walden, 164.
8
Elizabeth Bass, “Voice of the People,” Chicago Daily Tribune, September 15, 1935.
PHN.
9
David T. Courtwright, Herman Joseph and Don Des Jarlais, Addicts Who Survived; An
Oral History of Narcotic Use in America (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1989),
310.
10
Helen MacGill Hughes, ed., The Fantastic Lodge: The Autobiography of a Girl Drug
Addict (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961), 205.
11
Martin and Isbell, 218.
35
American Medical Associationʼs Committee on Narcotic Drugs, released a
report in 1921, referring to drug addicts as “miserable wretches” who were
involved in the “vice of drug addiction.”12 Government officials shared this
belief in the inherent inferiority of addicts. Elizabeth Bass, the Supervisor
of the Bureau of Narcotics of the Ninth Federal District in 1935, stated that
addiction was “undoubtedly a…biologic problem.”13 Even the legislation
that authorized the two Narcotic Farms defined an addict as someone who
endangered public morals.14 The Lexington Narcotic Farm opened in a
time when the widespread perception of addiction was a vice of society
and the solution to addiction in society was incarceration.
The Lexington Narcotic Farm, 1935-1974
The establishment of the Lexington Narcotic Farm, which served as
a pioneer in the medicalization of addiction treatment, occurred on
January 19, 1929. The Second Session of the Seventieth Congress
passed the Porter Act to lay out the terms, funding, and purpose of two
institutions for the “confinement and treatment” of “any person who
habitually uses any habit-forming narcotic drug.”15 Admission to the
treatment program came in two forms. First, any person federally
convicted who fit the criteria of a drug addict was eligible for transfer or
sentencing to the narcotic farms. Secondly, a person who fit the criteria of
an addict could voluntarily apply for admission. During the forty years of
operation, one-third of the patients at the Lexington Narcotic Farm came
as volunteers.16 Congress charged the Attorney General, Secretary of the
Treasury, and Secretary of War to select two sites and to provide cost
estimates for the construction of this new attempt at curing the nationʼs
addicts.17 Eventually, officials chose Lexington, Kentucky, and Fort Worth,
Texas, for their tranquil countryside, an important factor in the proposed
treatment regimen.18 “A United States narcotic farm shall be designed to
rehabilitate them, restore them to health, and where necessary to train
them to be self-supporting and self-reliant.”19 These were the goals
established for the institutions by Congress; how to reach them was
entirely up to a new division created by this Act.
Congress established the Lexington Narcotic Farm using a medical
context to address addiction to narcotics. Congress initiated a significant
12
US Treasury Department Bureau of Narcotics, Prevention and Control of Narcotic
Addiction (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1967), 17.
13
Bass, “Voice of the People”.
14
Porter Act of 1929, U.S. Statutes at Large 70 (1929): 1085.
15
Porter Act of 1929, 1085.
16
17
18
Campbell, Olsen, and Walden, 36.
19
36
first step in the medicalization of narcotic addiction and treatment. The
Narcotics Division could have been placed under the jurisdiction of the
Justice Department. Instead, the newly created Narcotics Division resided
within the Public Health Service. In doing so, Congress placed the
management and control of the institution in a medical context even before
the groundbreaking began. The head of the Narcotics Division, as defined
by the Act, was “a physician trained in the treatment and care of narcotic
addicts.”20 Even the goals for the institution laid out by Congress set the
tone for a medical approach to a cure of addiction for the participants. The
goals centered on rehabilitation and restoring addicts to health, instead of
mere punishment and confinement of addicts. To facilitate the expansion
of the Lexington model, the Porter Act called for the dissemination of
information on treatment methods and research to the states so that they
might construct similar programs and facilities under individual statesʼ
jurisdiction. Even though the Porter Act significantly pointed to addiction
and treatment in a medical context, an underlying tone of narcotic
addiction as a question of morality remained. In the first section of the Act,
Congress defined an addict as “any person who habitually uses any habitforming narcotic drug […] so as to endanger the public morals, health,
safety, or welfare.”21
Construction began in the spring of 1932 along the old pike road
between Lexington and Frankfort, about a half a mile from the highway.
Officials purposefully built the institution on 1,100 acres of picturesque,
rolling bluegrass countryside. The grounds included four large dairy barns,
a greenhouse, a utility barn, railroad sidings, chicken hatcheries, and
slaughter houses. Designed as a self-sustaining institution, it even
included a sewage disposal and treatment plant. 22 Inmates enjoyed use
of tennis and basketball courts, a golf course, gymnasium, a bowling alley,
an auditorium, a boxing ring, billiard and ping-pong tables, and a library.23
The total cost for constructing the Lexington Narcotic Farm came to about
$4,000,000 in 1935. The planned yearly operating cost came to around
$750,000 including employee salaries.24 The main building
accommodated 1,000 patients, and the grounds had quarters for about
250 more employees required to keep the institution operating.25
The design of the Lexington Narcotic Farm, with both hospital and
prison-like features, facilitated the new approach to treatment of addiction.
According to Campbell, “It was a prison built to confine violators of federal
20
22
“Huge Farm Ready for Drug Addicts; Federal Government Will Dedicate $4,000,000
Plant in Kentucky on Saturday ,” New York Times, May 19, 1935. PHN; Weppner, 27-29.
23
24
“Huge Farm Ready for Drug Addicts.”
25
U.S. Public Health Service, “A Federal Hospital for Drug Addicts” American Journal of
Public Health 25 (1935), 803.
21
37
drug laws, but its rural setting and architectural style reflected a
rehabilitation philosophy.”26 A high chain link fence adorned with coiled
barbed wire surrounded the facility, exactly as any other prison would
have. In addition, the facility included a guard tower to watch the inmates
and maintain order. Locking doors and barred windows characteristically
marked the corridors of the patient quarters. Even its vast size was
reminiscent of other federal prisons. Institutional rules required all patients
to wear the government issued muslin uniforms and tennis shoes.27 The
Lexington Narcotic Farm had other features, however, that revealed its
unique mission. The whole compoundʼs architecture featured a modern
art deco style. The entrance, decorated with columns and vaulted
ceilings, looked more like a hospital than a prison.28 The locking doors
were thoughtfully concealed by the architecture surrounding them, and the
recreational facilities obviously separated it from other federal penal
retention institutions. Such amenities earned the Lexington Narcotic Farm
the reputation as being a “country-club prison.”29 Lexington was “more like
a prison than a hospital,” one doctor said, “and more like a hospital than a
prison.”30 The unique style of the institution surprised many; it inspired
one incarcerated addict to write, “Iʼm struck by the freedom, the lack of
restraint.”31 The overall design and location reflected its two-fold mission;
first, to serve as a means to segregate the afflicted from society and
ensure their containment in a guarded facility; second, to rehabilitate and
regain the health of addicts through itʼs hospital-like atmosphere.
The opening ceremony introduced to the public the medicallyinfluenced goals of treatment for narcotic addicts within the institution.
The United States Narcotic Farm in Lexington, Kentucky, was dedicated
on Saturday, May 25, 1935. The main speaker at the ceremony was
Surgeon General Hugh S. Cumming of the Public Health Service (PHS).
Dr. Lawrence C. Kolb, the first director of the Lexington Narcotic Farm,
spoke of the intentions and hopes for the new facility as well. Cumming
began with recognition of the institution as another step in the expansion
of the Public Health Service. Established forty-one years prior, the PHS
cared for the sick and wounded military and merchant marine personnel.
Since then, it had expanded its reach to food and drug regulation, state
public health program assistance, and individual medical treatment.32
Cumming compared addiction to a contagious disease, noting that
narcotic addiction did not discriminate. Regardless of oneʼs age, sex,
occupation, or nativity, Cumming warned, all were liable to addiction; just
26
Weppner, 27-29.
28
29
30
Courtwright, Joseph and Des Jarlais, 296.
31
Clarence L. Cooper, Jr., The Farm (New York: Crown Publishers Inc, 1967), 15.
32
Acker, 160.
27
38
as a contagious disease spreads through contact, addiction to narcotics
spread through contact among addicts and unaffected people. At this
time, he noted, narcotic addicts had the highest percentage of readmission
into federal prisons. Therefore, imprisonment alone was not the solution
to ensuring future sobriety and ending drug-related crime in society.
Cumming compared narcotic addiction to an endemic disease, saying that
it needed a “medico-social” response.33 The mission of the Narcotics
Farm was to isolate addicts from society “with the object of medical
treatment”.34 There was an overwhelming belief by officials that this was
the solution to the nationʼs drug problem. Not only would it serve to
remove addicts from the streets, preventing them from introducing habitforming drugs to others, it would serve to rehabilitate them to return to be
productive members of society.35 This mission was beneficial to the
addicts as well as the American people; the segregation “bears a direct
relationship to policies of law enforcement and the protection of American
communities.”36 Cumming then compared the treatment of addicts to the
treatment of the insane. In the past, the prevailing treatment for those
deemed insane had consisted mainly of simple confinement. More
recently, though, medical progress caused the transition to a more
humane treatment that involved therapeutic regimens for those with
mental illnesses. The Lexington Narcotic Farm, he stressed, was now
part of societyʼs progressive approach to care for societyʼs dependents.37
In Dr. Kolbʼs remarks at the dedication ceremony, he called it “a new era”
in efforts to control drug addiction.38 “Now addicts will no longer be sent to
prison for what is really a weakness,” Dr. Kolb said, “but will be given the
best medical treatment that science can afford in an atmosphere designed
to rehabilitate them spiritually, mentally, and physically.”39 Its opening was
another step in the United Statesʼ role as a leader in the world “in its
appreciation of the dangers of the abusive uses of narcotics.”40
Upon admission to the institution, the staff photographed volunteers
and sentenced patients, gave them an identification number, and strip
searched them for contraband, similar to the entrance procedures of
traditional prisons. Many patients, upon arrival, tried to conceal narcotics
and drug paraphernalia in an attempt to bring it inside the institution. Staff
found narcotics and paraphernalia in the soles of shoes, in hollowed out
33
Acker, 161.
Acker, 160.
35
“Huge Farm Ready for Drug Addicts”.
36
“U.S. Dedicates Farm for Care of Drug Addicts,” Chicago Daily Tribune, May 26, 1935.
PHN.
37
Acker, 161.
38
39
40
“Narcotic Farm For 1,400 Opened; Dr. Cumming Dedicates It to Our 'Instinctive
Demands' for Care of Afflicted,” New York Times, May 26, 1935. PHN.
34
39
books, as well as hypodermic syringes disguised as fountain pens.41
Despite efforts by officials, patients still found ways to sneak drugs into the
facilities. “I wasnʼt in Population for two weeks before I made a connection
for Dilaudid,” William S. Burroughs, Jr. said. “Thatʼs synthetic morphine,
very fine, and with all the money they are spending on the damn moon,
youʼd think theyʼd be able to keep junk out of Narco.”42 A complete
medical physical followed, including x-rays. The initial medical
examination was not the last for the patients. Throughout their stay,
doctors constantly monitored patientsʼ progress through medical and
psychiatric evaluations. Several addicts resented this constant scrutiny,
specifically the incarcerated patients. Clarence Cooper, an addict
sentenced to five years of federal incarceration for possession,
sarcastically described these evaluations in his first few weeks at the
Lexington Narcotic Farm. “Right down on the first floor, next to the hackʼs
office, there is a bulletin board whose every dopieʼs duty it is to read each
morning and noon and night because sometimes youʼd be on call for tests
on Branch-5, the Pysch level, or maybe theyʼd need to jack you off for
some blood, or some unbelievable mad hatter of a social worker wanted to
talk to you.”43
The treatment regimen for patients to the Lexington Narcotic Farm,
developed by Kolb, consisted of three phases. The first stage was the
withdrawal stage. Following their medical examinations, patients
immediately went to the detoxification ward to begin the process of
narcotic withdrawal. Patients often received gradually decreased amounts
of morphine to ease the severity of withdrawal symptoms, beginning with a
dose similar to the amount of narcotics they regularly used.44 William S.
Burroughs, a famous author who underwent “the cure of Narco,” talked
about the withdrawal process in his autobiography, Junkie. “For a man
with a heavy habit, this is a very rough schedule. I was lucky, in that I
came in sick, so the amount given in the cure was sufficient to fix me. The
sicker you are and the longer you have been without junk, the smaller the
amount necessary to fix you.”45 Introduced as a drug therapy in 1948,
methadone replaced morphine, resulting from experiments conducted by
the institution on its patients. Other treatments during this stage included
“flow-baths” to help soothe the nerves of addicts going through
withdrawal.46 This program was unlike the prison system, which provided
the capacity to contain drug addicts long enough to complete the process
of withdrawal, but forced them into a cold-turkey method of withdrawal that
41
Acker, 164.
William S. Burroughs, Jr., Kentucky Ham (Woodstock, NY: The Overlook Press, 1984),
85.
43
Cooper, 29.
44
Acker, 164.
45
William S. Burroughs, Junkie (New York: Penguin Books, 2003), 56.
46
42
40
was neither necessarily the safest nor most successful method.47 One
patient of the Lexington Narcotic Farm recounted her experience in a
traditional prison going through withdrawal: “By the second day I was in
very bad shape. They gave me nothing. I threw up all over myself, my
hair, my clothes…”48 In the care of the doctors and nurses of the
detoxification ward, patients were constantly subjected to medical
observation during the process of withdrawal. Medical professionals could
prevent patients from being dehydrated or malnourished during the
process. The hospital environment also lowered the chances of addicts
getting pneumonia or other illnesses due to weakened immune systems
from the detoxification process. Most patients completed their withdrawal
step of stage one within ten days and were then given their assignments
for the next phase of their stay. 49
Public Health Service staff used a series of evaluations to
determine the severity of a patientʼs addiction, plan the specifics of their
course of treatment, and conduct research on the nature of addiction.
Interview questions included, “How old were you when you started? What
is your drug of choice? How big is your habit? How many times have you
tried to quit?”50 Social service staff assembled a profile of the patient by
contacting agencies, relatives, and acquaintances. A patientʼs interview
was not deemed reliable on its own; therefore, these sources corroborated
and added to a patientʼs history.51 Psychiatric evaluations of all patients
commenced in effort to deem patients suitable for commitment to
treatment.
The second phase took the reminder of a patientʼs time at the
institution. Bed times, meal times, therapy, recreational activities all had a
set time each day. Assigned jobs and activities created a healing
environment for the patients. Everyone within the institution held a
particular job for twenty hours a week, considered “vocational training.”52
The jobs given to patients served as a combination of therapeutic labor
and administrative responsibilities. Some patients were set to work on the
farm, caring for the animals or working in agriculture. Patients also made
the clothing or furniture used within the facilities, or were sent for use in
other federal prisons. Still others worked for the direct maintenance of the
institution, doing laundry, working in the water treatment plant,
maintenance, cleaning, or cooking.53
Patients of the Lexington Narcotic Farm received often much
needed dental and medical care. Poor nutrition, general lack of good oral
47
49
Acker, 164.
50
51
Acker, 164.
52
Weppner, 30-31.
53
Acker, 165.
48
41
hygiene, and the continuous presence of refined sugar in the diet were all
typical patterns found among narcotic addicts. 54 Doctors received
patients with skin infections at injection sites and ingrown toenails as well
as patients with cancer, venereal disease, and tuberculosis. Many of the
patients had little access to health care due to lack of funds to pay for a
doctor or because most hospitals refused to treat addicts. Many addicts
suffered from serious tooth decay, and dental care was the most common
secondary treatment of patients.
The third stage of treatment prepared patients for departure from
the institution. High addiction relapse rates made this final step the most
important. Evaluations of the patients occurred in an effort to determine if
they were committed to remain sober once they were released. The
length of time a convicted addict stayed at Lexington often depended on
their court-ordered length of sentencing. Staff assisted departing patients
in securing employment and a suitable place of residence.55 Since
environment played a significant role in a former addictʼs probability of
relapse, the staff did all they could to help patients return to the ideal
setting, a good job and a welcoming family.
From its founding, the Lexington Narcotic Farm served as the home
to the Addiction Research Center (ARC), a research facility that
established the foundation for the current scientific understanding of
addiction and drug abuse. It was the worldʼs premiere laboratory in
narcotic research because it “had access to a captive population of highly
experienced and knowledgeable drug addicts.”56 Over four decades, the
ARC worked to understand the fundamental causes of addiction, research
some of the mysteries of the addiction, and examine the effects of many
drugs in a controlled setting. Incarcerated men with a considerable
amount of drug experience could volunteer for experiments conducted by
the ARC. To eliminate possible variable results, the ARC used only men,
and for follow-up study reasons, only those who had more than a year left
of time to serve at the Narcotic Farm could apply. “Little Joe,” as he was
called by fellow patients, explained one of the incentives for participation in
ARC experiments in Clarence Cooperʼs autobiography, The Farm. “ʻAnd
they give me two daysʼ good time for every test, and you see how this cut
the 10 year bit down? Already I earned 288 days outsida my statutory
goodtime, just from goin on experimentsʼ.”57 Some addicts participated
just to experience one more high; a desire that never drifted far from
former addictsʼ minds. Experiments on patients included heroin,
morphine, cocaine, marijuana, LSD, tranquilizers, sleeping pills, and many
more.
54
Acker, 165.
Acker, 166.
56
57
Cooper, 191-192.
55
42
After WWII, many pharmaceutical companies developed and
marketed a large number of potentially addictive drugs in the form of
painkillers, tranquilizers, uppers and downers. The World Health
Organization, the United Nations, US and foreign governments turned to
the ARC to test these new synthetic “wonder drugs”. Greater international
drug controls, warning labels about operation of vehicles or heavy
machinery, and more caution in writing prescriptions for addictive
medications resulted from the valuable research and experimentation
conducted by the ARC.58 The ARC was a pioneer in medical addiction
research, a clear symbol of the medicalization of addiction and treatment.
The institution underwent many changes in the late 1960s as a
result of new legislation and the overall changing perception of addiction
treatment. Congress passed the Narcotics Addict Rehabilitation Act in
1966, in hopes of finding a new direction for the treatment of addiction. It
called for hospitalization for six months and “after-care” within the
community for another three years. In 1968, Congress passed the
Alcoholic and Narcotic Rehabilitation Act, reaffirming the idea that
addiction was like a disease and addicts were served better by medical
treatment than incarceration. This resulted in the Lexington Narcotic
Farmʼs transition from a prison hospital to just a hospital. All patients
came as volunteers and could not be required to work. The farm closed,
and livestock could no longer be seen grazing on the grounds of the
institution. Renovations to the facility removed the heavily guarded iron
cell doors, took the bars off the windows, and dismantled the cell blocks.
“Now the bars are off the windows, bright colors decorate the walls, the
inmates are called residents and they have a swimming pool,” the New
York Times reported.59 In conjunction with the new atmosphere, the
institution was renamed the Clinical Research Center (CRC).
The eventual closure of the CRC occurred for several reasons.
First, the readmission rate due to failure of patientsʼ ability to remain off
drugs after their release from the CRC was alarming. Researchers
conducted several follow-up studies of former Lexington patients found a
relapse rate of over 90% since their release from the Narcotic Farm.60
One study, published in Public Health Reports in 1970, examined patients
from the Narcotic Farmʼs opening to the end of 1966 and found that for the
43,000 addicts admitted, over 77,000 admissions occurred. This means
that a great majority of the patients were admitted more than once.61 The
58
“Addicts Hospital In Lexington Sheds Its Image as Prison,” New York Times, November
3, 1971. PHN.
60
John A. OʼDonnell, Narcotic Addicts in Kentucky (Chevy Chase, MD: Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, 1969), 1-4.
61
John C. Ball, William O. Thompson, and David M. Allen, “Readmission Rates at
Lexington Hospital for 43,215 Narcotic Drug Addicts” Public Health Reports 85, No. 7
(July 1970): 610-11.
59
43
revolving door of Lexington became apparent early on, due to lack of
structured environment and patientsʼ reintroduction into their former
communities where the temptation of drugs remained. Brenda, an addict
who frequented Lexington both voluntarily and by court mandate, became
a victim of relapse: “When youʼre confined [at the Lexington Narcotic
Farm] its very different from when you hit the street. You have no
direction when you come out of the hospital. While youʼre in the hospital,
you have something to do. Itʼs planned.”62 Therefore, questions of costeffectiveness surfaced prior to its closure. Local treatment centers by the
late 1960s became increasingly widely accessible and arguably more
cost-effective, while private and public funding was more readily available
for treatment.63 Also, the ARC came under fire by officials and the media
for the controversial practices within their experiments and a controversy
involving the CIA secretly conducting LSD experiments on control of
thought and behavior.64 In February of 1974, all facilities of the CRC,
except the ARC, were turned over to the Bureau of Prisons, ending four
decades of a sanctuary for narcotic addicts to recover from their
addiction.65
Narcotic Addiction and Treatment Perception, 1950s-1970s
By the time the CRC closed its doors to addicts, the perception of
addiction and treatment among medical and government officials
transformed into the medical context that the institution advocated for forty
years. Dr. Howard Rusk, in 1951, concluded that the “prognosis for a cure
is good” for young teen-aged addicts who were hospitalized and under
treatment for their addiction.66 About ten years later, he claimed that
hospitalization for addiction was essential.67 A joint statement released by
the American Medical Association and the National Research Council in
1959, concluded that “Successful treatment of Narcotic addicts in the
United States requires extensive post-withdrawal rehabilitation and other
therapeutic services.”68 The Senate Crime Investigating Committee called
narcotic addiction a contagious disease, following the lead of Dr.
62
Courtwright, Joseph and Des Jarlais, 298, 313; Martin and Isbell, 243.
64
Campbell, Olsen and Walden, 165, 186. Richard Ashley, “The Other Side of LSD,”
New York Times, October 19, 1975. PHN; “Private Institutions Used in CIA Effort to
Control Behavior,” New York Times, August 2, 1977. PHN.
65
Nancy D. Campbell, Discovering Addiction (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan
Press, 2007), 135; Courtwright, Joseph and Des Jarlais, 298.
66
Howard A. Rusk, “Headway Seen for Control Of Teen-Aged Narcotic Users; Alarm over
Widespread Addiction Aids Development of National Problem,” New York Times, May 20,
1951. PHN.
67
Howard A. Rusk, “Curing the Drug Addict; New Emphasis on After-Care Regards
Hospital Treatment Only Beginning,” New York Times, June 3, 1962. PHN.
68
US Treasury Department Bureau of Narcotics, 15.
63
44
Lawrence Kolb during Lexingtonʼs opening ceremony decades earlier.69
By this time, the assumption that addicts were biologically different and
weak-minded inferior humans had been generally discredited and favored
the medicalization of addiction and treatment.
Similar to medical and governmental professional perception,
addiction in a medical context was overwhelmingly accepted by the
general public. Society generally accepted addiction as a medical ailment
and that the best treatment occurred in a medical context. An east Harlem
protestant parish wanted “narcotics addiction to be treated as a medical
problem, not a criminal one.”70 Its reverend, Norman C. Eddy, travelled to
the state capitol to push for legislation to change hospitalsʼ current policy
of rejection of addicted individuals seeking treatment.71 In 1960, The
General Federation of Womenʼs Clubs at International Convention
adopted a resolution that, “strongly urges compulsory hospitalization for
addicts…to cure, rehabilitate, and prevent further addiction.”72 At a
hearing in New York City to discuss combating narcotic addiction,
witnesses appealed to city officials for greater research and more hospital
beds for those going through narcotics withdrawal.73 In a New York Times
article titled, “Addiction: Chemistry is the New Hope,” the reporter stated
that methadone treatment in addiction programs in New York (first
experimented with and used on patients by the ARC) produced positive
results for heroin users to stop abusing it regularly.74
Conclusion
Although the haven for narcotic addicts in Lexington, Kentucky,
closed in 1974, its legacy remained. It served as a pioneer in the
transformation of the perception of narcotic addiction and treatment from
the view as a moral weakness to the medical context of today. In the first
half of the 20th century, the public believed narcotic addiction was a vice,
perpetuated by biologically and morally inferior, weak-minded humans.
From its initial establishment, the Lexington Narcotic Farm maintained the
principle of addiction within a medical context. Eventually, the common
perception followed suit, resulting in the overall acceptance of the
69
“Text of Conclusions and Recommendations of the Senate Crime Investigating
Committee,” New York Times, September 1, 1951. PHN.
70
John Wicklein, “Parish is Seeking Care For Addicts; East Harlem Group Wants Heroin
Users to be Treated Medically,” New York Times, February 23, 1959. PHN.
71
Wicklein.
72
US Treasury Department Bureau of Narcotics, 12.
73
Peter Flint, “City Bids U.S. Help it Combat Addiction,” New York Times, May 17, 1960.
PHN.
74
Richard Severo, “Addiction: Chemistry Is the New Hope,” New York Times, March 19,
1971. PHN.
45
medicalization of addiction by the general public, medical professionals,
and government officials.
The institution initially served as one of the only places a person
could turn to seek treatment from the lowest depths of their addiction. The
Addiction Research Center provided the base of scientific knowledge of
narcotic addiction as the premiere laboratory of its kind in the world.
Researchers and the medical staff of the Lexington Narcotic Farm agreed
that addiction was a chronic, relapsing disease, long before it became
widely accepted as a mainstream belief.75 Regardless of its name,
“Narco,” “Lex,” “US Narcotic Hospital”, or “Clinical Research Center,” its
patients and doctors knew exactly what the institution stood for: the
medicalization of narcotic addiction and treatment.
75
46
Bibliography
Acker, Caroline Jean. Creating the American Junkie: Addiction Research
in the Classic Era of Narcotic Control. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 2002.
“Addicts' Hospital In Lexington Sheds Its Image of Prison.” New York
Times, November 3, 1971. PHN.
Ashley, Richard. “The Other Side of LSD.” New York Times, October 19,
1975. PHN.
Ball, John C., William O. Thompson, and David M. Allen. “Readmission
Rates at Lexington Hospital for 43,215 Narcotic Drug Addicts.”
Public Health Reports. 85, no. 7 (July 1970): 610-616.
Bass, Elizabeth. “Voice of the People.” Chicago Daily Tribune, September
15, 1935. PHN.
Burroughs, William S. Jr. Junkie: Confessions of an Unredeemed Drug
Addict. London: Brown Watson, 1957.
Burroughs, William. Kentucky Ham. 1st ed. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1973.
Campbell, Nancy D. Discovering Addiction. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Press, 2007.
Campbell, Nancy D., J.P. Olsen, and Luke Walden . The Narcotic Farm.
New York: Abrams, 2008.
Cooper, Clarence L. Jr. The Farm. New York: Crown Publishers Inc.,
1967.
Courtwright, David T., Herman Joseph, and Don Des Jarlais. Addicts Who
Survived: An Oral History of Narcotic Use in America, 1923-1965.
1st ed. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 1989.
Courtwright, David T. Dark Paradise: Opiate Addiction in America before
1940. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982.
47
Flint, Peter. “City Bids U.S. Help it Combat Addiction.” New York Times,
May 17, 1960. PHN.
“Huge Farm Ready for Drug Addicts; Federal Government Will Dedicate
$4,000,000 Plant in Kentucky on Saturday.” New York
Times, May 19, 1935. PHN.
Hughes, Helen MacGill, ed. The Fantastic Lodge the Autobiography of a
Girl Drug Addict. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961.
Jonnes, Jill. Hep-cats, Narcs, and Pipe Dreams. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1999.
Martin, William R., M.D. and Harris Isbell, M.D., eds. Drug Addiction and
the U.S. Public Health Service: Proceedings of Symposium
Commemorating the 40th Anniversary of the Addiction Research
Center. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, 1978.
Morgan, H. Wayne. Drugs in America: A Social History, 1800-1980.
Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1981.
Musto, David F. The American Disease: Origins of Narcotic Control. 3rd
ed. Oxford University Press, USA, 1999.
“Narcotic Farm For 1,400 Opened; Dr. Cumming Dedicates It to Our
'Instinctive Demands' for Care of Afflicted.” New York
OʼDonnell, John A. Narcotic Addicts in Kentucky, Chevy Chase, MD:
Department of Health Education, and Welfare, 1969.
Olsen, J.P. and Jake Walden, DVD, The Narcotic Farm, Hollywood, CA:
PBS 2008.
Porter Act of 1929. U.S. Statutes at Large 70, 1929. 1085-1089.
“Private Institutions Used in C.I.A. Effort to Control Behavior.” New York
Times, August 2, 1977. PHN.
Rusk, Howard A. “Curing the Drug Addict; New Emphasis on After-Care
Regards Hospital Treatment Only Beginning.” New York Times,
June 3, 1962. PHN.
48
Rusk, Howard A. “Headway Seen for Control of Teen-Age Narcotic Users;
Alarm over Widespread Addiction Aids Development of National
Problem.” New York Times, May 20, 1951. PHN.
Severo, Richard. “Addiction: Chemistry Is the New Hope.” New York
Times, March 19, 1971. PHN.
“Text of Conclusions and Recommendations of the Senate Crime
Investigating Committee.” New York Times, September 1, 1951.
PHN.
Tracey, Sarah W., and Caroline J. Acker, eds. Altering American
Consciousness: The History of Alcohol and Drug Use in the United
States, 1800-2000. Amherst, Mass: University of Massachusetts
Press, 2004.
“U.S. Dedicates Farm for Care of Drug Addicts.” Chicago Daily Tribune,
May 26, 1935. PHN.
U.S. Public Health Service. “Federal Hospital for Drug Addicts.” American
Journal of Public Health 25 (July 1935), 803.
U.S. Treasury Department Bureau of Narcotics. Prevention and Control of
Narcotic Addiction. Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1967.
Weppner Robert S. The Untherapeutic Community: Organizational
Behavior in a Failed Addiction Treatment Program. Lincoln, NE:
University of Nebraska Press, 1983.
Wicklein, John. “Parish is Seeking Care For Addicts; East Harlem Group
Wants Heroin Users to be Treated Medically.” New York Times,
February 23, 1959. PHN.
Chapter 4
MKULTRA & The Death of Dr. Frank Olson
Rick Mustian
On a seemingly typical November night in 1953, things were not at
all ordinary. Frank Olson was on the edge. Going out of his mind and
struggling with his job, Dr. Olson succumbed to the pressure. He did what
countless others have done. Frank Olson ran to the window of his tenth
story hotel room and dived out, not even bothering to pull up the blinds or
open the window. The loud crash woke his roommate and alerted the
staff. Olson died on the pavement below. From this moment onward, a
CIA cover-up to hide the truth began. Members of the Central Intelligence
Agency had drugged the man with LSD before his death. With the true
facts hidden from the public and the victimʼs family, the plan worked for
many years; until in 1975, a Washington Post article and the Rockefeller
Report released details pertaining to the event.
Project MKULTRA, a CIA program which began in 1953 and
continued until 1964, involved the research and development of chemical
and biological agents for “materials capable of employment in clandestine
operations to control human behavior.”1 Since the investigation by the
Rockefeller Commission revealed the program to the public in 1975,
MKULTRA has become a controversial topic due to its odd management
and the illegal, unethical nature of several of its undertakings.2 Many of
the explorations of the program focus on the purpose and scope of the
work and its questionable ethics. John Marksʼs The Search for the
Manchurian Candidate was, and still is, one of the most significant
publications about the CIA and its work with behavior modification. Marks
views MKULTRA as a secret government program which needed to be
exposed. Explaining the need for research into the program, Marks
states, “A free societyʼs best defense against unethical behavior
modification is public disclosure and awareness.”3
Many other works touch on the MKULTRA project as part of a
larger project, be it LSD, human experimentation, the CIA, etc.4 These
1
U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with
Respect to Intelligence Activities, Foreign and Military Intelligence (Church Committee
report), report no. 94-755, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office, 1976), 389-392.
2
Norman Kempster, “Narcotic Agents Tested Truth Drugs on Suspects,” Los Angeles
3
John Marks, The Search for the “Manchurian Candidate”: The CIA and Mind Control
(New York: New York Times Book Co. Inc., 1979), 213.
4
For works on the history and ethics of MKULTRA, see Marks; Martin Lee and Bruce
Shlain, Acid Dreams: The CIA, LSD, and the Sixties Rebellion (New York: Grove Press,
50
efforts generally tell the story of the government overstepping its bounds
and pass judgment on the ethical questions involved. Some authors, such
as James Starrs in his book, A Voice for the Dead, examined MKULTRA
and Frank Olsonʼs death in another fashion. Starrs conducted his own
investigation into the death decades after the accident, asking “Had he
[Dr. Olson] found out something he was not supposed to know?”5
MKULTRA and the case of Dr. Frank Olson reveal the sentiments
of the 1950s and 1960s and the concerns of a nation immersed in the
Cold War with the communist powers of the world. Frank Olson, a
biochemical scientist working for the Army Chemical Corpsʼ Special
Operations Division (SOD) at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Maryland, worked
closely with the Technical Services Staff (TSS), the CIA group responsible
for running MKULTRA. This close alliance led to Frank Olsonʼs
involvement in an unwitting LSD experiment, which eventually proved
fatal.6 This chapter traces the relationship between Frank Olson and
MKULTRA, describes the experiment and the week leading up to his
death, and explores the details of his death. The CIA drugged and
murdered Dr. Olson to prevent him from revealing the Agencyʼs secret
research, essentially making Olson a victim of the Cold War.
Frank Olson
Dr. Frank Rudolph Olson, the son of Swedish immigrants, earned a
doctorate in chemistry from the University of Wisconsin before joining the
biological weapons program at Fort Detrick, Maryland, in 1943.7 After the
U.S. government discovered a Japanese program of chemical and
biological warfare experiments, the U.S. decided to pursue its own such
experiments.8 This began a successful career for Dr. Olson as a
commissioned officer of the U.S. Army, working in the field of aerobiology.
In 1950, Frank joined the newly created Special Operations Division,
eventually becoming the head of the SOD himself in October of 1952. He
stepped down in April of 1953 due to health issues and took on a lesser
role as Chief of Plans and Assessment Branch. In assessing his work, Dr.
1985); B. Pelsmaeker, “Mind Games: MKULTRA and the Central Intelligence Agencyʼs
Battle for the Human Mind” (PhD diss., Claremont Graduate University, 2001); Jonathan
Moreno, Undue Risk: Secret State Experiments on Humans (New York: W.H. Freeman
and Company, 2000); Alfred McCoy, A Question of Torture (New York: Metropolitan
Books, 2006).
5
James Starrs, A Voice for the Dead: A Forensic Investigatorʼs Pursuit of Truth in the
Grave (New York: G.P. Putnamʼs Sons, 2005), 106.
6
Marks, 73-82.
7
Scott Shane, “A Father Lost,” Baltimore Sun, August 1, 2004, Frank Olson Legacy
Project, http://www.frankolsonproject.org/Articles/BaltSun/FatherLost.html.
8
Mary Fischer, “The Man Who Knew Too Much,” GQ Magazine, January 2000, Frank
Olson Legacy Project, http://www.frankolsonproject.org/Articles/GQ.html.
51
Olsonʼs superiors and subordinates found Dr. Olson to be a highly
qualified scientist and an authority in the field of aerobiology.9
Frank Olson seemed as successful in his personal and social life as
he was as a scientist. His peers and co-workers liked and respected
Olson: a family man, who took great interest in his wife and children. They
attended church regularly as a family, and Olson even encouraged the
children of his friends to join. Generally extremely optimistic, Olson made
every effort to lighten the mood of those around him.10 Lt. Colonel Vincent
Ruwet, a friend of Dr. Olson, described him as an extrovert and a “life-ofthe-party” type person. Ruwet also believed that Olson had always tried to
help friends in need, whether professionally or personally.11
Although successful at work and happy at home, Olson began to
question his occupation. Unbeknownst to his family, the CIA recruited
Olson in 1952 for Project ARTICHOKE, a predecessor to MKULTRA.12
Project ARTICHOKE, the CIAʼs first major program involving the use of
chemical and biological agents, sought to find better ways to extract
information during interrogation, determine if it was possible to control
someone through the application of special techniques, and construct
ways to prevent the control of Agency personnel by enemies. Soon the
CIA added another task: “the evaluation of offensive uses of
unconventional interrogation techniques, including hypnosis and drugs.”13
Olsonʼs participation in the project required extensive travel in
Europe during the year prior to his death.14 According to Dr. William
Sargant, a British consultant psychologist, in these trips Olson saw first
hand the effects of the drugs he and his team had produced. Olson
traveled in Sweden, Germany, and Norway, and witnessed the operational
use of the arsenal his division had created. Sometimes the use of these
weapons led to the death of the victim. Sargant and Olson met together
several times following his travels, and Dr. Sargant saw a marked
psychological and personality change in Olson. Even Olsonʼs wife, Alice,
noticed the change in Frank when he returned. Shocked by what he had
seen, Frank began to develop a new attitude toward his and his
governmentʼs work.15
9
John Schwab, “Chronological Relationship with Dr. Frank R. Olson,” n.d., CIA
MKULTRA Collection, Document 0000144976.
10
Schwab, Document 0000144976.
11
Vincent Ruwet, “To Whom it May Concern,” n.d., CIA MKULTRA Collection, Document
0000144979.
12
Shane.
13
Church Committee report, 387.
14
A photocopy of Frank Olsonʼs passport can be found at http://www.frankolsonproject.or
g/Documents/Passport/html.
15
Michael Ignatieff, “What Did the CIA do to Eric Olsonʼs Father?” The New York Times
Magazine, April 1, 2001. PHN; Gordon Thomas, “Memorandum to Eric Olson,” November
30, 1998, Frank Olson Legacy Project, http://www.frankolsonproject.org/Statements/State
ment-G.Thomas.html.
52
Project ARTICHOKE eventually became part of the much broader
MKULTRA program and its mission to control human behavior. Initially
defensive, the purpose of the program was to develop countermeasures to
perceived incidences of brainwashing the CIA had been informed of or
witnessed.16 The CIA believed it necessary to battle the Communistsʼ
campaign to control the mind, and thus, the CIA implemented its own mind
control programs.17
LSD, MKULTRA, and the Turbulent 1970s
LSD, or lysergic acid diethylamide, discovered accidentally in a
Swiss lab by Dr. Albert Hoffman in 1943, dominated a majority of the CIAʼs
early research into mind control. According to Sidney Gottlieb, the chief
scientist in charge of MKULTRA, the main reason the CIA became
interested in LSD was a report that the Soviets had purchased the entire
world supply of the drug.18 Another reason was the drugʼs odorless,
tasteless nature and potency, effective in mere micrograms. Early tests
seemed promising due to its ability to elicit the truth. Eventually, LSD
became known as the “Holy Grail” of the cloak-and-dagger business, and
even after its usefulness as a truth serum began to diminish, the CIA
continued experiments with the drug to find other uses.19
LSD became the center of much of the research conducted under
the MKULTRA flag.20 Authorized on April 3, 1953, by then Director Allen
Dulles, MKULTRA and its activities sought to design ways of producing
human behavioral and psychological changes through chemical and
biological materials. Additional avenues explored by MKULTRA into the
mind included radiation, electro-shock, psychology, sociology,
anthropology, graphology, harassment substances, and paramilitary
devices and materials. Headed by Dr. Sidney Gottlieb of the Technical
Services Staff, MKULTRA received a hefty 20% of the divisionʼs annual
research and development budget.21
From its earliest stages, MKULTRA received extreme care and
secrecy. The leaders realized if the program became public knowledge,
the reputations of individuals and professionals involved could be in
jeopardy. They also expected a negative reaction from the American
public. Exposure even presented the possibility of stimulating offensive
16
Kempster.
“Mind Control Studies Had Origins in Trial of Mindszenty,” New York Times, August 2,
1977. PHN.
18
Moreno, 190; McCoy, 29.
19
Lee and Shlain, 14-15.
20
Kempster.
21
John Earman, “CIA Inspector Generalʼs 1963 MKULTRA Report,” July 26, 1963, 1-2,
Erowid MKULTRA Vault, http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/war/mkultra/mkultra_
document1.pdf.
17
53
and defensive reactions from other foreign intelligence services. Officials
kept few records on many of the programʼs projects, and a strict “need-toknow” basis prevented the details from receiving widespread disclosure.
The Inspector Generalʼs report on MKULTRA in 1963 stated that while
only two individuals had full knowledge of the program, almost all of that
knowledge remained unrecorded.22 Maintaining the modus operandi of
ultimate secrecy, the CIA organized false research foundations to provide
funding for universities and hospitals involved in CIA-sponsored research.
These CIA-linked conduits included the Geschickter Fund for Medical
Research, the Society for the Study of Human Ecology, and the Josiah
Macy, Jr. Foundation. Such efforts concealed the governmentʼs
involvement in the work.23
Three phases comprised most of the MKULTRA research. The first
phase involved the search for new materials that might be useful to
accomplish the goals of the project. Using its conduit foundations to fund
specialists, the CIA employed hospitals, universities, penal institutions,
pharmaceutical houses, and other private research organizations to find
such items.
The second phase of the program involved testing. Physicians
performed intensive human testing in hospitals and prisons using the
newly discovered products. Tests conducted by Dr. Harris Isbell on
patients at the Addiction Research Center in Lexington, Kentucky, have
since become infamous. Several patients, mostly African Americans,
received LSD for over 75 days in a row. Dr. Isbell tested over 800
compounds for the Agency. The inmates developed a joke about the
experiments; if one needed a fix bad enough, he could check himself into
the center and participate in one of the studies. Upon completion, one
could receive the drug of his choice as a reward.24
During the final phase, deemed the most sensitive, operatives and
employees tested substances on unwitting human subjects. Officials
believed that accurate test results could not be obtained from tests on only
volunteer subjects because a safe atmosphere and prior knowledge of
reactions affected the results. The CIA employed members of the Bureau
of Narcotics to perform these tests. Bureau members performed tests on
people from all walks of life, including those from both high and low socioeconomic statuses, the foreign-born, and even American citizens.25
The Inspector Generalʼs report from 1963 provided much of the
early knowledge of MKULTRA, but the specific details remained
undisclosed or unknown. Dr. Sidney Gottlieb and Richard Helms
destroyed all files relating to MKULTRA in 1973, leaving the Inspectorʼs
22
Earman, 2-6.
Earman, 7; Lee and Shlain, 20.
24
Lee and Shlain, 24-25; Church Committee report, 391.
25
Earman, 7-12.
23
54
report as the only source of information on MKULTRA for many years.
Documents recovered later included financial folders found in the Budget
and Fiscal Section of the Retired Records Center, which had not
previously been searched.26 That discovery revealed 185 researchers
and 80 institutions participated in the research, most of whom worked
unaware of CIA sponsorship, and gave details of some of the 149 subprojects contained under the MKULTRA umbrella. One of these subprojects included CIA safehouses in New York and San Francisco, where
prostitutes dosed unsuspecting subjects in order to record their reactions
in an operation known as “Midnight Climax.”27
The atmosphere in the United States changed between the 1950s
and the 1970s. Distrust in the government became widespread. People
were not as concerned with communist biological warfare plots as in the
years just after World War II. The nationʼs distrust of its own government
was exacerbated when the press obtained the Pentagon Papers in 1971,
for the American people got their first glance at the governmentʼs own
dismal assessment of the U.S. prospect of winning the war in Vietnam.
The following year, Watergate and Nixonʼs plumbers demonstrated more
underhanded dealings of the White House. These and similar events
broke down Americansʼ unquestioning support of the U.S. government and
its actions. This discontent led to several congressional committees and
investigations into the activities of the executive branchʼs clandestine
services.28
The Rockefeller Report, issued in June of 1975, contained over 260
pages of summaries and recommendations pertaining to CIA activities
within the United States. Only two and a half pages discussed the testing
of behavior influencing drugs on unsuspecting subjects. This small
section summarized the general reasoning and purpose behind the testing
and described what little information was known about the experiments at
the time. The report then mentioned the story of an Army employee who
received LSD unwittingly while attending a meeting with CIA personnel.
The unnamed victim eventually committed suicide by jumping from a tenth
story hotel window after developing serious side effects.29
On June 11, 1975, just days after completion of the Rockefeller
Report, several articles appeared in The Washington Post discussing the
findings. One of these articles, titled “Suicide Revealed,” recounted the
26
U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Subcommittee on
Health and Scientific Research of the Committee on Human Resources, Project
th
st
MKULTRA, The CIAʼs Program of Research in Behavioral Modification, 95 Cong., 1
Sess., (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1977), 4-5.
27
Rudy Abramson, “CIA Ran 149 Mind Control Projects,” Los Angeles Times, August 4,
1977. PHN.
28
Fischer; Pelsmaeker, 13-16; Starrs, 109.
29
U.S. Congress, Rockefeller Commission On CIA Activities Within The United States,
Report to the President (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1975), 226-227.
55
story told in the Rockefeller Report of the man who committed suicide after
unwittingly being dosed with LSD.30 The Olson family, living close to
Washington, read this article and thought the circumstances too similar to
be a coincidence; the man in the article had to be their father. After
questioning Lt. Col. Vincent Ruwet, a colleague of their fatherʼs and a
family friend, Ruwet confirmed that the man in the report was indeed Dr.
Frank Olson.31
The Experiment and Aftermath
Back in 1953, on Wednesday, November 18, and Thursday,
November 19, a group of people from Fort Detrick and the Technical
Services Staff gathered at a two story log cabin at Deep Creek Lake,
Maryland. The group regularly met once or twice a year to discuss
matters of mutual interest.32 Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, head of the TSS, decided
to perform an unwitting, and unauthorized, test of LSD. He claimed the
group concluded such a test would be desirable, but Vincent Ruwet later
contested this statement. Dr. Robert Lashbrook then slipped LSD into a
bottle of Cointreau the group shared after dinner. All but two of the men
drank the liquor. Those conducting the experiment did not inform them of
the drugging until twenty minutes had passed. Olson received
approximately 70 micrograms of LSD, and the drug had obvious effects.
All of the men became “boisterous” and laughed so much that the meeting
became futile and thus had to be abandoned. The men retired for the
night at about 1:00 a.m. None of the participants voiced any serious
complaints the next morning, except for experiencing “wakefulness” during
the night.33 According to Lt. Col. Ruwet, Dr. Olson seemed agitated at
breakfast, but Ruwet considered this mood an acceptable reaction based
on the circumstances.34
Olson returned home from the experiment visibly upset. He
seemed concerned with what occurred at the meeting and expressed
great anxiety and self-doubt to his wife.35 The next Monday, November
23, Frank went to work prepared to quit his job. He conveyed feeling as if
30
Thomas OʼToole, “Suicide Revealed,” Washington Post, June 11, 1975, Frank Olson
Legacy Project, http://www.frankolsonproject.org/Sources/Newspaper%20stories/Wash
ington%20Post,%201975.html.
31
Alice, Eric, Lisa, and Nils Olson, “Family Statement by the Wife and Children of Frank
R. Olson,” July 10, 1975, Frank Olson Legacy Project, http://www.frankolsonproject.org/
Statements/FamilyStatement1975.html; Ignatieff.
32
Sheffield Edwards, “Memorandum for the Record; Subject: Suicide of Frank Olsen,”
November 28, 1953, Frank Olson Legacy Project, http://www.frankolsonproject.org/Doc
uments/Colby%20documents/Colby%20doc.%204.html.
33
Church Committee report, 394-396.
34
Ruwet, Document 0000144979.
35
R. Olson.”
56
he ruined the experiment and performed unsatisfactorily at the meeting to
Ruwet, his boss. Ruwet calmed Olson and convinced him that he had
done nothing wrong. They went back to work as usual. The next morning,
however, Olson again waited for Ruwet, with the same thoughts as before.
After an hour long discussion with Ruwet, they decided that psychiatric
attention was in Olsonʼs best interest.36 Olson returned home that same
morning to tell his wife of their decision. Hours later, Lt. Col. Ruwet and
Olson boarded a plane for New York.37
Dr. Olson traveled to New York with Lashbrook and Ruwet to see
Dr. Abramson, a cleared consultant of the CIA.38 According to
Abramsonʼs notes on the meetings with Olson, the two were only together
in counseling for approximately six hours over the course of a few days.
Abramson noted Olson appeared agitated, though mostly with himself and
not with the events of the Deep Creek meeting. Olson reportedly felt guilty
about retiring from the Army because of ulcers and due to his perceptions
of poor work-performance. When asked about his friends and relationship
with the CIA, Olson only spoke of his co-workers with the highest regard.39
With the meetings and counseling making little progress, Dr. Olson
attempted to return home for Thanksgiving. He, however, began to act
stranger the night before the group left. Ruwet and Olson attended a
show in the evening, but Olson became paranoid that people waited
outside to arrest him. The pair left the show early and returned to the
hotel. At 5:30 a.m., Ruwet awoke to find Olson had vanished. Lashbrook
and Ruwet immediately searched for Olson and found him sitting in the
lobby, fully dressed. When they inquired about his actions, Olson
responded that he had walked the streets and discarded his wallet and
money as ordered by Ruwet. Lt. Col. Ruwet told Olson he had given no
such order. Olson then responded that he “must have been dreaming.”40
The three returned to the room to prepare for their departure.
Upon returning to D.C., Ruwet and Olson headed for Frederick, but
Olson made them stop the car. Frank told Ruwet that he was still too
mixed up to face his family, and they agreed he should return to New York
to see Dr. Abramson again. Lashbrook accompanied Olson on his return
36
R. Olson.”
38
Sidney Gottlieb, “Observations on Dr. Frank Olson, 1951-1953,” December 7, 1953,
CIA MKULTRA Collection, Document 0000144977; Edwards.
39
Harold Abramson, “Memorandum for General Counsel,” December 4, 1953, CIA
MKULTRA Collection, Document 0000144982; Harold Abramson, “Statement by Dr.
Harold Abramson,” November 28, 1953, CIA MKULTRA Collection, Document
0000144981.
40
37
57
trip to New York, while Ruwet continued to Frederick to inform Frankʼs wife
of the situation.41
Back in New York, Olson and Lashbrook immediately went to Dr.
Abramson. Olson disclosed more of his fears to Abramson than he had
previously. He told Abramson that he thought the CIA put drugs in his
coffee to keep him awake, that he heard voices, and that he had
experienced delusions for weeks.42 After an hour of counseling,
Lashbrook and Olson ate a Thanksgiving dinner together and returned to
their hotel. Olson once again repeated his feelings of insecurity and
inadequacy, along with his belief that “they [the CIA] are out to get him.”
The next morning, Friday, November 27, Lashbrook and Abramson
suggested to Olson that he be hospitalized. Olson agreed. An attempt to
immediately admit Olson to Chestnut Lodge, a hospital close to Olsonʼs
home, failed; Frank could not be admitted until the next day. The pair,
therefore, made reservations to stay another night at the Statler Hotel.
Frankʼs mood seemed to lighten considerably at the hotel: he was almost
back to his old self. He telephoned his wife and then had dinner and
drinks with Lashbrook. Around 11 p.m., the men decided it was time for
bed. Three and a half hours later, at 2:30 a.m., Lashbrook awoke to the
sound of crashing glass and blinds flapping in the wind.43
Dr. Frank Olson crashed through his tenth story hotel window and
landed on the sidewalk of Seventh Avenue on November 28, 1953.
Lashbrook immediately called his superior, Sidney Gottlieb. He then
called the front desk to alert the hotel, followed by a call to Dr. Abramson,
who said he “wanted to be kept out of things completely.” Soon after,
Abramson changed his mind and agreed to assist.44 Lashbrook identified
himself to the police as a Department of Defense employee and gave
them as little information as possible. Ruled a routine suicide, Olsonʼs
case was closed after a few days.45 Dr. Olsonʼs death certificate stated he
died from “multiple fractures, shock and hemorrhage: jumped or fell from
10th floor hotel.”46
This information remained concealed from the Olson family until
mid-1975, when they discovered their fatherʼs “suicide” was more
41
Robert Lashbrook, “To Whom it May Concern: Observations on Dr. Frank Olson,”
December 7, 1953, CIA MKULTRA Collection, Document 0000144978; Ruwet, Document
0000144979.
42
Abramson, Document 0000144982.
43
Lashbrook, Document 0000144978.
44
Frank Faso and William Sherman, “CIA Misled Cops on LSD Suicide,” New York Daily
News, July 11, 1975, Frank Olson Legacy Project, http://www.frankolsonproject.org/Artic
les/ NYDailyNews/NYDailyNews2.html; “General: At New York, New York,” December 3,
1953, CIA MKULTRA Collection, Document 0000144975.
45
Joseph Treaster, “C.I.A.ʼs Files on LSD Death Found to be Contradictory,” New York
Times, January 11, 1976. PHN.
46
“Memorandum to Colonel Edwards; Subject: Olson, Franklin,” December 2, 1953, CIA
MKULTRA Collection, Document 0000144973.
58
complicated than originally believed. After telling the family Frank “jumped
or fell” to his death from a tenth story window of the Statler Hotel on
November 28, 1953, the CIA never attempted to contact the family and
reveal the true story.47 Nevertheless, presumably in an effort to hide their
involvement, the CIA awarded Dr. Olsonʼs family his proper death benefits.
The CIAʼs General Counsel concluded that Frank Olsonʼs death resulted
from “circumstances arising out of an experiment undertaken in the course
of his official duties for the U.S. Government.”48 Thus, his family became
eligible for benefits from the Federal Employee Compensation Act (FECA).
Alice Olson applied for FECA benefits on December 16, 1953, but the CIA
had already obtained approval for her claim six days before she filed.49
When the Olson family discovered their husband and father as the
subject described in the Rockefeller Report, they held a press conference,
announcing their intention to sue the CIA for the “wrongful death” of Dr.
Frank Olson. The family wanted to create “political and ethical reform,”
and to “hold the CIA publicly and punitively accountable for its actions.”50
The next day the White House began their cover-up. On July 11, 1975,
Deputy Chief of Staff Dick Cheney prepared a memorandum for Chief of
Staff Donald Rumsfeld and President Ford, which explored their options
and proposed a presidential statement regarding the Olson suicide. In the
statement, Cheney recommended the President express his deepest
sympathies for the family and offer to meet with them at the earliest
opportunity.51 On July 16, Roderick Hills, counsel to the President, sent a
memorandum to the President discussing whether or not Ford should
meet with the family and apologize. In the end, they agreed an apology
was appropriate.52
Just a few days later, Roderick Hills telephoned the Olsonʼs
attorney, David Kairys. He extended an invitation to the Olson family to
visit the White House to receive an apology. On July 21, in a seventeenminute meeting in the Oval Office, the family received an official apology
from Gerald Ford in which he “expressed the sympathy of the American
47
Seymour Hersh, “Family Plans to Sue C.I.A. Over Suicide in Drug Test,” New York
Times, July 10, 1975. PHN.
48
Lawrence Houston, “Memorandum for: Record; Subject: Frank R. Olson,” December 9,
1953, CIA MKULTRA Collection, Document 0000144987.
49
Treaster, “CIAʼs Files on LSD Death Found to be Contradictory.”
50
R. Olson.”
51
Dick Cheney, “Memorandum for Donald Rumsfeld; Subject: The Olson Matter/CIA
Suicide,” July 11, 1975, Erowid MKULTRA Vault, http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/
war/mkultra/mkultra_document2.pdf.
52
Roderick Hills, “Memorandum For The President,” July 16, 1975, Erowid MKULTRA
Vault, http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/war/mkultra/mkultra_document2.pdf.
59
people and apologized on behalf of the United States government.”53 The
President also instructed all available information on the Frank Olson case
to be given to the family. Several days after the meeting with Ford, the
Olson family received another apology, this time from William Colby, then
Director of the CIA. The Olsons ate lunch with the Director at Langley and
received what they believed to be the complete file on Frank Olsonʼs
death, also known as the Colby documents.54
The result of the Olsonʼs lawsuit ended in a settlement for $750,000
in 1976.55 Kairys, the Olsonʼs lawyer, battled the White House and
several members of Congress to secure the Olsonʼs settlement. The
Department of Justice took the position that Alice Olson and her children
forfeited their right to sue the government because they received FECA
benefits. Kairys, however, claimed that the family received FECA money
under false pretenses in order to keep the Olsonʼs from investigating what
really happened to Frank. As a way around the lawsuit, the Department of
Justice, with the full support of the White House and CIA, proposed a
private bill in Congress that would, when passed, give $1,250,000 to the
Olsons. The Olson family decided to accept this route as the government
seemed to have an air-tight case with the FECA defense. Unfortunately,
three House members opposed the bill and wanted the value to be
dropped to $500,000. Kairys, however, managed to secure a final amount
of $750,000 for the family.56 With the settlement paid, and the Colby
documents in the Olsonʼs possession, the Olson family signed an
agreement that stated all of their claims resulting from the death of Dr.
Frank Olson stood resolved.57
Issues with Traditional CIA Story
As the family further examined the Colby documents, they began to
find strange statements and discrepancies.58 In Dr. Abramsonʼs
memorandum for the General Counsel, he wrote that he “attempted to
confirm what I [Abramson] had heard that an experiment had been
performed especially to trap him [Olson] the preceding week.”59 According
to Eric Olson, Dr. Olsonʼs son, who dedicated much of his life to
53
David Kairys, Philadelphia Freedom: Memoirs of a Civil Rights Lawyer (Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press, 2008), 266-270; “Family of CIA victim gets apology from
Ford,” Chicago Tribune, July 22, 1975. PHN.
54
Eric and Nils Olson, “Family Statement on the Murder of Frank Olson,” August 8, 2002,
Frank Olson Legacy Project, http://www.frankolsonproject.org/Statements/Family
Statement2002.html.
55
Ignatieff.
56
Kairys, 276-285; Joseph Treaster, “Olsons Bar a U.S. Suit on LSD Death; Hope
Congress Will Pass Damages Bill,” New York Times, December 19, 1975. PHN.
57
Eric and Nils Olson, “Family Statement on the Murder of Frank Olson.”
58
59
Abramson, Document 0000144982.
60
investigating his fatherʼs death, the CIA men performed the LSD test at
Deep Creek Lake in an attempt to get Olson to talk freely. If Olson spoke
loosely it would allow the CIA to determine if he posed a potential security
risk after returning from his European travels in the summer of 1953.60
Furthermore, Dr. Abramson was not a psychiatrist, but actually an allergist
and immunologist, who received money from the CIA to do research on
LSD.61
The Colby documents raised further questions. In several places,
Dr. Lashbrook recalled inconsistent details about what transpired the
moment Dr. Olson fell to his death. In his official statement, Lashbrook
wrote, “I was awakened by a loud noise. Dr. Olson had crashed through
the closed window blind and the closed window…”62 To other people,
however, Lashbrook described different events. In an article printed in
The Associated Press entitled “Doctor thinks CIA man saw Olson fall to
death,” Dr. Robert Gibson told the story of a phone call he received from
Lashbrook the day after the incident. Lashbrook, canceling Olsonʼs
reservation, mentioned to Dr. Gibson that he awoke in the middle of the
night to his friend standing in the middle of the room. When Dr. Lashbrook
attempted to speak to him, Olson immediately ran to the window and
jumped out. Lashbrook denied making a second phone call to Chestnut
Lodge, but Dr. Gibson recalled the incident specifically, due to the unusual
circumstances.63
The decision to hospitalize Olson at Chestnut Lodge created an
obvious problem. Chestnut Lodge did not have the proper security
clearances the CIA deemed necessary to house someone with sensitive
knowledge. The Agency had a secure mental health facility in
Massachusetts, but Lashbrook chose not to make use of this resource. In
fact, evidence suggests that the arrangements for hospitalization were
insincere. Olson called his wife Alice on the evening before his death and
told her he would be home the next day. Additionally, in the Colby
documents, Lashbrook stated they decided on hospitalization early Friday,
yet the call to Chestnut Lodge was placed too late in the day for Olson to
be admitted the same day.64
Lashbrook engaged in other unusual activities after Olsonʼs jump.
He did not go down to the street to check on Olson but stayed in the room
60
Church Committee report, 397; “Subject: Harold, Abramson A.,” December 2, 1953,
CIA MKULTRA Collection, Document 0000144974.
62
Lashbrook, Document 0000144978.
63
“Doctor thinks CIA man saw Olson fall to death,” Associated Press, Frank Olson
Legacy Project, http://www.frankolsonproject.org/Sources/Notes%20on%20items%20&%
20events/Dr.Gibson.html.
64
Eric Olson, “Only the Shadow Knows,” December, 20, 1999, Frank Olson Legacy
Project, http://www.frankolsonproject.org/Sources/Notes%20on%20items%20&%20
events/Dr.Gibson.html.
61
61
until the police and hotel managers came. Shortly after Olsonʼs death,
Abramson and Lashbrook met. He declined to introduce Abramson by
name to the reporting agent assigned to follow him. Lashbrook then
instructed the agent to wait in the lobby while he talked with Abramson.
The reporting agent attempted to listen through the door and heard the
pair talk about security issues. Abramson told Lashbrook that he was
worried about him. In the same conversation, Dr. Lashbrook dictated to
Abramson their story and made sure to include information that portrayed
Olson as mentally unstable for a long period of time. Abramson said he
“worried as to whether or not the deal was in jeopardy,” and in his opinion,
“the operation was dangerous and that the whole deal should be
reanalyzed.”65
Armand Pastore heard another Lashbrook conversation that night.
Pastore, the assistant night manager of the Statler Hotel at the time of
Olsonʼs death, claimed the hotel switchboard manager overheard a
phone-call from the room Olson and Lashbrook shared just after the
incident. The message was brief and calm. The first voice said, “Heʼs
gone,” immediately followed by a second voice which said, “Thatʼs too
bad.”66
Due to Eric Olsonʼs persistent search for answers, new details
continued to emerge. Eric Olson visited the room at the Statler Hotel
himself in 1984. As he examined the room, he questioned an average
personʼs ability to jump over the radiator and high window-sill and still
manage to crash through a closed window with blinds drawn. Experts
later confirmed this suspicion when they concluded a man would have to
run at a speed of over 30 miles per hour to crash through the window.
Even an athlete could not accomplish such a feat.67
More recently, Eric Olson convinced James Starrs, a forensic
pathologist from George Washington University, to exhume his fatherʼs
body and perform an autopsy. Starrs exhumed Olsonʼs body on June 2,
1994, and his team made several key discoveries. Olsonʼs face, neck,
and the entire front of his body contained no lacerations consistent with
passing through glass. Starrs also found a fist-sized hematoma over
Olsonʼs left eye, beneath unbroken skin. The first autopsy missed this
information. The hematoma received great attention because it was not
typical of such a fall, but was enough of an injury to have knocked him
unconscious. “Dr. Olsonʼs death was not a suicide,” asserted Starrs, “The
probabilities, taken together, strongly and relentlessly suggest that it
[Olsonʼs death] was a homicide.”68
65
“General: At New York, New York,” Document 0000144975.
Shane.
67
Starrs, 114.
68
Melissa Roth, “Frank Olson File: The CIAʼs Bad Trip,” George Magazine, October
1977, 44, Frank Olson Legacy Project, http://www.frankolsonproject.org/Articles/GeorgeMag.html; Starrs, 116-152.
66
62
In 1997, Eric Olson discovered an inadvertently declassified CIA
assassination manual from 1953, the same year his father died.69 The
manual blatantly instructed agents how to disguise a murder as a suicide:
“The most effective accident, in simple assassination, is a fall of 75
feet or more onto a hard surface. Elevator shafts, stairwells,
unscreened windows and bridges will serve… If the assassin
immediately sets up an outcry, playing the “horrified witness”, no
alibi or surreptitious withdrawal is necessary. In chase cases it will
usually be necessary to stun or drug the subject before dropping
him. Care is required to insure that no wound or condition not
attributable to the fall is discernible after death.”70
This passage described the way Olson died almost exactly. Additionally,
during a subsequent investigation into Olsonʼs death, the New York
District Attorney received notice that the Israeli Mossad taught the case of
Dr. Olson as “perfect murder” to their assassination training unit.71
Why would the CIA want Dr. Olson dead? Frank Olson spent time
in Europe in the summer of 1953 on official CIA duty. He saw things that
altered his beliefs, specifically deadly drug tests and experiments that
employed weapons developed by his department. Frank regularly visited
Porton Downs, Britainʼs main research center for biological and chemical
warfare. Dr. William Sargant, a British consultant, realized Olson had
become a security risk due to his changing views and recommended to his
superiors that Olson no longer have access to Porton Downs. The
superiors acted upon this recommendation and almost surely informed the
CIA of their conclusions.72
Others also believe the CIA may have murdered Dr. Olson to
prevent him from breaching security. Norman Cournoyer, a colleague of
Olsonʼs at Fort Detrick, revealed that Olson believed the U.S. used
biological weapons, such as anthrax, in Korea. Olsonʼs high rank in the
SOD would have made it difficult for the CIA to discredit him had he
spoken out.73 Ike Feldman, a Bureau of Narcotics employee who helped
perform unwitting LSD tests at CIA safehouses, thought this scenario
plausible as well. In an unrelated interview, Feldman stated, “I donʼt know
if he [Olson] jumped or he was pushed. They say he jumped.”74 When
Eric Olson spoke to Feldman himself, he explained further: “I heard Frank
69
Ignatieff.
CIA Assassination Manual, “A Study of Assassination,” 1953, Frank Olson Legacy
Project, http://www.frankolsonproject.org/Documents/Assassination%20Manual.html.
71
72
Thomas.
73
74
Richard Stratton, “Altered States of America,” Spin Magazine, March 1994, Frank
Olson Legacy Project, http://www.frankolsonproject.org/Articles/Spin.html.
70
63
Olson was talking to people he shouldnʼt have… Itʼs very logical he was
pushed.”75
Conclusion
The CIA and U.S. government behaved dishonestly and
fraudulently. Conflicting statements from key people involved suggested a
cover-story. Overheard conversations indicated a lack of compassion and
an interest only in maintaining secrecy. White House documents revealed
a substantial effort by those in the highest positions of government to
suppress information related to Frank Olson. Injuries brought to light by a
recent and more thorough autopsy pointed to unusual carelessness by the
medical examiner. The fact it took several congressional committees,
Senate hearings, and Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain what
little information is available today on MKULTRA indicated a clear
unwillingness of the CIA to divulge the truth.
One could easily dismiss the information pointing to the homicide of
Dr. Frank Olson as lies, misinformation, and conspiracy theories.
Evidence from the diligent research of Eric Olson and other scholars,
however, make clear the true course of events. This evidence points in
one direction: Dr. Frank Olson did not simply commit suicide by jumping
from the Statler Hotel, instead the CIA assassinated him. Olsonʼs
changed beliefs and sensitive knowledge made him a liability to the CIA
and MKULTRA. The Central Intelligence Agency took this issue seriously
and murdered Frank Olson to prevent him from endangering their work. In
essence, Dr. Olson became a victim of the Cold War.
75
Fischer.
64
Bibliography
Digital Archive
CIA MKULTRA Collection, http://community.theblackvault.com/articles/
entry/CIA-MKULTRA-CollectionSources
Abramson, Harold. “Memorandum for General Counsel.” December 4,
1953. CIA MKULTRA Collection, Document 0000144982.
Abramson, Harold. “Statement by Dr. Harold Abramson.” November 28,
1953. CIA MKULTRA Collection, Document 0000144981.
“General: At New York, New York.” December 3, 1953. CIA MKULTRA
Collection, Document 0000144975.
Gottlieb, Sidney. “Observations on Dr. Frank Olson, 1951-1953.”
December 7, 1953. CIA MKULTRA Collection, Document
0000144977.
Houston, Lawrence. “Memorandum for: Record; Subject: Frank R. Olson.”
December 9, 1953. CIA MKULTRA Collection, Document
0000144987.
Lashbrook, Robert. “To Whom it May Concern: Observations on Dr. Frank
Olson.” December 7, 1953. CIA MKULTRA Collection, Document
0000144978.
“Memorandum to Colonel Edwards; Subject: Olson, Franklin.” December
2, 1953. CIA MKULTRA Collection, Document 0000144973.
Ruwet, Vincent. “To Whom it May Concern.” n.d. CIA MKULTRA
Schwab, John. “Chronological Relationship with Dr. Frank R. Olson.” n.d.
CIA MKULTRA Collection, Document 0000144976.
“Subject: Harold, Abramson A.” December 2, 1953. CIA MKULTRA
65
Published Sources:
Abramson, Rudy. “CIA Ran 149 Mind Control Projects.” Los Angeles
Cheney, Dick. “Memorandum for Donald Rumsfeld; Subject: The Olson
Matter/CIA Suicide.” July 11, 1975. Erowid MKULTRA Vault.
http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/war/mkultra/mkultra_documen
t2.pdf (Accessed November 18, 2009).
CIA Assassination Manual. “A Study of Assassination.” 1953. Frank Olson
Legacy Project. http://www.frankolsonproject.org/Documents/
Assassination%20Manual.html (Accessed November 19, 2009).
“Doctor thinks CIA man saw Olson fall to death.” Associated Press. Frank
Olson Legacy Project. http://www.frankolsonproject.org/Sources/
Notes%20on%20items%20&%20events/Dr.Gibson.html (Accessed
November 18, 2009).
Earman, John. “CIA Inspector Generalʼs 1963 MKULTRA Report.” July 26,
1963. Erowid MKULTRA Vault. http://www.erowid.org/psycho
actives/war/mkultra/mkultra_document1.pdf (Accessed November
18, 2009).
Edwards, Sheffield. “Memorandum for the Record; Subject: Suicide of
Frank Olsen.” November 28, 1953. Frank Olson Legacy Project.
http://www.frankolsonproject.org/Documents/Colby%20documents/
Colby%20doc.%204.html (Accessed November 19, 2009).
Faso, Frank and William Sherman. “CIA Hid Suicide Details From Cops.”
New York Daily News, July 11, 1975. Frank Olson Legacy Project.
http://www.frankolsonproject.org/Articles/NYDailyNews/NYDailyNe
ws2.html (Accessed November 18, 2009).
Fischer, Mary. “The Man Who Knew Too Much.” GQ Magazine, January
2000. Frank Olson Legacy Project. http://www.frankolsonproject.org
/Articles/GQ.html (Accessed November 18, 2009).
Hersh, Seymour. “Family Plans to Sue C.I.A. Over Suicide in Drug Test.”
New York Times, July 10, 1975. PHN.
Hills, Roderick. “Memorandum For The President.” July 16, 1975. Erowid
MKULTRA Vault. http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/war/mkultra/
mkultra_document2.pdf (Accessed November 18, 2009).
66
Ignatieff, Michael. “What Did the CIA do to Eric Olsonʼs Father?” The New
York Times Magazine, April 1, 2001. PHN.
Kairys, David. Philadelphia Freedom: Memoirs of a Civil Rights Lawyer.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2008.
Kempster, Norman. “Narcotics Agents Tested Truth Drugs on Suspects.”
Los Angeles Times, August 5, 1976. PHN.
Lee, Martin and Bruce Shlain. Acid Dreams: The CIA, LSD, and the Sixties
Rebellion. New York: Grove Press, 1985.
Marks, John. The Search for the “Manchurian Candidate”: The CIA and
Mind Control. New York: New York Times Book Co. Inc., 1979.
McCoy, Alfred W. A Question of Torture. New York: Metropolitan Books,
2006.
“Mind Control Studies Had Origins in Trial of Mindszenty.” New York
Moreno, Jonathan D. Undue Risk: Secret State Experiments on Humans.
New York: W. H. Freeman and Company, 2000.
Olson, Alice, Eric, Lisa, and Nils. “Family Statement by the Wife and
Children of Frank R. Olson.” July 10, 1975. Frank Olson Legacy
Project. http://www.frankolsonproject.org/Statements/Family
Statement1975.html (Accessed November 18, 2009).
Olson, Eric. “Only the Shadow Knows.” December, 20, 1999. Frank Olson
Legacy Project. http://www.frankolsonproject.org/Sources/Notes%
20on%20items%20&%20events/Dr.Gibson.html (Accessed
November 19, 2009).
Olson, Eric and Nils Olson. “Family Statement on the Murder of Frank
Olson.” August 8, 2002. Frank Olson Legacy Project. http://www.
frankolsonproject.org/Statements/FamilyStatement2002.html
(Accessed November 18, 2009).
OʼToole, Thomas. “Suicide Revealed.” Washington Post, June 11, 1975.
Frank Olson Legacy Project. http://www.frankolsonproject.org/Sour
ces/Newspaper%20stories/Washington%20Post,%201975.html
(Accessed November 18, 2009).
67
Pelsmaeker, B. “Mind Games: MKULTRA and the Central Intelligence
Agencyʼs Battle for the Human Mind.” PhD diss., Claremont
Graduate University, 2001.
Roth, Melissa. “Frank Olson File: The CIAʼs Bad Trip.” George Magazine,
October 1977. Frank Olson Legacy Project. http://www.frankolson
project.org/Articles/George-Mag.html (Accessed November 18,
2009).
Starrs, James E. A Voice for the Dead: A Forensic Investigator's Pursuit of
Truth in the Grave. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 2005.
Stratton, Richard. “Altered States of America.” Spin Magazine, March
1994. Frank Olson Legacy Project. http://www.frankolsonproject.
org/Articles/Spin.html (Accessed November 19, 2009).
Streatfeild, Dominic. Brainwash: The Secret History of Mind Control.
London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2006.
Thomas, Gordon. “Memorandum to Eric Olson.” November 30, 1998.
Frank Olson Legacy Project. http://www.frankolsonproject.org/
Statements/Statement-G.Thomas.html (Accessed November 19,
2009).
Treaster, Joseph. “C.I.A.ʼs Files on LSD Death Found to be Contradictory.”
New York Times, January 11, 1976. PHN.
Treaster, Joseph. “Olsons Bar a U.S. Suit on LSD Death; Hope Congress
Will Pass Damages Bill.” New York Times, December 19, 1975.
PHN.
U.S. Congress. Rockefeller Commission On CIA Activities Within The
United States. Report to the President. Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office, 1975.
U.S. Congress. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the
Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research of the Committee
on Human Resources. Project MKULTRA, The CIAʼs Program of
Research in Behavioral Modification. 95th Cong., 1st Sess.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1977.
U.S. Congress. Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental
Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. Foreign and
68
Military Intelligence (Church Committee report). Report no. 94-755,
94th Cong., 2d Sess. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office, 1976.
Chapter 5
Naked Lunch and the Rise and Fall of the Beat Movement
Caitlin Murray
“The President is a junky,” William S. Burroughs wrote in Naked
Lunch, “but canʼt take it direct because of his position. So he gets fixed
through me… From time to time we make contact, and I recharge him…
He has sacrificed all control, and is dependent as an unborn child.”1
Naked Lunch, first published in its entirety in France in 1959, and then in
America in 1962, presents a reader with disturbing and resonating
imagery, metaphors, and themes. Burroughs uses images of addiction,
sex, and violence to criticize the structure of society and the power of the
state.
With the American publication of Naked Lunch came the nearsimultaneous culmination and collapse of the Beat Movement. Historians
and literary scholars alike have generated a great deal of work regarding
the Beats, the life of William S. Burroughs, and the text of Naked Lunch
itself. Yet rarely has the cultural significance of Naked Lunch been
examined in great detail. In breaking conventional social mores, Naked
Lunch altered the cultural perception of literature at the time; and, in doing
so, Burroughs made it possible for his contemporary, Ken Kesey, to get
away with challenging traditional American society without much protest
from critics, courts, or the American public. In this sense, Burroughsʼ work
resulted in the simultaneous fall of the Beat Movement of the 1950s and
rise of the hippie movement of the 1960s.
The Beat Generation, as a whole, shared a desire to ignore or
reject traditional American values.2 A number of earlier movements
influenced the Beats, including the “Lost Generation,” hipsterism,
bohemianism, Dadaism, and surrealism.3 In his collection of essays
dealing with the Beats, Gregory Stephenson argues that the Beat
Movement started in the mid-1940s, with an “underground period,” which
lasted until about 1956, when the movement became more public with the
publication of Allen Ginsbergʼs Howl and Other Poems.4 The Beats, in
their rejection of traditional American mores, often wrote unconventionally
of sex and drug use.5 Many of them, particularly Allen Ginsberg, tended to
1
William S. Burroughs, Naked Lunch (New York, NY: Grove Press, 1959), 57.
John Tytell, Naked Angels (New York, NY: Grove Press, 1976), 3-4.
3
Gregory Stephenson, The Daybreak Boys: Essays on Literature of the Beat Generation
(Illinois: Southern Illinois University, 1990), 4.
4
Stephenson, The Daybreak Boys, 2-3.
5
Tytell, Naked Angels, 11; Jennie Skerl, Reconstructing the Beats (Palgrave Macmillan,
2004), 2.
2
70
promote sexual tolerance, especially concerning homosexuality; and many
more experimented with drug use.6
William S. Burroughs embodied the characteristics of the Beat
Movement not only in his writing, but in his lifestyle as well. A homosexual
with a heroin addiction, Burroughs lived as a sort of drifter, having spent
significant amounts of time traveling between South America, Tangier, and
Paris. His drug use and sexuality became central to the writing of Naked
Lunch and remained present as thematic elements throughout the work.
While many other Beat writers touched upon unconventional sexual
behavior and drug use, Burroughs took both to an extreme; in Naked
Lunch, his depictions of sex and drugs are vivid, unforgettable, and often
intertwined. In short, he took further the foundations laid by other Beats
and previous literary movements.
The publication of Naked Lunch brought with it an onslaught of
literary criticism. As Robin Lydenberg and Jennie Skerl note in their
detailed analysis of the early criticism of Naked Lunch, the critical
reception of the book generally fell into two categories: some rejected his
work based on the “traditional humanist moral and aesthetic values” of the
time, and others proved “receptive to his basically antihumanist art.”7
Regardless of which camp they fell into, critics asserted their opinions
passionately, and very few attempted to analyze the text itself; rather, they
focused more on the moral implications of Burroughsʼ work.8 Repeated
attempts to censor the book undoubtedly contributed to the severity of
debate among critics. Naked Lunch remained at the center of debate in
the early 1960s. Its publication added to a wave of controversy in the US
regarding censorship and obscenity. The US Post Office, the US Customs
Service, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the city of Los
Angeles all attempted to censor the book; none of the attempts, however,
resulted in a permanent banning of the book.9
William S. Burroughsʼ Naked Lunch retains a significant place in
American history. In this paper, I argue that the repeated attempted
6
For more on the Beats, see: Edward Halsey Foster, Understanding the Beats
(Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1992); Barry Miles,The Beat Hotel
(New York, NY: Grove Press, 2000); Harvey Pekar, The Beats: A Graphic History (New
York: Hill and Wang, 2009); Skerl, Reconstructing the Beats;; Gregory Stephenson, The
Daybreak Boys: Essays on the Literature of the Beat Generation (Illinois: Southern Illinois
University, 1990); David Sterrit, Screening the Beats: Media Culture and the Beat
Sensibility (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2004); Tytell, Naked Angels:
Kerouac, Ginsberg, Burroughs: The Lives and Literature of the Beat Generation; Holly
George-Warren, The Rolling Stone Book of the Beats: The Beat Generation and
American Culture (New York: Hyperion, 1999).
7
Jennie Skerl and Robin Lydenberg, William S. Burroughs at the Front: Critical Reception
1959-1989 (Illinois: Southern Illinois University, 1991), 3-8.
8
Skerl, William S. Burroughs, 3-5.
9
Michael B. Goodman, Contemporary Literary Censorship: The Case History of
Burroughsʼ Naked Lunch (The Scarecrow Press, Inc. 1981), 1.
71
censorship and impassioned cultural criticism of the book resulted in a
more receptive America; this receptivity allowed writers like Ken Kesey to
flourish in the 1960s, and they, in turn, helped pioneer the hippie
counterculture that followed. In examining the life of Burroughs, the writing
and textual contents of Naked Lunch, and the afterlife of the book, it
becomes clear that Naked Lunch is itself a symbol of and catalyst for both
the culmination and the downfall of the Beat Movement, and that it
represents a shift in American thought from the conservative postwar era
to the radical counterculture of the 1960s and 70s.
Burroughs and the Beats
William S. Burroughs, born on February 5, 1914, in St. Louis
Missouri, grew into one of the most influential and interesting writers of the
Twentieth Century. As a young man, he attended Harvard University from
1932 to 1936, where he often felt like an outsider.10 Upon graduation, his
parents began giving him an allowance of $200 a month, which allowed
him the freedom to live where he wanted.11
In September of 1942, Burroughs relocated to Chicago, where he
met Allen Ginsberg and Jack Kerouac, and where he tried heroin for the
first time. In December of 1943, a mutual friend introduced Burroughs to
Allen Ginsberg, and soon after this introduction, the same friend
introduced both Burroughs and Ginsberg to Jack Kerouac.12 Ginsberg and
Kerouac, both about a decade younger than Burroughs, viewed him as a
friend and teacher, and it was through Ginsberg and Kerouac that
Burroughs met his future wife, Joan Vollmer Adams.13 In 1944, Burroughs
took his first stab at writing, collaborating with Kerouac on a mostly-factual
account of the murder of one of their friends. And the Hippos Were Boiled
in Their Tanks remained unpublished for several years.14 In 1945,
Burroughs tried heroin for the first time, and developed an addiction to
morphine and heroin over the course of the year.15 In the same year,
Burroughs and Adams developed a sexual relationship, despite
Burroughsʼ homosexuality.16
After he left Chicago due to an arrest involving the forgery of a
Doctorʼs signature on blank prescriptions he had stolen, Burroughs began
to move around frequently.17 He married Joan in 1946, and soon after the
10
Skerl, William S. Burroughs, “Chronology.”
Ted Morgan, Literary Outlaw: The Life and Times of William S. Burroughs (New York,
NY: Henry Holt and Company, 1988), 57.
12
Morgan, Literary Outlaw, 88-91.
13
Skerl, William S. Burroughs, 9.
14
15
Morgan, Literary Outlaw, 121.
16
17
11
72
couple left Chicago. They first moved to Texas, where they started a
marijuana farm, and where Joan gave birth to their first and only child,
William, Jr.18 The couple then lived in Louisiana briefly, from 1948 to 1949,
before relocating to Mexico City. In Mexico, Burroughs began shooting up
every day and began writing Junky, his first novel. In 1951, he traveled to
South America, where he began his first search for “yage,” a fabled
hallucinogenic plant by which Burroughs would grow fascinated over the
course of the next few years.19 This first search for yage failed, however,
and Burroughs returned to Mexico. In September of 1951, Burroughs
accidentally shot and killed his wife while attempting to shoot a glass off of
her head.20 Murder charges did not stick, and in late 1952, he left and
returned to South America to continue his search for yage. While in South
America, Burroughs continued writing, compiling notes of his journey in a
semi-factual account of his search; this work would later become The
Yage Letters, a stylistic precursor to Naked Lunch.21
The Writing and Text of Naked Lunch
In January of 1954, after a short trip around Europe with scholar
Alan Ansen, Burroughs decided to go to Tangier, which he had read about
in Paul Bowles novels.22 Tangier, a port on the Moroccan Coast, overlooks
both the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea. At the time of
Burroughsʼ visit, the French government ruled the rest of Morocco, while
eight different European nations governed Tangier, and the city had three
official languages (French, Spanish, and Arabic).23
Burroughs wrote nearly all of Naked Lunch in Tangier, while
corresponding with Ginsberg and Kerouac regularly through letters.
Burroughs initially decided to set the work that would become Naked
Lunch in Tangier.24 This decision was one of the first made in regards to
the book (though it would be changed over the years, as Burroughs would
also set sections in South America, the United States, and a place he
called “Freeland”).25
Depression and drug use characterized Burroughsʼ first year in
Tangier. He left the United States in love with Allen Ginsberg, but
18
Morgan, Literary Outlaw, 187; William S. Burroughs and Allen Ginsberg, edited by
Oliver Harris, The Yage Letters Redux (San Francisco, CA: City Lights Books, 2006), xiiixviii.
20
21
Burroughs, The Yage Letters Redux, xxiv.
22
Barry Miles, William Burroughs: El Hombre Invisible (New York, NY: Hyperion, 1993),
69.
23
24
Miles, William Burroughs, 73.
25
19
73
Ginsberg had spurned his affections. Though the two men kept in fairly
regular contact through letters, Burroughs grew lonely and fell into bouts of
depression.26 He rented a room in a male brothel and spent the year
heavily addicted to “Eukodol,” the German name for Oxycodone.27 During
this year, Burroughs began writing his next novel, but the writing took the
form of short, disjointed scenes, or “routines,” as he called them; the
routines he wrote in 1954 rarely connected and could, by no means, be
classified as a “narrative,” yet many of them did wind up in the final
product of Naked Lunch.28 In a letter to Allen Ginsberg dated April 7, 1954,
Burroughs described his current state of existence in Tangier: “Trying to
write a novel. Attempt to organize material is more painful than anything I
ever experienced. Shooting every four hours. Some semi-synthetic stuff
called Eukodol.”29 By June, Burroughsʼ Eukodol addiction had progressed;
instead of shooting every four hours, he had moved to shooting every
two.30
In his second year in Tangier, Burroughs continued to write, but he
thought that his drug addiction hindered his progress; for Burroughs, 1955
consisted of a constant struggle to kick his drug habit. He decided to set
the novel in Tangier, which he referred to as “Interzone.”31 In a letter to
both Kerouac and Ginsberg, written in November of 1955, Burroughs
described the city in which he had decided to set his novel, saying that it
was “the prognostic pulse of the world, like a dream extending from past
into the future, a frontier between dream and reality—the ʻrealityʼ of both
called into question.”32 Despite this progress, he spent most of the year
trying to get off drugs, so that he could focus more on his writing. He tried
a two-week-long sleep cure in May, but returned to drugs by July; then, in
September and October of the same year, he tried a methodone cure,
which also failed. He grew frustrated with his inability to free himself from
his addiction.33
In early 1956, he convinced his parents to send him money so that
he could go to London to be treated by Dr. John Yerbury Dent, who had
begun to treat addicts with a treatment called “apomorphine.”34 The
treatment proved successful. Burroughs returned to Tangier in September,
rented a new room in another hotel, wrote daily, and began exercising
26
28
Miles, William Burroughs, 72-73.
29
William S. Burroughs, The Letters of William S. Burroughs 1945-1959 (New York, NY:
Viking Penguin, 1993), 201.
30
Burroughs, The Letters of William S. Burroughs, 215.
31
32
Burroughs, The Letters of William S. Burroughs, 302.
33
Morgan, Literary Outlaw, 247, 253.
34
27
74
regularly.35 Off of hard drugs, Burroughs began to take majoun, a type of
hashish, every other day; in addition to this routine, he smoked marijuana
regularly, often while he wrote.36 Burroughs stated in an interview in 1974
that he wrote nearly all of Naked Lunch on cannabis because he thought
that it “stimulate[d] the associational process, and visualization.”37
The editing process for Naked Lunch began in 1957. Kerouac
visited Burroughs briefly, and soon after, Ginsberg and his new boyfriend,
Peter Orlovsky, came to stay with Burroughs. The three of them, along
with Alan Ansen, who had also come for a brief stay, worked for two
months typing and editing Burroughsʼ manuscript; by the time they
finished, they had about 200 pages of finished manuscript.38 The three
visitors left in June, and Burroughs went to Copenhagen to visit his friend,
Kells Elvins. At the time of this trip, Burroughs had already decided to split
the novel into four main zones: United States, South America, Tangier, or
“Interzone,” and “Freeland,” which he meant to represent the land of the
dead.39 Scandanavia was, for Burroughs, the perfect model for his idea of
Freeland, so the brief trip had a lasting impact on Burroughs and the
novel40. In mid-January of 1958, Burroughs left Tangier for good.
Naked Lunch grew to represent the Beat movement. Burroughs,
Kerouac, and Ginsberg, the three founding members of the Beats, each
played a significant role in the writing and editing of Naked Lunch. All three
Beats contributed in one way or another to the final product of the novel,
so the work seems to signify a coming together of Beat thought and
influence.
The text of Naked Lunch deserves examination; deducing plot from
the novel proves difficult, however, as no linear story exists. The novel
consists of less of a flowing narrative arc, and more of quick, individual
scenes compiled in no consistently significant order. The story begins with
a depiction of the narrator, William Lee, as he runs from the police. “I can
feel the heat closing in,” he says, “feel them out there making their moves,
setting up their devil doll stool pigeons, crooning over my spoon and
dropper I throw away at Washington Square Station.”41
From there, the novel jumps to a court room, where a man called,
“the Vigilante,” who describes himself as a ghost wanting a body, is on
trial for drug possession. The court sends him to a “Federal Nut House
35
Morgan, Literary Outlaw, 261; Burroughs, The Letters of William S. Burroughs, 353.
37
William Bates, “Talking with William S. Burroughs” The Daily Californian: Arts and
Entertainment (1974): 11, 20, as found in Hibbard, Conversations with William S.
Burroughs, 93.
38
39
40
41
Burroughs, Naked Lunch, 3.
36
75
specially designed for the containment of ghosts.”42 The novel continues
to jump around in this vain, never landing on one setting or character for
too long. The last section of the novel takes place in the “Interzone,” a
world in which facts merge into dreams, and “dreams erupt into the real
world.”43 In one of the last sections of the book, entitled, “Atrophied
Preface,” the narrator comments on the process of writing, saying that,
“[t]here is only one thing a writer can write about: what is in front of his
senses at the moment of writing.”44 He goes on to call himself a “recording
instrument,” saying that he does not “presume to impose ʻstoryʼ or ʻplotʼ
ʻcontinuity.ʼ”45 This passage clearly reflects the way in which Naked Lunch
was actually written.
With no coherent story to follow and no fully developed characters
to care for, a reader of Naked Lunch faces the challenge of interpreting
seemingly disjointed passages to uncover some sort of meaning. With this
in mind, a reader must sift through the fragmented texts and extract
recurring themes. The idea of addiction permeates the entire novel and
seems to be one of the most significant motifs in Naked Lunch. William
Leeʼs perspective resembles that of a drug addict, for “the fragmentation of
the text is like the discontinuity of the addictʼs life between fixes.”46 As
Skerl notes, a reader could take this theme literally and view the novel as
simply the hallucinations of withdrawal that end in “heightened visions of
the here and now,” which would constitute the idea of the dream world
found in Interzone.47
Addiction, as a theme, so thoroughly pervades the novel that it
would do the book a disservice to interpret it in a strictly literal sense. In
the book, the idea of junk addiction does not necessarily refer to an actual
drug addiction, but rather to society as a whole because Burroughs sees a
form of addiction in nearly everything—politics, religion, and the family, for
instance.48 In the novel, Burroughs depicts society as a great omnipresent
entity run by control addicts.49 This idea fuels Burroughsʼ descriptions of
“the Senders.” The “barbarous and self-righteous” Senders have a fear of
facts, and, by means of state-controlled transmitters implanted at birth,
use telepathic transmitting as a means of control.50 Only one Sender can
exist in one “place-time,” and he perpetually sends out information to the
people, but never receives or “recharge[s]” himself by contact with
42
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
43
76
others.51 The Sender continues this way, quickly losing all feeling from his
inability to receive information from others and from his lack of contact,
until he turns into a giant centipede, at which time the “workers” must elect
a new Sender “by consensus of the general will.”52 In this way, Burroughs
explains, “control can never be a means to any practical end … It can
never be a means to anything but more control … Like junk …”53 The
Senders, described as dangerous and evil, seem to represent societyʼs
leaders. They exist to regulate others; they determine what information
gets sent to the workers, and in their position of power, they never come
into contact with the receivers of their information. When one Sender dies,
the people appoint another, in what becomes a perpetual cycle of control.
Burroughs compares this cyclical process to a junk addiction; just as the
junk addict continues to pump the drug into his or her veins, despite the
(largely) negative effects, so do control addicts, or Senders, continue to
control other people.
Another theme that runs throughout Naked Lunch concerns the
dangerous power of the state. Burroughs strongly conveys this theme in
the section entitled, “A.J.ʼs Annual Party.”54 In this scene, a sheriff hangs
three people, Mary, Johnny, and Mark, in a nightclub. In the scene,
Johnny ejaculates as Mary hangs him; Mark turns into Johnny before his
hanging; and Mary eats part of Johnnyʼs face right before she gets
hanged. This message uses the idea of capital punishment as an
indictment against the power of the state. The violent and sexual imagery
highlights the disgusting nature and exploitation of capital punishment.
The scene takes place “on screen,” and at the end of it, the three
characters take a bow with the ropes still around their necks. This
theatrical presentation could easily represent the way in which the state
exploits violence and cruelty to display its immense power.55
While Naked Lunch contains numerous themes and metaphors, the
ideas of the control and power of society and the state remain two of the
most significant throughout the entire novel. Burroughs uses addiction as
a unique metaphor for control, and he uses violent sexual imagery to
emphasize the stateʼs perversity and exploitation of violence, especially in
relation to its incredible power.
Burroughs does not simply note that society is a self-perpetuating
vehicle of control, or that the state is an all-powerful, dangerously violent
entity; he offers a solution. As Morgan notes, Burroughs emphasizes the
need for individualism. A human should not let him or herself fall into the
never-ending cycles of control and power; rather, a person should act as
51
53
54
55
Miles, William Burroughs, 101-103; Burroughs, Naked Lunch, 74-87.
52
77
an individual and be his or her “own authority.”56 However, because the
novel ends in Interzone, the dream-like world of Leeʼs imagination, this
solution is not entirely optimistic; it forces the reader to question whether
or not he or she can ever realistically reach a state of individualism—
whether or not he or she can truly detach from society and become his or
her own authority.
Publication and Reception
After leaving Tangier, Burroughs traveled to Paris, where the next
challenge for Naked Lunch lay in finding a publisher. Ginsberg had, in
1957, taken the manuscript to Olympia Press publisher Maurice
Girodias.57 Girodias told Ginsberg that the book needed to be “reshaped;”
Ginsberg then suggested to Burroughs that he submit a chapter to the
Chicago Review, a literary magazine associated with the University of
Chicago.58 Burroughs agreed with Ginsberg, and sections of the book
appeared in the Spring and Autumn 1958 editions of the magazine.59
Following its publication, the Chicago Review fell under the attack of Jack
Mabley, a columnist for Daily News.60
The controversy that followed Mableyʼs attack on the Chicago
Review represented the first indication of an important aspect of the
cultural reception of Naked Lunch: censorship. Due to the controversy
surrounding Mableyʼs article, the university appointed a faculty board to
oversee future publications of the magazine. The student editor of the
publication, Irving Rosenthal, had planned to publish another excerpt of
Naked Lunch in the Winter 1958 edition, but members of the faculty board
censored the issue by eliminating the passages from Naked Lunch.61
After the censorship of the Winter issue of the Chicago Review,
Rosenthal received editorship of a small magazine called Big Table, in
which he published the Naked Lunch excerpts that he had intended to
publish in the Chicago Review.62 Upon publication, a postal clerk issued a
complaint under the Comstock Act, which prevented the mailing of “any
literature, device, or drug dealing with abortion,” or that one could consider
obscene.63 Eventually, the case went to Federal Court, where Judge Julius
J. Hoffman asserted that the material published in Big Table #1 had
56
Michael Barry Goodman, Contemporary Literary Censorship: The Case History of
Burroughsʼ Naked Lunch (Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1981), 6.
58
Goodman, Contemporary Literary Censorship, 6-7.
59
Goodman, Contemporary Literary Censorship, 9.
60
61
62
63
57
78
literary merit, and that the editors of the magazine meant for the work to
be taken seriously.64
United States Customs also attempted to censor the distribution of
Naked Lunch. At the height of the American controversy surrounding
excerpts of Naked Lunch, Olympia Press in France decided to publish the
book; the first complete publication occurred in July of 1959.65 Soon after
the French publication, the American publishing company, Grove Press,
showed interest in publishing a US edition of the book. In 1959, Grove
Press requested a copy of the book from Olympia. Grove grew concerned
when they did not receive a copy of the book after Olympia mailed it, so
Olympia tried to send five copies of the book to the American publisher,
but none arrived. In August of 1960, the publishers learned of the seizure
of all five copies by the Customs Deputy Collector. Customs justified their
actions, citing Title 19, Section 1305 of the United States Code, which
banned “any obscene book, pamphlet, paper, writing, advertisement,
circular, print, picture, drawing… or other article which is obscene or
immoral” from entering the United States.66 Customs continued to view the
book as obscene, even after the courts removed the ban on Big Table.67
Despite the controversy brewing within Customs, Grove Press decided to
publish the book in 1962.68 In February, 1963, Harold F. Shapiro of the US
Attorney Generalʼs office ordered Customs to release seized copies of
Naked Lunch to their initial owners.69
Following the attempted censorship of the book by a university
publication, the US Postal Service, and Customs, Naked Lunch
encountered its last legal obstacle: censorship at the state level. The
controversy in Massachusetts started with the arrest of Theodore
Mavrikos, a Boston bookstore owner, in January 1963. Mavrikos sold a
copy of Naked Lunch to an undercover detective, and, after admitting that
he knew the book was obscene, Mavrikos was arrested. Barney Rosset, of
Grove Press, learned of the arrest and hired Edward deGrazia to defend
the book in Boston.70
The Boston trial began on January 12, 1965, and DeGrazia chose
to argue his case before a judge—Judge Eugene A. Hudson,
specifically—rather than a jury.71 William I. Cowin represented the state.72
During the trial, DeGrazia called upon a number of witnesses, including
Allen Ginsberg and Norman Mailer, most of whom answered questions
64
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
65
79
regarding the literary value of the book. Despite the number of well-known
witnesses who testified on behalf of the book, Hudson found the book
obscene on March 23, 1965.73 Strangely enough, after the banning Naked
Lunch, the District Attorneyʼs Office dropped the criminal charges against
Mavrikos.74
In October of 1965, the appeal went before the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court.75 The Naked Lunch case came to the attention of
the high courts just as three other obscenity cases went to trial before the
US Supreme Court: Ginzburg vs. U.S., Mishkin vs. New York, and
Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure vs. Attorney General.76 In the case of
Memoirs, Justice Brennan expressed the majority opinion, and in doing so,
outlined a new process by which to determine the obscenity of a book.77
He wrote:
Under this definition, as elaborated in subsequent cases, three
elements must coalesce: it must be established that (a) the
dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a
prurient interest in sex; (b) the material is patently offensive
because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to
the description or representation of sexual matters; and (c) the
material is utterly without redeeming social value.78
On July 7, 1966, the case, known as Attorney General vs. A Book Named
ʻNaked Lunchʼ, came to an end. The Massachusetts high court, using the
definition of obscenity set forth by Brennan, determined that, though the
book met the first two standards of obscenity, it did not meet the last; the
court decided that the book did have social value.79 After Naked Lunch, no
other book in American history underwent an obscenity trial.80
Literary criticism of the novel added to the cultural reception of it.
Criticism of the novel began almost simultaneously with its US publication
in 1962. In that year, Burroughs took part in the Edinburgh conference with
well-known critic Mary McCarthy and writers Norman Mailer and Henry
Miller. During the conference, Burroughsʼ presence highlighted the lines of
disagreement between “the ancients and the moderns, and between a
conservative British literary establishment and the Americans.”81 McCarthy
praised Burroughsʼ work, calling it important and interesting, and Mailer
73
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
Skerl and Lydenberg, William S. Burroughs At the Front: Critical Reception, 4.
74
80
concurred, providing Burroughs with praise of his own. As Robin
Lydenberg and Jennie Skerl argue, the Edinburgh conference
foreshadowed many of the issues that would remain the focus of future
criticism of Burroughsʼ work.82 One of the issues pinpointed by Lydenberg
and Skerl is the idea of morality; the often-perceived lack of morality and
the significance of such would dominate much of the literary criticism of
Naked Lunch in the years to come. Between 1959 and 1963, a great deal
of criticism erupted around the French and, later, American publications of
the novel. Significantly, these years coincide nicely with many of the
censorship attempts in the United States.
One early review, titled “The Book Burners and Sweet Sixteen,”
written by John Ciardi of the Saturday Review, for instance, focused
almost entirely on the moral issues of the book. Written in 1959, before the
American publication, Ciardiʼs article meant to respond to the events
concerning the censorship of the Chicago Review. While Ciardi does hint
at a literary significance of Naked Lunch, he focuses primarily on the
bookʼs tendency to depict horrific scenes. In its main focus, in which he
criticizes the University of Chicago for attempting to censor the Chicago
Review, Ciardiʼs article unintentionally justifies the University of Chicagoʼs
decision; for, rather than reveal an insightful analysis of the bookʼs
themes, style, or general purpose, Ciardiʼs article emphasizes the “vision
of horror” expressed throughout the book.83 This review, published before
the book was even released in the United States, prefaced future reviews;
it focused more on the controversial subject matter present in Naked
Lunch, rather than on its potential literary significance.
One article published in 1963, after the American publication, titled
“UGH . . .” and written by John Willett of the Times Literary Supplement,
contained harsh criticism of Burroughsʼ work. Willett noted the detailed
scenes of homosexuality scattered throughout the book, and referred to
them as unspeakable fantasies. He also begged the question: is there a
moral message, and what if that moral message is disgusting?84 He does
not, however, make any real attempt at discovering a possible moral
message. Willett also overlooked the possibility that, if the message of
Naked Lunch appears disgusting, then perhaps Burroughs wanted the
reader to take note of that and draw some meaning from it. This article
further exemplifies this common trend in Naked Lunch criticism: critics
tended to focus on the moral implications of the book, rather than attempt
any sort of deep reading or interpretation of it.
82
Skerl and Lydenberg, William S. Burroughs At the Front, 4.
John Ciardi, “The Book Burners and Sweet Sixteen” Saturday Review (1959): 22, 30,
as found in Skerl and Lydenberg, William S. Burroughs at the Front, 19-23.
84
John Willett, “UGH , , ,” Times Literary Supplement (1963): 919, as found in Skerl and
Lydenberg. William S. Burroughs at the Front, 42.
83
81
There existed also, however, reviews which did attempt to evaluate
structure, themes, and meaning in Naked Lunch. For instance, Mary
McCarthy, a significant critic of the decade, wrote an article about the book
in 1963, titled, “Burroughsʼ Naked Lunch.” 85 McCarthy tries to make sense
of Naked Lunch, particularly its “disgusting” aspects and repetitive
structure by comparing the writing to that of Swift, specifically his work,
Gulliverʼs Travels. McCarthyʼs article holds great significance, as people
viewed her as a prominent critic. The fact that she acknowledges that
Burroughsʼ work does seem to carry a deeper meaning beyond simply the
violent sex-and-drug-related-imagery represents the important exception
to the general rule of early Naked Lunch criticism: some people (and, in
this case, some respected people) did attempt to analyze the text of
Naked Lunch.
Lawrence Liptonʼs “Visions of a Drug Addict” similarly tries to
discover meaning in the novel beyond that depicted simply by its various
moral implications. Lipton, in his analysis, claims that Naked Lunch does
not consist of simply a story about drug addiction. Lipton argues that
Burroughs, in the novel, actually attempts to present the reader with a
vision of society.86
Criticism of Naked Lunch from the years 1959 to 1963 frequented
commonly read newspapers, and critics seemed fixated on the moral
implications of much of the “obscene” subject matter of the book. This
approach to reading Naked Lunch, in many ways, reflected the numerous
censorship attempts brought against the book. The public seemed, at first,
unready to accept Naked Lunch; criticism of a lack of morality and
accusations of obscenity dominated the public response. Cultural criticism
seems to have shifted around 1964, however, and many literary critics
seem to have forgotten Naked Lunch quickly. After the initial fervor, the
book disappeared from wide discussion, and interest seemed to plummet
around 1964 and 1965.
The End of the Beats
Sidney Hookʼs 1964 article, “Pornography and the Censor,”
represents the beginnings of a shift in literary criticism of Naked Lunch.
Published in the New York Times, this article addresses literary
censorship in the United States, and Hook notes Naked Lunch as a book
once sold only covertly. He argues that censorship of literature by the
courts should be abandoned in nearly all cases in favor of censorship
through criticism. He claims that “[i]t is only criticism, by those qualified to
85
Mary McCarthy, “Burroughsʼ Naked Lunch” The Writing on the Wall and Other Literary
Essays (New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1970), 42-53; Lawrence Lipton.
“Visions of a Drug Addict” Los Angeles Times (1963): ProQuest.
86
Lawrence Lipton, “Visions of a Drug Addict” Los Angeles Times, ProQuest.
82
do it, and not by judges, that will reinforce the writerʼs sense of his
responsibility to his calling.”87 This sentiment seems to reflect a shift in
thought that had already begun; Naked Lunch was the last book that the
United States attempted to censor, and this article marked the beginning
of Naked Lunchʼs fall from the public eye. The book remained well-known
and well-read, but the initial fervor in accessible newspapers, such as the
New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, began to die down.
When an article does mention Burroughs post-1963, it usually
consists of a brief reference, very often in a joking manner. For instance,
Joyce Haber wrote an article for the Los Angeles Times on Christmas day,
1966. Her article does mention Burroughs; after claiming that nobody pays
attention to newspapers over Christmas, she announces that she could
“print any outrage in the column with impunity: Selected passages from
ʻThe Naked Lunch,ʼ say…”88 Critical opinion of Naked Lunch seems to
have moved away from a period when nearly every critic had a strong
opinion one way or another as to the value of the book. By the mid to late
1960s, critics seem to take up one of two positions: apathy or mockery.
Oddly enough, this shift in criticism seems to occur before the
Boston Trial ended in 1966, which implies that the cultural view of Naked
Lunch shifted before the courts decided against obscenity charges.
Because of the high profile of the book and thus of the trials surrounding it,
one could conclude that the public grew tired of and accustomed to the
controversy surrounding the book.
In 1962, the same year that Naked Lunch was published in the
United States, Ken Kesey published his first novel, One Flew Over the
Cuckooʼs Nest. Much like the prevailing themes of Naked Lunch, Keseyʼs
work criticizes society. Kesey compares American bureaucracy to the
hierarchy of a mental institution. One Flew Over the Cuckooʼs Nest does
have a linear plot, but Keseyʼs use of extended metaphor in comparing a
mental institution to American society, is similar to Burroughsʼ metaphors,
which employ drug addiction and violent sexual imagery. While writing his
novel, Kesey experimented with hallucinogenic drugs, particularly LSD. In
1964, while the courts tried Naked Lunch, Kesey took a cross-country road
trip with his band of followers, who called themselves “Merry Pranksters.”
During the trip, Kesey and the Pranksters took LSD, smoked marijuana,
and interacted with the public.89
Neither One Flew Over the Cuckooʼs Nest, nor Ken Kesey himself
met the same controversy that Naked Lunch did. Keseyʼs book was not
put on trial, and—as seen in Martin Levinʼs 1962 article, “A Readerʼs
87
Sidney Hook, “Pornography and the Censor” New York Times (1964): ProQuest.
Joyce Haber, “A Little Christmas Cheer With All the Trimmings” Los Angeles Times
(1966): ProQuest.
89
Barry H. Leeds, Ken Kesey (New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., Inc., 1981), 112, 43; Marcus, A Brief History of the United States Since 1945, 191.
88
83
Report,” published in the New York Times, which calls the novel “a work of
genuine literary merit”—critics received Keseyʼs book very well.90 Though
Cuckooʼs Nest and Naked Lunch were published in the same year, one
must remember that censorship of Burroughsʼ work began at the
University of Chicago in 1958, before the bookʼs American publication.
Perhaps Keseyʼs book went over better with critics because he did not
employ such violent sexual imagery as Burroughs, and thus Keseyʼs novel
seemed tame in comparison. Perhaps obscenity trials for Naked Lunch
forced the American public to grow more accepting of art that challenged
traditional mores. I maintain that a combination of these factors resulted in
an American public and group of critics that had grown more accustomed
to views that challenged society.
Ken Kesey and his Pranksters helped spur the drug counterculture
in 1960s California; and the drug counterculture, along with the Civil
Rights Movement and anti-war protests, led to the surge of youth activism
in the mid-1960s.91 It seems as though Burroughs paved the way in
America for an author like Kesey, who criticized in his work the traditionally
accepted idea of American society, to openly experiment with drugs. For
the reasons mentioned above, the American public seems to have grown
accustomed to such controversy. And Kesey, by aiding in the
establishment of a drug counterculture, helped pioneer the hippie
movement that developed in the mid-1960s.92 In the midst of all this
change, however, America forgot the Beats.
Conclusion
Naked Lunch represents the culmination of Beat literature. William
S. Burroughs, who, himself, exemplifies the characteristics of the Beat
movement, wrote the book under a heavy influence of drugs, and both
Jack Kerouac and Allen Ginsberg became involved in the editorial process
of the book. Three of the major influences of the Beat Generation seem to
have come together to ensure the publication and release of Naked
Lunch.
With this in mind, it seems only natural that the book saw such
persecution. Naked Lunch, like the Beat movement, challenged traditional
codes of thought: the book took an experimental form, with no real
continuous narrative. The novelʼs contents incorporated Burroughsʼ own
junk experience in a way that revealed something about society, and vivid
depictions of sex, drugs, and violence color the bookʼs pages.
90
Levin, Martin, “A Readerʼs Report” New York Times (1962), 214.
Robert D. Marcus, A Brief History of the United States Since 1945 (New York: St.
Martinʼs Press, 1975), 190-192.
92
Marcus, A Brief History of the United States, 190-192.
91
84
The courts never permanently banned Naked Lunch, however, and
after an initial fervor of criticism, the heated debates quickly died down.
The book that had initially caused an eruption of attempted censorship and
moral outrage soon became old news. Just as Burroughs flew into the
American literary spotlight with the publication of Naked Lunch—the
culmination of the work of the Beat movement—the American people lost
interest. The Beat ideals could no longer shock the country into a moral
outrage.
The same year that Grove Press published Naked Lunch, Ken
Kesey published his first novel, One Flew Over the Cuckooʼs Nest. A year
before the trial of Naked Lunch faced the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court, Ken Kesey and his Merry Pranksters took their cross-country, LSDenhanced bus trip from California to New York and back again. The
controversy surrounding the publication of Naked Lunch, in many ways,
made America more accepting of other revolutionary figures, such as Ken
Kesey. As a result, the door to the counterculture of the 1960s burst open:
Timothy Leary began his own experiments with LSD; The Grateful Dead
formed at one of Keseyʼs acid parties; Jimi Hendrix set his guitar on fire at
a 1967 music festival. Right when Naked Lunch reached its peak of
attention in America, the country had moved on. In this sense, Burroughsʼ
Naked Lunch represents the simultaneous culmination and downfall of the
Beat movement in America.
85
Bibliography
Black, Jeremy. Altered States: America Since the Sixties. London:
Reaktion Books Ltd., 2006.
Burroughs, William S. Junky. New York: Penguin Books, 1953.
Burroughs, William S. Naked Lunch. New York: Grove Press, 2001.
Burroughs, William S. Queer. New York: Penguin Books, 1986
Burroughs, William. The Letters of William S. Burroughs 1945-1959. New
York: Viking, 1993.
Burroughs, William S. Letters to Allen Ginsberg 1953-1957. New York: Full
Court Press, 1982.
Burroughs, William S., Oliver Harris, and Allen Ginsberg.The Yage Letters
Redux. San Francisco, CA: City Lights Books, 2006.
“Community Theater.” Chicago Tribune, 23 April 1970, sec. W, p. 8.
Cromie, “Crime on My Hands.” Chicago Tribune, 30 July 1967, sec. N, p.
10.
Diehl, Digby. “Book Talk: In Defense of the Critic as an Artist.” Los
Angeles Times, 30 January 1972, sec. V, p. 47.
Dunar, Andrew J. America in the Fifties. New York: Syracuse University
Press, 2006.
Elliott, George, P. “Speaking of Books: Nihilism.” New York Times, 8
November 1964, sec. Book Review, p. 2.
Glaser, Alice. “Making It.” Chicago Tribune. 3 November 1968, sec. R, p.
8.
Gold, Herbert. “Instead of Love, the Fix.” New York Times, 25 November
1962, sec. Book Review, p. 330.
Gold, Herbert. “Gentlemen of the Jury.” New York Times, 26 May 1963,
sec. Book Review, p. 302.
86
Goodman, Michael Barry. Contemporary Literary Censorship: The Case
History of Burroughsʼ Naked Lunch. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow
Press, 1981.
Haber, Joyce. “A Little Christmas Cheer With All the Trimmings.” Los
Angeles Times, 25 December 1966, sec. G, p. 9.
Haber, Joyce. “A Field Guide to Snobbery of the Literary Variety.” Los
Angeles Times, 4 June 1967, sec. C, p. 8.
Hamilton, Iain. “Two Cheers for Honest Paradoxology.” Chicago Tribune,
15 February 1970, sec. J, p. 4.
Harris, Oliver, and Ian Mac Fadyen. Naked Lunch at 50: Anniversary
Essays. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2009.
Hibbard, Allen. Conversations with William S. Burroughs. Jackson, MS:
University Press of Mississippi, 1999.
Hook, Sidney. “Pornography and the Censor; Pornography Pornography.”
New York Times, 12 April 1964, sec. Book Review, p. 8.
Hook, Sidney. “A Reply.” New York Times, 10 May 1964, sec. Book
Review, p. 33.
Hansen, Harry. “A New Review Medium Rears Its Idealistic Head.”
Chicago Tribune, 10 March 1963, sec. K, p. 8.
Kesey, Ken. One Flew Over the Cuckooʼs Nest. New York: Penguin
Group, 1962.
Knickerbocker, Conrad. “Humor With a Mortal Sting.” New York Times, 27
September 1964, sec. Book Review, p. 3.
Leeds, Barry. Ken Kesey. New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., Inc.,
1981.
Lipton, Lawrence. “Visions of a Drug Addict; Visions During 15 Years on
Heroin.” Los Angeles Times, 27 January 1963, sec. K, p. 1.
Lipton, Lawrence. “Beatniks in the Disenchanted 60s.” Los Angeles Times,
3 September 1964, sec. C, p. 6.
87
Marcus, Robert D. A Brief History of the United States Since 1945. New
York: St. Martinʼs Press., 1975.
McCarthy, Mary.The Writing on the Wall and Other Literary Essays. New
York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1970.
Miles, Barry. The Beat Hotel. New York, NY: Grove Press, 2000.
Miles, Barry. William Burroughs: El Hombre Invisible. New York: Hyperion,
1993.
Morgan, Ted. Literary outlaw: the life and times of William S. Burroughs.
New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company, 1988.
Nichols, Lewis. “In and Out of Books.” New York Times, 10 July 1960, sec.
Book Review, p. 8
Nichols, Lewis. “In and Out of Books ; Departure.” New York Times, 28
October 1962, sec. Book Review, p. 272.
Nichols, Lewis. “In and Out of Books ; One a Day.” New York Times, 12
April 1964, sec. Book Review, p. 8.
Tytell, John. Naked angels: Kerouac, Ginsberg, Burroughs. Chicago: Ivan
R. Dee, 2006.
Skerl, Jennie. Reconstructing the Beats. New York: Palgrave Macmillan,
2004.
Skerl, Jennie. William S. Burroughs. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1985.
Skerl, Jennie, and Robin Lydenberg. William S. Burroughs At the Front:
Critical Reception, 1959-1989. Illinois: Southern Illinois University,
1991.
Stephenson, Gregory. The Daybreak Boys: Essays on the Literature of the
Beat Generation. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press,
1990.
Chapter 6
The Real Promised Land: Claude Brownʼs Manchild in the Promised
Land and Life in Harlem
Philip R. Siegle III
“Where does one run to when heʼs already in the promised land?”1
Claude Brown grew up in a place where drugs and violence were
pervasive. Raised in Harlem in the late 1940ʼs throughout the 1950ʼs,
Brown became involved with many things that most people only see in
movies. At ten-years-old Brown joined a gang, drank alcohol,
experimented with drugs, and had an in-depth knowledge of street
gambling and prostitution. And in Harlem, Claude Brown was not
exceptional. His childhood was similar to many children growing up in
Harlem in the postwar period. Before the war, African-Americans had
come to the cities looking for better lives than they had in the South.
Migrating North, they were looking for equality, work, and happiness: their
promised land. What they found, instead, was a slum ghetto known as
Harlem.
Claude Brown grew up and eventually escaped Harlem, but he did
not forget it. He wanted to put his experiences into something others
could benefit from; and this led him to write his masterpiece Manchild in
the Promised Land. The book chronicled Brownʼs childhood and all the
struggles that went along with it, providing a vivid insight into his time in
reform schools, his involvement with drugs and prostitutes, his gunshot
wound at thirteen, and to his eventual departure from Harlem. Brownʼs
story is a tale of growing up in the period between the Great Migration and
the Civil Rights Movement.
Brownʼs description of Harlem after the war opens a window onto
the consequences of the Great Migration. A significant amount of
scholarly work has been produced on the Great Migration, movement of
over 1.3 million African-Americans from the rural South to the urban North
between 1910 and 1930.2 Although Claude Brown was not born until
1
Claude Brown, Manchild in the Promised Land (New York: Macmillan, 1965), 8.
Eric Arnesen, Black Protest, and the Great Migration (Boston: Bedford/St. Martins,
2003); Davarian L. Baldwin, Chicagoʼs New Negros: Modernity and the Great Migration
(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2007); Steven Hahn, A Nation Under Our
Feet (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 2003; Lisa Krisshoff Bohehm, Making a Way Out of No
Way (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2009); Robert B. Grant, The Black Man
Comes to the City (Chicago: Nelson-Hall Company, 1972); James R. Grossman, Land of
Hope: Chicago, Black Southerners, and the Great Migration (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1989); Alferdteen Harrison, Black Exodus: The Great Migration from the
American South (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1991); Joe W. Trotter, AfricanAmerican Urban History since World War II (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009).
2
89
1937 his parents were two of the 1.3 million African-Americans who took
part in migrating to the city. After the war the Great Migration led to a
generation gap between the people who migrated and their children.
Brown shows in Manchild how his parents, and his friendʼs parents, failed
to understand the things they saw and experienced every day. Indeed,
Brown and his friends comprised the new generation of urban AfricanAmericans, while their parents retained their rural identities and habits.
Manchild in the Promised Land was published in 1965 at the height
of the Civil Rights Movement. Considerable academic work has been
done on the African-American Civil Rights Movement.3 Brown offers a
special case of a coming of age tale during the Civil Rights Movement.
While Brownʼs book shed light on issues African-Americans dealt with in
the inner cities, Brown did not blame White America for his desperate
childhood. “They [African-Americans] are angry,” Brown wrote, “There are
black men in this country that are dangerously angry.”4 Instead of
chronicling the rise of the Civil Rights struggle, Brown highlights the
dissatisfaction of urban African-Americans and the normalcy of a life lived
in poverty.
Claude Brownʼs book had a major impact when it was released.
Considered controversial because of its vulgar language, sexual content,
and drug references, the book still had a proved influential because it was
not just another angry narrative, rather it was a coming of age tale.5
Manchild in the Promised Land was a unique book, the first of its kind.
This chapter will argue that Manchild in the Promised Land was a
landmark book because it was the first book of its kind to be published and
accepted, one that brought to attention the atrocious conditions in urban
ghettos, while highlighting the struggles of ordinary African-Americas in
Harlem during the Civil Rights era.
Brownʼs Life
Claude Brown was born in 1937 in Harlem. Like many others
growing up in Harlem at the same time, he grew up on the streets. From
an early age Brown passed time by breaking the law in Harlemʼs streets
3
Reggie Finlayson, We Shall Overcome: The History of the American Civil Rights
Movement (Minneapolis: Lerner, 2003); Charles George, Living Through The Civil Rights
Movement (Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2007); William T. Martin-Riches, The Civil Rights
Movement: Struggle and Resistance (New York: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2004); Mark
Newman, The Civil Rights Movement (Westport: Praegar, 2004); Charles Patterson, The
Civil Rights Movement (New York: Garland, 1995); Joe Street, The Culture War in the
Civil Rights Movement (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2007); Sanford Wexler,
The Civil Rights Movement: An Eyewitness Account (New York: St. Martinʼs Press,
1993).
4
Brown, Manchild in the Promised Land, 337.
5
Finlayson, We Shall Overcome.
90
and, consequently, running into trouble with the police. During his
childhood, there was nothing about Claude Brown to differentiate him from
the other children growing up in Harlem. There was no real reason to
imagine that Claude Brown would become anything other than a gangster
or a junkie. Yet as Brown aged, Harlem lost its appeal. In his later teens
he decided that he wanted more than what Harlem had to offer, and,
although he had dropped out of high school, he began his escape by
attending night high school.
Brown put himself through high school by working as a busboy.
Upon graduation, he decided he wanted to go to college, but he did not
attend right away. Eventually Brown attended Howard University, where
he began writing. At Howard, Brown wrote an article about growing up in
Harlem, and this article eventually expanded into Manchild in the
Promised Land. Brown went on to graduate from Howard University and
elected to go onto law school. He enrolled at the Stanford University
School of Law. After one year at Stanford, Brown decided to move back
home and transferred to Rutgers University where he graduated with his
jurors doctorate.
Brown did not practice law for long. After the success of Manchild,
he found that there was much more money to be made as a lecturer and
began lecturing full-time. Brown never forgot about his childhood, and
along with lecturing, he also devoted much of his time to civic efforts to
better the lives of the urban poor. It was Brownʼs goal to use his life as a
living example that great odds could be overcome and a successful life
could be crafted from the rough experiences of a deprived childhood.
Brown never moved back to Harlem to live; however, he did return to New
York. He died there of respiratory failure in 2002.
Manchild in the Promised Land
It was surprising that Manchild in the Promised Land was published
at all. By 1965 Harlem was changing rapidly. Groups organized trying to
bring about change. Local activists teamed with organizations such as the
Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), and Harlem Youth Opportunities
Unlimited (HARYOU) to try and achieve, among other things, fair housing
costs, more suitable living conditions, and better schools. Both political
Islam, led by Malcolm X, and nonviolent protests, led by Martin Luther
King Jr., mixed in the streets of Harlem in the early 1960s; both set on
bettering the lot of African-Americans. The Civil Rights movement was in
full swing, and the fact that the realities of both the oppression in the South
and the deprivation in the North were constantly in the spotlight led a
publishing company to decide to take a chance on Claude Brown and
Manchild in the Promised Land.
91
A complex memoir, Manchild in the Promised Land focuses on “the
first Northern urban generation of Negros,” and on the generational fault
lines laid bare during the 1950s.6 Young African-Americans spoke
differently and saw their place in the world differently than their parents
did. This disconnect from their parents, Brown argued, led many of them
to the streets.
From the onset, Manchild in the Promised Land immediately
reveals the troublesome lifestyle Claude Brown and his friends lived. The
book opens with a thirteen-year-old Claude Brown lying on the ground
suffering from a gunshot wound he received for attempting to steal bed
sheets off of a clothes line. From a very young age, Brown had been a
member of a ganged called the “Forty Thieves.”7 By the age of thirteen,
Brown had already committed more criminal acts than most people would
commit in a lifetime. While the older kids in the neighborhood dealt drugs,
the younger kids got their start stealing money and food from stores, as
well as items like sheets from the neighbors. Growing up, Brown and his
friends spent more time in the streets than they spent in their own homes.
Brownʼs parents provided for him to the best of their ability, and this was a
fact that differentiated him from many of his friends. Even so, he still
chose to stay out on the streets more often than not.
The lifestyle Brown led as a child led him to become closely
acquainted with the judicial system, and he spent time in and out of youth
correctional facilities throughout his youth. He spent time in the New York
Training School for Boys, the Wiltwyck School for Boys (where he stayed
for two and a half years), and a facility called Warwick. This experience
seemed to be ubiquitous in his neighborhood, and throughout the book,
Brown tells of reunions with his friends inside youth prisons. The boys
considered their incarcerations a change of scenery; they got nice beds to
sleep in; and three regular meals a day. Getting into so much trouble with
the law at such a young age led Brown to realize he was not happy, and
that he wanted something more. In one of the most powerful moments in
the book Brown states, in response to a judge letting him back on the
streets and giving him another chance, “Man, you not giving us another
chance, you giving us the same chance we had before.”8 In this insightful
statement Brown reveals that he, along with others, longed for a different
situation, but all they got was the same pitiful one.
Brown began to realize that he wanted a different life during the
time he spent at the Wiltwyck School for Boys. At Wiltwyck Claude Brown
met Mr. Papanek. Papanek was one of the staff members at Wiltwyck
who Brown grew to like and respect. Brown described Papanek this way:
6
8
7
92
“He wasnʼt a pushover kind of cat. He was just a nice cat, a nice
cat that you had to respect…the cat was nice in his mind. The way
he looked at life and people was beautiful. Papanek had a way of
making the whole world seem beautiful and making everybody in
life seem to be important…being Papanek made him irresistibly
likable.”9
Although Papanek did not totally convince Brown that he needed to
change his life, he did, however, connect with Brown, and he was the first
person to really help Brown see that a different life was possible.
After Brownʼs time in Wiltwyck, his troublesome days were not over.
He later spent time at Warwick (a youth correctional facility for older
teenagers who had previously been places like Wiltwyck), but he began to
turn the corner. By age 16 and 17, he began to really grow tired of what
Harlem had to offer. And even after his time in Wiltwyck, Brown went back
to visit Papanek. He asked him for advice, and truly valued his opinions.
Brown was still not quite convinced he would get a different life, but his
time at Wiltwyck marked the beginning of his quest to get one.
Brown eventually began to disassociate himself from the Harlem
scene and from the people who he had always found trouble with. Brown
moved to Greenwich Village and began going to night school. While he
still went to Harlem on the weekends, he stayed out of trouble, for the
most part, and by his younger standards, he was a saint. He grew weary
of hard drugs, claiming that, “Heroin had just about taken over Harlem. It
seemed to be a kind of plague.”10 During his teen years drugs took over
the place Brown had grown to love. His friends, and eventually even his
younger brother, all became junkies. Brown did not want this life, and he
was determined to find his place elsewhere, even though he was not quite
sure where that place might be.
In the early 1960s, when Brown was in his early twenties, reality
began to settle in. His friends began dying from drug overdoses. Girls
who Brown used to like became junkies and prostitutes.11 As more and
more of Brownʼs friends became casualties of street life, he stood back
and watched the losses pile up before him. “As the blood and the drugs
started its way down into the needle, I thought, this is our childhood,”
Brown lamented, “Our childhood had been covered with blood.”12
At the conclusion of the book, Brown began to reconnect with
people he had lost contact with. Many of them envied Brownʼs escape
from Harlem, while others seem content with their lot. Brown ultimately
comes to the conclusion that things will never really change in Harlem,
that things will continue the same way as they did for him and his friends
9
11
Brown, Manchild in the Promised Land, 263,
12
10
93
growing up. Near the end Brown reflects on the fact that everyone in
Harlem had a dream, but that it often seemed like their dreams were not
worthy of being dreams. Yet he also points out that he was envious of
these limited dreams because he never even had a dream. The book
ends in a way that leaves the reader feeling like the story is not over, and
that is because life continues, and the struggles continue for the people
that are growing up in Harlem and places like it.
Harlem After The War
Brownʼs autobiography provided a powerful look at life in Harlem,
but it also provided an excellent look at the effects of the Great Migration.
During World War I, the huge need for manpower in the cities of the North
drove and many African-Americans to leave the South.13 For many
African-Americans moving was, “Tantamount to a second emancipation.”14
Unfortunately, the Northern cities that these African-Americans were
coming to proved not the promised land they were told it would be.
Claude Brown sharply criticized these pilgrims: “[They were] The poorest
people of the South…told that unlimited opportunities for prosperity
existed…but it was a slum ghetto…they had gone from the fire to the
frying pan.”15 The Jim Crow South was traded for places like Harlem,
which were segregated, overcrowded slums that became hotbeds of
unemployment, drug abuse, and crime.16
Urban ghettos existed before African-Americans came to the North;
however, they became worse as a result of the Great Migration because
life in Harlem disrupted traditional kinship systems of support, and thrust
African-Americans into a new system of oppression that little resembled
the one to which they had become accustomed. The problem of being
exposed to things like drugs and crime was only exacerbated by the fact
that there was no solid family life to fall back on.
Arguably the biggest thing the Great Migration did was generate a
generation gap between the generation that moved to the cities, and the
generation that followed. When African-Americans moved to the cities,
they often failed to adapt.17 Their children, however, lived lives that were
unfamiliar. Parents could not imagine the lives their children lived. Brown
illustrates this in Manchild when his father replies to his story, “Boy, why
13
Hahn, A Nation Under Their Feet.
Milton C. Sernett, Bound for the Promised Land, (Durham: Duke University Press,
1997).
15
16
Joe William Trotter, The Great Migration in Historical Perspective: New Dimensions of
Race, Class, and Gender (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991).
17
Nicholas Lemann, The Promised Land: The Great Black Migration and How It Changed
America (New York: Knopf, 1991).
14
94
donʼt you stop that lying.”18 For the generation who migrated, cities were a
strange new world, but for Brownʼs generation, it was the only world they
knew. This stark difference made it difficult for the two to coexist.
Manchild in the Promised Land was released in 1965, which was at
the height of the Civil Rights Movement. The bookʼs release was
important because within the text you can see the early stages of the Civil
Rights Movement taking place in Harlem. The Civil Rights Movement
began in earnest in the year 1955 when Rosa Parks refused to give up her
seat on a Montgomery bus. Historian Peter B. Levy compares this event
to the Battle of Lexington and Concord of the American Revolution.19 As
the movement progressed, it moved further North, and its presence could
be seen in Harlem, and in turn is reflected in Manchild in the Promised
Land.
Brown writes frequently about African-Americansʼ desire for change
in Harlem, depicting the drive for equality at the heart of the Civil Rights
Movement. Within Harlem groups formed to promote this change. Two
that Brown had direct contact with were the Coptics and the Black
Muslims. The Coptics were a Christian group who tried to help get addicts
clean, and the Black Muslims were trying to form a new black nationalism
that would completely break ties with the Whites. Brown associated with
the Coptics for a short time, and he recommended their help to some of
his friends. Yet, it was merely a phase for him. He never joined the Black
Muslims, but he mentioned how he saw their presence, and that he
thought they were good for Harlem.20 Claude Brown observed the Civil
Rights Movement happening. He saw the Muslims, the Coptics, and other
groups all pushing to change things in Harlem. Yet, like so many, he
remained an observer as the movement grew around him.
Publishing and Reception
Manchild in the Promised Land was such a controversial book that
it is somewhat miraculous that it was published to begin with. Had Claude
Brown never met Dr. Papanek at the Wiltwyck School, Manchild may
never have come to fruition. As a first year college student Brownʼs former
mentor Dr. Papanek asked him to write an article for Dissent Magazine.
This article found its way to an editor at Macmillan Publishing group, and
this led to Brown being offered a $2,000 advance to transform his article
into a book. Two years later Brown delivered a 1,500 page manuscript
that quickly found its way to storage. Luckily, a year later a new editor,
Alan Rinzler, read the manuscript and was so impressed he decided it
18
Peter B. Levy, The Civil Rights Movement (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1998).
20
Brown, Manchild in the Promised Land.
19
95
should be published. Rinzler was so set on publishing Manchild because
he felt Brown had an authentic and true voice.21
Macmillan took a chance in publishing Brownʼs book. No publisher
had ever released a book of this genre and a book with so much adult
content. Macmillan backed a large advertising campaign. The New York
Times ran large advertisements for Manchild with headlines depicting a
miraculous escape from the ghetto.22 From August 14-25 of 1965, the
New York Times had at least one article related to Manchild in the
Promised Land in every paper. To further help the promotion of his book
Claude Brown did radio interview that were broadcast across the nation.23
By the time the book hit the shelves it was much anticipated.
Macmillan did a tremendous job of pushing their gamble of a publication to
the front of public attention. To aid furthermore in their advertising
campaign, they published ads that had quotes from high praising reviews
of several notable figures of the time.24 Macmillanʼs goal was to have
Manchild in the Promised Land so hyped that its controversial aspects
would be pushed to the background. With their highly successful
advertising campaigns, and the number of copies sold when Manchild
actually hit shelves, it is safe to say they succeeded in this goal.
Upon hitting the shelves, Manchild in the Promised Land wasted no
time in climbing up the best seller lists. By September 12, 1965 Manchild
was the ninth bestselling book for general non-fiction.25 Manchild
continued to sell copy after copy throughout the rest of 1965 and all of
1966. Macmillan reported having over 500,000 copies ordered for print in
1966 alone.26 In January of 1967, the New York Times still listed Manchild
in the Promised Land as the third highest seller of general non-fiction.27
Manchild in the Promised Land was a gamble for the Macmillan Company,
but it paid off greatly. Manchild not only started off selling great, but it
lasted. Manchild in the Promised Land was a huge success that
catapulted Claude Brown to the forefront of the American public. He
became Harlemʼs icon, and he remained there for a very long time.
Newspapers began publishing reviews of the book before it hit
shelves. These reviews largely sang the praises of Manchild and they
included some very well known writers and intellectuals of the time. While
this book was not accepted by everyone, there was a large number of
people saw this book as a landmark achievement for urban African-
21
Robert F. Worth, “Claude Brown, Manchild of the Promised Land, Dies at 64,” New
York Times, February 6, 2002, PHN.
22
New York Times, “Display Ad 48,” August 17, 1965, PHN.
23
New York Times, “Radio,” August 27, 1965, PHN.
24
New York Times, “Display Ad 17,” August 26, 1965, PHN.
25
New York Times, “Best Seller List,” September 12, 1965, PHN.
26
New York Times, “The Peopleʼs Choice,” February 26, 1967, PHN.
27
New York Times, “Paperbacks Best Sellers,” January 1, 1967, PHN.
96
Americans, and as a testament to the fact that being raised in a place like
Harlem was not necessarily a death sentence.
One of the first reviews to be published by the New York Times was
published by Eliot Fremont-Smith, a book reviewer and critic for the New
York Times from 1961-1968. Fremont-Smith was impressed with Brown in
many ways. He was first impressed with his ability to get out of Harlem
and to make something out of himself. The second thing to impress
Fremont-Smith was Manchild in the Promised Land itself. He gave high
praise to the blunt and honest form Brown used throughout Manchild. “He
is now able to write with immense control of the debasement and selfabasement and destruction of his friends,” writes Fremont-Smith.28 This
book, Fremont-Smith claimed, showed the true Harlem, and it was a
powerful look at a place filled with people who had no sense of purpose or
dreams.29
On August 22, 1965, the New York Times published another review
of Manchild in the Promised Land, this time written by well-known
playwright Romulus Linney. Linney was a huge advocate of Manchild in
the Promised Land. He felt that the strongest point the autobiography
could make was that Brown survived everything he went through. The
Linney praised Brownʼs writing style saying, “It is written with brutal and
unvarnished honesty…obscene and tender, but always sensible and
direct.”30 Linney felt that it conveyed the simple, yet truthful, ideal that with
a little help from positive role models, and self-determination, anyone
could make it out of the ghetto. He considered Brown to be an exceptional
person, yet only because he made the decision to be an exceptional
person.
The New York Times was not the only newspaper publishing
articles on Manchild in the Promised Land. On September 12, and again
on September 16, the Chicago Tribune published articles on Manchild
written by renowned historian John Hope Franklin.31 Franklin saw
Manchild in the Promised Land was a monumental book for AfricanAmericans, calling it: “One of the most moving, authentic accounts of life in
the jungle of an American ghetto that has ever been written.”32 Another
aspect of Manchild in the Promised Land that Franklin found important
was that Brown escaped without becoming bitter about his lost childhood.
Brown, in Franklinʼs opinion, left Harlem with remorse, but without
28
Elliot Freemont-Smith, “Coming of Age in Harlem: A Report From Hell,” New York
Times, August 15, 1965, PHN.
29
Fremont-Smith, “Coming of Age in Harlem,” New York Times, PHN.
30
Romulus Linney, “Growing Up The Hard Way,” New York Times, August 22, 1965,
PHN.
31
John Hope Franklin, “Life-In-Raw: Story Told of Negro Ghetto,” Chicago Tribune,
September 12, 1965, PHN; John Hope Franklin, “Growing Up in Americaʼs Largest
Ghetto,” Chicago Tribune, September 16, 1965, PHN.
32
Franklin, “Life-In-Raw,” Chicago Tribune, PHN.
97
bitterness, and this was something he saw as an important lesson for
future people trying to escape the ghetto. Franklin believed that some
bitterness was normal for situations like the one Brown escaped, but he
saw it as a hindrance to fully escaping.33
Another prominent figure to write reviews for Manchild in the
Promised Land was well-known editor of The Nation Viktor Navasky.
Navasky wrote two articles about Manchild in the Promised Land, which
were published on consecutive days, February 26 and 27 of 1966.34
Navasky, like many other reviewers, found it miraculous that Brown
escaped Harlem, and he even went as far to say, “The realization that an
ignorant, delinquent Negro can survive the degradations of Harlem life and
go onto good citizenship and book writing is…an occasion for
celebration.”35 This statement takes someone, in this case Brown, getting
out of the ghetto to the extreme, but the point being made is the same as
all the others: it was not common in that day to get out of the ghetto, and
Brown did. Navaskyʼs other big point was one that his fellow reviewers all
mentioned as well, and that is how improbable it was that someone could
make it out of a place like Harlem without bitterness.
Manchild in the Promised Land was a widely popular book, but it
was not a book that everyone became a fan of. This book had content
that was vulgar, degrading, sexual in nature, and descriptive of criminal
behavior; and this was not acceptable to everyone who encountered it.
While Manchild introduced people to what Harlem was like, it was too over
the top for many people. It found its way to banned book lists with time,
and some reviewers were unkind.
Writer and Professor Raymond A. Schroth reviewed Manchild in the
Promised Land when it was released in 1965. He was one of the
reviewers that did not sing praises about Manchild; instead he pointed out
some problems he saw with it. In Professor Schrothʼs opinion, Manchild
was too vulgar, and used what he called, “latrine talk.”36 On top of the
poor language, Professor Schroth also believed that, “Manchild has told us
much…for some, too much.”37 Professor Schroth saw good things in
Manchild, but he did not like the way Brown actually wrote the book, and
he felt it was too vivid. He also did not believe it would do as much as
people believed it would to bridge the gap between whites and blacks.
Richard C. Brickner noticed that Manchild was becoming a popular
required reading in colleges by the spring of 1966. Although he was not
totally opposed to Manchild, he seemed to think the book was not
acceptable to be required in an academic setting. In an article published
33
Franklin, “Growing Up In Americaʼs Largest Ghetto,” Chicago Tribune, PHN.
Viktor Navasky, “Malice Towards All,” New York Times, February 26, 1966, PHN;
Viktor Navasky, “A Tale of Bitterness Told With Malice,” February 27, 1966, PHN.
35
Navasky, “Malice Towards All,” New York Times, PHN.
36
Raymond A. Schroth, “In The Promised Land,” America 113, no. 9 (1965).
37
Schroth, “In The Promised Land,” America.
34
98
in the New York Times in February of 1966, Brickner conveyed that he did
not believe anyone should be required to read an entire list of books, and
Manchild was on this list.38
By 1971, Manchild in the Promised Land was making banned book
lists. As it entered into the high school reading scenes, many parents
began to complain that their children were being subjected to material that
was inappropriate for them. In an article published by the New York Times
in October of 1971, Richard Lingeman wrote that Manchild was one of the
top 25 books in America in terms of complaints received.39 This would
become a common trend for Manchild as many places either banned it
totally, or try to get severely edited editions of the book. Although
Manchild in the Promised Land has provoked controversy, it has stood the
test of time so far, and it still sells roughly 30,000 copies a year.
When Manchild in the Promised Land came out, it came out with a
force. Anchored by a very aggressive advertising campaign the book was
widely hailed as a groundbreaking book that shed light on important issues
facing African-Americans. Not everyone was not as accepting of Manchild
as newspapers may have made it seem, but it was much harder to find
these voices of disapproval in the sea of praise that was going around.
Much of the criticism that did occur happened in the avenue of letters to
the editor, but as far as mainstream articles went, it was overwhelmingly
positive.
Conclusion
Claude Brown was a remarkable man. He grew up in a place that
all but predestined him to fail. Throughout his childhood he would see and
experience things that most adults will never have to put up with. He had
every reason to become a product of his environment and to fall into the
streets that consumed so many of the people he knew and loved. Claude
Brown was different though. He did not conform to his environment. He
was strong, willing, and self-driven. These characteristics allowed him,
with the help of others, to get out of his environment and to show the world
that an average boy from Harlem could become a successful man.
Manchild in the Promised Land was one of the most unlikely books
to ever be published. It was unprecedented, in your face, loud, vulgar,
offensive; but most importantly it was honest and informative. This book
showed the world what Harlem was, and what it was doing to the people
that lived there. Harlem was not a pretty place; in fact it was a filthy place
that claimed the lives and childhoods of countless people. This book
showed America what was going on north of 110th Street. Because of this
book people could see what was going on in Harlem and places like it.
38
39
Richard P. Brickner, “Unrequired Reading,” New York Times, February 27, 1966, PHN.
Richard Lingeman, “Freedom To Read,” New York Times, October 31, 1971, PHN.
99
Americans could see and understand what was happening in AfricanAmerican slums in cities all across America because of the powerful
autobiography of one man.
Manchild in the Promised Land was not accepted by everyone, and
it probably never will be. It is offensive and vulgar. There are chapters
that are distasteful and unlikable. This book, however, opened eyes, and
it enlightened people to what life is like for some unfortunate others. This
chapter has argued that Manchild in the Promised Land was a landmark
book because it was the first book of its kind to be published and
accepted; one that brought to attention the atrocious lifestyles going on in
urban ghettos, and one that highlighted the African-American struggle.
And this is important because Brownʼs question remains relevant: “Where
does one run when heʼs already in the promised land?”
100
Bibliography
Arnesen, Eric. Black Protest and the Great Migration. Boston: Bedford/St.
Martinʼs, 2003.
Baldwin, Davarian L. Chicagoʼs New Negros: Modernity and the Great
Migration. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2007.
Bohehm, Lisa K. Making A Way Out of No Way. Jackson: University Press
of Mississippi, 2009.
Brickner, Richard P. “Unrequired Reading.” New York Times, February
27, 1966, PHN.
Brown, Claude. Manchild in the Promised Land. New York: Macmillan,
1965.
Finlayson, Reggie. We Shall Overcome: The History of the American Civil
Rights Movement. Minneapolis: Lerner, 2003.
Franklin, John H. “Growing Up in Americaʼs Largest Ghetto.” Chicago
Tribune, September 16, 1965, PHN.
Franklin, John H. “Life-In-Raw: Story Told of Negro Ghetto.” Chicago
Tribune, September 12, 1965, PHN.
Freemont-Smith, Elliot. “Coming of Age in Harlem: A Report From Hell.”
New York Times, August 16, 1965, PHN.
George, Charles. Living Through the Civil Rights Movement. Detroit:
Greenhaven Press, 2007.
Grossman, James R. Land of Hope: Chicago, Black Southerners, and the
Great Migration. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989.
Hahn, Steven. A Nation Under Our Feet. Cambridge: Belknap Press,
2003.
Harrison, Alferdteen. Black Exodus: The Great Migration from the
American South. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1991.
101
Lemann, Nicholas. The Promised Land: The Great Migration and How It
Changed America. New York: Knopf, 1991.
Levy, Peter B. The Civil Rights Movement. Westport: Greenwood Press,
1998.
Lingeman, Richard. “Freedom To Read.” New York Times, October 31,
1971.
Linney, Romulus. “Growing Up the Hard Way.” New York Times, August
22, 1965, PHN.
Martin-Riches, William T. The Civil Rights Movement: Struggle and
Resistance. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2004.
Navasky, Viktor. “A Tale of Bitterness Told With Malice.” Chicago Tribune,
February 27, 1966, PHN.
Navasky, Viktor. “Malice Towards All.” New York Times, February 26,
1966, PHN.
New York Times. “Best Seller List.” September 12, 1965, PHN.
New York Times. “Display Ad 17.” August 26, 1965, PHN.
New York Times. “Display Ad 48.” August 17, 1965, PHN.
New York Times. “New and Recommended.” August 29, 1965, PHN.
New York Times. “Paperbacks Best Sellers.” January 1, 1967, PHN.
New York Times. “Radio.” Augst 27, 1965, PHN.
New York Times. “The Peopleʼs Choice.” February 26, 1967, PHN.
Newman, Mark. The Civil Rights Movement. Westport: Greenwood Press,
2004.
Patterson, Charles. The Civil Rights Movement. New York: Garland, 1995.
Schroth, Raymond A. “In The Promised Land.” America 113, no. 9 (1965).
Scott, Emmet J. Negro Migration During the War. New York: Oxford
102
Sernett, Milton C. Bound for the Promised Land. Durham: Duke University
Press, 1997.
Street, Joe. The Culture War in the Civil Rights Movement. Gainesville:
University Press of Florida, 2007.
Trotter, Joe W. African-American Urban History Since World War II.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009.
Trotter, Joe W. The Great Migration in Historical Perspective: New
Dimensions of Race, Class, and Gender. Bloomington: Indiana
Wexler, Sanford. The Civil Rights Movement: An Eyewitness Account.
New York: St. Martinʼs Press, 1993.
Whaley, Elizabeth Gates. “What Happens When You Put the Manchild in
the Promised Land? An Experience With Censorship.” The English
Journal 63, no. 5 (1974): 60-68.
Worth, Robert F. “Claude Brown, Manchild of the Promised Land, Dies at
64.” New York Times, February 6, 2002.
Chapter 7
Nixon Takes Aim at Narcotics Use:
Vietnam and the War on Drugs 1966-1973
Anderson S. Wise
By the year 1969 the Vietnam experience seemed to be a painful
folly. “Soul Alley,” Saigon, a hotbed for deserters seeking a fix of potent
heroin from the “Golden Triangle,” proved this to be especially true.
“Cinder-block houses open to the street and illuminated by bare bulbs,
lined the alley, and inside American soldiers smoked ʻhits,ʼ cigarettes that
contained tobacco laced with heroin. The soldiers were relatively safe
since American military police could not enter a Vietnamese home unless
accompanied by Vietnamese policemen, who were generally paid off by
the ʻmama sansʼ who ran the drug retailing businesses. Children posted in
the alley warned inhabitants in the unlikely case of a raid. An Air Force
sergeant commented that ʻIf pigs are coming, we just throw away the hit,
and weʼre clean.ʼ”1 A number of Americans serving in the Vietnam
Theater of Operations picked up some nasty drug habits.
Previous research conducted on narcotics use coinciding with the
Vietnam Conflict focus on several major themes. Historians have noted
time and time again that almost all the intentions of the leaders and
planners in Vietnam involved often got the opposite results: from the
military buildup and escalation, to the year-long tours of duty, reliance on
technology, and tactics employed on the battlefield. Substance control
and testing policies also exemplified this theme of the “law of unforeseen
consequences.”2 Historians have also documented American fears of the
war “being brought back home.” Americans, and other nationalities, have
historically sought to accommodate returning veterans in a manner that
would not upset stability within society. Prevalent drug use served as just
one of these indicators of antisocial behavior that posed a threat to social
stability.3 Research also shows how, in a sense, the largely youthful GIs
1
Eric C. Schneider, Smack: Heroin and the American City (Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 2008), 161.
2
Alfred W. McCoy, The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia (New York: Harper & Row,
1972), 8; Alexander Kendrick, The Wound Within: America in the Vietnam Years, 19451974 (Boston: Little, Brown, 1974), 272; Steven Wisotsky, Breaking the Impasse in the
War on Drugs (New York: Greenwood Press, 1986), 27; Arnold S. Trebach, Drugs,
Crime and Politics (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers Inc. 1978), 17; Murray Polner, No
Victory Parades : The Return of the Vietnam Veteran (Austin: Holt, Rinehart & Winston,
1971), 41.
3
Martin Torgoff, Can't Find My Way Home: America in the Great Stoned Age, 1945-2000
(New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2004), 176; Schneider, 159.; Richard Duncan Downie,
Learning from Conflict: The U.S. Military in Vietnam, El Salvador, and the Drug War
(Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1998), 68; Matthew B. Robinson and Renee G.
104
could be said to be products of their generation. The Baby Boomers, by
and large, could be characterized as a segment of the population eager to
embrace new lifestyles and rebel against the social norms and authority
figures of their parentsʼ generation. During the sixties, “sex, drugs, and
rock & roll” became frequent pursuits for the young Americans, be they in
uniform or otherwise.4 Other research highlights the proliferation of
narcotics consumption within the ranks. A great many soldiers seemed to
have used marijuana at least once on their tour of duty. But the most
fascinating finding was perhaps the self-discipline by which GIs used;
almost none would allow themselves or their fellow GIs to be high while in
combat. Many returning GIs also managed to “kick” their heroin habit, by
going “cold turkey.” Historians and physicians have attributed this mainly
to the lack of potent heroin on the streets of America. Above all else, the
troops obviously wanted to make it home alive.5 Finally, historians have
depicted how alarm coming from Congress served as the catalyst for
sweeping government action. The watershed event, according to most of
the historiography, occurred in May of 1971, when two congressmen
released an investigative report that underscored the problem of heroin
use in Vietnam. Because of this, elements of government from the
Military, Congress, and Executive Branch launched a crackdown.6
The Vietnam Conflict affected Americans in ways both tangible and
intangible. The social effects of it caused a bitter fallout that lasted many
decades afterwards. The nation saw certain patterns of a substance
abuse as an aggravation of the many problems already caused by the
conflict. Like so many other social experiments (such as racial integration)
conducted in the past, the United States military once again served as the
test bed; this time for drug use prevention. Much like the backdrop of the
greater Vietnam conflict, however, many problems arose, and the results
proved to be far from perfect. Congress demanded action, and the Armed
Forces responded at the behest of President Nixon. Above all else,
demand by the American government, not the American public, led to
proactive measures to combat the use of mind-altering substances within
the ranks. In an unpopular conflict, authorities sought to remedy the
detrimental and widely prevalent narcotics use, which existed largely due
because of American presence in Southeast Asia. To this end, the
various Federal and military leaders achieved mediocre success, while
Scherlen, Lies, Damned Lies, and Drug War Statistics: A Critical Analysis of Claims
Made by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (Albany, New York: State University
Of New York Press, 2007), 28.
4
Torgoff, 152.; James A. Inciardi, The War on Drugs: Heroin, Cocaine, Crime, and Public
Policy (Mountain View, California: Mayfield Publishing Company, 1986), 103.
5
Howard J. Langer, The Vietnam War: An Encyclopedia of Quotations (New York:
Greenwood Press, 2005), 134; Torgoff, 174-175.; Downie, 175.
6
Drugs and Drug Policy in America: A Documentary History (New York: Greenwood
Press, 2000), 276; Torgoff, 192; McCoy, 351.
105
President Nixon instigated a wide scale law enforcement endeavor that
eventually spread to all of American society.
Reports of Drug Abuse Surface
Servicemen began using drugs (first) several years before actually
becoming a great concern to the Congress. Early testimonies arose inside
military and government circles regarding narcotics consumption. In fact,
opiates, stimulants, and hallucinogens could be found at duty stations all
around the world, not just in Southeast Asia.7 In a 1966 testimony before
the 89th Congress by Dr. Robert W. Baird, director of the Haven Clinic in
New York City, depicted the nature of addiction and dependency by active
duty and veteran personnel, alike:
Please have our troops examined coming in and out of endemic
areas. It is a horrible situation for me to see boys, and I have seen
this in my office, who are in the Marines, in the Army, who are
getting narcotics when they have been stationed in Korea, Japan,
Greece, Italy, Germany, and France, and they have needle marks
on them and they are not picked up for this. These kids are going
over to do a job, and the Communists are doing a better job through
the southern border of China infiltrating this stuff through Thailand
and Laos.8
From 1965 onward, drug use in Vietnam (most notably marijuana) began
to increase.9 GIs often turned to Vietnamese peasants as the source; the
indigenous persons in turn used the sales as a small source of income.
Yet even in 1968, the growing trend of drug use failed to be seen as a
serious problem by the Pentagon.10 Yet, things began to change, as it
became apparent consumption of narcotics increasingly spread
throughout the branches of the military.
Men of all backgrounds, military pay grades (i.e. ranks), service
branches, and education levels used mind-altering substances, particularly
the opiate heroin. The extent of which, however, varied greatly. By
August of 1971, common trends became apparent. One of these
coincided with age; the younger the serviceman, the greater the chance of
7
Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency,
nd
st
Drug Abuse in the Military, report prepared by Sen. Birch Bayh, 92 Cong., 1 sess.,
1971, Committee Print 69-144, 1.
8
U.S. Senate, Drug Abuse in the Military, 1.
9
"Pentagon Steps Up Fight on Drug Use in Vietnam: Sharp Rise Noted in Inquiries Into
Marijuana Cases for G.I.'s in Last 2 Years," New York Times, February 16, 1968. PHN.
10
"Pentagon Steps Up Fight on Drug Use in Vietnam.”
106
them being a substance abuser.11 Another demographic trend
corresponded with racial identity. According to a study, white servicemen
proved to be the least frequent daily narcotic abusers. African-Americans
got high at almost twice the rate, while other racial groups (Hispanics,
Asians, and Pacific Islanders) exceeded both black and white intoxication
patterns.12 Marital status likewise influenced rates of intoxication: 6.8% of
those classified as single tended to be daily abusers, while 3.2% of those
married got high on a daily basis.13 Clearly, cultural differences played a
significant role in GIsʼ habits. Different upbringings and socioeconomic
statuses influenced troopsʼ behavior patterns. GIs from more urban, blue
collar backgrounds tended to be more vulnerable to drug use. Regional
differences existed as well: 11.2% of GIs from New England got high daily,
7.8% from the North Atlantic, 8.5% from the Middle Atlantic, 3.4% from the
South Atlantic, 2.8% from the South, 3.9% from the Southwest, 3.0% from
the Great Lakes, 3.2% from the Great Plains, 4.6% from the Mountains,
4.4% from the Pacific, and 7.4% from all other locations.14 In other words,
Americans from the more conservative leaning states used drugs on a
less frequent basis. Those serving in the Army or Marine Corps generally
used drugs more frequently.15 The Army in particular—the largest of the
services—also included the most junior enlisted pay grades. Individuals of
the most junior enlisted pay grades (E1-E3) proved to be the most
susceptible to narcotics use.16
The very existence of American troops in the Southeast Asia
proved to be a major reason for the deployed menʼs exposure to drugs in
the first place. The ready availability of opium and marijuana made those
soldiers serving in Vietnam the most frequent users of narcotics compared
to those deployed to other locations around the world.17 Education also
proved to be a significant influence over patterns of substance abuse.
Those serving in the Army with no high school education, showed the
greatest tendency to get intoxicated on a daily basis (20.1% of those
studied). The trend then declined to the least likely consumers, those with
college undergraduate degrees (2.4%). Interestingly, soldiers with college
graduate degrees proved to be the second highest daily abusers (17.3%).
Thus, those with the lowest and highest education levels, tended to be the
most prone to habitual drug use.18 These “short timers” generally had little
11
Allan H. Fisher Jr., Preliminary Findings from the 1971 DoD Survey of Drug Use
(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1972), 31.
12
Fisher, Preliminary Findings, 29.
13
14
15
16
17
18
107
interest in creating distinguished military records. Rather, they often
sought to test authority figures.
Each service saw increasing military discharges as a result of
drugs. The services dismissed 3,766 violators in 1969, while an additional
5,621 abusers were discharged in 1970.19 The fact that the expulsions
rose, clearly meant the problem grew worse over time. Increased
discharges worsened morale and discipline within military units. Those
dismissed from the various armed services also posed a liability to unit
cohesion. And there was a widespread belief that this evolution could only
mean more social problems back home. Indeed, the prevalence of drug
use amongst those deployed to Vietnam brought increased concern to
multiple segments of American society.
Concern Grows over the Drug Problem
Those men serving in the military, being the most directly impacted
proved to be some of the loudest voices concerned with the issue. As
their unitsʼ leaders, officers had the responsibility to ensure unit
cohesion.20 A 1968 edition of a military handbook made it clear
intoxicated fighting men posed a detriment to the purpose and mission of
the military: “Drug abuse has a particularly important consequence for the
Armed Forces. Unlike civilians, those in military service have a special
dependency on each other. No commander can trust the fate of his unit,
ship, or plane to a man who may be under the influence of drugs.”21
Officers had no specific Uniform Code of Military Justice guidelines for
dealing with intoxicated subordinates. But as authority figures, they had
the duty and responsibility of maintaining unit discipline. Consequently,
they enjoyed vast leeway in the late 1960s; they punished GIs with bad
conduct charges, or, even more common, Article 112 of the Uniform Code
of Military Justice, “Drunk on Duty.”22 Authorities had little choice but to
address the problem with what measures they could. Few felt any positive
outcome could come from the influx of narcotic substances.
The presence of narcotics within American forces serving in
Vietnam proved to be detrimental towards unit discipline. Some GIs
simply found it necessary to escape the horrible reality of being deployed
to the Southeast Asia combat zone. Their Vietnamese hosts catered to
their entertainment and recreation needs. This came in the form of
brothels, but also of narcotics. American troops held a stake in the drug
19
Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Subcommittee on Alcoholism and
nd
st
Narcotics, Military Drug Abuse, 1971: Hearings, 92 Cong., 1 Sess., 1971, 136.
20
"Pentagon Steps Up Fight on Drug Use in Vietnam."
21
U.S. Department of Defense, Drug Abuse: Game without Winners a Basic Handbook
for Commanders (Washington, DC, 1968), 2.
22
U.S. Department of Defense, Abuse: Game without Winners a Basic Handbook for
Commanders, 3-5.
108
trade as well. More than a few obviously partook in the purchasing of
heroin and the like, but some also peddled it. The very fact that American
troops came to Vietnam, made them susceptible to the ins and outs of the
Golden Triangleʼs intoxicating export (heroin). Some GIs strayed from
their duties as soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. This kind of
indiscretion often took the form of being absent without leave. In the most
severe cases, it led to outright desertion: “Contributing to the large
availability of heroin in Saigon is the large number of U.S. military
deserters who are engaged in every form of a criminal activity, including
the selling of heroin. According to the figures provided by the United
States Army Vietnam (USARV) there are 875 such deserters, although the
figure varies.”23 Deserters only sapped morale that was already quite low.
Another obvious and dangerous effect that accompanied drug use
was the job performance of users. When surveyed by the Department of
Defense in February of 1971, 13% of soldiers freely admitted marijuana
use hurt their performance.24 Though this percentage certainly did not
comprise the entire force, this still proved to be a significant statistic. GIs
that smoked marijuana seldom altered their state of mind in combat,
however; they more often did it under different circumstances. Some got
inebriated during training exercises and other conditions important to their
service. Thus, the adverse effects of drug abuse during training could and
did equate to problems in the field. Hard drugs only accentuated the
problem.
Among the top concerns within the Armed Forces formed on
perhaps the worst drawback of all: the overdose. The potent heroin
available proved to be the chief agent responsible for this. A New York
Times article published in October of 1970 reported, “The number of G.I.ʼs
hospitalized for drug treatment has also risen, the report said, from 527
cases in 1969 to 746 so far this year. Of the latter, 241 were for August
and September.” At the same time, deaths from overdoses also rose.25
To many Americans, the fact their sons risked life and limb in Vietnam
appeared bad enough, yet worst of all was when they died of drug abuse,
not as brave fighting men, but as junkies. This rising incidence of drug
use and overdoses ultimately led to a political response.
Politicians, upon learning of the drug endemic, expressed grave
concern beginning in the early 1970s. Those in Congress responded not
so much to complaints from their constituents as they did to their own
fears of a social menace in the making.26 The ramifications of widespread
23
Senate Subcommittee on Alcoholism and Narcotics, Military Drug Abuse, 1971, 61.
Allan H. Fisher Jr., Analyses of Selected Drug-Related Topics: Findings from
Interviews at Four Armed Service Locations (Washington, DC: Government Printing
Office, 1972), 17.
25
Iver Peterson, "Deaths From Drug Abuse Rise Among Vietnam G.I.'s," New York
Times, October 31, 1970. PHN.
26
Subcommittee on Alcoholism and Narcotics, Military Drug Abuse, 1971, 236.
24
109
drug abuse from returning Vietnam veterans seemed substantial. As in
past wars, returning veterans held a huge stake in determining the course
of society.27 These returning veterans, in fact, proved not to be productive
members of society but instead junkies, the social fabric would be greatly
damaged. Fears also developed that recruits already brought with them
into military service, preexisting tendencies for using various drugs.
Indeed, a Senate hearing showed the marijuana problem preceded
enlistments. This problem became so widespread that Senator Hughes of
Iowa underscored this unfortunate reality in November of 1970. “It has
been indicated to our investigators who have been at some of the
induction centers that in actually questioning the people at the induction
centers they paid no attention at all to the fact that a man smoked
marihuana or not,” Hughes noted, “basically stating that if they paid any
attention to someone who said he smoked marijuana, they wouldnʼt have
anyone in the Army.”28 But fresh recruits did not comprise all of the
servicesʼ guilty parties; some devoted veterans did, in fact, also prove to
be corrupting the ranks. Indeed, a 1971 Congressional report highlighted
the case of a Marine “lifer” and heroin addict who brought the problem to
the American streets after his dismissal. Yet, the same Marine also kept
his habit in secret, until interrogated about it. This once promising and
dedicated Marine soon found himself dishonorably discharged from the
branch of service. From then on, his life spiraled out of control, falling into
criminal behavior to satiate his drug habit.29 Not only did the government
now know drug addicted veterans carried the problem back home; they
also knew that treatment for the problem would only increase the impact
on government resources.
A large swath of the American public also found cause to worry
about the harm these substances created. Returning veteran addicts
provided many reasons for society to feel alarm. Yet not only did
Americans worry about the drug habits themselves, but also about the
adequacy of treatment. In short, treatment often proved to be woefully
lacking. The Veterans Administration often faced criticism for not
providing enough treatment facilities for the addicts. “Tens of thousands
of Mel Larsons were walking the nationʼs streets, or getting ready to return
home from Vietnam, or still there picking up the heroin habit,” wrote Jules
Witcover of the Los Angeles Times in June 1971. “Yet at only five of the
161 VA hospitals in the United States—in Sepulveda, Calif.; Battle Creek,
Mich.; New York, Houston, Washington—are drug-treatment centers now
27
Downie, 68.
Senate Subcommittee on Drug Abuse in the Military, Drug and Alcohol Abuse in the
nd
st
Military: Hearings, 92 Cong., 1 Sess., 1972, 362.
29
U.S. Senate, Drug Abuse in the Military, 12.
28
110
operating to handle them, and private hospitals already have their hands
full with civilian addicts.”30
In more ways than one, heroin related crimes left a blight on the
American military. For example, crime-riddled “shanty towns” enveloped
bases both in the United States and abroad. This made civilians, military,
and military families alike, uneasy. “Streets in and around the base had
become the scene of repeated muggings,” reported the New York Times.
“And the surroundings of Fayetteville, the nearest town, were dotted with
communes, shacks or groups of trailers inhabited by men from Fort Bragg
who were eager to maintain a maximum degree of privacy.”31 By 1971,
evidence became quite clear to Americans that some of the worst
behavior patterns of the Vietnam Conflict had made their way home.
Americans Demand the Problem be Addressed
The problem went directly under the spotlight in April of 1971 when
Congressmen Robert Steele of Connecticut and Morgan Murphy of Illinois
released their preliminary report on heroin use in Vietnam to extensive
national media coverage. The two congressmen made a fact-finding trip
to Southeast Asia and Turkey (both key sources of opium). By this time,
the problem had existed for years, but their stunning report in major
American newspapers made the extent of the problem painfully clear.
“The problem has reached endemic proportions,” Steele said. “Efforts to
meet the problem have only begun and so far are ineffective. There are
enormous implications to discipline and the effects on society when these
men return home. Unless the problem is checked, it will provide a
compelling reason to speed up the withdrawal of troops from South
Vietnam.”32 The (somewhat overstated) crisis now came to the forefront
of the entire nation. The Senate Subcommittee on Alcoholism and
Narcotics, chaired by Senator Harold E. Hughes of Iowa also found similar
results, yet the tone did not come across as alarmist as that expressed by
the Congressmen. This could be attributed mainly due to the rarity of drug
use in combat situations. Indeed, the Senateʼs findings concluded that
drug use did not seriously affect the mission of the armed forces, at least
in a direct manner.33 The Senators did, however, certainly acknowledge a
30
Jules Witcover, "Addict-Veterans: a National Concern: Not Enough Hospitals for
Veterans on Heroin Addict-Veterans Heroin Addicts," Los Angeles Times, June 13, 1971.
PHN.
31
Dana Adams Schmidt, "A Few G. I. Addicts Aided in U.S.A: Few G.I. Addicts Begin To
Get Army Help in U.S.," New York Times, May 17, 1971. PHN.
32
"Gl Heroin Epidemic Reported in Vietnam: Heroin," Los Angeles Times, April 20, 1971.
PHN.
33
"Senate Study Finds Drug Abuse by G.I.'s A Rarity in Combat," New York Times,
April 21, 1971. PHN.
111
problem existed. In addition, they called measures to be taken so that the
problem did not become entrenched back home.
In the year 1971, Richard Milhous Nixon, no longer able to stay out
of the debate, came to view the problem as spinning out of control. Like
those in Congress, President Nixon pressed for drastic action.34 As early
as September 1969, the president had adopted limited methods to combat
the drug trade. As within the armed forces in Vietnam, the domestic
landscape of the United States saw an increase in narcotics use towards
the end of the 1960s and early 1970s. Hoping to combat these bad
influences on American citizens, the White House hit would be purchasers
and users in the wallet. They hoped to decrease the supply of narcotics
on the market, thus increasing purchasing prices so as to discourage their
use.35 The administration attempted to do this by clamping down on drug
smuggling from Mexico.
In June 1971, and the Nixon Administration fully condemned the
use of mind altering substances in the military. “The President said in a
message to Congress that a drug use among American servicemen in Viet
Nam is ʻan especially disheartening aspectʼ of the overall problem.”36
Nixon immediately took proactive measures. Among other proposals, he
ordered the institution of drug testing and rehabilitation for returning
veteran drug addicts. Even more draconian, he requested Congress grant
him the authority to keep addicts in uniform until their treatment could be
completed.37 To the President of the United States, this irresponsible use
of narcotics posed a threat to the nationʼs prestige, and thus deemed
totally unacceptable.
Like his policies on the domestic front, Nixon realized that it would
be necessary to not only react to drug use in the military, but also to
combat its source. About the same time as his demand for a war on drugs
began, the President also demanded a clampdown on trafficking. Soon,
the Commander in Chief set his sights on the Laotian supply that found its
way into the hands of GIs. His demands for greater action on the part of
the Laotian government only met with frustration. However, some
diplomatic maneuvers did yield results. The United States began sending
law enforcement agents to Laos, so as to better preempt to outflow of
heroin from the country neighboring Vietnam.38 All this only underscored
the numerous dilemmas that plagued American involvement in Vietnam.
Those in military circles also knew they had to take the initiative and
bring attention to the problem. The burden fell on them to make the issue
34
“Senate Study Finds Drug Abuse by G.I.'s A Rarity in Combat.”
"Nixon Plans Price War on Drug Traffic: Moves to Stem Flow Economically," Chicago
Tribune, September 14, 1969. PHN.
36
Robert Young, "Nixon Declares War on Narcotics Use in U.S.," Chicago Tribune,
June 18, 1971. PHN.
37
Young.
38
McCoy, 351.
35
112
relevant to Americans everywhere. After all, military leaders arguably had
the most at stake. One senior officer, Lieutenant General John J. Tolson
III, called for the government to follow his example. By the end of the
decade, General Tolson, the Commanding General of XVIII Corps and
Fort Bragg, witnessed the dramatically increased use of drugs within his
airborne units. Even these more motivated, more professional units of the
military proved not to be immune to the mass influx of illegal drugs.
General Tolson orchestrated, in early 1970, a new approach: “Hence in
March of this year, I directed the initiation of a concerted attack on drug
abuse in the areas of law enforcement, education and rehabilitation.”39 He
gave his Military Police a mandate to actively seek out sources and users
of narcotics at his installation. At the same time, Tolson strongly
encouraged his officers to press home the dangers of drug use to their
subordinates. The General implored the Federal Government and
American people to take his lead. Until 1970, seasoned military leaders
generally agreed the issue had been taken too lightly.
Professionals working for the Veterans Administration also pled for
increased action and recognition of the problem. Many felt that the current
approaches failed to be sufficiently utilized. The reality of many addicted
veterans not seeking treatment only worsened the ordeal. Indeed, figures
in 1971 indicated that thousands of Vietnam veterans who could be
classified as addicts failed to show up at rehabilitation centers. In a
cynical summary of the situation, one of the VA health professionals
argued, “The Vietnam veterans simply havenʼt been miserable long
enough to realize they need help.”40 The reasons these addicted veterans
avoided treatment sites varied greatly. But the rehab specialists certainly
had a vested interest in them seeking the proper cleansing regimen.
Although the broad military establishment insisted the issue be addressed
promptly and efficiently, the results of the actual response proved to be
quite debatable.
Drug Control Measures are Implemented
The appropriately named “Operation Golden Flow” set about
conducting widespread urinalyses of those sent to Vietnam. Yet this only
formed one component for combating drug abuse in the ranks. Following
the Steele and Murphy report, Congress eagerly supported President
Nixon in attacking the problem. Congress wanted the American people to
understand they took the matter seriously and would actively provide the
39
Senate Special Subcommittee on Alcoholism and Narcotics, Drug and Alcohol Abuse
in the Military, 15.
40
David Rosenzweig, "Few Veterans of Vietnam Taking VA Drug Cure: Psychiatrist at
Sepulveda Says Younger Servicemen Are Not Aware of Need Few Veterans of Vietnam
are Taking VA Drug Cure," Los Angeles Times, July 4, 1971. PHN.
113
necessary governmental aid.41 On June 17th, 1971, President Nixon
ordered that drug users in the military be sought out and treated. The
Draft Extension Act passed on September 28th and required the branches
to treat addicts.42 It allowed the military to extend oneʼs service contract
should they fail to be rehabilitated. This, of course, proved to be
controversial, raising many questions about the constitutionality of such a
measure.43 The climate of the time demanded, however, that a heavy
handed approach be taken. “With veterans returning from Vietnam in
increasing numbers, it is feared, heroin may soon invade towns in ʻmiddle
Americaʼ that hitherto have been almost free of it,” the New York Times
reported.44 No one wanted the war to be brought back home. The
accelerated use of heroin on American street corners only made the
urgency to counter the growing crisis all the more vital. Nixon obliged with
a “War on Drugs.”
The governmentʼs efforts met with mixed success. By early 1972,
the government had a better idea of how the urinalysis effort affected
patterns of substance abuse. The results of the tests revealed that, in
fact, the use of narcotics declined from about 4.5% in August of 1971, to a
low of around 1.5% in reported positive results in December of that same
year. From there, results increased a bit to 2.5%, remaining there for
several years. However, when authorities conducted urine tests at
random, the results jumped to 6%.45 Nonetheless, the military felt this to
be a huge success compared with the perceived drug use prior. The
Nixon White House also found cause for relief. As the experimental and
proven measures filtered more and more into the civilian sector, the war
took on a new front. Indicators from both military and civilian authorities
showed that the endeavor did in fact lead to some desirable results. The
White House boasted of increasing yields from each narcotics sting
operation.46 President Nixonʼs initiative certainly did not eliminate the
problem, but did achieve some headway. In a sense, he left a legacy of
an expanded government role in trade, law enforcement, and health care.
The events set in motion by the attack on drug use in the military
soon expanded into the civilian world. This sphere saw its own chaotic
version of the war on drugs. But more than a few Vietnam veterans still
41
Dana Adams Schmidt, "Addiction in Vietnam Spurs Nixon and Congress to Take
Drastic New Steps," New York Times, June 16, 1971. PHN.
42
U.S. Senate., Drug Abuse in the Military, 12.
43
Schmidt, “Addiction in Vietnam Spurs Nixon and Congress to Take Drastic New Steps.”
44
Schmidt, “Addiction in Vietnam Spurs Nixon and Congress to Take Drastic New Steps.”
45
Military, 3-5.
46
Aldo Beckman, "Nixon Told of Gains in War on Dope, but Battle Isn't Won," Chicago
Tribune, July 25, 1972. PHN.
114
failed to get the proper treatment.47 Because of the events occurring in
the early 1970s, the Drug Enforcement Agency was founded. The War on
Drugs also caused an astronomical rise in incarcerations due to the many
crimes related to the trade.48 A significant number of Americans soon
found themselves charged with offenses related to marijuana possession.
As such, society adapted and allowed some drug use to be considered
normal. Had it not, some might never have found employment or access
to other opportunities. The military had to make do. The Veterans
Administration also grew considerably, due to its expanded role in drug
rehabilitation programs. Unfortunately, many of the Vietnam experienceʼs
dark undertones did in fact manifest themselves in the neighborhoods of
the United States.49 Yet just as unfortunate, the Vietnam veteran in many
ways became stereotyped as a drug-addled antisocial element of
society.50 A generation of young Americans was adversely affected by the
conflict, not only by drug habits, but also by such side effects as Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder. In some cases, PTSD caused addiction, or
vice versa.51 Perhaps most significantly, the War on Drugs fundamentally
changed role law enforcement played in America forever.
Sometimes exaggerated in scope, the problematic effects of
narcotics on the military nonetheless required the issue be addressed with
sweeping governmental action. The problem originated several years
before it finally gained national recognition. Part of this came due to
concerns instigated by Americans of various roles and backgrounds.
Soon the demand for the crisis to be addressed became unavoidable. At
the behest of Congress, Nixon began a comprehensive War on Drugs.
American society did not want a significant portion of veterans upsetting
the social harmony with rampant use of drugs. President Nixon did just
that and became a transformative figure in many ways (both positive and
negative). The narcotic trends became just one of a multitude of tragic
narratives that characterized the United States of Americaʼs involvement in
Vietnam.
47
Lee N. Robins, The Vietnam Drug User Returns (Washington, DC: Government
Printing Office, 1973), 56.
48
Steven R. Belenko, Drugs and Drug Policy in America: A Documentary History (New
York: Greenwood Press, 2000).
49
Robins, 69.
50
Military, 153.
51
Robins, 71-72.
115
Bibliography
Beckman, Aldo. "Nixon Told of Gains in War on Dope, but Battle Isn't
Won." Chicago Tribune, July 25, 1972. PHN.
Belenko, Steven R. Drugs and Drug Policy in America: A Documentary
History (Primary Documents in American History and
Contemporary Issues). New York: Greenwood Press, 2000.
Downie, Richard Duncan. Learning from Conflict: The U.S. Military in
Vietnam, El Salvador, and the Drug War. Westport: Praeger
Publishers, 1998.
Fisher Jr., Allan H. Analyses of Selected Drug-Related Topics: Findings
from Interviews at Four Armed Service Locations. A special report
prepared at the request of the Department of Defense. Washington,
DC: Government Printing Office, 1972.
Fisher Jr., Allan H. Preliminary Findings from the 1971 DoD Survey of
Drug Use. A special report prepared at the request of the
Department of Defense. Washington, DC: Government Printing
Office, 1972.
"Gl Heroin Epidemic Reported in Vietnam: Heroin." Los Angeles Times,
April 20, 1971. PHN.
Inciardi, James A. The War on Drugs: Heroin, Cocaine, Crime, and Public
Policy. Mountain View: Mayfield Publishing Company, 1986.
Kendrick, Alexander. The Wound Within: America in the Vietnam Years,
1945-1974. Boston: Little, Brown, 1974.
Langer, Howard J. The Vietnam War: An Encyclopedia of Quotations.
New York: Greenwood Press, 2005.
Mccoy, Alfred W. The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia. New York:
Harper & Row, 1972.
"Nixon Plans Price War on Drug Traffic: Moves to Stem Flow
Economically." Chicago Tribune, September 14, 1969. PHN.
116
"Pentagon Steps Up Fight on Drug Use in Vietnam :Sharp Rise Noted in
Inquiries Into Marijuana Cases for G.I.'s in Last 2 Years." New York
Times, February 16, 1968. PHN.
Peterson, Iver. "Deaths From Drug Abuse Rise Among Vietnam
G.I.'s." New York Times, October 31, 1970. PHN.
Polner, Murray. No Victory Parades : The Return of the Vietnam Veteran.
Austin: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971.
Robins, Lee N. The Vietnam Drug User Returns. A special report
prepared at the request of the Executive Office of the President.
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1973.
Robinson, Matthew B., and Renee G. Scherlen. Lies, Damned Lies, and
Drug War Statistics: A Critical Analysis of Claims Made by the
Office of National Drug Control Policy. Albany: State University of
New York Press, 2007.
Rosenzweig, David. "Few Veterans of Vietnam Taking VA Drug Cure:
Psychiatrist at Sepulveda Says Younger Servicemen Are Not
Aware of Need Few Veterans of Vietnam are Taking VA Drug
Cure." Los Angeles Times, July 4, 1971. PHN.
Schmidt, Dana Adams. "Addiction in Vietnam Spurs Nixon and Congress
to Take Drastic New Steps." New York Times, June 16, 1971.
PHN.
Schmidt, Dana Adams. "A Few G. I. Addicts Aided in U. S :A Few G.I.
Addicts Begin To Get Army Help in U.S." New York Times,
May 17, 1971. PHN.
Schneider, Eric C. Smack: Heroin and the American City (Politics and
Culture in Modern America). Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 2008.
"Senate Study Finds Drug Abuse by G.I.'s A Rarity in Combat." New York
Times, April 21, 1971. PHN.
Torgoff, Martin. Can't Find My Way Home: America in the Great Stoned
Age, 1945-2000. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004.
Trebach, Arnold S. Drugs, Crime and Politics. Westport: Praeger
Publishers Inc., 1978.
117
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services. Subcommittee
on Drug Abuse in the Military. Drug Abuse in the Military: Hearing
before the Subcommittee on Drug Abuse in the Military. 92nd
Cong., 2nd Sess., February 29, 1972.
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.
Special Subcommittee on Alcoholism and Narcotics. Drug and
Alcohol Abuse in the Military: Hearing before the Special
Subcommittee on Alcoholism and Narcotics. 91st Cong., 2nd Sess.,
November 17 and 18; December 2 and 3, 1970.
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.
Subcommittee on Alcoholism and Narcotics. Military Drug Abuse,
1971. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Alcoholism and
Narcotics. 92nd Cong., 1st Sess., June 9 and 22, 1971.
U.S. Department of Defense. Armed Forces Information Service. Drug
Abuse: Game without Winners a Basic Handbook for Commanders.
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1968.
U.S. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee to Investigate
Juvenile Delinquency. Drug Abuse in the Military. Report prepared
by Sen. Birch Bayh. 92nd Cong., 1st Sess., 1971, Committee Print
69-144.
Wisotsky, Steven. Breaking the Impasse in the War on Drugs
(Contributions in Political Science). New York: Greenwood Press,
1986.
Witcover, Jules. "Addict-Veterans: a National Concern: Not Enough
Hospitals for Veterans on Heroin Addict-Veterans Heroin
Addicts." Los Angeles Times, June 13, 1971. PHN.
Young, Robert. "Nixon Declares War on Narcotics Use in U.S.," Chicago
Tribune, June 18, 1971. PHN.
118
Chapter 8
The Golden Flow: High Times in the Navy
Matthew Simpkins
A cacophony of alarms ripped through the silence, violently jerking
many from their dreams. Sailors leapt from their racks, running to their
stations as the general quarters alarm resounded in the evening air.
Explosions rocked the bulkheads, fire crews rushed toward their repair
lockers. Flames singed the night sky, casting an orange glow over the
weather-beaten flight deck. On May 26, 1981, an EA-6B Prowler crashed
on the flight deck of the USS Nimitz at 11:51 PM, and fourteen crewmen
lost their lives. Although reports indicated that the pilot had been sober at
the time of the crash, autopsies later revealed that six of the fourteen dead
crewmen had recently used marijuana. This incident shed light on the
United States Navyʼs major shortcoming: its previous drug deterrents were
inadequate. After this, the Navy instituted a Zero Tolerance policy and
reevaluated its drug screening process.
Currently, the Navy maintains a highly-sophisticated and stringent
urinalysis program credited with the greatest reduction of drug abuse
across the Armed Services. The development of this program spans
several decades and has faced considerable opposition. Historians and
policy makers attribute the rise of the Navyʼs urinalysis program to the
extensive drug problem facing the military during the Vietnam War. A
variety of works have been produced on the subject, and all accredit the
rise of addiction to both the availability of drugs and environmental
stress.52 Although combat stress played a major role in the surge of drug
abuse, Historians note that the problem was restricted to combat-removed
units.53 This factor notably applied to those sailors who were forwarddeployed. Their separation from direct enemy confrontations, combined
52
For information on drug use in Vietnam see, Peter Brush, “Higher and Higher: Drug
Use among U.S. Forces in Vietnam,”
http://www.library.vanderbilt.edu/central/brush/American -drug-use-vietnam.htm
(accessed October 3, 2009); Elaine Casey, History of Drug Use and Drug Users in the
United States (Gaithersburg, MD: National Drug Abuse Center for Training Resource an
Development, 1978); Allan H. Fisher, MAJ K. Eric Nelson, and CPT Jacob Panzarella,
Patterns of Drug Usage among Vietnam Veterans (Alexandria, VA: Human Resources
Research Organization, 1972); Steven B. Karch, Workplace Drug Testing (Boca Raton,
FL: CRC Press, 2008); LCDR Wayne G. Shear, The Drug War: Applying the Lessons of
Vietnam (Newport, RI: Naval War College, 1993); Kenneth D. Tunnell, Pissing on
Demand: Workplace Testing and the Rise of the Detox Industry (New York, NY: New
York University Press, 2004); “Vietnam: Drug Use In,” BookRags.com,
http://www.bookrags.com/research/vietnam-drug-use-in-edaa-03/ (accessed October 3,
2009).
53
Peter Brush, “Higher and Higher.”
119
with general boredom and malaise, provided fertile grounds for illegal drug
use. These same sailors were easily supplied with illegal drugs such as
heroin, opium, and marijuana by both attached Marine units and liberty
visits. However, removal from direct combat did not guarantee the safety
of the Navyʼs sailors. Illegal drugs had now found their way onto
shipboard units; these hazardous mechanical environments similarly
dangerous to intoxicated sailors. Those same sources that identify the
drug crisis in Vietnam also refer to the militaryʼs reaction in 1971: the
introduction of the first urinalysis program. This program was continuously
criticized for its high expense, spotty testing, and poor results. Yet, the
Navy did not update its program until several inciting incidents occurred a
decade later. 1981 is recognized as being the turning point of the drug
issue; both the infamous Nimitz incident and the Navyʼs ill-fated drug
survey occurred within this twelve month period.54 To date, there have
been few, if any, scholarly works on the social impact of the drug testing
program. There are, however, a number of available works which cover
the technological and economic aspects of this program.55 These
documents illustrate the progress that the program has made since its
initial conception. Since that time, the Navyʼs urinalysis program has
evolved into a strategic deterrent of illegal drug use.
This chapter covers the Navyʼs urinalysis program and its transition
from conception to its current status. The timeline of this program can be
broken into several distinct phases. The chapter begins by examining the
background of the Navyʼs drug problem and the events that drove its
implementation. The second section highlights the popular opinions
concerning the program, and the drug policy developed during the Reagan
era to support it. The final section details the programʼs development as
well as the results it has produced since its conception. To stem the
onslaught of illegal drug use, the Navy paired a Zero Tolerance Policy with
a random urinalysis program, and this program has led to a significant
decrease in drug use since its implementation.
The United States military saw a spike in drug use among its
servicemen during the Vietnam War. Environmental stress and low
morale created a vacuum that these servicemen sought to fill. While the
54
For information on inciting events see, CMDR John Irving “Drug Testing in the Military:
Technical and Legal Problems,” Clinical Chemistry 34, no.3 (1998): 637-640; Eliot
Marshall, “Testing Urine for Drugs,” JSTOR: Science, (accessed October 3, 2009).
55
For official directives and technological/economic analyses see, Jules I. Borack, A
Technique for Estimating the Impact of Improvements in Drug Testing Sensitivity on
Detection and Deterrence of Illicit Drug Use by Navy Personnel (San Diego, CA: Navy
Personnel Research and Development Center, 1997); Jules I. Borack, Stephen L. Mehay,
A Conceptual Model for Determining an Optimal Drug Testing Program (San Diego, CA:
Navy Personnel Research and Development Center, 1996); Department of Defense,
Technical Procedures for the Military Personnel Drug Program (Publication 1010.16,
1994).
120
increase of addiction is widely accredited to the Vietnamese environment,
the issue began domestically. The rise of the American counterculture led
to an unprecedented level of drug abuse amongst the younger
generations. According to Allan Fisherʼs study on drug abuse patterns in
Vietnam, the “findings imply that the use of drugs does not necessarily
originate in Vietnam.”56 Eastern Asia provided an ample supply of illegal
narcotics; soldiers who had previously abused drugs were more than
willing to avail themselves of these opportunities. Figures indicate that
approximately forty-eight percent of all American servicemen had drug
experience before deploying to Vietnam; thirty percent of these individuals
had experience with opiates.57 When these soldiers, sailors, and Marines
began using opiates and other drugs in Vietnam, their behavior spread
among non-users. New arrivals, even those who had never used drugs,
rapidly succumbed to the temptations of drugs so willingly supplied by
locals. In the words of one author, “When young men, many still
teenagers, are in a strange land and surrounded by enemies (real and
potential), they do not have to be cajoled into assuming the habits of their
new friends who proceeded them to Vietnam.”58 Peer pressure and the
desire to fit in only made the problem of environmental stress worse.
Many soldiers opted to try drugs for the simple fact that consequences of
drug use paled in comparison to the possibility of losing oneʼs life. Many
of the deployed Americans greatly feared the threat of the Vietcong and
their guerilla tactics.59 If constant fear of death and high stress left the
majority of soldiers searching for an outlet. Illegal narcotics (and
particularly opiates such as heroin) provided an escape.
Scoring drugs was easy; there were any number of ways to
purchase various narcotics in Vietnam. Aside from the typical bar and
drug dealer scene, drugs could be purchased almost anywhere.
Numerous street vendors provided narcotics and unfortunately, American
servicemen obliged them. Locals often followed military vehicles, trading
drugs for cash at halts and traffic stops. The potency of available drugs
also made it easier to use them. While heroin available in the United
States typically had to be injected, it could be rolled into cigarettes and
smoked in Vietnam due to its higher potency. Marijuana use, typical in the
Vietnamese Army, became just as common among United States
servicemen.
The military began to recognize the growing threat of drugs in
Vietnam during the late 1960s. The Marine Corps decided to combat this
threat by instituting an instant Court Martial procedure for those caught
56
Fisher, Patterns, 5.
“Vietnam: Drug Use In.”
58
Brush, “Higher and Higher.”
59
Shear, Drug War, 14.
57
121
with illegal drugs.60 The Navy, however, opted for a different program; its
Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt, published an
experimental program where addicts could turn themselves in for
rehabilitation and medical treatment without the risk of punishment.61 In
1969, the Armed Forces at large conducted 36,000 drug investigations;
this number almost doubled in 1970.62 Even so, the United States
government did little else to stem the growing issue among its military
forces; it had to take action almost two years later.
In the spring of 1971, congressmen John Murphy and Robert
Steele published a startling report which alleged that fifteen percent of
American servicemen in Vietnam were addicted to opiates.63 Since neither
the court martial procedure nor the voluntary treatment programs proved
to be effective deterrents, President Richard Nixon ordered the creation of
a new drug-screening program. The militaryʼs implemented a urinalysis
program, the first of its kind, on June 17, 1971. Even though “heroin was
the major drug of concern, the initial intent was to test for all drugs of
abuse.”64 Deployed units conducted widespread, randomized testing,
although some commands utilized regular screening. For example, both
arriving and departing servicemen received urinalysis testing for illegal
drug use. A number of departing soldiers produced positive results on
their urinalyses; original estimates were placed at four and a half
percent.65 The Pentagon itself released “figures showing that about onethird of those servicemen first identified as heroin users had not been
taking the drug.”66 Although this statistic confirmed a disturbing trend, the
number was reduced from the previously estimated fifteen percent. These
figures also indicated that the problems of drug abuse were restricted to
the Army and Vietnam.67
Until the early 1980s, the military handled its drug problem at the
national (Department of Defense) level. Within a few years of the
programʼs implementation, the Navy began to notice a variety of problems.
First and foremost, the program did not significantly affect drug use among
sailors. Drug screenings were conducted infrequently and inefficiently;
drug users had little to fear from the program. Complicating this, the
validity of test results was consistently questioned. Unregulated testing
procedures combined with inexperienced personnel to produce a test that
could not be trusted. Even if a test indicated positive drug abuse, the
60
Brush, “Higher and Higher.”
C. Robert Jennings, “Strung Out in the Navy,” LAT, December 19, 1971. PHN.
62
Casey, History of Drug Use.
63
Vietnam: Drug Use In.”
64
Irving, “Drug Testing,” 637.
65
Tunnell, Pissing on Demand,14.
66
“Figures on Heroin in Vietnam Differ,” NYT, September 5, 1971. PHN.
67
“Military Tests Find Most use of Drugs is by Vietnam G.I.ʼs,” NYT, January 17, 1972.
PHN.
61
122
results were dismissed in judicial actions. Even so, the inadequate
urinalysis programʼs poor results did not motivate immediate action.
Two major events occurring in the early 1980s spurred the Navy
into developing its own program. According to the columnist Eliot
Marshall, “the Navy got shocked out of its stripes in 1980 when a
confidential survey found that 48% of enlistees had used some illicit drug
(mostly marijuana) within the last 30 days.”68 This anonymous survey
provided disturbing insight on the drug habits of the Navyʼs personnel.
The Navy now had irrefutable proof that its sailors had a major problem.
In the following year, the Navy received another blow. The crash of an
EA-6B Prowler on the USS Nimitz on May 26, 1981, indirectly shed light
on the Navyʼs problem.69 The ensuing explosions and fires caused
fourteen casualties, including the three aviators in the Prowler as well as
eleven aircraft crewmen and deck hands.”70 After six of the casualties
tested positive for marijuana use, the Navy truly realized the threat drugs
presented during operational exercises. Although the Navy realized that
drugs presented a severe hazard on shipboard units, it never had to face a
widely publicized incident. Following the 1980 survey and the Nimitz
incident, the Navy opted to revamp its testing procedures.
In 1981, “the Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci ruled
that evidence from urine tests could be used in disciplinary actions.”71 The
results of urinalyses could no longer be thrown out in judicial procedures.
The next step for the Navy concerned the regulation of its urinalysis
program; that way, testing would be the same in all facilities. As a result,
the veracity of test results could no longer be called into question when
evaluating results. In September 1981, Admiral Paul Mulloy appeared
before a Congressional session on military drug abuse and proclaimed:
“The Navy is going to the general quarters on this. We are waging a war
on it. We recognize the problem. We have a particularly unique one
because of the ships at sea.”72 In addition, Admiral Mulloy testified that
the Navy increased its number of urinalysis test kits from 33 in 1981 to
103 in 1982. A number of drug-related incidents still occurred after these
proceedings, including a drug-related automotive accident (which cost the
68
Marshall, “Testing Urine,” (accessed October 3, 2009) For information concerning the
survey see, “Military Drug Study Set,” LAT, August 1, 1982, PHN.
69
Richard Halloran, “Nimitz is Home; Courage of Crew Praised,” NYT, May 29, 1981, A1.
70
Richard Halloran, “Fire After Failed Landing by EA-6B on the Nimitz, Off Florida,
Injures 48,” NYT, May 28, 1981, A1.
71
Eliot Marshall, “Testing Urine.”
72
Drug Abuse in the Military - 1981 (Hearing Before the Select Committee on Narcotics
Abuse and Control, House or Representatives, Ninety-Seventh Congress, First Session,
September 17, 1981).
123
lives of 3 people) in 1981 and a high-profile drug scandal at the Naval
Academy in 1996.73
The implementation of the urinalysis program led to a surge of
public debate. While a considerable number of citizens vilified the drug
screening program, it also had significant support. Those who complained
about the program expressed concern for the sanctity of personal rights.
They felt urinalysis violated the civil liberties of those who were tested.
These same people also seized on problems within the urinalysis program
to defend their opinions. On the other side of the issue, supporters of the
program stated that concerns over defense superseded personal rights.
They felt that the possibility of drug use in the military presented a
considerable safety risk to the nation. The Navy saw an intensification of
public opinion which corresponded with their increased drug screening
efforts.
As drug screening affected personal freedoms, the question was
raised as to whether or not urinalysis was constitutional. Opponents felt
that the program “denies servicemen and servicewomen their
constitutional rights against unwarranted search and seizure.”74 This
opposition did not come solely from the civilian world. Scores of sailors
felt the same way about the drug screening process. A great number of
enlisted sailors believed that drugs were an insignificant problem. Many
thought it was unnecessary to screen for drugs; they also felt that the
Navyʼs leadership was out of touch with modern society. Since younger
generations had previously adopted the counterculture movement, they
saw no problem in using illegal substances. According to one sailor, “The
Admiral never smoked dope, so he doesnʼt know what heʼs talking
about.”75 This same sailor estimated that ninety percent of his high school
classmates used drugs at some point. He was not alone, many of his
peers saw little problem in continuing their drug habits. They felt that the
Navy was in the wrong for enforcing an archaic and unnecessary rule.
Another sailor commented, “Who are they kidding? If they busted
everyone in the Navy who uses drugs, there wouldnʼt be anybody left to
sail the ships.”76
Urinalysis proponents attributed the continued use of drugs to the
Basic Training Program at Great Lakes, Michigan. Similar to Vietnam, the
availability of drugs around young sailors resulted in increased rates of
usage. Therefore, the Navy still hired sailors with ambivalent opinions
about drug abuse. The Navy had unsympathetic and uncooperative
73
Michael Janofsky, “Annapolis Seeks Ouster of 15 Cadets For Drug Case,” NYT, August
8, 1996. PHN; Bob Weidrich, “A Drug Problem Surfaces for Navy in Girlsʼ Deaths,”
Chicago Tribune, September 27, 1981. PHN.
74
“Navy Defends Its Methods in Fighting Drug Abuse,” NYT, November 8, 1984. PHN.
75
William Currie and Steven O. Swanson, “Sailors react to Navy drug war: Who are they
kidding?” Chicago Tribune, January 24, 1982. PHN.
76
Ibid. 6.
124
personnel that saw little benefit in the program. Resent developed in the
enlisted ranks as sailors saw their friends dismissed from the Navy.
Others felt that the tests could and would be falsified by their superiors.
Complicating this, a number of people were falsely implicated by incorrect
test results; a fear that was held by many. False positives are defined as
“results which identify a drug as present in the body fluid when in fact no
such drug is present.”77 According to one quality control officer, Colonel
William Manders, the tests were likely to produce “a travesty of justice in
which people are likely to get railroaded.”78 He argued that, “When the
results come out of the lab, youʼre guilty until proven innocent.” Falsepositives left many sailors with the same opinion.
A string of issues in the early 1980s further undermined the Navyʼs
controversial program. In fact, these issues offered support to those
individuals who opposed urinalysis. In 1983, the Navy conducted
investigations of urinalysis laboratories in San Diego and Oakland;
investigators concluded that the labs produced faulty results through
paperwork, not testing.79 2,500 sailors were wrongly disciplined as a
result of these errors; their records were later cleared. Determined to
correct possible errors, the Navy reevaluated its test results. Two months
later, another 3,000 sailors had their records expunged because of false
results. Tested between September 15 and November 3, 1982, these
sailors also had their samples analyzed at the Navyʼs Oakland facility.80
In order to promote accuracy in their laboratories, the Navy
mandated that urine samples be analyzed using a two-step testing
process. The first step consisted of a broad, simple screening test that
picked up remote traces of drug use. All samples which contained traces
then went to another laboratory for a more sophisticated analysis.81
Despite this safeguard, the tests were not always foolproof. According to
Colonel Manders, “The chief problems are that some laboratories do
sloppy work and that the tests, even when performed properly, can
sometimes yield false results, making them dangerous for use in legal
proceedings.”82
Adding to the testing problems, a number of results came back
positive because laboratories did not take normal dietary consumption into
account. In this case, poppy seeds were found to give false-positive
77
G.G. DeAngelis, Testing and Screening for Drugs of Abuse (New York, NY: Mercel
Dekker, 1976) 4.
78
Scott Harris, “ʼDubiousʼ Drug Tests May Have Forced Thousands From Service,” LAT,
September 9, 1984. PHN.
79
“Services Scan Drug Test Error,” NYT, August 19,1983. PHN.
80
“Navy to Clear Records Of 3,000 for Drug Use,” NYT, October 2,1983. PHN.
81
Philip M. Boffey, “Crackdown on Drugs in the Military Foundering Over Challenges to
Tests,” NYT, December 21, 1983. PHN.
82
Ibid, A24.
125
readings for some samples.83 According to Dr. Arthur J. McBay, Chief
Toxicologist at the University of North Carolina, “prescription drugs and
foods can affect the accuracy of the results.”84 Seizing on the point that
drug tests were subject to a variety of random factors, a Midshipman from
the Naval Academy sued the Navy in 1986 after his urinalysis resulted in
his dismissal.85 Other opponents recognized the potential applications of
the program, but also felt that the potential risks of blanket testing were not
worth the gain. As such, opponents recommended that subjects be tested
only when a reasonable suspicion of drug use was present.86 Overall, a
significant number of factors that worked against the Navyʼs policy.
Although the Navy faced considerable opposition, the urinalysis
program still had its share of support. Besides having the blessing of the
Department of Defense, the Navy also received support from its officer
corps. The recognized that urinalysis represented a significant deterrent
to drug abuse was not the only benefit; they realized it also served to
separate those sailors who were internal threats. Furthermore,
proponents acknowledged the potential liabilities of laboratory mistakes
but insisted that the benefits outweighed the drawbacks. The ongoing
development of the program, they contended, would only increase the
accuracy of the tests.
The driving force behind the program was Admiral Paul Mulloy, the
same man who testified before Congress about the Navyʼs efforts. During
his time in the Navy, Mulloy pushed for the expansion of drug testing. He
asked for regulated analysis and collection as well larger budget
allotments. After retiring, Mulloy endorsed the program not just for the
Navy, but the civilian world as well.87 Although this brought the program
under more public scrutiny, he believed that the corporate world would
only benefit from the programʼs efforts. He also credited the urinalysis
program with an almost forty percent reduction of drug abuse among
sailors during his tenure. At the time of his interview in 1986, test results
indicated that only four percent of the sailors were regularly using illegal
drugs.88 Although opponents presented plenty of flaws, a forty-four
percent reduction in drug abuse attested to the programʼs viability.
Other proponents came in the form of corporate business owners
and managers. As urinalysis technology transitioned from military to
civilian use, corporations had to carefully weigh the technology before
applying it. Once again, the issue of civil liberties popped up. However,
corporations cited the benefits of the Navyʼs program and opted to develop
83
Harris, “Dubious,” A1.
Lawrence K. Altman, “Drug Tests Gain Precision, but Can Be Inaccurate,” NYT,
vol.135, no.46,899, A17.
85
“Midshipman, Accused In Drug Case, Sues Navy,” NYT, March 11, 1986. PHN.
86
Daniel Hatch, “Panel Belittles Role of Drug Tests,” NYT, May 15, 1988. PHN.
87
“Finding a Middle Between Fairness and Efficiency,” NYT, September 7, 1986. PHN.
88
Ibid.
84
126
their own methods. In the words of one business owner, “If you donʼt have
to hide, you donʼt have anything to worry about.”89 While corporate
support may have seemed insignificant, the truth is quite the opposite.
The disciplinary and regulatory efforts of the military have long been
questioned by the civilian world. Military personnel are frequently
subjected to programs which do not exist in a world of greater personal
freedom. When a method transitioned to the civilian world, it received a
new level of credibility.
Within the first few years of the Navyʼs urinalysis program, the
federal government created several new national drug policies. These
policies served to make the Navyʼs program airtight; it lent the weight of
federal enforcement, and helped to counteract public opposition. The
policy that set the stage coincided with the Department of Defenseʼs first
drug screening program. Backed by President Richard Nixon, the
Controlled Substances Act was passed in 1970 to help combat the
growing drug problem. This defined, in legal form, the very drugs that
Navy screened for. This Act has been amended several times, with each
subsequent revision defining how the government would deal with illegal
substances.
President Reaganʼs anti-drug stance provided the perfect setting for
the advancement of the Navyʼs urinalysis policy. During this time, the
Navy underwent a considerable drawdown. Without a need for large
numbers, the Navy had no problem eliminating personnel through drug
screening. In addition, the introduction of “Just Say No” saw greater
funding for anti-drug efforts as well rapid technological advancement in
testing equipment. The Navy also saw a considerable reduction of public
opposition for its previously contested program. Urinalysis became
commonplace in the 1980s for any government position; opponents had
little to stand upon. As urinalysis technology progressed, it saw greater
and greater accuracy, as well as allowing for faster, more efficient testing.
The major influence came from President Ronald Reagan and his
strict anti-drug stance. Starting in 1986, he pushed a $900 million
program to fight illegal drug use as well as ordering Federal agencies to
create drug screening programs of their own.90 For the first time, the
government mandated that its civilian departments test their employees.
These programs came from those utilized by the military and targeted
specific positions which affected “the national security or internal security
of the Department of Defense.”91 The Department also created its own
89
William Serrin, “Drug Tests Promote Safety, Many Say,” NYT, September 16, 1986.
PHN.
90
Gerald M. Boyd, “Reagan Proposes Stiffer Drug Laws: He Also Plans Test Program for
Many Federal Workers,” NYT, September 16, 1986, A1.
91
“Defense Dept. Civilians To Be Tested for Drugs,” NYT, May 30, 1986, PHN.
127
program specifically aimed at screening its civilian employees.92 While
these programs were mandatory, the President also ordered the creation
of voluntary testing programs. As previously suggested by the programʼs
opponents, mandatory testing was only ordered for situations of
reasonable suspicion.
Still riding the success of the militaryʼs testing programs, the
government sought additional policies which would neutralize drug abuse
in the workplace. In 1998, a Congressional hearing reviewed Federal
workplace testing programs. While recommending a more stringent
policy, the representatives noted that, “the testing of the Armed Forces
had shown that the most effective deterrent to abuse of alcohol and the
use of illegal drugs is increased testing.”93 Recognizing that the civilian
world still faced considerable issues, Congress issued another act which
followed in the footsteps of the military: the Drug-Free Workplace Act of
1998. The committee on commerce, which drafted this act, made the
following observation: “The abuse of drugs and alcohol in the workplace is
a significant hazard.”94 By this time, drug testing had taken a prominent
role in the fight against drug abuse. While still controversial in some
circles, the development of federal drug policy indicated that the efficiency
of urinalysis programs was no longer called into question.
Since 1981, the Navyʼs drug screening program has seen
considerable change. At that time, “Not on my watch, not on my ship, not
in my Navy served as the inspiration for the institution of the Navyʼs drug
screening program.”95 Its first efforts with testing were plagued by errors
and poor results; however, its true challenge concerned judicial actions. In
order to submit test results as legal evidence, the Navy had to create a
“system of absolute custody.”96 This meant that the collection of urine
samples had to be completely regulated; every sample had to be directly
controlled from the time of its collection to the time of its testing. This level
of control ensures a sample can never be tainted or switched with another
sample. Legally, this system virtually guaranteed a sampleʼs ability to be
used as evidence. The development of this accountability program took
several years from its conception; its strict procedures are now regularly
enforced.
92
For program specifics see, Assistant Secretary of Defense, DoD Civilian Drug Abuse
Testing Program (Ft. Belvoir: Defense Technical Information Center, 1988).
93
The Department of Health and Human Servicesʼ Policy for Federal Workplace Drug
Testing Programs (Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of
the Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fifth Congress,
Second Session, July 23, 1998).
94
Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1998 (House of Representatives, One Hundred Fifth
Congress, Second Session, June 18, 1998).
95
Mike McLellan, “Substance Abuse Fought at Fleet Level,” Navy.mil
http://www.navy.mil/ search/display.asp?story_id=7715&page=3 (accessed October 3,
2009).
96
Ken Jones, “Navy Recruiting Urinalysis Program: History and Implementation.”
128
Preliminary drug testing at Norfolk Naval Base in 1981 showed that
48.6 percent of tested sailors tested positive for THC (marijuana use).
These results shook the fleetʼs leadership and served to motivate the illfated survey the Navy would issue later in the year.97 By 1983, twenty-five
percent of all sailors who underwent drugs screening tested positive for
drug use.98 Today, the number of sailors whose samples indicate drug
abuse is less than one percent.99 There is clear cut statistical evidence
which indicates that the Navyʼs drug screening process is working.100
However, the program itself is not the primary deterrent to drug use; the
Zero Tolerance policy is. According to this policy, “All personnel found
guilty of a single incident of drug use must be processed for administrative
separation.”101 The drawbacks of such a discharge include instant
termination of employment, loss of benefits, and a mark against all future
employment.102 This draconian policy led to the rapid reduction of drug
abuse.
With the adoption of urinalysis by both the military and the
corporate worlds in the 1980s, many private companies began developing
newer drug screening equipment. Although many opponents of urinalysis
claimed that testing had problems, the author Eliot Marshall contended
that, “This was a problem once, but is not a significant one any longer.”103
The original technologies relied on thin-layer chromatography but have
since advanced to others such as gas chromatography and mass
spectrometry. In laymanʼs terms, chemical testing has been improved to
the point where results are 100% accurate (not accounting for human
error).104 Navy personnel gave been assigned to study which procedures
97
“Navy is going to pot, drug study shows,” Chicago Tribune, July 9, 1983, PHN.
Kathleen T. Rhem, “A Look at Drug Use and Testing Within the Military,” About.com,
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/theorderlyroom/l/bldrugtests3.htm?p=1 (accessed October
3, 2009).
99
Chief of Naval Personnel Public Affairs, “Drug Use in the Navy Continues to Decline,
Data Shows,” Navy.mil http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=7339 (accessed
October 3, 2009).
100
For additional statistics see, “Crackdown on Drugs by Navy is Paying Off,” LAT,
November 28, 1983. PHN; Richard Halloran, “Drug Use in Military Drops; Pervasive
Testing Credited,” NYT, April 23, 1987. PHN; George Johnson and Laura Mansnerus,
“Military Finds Drug Use is Down,” NYT, April 26, 1987. PHN; Thomas H. Maugh, “Navy
Viewed as Setting Drug-Testing Standard,” LAT, October 29, 1986. PHN.
101
McLellan, “Substance Abuse.”
102
James E. Scott, “Myths/Conceptions: Setting the Record Straight on Drugs in the
Navy,” Navy Drug Awareness, http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/drugawareness/usn
news07a.html (accessed October 3, 2009).
103
Marshall, “Testing Urine,” (accessed October 3, 2009).
104
For specific technological information see, Department of Defense, Military Personnel
Drug Abuse Testing Program (Ft. Belvoir: Defense Technical Information Center, 1194);
Department of Defense, Technical Procedures, 1994; “Gas Chromatography-Mass
Spectroscopy Background,” George Mason University, http://www.gmu.edu/departments/
SRIF/tutorial/gcd/gc-ms2.htm (accessed September 30, 2009); “Thin-Layer
98
129
offer the best results for their respective costs. Modern testing procedures
have been thoroughly evaluated to ensure the Navyʼs urinalysis program
meets the necessary fiscal requirements.105 As another financial boon,
the Navy saves itself money by testing for drug abuse. Loss of equipment,
personnel, and lives due to drug abuse adds up to a substantial sum.106 In
2003, the Navy estimated that it saved over $43 million because it had
1,104 fewer sailors test positive for drugs than the year before.107 Two
decades after the Navy implemented its own urinalysis program, its
screening process had evolved into a much cheaper, more effective
system.
In addition to upgrading its systems, the Navy developed more
stringent methods for conducting urine tests. When the drug screening
program first began, the Navy would pick a few thousand sailors from a
number of commands.108 After the samples were analyzed, the Navy
would not test other commands until a few months had passed. Over
time, the Navy gradually increased its rate of testing as well as the
numbers of sailors it tested. Currently, the Navy requires each of its
commands to test at least 15% of its sailors, four times a month.109 This
level of frequency greatly increases the chance drug abusers will be
caught. In reaction to this increased testing, different sailors reacted in
varied ways. Some sailors recognized the threat that the program (and its
Zero Tolerance policy) presented and complied with the Navyʼs
requirements. Some attempted to cheat the system by circumventing the
testing process. Others simply refused to take the test.110 In either case
Chromatography,” University of California, Los Angeles, http://www.chem.ucla.edu/~bach
er/General/30BL/tips/TLC1.html (accessed September 30, 2009).
105
For information on economic evaluations see, Jules Borack, Costs and Benefits of
Alternative Drug Testing Programs (San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research and
Development Center, 1998); John Jacklich, Minimizing Drug Related Attrition Costs for
Incoming Naval Recruits (Ft. Belvoir: Defense Technical Information Center, 1998); John
Jones, A Change in the Navyʼs Drug Testing Policy: How Will it Affect Costs and the
Probability of Detecting Drug Users (Ft. Belvoir: Defense Technical Information Center,
1995); Theodore Thompson, Probability of Detection of Drug Users by Ransom
Urinalysis in the U.S. Navy (Ft. Belvoir: Defense Technical Information Center, 1992).
106
“Navy is Toughening Enforcement Efforts Against Drug Abuse,” NYT, July 10, 1981.
PHN.
107
Teresa J. Frith, “Drug Use in Navy Continues to Decline,” Navy.mil
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=10562 (accessed September 23, 2009).
108
Paul Nussbaum, “1,000 S.D. Sailors Undergo Surprise Tests for Drugs,” NYT,
December 11, 1980. PHN.
109
Lisa M. Novak, “Navy Stepping up Drug Testing Program,” Stars and Stripes,
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=64146 (accessed October 3,
2009).
110
For information on some of these events see, “Four Sailors Punished for Evading Drug
Urine Test,” LAT, March 12, 1983. PHN; “Navy Trial for Woman Who Defied Drug Test,”
NYT, October 14, 1988. PHN; “Sailor Admits Switch of Urine in Drug Tests,” LAT, March
9, 1983. PHN; “Sailor Charged in Drug Test Scheme,” LAT, March 15, 1983. PHN.
130
the result is the same; a sailor must pass a urinalysis to stay in the Navy.
Without a clean urinalysis, the Navy cannot retain a sailor. Those who did
not produce a clean urine sample faced instant discharge.
The United States Navyʼs drug screening program has come a
considerable distance since its conception. In fact, urinalysis as a whole
has come a long way since it was first used as a strategic deterrent to
drug abuse. The program has seen considerable opposition and has
faced numerous technological and ethical challenges. Even so, the Navy
is still credited by Defense Department officials with having the top drug
screening program in the country. Although it was originally designed to
combat the threat of drug use among sailors in Vietnam, the program has
transitioned towards broader applications. If not for the major drug-related
incidents of the 1980s and President Reaganʼs expansion of the War on
Drugs, the Navyʼs urinalysis might not be in its present position. Since this
programʼs implementation, the Navy has seen a staggering reduction of
drug use among its sailors.
131
Bibliography
Altman, Lawrence K. “Drug Tests Gain Precision, but Can Be Inaccurate.”
NYT, Vol. CXXXV, No. 46, 899, 17, September 16, 1986.
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management and Personnel)
Washington D.C. DoD Civilian Drug Abuse Testing Program. Ft.
Belvoir: Defense Technical Information Center, 1988.
Boffey, Philip M. “Crackdown on Drugs in the Military Foundering Over
Challenges to Tests.” NYT, December 21, 1983. PHN.
Borack, Jules, and Navy Personnel Research and Development Center
(U.S.). A technique for estimating the impact of improvements in
drug testing sensitivity on detection and deterrence of illicit drug
use by Navy personnel. San Diego CA: Navy Personnel Research
and Development Center, 1997.
Borack, Jules, and Navy Personnel Research and Development Center
(U.S.). A conceptual model for determining an optimal drug testing
program. San Diego CA: Navy Personnel Research and
Development Center, 1996.
Borack, Jules, and Navy Personnel Research and Development Center,
San Diego CA. Costs and Benefits of Alternative Drug Testing
Programs. [United States]: Navy Personnel Research and
Development Center, San Diego CA, 1998.
Boyd, Gerald M. “Reagan Proposes Stiffer Drug Laws: He Also Plans Test
Program for Many Federal Workers.” The New York Times Vol.
CXXXV, No. 46, 899, 1, September 16, 1986.
Brush, Peter. Higher and Higher: Drug Use among U.S. Forces in
Vietnam. Vanderbilt University. http://www.library.vanderbilt.edu/ce
ntral/brush/American-drug-use-vietnam.htm (accessed October 3,
2009).
Casey, Elaine. History of Drug Use and Drug Users in the United States.
Schaffer Library of Drug Policy http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/
History/ CASEY1.htm (accessed October 16, 2009).
132
Chief of Naval Personnel Public Affairs. Drug Use in the Navy Continues
to Decline, Data Shows Navy.mil (May 11, 2003) http://www.navy.m
il/search/display.asp?storyid=733 (accessed September 24, 2009).
“Crackdown on Drugs by Navy is Paying Off.” LAT, November 28, 1983.
PHN.
Currie, William and Stevenson O. Swanson. “Sailors react to navy drug
war: ‘Who are they kidding?’” Chicago Tribune, January 24, 1982.
PHN.
DeAngelis, G.G. Testing and Screening for Drugs of Abuse: Techniques,
Issues, and Clinical Implications. New York, NY: Mercel Dekker,
1976.
“Defense Dept. Civilians to Be Tested for Drugs.” NYT, May 30, 1985.
PHN.
Department of Health and Human Services Policy for Federal Workplace
Drug Testing Programs. Hearing before the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Commerce,
House of Representatives, One Hundred Fifth Congress, Second
Session: July 23, 1998. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1998.
Drug Abuse in the Military. Hearing before the Select Committee on
Narcotics Abuse and Control, House of Representatives, NinetySeventh Congress, First Session: September 17, 1981. U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1981.
“Figures on Heroin in Vietnam Differ: New Tests Cut the Number of G.I.
Users by a Third.” NYT, September 5, 1971. PHN.
“Finding a Middle Between Fairness and Efficiency.” NYT, September 7,
1986. PHN.
Fisher, Allan H., MAJ K. Eric Nelson, and CAPT Jacob Panzarella,
Patterns of Drug Usage Among Vietnam Veterans. Alexandria, VA:
Human Resources Research Organization, 1972.
“Four Sailors Punished for Evading Drug Urine Test.” LAT, March 12,
1983. PHN.
Frith, Teresa J. Drug Use in Navy Continues to Decline. Navy.mil
(November 14, 2003). http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story
id=10562 (accessed September 23, 2009).
133
Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectroscopy Background. George Mason
University (January 20,1998). http://www.gmu.edu/departments/SR
IF/tutorial/gcd/gc-ms2.htm (accessed September 30, 2009).
Halloran, Richard. “Drug Use in Military Drops; Pervasive Testing
Credited.” NYT, April 23, 1987. PHN.
Halloran, Richard. “Fire After Failed Landing by EA-6B on the Nimitz, Off
Florida, Injures 48.” NYT, Vol. CXXX, No. 44,962, A1, May 28,
1981.
Halloran, Richard. “Nimitz Is Home; Courage of Crew In Crash Praised.”
NYT, Vol. CXXX, No. 44, 963, A1, May 29, 1981.
Harris, Scott. “’Dubious’ Drug Tests May Have Forced Thousands From
Service.” LAT, September 9, 1984. PHN.
Hatch, Daniel. “Panel Belittles Role of Drug Tests.” NYT, May 15, 1988.
PHN.
Irving, CMDR John. “Drug Testing in the Military – Technical and Legal
Problems.” Clinical Chemistry, 1988, 637-639.
Jacklich, John, and Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA. Minimizing
Drug Related Attrition Costs for Incoming Naval Recruits. Ft.
Belvoir: Defense Technical Information Center, 1998.
Janofsky, Michael. “Annapolis Seeks Ouster Of 15 Cadets For Drug Use.”
NYT, August 8, 1996. PHN.
Jennings, C. Robert. “Strung Out in the Navy.” LAT, December 19, 1971.
PHN.
Johnson, George and Laura Mansnerus. “Military Finds Drug Use Is
Down.” NYT, April 26, 1987. PHN.
Jones, John, and Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA. A Change in
the Navy's Drug Testing Policy: How Will it Affect Costs and the
Probability of Detecting Drug Users. Ft. Belvoir: Defense Technical
Information Center, 1995.
134
Jones, Ken. Navy recruiting and urinalysis program: History and
implementation. Essortment (2002). http://www.essortment.com/all/
navyrecruitingrxjz.htm (accessed September 15, 2009).
Karch, Steven B. Workplace Drug Testing. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press,
2008.
Marshall, Eliot. Testing Urine for Drugs. JSTOR: Science, (October 3,
2009).
Maugh, Thomas H. “Navy Viewed as Setting Drug-Testing Standard.”
LAT, October 29, 1986. PHN.
McLellan, Mike. Substance Abuse Fought at Fleet Level. Navy.mil (June
1, 2003). http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?storyid=7715
(accessed September 23, 2009).
“Midshipman, Accused In Drug Case, Sues Navy.” NYT, March 11, 1986.
PHN.
“Military Drug Study Set.” LAT, August 1, 1982. PHN.
“Military Tests Find Most Use of Drugs Is by Vietnam G.I.’s.” NYT,
January 17, 1972. PHN.
“Navy Defends Its Methods in Fighting Drug Abuse.” NYT, November 8,
1984. PHN.
“Navy going to pot, drug study shows.” Chicago Tribune, July 9, 1981.
PHN.
“Navy is Toughening Enforcement Efforts Against Drug Abuse.” NYT, July
10, 1981. PHN.
“Navy to Clear Records Of 3,000 for Drug Use.” NYT, October 2, 1983.
PHN.
“Navy Trial for Woman Who Defied Drug Test.” NYT, October 14, 1988.
PHN.
Novak, Lisa M. Navy Stepping Up Drug Testing Program. Stars and
Stripes.http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=641
46 (accessed October 16, 2009).
135
Nussbaum, Paul. “1,000 S.D. Sailors Undergo Surprise Tests for Drugs.”
LAT, December 11, 1980. PHN.
Office of the Secretary of Defense Washington D.C. Technical Procedures
for the Military Personnel Drug Abuse Testing Program. Ft. Belvoir:
Defense Technical Information Center, 1994.
Rhem, Kathleen T. A Look at Drug Use and Testing Within the Military.
About.com (2009). http://usmilitary.about.com/od/theorderlyroom/l/
bl drugtest s3.htm?p=1 (accessed September 23, 2009).
“Sailor Admits Switch of Urine in Drug Tests.” LAT, March 9, 1983. PHN.
“Sailor Charged in Drug Test Scheme.” LAT, March 15, 1983. PHN.
Scott, James E. Myths/Conceptions: Setting the Record Straight on Drugs
in the Navy. Navy Drug Awareness. http://www.defenselink.mil/spec
ials/drugawareness/usnnews07a.html (accessed October 3, 2009).
Serrin, William. “Drug Tests Promote Safety, Many Say.” NYT, Vol.
CXXXV, No. 46, 899, 16, September 16, 1986.
“Services Scan Drug Test Error.” NYT, August 19, 1983. PHN.
Shear, LCDR Wayne G. The Drug War: Applying the Lessons of Vietnam.
Newport, R.I.: Naval War College, 1993.
Talent. Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1998. Committee on Small Business,
House of Representatives, One Hundred Fifth Congress, Second
Session: June 18, 1998. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1998.
Thin-Layer Chromatography. University of California, Los Angeles (August
14, 2009) http://www. chem.ucla.edu/~bacher/General/30BL/tips/TL
C1.html (accessed September 30, 2009).
Thompson, Theodore, and Navy Personnel Research and Development
Center, San Diego CA. Probability of Detection of Drug Users by
Random Urinalysis in the U.S. Navy. Ft. Belvoir: Defense Technical
Information Center, 1992.
Tunnel, Kenneth D. Pissing on Demand: Workplace Drug Testing and the
Rise of The Detox Industry. New York, NY: New York University
Press, 2004.
Vietnam: Drug Use In. BookRags.com http://www.bookrags.com/research/
136
Vietnam-drug-use-in-edaa-03/ (accessed October 3, 2009).
Washington Headquarters Services (DoD) D.C. Directives Div. Military
Personnel Drug Abuse Testing Program. Ft. Belvoir: Defense
Technical Information Center, 1994.
Weidrich, Bob. “A drug problem surfaces for Navy in girls’ deaths.”
Chicago Tribune, September 27, 1981. PHN.
Chapter 9
Overdose: The Heroin Deaths of Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix
Katie Nicholson
People – whether they know it or not
– like their blues singers miserable.
Then they like them to die
afterwards.1 – Janis Joplin
For five days in the summer of 1967, in Monterey, California, some
of the biggest names in pop music took to the stage. The Jimi Hendrix
Experience, Big Brother and the Holding Company, Simon and Garfunkel,
The Byrds, Otis Redding, and the Who were just a few of the acts who
performed throughout the week. Many musicians essentially started their
careers on the Monterey Pop stage, among them Jimi Hendrix and Janis
Joplin. Prior to the Monterey Pop festival, few people in the United States
had heard of either of these artists, but they left the stage with a new fan
base across the nation. Unlike Altamont just two years later, the Monterey
Pop Festival was calm and peaceful. Audience members watched the
show and appreciated the music, and the police had no problems dealing
with the nearly 80,000 “hippies” in attendance.2
Throughout the 1960s, drug use and rock and roll seemed to be
constantly connected. Many musicians used barbiturates, opiates, and
alcohol daily at dangerous levels, leading to numerous overdoses among
some of the biggest names of the time. Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin, the
two biggest victims, died of overdoses within just three weeks of each
other. Friends, families, and the media knew that both Hendrix and Joplin
were drug users, but no one close to the stars foresaw either death.3
These two artists were at the height of their popularity, and their overdose
deaths in such quick succession caused the country and particularly its
youth population to reexamine the dangers of drug use.
1
Jeremy Simmonds, The Encyclopedia of Dead Rock Stars: Heroin, Handguns, and Ham
Sandwiches (Chicago: Chicago Reviews Press, 2008), 39.
2
Pete Johnson, “Hippies at Their Happiest at Monterey Pop Festival,” Los Angeles
Times, June 20, 1967. PHN.
3
For more about drug use among rock musicians, see David Comfort, The Rock and Roll
Book of the Dead: The Fatal Journeys of Rockʼs Seven Immortals (New York: Citadel,
2009); Michael Lydon, Flashbacks, Eyewitness Accounts of the Rock Revolution: 19641974 (New York: Routledge, 2003); Patricia Romanowski and Holly George-Warren,
Encyclopedia of Rock and Roll (New York: Rolling Stone Press, 1995); Jeremy
Simmonds, The Encyclopedia of Dead Rock Stars: Heroin, Handguns, and Ham
Sandwiches (Chicago: Chicago Reviews Press, 2008); R.U. Sirius, Everybody Must Get
Stoned: Rock Stars on Drugs (New York: Citadel Press, 2009).
138
Drug overdoses in the early 1960s tended to be associated with
urban areas. As the decade progressed, more people from different areas
began experimenting with drugs, and the ages of these users declined
quickly. Typically, overdose deaths occurred due to the uneven purity of
heroin on the street, not necessarily due to an excessive amount of a drug
taken. In fact, an addict could use the same amount of a drug two days in
a row, being fine the first day and dying of an overdose from a strong
batch the next. Because of the increase in the number of people using
drugs, an awareness of the dangers of overdosing rose.4 The Federal and
local governments attempted to curb drug use by enacting anti-drug
campaigns, such Nixonʼs War on Drugs.
Much of the research already done into the lives of Hendrix and
Joplin has been compiled in biographies and collections of individual
stories. These works, among others, provide an insight into the lives of
the musicians, most often by people who knew them personally. The
biographies and story compilations use interviews, first-hand accounts,
and diary entries by Joplin, Hendrix, and members of their bands. Some
were written by historians, others by families and friends of Hendrix and
Joplin, and still another by a music journalist working at the height of their
careers. Most authors have focused largely on the negative aspects of
Hendrix and Joplin. Their drug use and lack of personal connections
provides a common theme in the works. According to many of these
works, both Hendrix and Joplin developed a reliance on drugs and alcohol
as a means of escapism. Though surrounded by adoring fans every night
on stage, neither was satisfied or happy. Drugs seemed to provide the
only release from their perceived lonely lives.5
This chapter explores the rise and fall of these rock legends: their
lives, their deaths, and their afterlives. In the late 1960s, the drug
counterculture continued to grow, and age of drug users declined at a
rapid pace. And while, despite very different upbringings, both Janis
Joplin and Jimi Hendrix fell victim to drug and alcohol abuse, the untimely
4
Shepard Siegel, Riley E. Hinson, Marvin D. Krank, and Jane McCully, Heroin
“Overdose” Death: Contribution of Drug-Associated Environmental Cues (American
Association for the Advancement of Science, 1982).
5
For additional reading on Hendrixʼs personal life, loneliness, and drug use, see Monika
Dannemann, The Inner World of Jimi Hendrix (New York: St. Martinʼs Press, 1995);
Charles C. Cross, Room Full of Mirrors, (New York: Hypericon, 2005); Adrian Boot and
Chris Salewicz, Jimi Hendrix: The Ultimate Experience (New York: Macmillan, 1995). For
additional reading on Joplinʼs personal life, loneliness, and drug use, see Ellis Amburn,
Pearl: The Obsessions and Passions of Janis Joplin: A Biography (New York: Warner
Books, 1992); Myra Friedman, Buried Alive: The Biography of Janis Joplin (New York:
William Morrow and Company, 1973); David Dalton, Piece of My Heart: The Life, Times
and Legend of Janis Joplin (New York: St. Martinʼs Press, 1985); John Byrne Cooke,
Janis Joplin, A Performance Diary 19966-1970 (San Francisco: First Glance Books,
1997).
139
deaths of these youth icons in 1970 caused young people and other
musicians to become more cautious about hard drug use in the 1970s.
Early Life, Fame, and Success
James Marshall Hendrix was born in Seattle the day after
Thanksgiving, on November 27, 1942. Jimi experienced an early
childhood riddled with family issues: many members entered and exited
his life regularly and without explanation. When Hendrix was just nineyears-old, his younger brother Joe, who was born with multiple birth
defects and had undergone an operation on his leg, became a ward of the
state when his family could no longer take care of him. Jimi never again
lived with his brother, but they did sometimes run into each other around
the neighborhood. Because of his chaotic family structure, Hendrix
switched homes and schools often, but by junior high, his life had become
relatively stable.6
With his mother essentially out of his life, he lived with his father, Al
in a boardinghouse. At age 15, Hendrix acquired an old, broken guitar
from a neighbor, and from that moment, his love affair with music took off.
This guitar had only two working strings, but Hendrix was able to bend the
notes to create new sounds and play nearly anything he wanted. He
claimed that this broken guitar actually allowed him to be able to play his
later working guitars in the unique way that made him famous.7
Jimi Hendrix never took formal music lessons but learned from
neighborhood children and from imitating songs on the radio. When he
was sixteen-years-old, his father bought him his first electric guitar, despite
the fact that the pair lived on a limited income. According to his girlfriend
at the time, Carmen Goudy, “This was like having five Christmases all
rolled up into one. You couldnʼt help but feel happy for him. I think it was
the happiest day of his life.”8
Hendrix had his first gig in 1959, and soon after he joined his first
significant band, the Velvetones. Influenced by wide mixture of genres
and artists, Jimi created a unique fusion of styles and sounds. After a few
months, Hendrix created a new band called the Rocking Kings, and they
played at the Spanish Castle in 1960. There, they first encountered a
more professional music scene and soon became regulars at the club.
Hendrix only stayed with this band for a few more months because of
issues with the law, such as being caught riding in a stolen car. The court
gave him a choice between going to prison for two years or joining the
army, so he enlisted in 1961. He only remained in the army for about a
year, citing “homosexual tendencies” as an excuse to be discharged. In
6
Charles C. Cross, Room Full of Mirrors, (New York: Hypericon, 2005), 64-65.
Cross, 64-65.
8
Cross, 64-65.
7
140
reality, Hendrix was simply unhappy and needed an excuse to break his
three-year contract.9
Once free of the army, Hendrix got back to his music career, and in
1966, he formed The Jimi Hendrix Experience. Their first album, Are You
Experienced?, released in 1967, was a huge commercial and critical
success in the UK, but the band remained relatively unknown in the United
States. This changed at the Monterey Pop Festival later that year, which
introduced the bandʼs electric performance style to the US. This five-day
festival in California served as a catalyst to the band, allowing them to
build a large following across America.
After the Monterey show, however, Hendrixʼs previous
experimentation with drugs, consisting of occasionally using marijuana
and alcohol in high school, reached a new level. He reportedly used pot
and amphetamines as well as LSD, and this caused problems with his
band. In a highly publicized ordeal in 1969, Hendrix was once again in
trouble with the law after being busted for heroin. He was acquitted after
stating someone slipped the drugs into his bag without his knowledge.
Later that year, some spread that Hendrix was on acid during his now
famous performance of the Star Spangled Banner at the Woodstock
Festival. In the summer of 1970, he began snorting heroin. Just a few
months later, drugs and alcohol combined to cause Jimi Hendrixʼs death.10
Born less than two months after Hendrix, Janis Lyn Joplin entered
the world on January 19, 1943 in Port Arthur, Texas. Ridiculed for her
looks throughout her childhood and teen years, Joplin never fit in with any
particular crowd. “I was a misfit,” Janis said of her rough high school
days.11 Because of her unique style and personality, she never had many
friends. Her general crowd was a group of fellow beatniks, and Joplin
accredited this group with introducing her, in her teenage years, to the
woman that would become both her idol and inspiration, Bessie Smith.
She was voted “the ugliest man on campus,” at the University of Texas at
Austin, prompting her to drop out and return home. The small, oil refinery
town of Port Arthur, however, kept Joplin from achieving her lofty
ambitions, and Joplin left Texas for San Francisco in 1963.12
In California, Joplin played small, local venues and independently
recorded her first album. Her new lifestyle, including hanging around
fellow musicians, sparked her first venture into hard drug use shortly after
she arrived in California. Although she had been a heavy drinker since
her high school days—she was hospitalized for alcoholism after her senior
9
Cross, 68-94.
Adrian Boot and Chris Salewicz, Jimi Hendrix: The Ultimate Experience (New York:
Macmillan, 1995), 160-172.
11
David Comfort, The Rock and Roll Book of the Dead: The Fatal Journeys of Rockʼs
Seven Immortals (New York: Citadel, 2009), 73.
12
Jeremy Simmonds, The Encyclopedia of Dead Rock Stars: Heroin, Handguns, and
Ham Sandwiches (Chicago: Chicago Review Press, 2008), 39-40.
10
141
year – the new California atmosphere led her to drink even more heavily
as well as to experiment with speed, heroin, and other psychoactive
drugs.13
Joplinʼs use of drugs and alcohol led her to physical decline, and
her friends took note of her emaciated appearance. In 1965, they
persuaded her to return home to Port Arthur, and, eventually, Janis agreed
to do so. Back in Port Arthur, Joplin attempted to clean up her act. She
began wearing more “normal” clothing instead of the beatnik attire she
donned in California. Once deemed more presentable, Joplin returned to
college as a sociology major, and she seemed determined to kick her drug
habits for good.14 Despite her best efforts, however, this newfound
persona did not last long.
When a friend of Joplinʼs told her about a San Francisco band in
need of a vocalist, she quickly took advantage of the opportunity. Joplin
joined Big Brother and the Holding Company in 1966 and returned to
California. There, they established a strong and devoted fan base,
eventually allowing them to tour the country. While in Chicago, Big
Brother and the Holding Company signed a record deal with Mainstream
Records, and they released their first album in 1967. Because their label
and manager refused to help pay for the bandʼs necessities, they moved
into a house with the Grateful Dead in an effort to save the little money
they had. It was during this time, in 1966 and 1967, that Joplin returned to
using hard drugs on a regular basis.15
Joplin, with Big Brother and the Holding Company, performed at the
Monterey Pop Festival in June 1967. Along with Jimi Hendrix, they were a
huge success. Their popularity skyrocketed, and they, like Hendrix, began
to establish a fan base across the nation. Under their management during
this time, however, the band was booked for shows almost solely in
California, causing them to become unsatisfied. Consequently, Joplin and
Big Brother hired a new manager, Albert Grossman, and began their first
East coast tour.16
In 1968, Big Brother made its first television appearance on the
Dick Cavett Show on ABC. Due to Joplinʼs popularity, the band was billed
and referred to as “Janis Joplin and Big Brother and the Holding
Company.” This caused resentment among the band members, and an
incurable rift formed. Despite the tensions within the band, however, the
constant touring continued. In 1968, Big Brother released their second
album, Cheap Thrills. Aided by its breakthrough single, “Piece of My
13
Myra Friedman, Buried Alive: The Biography of Janis Joplin (New York: William Morrow
and Company, 1973), 48-50.
14
Friedman, 58-59.
15
Friedman, 75-77.
16
Simmonds, 41-42.
142
Heart,” the album reached gold status. Yet as Big Brotherʼs success grew,
the internal struggles constantly tore the members apart.17
Joplin split from Big Brother and the Holding Company in 1969,
intending to create her own band that better suited her needs. She formed
a new backing group, The Kozmic Blues Band, and they set to work on a
new album. Throughout this time, Joplin abused alcohol and hard drugs,
including heroin. The members of her new band all noticed her problem,
but Joplin refused to admit that her partying had reached a dangerous
level. “If they know anything about anything, they know Iʼm not a star,”
she stated. “They know Iʼm a middle-age chick with a drinking problem,
man, and a loud voice… Iʼll never be a star like Jimi Hendrix or Bob
Dylan.”18 By 1970, however, Janis Joplinʼs substance use and abuse
would ultimately end her life.
Deaths of Rock Icons
In 1968, Jimi Hendrix said, “The person who is dead isnʼt crying.
When I die I want people to just play my music, freak out, go wild, do
anything they want to do, enjoy themselves.”19 Just two years later, on
September 18, 1970, Hendrix died from a lethal combination of alcohol
and nine Vesparax sleeping pills, given to him by his self-proclaimed
fiancée Monika Dannemann. Dannemann claimed she found Hendrix the
morning after he had taken the pills and accompanied him to the hospital.
She also stated that he was still alive while in the ambulance and when he
arrived to the hospital. Police officers at the scene, however, state that
they “definitely found Hendrix alone, lying dead in a pool of his own
vomit.”20
Although the events surrounding Hendrixʼs death are muddled and
confused, the following seems to be the most agreed-upon series of
events. On the day of his death, according to friends, Hendrix was “out of
his mind” looking for drugs. He went to dinner with some old friends and
Dannemann, where they had a very loud and public altercation.
Afterward, she drove him to a party, where Hendrix allegedly did speed,
grass, and Owsley acid. He left the party at around 3 a.m., marking the
last time anyone other then Monika Dannemann saw him alive.
Dannemann testified that she drove Hendrix back to her hotel, the
Samarkand, where she took a sedative and fell asleep. When she woke,
she discovered Hendrix unconscious and nine of her sleeping pills
17
Alice Echols, Scars of Sweet Paradise: The Life and Times of Janis Joplin (New York:
Metropolitan Books, 1999), 192.
18
Comfort, 85.
19
“The Last Days of a Pop Idol,” Chicago Tribune, September 27, 1970. PHN.
20
Simmonds, 38-39.
143
missing. According to Dannemann, she called an ambulance, and
Hendrix was still alive when he reached the hospital.
However, Jimiʼs friend and fellow musician Eric Burdon gave a
different version of these events. Burdon claimed that he received a call
from Dannemann in the morning, and after she told him what had
happened, he told her to call an ambulance. He then went to the hotel,
took Hendrixʼs guitars out of the room, and left his girlfriend to take care of
Dannemann. The paramedics arrived and found the door open with no
one in the room. “The bedroom was dark because the curtains were still
pulled,” Paramedic Reginald Jones said. “He was covered in vomit, there
was tons of it all over the pillow… His airway was completely blocked, his
tongue had fallen back. I knew he was dead as soon as I walked into the
room.” The coroner, Dr. Gavin Thurslon, cited the cause of death as
“inhalation of vomit following barbiturate intoxication.”21
After hearing of Jimi Hendrixʼs death, Janis Joplin remarked, “It just
decreases my chances. Two rock stars canʼt die in the same year.”22
Ironically, Joplin died less than three weeks after Hendrix on October 4,
1970. By that time, she had already overdosed five times. Her sixth,
overdose, however, claimed her life. The evening before her death, Joplin
consumed several screwdrivers before going to meet her dealer at a
Santa Monica hotel. Unbeknownst to her at the time, Joplinʼs usual
supplier was out of town, so she got her heroin from another, unknown
source. This new heroin was close to 40 percent pure, in contrast to the
street “norm” of 1-2 percent. Joplin used the skin-pop method of injection,
with the intention of getting a delayed hit. Her road manager John Cooke
found her sixteen hours later wedged between a bed and a nightstand with
blood covering her face.
Cooke found Joplin dressed only in a blouse and underwear, still
holding the change from the cigarette vending machine she had visited
earlier. She appeared to have collapsed and hit her head on the
nightstand, but the doctors said it was more likely that the heroin killed her
outright. The coroner, Dr. Thomas Noguchi, found no reason to believe
that her death was anything more than an accident, ruling out suicide and
other conspiracies.23 The coroner also found that Joplinʼs liver showed
the effects of her long-term drinking. Although she was intoxicated at the
time of her death, the coroner found that alcohol did not play any
significant role.24
Kris Kristofferson, a former boyfriend of Joplin, composed her
epitaph shortly after her death. He suggested that if someone is born “so
21
Comfort, 42-46.
Comfort, 89.
23
Simmonds, 41.
24
George Gent, “Death of Janis Joplin Attributed to Accidental Heroin Overdose,” New
York Times, October 6, 1970. PHN.
22
144
black and blue,” no amount of friends, fame, or money can stop your
loneliness or depression. The epitaph reads:
Just say she was someone
So far from home
Whose life was so lonesome
She died all alone
Who dreamed pretty dreams
That never came true
Lord, why was she born
So black and blue?25
Impact of Their Deaths
Both Jimi Hendrixʼs and Janis Joplinʼs deaths happened unexpectedly,
and both sent shockwaves through the music scene. They pointed to a
serious problem that worried many people – drug use among rock
musicians had become commonplace and excessive. This association of
musicians using drugs can be traced to at least the jazz artists of the
1930s, but the 1960s brought about a very public resurgence of this trend
among celebrities. Former jazz musician Frank Cook explained, “The
pressure today is much greater than when I started out in jazz. We used
to play in clubs before maybe 200 people. Today, the groups perform for
anywhere between 50,000 and 200,000 people.”26 Jimi Hendrix and Janis
Joplin, certainly not the only rock musicians to use hard drugs during this
time, dealt with the same inner strife other stars also experienced.
In 1970, a few weeks after their deaths, Eric Clapton attempted to
explain what Hendrix and Joplin went through in their stardom. “They
phased themselves out of a situation that had become intolerable,”
Clapton opined. “The demands made upon them both by a cynical and
insensitive commercial milieu and by an unthinking and adulatory public
proved too much.” He also shared the sentiments of many musicians:
“Jimiʼs death shook me rigid. Itʼll be a long time before I shall feel at peace
again.” Additionally, Clapton viewed the deaths of Hendrix and Joplin as
the end of an era and an almost necessary sacrifice to help music move
forward. “Weʼre all hooked on something,” Clapton said. “Take the drugs
away from many rock musicians and blues players and youʼd be left with
only half a man. Ours is a universal problem.”27
25
Sinclair, Marianne, Those Who Died Young: Cult Heroes of the Twentieth Century
(New York: Penguin Books, 1979), 146-147.
26
George Gent, “Starsʼ Deaths Stir Rock Scene,” New York Times, November 3, 1970.
PHN.
27
Tony Palmer, “Eric Clapton: Why Did Hendrix and Joplin Die?,” New York Times,
October 18, 1970. PHN.
145
Other musicians recognized that the drug problem in music had
reached new levels around the time that Hendrix and Joplin died. Jazz
artist Gerry Mulligan said that material success tended to lead musicians
to begin using drugs, so drug use was common. “Itʼs nothing new,”
Mulligan asserted. “Itʼs reached a lot of other generations. It has its own
pressures and generates its own strong destructive drives.”28 Mulligan
also stated that even though the deaths of Hendrix and Joplin were
tragedies, they might have potentially had a positive impact if they caused
fellow musicians and other people to become scared of heroin.
In the late 1960s, a shift occurred in the ages of people dying from
drug overdoses. Prior to 1968, coroners stated that most people brought
in were young people, but in the last years of the decades, the ages began
approaching childhood. The average ages continued to drop, and
coroners said they began to receive 13-year-old overdose victims.29
In 1966, there were 338 overdose deaths in New York, 33 of which
were teenagers. In 1969, there were more than 700 deaths, including
over 170 teenagers. Heroin addicts comprised almost all of the dead,
further suggesting to coroners that this drug was more deadly than
others.30 In 1969 and 1970, narcotics, chiefly heroin, were reportedly the
leading cause of deaths in all males aged 15-35. This statistic caused
extreme alarm in the city, causing the heroin problem to be categorized as
an epidemic. A striking feature of these deaths was the rapidness in
which they occurred. Unlike usual heroin overdoses, in which the victim
dies slowly and displays a set of symptoms, this new swing in overdoses
caused the victims to die within minutes. It became more difficult for those
suffering from heroin overdoses to be saved, according to coroners in New
York.31
Similarly, in the late 1960s in California, police estimated that there
was a 300 percent increase in the number of people using drugs, including
many more 11 and 12-year-olds. Marijuana was the most common of
these drugs, but a growing problem was LSD, heroin, glue-sniffing, and
pills. The police attributed this severe increase to childrenʼs curiosity.
While police admitted that marijuana was less damaging than heroin or
other hard drugs, they also claimed that it was just as psychologically
addicting. Police predicted that the number of people using drugs would
28
Gent, “Starsʼ Deaths Stir Rock Scene.”
Paul L. Montgomery, “Coroners Worry About Addiction: Narcotics-Related Deaths Rise
Sharply Here,” New York Times, October 20, 1969. PHN.
30
Montgomery, “Coroners Worry About Addiction: Narcotics-Related Deaths Rise Sharply
Here.”
31
Edward M. Brecher, “So Why Do Heroin Addicts Drop Dead?,” New York Times,
November 19, 1972. PHN.
29
146
continue to rise while the ages would continue to drop if the drug trends of
the 1960s continued.32
Marijuana was viewed as a gateway drug to heroin and other hard
drugs, in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Discussions about its
legalization took place, but this never happened because of fear or
marijuanaʼs repercussions. “The legalization of marijuana could have
tragic consequences for American youth,” one Chicago Tribune article
claimed, “for marijuana has contributed significantly to an increase in
heroin use among teenagers.”33 In 1969, in New York alone, there were
nearly 900 deaths from heroin, a quarter of which were teenagers. While
drug users used to be limited to urban areas, in the late 1960s, suburban
areas began to see an increase in youths using drugs, alarming adults.34
The government in the 1970s worked to eliminate this “universal
problem” by waging a war on drugs. The Nixon-Agnew administration,
already focused on stopping drug usage in America, used the deaths of
Hendrix and Joplin as a new launching pad for an investigation into the
drug culture in music. Hendrixʼs death, before that of Joplin, was viewed
by the administration as showing “a disturbing tendency toward drugs.”35
Nixonʼs vice president Spiro Agnew initiated an anti-drug campaign that
targeted popular music, citing numerous “drug songs” that were unsuitable
for children and youths. Generally, any song including the words “high,”
“grass,” or “snow” came under fire, regardless of whether they were
actually about drugs at all. One such mistaken “drug song” was the Byrdsʼ
“Eight Miles High,” which was actually about a plane ride to London.36
Numerous other songs were misinterpreted by Agnew as well, and this
sudden interest in banning drug-related music likely stemmed directly from
the deaths of Hendrix, Joplin, and other well-known musicians in the span
of a few years.
The deaths of Hendrix and Joplin forced the youth of America to
reevaluate their own drug use. Young people related to these artistsʼ
music, and they felt that much of what was written was directed at them.
Following Hendrixʼs death, an obituary stated, “His was music of defiance,
of alienation, of destruction, and he felt he represented the youthful spirit
of the times.”37 Consequently, parents of adolescents and teenagers
became increasingly wary of the kind of music their children were
enjoying.
32
Gordon Grant, “Dope Reaching Younger Children, Police Say,” Los Angeles Times,
June 11, 1967. PHN.
33
Raymond F. Dumalski, Jr., “Potheads and Junkies,” Chicago Tribune, April 6, 1970.
PHN.
34
Dumalski, “Potheads and Junkies.”
35
Robert Hilburn, “Death Poses ʻDrug Cultureʼ Question,” Los Angeles Times, September
19, 1970. PHN.
36
Hilburn, “Death Poses ʻDrug Cultureʼ Question.”
37
“The Last Days of a Pop Idol,” Chicago Tribune.
147
A group of high school students from Orange County, California,
got together a week after Joplinʼs death and discussed death and drugs.
“It seems like all the people who have died were the same age,” one girl
commented. “They all died before they were 30, like they didnʼt want to go
through that change.”38 A boy in the group stated that when his parents
found his stash of drugs in his house, he was immediately reminded of
Joplin and Hendrix. Another boy spoke of a speed habit he had managed
to kick, claiming that it was “just a drag.” He didnʼt see the point in people
using the drug to just “run up and down the steps.”39
The students showed a recognition of the dangers of using and
overusing drugs, relating it back to Jimi Hendrix and other musicians. “I
read a thing that Jimi Hendrix said … ʻLet me live my life the way I want
and when itʼs time for me to die then Iʼll die,ʼ” one boy said. “So I think he
was doing as much as he wanted to and finally one day he just took an
overdose.” The students also commented on the fact that because of the
high-profile drug cases of the time, people may think that all musicians
have problems with drugs. While numerous musicians have, in fact,
admitted to drug usage, certainly not all have had problems with
substance abuse.40 Additionally, other famous musicians have passed
away because of drug overdoses, but Hendrix and Joplin were probably
the most publicized.
Conclusion
The drug culture of the 1960s was rampant; and famous musicians
and everyday people experimented with different types of drugs. The
deaths of Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin initiated a nationwide conversation
about the dangers of drug use, which ultimately helped lead to a more
cautious population. It was a relatively well-known fact that both of these
musicians widely used a variety of substances, but it was not looked down
upon while they were alive. Children who looked up to and idolized
Hendrix and Joplin also saw the drug use as it was reported in the media,
and this counteracted the anti-drug campaigns taking place at the time. If
these huge stars could use drugs, it stood to reason that their fans should
be able to as well. Because of their deaths, however, it became much
more apparent that drug use was not something that could or should be
taken lightly. Drug use did not end in the 1970s, but some people became
more aware of the negative aspects of hard drugs.
Many people feared the repercussions excessive drug use and
exposure through popular culture could have on the youth of the
38
Virgil Kret, “Youth Looks at Drugs in Wake of Starsʼ Deaths,” Los Angeles Times,
October 11, 1970. PHN.
39
Kret, “Youth Looks at Drugs in Wake of Starsʼ Deaths,”
40
Kret, “Youth Looks at Drugs in Wake of Starsʼ Deaths.”
148
generation. The ages of people dying from drug overdoses continued to
drop, so some steps were taken by the government to stop the spread of
youth drug use. Spiro Agnew and Richard Nixon launched an anti-drug
campaign that focused on music. Agnew targeted what he considered to
be “drug songs,” though often the songs he cited were entirely unrelated to
drugs. Both administrators in the government and ordinary citizens
realized that drugs really were everywhere: in music, film, literature, and
more.
The deaths of these two prominent rock stars marked a turning
point in the glamorous depictions of drugs during this era. Hendrix and
Joplinʼs deaths started a nationwide conversation about drug use, and
they triggered some precautionary steps, such as banning potential drug
songs, to help limit usage. Rather than accepting the drug culture and
allowing its continuation, many people, both musicians and youth included,
decided to step back and become both more cautious and aware of the
dangers of drug use.
149
Bibliography
Amburn, Ellis. Pearl: The Obsessions and Passions of Janis Joplin: A
Biography. New York: Warner Books, 1992.
Boot, Adrian, and Chris Salewicz. Jimi Hendrix: The Ultimate Experience.
New York: Macmillan, 1995.
Brecher, Edward M. “So Why Do Heroin Addicts Drop Dead?.” New York
Comfort, David. The Rock and Roll Book of the Dead: The Fatal Journeys
of Rockʼs Seven Immortals. New York: Citadel Press, 2009.
Cooke, John Byrne. Janis Joplin: A Performance Diary 1966-1970. San
Francisco: First Glance Books, 1997.
Cross, Charles. Room Full of Mirrors. New York: Hypericon, 2005.
Dalton, David. Piece of My Heart: The Life, Times, and Legend of Janis
Joplin. New York: St. Martinʼs Press, 1985.
Dannemann, Monika. The Inner World of Jimi Hendrix. New York: St.
Martinʼs Press, 1995.
Dumalski, Jr., Raymond F. “Potheads and Junkies.” Chicago Tribune, April
6, 1970. PHN.
Echols, Alice. Scars of Sweet Paradise: The Life and Times of Janis
Joplin. New York: Metropolitan Books, 1999.
Friedman, Myra. Buried Alive: The Biography of Janis Joplin. New York:
William Morrow and Company, 1973.
Gent, George. “Death of Janis Joplin Attributed to Accidental Heroin
Overdose.” New York Times, October 6, 1970. PHN.
Gent, George. “Starsʼ Deaths Stir Rock Scene.” New York Times,
Grant, Gordon. “Dope Reaching Younger Children, Police Say.” Los
Angeles Times, June 11, 1967. PHN.
150
Hilburn, Robert. “Death Poses ʻDrug Cultureʼ Question.” Los Angeles
Times, September 19, 1970. PHN.
Johnson, Pete. “Hippies at Their Happiest at Monterey Pop Festival.” Los
Angeles Times, June 20, 1967. PHN.
Kret, Virgil. “Youth Looks at Drugs in Wake of Starsʼ Deaths.” Los Angeles
“The Last Days of a Pop Idol.” Chicago Tribune, September 27, 1970.
PHN.
Lydon, Michael. Flashbacks, Eyewitness Accounts of the Rock Revolution:
1964-1974. New York: Routledge, 2003.
Montgomery, Paul L. “Coroners Worry About Addiction: Narcotics-Related
Deaths Rise Sharply Here.” New York Times, October 20, 1969.
PHN.
Palmer, Tony. “Eric Clapton: Why Did Hendrix and Joplin Die?.” New York
Siegel, Shepard, Riley E. Hinson, Marvin D. Krank, and Jane McCully,
Heroin “Overdose” Death: Contribution of Drug-Associated
Environmental Cues. American Association for the Advancement of
Science, 1982.
Sinclair, Marianne. Those Who Died Young: Cult Heroes of the Twentieth
Century. New York: Penguin Books, 1979.
Romanowski, Patricia, and Holly George-Warren. Encyclopedia of Rock &
Roll. New York: Rolling Stone Press, 1995.
Simmonds, Jeremy. The Encyclopedia of Dead Rock Stars: Heroin,
Handguns, and Ham Sandwiches. Chicago: Chicago Reviews
Press, 2008.
Sirius, R.U., Everybody Must Get Stoned: Rock Stars on Drugs. New
York: Citadel Press, 2009.
Chapter 10
The Rise and Fall of Studio 54: Cocaine, Celebrity, and Scandal
Angela Neiman
A bright orange and pink, animated Man in the Moon sculpture
hung from the wall in Studio 54. A cocaine spoon filled with small bright
white lights imitating cocaine hung in front of his nose. During the night,
stagehands pulled ropes that moved the spoon back and forth in front of
the nose to make it appear as if he were snorting the cocaine. The
glittering cocaine and satisfied smile on the Man in the Moonʼs face
became an infamous image of the nightclub. The “Man in the Moon and
the Cocaine Spoon” attracted the celebrities and their followers, and he
taunted the government and law enforcement agencies. From the very
beginning the club was intentionally closely associated with glorified,
glamorous, celebrity cocaine use.
Writers studying Studio 54 have focused a great deal of attention
on the celebrities that frequented the club. Celebrity culture grew to new
heights in the 1970s with the introduction of People and Us magazines
and numerous gossip columns. Celebrity clientele was a key factor in the
clubʼs rise to fame. Some writers have even concluded that Studio 54
created celebrities by providing endless opportunities for publicity in
gossip columns and tabloids.1
Along with the rise of celebrity culture in the 1970s, cocaine
reemerged as the drug of choice. Historians have attributed this partly to
the governmentʼs war on drugs. President Nixonʼs war on drugs led to a
shortage of marijuana in the early 1970s, so drug dealers began to push
cocaine. People no longer believed the governmentʼs warnings about the
dangers of drugs because of its exaggerated, dishonest approach to
marijuana.2 Scholars studying the 1970s rise in cocaine use have noted
1
For more on celebrity culture in the 1970s, see Anthony Haden-Guest, The Last Party:
Studio 54, Disco, and the Culture of the Night (New York: William and Morrow Company,
Inc., 1997); Anthony Haden-Guest, Studio 54: The Legend (New York: te Neues
Publishing Company, 1997); Michael Angelo Tata, “Andy Warhol: When Junkies Ruled
the World,” Nebula 2.2 (June 2005): 76-112; Lars Dittmer, “Studio 54: Admission policies
as a form of individualism in New York seventiesʼ most famous disco and its display in
film and literature,” Scholarly Paper (2006), and Jonathan Mahler, Ladies and
Gentlemen, The Bronx is Burning (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2005).
2
For more on drug use in the 1970s, see Paul Gootenberg, Andean Cocaine: The
Making of a Global Drug (Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press,
2008); Martin Torgoff, Canʼt Find My Way Home: America in the Great Stoned Age,
1945-2000 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004); Michael Angela Tata, “Andy Warhol:
When Junkies Ruled the World,” Nebula 2.2, (June 2005): 76-112, and Philip Jenkins,
Decade of Nightmares (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).
152
that the availability of cocaine and the insane party atmosphere that Studio
54 created also greatly contributed to its popularity.
This chapter will trace the rise and fall of the first incarnation of
Studio 54. It will explore the influence of celebrities and their cocaine use
and the effects of the governmentʼs war on drugs. Studio 54 became the
most popular nightclub of its time. The governmentʼs crusade to shut
down the Studio and put an end to drug use only added to the clubʼs fame
and mystique. The celebrity supporters, drugs, scandal, and government
battles brought the media, publicity, and fans. The government and law
enforcementʼs crack down on drugs and the power of celebrity intensified
the popularity and demand for cocaine, and out of it all, Studio 54 became
a haven for celebrities, drugs, and scandal during its brief existence in the
late 1970s before those very things caused its demise.
The Federal war against Studio 54 was a part of its war on drugs,
the same campaign that contributed to the reemergence of cocaine as a
drug of choice in the 1970s and led to further public defiance of
government laws and use of illegal drugs. Illegal drug use in the U.S.
peaked in the 1970s, and by 1979 illegal cocaine seizures reached one
hundred tons.3 Historian Paul Gootenberg attributes the rise of cocaine in
the 1960s and 1970s to three main factors: the failure of postwar
development plans in Peru led to a Peruvian peasantry more active in
cocaine production; capitalism brought to Chile through cold war events
created Columbian narcotic traffickers who brought cocaine to new
markets, and the revolution of Nixon-era politics and culture created an
increased demand for the drug in the United States.4
President Richard Nixon, in office from 1969 to 1974, declared a
war on drugs. Nixonʼs crackdown had little effect on the growing trade of
cocaine, so he created the Drug Enforcement Administration in 1973. The
D.E.A., an outsized drug agency, was part of “Nixonʼs project of fostering a
larger repressive state.”5 Nixonʼs foreign policies and military actions
pushed the cocaine trade into the hands of Columbian traffickers.6
Nixonʼs domestic policies contributed to the spread of cocaine in
the United States as well. His crackdown on marijuana and 1969s
Operation Intercept, Nixonʼs ploy to stop marijuana smuggling over the
Mexican border, led to a shortage of marijuana in the U.S. Drug dealers
began to market pricey cocaine in its place. At the same time, many
people no longer believed the governmentʼs warnings or propaganda
against drugs due to its previous dishonest and exaggerated approach
3
Gootenberg, 309-310.
Gootenberg, 291.
5
Gootenberg, 307.
6
4
153
toward marijuana, so cocaine became a popular substitute for other drugs
like heroin and speed.7
The revolution of American culture also played a large part in the
growth of cocaine use. Capitalism, entrepreneurialism, emphasis on
consumer rights, and the reversion back to a focus on superficiality,
success, and money all contributed to the rise of cocaine consumption.
Hollywood and popular culture, likewise, encouraged cocaine use.
Cocaine became particularly closely associated with disco in part due to
its overt sexuality.8 Hollywood celebrities encouraged the image of
cocaine as a glamorous drug and constituted many of its earliest,
unapologetic supporters. Cocaine became a big part of Hollywood films,
and it received publicity as “the drug of the 70s” and the “champagne” of
drugs in magazines and papers like Rolling Stone and New York Times.
At a special type of party for “celebutantes,” or children of celebrities,
bowls full of cocaine were set out on the tables.9 “Rock stars and
celebrities constituted the model moneyed and opinion-forming brain
worker professions of the late twentieth century,” Gootenberg conclude,
“and for them coke became a required stress reliever and work-focusing
aid.”10 The public followed in their celebrity role modelsʼ leads, and, in the
1970s, illicit drug use became part of the social mainstream.11
Cocaine attracted celebrities because it reemerged as a glamorous,
big-spender drug, in large part due to its expense. It went hand-in-hand
with the superficiality, success, and money centered culture of the 1970s.
Cocaine use was about conspicuous consumption. Cocaine, already
deemed glamorous in itself, was further glorified by its Hollywood
supporters in films and in music.12 In 1977, rock artists Eric Clapton and
Jackson Brown both recorded songs called “Cocaine.” Cable television
shows and movies with obvious themes of sex and drugs became
increasingly popular. Even the media glorified cocaine use in magazines
like Newsweek, which wrote about cocaine being snorted from fourteenkarat-gold spoons alongside Dom Perignon and caviar. 13
While Hollywood celebrated cocaine, New York remained “the
world trendsetter of drug use,”14 leading New York law enforcement to
strictly enforce the governmentʼs crackdown on cocaine consumption
within the city. Studio 54 as the center of Manhattan nightlife, disco, and
celebrity became a center for cocaine as well. “New Yorkʼs celebrated
7
Gootenberg, 308.
Gootenberg, 311.
9
Haden-Guest, Studio 54: The Legend, 27, 29.
10
Gootenberg, 310.
11
Jenkins, 34.
12
13
Jenkins, 33-35.
14
Gootenberg, 307.
8
154
Studio 54 became a pulsating temple of cocaine culture in the later 1970s,
an all-night, every night party of celebrity sex, drugs, and disco balls.”15
The culture surrounding disco fueled drug cunsumption. It was a
hedonistic culture that encouraged casual sex, dancing, and partying.
Films like Saturday Night Fever immortalized the disco culture and its
sexual worlds and nightclub parties. 16 Disco culture favored cocaine due
to its sexual connotations and energetic beat, which augmented the
stimulative effects of the drug.17
The 1970s was an epoch for nightclubs, and Studio 54 reigned
supreme from the very beginning. Partners Steve Rubell and Ian
Schrager worked together on several other nightclubs, including
Enchanted Garden that opened in Queens in 1974, before beginning plans
for Studio 54.18 In 1977 the pair assembled a talented team to design and
promote the new club, including Carmen DʼAlessio, a public relations
agent known for throwing fashionable parties, who was quickly put in
charge of publicity and invitations.19 Broadway specialists created
theatrical lighting, and architect and designer Scott Bromely set up the
dance floor like a stage because “Everyone has always wanted to be on
stage!”20 and the famous “Man in the Moon with the Cocaine Spoon”
picture hung from the wall, inviting and encouraging the cocaine use.21
On April 26, 1977, Studio 54 opened in an old theatre once used as
a Columbia Broadcasting System television studio on West 54th Street in
Manhattan.22 The experienced club owners sent out invitations to every
major celebrity in town. The celebrity attendees on the opening night
included Cher, Margaux Hemmingway, Brooke Shields, Robin Leach,
Bianca Jagger, and Frank Sinatra.23 The following Monday fashion
designer Halston planned a birthday party for Bianca Jagger at the club;
her birthday party solidified Studio 54 as the new Manhattan hotspot for
celebrities, and as such it also became a drug center and the center of
attention for the public, the media, and the government. 24
On a typical night at Studio 54, any number of celebrities could be
seen, including Halston, Calvin Klein, Andy Warhol, Bianca Jagger,
Elizabeth Taylor, Liza Minelli, Truman Capote, Diana Ross, Sylvester
Stallone, Cher, Jerry Hall, and Michael Jackson. On most evenings, there
15
Gootenberg, 311.
Jenkins, 6.
17
Gootenberg, 311.
18
Haden-Guest, The Last Party: Studio 54, Disco, and the Culture of the Night, 14-15.
19
Haden-Guest, The Last Party: Studio 54, Disco, and the Culture of the Night, 30.
20
21
Haden-Guest, Studio 54: The Legend, 9.
22
23
24
16
155
were 2000 people in attendance, and the party often lasted until 7am.25
As the nightclub became more popular it became even more exclusive
and, therefore, more appealing. People were selected and allowed
entrance by bouncers with specific requirements at the doors; “the door
policy at Studio left almost everyone on the wrong side of the velvet
cord.”26
Celebrities hired the Studio 54 staff to plan events and rented out
the club for birthday parties, launch parties for designers such as Yves
Saint Laurent and Valentino, and movie premiere parties. Abundant
Cocaine and Quaaludes, along with the disco music, alcohol, scantily
dressed models, and the feeling of complete freedom, created an
atmosphere that screamed sex. Gala magazine described the club as the
“giddy epicenter of 70s hedonism, a disco hothouse of beautiful people,
endless cocaine, and every kind of sex,” while Vanity Fair described it as
simply the “greatest club of all time.”27 Those who frequented the club
described it as an adventure; it was a freeing experience that brought its
visitors to life.28 1970s model, party girl, and wife of Keith Richards, Patti
Hansen, said that in New York, for celebrities, the party was at Studio 54
every night.29 It defined New Yorkʼs social life and made New York more
exciting, but the excitement, drugs, and publicity also caught the
governmentʼs attention. 30
The club was open for less than a month before its first police raid,
which led to Rubell and Schragerʼs first arrests for selling liquor without a
license. They applied for a liquor license multiple times, but the New York
State Liquor Authority denied the application each time. The board first
denied the application in August of 1976 because they found the
information on the sources of funding for the club insufficient. Yet they still
denied the second application that listed investors and stockholders.31
To skirt the setback, the club used one-night catering permits to sell
liquor when it first opened, but Michael Roth, chairman of the State Liquor
Authority, had Rubell and Schrager arrested for selling liquor without a
permit. Although the District Attorneyʼs office dropped the charges, the
State Liquor Authority still denied the Studio a liquor license that August.
A Supreme Court Justice eventually overturned the decision and granted
the club its liquor license after Roy M. Cohn, the defense attorney for
Studio 54, presented a list of over fifty celebrities in support of the license.
When interviewed, Rubell claimed that he was being picked on but
25
Kihss, 1978.
Mahler, 161.
27
28
29
Patti Hansen, “1970s: Model Patti Hansen on Sex, Decadence, and Studio 54,” Vogue,
November 1999. 542.
30
31
26
156
recognized that when in the public eye and successful, one has to expect
enemies and harassment.32 Rubell also pointed out that Michael Roth, the
State Liquor Commissioner, was running for attorney general and argued,
“He knows this is the way to make the papers. We are whatʼs
happening.”33
After the Studioʼs first run-in with the law and its redemption by its
celebrity supporters, it was clear that these celebrities had substantial
influence and authority. While celebrities had always enjoyed a certain
power over the public, in the 1970s, celebrity culture reached new heights.
In 1969 Andy Warhol launched his celebrity-based magazine Interview,
and in 1974 Time Inc. first published People magazine. New York
magazine and Newsweek ran cover stories on the heightened interest in
gossip in 1976, and the New York Daily News, along with many other
papers and magazines, began regular gossip columns. Even The New
York Times followed suit by launching Us magazine.34 Tabloids and
paparazzi popped up everywhere, giving celebrities more publicity and
more authority. Joanne Horowitz, a secretary at Universal Studios with
access to the Celebrity Bulletin, used her access to this promotion
machine to send out invitations to Studio 54ʼs opening. The club owners
wanted to cash in on the new commercial interest in celebrities; having
celebrity guests in attendance attracted the media and the fans. After the
opening night, she noted that a photograph of Cher was on the front page
of the New York Post. “That sort of set New York on fire,” she noted,
“because really up until then they didnʼt put celebrities on the covers of
newspapers.”35
This heightened celebrity and gossip craze attracted the media.
The publicʼs desire for gossip gave celebrities new authority and power.
Celebrities attracted the media and the public, and Studio 54 attracted the
celebrities. They formed a symbiotic relationship, each benefitting from the
other. Indeed, celebrity support and clientele, and their power over the
media and the public, gave Studio 54 fame and power of its own. Through
the endless amount of coverage and publicity available at the club,
celebrities who were fading out of the spotlight reemerged. Stars that
seemed past their peak like Andy Warhol, Bianca Jagger, Truman Capote,
Elizabeth Taylor, and Liza Minnelli rose to tabloid and gossip column fame
thanks to the cameras and coverage at Studio 54.36
With the celebrities, gossip, public admiration, and media came
fame and publicity, and with fame and publicity came competition,
betrayal, scandal, and government speculation, investigation, and
32
Kihss, 1978.
34
35
36
Haden-Guest, Studio 54: The Legend, 18-19.
33
157
persecution. Early on the police and fire department showed up at the
club during a party for the movie Grease. The staff had borrowed fifty cars
from an auto museum and emptied the gasoline into the gutters on the
street.37 This was just one of many visits by the police and fire
department. As early as the liquor license scandal, the Internal Revenue
Service warned that there were ongoing investigations and that they would
be carefully watching the club.38
Shortly after the liquor license incident, in an interview for an article
in New York magazine, Rubell mistakenly commented on club profits and
the IRS. He claimed that only the mafia made more money. Because it
was a cash business, Rubell noted, they had to worry about the IRS, and
he did not want the IRS to know everything.39
Early in the morning on December 14, 1978, fifty Internal Revenue
Service agents raided Studio 54 as part of a strike force against organized
crime. The investigation began with the intent to prove that organized
crime was the source of capital for the club and to find evidence of
possible tax evasion, but the raid took a drastic turn when the police found
club owner Ian Schrager with five packets of cocaine and charged him
with intent to distribute. 40 The fifty agents spent the entire day ripping
apart the club, even going so far as to drill holes in desks in search of
anything they could use in their attempt to shut down the club.41
The agents left the club when the warrant expired at 10 p.m. but
carried away boxes of books and financial records quite different from
those turned into the I.R.S., lists and records of all parties and celebrity
party-goers, and almost a million dollars in cash found in hefty bags
hidden in the walls, behind the pipes, and in the ceiling of the club.42
These lists of celebrity patrons included detailed records of gifts and partyfavors, mostly cocaine and Quaaludes, given to the famous guests.43 The
lists were leaked to the public almost a year later in an article in New York
magazine. Celebrity support and a new, exciting mystique continued to
make Studio 54 Manhattanʼs most popular hotspot, but the raid marked
the beginning of the yearlong battle between the club and the New York
government that led to the clubʼs ultimate demise.
37
39
Haden-Guest, Studio 54: The Legend, 75, 77.
40
Pranay Gupte, “Studio 54 Inquiry Termed Far-Ranging,” New York Times, December
16, 1978. PHN.
41
Peter Kihss, “I.R.S. Raids Studio 54; 5 Ounces of Cocaine Seized,” New York Times,
42
Anthony Haden-Guest, The Last Party: Studio 54, Disco, and the Culture of the Night
(New York: William and Morrow Company, Inc., 1997), 131-132.
43
Anthony Haden-Guest, Studio 54: The Legend, (New York: te Neues Publishing
Company, 1997), 35.
38
158
This battle between the clubʼs two most known and active owners,
Steve Rubell and Ian Schrager, and the government grew more
scandalous daily. In an interview with the New York Times the day after
the raid, Roy Cohn, Studio 54ʼs lawyer, adamantly denied any connection
between the club and organized crime and declared that the complaint
against Schrager was inaccurate.44 Cohn also called the raid and drug
charge a setup. The United States Attorneyʼs office countered by sharing
that they also found 300 illegal Quaalude pills in a basement safe. The
Drug Enforcement Administration admitted that the cocaine found was
closer to two ounces.45 Yet when Schrager was finally charged, he was
only accused of possession of less than one ounce of cocaine.46 The
newly-created DEA, eager to prove its authority and villianize Studio 54,
instead kept the club in the spotlight and made it even more intriguing to
the pubic and media.
The twelve-count Federal income-tax evasion, obstruction of
justice, and conspiracy indictment accused the owners of skimming off
forty to fifty, and sometimes sixty, percent of the profits and withholding,
concealing, and tampering with documents. They skimmed two and a half
million dollars since the clubʼs opening. The third, less involved owner,
Jack Dushey, cooperated with the government and plead guilty, leaving
Rubell and Schrager to face up to five years in prison. Cohn pointed out
that the investigation that began as a search for a connection between the
club and organized crime led to no evidence or indictments for
involvement with organized crime.47 The governmentʼs multiple
exaggerations on the amount of cocaine found and failed attempt to link
the club to organized crime, Cohn claimed, show its willingness and
eagerness to prosecute and shut down Studio 54 by any means possible.
Because the government pushed Rubell and Schrager to give up the
names of other drug users at the club during questioning, some worried
that the government was trying to increase its prosecution of illegal drug
users at the disco.48 The war between the club and the government would
only grow more brutal as more accusations surfaced and the year dragged
on.
Monetary and legal ramifications aside, the club became even more
prosperous and popular thanks to the government raid, publicity, and
scandal. On the night of the raid, Robert Hemm was scheduled to have a
party at the club, and he stated “the dayʼs happenings would make it all
44
Kihss.
Gupte.
46
Arnold H. Lubasch, “Two Who Own Studio 54 Cited on Tax Charges: $2.5 Million
ʻSkimmed,ʼ U.S. Indictment Asserts,” The New York Times, June 29, 1979. PHN.
47
Lubasch, “Two Who Own Studio 54 Cited on Tax Charges.”
48
Philip Taubman, “Jordan Under Inquiry on Cocaine; He Denies the Report by Studio
54,” New York Times, August 25, 1979. PHN.
45
159
the more ʻexciting.ʼ”49 New York Times journalist Pranay Gupte observed
that, “The raid seemed to have coated the nightclub with a new mystique –
one of roguishness – and it drew its biggest weekday crowd.”50 Bianca
Jagger flew in from London to show her support for Rubell and the club,
and fashion designer Halston also came to the club to show support.51
Though socially Studio 54 was still thriving, the IRS raid marked the
beginning of the downfall of the club. In August of 1979, club owners
Rubell and Schrager accused White House Chief of Staff Hamilton Jordan
of using cocaine at the club on some originally uncertain, contested date in
1978. The Ethics in Government Act required that the Attorney General
investigate any serious accusations made against top officials, but the
New York Justice Department officials claimed that the accusations were
made because Rubell and Schrager were trying to negotiate reduced
charges after their June 28, 1979, indictment for tax evasion that was a
result of the IRS raid in December of 1978.52
Jordan originally claimed to have visited the club only once in 1978,
but his story quickly changed to twice and then four times.53 Both sides
presented witnesses to support their claims. Barry M. Landau said Jordan
asked him where he could get cocaine at the club, while the governmentʼs
response was just to question the credibility of the witness. Some friends
that went to the club with Jordan denied any cocaine use, though several
associates that were with him at the time could not be reached, were not
identified, or refused to comment. 54 The government also accused Rubell
and his lawyers of changing their story because of the confusion over the
date of the visit, while refusing to note the changes in dates in Jordanʼs
story. 55
A man initially known as Johnny C. - legally named John Conaghan
- was said to have supplied Jordan with the cocaine. Conaghan denied
distributing an illegal drug, and President Carter publically expressed his
delight at the denial. Carter stated that he believed Rubell made up this
story and was now getting caught in his own lies.56 Rosalynn Carter also
publically showed her support for Jordan by claiming that he was a clean-
49
Kihss.
Gupte.
51
Gupte.
52
Taubman, “Jordan Under Inquiry on Cocaine.”
53
Philip Taubman, “2 Aides Say Jordan Didnʼt Use Cocaine,” New York Times, August
26, 1979. PHN.
54
Edward T. Pound, “F.B.I. Questioning the Jordan Party on Studio 54 Visit,” New York
55
Philip Taubman, “Jordan Inquiry: Web of Public Accusations,” New York Times, August
30, 1979. PHN.
56
“Carter Happy at Denial On Jordan Accusation,” New York Times, September 2, 1979.
PHN.
50
160
cut, decent man and almost a part of the Carter family.57 She also
questioned the Ethics in Government Act, calling it too restrictive.58
As the investigation dragged on, the case continued to get
extensive coverage. Conaghan appeared on the ABC news program “2020,” where he admitted that he was at the club on the same night as
Jordan, that he sold a few people cocaine, and though he was not
introduced to Jordan, he was told that Jordan was one of the people he
gave cocaine. The police arrested Conaghan shortly after his television
appearance and public accusation.59
Attorney General Benjamin R. Civiletti was in charge of the
investigation on Jordan. It was his job to determine whether a special
prosecutor should be brought in or the investigation should be dropped
due to a lack of substantiating evidence. Civiletti referred the case to a
special prosecutor, but senior officials close to the Attorney General stated
that, though the decision looked bold, he was just a cautious, honest man
trapped by a strict, limiting law.60 Special prosecutor Arthur H. Christy,
after investigating, convened a grand jury.61
The Grand Jury concluded that there was not sufficient data to
indict Jordan, and Christy agreed. Christy stated that Rubellʼs accusations
could not be corroborated. He claimed that Landau was not a credible
witness,62 though prior to the Grand Juryʼs decision, during Christyʼs
investigation, Landau told the press that Christy seemed more interested
in discrediting and invalidating Landauʼs statements than finding the truth,
and he had been coerced into waiving his rights to confidentiality by
Christy.63 Christy also stated that Conaghan had changed his story.64
Conaghan refused to comment about the Jordan incident after his trial, but
even after admitting guilt, the government dropped an overwhelming
majority of the charges against Conaghan. 65
The investigation caused a great deal of political embarrassment for
the Carter Administration during an election year, because Jordan, the
White House Chief of Staff, Tim Kraft, the manager of the reelection
57
Terrence Smith, “Mrs. Carter Firmly Defends Jordan in Cocaine Inquiry,” New York
Times, September 22, 1979. PHN.
58
Smith, 1979.
59
Carter B. Horsley, “Figure in Jordan Case Arrested at Studio 54 On Drug-Sale
Charges,” New York Times, October 7, 1979. PHN.
60
Philip Taubman, “Aides Say Civiletti Decision On Jordan Only Looks Bold,” New York
61
Robert Pear, “Grand Jury Convened In Inquiry on Jordan,” New York Times, March 2,
1980. PHN.
62
Edward T. Pound, “Grand Jury Calls Data Insufficient To Indict Jordan,” New York
63
Pear.
64
Pound, “Grand Jury Calls Data Insufficient To Indict Jordan.”
65
Arnold H. Lubasch, “Figure in Jordan Case Pleads Guilty to Drug Charge,” New York
Times, December 19, 1979. PHN.
161
campaign, and Evan S. Dobelle, a top fund-raiser for Carter, had all visited
Studio 54 together and could be called to testify in front of the Grand
Jury.66 The government had a lot to lose if Jordan was found guilty or
even put on trial.
The Jordan investigation took many months to complete and was
not finished until May of 1980. During that investigation things continued
to get worse for Studio 54. In November of 1979, New York magazine
published a list of “party favors” given out at Studio 54. The list gave
details of all the gifts, mostly cocaine, given to the celebrities that
frequented the club.67 On January 18, 1980, Rubell and Schrager finally
plead guilty to tax evasion charges and were sentenced to three-and-ahalf years in prison. On February 28, 1980, the clubʼs liquor license
expired.68 In March, with no liquor license and its owners in jail, Studio 54
finally shut down.
Studio 54 received constant publicity throughout the Jordan
investigation, as it did before the incident. The club continued to throw
huge parties with celebrity attendees like those thrown on the Halloween
and New Yearʼs Eve before it was shut down. Diana Ross sang at the
farewell party before Rubell and Schrager went to jail, and it was said that
Sylvester Stallone bought the last drink at the club before its liquor license
expired.69
Studio 54 rose to fame as the best nightclub in Manhattan thanks to
its celebrity clientele. Celebrities brought the fans, the drugs, and the
publicity. With the drugs and publicity came government attention and
persecution. The celebrities could not save the club from the
governmentʼs crusade to shut it down, but it was in large part their support,
drug use, and public and media attention that led to the governmentʼs
fascination with the club. The government intended to shut the club down
from the very beginning, and it looked for any reason possible to do so, be
it because of the lack of a liquor license, tax evasion, connections to
organized crime, or drug use. The government raids and scandals,
however, brought more attention and publicity to the club, and it was partly
because of the federal governmentʼs war on drugs in the late 1960s and
70s that cocaine became so prominent in New York.
Despite constant persecution, Studio 54 managed to stay at the top
and fight the federal government for three years. The revolutionary 1970s
drug and celebrity culture provided the perfect atmosphere for the club. It
rose and fell because of its immense fame, celebrity following, constant
publicity, drug use, scandal, and government attacks. Like so many great
things, its life was short, exciting, and explosive.
66
Pear.
68
69
67
162
Bibliography
“Carter Happy at Denial On Jordan Accusation.” New York Times,
Gootenberg, Paul. Andean Cocaine: The Making of a Global Drug. Chapel
Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2008.
Gupte, Pranay. “Studio 54 Inquiry Termed Far-Ranging.” New York Times,
Haden-Guest, Anthony. The Last Party: Studio 54, Disco, and the Culture
of the Night. New York: William and Morrow Company, Inc., 1997.
Haden-Guest, Anthony. Studio 54: The Legend. New York: te Neues
Publishing Company, 1997.
Hansen, Patti. “1970s: Model Patti Hansen on Sex, Decadence, and
Studio 54.” Vogue, November 1999.
Horsley, Carter B. “Figure in Jordan Case Arrested at Studio 54 On DrugSale Charges.” New York Times, October 7, 1979. PHN.
Jenkins, Philip. Decade of Nightmares. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2006.
Kihss, Peter. “I.R.S. Raids Studio 54; 5 Ounces of Cocaine Seized.” New
York Times, December 15, 1978. PHN.
Lubasch, Arnold H. “Figure in Jordan Case Pleads Guilty to Drug Charge.”
New York Times, December 19, 1979. PHN.
Lubasch, Arnold H. “Two Who Own Studio 54 Cited on Tax Charges: $2.5
Million ʻSkimmed,ʼ U.S. Indictment Asserts.” The New York Times,
June 29, 1979. PHN.
Mahler, Jonathan. Ladies and Gentlemen, The Bronx is Burning. New
York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1995.
Pear, Robert. “Grand Jury Convened In Inquiry on Jordan.” New York
Times, March 2, 1980. PHN.
Pound, Edward T. “F.B.I. Questioning the Jordan Party on Studio 54 Visit.”
New York Times, August 29, 1979. PHN.
163
Pound, Edward T. “Grand Jury Calls Data Insufficient To Indict Jordan.”
New York Times, May 29, 1980. PHN.
Smith, Terrence. “Mrs. Carter Firmly Defends Jordan in Cocaine Inquiry.”
New York Times, September 22, 1979. PHN.
Tata, Michael Angelo. “Andy Warhol: When Junkies Ruled the World.”
Nebula 2.2. (June 2005): 76-112.
Taubman, Philip. “2 Aides Say Jordan Didnʼt Use Cocaine.” New York
Taubman, Philip. “Aides Say Civiletti Decision On Jordan Only Looks
Bold.” New York Times, November 30, 1979. PHN.
Taubman, Philip. “Jordan Inquiry: Web of Public Accusations.” New York
Taubman, Philip. “Jordan Under Inquiry on Cocaine; He Denies the Report
by Studio 54.” New York Times.,August 25, 1979. PHN.
Torgoff, Martin. Canʼt Find My Way Home: America in the Great Stoned
Age, 1945-2000. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004.
Chapter 11
Chrome on Reels:
Easy Rider and the American Counterculture
Alexander Novak
“The sixties” saw radically new ideas and trends introduced into
popular culture. This explosion of new ideas led to the development of a
counterculture designed to break free from social norms that had
previously been embraced by earlier generations. While this new
counterculture had its influence on American government and even
international affairs, such as the United Statesʼ role in the Vietnam War, it
also affected aspects of life within the United States by influencing films
and the cinema.
Prior to this new movement, films were often censored by the
federal government, which ended in most films being aimed towards the
traditional nuclear family as a target audience.1 The absence of sex,
violence, drugs, and alcohol allowed parents to take their kids to the
cinema without fear of having their children see something that was
considered taboo in regards to current social norms. However, this trend
began to change in the sixties, in large part due to the release of Easy
Rider. Scott and Barbara Siegel point out; “ the major movie studios
learned a lesson from Easy Rider that they have not forgotten: The movie
audience is no longer a family audience.”2 Some middle-aged Americans
“complained at the lack of ʻgood family picturesʼ.”3 However, it was not
just Easy Rider, as many other movies began to openly talk about and
display both sexual and violent images. Barbarella for instance, a film by
Roger Vadim, really pushed the envelop with its portrayal of sex.4 While
sexual discovery and experimentation was certainly a part of this new
counterculture, experimentation with drug use was also very common.
Film directors noticed this trend and began to bring drugs onto the silver
screen, and some of them even began to partake in drug use as well.
Dennis Hopper was one such director, and in 1968 he began filming with
1
More information on film censorship can be found in the following sources: Ira H.
Carmen, Movies, Censorship, and the Law (Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of
Michigan Press, 1967); Edward De Grazia, Roger Newman, Banned Films: Movies,
Censors and the First Amendment (New York, London: RR Bowker Company, 1982);
Raymond J Haberski Jr., Laura Wittern Keller, The Miracle Case: Film Censorship and
the Supreme Court (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2008); Richard S. Randall,
Censorship of the Movies: The Social and Political Control of a Mass Medium (Menasha,
Wisconsin, 1968).
2
Barbara Siegel, Scott Siegel, The Encyclopedia of Hollywood: An A-to-Z Guide to the
Stars, Stories, and Secrets of Hollywood (Second Edition, New York, NY, 2004). 139.
3
Anthony Lewis, “America: Learning to Relax,” New York Times, Nov 10, 1969. PHN.
4
Roger Vadim, Barbarella, (Paramount Pictures, 1968), DVD.
165
Peter Fonda on their new project entitled Easy Rider. The film itself
focused on two bikers, played by Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper
themselves, while they travel from Los Angeles to New Orleans. Their
goal along the way is to find themselves spiritually and to reach New
Orleans in time for Mardi Gras. Released in 1969, it immediately became
a landmark film for the counterculture movement due to its exploration of
the social interactions between different groups of people within America
and the repercussions of these interactions. Throughout the film the
bikers interact with people who were commonly viewed as hippies. The
hippie movement was in full swing during the sixties, and many hippies
lived together on communes, a close-knit community of people who share
their property and ideas with one another.5 With the use of marijuana and
cocaine rampant throughout the entire film, the bikers are almost in a
constant state of being high, or in other words under the influence of
drugs.
In this article I will discuss the rampant use of drugs within the film
Easy Rider. Upon its release, Easy Rider helped jump-start the revolution
in the movie industry that would come to be known as the New Hollywood.
This new phase was a representation of all that the counterculture of the
sixties and seventies stood for, with films produced that showed popular
disillusionment with the government of the United States. Easy Rider was
one of the first types of these “New Hollywood” films, and it embraced the
rising drug culture of America through the use of real drugs in scenes
during filming all the way down to the soundtrack of the film, which
featured psychedelic artists such as The Jimi Hendrix Experience,
Steppenwolf, and Bob Dylan. The film itself was a revolutionary motion
picture and was heralded as such, receiving critical acclaim from the
Motion Picture Academy and also winning over the American public. As
Damaso Reyes said in the New York Amsterdam News, “if ʻEasy Riderʼ
wasn't the film that changed America, it certainly was the film that in many
ways changed Hollywood.”6 The film Easy Rider portrayed heavy drug
use to an American public that had not seen drug use on the silver screen
shown that way before. By embracing the popularity of biker films and the
rise of a counterculture within the United States and across the world,
filmmakers Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda changed how drugs and drug
use were viewed and in the process revolutionized the film industry and
counterculture within America.
Harry Shapiro illustrates how Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda
changed the American publicʼs perception regarding drugs and drug use
5
More information about communes can be found using the following sources: John
Curl, Memories of Drop City: The First Hippie Commune of the 1960ʼs and the Summer
of Love (iUniverse Inc, 2006); Virginia Stem Owens, Assault on Eden: A Memoir of
Communal Life in the Early ʻ70s (Baker Books, 1995).
6
Damaso Reyes, “ʻEasy Riderʼ Roars Back Into Theaters,” New York Amsterdam
News, Apr 30-May 6, 2009. 20.
166
that in turn helped to revolutionize the American film industry. Shapiro
argues that they achieved this by embracing the popularity of biker films
and the rise of the counterculture within America; “Easy Rider is a
celebration of the 1960s youth revolt – bikes, drugs, free love, communes,
rock music, freedom, long hair and fringed jackets.”7 The relation of Easy
Rider to the biker films that preceded it was as Charles Champlin wrote,
“as the calculus is to third grade arithmetic.”8 They achieved what they
were looking for in a connection to Americaʼs youth, “my compliments to
[not only] a brilliant pair for conceiving a film that in my eyes offers the
greatest social statement since ʻBonnie and Clydeʼ,” writes Mark Purpus.9
The use of drugs in America during the 1960s and 1970s saw a rise
due to the beginnings of a counterculture throughout the nation. The baby
boom generation that followed World War II was now into their late teens
and twenties, and they quickly embraced the use of drugs. The surge of
drug use by this generation was made even easier by the fact that new
and improved drugs were beginning to flow into America from the far
reaches of the world. These baby boomers had not experienced the drug
outbreak of opium and marijuana from the beginning of the twentieth
century, and instead were intent on discovering the world for themselves.
As a result they rapidly consumed the marijuana that began to flood back
into the United States. However, there were now even harder drugs that
marijuana usage was essentially a gateway into. Psychedelics became
widely popular among the baby boomer generation in the 1960s and
1970s, and this is one reason for the rise of the new counterculture
movement within the United States.
As the nation went deeper and deeper into the 1960s, many social
and political factors pushed disenfranchised youth into trying drugs and
joining the new counterculture in America. For instance, Americaʼs
students spoke out openly against the war in Vietnam. Many people felt
that the United Sates did not belong being involved with the conflict
between North and South Vietnam. Those people who pushed for
American withdrawal from Vietnam were commonly referred to as “doves.”
The anti-war movement began to blend with the movement of the new
counterculture, as newspapers that were independently published by
demonstrators supported anti-war protests. Not only did underground
newspapers aid in the push to leave Vietnam but also so did the rise in
massive music festivals, such as Woodstock. These types of gatherings
were popular with young people already involved in the counterculture.
Woodstock itself was a free concert that was billed as “3 days of peace &
7
Henry Shapiro, Shooting Stars: Drugs, Hollywood and the Movies (London, England:
Serpents Tail, 2003). 129.
8
Charles Champlin, “Low-Cost, High-Importance Bike Film,” Los Angeles Times, Aug 10,
1969. PHN.
9
Mark Purpus, “ʻEasy Riderʼ Classic Film,” Los Angeles Times, Sep 7, 1969. PHN.
167
music”.10 Thirty-two separate artists played over the course of three
consecutive days, and the vast majority of these artists were members of
what can be classified as psychedelic rock, a type of music who looked to
explore spirituality and to find meaning in life. Some of these artists
included Ravi Shankar, Carlos Santana, the Grateful Dead, Creedence
Clearwater Revival, Jefferson Airplane, Crosby Stills Nash & Young, and
Jimi Hendrix just to name a few. As Damaso Reyes points out, these
same artists were present in Easy Rider: “The soundtrack is also a work of
genius, featuring at least half a dozen songs that are now classics,
including ʻThe Pusherʼ by Hoyt Axton, ʻBorn to be Wildʼ by Steppenwolf
and ʻIf 6 Were 9ʼ by the Jimi Hendrix Experience.”11 The music written by
these rock and pop groups shaped the minds of the baby boomer
generation, and with phrases such “come on baby light my fire” and “eight
miles high” the lyrics embraced the counterculture in America. Not only
did the baby boomer generation embrace psychedelic music, but some
also embraced aspects of voodoo religion, that was common in New
Orleans, and the occult. Essentially, anything that represented a different
way of viewing life or anything that involved a varied state of mind that
might lead to enlightenment about life was studied and practice by this
generation. This also included the study of astrology, which is the study of
heavenly or celestial bodies and how they can reveal facts when it comes
to a specific person or sometimes an event. While many among the
scientific community consider such studies nonsensical and few it as
superstition, the baby boomer generation viewed astrology as one more
way for them to open their mind to new ideas and continue to learn about
themselves and life as a whole. The counterculture of America eventually
reached its peak between the mid 1960s and the early 1970s. Easy Rider
was released in 1969 almost exactly in the middle of the peak in the
counterculture. The movie itself embraced many aspects of the
counterculture such as the music that was played at Woodstock, the study
of astrology, and the rise of people living in “hippie” communes throughout
the country.
In films prior to 1968, such as Tell Your Children, drugs were
typically shown in an over the top and misleading manner.12 One of the
reasons Easy Rider was so quickly embraced by the counterculture
community was that it shied away from this method of showing drug use in
film. Instead Easy Rider gave a clear and objective presentation of
recreational marijuana use while also touching on the rise of harder drugs
that were entering the drug scene, such as cocaine and LSD. However,
the film Easy Rider was not just a regurgitation of ideas already presented
10
Skolnick, Arnold. Woodstock Music & Art Fair. Advertisement Poster. 1969.
Reyes, 20.
12
Louis J. Gasnier, Tell Your Children (George A. Hirliman Productions, 1936), DVD.
11
168
by the counterculture. The movie was a breakthrough hit due to new
ideas it brought both to film and to American culture itself.
Prior to Easy Rider many movies were targeted at a family
audience and followed a generic mold that was supported by many of the
film companies. This backing was not always by choice, as the Motion
Picture Association of America was active in censoring the content of films
up until the year 1968, one year before the release of Easy Rider into
mainstream theaters.
The film itself was the brainchild of Dennis Hopper and Peter
Fonda. While both would go on to become big names as a result of both
this film and their later products, this venture was their first major success
in filmmaking. Easy Rider was shot for a grand total of $500,000, which
ended up helping to classify it as a low budget, independent film. While
being filmed for a relatively small amount of money, Easy Rider went on to
make “$60 million worldwide.”13 It was not expected that a movie like
Easy Rider would be so widely successful, and while originally intended to
be another biker film spit out by American Independent Pictures (AIP),
Peter Fonda was forced to use his own money for production since AIP
refused to fund the project.14 Later on, Columbia Pictures instead picked
up the project in order to distribute it to theaters across the country.
So how exactly did Easy Rider portray drug use in a manner that
was very present and yet not over the top and unrealistic? By basing the
actions of the main characters on real experiences. Dennis Hopper, Peter
Fonda, and Jack Nicholson went so far as to smoke actual marijuana
cigarettes, commonly referred to as joints, during multiple scenes in the
movie. This rapidly became widely known news, and was confirmed in a
interview with Dennis Hopper in the New York Times in 1969, “You can
also say that that was real pot we smoked in ʻEasy Riderʼ.”15 This
certainly lent an air of authenticity to the film. Peter Fonda also has been
quite open about his drug use, “I do smoke grass. The laws against
cannabis I find humorous.”16
The film opens with the pair of bikers Wyatt (Peter Fonda) and Billy
(Dennis Hopper) in a rundown town in the desert. They meet up with a
man in a junkyard where the three of them proceed to snort cocaine. After
getting high Wyatt and Billy then take a block of coke to a customer.
Taking the money, they then hit the road, ready for whatever comes their
way. Right before their departure, Wyatt removes his watch and tosses it
to the ground, representing the carefree nature of the two bikers and in a
13
Shapiro,132.
Barbara Siegel, Scott Siegel, The Encyclopedia of Hollywood: An A-to-Z Guide to the
Stars, Stories, and Secrets of Hollywood (Second Edition, New York, NY, 2004). 139.
15
Tom Burke, “Will ʻEasyʼ Do It for Dennis Hopper?,” New York Times, Jul 20, 1969.
PHN.
16
John Walker, “Peter Fonda Gives Explanation of Self,” Los Angeles, Nov 20, 1969.
PHN.
14
169
bigger sense the counterculture movement that stressed a connection with
oneself and nature. It also illustrates the reluctance of the counterculture
to give into “the man,” which was, in this case, time. By eliminating his
watch as a timepiece Wyatt is also removing the constraints the watch
represents, as he is now free to make and follow his own time. After
traveling into the night the pair stop and make a campfire. While sitting
around the campfire they share a joint. They view and talk about the stars
above them in the heavens, another reference to counterculture and the
rising popularity of astrology. While Wyatt and Billy are stopped at their
campfire let us take note of their names. Both Wyatt and Billy are the first
names of two famous Western folklore heroes, Wyatt Earp and Billy the
Kid. It can be seen from their names that the Wyatt and Billy of Easy
Rider are soon to become entwined within American folklore as well, both
in the film and also coincidentally in real life with the success of Hopperʼs
masterpiece. “Easy Rider also features many Western allusions,”
Osgerby suggests in his book, “the journey across the vastness of the
American landscape also invokes the pioneering spirit of the early settlers
and the innumerable Western movies that mythologized them.”17
Following their night out on the road, Wyatt and Billy continue on
their path to New Orleans and toward self-discovery. They pass a
hitchhiker dressed much like George Harrison during his days with Ravi
Shankar. This man wears broad framed glasses, military style clothing
that is in bright colors, and a bandana around his head that holds back his
long hair from his face and also allows us to see the plentiful amount of
facial hair that he has grown. Wyatt pulls over without hesitation and
allows this stranger to hop on to the back of his bike, inviting him to join
their voyage of discovery. They travel throughout the day past landscapes
that show the beauty of Americaʼs southwest.
This natural beauty is something that again fits into the ideas of the
counterculture, as many followers of the movement became known as
“hippies.” These hippies had a goal to create a new type of society. They
expressed their new views by rejecting mainstream politics and trying to
reform society by dropping out of society altogether and ending their
contributions to “the man.” Hippies, also called flower children, found
ways to broadcast their intentions to the average American citizen.
Several of these methods included dressing in strange new styles that
emphasized free flowing clothes. They also began experimentation with
psychedelic drugs. When Wyatt and Billy stop for the night with their new
hitchhiking companion, they take part in experimenting with psychedelic
drugs as they all smoke another marijuana cigarette. While smoking they
begin to talk about where they are from, and Wyatt and Billy learn that
17
Bill Osgerby, Truth and Myth: How the Original Cowboy of the Road Became the Easy
Rider of the Silver Screen, (Lewes, Easy Sussex, United Kingdom: The Ivy Press
Limited, 2005), 64.
170
their hitchhiker is actually a member of a small commune nearby. The
hitchhiker offers to take them there the next day, which will give them a
place to stay, and good food and companionship for at least a night.
When the three of them eventually arrive at the commune they are
presented with many of the same practices that truly illustrate American
counterculture in the late sixties and early seventies.
First though, it is important to understand the idea of a commune.
A commune is a place where a group of people who have similar interests
and ideals live and work together by sharing their property, possessions,
money and other similar things. Essentially, members of communes
during the sixties and seventies lived together in what they hoped to be a
sort of utopia where they could live off the land and not have to rely on
companies and corporations to supply them with their daily needs. The
commune in Easy Rider exemplifies most of the ideas promoted by the
counterculture. First, we clearly see that the members of the commune
are part of the anti-war movement as there are peace signs displayed
throughout the compound. While the hitchhiker they drop off at the
commune appears to be the leader of the group, the other members are
also dressed in a similar fashion, wearing the same loose clothing that
became the symbol of that generation. Upon arrival, two women who also
live on the commune quickly approach the hitchhiker. This leads us to
another important ideal held by the counterculture and shown by the film,
which would be the sexual revolution that began to take place in the
sixties.
The phrase sexual revolution is commonly used to describe the
period of time during the sixties and seventies where peopleʼs ideas on
human sexuality began to shift. With the presence of the aforementioned
hippies and flower children, the term “free love” came into popular use.
This term was used to describe how they believed that love and sex went
hand in hand with one another and that sex was a natural act that should
be embraced rather than denied or hidden from the public eye. This new
way of viewing sex led to an increase of sex outside marriage, public
nudity, and homosexual and bisexual experimentation, among other
things. Most importantly to us, many followers of the counterculture
engaged in sexual activity following the use of drugs. This practice is also
present in within Easy Rider, but not until much later in the film.
When Wyatt and Billy leave the commune to continue their trip to
Mardi Gras, where they plan on discovering their meaning in life, the
hitchhiker they picked up just days earlier passes on four tablets of LSD to
Wyatt, telling him to “share it with the right people.”18 The two continue
their journey, leaving the hitchhiker back at the commune. While passing
through a small southern town, the two are arrested. While in jail, they
meet a man named George Hanson, who is clearly an alcoholic. When
18
Dennis Hopper, Easy Rider (Columbia Pictures Corporation, 1969), DVD.
171
released the next day George joins Wyatt and Billy on their trip, and that
night they share stories, alcohol and marijuana around their campfire.
While promiscuous activity, violent behavior, and just generally
nonsensical behavior were often shown as symptoms of smoking
marijuana in films prior to Easy Rider, we instead have seen three nights
during which Wyatt, Billy, and another companion have smoked together
and experienced none of these symptoms that were shown in previous
movies that were more heavily censored and controlled regarding their
portrayal of “fringe activities.”
While George is killed by a mob of angry Southerners during the
night, both Wyatt and Bill survive and continue their trip to New Orleans for
Mardi Gras and self-discovery. When they arrive, the film almost
immediately cuts to images of Mardi Gras parades down the streets of
New Orleans. We are then presented with our two travelers Wyatt and
Billy. They now find themselves in the presence of two prostitutes, yet
another reminder of the sexual promiscuity that was such a part of the
counterculture during the sixties and seventies. After sitting around and
drinking inside what appears to be a brothel, Wyatt and Billy take the
prostitutes out to Mardi Gras with them. From here on out, Dennis Hopper
uses a method of filming that is designed to give the appearance of one
long acid trip. The filming is done solely using a sixteen-millimeter
camera, and Hopper also frequently makes use of a fish-eye lens that is
designed to give the appearance of blurring and distortion at the edge of
the picture on the screen. Hopperʼs goal was to create an image that was
very gritty and rough, a cheap distorted vision that certainly works in his
goal to give the illusion of an acid trip. The odd colors and blurs lend itself
to the situation perfectly as Wyatt and Billy continue to trip, a sentiment
shared by Los Angeles Times writer Charles Champlin, “The Mardi Gras
sequences, shot in 16mm during the actual event, contain a frighteningly
authentic representation of a mescalin trip.”19 Along with their two
companions, they travel through the city partying all through the night and
into the next morning. The group finally finds themselves in the middle of
a cemetery in New Orleans. It is here that Wyatt decides to share the LSD
that the hitchhiker had given to him much earlier on the trip. He places the
tablets in the girlsʼ mouths, and, for a brief period, there is basically silence
in the film as the four people on screen all relax into a zombie like state.
This does not last long, however, as the acid soon kicks in. Ironically,
their actions while on LSD resemble how the older films before Easy Rider
described the affects of marijuana use. Most noticeably the four become
very sexually aroused, with one of the prostitutes quickly becoming naked
as she and Wyatt stand next to one another between two tightly spaced
mausoleums. Later, this same prostitute who makes out with Wyatt
between the mausoleums, is seen having sex with Billy on the ground next
19
Champlin.
172
to gravestones. While this is taking place, Wyatt presses his body into a
statue, and he begins to talk as if he is addressing his mother, all the while
crying. What is more, throughout this entire scene, the Apostleʼs Creed is
being recited in the background as we watch these images, with the creed
occasionally being drowned out by one of the prostitutes who keeps
repeating to herself phrases like “Iʼm going to die”, “Iʼm not beautiful” and
“Iʼm already dead.”20 These images clearly are meant to approximate an
acid trip, as camera changes are abrupt and bright lights flash every now
and then. Quick scenes of the group are shown around the cemetery as
well as images of Mardi Gras festivities and religious symbols, until
suddenly, we are presented again with Wyatt and Billy back on their bikes
on the road. It almost makes the viewer think that what was just scene
prior to them riding down the highway did not actually happen and instead
was just a vision they had while on drugs. The confusion that results from
these scenes is very effective in showing the results of psychedelic drug
usage.
Throughout the film, both Wyatt and Billy have remained pretty
relaxed, cool characters. While Billy gets worked up at certain points,
such as the confrontation between them and the lawmen in the southern
town, for the most part, they do not pick any trouble with other people, nor
are they overly forward towards woman. These statements especially
hold true for Wyatt. However, once they use LSD their personalities
change completely. They go from relaxed to almost maniacal. It is almost
ncomfortable to watch as you have seemingly gotten to know both
characters throughout the film, and then suddenly right close to the end
you see a whole new side to them that is fairly unexpected and would
have been frightening to the average viewer in the sixties and seventies.
One of the most shocking things is how that scene is almost forgotten
afterwards by Wyatt and Billy, as they do not mention it, nor is anything
seen that would remind the film audience of it taking place. In fact, the
next major event that takes place in Easy Rider is the murders of both
Wyatt and Billy by two intolerant white men that could fairly be described
as hillbillies or rednecks. These two strangers gun down Billy with a
shotgun, and when Wyatt roars off on his bike to find help, they gun him
down as well, sending him and his bike flying down the road. Their
murders are not because of who they are, but rather as George Hanson
says in the film, “what they represent.”21 Not only that, but the fact that
both so-called heroes die is “the very antithesis of Hollywood” writes
Shapiro, “but this, too, was entirely acceptable to young audiences.”22
This sudden end to the film is reminiscent of the suddenness of the drug
trip that was scene after the two had taken the LSD.
20
Hopper.
Hopper.
22
Shapiro, 129.
21
173
The interesting thing about the film is that despite the heavy use
and consumption of drugs and alcohol throughout, there is not a single
character that dies as a result. Each death is a result of murder, which is
meant to show the continued misunderstanding of the counterculture
movement by many people in across America, something pointed out by
New York Times writer Anthony Lewis: “No doubt we are less tolerant than
the English of indolence and eccentricity. This must be one reason why
the current youth phenomena arouse such violent reactions in middle
American – the hatred and brutality explored in Dennis Hopperʼs film,
ʻEasy Rider.”23 When the film was released, the average middle aged
American reacted negatively to the content within Easy Rider. “Middleclass, middle-aged people may be hostile to long hair and pot,” Lewis
points out to the readers of the New York Times.24 Even the actors who
were only playing the characters in the film ran into discrimination as a
result of their appearance. Again, Lewis writes, “Hopper has described
the hostility met by the long-haired actors in the small towns where they
did the filming.”25 Other young Americans noticed similar experiences due
to their appearance as well during their travelsʼ. “While our treatment in
the café didnʼt resemble that of the three travelers in the café in ʻEasy
Rider,ʼ I quietly observed that the waitress was hardly civil to us.”26 Easy
Rider gave the United States, and for that matter the world, a new way to
look at recreational drug use as it was being used in real life as part of the
growing counterculture. It helped temper ideas on the affects of marijuana
use, but also introduced the public to psychedelic drugs.
Overall, Easy Rider was a key film in the development of both the
movie industry and the counterculture movement. The two can certainly
be tied together, as one of the key ways of expressing the ideas of the
counterculture was through art, and two of the most common types of art
used to express this message were music and independent film. Easy
Rider was so successful and influential because it combined both of these
artistic mediums. By including musicians like Steppenwolf, The Byrds,
The Jimi Hendrix Experience and Bob Dylan, Dennis Hopper drew from
the influence of rock and roll, and, as David Meyer points out, fused this
style of music into the film successfully, “the sound track for Easy Rider
proved for the first time that hippie rock ʻnʼ roll could fuel a movie.”27 The
same messages that were blared from speakers at Woodstock were
played in the background as audiences watched Wyatt and Billy, the
modern American cowboys, search for themselves as they traveled
23
Lewis.
Lewis.
25
Lewis.
26
Tom Andrews, “Why Do They Hate Long Hair?” New York Times, November 2, 1969.
PHN.
27
David N. Meyer, The 100 Best Films To Rent Youʼve Never Heard Of (New York, New
York: St. Martinʼs Press, 1997). 185.
24
174
through the American southwest. Music was not the only important theme
that was included though. Hopper also recognized the core values of the
counterculture movement. First off, the presence of a sexual revolution
within the counterculture movement was illustrated in the film by the
presence of the both the women at the commune and the prostitutes
towards the end of the film. Hopper also illustrated the rise of commune
living, as Wyatt and Billy stopped there while on their trip south. Finally
the most important core value that relates to this discussion is the
experimentation with marijuana, LSD, and other psychedelic drugs. This
theme was present throughout the film, and Wyatt and Billy even spread
their daily habit by presenting George with a joint while they were on the
road, marking the first time George had ever smoked marijuana. The
increasing presence of drugs within Easy Rider led to a rise in drug use in
following films, right as the Nixon Administration “proposed a reduction in
the disproportionate criminal penalties – a step altogether unlikely just a
few years before.”28
Easy Rider is a film that is clearly meant to celebrate the
counterculture that was rapidly becoming the mainstream during the
sixties and seventies. “Movies themselves”, Lewis points out, “are
indicative” of the times they are born into.29 From the themes of the film,
to the characters themselves who represented your stereotypical easygoing hippie, Easy Rider gives off a sense of the quest for personal
spiritual freedom in the face of something almost too dark to understand,
something that Geoff King mentions in his book, “an important aspect of
the films of the Renaissance: a recognition of dark forces that threaten the
more utopian or idealistic aspirations of 1960s social movements.”30
While Easy Rider draws much of its ideals from the counterculture during
which it was born, it also lends itself to the continued development of the
counterculture by opening the film industry to new possibilities and aiding
the future production of counterculture films.
28
Lewis.
Lewis.
30
Geoff King, New Hollywood Cinema: An Introduction (New York, NY, Columbia
University Press, 2002). 18.
29
175
Bibliography
Andrews, Tom. “Why Do They Hate Long Hair?.” New York Times,
Arnold, Vivien. “The Image of the Freeway.” JAE, Vol. 30, No. 1. Blackwell
Publishing, 1976. 28-30.
Burke, Tom. “Will ʻEasyʼ Do It for Dennis Hopper?.” New York Times, Jul
20, 1969. PHN.
Canby, Vincent. “Easy Riderʼ: A Statement on Film.” New York Times, Jul
15, 1969. PHN.
Carmen, Ira H. Movies, Censorship, and the Law. Ann Arbor, Michigan:
The University of Michigan Press, 1967.
Champlin, Charles. “Low-Cost, High-Importance Bike Film.” Los Angeles
Times, Aug 10, 1969. PHN.
Curl, John. Memories of Drop City: The First Hippie Commune of the
1960ʼs and the Summer of Love. iUniverse, Inc. 2006.
De Grazia, Edward, and Roger Newman. Banned Films: Movies, Censors
and the First Amendment. New York, London: RR Bowker
Company, 1982.
Hopper, Dennis. Easy Rider. Columbia Pictures Corporation, 1969. DVD.
Goldstein, Richard. “Captain America, The Beautiful.” New York Times,
Aug 3, 1969. PHN.
Haberski Jr., Raymond J., and Laura Wittern Keller. The Miracle Case:
Film Censorship and the Supreme Court. Lawrence, Kansas:
University Press of Kansas, 2008.
Israel, Lee. “For Peter Fonda, Itʼs All Now.” New York Times, Sep 8, 1968.
PHN.
King, Geoff. American Independent Cinema. Bloomington, Indiana:
Indiana University Press, 2005
176
King, Geoff. New Hollywood Cinema: An Introduction. New York, New
York: Columbia University Press, 2002.
Lewis, Anthony. “America: Learning to Relax.” New York Times, Nov 10,
1969. PHN.
Lisanti, Tom. Fantasy Femmes of Sixties Cinema: Interviews with 19
Actresses from Biker, Beach and Elvis Movies. Jefferson, NC:
McFarland, 2000.
Main, Ron, and Dave Mann. Races, Chases & Crashes. Osceola,
Wisconsin: Motorbooks International, 1994.
Meyer, David N. The 100 Best Films To Rent Youʼve Never Heard Of.
New York, New York: St. Martinʼs Press. 1997.
Nichols, Dave. One Percenter: The Legend of the Outlaw Biker. St. Paul,
Minnesota: Motorbooks International, 2007.
Osgerby, Bill. Biker: Truth and Myth: How the Original Cowboy of the
Road Became the Easy Rider of the Silver Screen. The Lyons
Press, 2005.
Owens, Virginia Stem. Assault on Eden: A Memoir of Communal Life in
the Early ʻ70s. Baker Books, 1995.
“Peter Fonda Film Cheered At Cannes.” Los Angles Times, May 14, 1969.
PHN.
Price, Michael H, and John Wooley. The Big Book of Biker Flicks: 40 of
the Best Motorcycle Movies of All Time. Tulsa, Oklahoma: HAWK
Publishing Group, 2005.
Purpus, Mark. “ʻEasy Riderʼ Classic Film.” Los Angeles Times, Sep 7,
1969. PHN.
Randall, Richard S. Censorship of the Movies: The Social and Political
Control of a Mass Medium. Menasha, Wisconsin. 1968.
Reyes, Damaso. “ʻEasy Riderʼ Roars Back Into Theaters.” New York
Amsterdam News. Apr 30-May 6, 2009. 20.
Seate, Mike. Two Wheels on Two Reels: A History of Biker Movies. North
Conway, NH: Whitehorse Press, 2000.
177
Shapiro, Henry. Shooting Stars: Drugs, Hollywood and the Movies.
London, England: Serpents Tail. 2003.
Siegel, Barbara, and Scott Siegel. The Encyclopedia of Hollywood: An Ato-Z Guide to the Stars, Stories, and Secrets of Hollywood. Second
Edition. New York, New York: Facts on File. 2004.
Siskel, Gene. “Peter Fonda Wonʼt Tolerate Labels.” Chicago Tribune, Aug
24, 1969. PHN.
Skolnick, Arnold. Woodstock Music & Art Fair. Advertisement Poster.
1969.
Gasnier, Louis J. Tell Your Children. George A. Hirliman Productions,
1936. DVD.
Thomas, Kevin. “Biker Film With Message”. Los Angeles Times. May 12,
1971. PQ.
Thomas, Kevin. “Former Biker Roars Through Perryʼs ʻPlay Itʼ”. Los
Angeles Times. November 9, 1972. PQ.
Thomas, Kevin. “Metaphor and Myth on Cycles”. Los Angeles Times.
November 9, 1972. PQ.
Thomas, Kevin. “Movies of the Week”. Los Angeles Times. February 2,
1975. PQ.
Thomas, Kevin. “Movie Review; Sex, Gore Laid to Political Potboiler”. Los
Angeles Times. June 9, 1972. PQ.
Tzioumakis, Yannis. American Independent Cinema: An Introduction.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 2006.
Vadim, Roger. Barbarella. Paramount Pictures, 1968. DVD.
Walker, John. “Peter Fonda Gives Explanation of Self.” Los Angeles
Times, Nov 20, 1969. PHN.
“What the Easiest Riders Ride”. New York Times. April 21, 1996. PQ.
Chapter 12
Comedic Commentary:
Cheech and Chong and the Genesis of the Stoner Movie
Timothy L. Sparling
Unfortunately, the Feds took a
fictional movie and prosecuted the
actor and writer for exercising his
freedom of expression. When I
thought of it that way, I felt more like
Nelson Mandela on his way to jail
than the drug kingpin they were
trying to make me out to be.1
In his 2006 autobiography The I Chong: Meditations from the Joint,
Tommy Chong chronicles his 2003 drug arrest and subsequent
imprisonment. He makes the point, which is fairly obvious to those who
have watched 1978s Up in Smoke, that the first stoner movie was also a
protest movie against what he and his comedy partner Richard “Cheech”
Marin felt to be unfair federal drug laws. However, being a comedy team,
Cheech and Chong presented their protest in a humorous manner.
Though few subsequent stoner movies had as much social commentary,
traces of it remained. Cheech and Chongʼs movies became archetypes
for a sub-genre. “Stoner movies” are comedies in which the main
characters lead lives focused on self-gratification and marijuana smoking.
The plots of stoner movies are usually full of wacky happenstance, and the
heroes win due to blundering antagonists and a good deal of luck. Those
who do not smoke marijuana are portrayed as aggressive, easily
frustrated, and generally mean-spirited. Every character in a stoner movie
is a caricature.
Drug films have been a part of cinema since its earliest days. In his
book Cocaine Fiends and Reefer Madness, Michael Starks argues that,
“all [drug films] reveal something of interest about the ways in which
psychoactive drugs were regarded at the times the films were made.”2
Starks provides a thorough overview of the marijuana climate in the 1930s
with particular regard to Reefer Madness but mentions Cheech and Chong
only in passing.3 Gregory A. Walker, in an essay in The Cult Film
1
Tommy Chong. The I Chong: Meditations from the Joint (New York: Simon Spotlight
Entertainment, 2006), 103.
2
Michael Starks. Cocaine Fiends and Reefer Madness: an Illustrated History of Drugs in
the Movies. (New York: Cornwall Books, 1982), 9.
3
the Movies. (New York: Cornwall Books, 1982), 102, 119.
179
Experience deals with three Cheech and Chong movies as part of a larger
study of midnight movies, but puts the main focus on other films. Much
has been written about Reefer Madness, in part because that movie is
older and arguably one of the most over-the-top movies ever made.
Perhaps scholars have paid little attention to the Cheech and Chong
movies because they are comedies. Yet, in keeping with Starksʼ idea, we
can learn about the attitudes towards marijuana in the late 1970s and
early 1980s by studying these films. We can also use knowledge of these
films and how they came about to better understand the many stoner films
that have been made since the turn of the century.4
This chapter will focus on the beginnings of the genre and deal
specifically with three main films. The 1936 cautionary tale Reefer
Madness will be used to illustrate the climate of drug films in the 1930s.
During this decade, the federal government passed legislation regulating
(and de facto prohibiting) marijuana5. At the same time, the film industry
found itself under the thumbs not only of the restrictive production code
but also of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and its chief H.J. Anslinger6.
In the early 1970s, a long-forgotten print of Reefer Madness was
found and re-released by groups campaigning for the legalization of
marijuana7. At roughly the same time, the comedy duo Cheech and
Chong began their career in comedy together. Their material centered on
marijuana use at a time when marijuana culture was expanding, despite a
backlash from American culture. In 1978, Cheech and Chong released
their first feature film, entitled Up in Smoke. Two years later, they
released a sequel, Cheech and Chongʼs Next Movie. These two movies
spawned many sequels and imitations and, as this paper will argue, began
the stoner movie genre. This paperʼs chief argument is that Up in Smoke
and Cheech and Chongʼs Next Movie gave the “stoner movie” genre a
very political and comedic beginning.
4
Information about the drug films and exploitation films: Martin Booth, Cannabis: a
History. (New York: Thomas Dunne, 2003); Susan C. Boyd, “Drug Films, Justice, and
Nationhood,” Contemporary Justice Review, v. 10 no. 3 (2007), 263-82; Susan C. Boyd.
Hooked: Drug War Films in Britain, Canada, and the United States (New York:
Routledge, 2008); Susan C. Boyd, “Media Constructions of Illegal Drugs, users, and
sellers: a closer look at Traffic.” International Journal of Drug Policy, 13 (2002), 397-407;
Michael Starks, Cocaine Fiends and Reefer Madness: an Illustrated History of Drugs in
the Movies (New York: Cornwall Books, 1982); Eric Schaefer, ʻBold! Daring! Shocking!
True!ʼ: a History of Exploitation Films, 1919-1959. (Durham: Duke University Press,
1999); J.P. Telotte, ed. The Cult Film Experience: Beyond all Reason (Austin: University
of Texas Press, 1991).
5
David F. Musto, ed. Drugs in America: a Documentary History (New York: New York
University Press, 2002), 430-432.
6
the Movies. (New York: Cornwall Books, 1982), 102.
7
Kevin Murphy and Dan Studney, "Reefer Madness History," http://www.reefer-madnessmovie.com/history.html (accessed Sept. 30, 2009).
180
Oddly enough, the course of events that would lead to the birth of
the stoner genre begins with a man who spent much of his working life
campaigning passionately against marijuana, Harry J. Anslinger. The
sixth child of an immigrant family, Anslinger worked his way through
various government offices until he became Assistant Commissioner of
the Prohibition Unit in 1929. A subordinate office of the US Treasury
Department, the Prohibition Unit was shut down by a scandal in 1930 and
replaced by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, of which Anslinger was
made the first commissioner.8
During the first two years of his tenure, Anslinger dismissed a
proposed federal ban on marijuana because he did not think it to be a
serious threat. As the financial effects of the Great Depression started to
reach the federal government and budget cuts were instituted in almost all
departments, Anslinger knew he needed a new campaign to boost the
public profile of his office. He then began a concerted effort to demonize
marijuana.9
Many early efforts to demonize and prosecute marijuana and its
users were deeply and disturbingly racist. C.M. Goethe, a prominent
member of the American Coalition of Patriotic Societies, attempted to tie
marijuana to the unpopular wave of Mexican immigration. He even
claimed in the New York Times in 1935 that, “Mexican peddlers have been
caught distributing sample marijuana cigarettes to school children.”10 This
unfounded accusation spread throughout the country in newspapers,
especially those under the control of William Randolph Hurst.11 Jack
Herer criticizes Hearst more bluntly: “Hearst” he writes, “painted a picture
of the lazy, pot-smoking Mexican – still one of our most insidious
prejudices.”12
Anslingerʼs campaign included a push in include marijuana with
cocaine and opiates in the Uniform State Narcotic Acts. This act allowed
states themselves to handle most of the enforcement and arrests for
dangerous illegal drugs. The fact that 38 states eventually added
marijuana to their lists proved beneficial for Anslinger, as his office now
was no longer responsible for enforcement in these states and had more
money for other operations. Part of Anslingerʼs campaign against
marijuana included newspaper editorials, “about how [marijuana] induced
rapes and murders in which the perpetrators were almost always black or
Mexican, the victims white.”13 These sorts of allegations and stories linked
marijuana to the idea of minority-on-white violence in the minds of those
who read or heard them. The combination of racist fears and
8
Martin Booth, Cannabis: a History (New York: Thomas Dunne, 2003), 144-160.
Martin Booth, Cannabis: a History (New York: Thomas Dunne, 2003), 144-160.
10
Martin Booth, Cannabis: a History (New York: Thomas Dunne, 2003), 148.
11
12
Jack Herer. The Emperor Wears No Clothes (Lower Lake: Jack Herer, 2007), 33.
13
9
181
exaggeration of marijuanaʼs effects led to calls for federal regulation as
well as the film Reefer Madness.
Originally titled Tell Your Children, Reefer Madness remains one of
the most notorious propaganda films in US history. The film begins with a
man named Dr. Carroll preaching to a Parent-Teacher Association
meeting about the dangers of marijuana. He warns that parents must be
vigilant and proactive because marijuana is grown in every state in the
union and therefore is not subject to the Federal jurisdiction over interstate
commerce. He talks about raids that have been conducted all over the
nation and the massive quantities of marijuana being produced. Dr.
Carroll then punctuates these stories by talking about an incident that
occurred “right here in this community.” Though Anslingerʼs only role in
the production of Reefer Madness was to give the films his blessing, it
seems though he could have written it himself. The fictitious scene
depicted plays on all the lies and exaggerations of Anslingerʼs other antimarijuana campaign except for the race angle.14
The story involves a group of high school friends including
sweethearts Bill and Mary as well as Maryʼs brother Jimmy. Two men and
two women from the city seduce these innocent kids into smoking
marijuana. The high school kids find themselves invited to the apartment
of Mae Coleman (who is hinted as being both a dope-pusher and a
prostitute). Only a few minutes after taking drags of a marijuana cigarette,
two of the other dope-heads in the apartment seduce Bill and Mary. This
illustrates the first of the major contemporary charges against marijuana,
that it made people lose their sexual inhibitions.15
The second and more important charge against marijuana would
frame the tragic ending of the story in Reefer Madness. In 1937 testimony
before congress, Anslinger said, “Marijuana is the most violence-causing
drug in the history of mankind.” Anslinger also kept a “Gore File” of
newspaper clippings about violent incidents around the country allegedly
caused by the perpetrators smoking marijuana.16 In Reefer Madness,
when Bill sees Mary nearly raped by the dope-pusher Ralph, he becomes
almost psychopathically violent and attacks Ralph. In the subsequent
fight, Bill is knocked out, and Mary is accidentally shot dead. In the
ensuing trial the judge declares Bill insane and nearly puts him in jail for
murder until one of the dope-heads confesses to killing Mary. Another of
14
Information about Reefer Madness: Louis Gasiner, Reefer Madness (Indianapolis,
Kartes Video Communications, 1984), videocassette; Eric Schaefer, ʻBold! Daring!
Shocking! True!ʼ: a History of Exploitation Films, 1919-1959 (Durham: Duke University
Press, 1999); Michael Starks. Cocaine Fiends and Reefer Madness: an Illustrated
History of Drugs in the Movies (New York: Cornwall Books, 1982).
15
Louis Gasiner, Reefer Madness (Indianapolis, Kartes Video Communications, 1984),
videocassette.
16
Jack Herer. The Emperor Wears No Clothes (Lower Lake: Jack Herer, 2007), 33.
182
the dope pushers, Blanche, jumps out of a window rather than cooperate
with law enforcement.17
The year after the release of Reefer Madness, the Marijuana Tax
Act of 1937 became law. Like the National Firearms Act of 1934, which it
was patterned after, it required that anyone selling marijuana must
purchase a tax stamp. These tax stamps were printed and sat gathering
dust as the government never intended to use them. In lieu of de jure
prohibition, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics had pushed for an equally
effective de facto prohibition.18
Reefer Madness sat unused and largely forgotten until 1971, by
which time it had fallen into the public domain. That year, Keith Stroup,
founder of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws
(NORML), bought a print of the film for $297 and decided to use it as a
tool in his campaign. As much as the film had been used to promote fear
and vigilance in the 1930s, in the 1970s it became a tool to ridicule the
establishment. Stroup had the print cleaned up and shown at a multitude
of pro-marijuana festivals. It proved successful because the exaggerated
message of the film translated to its audiences strictly as camp. It was
also a way for Stroup to equate those enforcing harsh marijuana laws in
the 1970s with the desperate lies of film producers in the 1930s. Reefer
Madness has been a mainstay in popular culture ever since. A document
found in the archives of President Richard Nixon showcased the plan of
soon-to-be College Republicans Chairman Karl Rove to use Reefer
Madness and other films at fundraisers for the 1973 midterm elections.19
Much of the marijuana culture of the 1970s, however, was a
laughing matter. The comedy duo Cheech and Chong (Richard “Cheech”
Marin and Tommy Chong) emerged in the 1970s and sold more than five
million comedy albums during the decade. They met one another in 1969
in Vancouver as Marin sought to avoid the draft and Chong worked at a
nightclub owned by his parents organizing topless entertainment. Their
career in comedy began shortly thereafter. Their second album, Big
Bambu sold the most copies of any comedy album until Steve Martinʼs
Wild and Crazy Guy. They partially credited their success to their
avoidance of the television market. By all accounts, the relaxed
personality that made their movies what they became came from the
17
Louis Gasiner, Reefer Madness (Indianapolis, Kartes Video Communications, 1984),
videocassette.
18
David F. Musto, Drugs in America: a Documentary History (New York: New York
University Press, 2002), 430-432
19
Information about the 1970s re-release of Reefer Madness: “ʼRefer Madness:ʼ 1936
Camp,” Variety, Sept. 27, 1972. LN; Sheryl Gay Stolberg, “Rove Strategy Paper Found in
Nixon Archive,” New York Times, July 14, 2007. PHN; Kevin Murphy and Dan Studney,
"Reefer Madness History," http://www.reefer-madness-movie.com/history.html (accessed
Sept. 30, 2009).
183
comedy duo in real life. Cheech and Chong were thought of by some
people as the, “Laurel and Hardy of the pot generation.” 20
Their comedy was based on drugs to an extent that none of their
contemporaries matched, and their success got them a movie deal for
1978ʼs Up in Smoke. Not only was this the first stoner movie, but it was
also cleverly political. Because they worked in the comedy genre, they
chose to present their opinions on the federal governmentʼs drug policies
and the “War on Drugs” in the form of farce. While much of the plot of Up
in Smoke follows Cheech and Chong on their search for “smokes”
(marijuana) and their other adventures, the main subplot concerns the
incompetence of federal narcotics agents.
Tommy Chong writes in his autobiography: “Sergeant Stadanko
from Up in Smoke represented a comic version of every DEA agent and
narcotics officer in America.”21 In the movie, Sergeant Stadanko leads a
narcotics investigation team, all the members of which demonstrate
various degrees of incompetence. His right-hand man Harry, in particular,
is portrayed as bumbling and useless: at one point yelling a secret signal
into the street before a drug bust. Other officers in the unit cannot identify
cocaine or remember the Miranda Rights. These characters are
especially effective satire when juxtaposed with the equally incompetent
main characters. Cheech and Chongʼs stoner characters are not only
happier than the authorities; but they win out in the end as well.22
Potheads Pedro De Pacas and Anthony “Man” Stoner meet in the
opening scenes of movie as Man pretends to be a woman (despite a full
beard) to hitch a ride. After Pedro picks him up, they smoke Manʼs
banana-sized joint, crash into a lamp post, and get arrested. They get out
of court without punishment because it is revealed that the judge was
drinking vodka (an obvious commentary on the accused hypocrisy of
having legal alcohol and illegal marijuana). Man then moves in with Pedro
and joins his band as the drummer.23
At this point, despite a lack of it in Southern California, Pedro and
Man go on a search for marijuana. They first visit Pedroʼs cousin
Strawberry, a Vietnam veteran, who subsequently has a flashback to his
20
Information on the comedy career of Cheech and Chong: Tommy Chong, The I Chong:
Meditations from the Joint (New York: Simon Spotlight Entertainment, 2006); Ellen
Farley, “Comedy Duo Gets High on Fame,” Los Angeles Times, Jan. 6, 1980. PHN;
Aljean Harmetz, “Hollywood is Taking Aim at the Funny Bone,” New York Times, Aug. 5,
1979. PHN; Aljean Harmetz, “The Selling of a Film, a Not-so-Subtle Art,” New York
Times, July 23, 1980. PHN; “Hollywood Celebrities on Parade.” Los Angeles Times, Nov.
23, 1979, PHN; Gregg Kilday. “Cranking up the Hoopla Machinery,” Los Angeles Times,
Nov. 15, 1978. PHN; Charles Schreger, “Cheech, Chong: Joint Success,” Los Angeles
21
Tommy Chong, The I Chong: Meditations from the Joint (New York, Simon Spotlight
22
Lou Adler, Cheech and Chongʼs Up in Smoke (Paramount, 1978), DVD.
23
184
time in the service and disappears. Man narrowly escapes a poorly
carried-out bust and returns to Pedroʼs house for band practice. During
this, there is another raid, though not drug related. Pedroʼs Mexican family
has called immigration on themselves, despite having green cards, in
order to get a free ride south for a family wedding (a deliberate critique of
the INS).24
The two stoners go to Mexico with them and end up agreeing to
drive north of the border in a van that they believe contains cheap Mexican
upholstery. Unbeknownst to them, the van itself is their cargo. The drug
kingpins who built it used a new material called “fiberweed” (a play on
fiberglass), a hard substance produced from marijuana that can still be
smoked afterwards. Stadankoʼs narcotics men, who have a mole inside,
have learned that the vehicle has been made from nine billion dollars
worth of marijuana. The drug dealers discover the mole, however,
rendering him unable to communicate the make of the vehicle.25
As Pedro and Man approach the Mexico-US border, Pedro yells at
Man to ditch the large joint he is smoking before they are caught with it.
To get rid of it, Man opens the door and throws the joint in a hook shot into
a station wagon full of nuns. When both cars reach the border, even
though the two protagonists are acting under the influence, the narcotics
agents arrest the nuns because the police dog smelled the smoldering
joint in their car. Perhaps the harshest critical and comical moment of the
film comes as a local television reporter interviews Sergeant Stadanko,
and the fiberweed van drives right behind him with Pedro and Man waving
to the camera. Cheech and Chong framed all of their hatred of
government prosecution (what they and others felt to be persecution) of
marijuana users in these few seconds of film.26
By the time that Stadankoʼs undercover man finally calls to say that
the vehicle is a green van and not a black station wagon, the two potheads
are long gone. They are pursued, however, in what is one of the most
comical car chases on film. Stadankoʼs lieutenant uses a large and
advanced pair of binoculars to try and spot the van, and the first thing he
points out is a doughnut shop. He then shoots out the tire of his own car
just as they start to get close to the van.
Pedro and Man notice none of this confusion and proceed with two
female hitchhikers to the police station where they get drugs and further
agitate Stadanko. From there, they call their band and agree to perform at
a battle of punk rock bands that night. There Stadanko finally catches up
with them, but he is unable to gain entrance to the theatre (while dressed
in stolen Hare Krishna clothing) because he does not have a ticket.
Inside, the heroesʼ band is the last to perform and is nearly booed off
24
26
25
185
stage. It is at this moment when marijuana proves to be the catalyst for a
happy ending.27
In a strongly foreshadowed accident, a burning cigarette butt ignites
a pool of gasoline under the fiberweed van. The van begins to burn as the
fiberweed still retains many properties of marijuana. The resultant smoke
both gets all the narcotics agents high and filters into the concert hall and
allows the Pedroʼs band to rock the house because everyone on stage
and in the audience is high. The film ends with Pedro and Man riding off
into the sunset in Pedroʼs low-rider car.28
The overarching themes of this film are fairly simple and carried
over as hallmarks of the genre. Many of the major incidents in the plot rely
on circumstance and accident, while the main characters are only
motivated by self-interest: Pedro and Man only want to score weed and
Stadanko only wants to increase the profile of his office (perhaps a sly nod
to the career of H.J. Anslinger). Interestingly, many parallels exist
between the stoner movie archetype and Reefer Madness. The
motivational power of self-interest is the first and most significant of these.
Like the marijuana users depicted in Reefer Madness the characters
portrayed by Cheech and Chong have only two major goals in the story.
The first is to get more weed, and the second is to avoid getting caught.
Their secondary goals, like sex, also mirror the 1930s exploitation film.
The relaxed ethos, prominent in Up in Smoke, also influenced how
the film was made. In 1980, Cheech and Chong gave an interview to High
Times about improvising most of Up in Smoke:
Chong: Up in Smoke, we wound up improvising most of it right on
the set. We had to.
High Times: You guys donʼt go in with a script when you do a
movie?
Cheech: Do you go in with a script when you get laid? I mean,
suppose the script you go in with calls for lots of cocaine and a
rubber duck and a ping-pong paddle, and then when you get down
with the lady you both feel like a six-pack and a shower stall?
Same thing with movies exactly.
Chong: Yeah, we made that mistake with our first movie; we went
in with a whole script. And the studio biggies said change this, fuck
that, do some other damn thing. Se we rewrote the script and
made it better, and they loved it.
27
28
186
Cheech: The when we went in to make the move we just said fuck
it, burn the script. And we just shot what we felt like doing, and now
weʼre big Hollywood stars. 29
The movie however was panned by critics who thought it to be juvenile
and poorly made; and ironically cited a weak script as being to blame for
some of these faults.30 Nonetheless, Up in Smoke had been commercially
successful enough that in 1980, Cheech and Chong released a sequel,
Cheech and Chongʼs Next Movie.
In Next Movie, Marinʼs acting talents were put to use as he pulled
double duty as Cheech and his cousin Dwayne “Red” Mendoza. Following
the trend set by their first film, the main characters operated only for their
own gratification, but this time the resulting antics are bigger and stranger.
Perhaps the biggest difference between Next Movie and Up in Smoke is
the lack of a prominent law-enforcement character to ridicule. Marin and
Chong attempted to fill this void with three characters. First, an ineffectual
parking lot security guard allows Cheech into a film production lot twice
without putting up a fight. The second, a police officer pursues Chong and
Red near the end of the film and becomes increasingly frustrated as Redʼs
firework booby-traps stymie him. The third character, Cheech and
Chongʼs neighbor, is obviously intended to represent polite, straight
society. Shown tending to his flowers and giving piano lessons to
children, this neighbor, like most other non-stoners shown in these films,
gets angrier with each new antic to come from his stoned neighbors.31
Though these characters satirize authority, Next Movie lacks the biting
political commentary of Up in Smoke.
The plot of Cheech and Chongʼs Next Movie centers on Cheechʼs
desire to “get with” an attractive social worker as well as the adventure
that Chong has as a result. Having just been fired from a job, Cheech
receives a call from this attractive woman about coming over later in the
day. Desperate to make a good impression and to have the place to
himself, Cheech looks for a way to get Chong out of the house for the rest
of the day. At this moment, in perfect movie timing, Cheechʼs cousin Red
calls. Though he normally lives in the country, Red has come into town for
a visit, but he doesnʼt have enough money to pay for his hotel room and
cannot get his luggage back until he does. Cheech, over the phone, does
29
Stephen Hager. High Times Greatest Hits: Twenty Years of Smoke in your face from
the editors of High Times (New York: St. Martinʼs Press, 1994), 73.
30
Critical Reviews of, and box office information about Cheech and Chongʼs Up in
Smoke: Gene Siskel, “Cheech and Chong are one big drag in Juvenile ʻUp in Smoke,ʼ”
Chicago Tribune, Sept. 26, 1978. PHN; Gene Siskel, “Cheech and Chong cultivate mix of
corn and weed,” Chicago Tribune, July 21, 1980. PHN; Kristine McKenna, “Banana-Peel
Humor of Cheech and Chong,” Los Angeles Times, Oct. 23, 1978. PHN; Vincent Canby,
“Film Review,” New York Times, Nov. 19, 1978. PHN.
31
Thomas Chong, Cheech and Chongʼs Next Movie (Universal, 1980), DVD.
187
not want to make this his problem, and so he tells Chong that his cousin is
in town and that Chong should go party with him.32
When Chong gets to the hotel, he tries to convince Red to just
leave, but Red refuses to give up his bags, and so they hatch a plan.
They end up sneaking into the room of couple staying in the hotel, who
proceed to call the police. The man at the hotelʼs front desk, later
revealed to be Paul Rubens, is nearly hysterical as he talks to the police.
His quote, “I think theyʼre Iranians” is meant to comment on public
xenophobia after the Iranian Revolution. This moment is one of the
remnants of the social and political commentary that so colored Up in
Smoke. A large group of squad cars arrive at the hotel and surround it. In
the confusion, as Paul Rubensʼ character is arrested mistakenly, Red and
Chong manage to slip away with Redʼs bags. Redʼs attachment to the
bags suddenly makes sense, too, as Chong discovers about twenty
pounds of marijuana in one. Knowing they could sell this pot for a large
sum of money, Chong leads Red around for a night on the town.33
Their first destination is a high-profile brothel. They cause chaos
there when Red plays a recording of a police siren, which he kept in order
to scare animals off of his fields. Thus causes all the politicians and
businessmen at the whorehouse to scramble out. The two protagonists
also pick up a friend here, one of the working girls who also likes pot. This
group then proceeds to a musical instrument store and frustrate the
employees by playing an expensive antique guitar (Red) and blowing up a
guitar amp by playing too loudly (Chong). After this, the group moves to
the very nice house of an older woman who believes them to be dressed
as characters from The Wizard of Oz and invites them in for dinner. After
an awkward comedic scene that highlights the difference in humor
between ʻstonedʼ and ʻstraightʼ, the protagonists take the old woman (who
is now getting stoned) out to a comedy club.34
It just so happens that the main player at the club that night is Paul
Rubens, still in a bad mood about the events of the day. When the two
stoners who got him arrested earlier begin to heckle him, he storms off the
stage and tells them to try and do better. The stoners each take their
turns on stage, including the old woman, and actually get a warm
reception from the crowd. A few moments later, Rubens returns with
some muscle in the form of a woman taller than him with the muscles of a
linebacker. In a rage-filled mistake, she accidentally throws the emcee off
stage and starts a fight in the crowd. As before, the intrepid stoner heroes
sneak off amidst the chaos.35
32
34
35
33
188
The entire time that this is happening, Cheech waits at home for his
date to arrive. In various cuts back, their home gets nicer and nicer
looking as Cheech cleans to stave off boredom. Cheech decides to watch
TV while he waits, but falls asleep instead. In his dream, he is an Aztec
priest preparing to sacrifice the girl he is waiting on in real life. He begins
to have sex with her in the dream, but in real life he lays on the bed
embracing a giant stuffed bear. While this is going on, his date finally
arrives but leaves when she sees that sheʼs no longer needed. This ironic
plot twist shows Cheech and Chongʼs capacity to poke fun at their own
characters, as Cheech misses real life sex for intercourse in a dream.36
Back at the comedy club, Red, now sitting outside in front of the
building, is mistaken for a valet and given the keys to a Ferrari and a $20
tip. He convinces Chong to drive off with him, even though Chong wants
to go back for the twenty-pound bag of weed they left in the club. Red,
after learning just how badly Chong wants to smoke, drives them to his
farm where he originally grew the marijuana. On the way, two police
officers pursue them into a field that Red booby-trapped with fireworks.
The two stoners laugh as the cops blunder about, but are caught off guard
themselves with the arrival of a UFO. The flying saucer kidnaps them,
leaving the cops even more confused.37
The next morning Chong, who now resembles Genghis Khan,
wakes Cheech. He presents Cheech with “Space Coke” (cocaine) which
Cheech immediately takes. He seems to go wild and breaks through the
front wall of their house. He then runs to the neighborʼs house, pursued
by Chong. The film ends in a wide shot of Cheech bursting through the
roof as though he was a rocket with Chong hanging on to his feet.
Cheech and Chong get to space where they hop into a gigantic cartoon
joint, which then takes off for an unknown destination.38
Reviews for Cheech and Chongʼs Next Movie were slightly better
than the reviews for Up in Smoke, although the film was somewhat a
commercial disappointment.39 While Next Movie retains all the dope
comedy of Up in Smoke, it loses much of the farcical criticism of drug
policy. Thus one can see Next Movie as a refinement of the stoner movie
formula introduced in Up in Smoke. Characters act mainly in their own
self interest (which is usually about getting high), and they go on a wacky
adventures thanks to weed and other drugs. As they go along, they
36
38
39
Critical Reviews of Cheech and Chongʼs Next Movie: Gene Siskel, “Cheech and Chong
cultivate mix of corn and weed,” Chicago Tribune, July 21, 1980. PHN; “Cheech and
Chongʼs Next Movie (Color): Misfired reunion of ʻUp in Smoke,ʼ” Variety, July 23, 1980.
LN; Vincent Canby, “Cheech and Chong make their ʻNext Movie,ʼ” New York Times, July
19, 1980. PHN; Linda Gross, “Party Time: Cheech, Chongʼs Next Movie,” Los Angeles
37
189
lampoon straight culture (that of the non-dope smoker). They present the
straight world as populated by individuals who grow increasingly frustrated
and violent over the antics of the stoner characters. Subsequently, almost
everything classified as a stoner film follows some variation of this
formula.
Cheech and Chong combined to produce one more movie after
Next Movie, 1981ʼs Nice Dreams. That same year they released another
comedy album, Cheech and Chongʼs Greatest Hit, a compilation of their
most beloved comedy routines. Even though their partnership fizzled
(which Tommy Chong attributes to their respective egos stepping in and
saying “Thanks, but Iʼll take it from here.”)40 their time together left an
indelible mark on the comedy landscape in the US. They singlehandedly
invented a subgenre while flipping the proverbial bird to the ʻstraightʼ
community and the federal government.
In the 1930s, the climate surrounding marijuana was tense and
filled with lies and exaggerations by those seeking to ban the drug.
Therefore, the seminal marijuana film of that decade, Reefer Madness,
promoted the idea that marijuana encourages violence and ruins the lives
and sanity of those who smoke it. In the 1970s, under the weight of the
federal War on Drugs, those who supported marijuana began to strike
back. More and more people not only admitted to being regular users, but
some also based their careers on this. Foremost among these were the
comedy duo Cheech and Chong, who parlayed a successful recording
career into three feature films. These films were the beginnings of the
stoner genre, and although they were comedic in nature, the way in which
non-smokers were portrayed communicated a distinct political message.
Though these films have maintained a cult following through to the
present, they will always be linked to the world of the late 1970s. This is
not because the settings or props came from the period, but because they
encompass the attitudes of a growing legion of pro-marijuana advocates
and normal weed smokers.
40
Tommy Chong, The I Chong: Meditations from the Joint (New York, Simon Spotlight
190
Bibliography
Adler, Lou. Cheech and Chongʼs Up in Smoke. Paramount, 1978. DVD.
Bonnie, Richard J., and Charles H. Whitebread II. The Marihuana
Conviction: A History of Marihuana Prohibition in the United States.
Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1974.
Booth, Martin. Cannabis: a History. New York: Thomas Dunne, 2003.
Boyd, Susan C. “Drug Films, Justice, and Nationhood.” Contemporary
Justice Review v. 10 no. 3 (2007), 263-82.
Boyd, Susan C. Hooked: Drug War Films in Britain, Canada, and the
United States. New York: Routledge, 2008.
Boyd, Susan C. “Media Constructions of Illegal Drugs, users, and sellers:
a closer look at Traffic.” International Journal of Drug Policy 13
(2002), 397-407.
Buchalter, G. “Cheech & Chong's joint career is a smoke screen: at home
they're not potheads but proud papas.” People Weekly, Sept. 22,
1980. LN.
Canby, Vincent. “Film; Cheech and Chong make their ʻNext Movie.ʼ” New
York Times, July 19, 1980. PHN.
Canby, Vincent. “Film Review.” New York Times, Nov. 19, 1978. PHN>
“Cheech and Chongʼs Next Movie (Color): Misfired reunion of ʻUp in
Smokeʼ comedy duo.” Variety, July 23, 1980.
Chong, Thomas. Cheech and Chongʼs Next Movie. Universal Studios,
2003. DVD.
Chong, Tommy. The I Chong: Meditations from the Joint. New York,
Simon Spotlight Entertainment, 2006.
Farley, Ellen. “Comedy Duo Gets High on Fame.” Los Angeles Times,
Jan. 6, 1980. PHN.
Goode, Erich. Drugs in American Society. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1993.
191
Gross, Linda. “Party Time: Cheech, Chongʼs Next Movie.” Los Angeles
Hager, Stephen. High Times Greatest Hits: Twenty Years of Smoke in
your face from the editors of High Times. New York: St. Martinʼs
Press, 1994.
Harmetz, Aljean. “Hollywood is Taking Aim at the Funny Bone.” New
York Times, Aug. 5, 1979. PHN.
Harmetz, Aljean. “The Selling of a Film, a Not-so-Subtle Art.” New York
Herer, Jack. The Emperor Wears No Clothes. 11th ed. Lower Lake: Jack
Herer, 2007.
“Hollywood Celebrities on Parade.” Los Angeles Times, Nov. 23, 1979.
PHN.
Kilday, Gregg. “Cranking up the Hoopla Machinery.” Los Angeles Times,
Nov. 15, 1978. PHN.
Jancovich, Mark, Antonio Lázaro Reboll, Julian Stringer, and Andy Willis
ed. Defining Cult Movies: The Cultural Politics of Oppositional
Taste. New York: Manchester University Press, 2003.
Marez, Curtis. Drug Wars: The Political Economy of Narcotics.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2004.
Marin, Cheech, and Tommy Chong. Cheech and Chongʼs Greatest Hit.
Warner Bros. Records, 1981.
McKenna, Kristine. “Banana-Peel Humor of Cheech and Chong.” Los
Angeles Times, Oct. 23, 1978. PHN.
Murphy, Kevin, and Dan Studney. "Reefer Madness History."
http://web.archive.org/web/20060328163318/http://www.reefermadness-movie.com/history.html (accessed Sept. 30, 2009).
Musto, David F., ed. Drugs in America: a Documentary History. New
York: New York University Press, 2002.
Perry, C. “Pot Luck.” Rolling Stone, Dec. 14, 1978
192
“ʼRefer Madnessʼ: 1936 Camp” Variety, Sept. 27, 1972.
Reefer Madness, VHS. Directed by Louis Gasnier. 1936, Indianapolis:
Kartes Video Communications, 1984.
Schaefer, Eric. ʻBold! Daring! Shocking! True!ʼ: a History of Exploitation
Films, 1919-1959. Durham: Duke University Press, 1999.
Schlosser, Eric. Reefer Madness: Sex, Drugs, and Cheap Labor in the
American Black Market. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2003.
Schreger, Charles. “Cheech, Chong: Joint Success.” Los Angeles Times,
July 11, 1979. PHN.
Siskel, Gene. “Cheech & Chong are one big drag in juvenile ʻUp in
Smoke.ʼ” Chicago Tribune, Sept. 26, 1978. PHN.
Siskel, Gene. “Cheech and Chong cultivate mix of corn and weed.”
Chicago Tribune, July 21, 1980. PHN.
Sloman, Larry. Reefer Madness: Marijuana in America. New York: Grove
Press, 1983.
Smith, David E., ed., The New Social Drug: Cultural, Medical, and Legal
Perspectives on Marijuana. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1970.
Starks, Michael. Cocaine Fiends and Reefer Madness: an Illustrated
History of Drugs in the Movies. New York: Cornwall Books, 1982.
Stolberg, Sheryl Gay. “Rove Strategy Paper Found in Nixon Archive.”
New York Times, July 14, 2007. PHN.
Telotte, J. P. ed. The Cult Film Experience: Beyond all Reason. Austin:
University of Texas Press, 1991.
Thomas, Kevin. “Cheech, Chong go ʻUp in Smoke.ʼ” Los Angeles Times,
Sept. 29, 1978. PHN.
“Up in Smoke (Color).” Variety, Sept. 13, 1978. LN.
Williams, Michaela. “Up in Smoke.” New York Times, Nov. 6, 1978.
PHN.
Chapter 13
Drinking and Thriving:
The Rise of Intoxication Tourism in the Napa Valley
Ryan Chafe
Wine is bottled poetry.
-Silverado Squatters 1883
Robert Louis Stevenson, famous novelist and poet, penned these
words after honeymooning in the Napa Valley in the late nineteenth
century.1 Today, the wine of which Stevenson writes is renown all over
the world as the premier American vintage. Much like Stevenson did over
a century ago, people now travel from around the world to the vineyards of
Californiaʼs Napa Valley to witness its picturesque scenery, discover its
rich history, and indulge in the harvests drawn from its fertile soils. Yet
excellent wines and a bustling tourism industry have not always been
synonymous with the Napa Valley. At one time, the Napa region of
California existed as merely a virgin countryside nestled among the hills
north of San Francisco. This chapter focuses on the evolution of wine
tourism in Californiaʼs Napa Valley over a time period of thirty-plus years
from 1960 to the mid-1990s and examines how Napa Valley matured as a
region while developing and sustaining a unique tourism market focused
around alcohol consumption.
Historically, tourism as an industry developed in the first half of the
1800s when railroad creation made travel from one place to another
easier. As so, no truly overwhelming collection of literature on the subject
exists; only recently has tourism become a focus of historians. 2 One of
the first tourist guidebooks of the modern era came from the Murray firm of
London, which published Murrayʼs Handbook in 1836 as a guide to
1
Lawrence E. Davies, “Tourist Vintage at the Wineries,” New York Times, May 22, 1960.
PHN.
2
On the history of toursim see: Rudy Koshar, German Travel Cultures (New York: Berg,
2000); Being Elsewhere: Tourism, Consumer Culture, and Identity in Modern Europe, ed.
Shelley Baranowski and Ellen Furlough (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001);
Wine Tourism Around the World: Development, Management and Markets, ed. Colin
Michael Hall, Liz Sharples, Brock Cambourne and Niki Macionis (Oxford: ButterworthHeinemann, 2000); Per V. Jenster et al., The Business of Wine: A Global Perspective
(Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press, 2008); Colin Michael Hall, Wine,
Food and Tourism Marketing (Binghamton, NY: Hayworth Hospitality Press, 2003);
Susan Briggs, Successful Tourism Marketing: A Practical Handbook (London: Kogan
Page Ltd, 1997); Tourism Education Corporation, Wine Service Procedures (Boston:
Cahners Books International, 1976); Kerwin Klein, “Frontier Products: Tourism,
Consumerism and the Southwestern Public Lands, 1890-1990” The Pacific Historical
Review 62 (1993): 39-71.
194
traveling Europe. The book gave the traveler an all-encompassing look at
what “ought to be seen” in Europe and set a bar for travel literature and
tourism marketing. Historian Rudy Koshar writes that since that time, “The
tourist guidebook has become ubiquitous in modern travel literature.”3
However, it is generally viewed that the travel guide has caused disdain
among travel professionals such as writers, critics, and scholars. These
professionals contended that tourism as a market took away from the
natural experience of travel by marketing pre-packaged and advertised
attractions. Yet this concept of marketing packaged and pre-planned
attractions through travel guides proved central to the evolution of Napa
tourism.
Napa, however, did not become a tourist haven until relatively
recently. From about 2000 B.C. until 1823, the Wappo Indians were the
sole inhabitants of Napa Valley. In 1836, George Yount became the first
outside settler to be given a land grant in Napa County. However, it was
not until the gold rush period that people began growing wine in the valley
for commercial gain. Two decades later, in 1858, J.M. Pachett purchased
a tract of land in Napa and contracted with Charles Krug to produce wine
for sale to incoming migrants and the growing California population. The
first vintage grown produced 1,200 gallons of wine and represented the
first commercial production of wine in the valley. Following this initial
endeavor, Krug purchased his own land and began his own vineyard. Yet
after losing his vineyard due to a series of recessions in wine sales he
died in obscurity. Historians such as Denzil and Jennie Verardo, however,
have since given him the credit he deserves as a pioneer Napa vintner.4
By the 1860s and 1870s, growth in the valley became evident as some 30
vineyards broke ground and began producing wine for commercial sale.
For years, beginning in the 1860s and leading up to prohibition, Napa
wines began gaining notoriety for their quality. However, the industry all
but collapsed during Prohibition. Between 1920 and 1933, the Napa
Valley produced only a small amount of wine strictly for religious purposes.
Following the repeal of the 18th amendment, the wine industry did not
rebound quickly because wine, viewed as a luxury item, did not attract
many consumers during the Great Depression when only few had money
to spend on such indulgent items. It was not until the 1950s and 1960s,
where this paper will begin its study, that the industry began its rebound.5
3
Koshar, German Travel Cultures, 1.
Denzil and Jennie Verardo, Napa Valley: From Golden Fields to Purple Harvest
(Northridge, CA: Windsor Publications, 1986), 52.
5
On the History of Napa see: Verardo, Napa Valley; Charles L. Sullivan, Napa Wine: A
History From Mission Days to Present (San Francisco: Wine Appreciation Guild, 1994);
Lauren Coodley and Paula Amen Schmitt, Napa: The Transformation of an American
Town (San Francisco: Arcadia Publishing, 2007); Thomas Pinney, A History of Wine in
America: From Prohibition to the Present (Los Angeles: University of California Press,
2005); Richard Luskin, Wine and Urbanization: Issues in Napa Valley (San Francisco:
4
195
This study will examine three specific periods in the Napa Valley
between 1960 and the mid-1990s. An essential period of growth in Napa
Valley began during the 1960s and continued into the 1980s when outside
tourism in the valley started to grow. Between 1980 until 1989 out-of-state
tourist levels in Napa began to increase, resulting in a demand for more
tourism revenue. The most recent and major turning point in Napa
tourism, dating to 1989, marks the year in which the Napa Valley Wine
Train began running. The wine train allowed an increasing number of
tourists to visit multiple vineyards in a day and pursue intoxication with a
set form of third-party transportation. This period of growth produced
action to protect the valley from outside exploitation as well as maintain
Napaʼs historically agricultural society and led to arguments between local
merchants and farmers over commercial growth in the valley. This
chapter addresses these three periods in an attempt to show the
importance of tourism in history and its influence in both economic and
social growth. Each of these time periods and developments in Napa
have been influential in forming a specific blueprint for creating an
intoxication tourism market, which can sustain and benefit a community
while maintaining an even balance between commercialism and local
lifestyle.
Rebirth: 1960-1980
The Napa Valley took some time to recover following Prohibition.
Many of the old wine facilities in the valley prior to ratification of the 18th
amendment were derelict or falling apart after a decade or more of
neglect. In the midst of the Great Depression, investors had little or no
money to pour into the wine industry. As a result, the few wines that did
come out of the Napa Valley in the 1930s were of very poor vintage.6
However, in 1943 the Napa Valley Vintners Association (NVVA) formed
with a goal of producing quality wines reminiscent of the pre-Prohibition
days. This group consisted of growers dedicated to producing quality
vintages.7 Through a series of public relation and marketing ideas such as
hosting events for travel writers and associations, like the American
California State University, 1973); Charles Sullivan, A Companion to California Wine: An
Encyclopedia of Wine and Winemaking From the Mission Period to the Present (Los
Angeles: University of California Press, 1998); Richard Mendelson, From Demon to
Darling: A Legal History of Wine in America (Los Angeles: University of California Press,
2009).
6
Gwyn Campbell and Nathalie Guibert, Wine, Society, and Globalization:
Multidisciplinary Perspectives on the Wine Industry (New York: Palgrave Macmillan,
2007), 27.
7
James Conaway, Napa: The Story of an American Eden (New York: Houghton Mifflin,
1990), 47-48.
196
Medical Association, as well as sending agents abroad promoting Napa
wines, the NVVA began to build a better reputation for Napa wines.8
By 1960, the increasingly successful vintages and growing
reputation of the Napa label resulted in increasing national exposure to the
California wine region. Newspapers across the country began to run
stories about the recently renewed Napa wines.9
The practice of wine tourism was alive in the fifties and the sixties;
however, it was mainly popular with the California natives that could visit
the vineyards in a single daytrip from San Francisco.10 According to Victor
Geraci, these short trips allowed people to escape and enjoy the “good
life” and appealed to “Americaʼs post-World War II middle class, freed by
its car culture and disposable income…”11 In these early days of wine
tourism, vineyards of the Napa Valley welcomed visitors with open arms in
an attempt to give novice wine tasters a greater appreciation for the art of
wines.12
One of the first major tourism events in the region occurred in 1961
during the centennial celebration of Californiaʼs “modern” wine industry.
During this centennial celebration, an estimated 500,000 guests toured the
wine country. The beginnings of large-scale tourism took root at this time
as package tours became available for the first time. San Francisco
based Tours, Inc., offered packaged tours by the busload that ranged from
nine to fifty-three passengers. In addition, the length and destinations of
trips could be tailored to the tour groupʼs needs. The vineyards took full
advantage of the centennial celebration as they used the touring market
from the festivities to promote their own domestic wines of the region over
more expensive imports from Europe.13
In the mid-1960s, demand continued to grow for the table wines of
California. Yet the rapid post-World War II population boom in California
threatened the traditional agricultural lifestyle of the Napa Valley. The
state experienced a significant amount of unplanned and uncontrolled
urbanization at the time and took action in an attempt to protect the
agricultural areas of California. In 1965, the California State Legislature
passed the California Land Conservation Act, also known as the
Williamson Act. This act allowed owners of agricultural land to enter into
8
Pinney, 215; Sullivan, Napa Wine, 240-241.
“Wine Tasting is a Diversion in California,” Chicago Daily Tribune, January 31, 1960.
PHN; Lawrence E. Davies, “A Real Taste of Hospitality,” New York Times, July 16, 1961.
PHN; Lawrence E. Davies, “Tourist Vintage at the Wineries;” Mary Matthew, “Fun in
Bunches at Grape Festival,” Los Angeles Times, September 6, 1961. PHN.
10
Davies, “Tourist Vintage at the Wineries.”
11
Victor W. Geraci, “Fermenting a Twenty-First Century California Wine Industry,”
Agricultural History 78 (2004): 453.
12
“Wine Tasting is a Diversion in California.”
13
Davies, “A Real Taste of Hospitality.”
9
197
contracts with counties to restrict the use of land to agriculture while
receiving tax breaks on ownership to combat commercial ventures.14
Shortly following the creation of the Williamson Act, 1966 proved to
be the turning point in Napa growth. That year Robert Mondavi broke from
the C. Mondavi and Sons family vineyard to begin his own winery, The
Robert Mondavi Vineyard. He began his new vineyard from scratch, and,
in his autobiography, he claims that modern Napa itself began from
scratch at the same time. In 1966, when Mondavi began his work, Napa
was a simple unsophisticated farm community with little tourism, and few
restaurants and hotels. 15
Mondavi was not the only one that foresaw growth at the time. In
1967, the California Bureau of Health Education, Physical Education and
Recreation issued a study on recreational services in Napa. The
recommendations included growth measures such as filling voids in local
swimming facilities, developing additional acreage for local parks, fixing
school facilities, and promoting private and commercial recreation
enterprises such as swim and tennis clubs, among other things.16 Each
recommended provision would improve upon and expand facilities for a
community on the verge of major growth due to the increasing revenue
being brought in by tourists.
In 1966, there were about 20 wineries in the valley, and the region
was far from developed.17 In 1968, the Napa Chamber of Commerce
issued a brief statistical report on Napa Valley. The population of the
entire Napa County in 1966 was 80,600 people. In 1968, the report listed
only five motels in Napa, and the most expensive cost only twelve dollars
per night. The report listed a mere twenty-six restaurants in the entire
Napa Valley, with a number being fast food establishments.18 With so few
amenities available in the valley, growth and expansion seemed not only
inevitable, but also beneficial to the local merchants.
By the turn of the decade that growth began to hit full tilt. 1971
marked the first year that grapes represented more than half the
agricultural output of the valley.19 In the same year, Robert Blumberg
published a book titled The Fine Wines of California, which served as a
guide and review book for twenty-three vineyards. While Blumberg
14
Ralph Hutchinson and Sidney M. Blummer, The Williamson Act and Wine Growing in
the Napa Valley (Pomona, CA: California State Polytechnic College, 1970), 1.
15
Robert Mondavi, Harvests of Joy: My Passion for Excellence (New York: Harcourt
Brace & Company, 1998), 191.
16
California Bureau of Health Education, Physical Education and Recreation, Recreation
Services in Napa: A Study With Recommendations (Sacramento, CA: California State
Department of Education, 1967), 10-13.
17
Mondavi, Harvests of Joy, 191.
18
Napa Chamber of Commerce, Napa City and County: Business, Industry and
Recreational Facilities: Also Brief History and Statistical Information of Napa Valley (Napa
CA: Napa Chamber of Commerce, 1968), 15-33.
19
Campbell and Guibert, Wine, Society, and Globalization, 28.
198
claimed that the book was meant to address the wines individually, he
does a good job at attending to background and histories of each vineyard
as well as provides contact information in the conclusion.20 Thus, though
Blumberg targeted it at wine enthusiasts, this book also aimed at tourists
and can be labeled as one of the early tour books to the Napa Valley.
Beginning with Blumbergʼs book, the process of expansion can be
tracked through a number of other sources. A picture guide published in
1972 by Gordon Eby lists the number of Napa wineries at thirty, operating
on 15,000 acres of land.21 Two years later in 1974, Bob Thompsonʼs The
California Wine Book then lists forty-five wineries operating on 22,000
acres of land.22 That number rose to fifty-one by 1977. 23 In six years,
from 1971-1977 twenty-eight new wineries opened in Napa. This rapid
growth, in turn, began to affect the tourism industry in Napa in a larger
sense.
By the mid-1970s, tour books started to delve deeper into the Napa
Valley. No longer were the books focused solely on the vineyards of the
valley but also the growing businesses around them. In Robert Matsonʼs
1975 tour book for the area north of San Francisco, he mentions fourteen
different restaurants in the Napa Valley by giving brief histories, menu
options, locations and hours of operation. Only two of the fourteen he
discusses existed at the time of the 1968 Napa business and industry
report.24
In a 1975 journal article in Agricultural History, Maynard Amerine
stated that he believed Napa Valley had reached the peak of its fame.25
However, Michael Topolos and Betty Dopsonʼs Napa Valley Wine Tour,
published in 1978 shows otherwise as it lists yet another increase in
vineyards reaching a total of fifty-six wineries.26 Richard Hinkleʼs Napa
Valley Wine Book, published only one year later in 1979 lists sixty-five
vineyards in Napa. Hinkle argued that the successes and growth of the
Napa vineyards could be attributed to the closeness of the community, as
the vineyards had very little competition among themselves. The
established vineyards wanted to see the new vineyards succeed as
everyoneʼs success helped to boost the Napa Valleyʼs reputation as a
whole. In this sense, the whole valley worked together to gain collective
20
Robert S. Blumberg, The Fine Wines of California (Garden City, NY: Doubleday &
Company, 1971).
21
Gordon Eby, Napa Valley (Napa, CA: Eby Press, 1972).
22
Bob Thompson, The California Wine Book (New York: Morrow, 1976), 24.
23
24
Robert W. Matson, North of San Francisco: Point Reyes to the Oregon Border:
Restaurants, Inns, Wineries, and History (Millbrae, CA: Celestial Arts, 1975), 88-101.
25
Maynard A. Amerine, “The Napa Valley Grape and Wine Industry,” Agricultural History
49 (1975): 291.
26
Michael Topolos and Betty Dopson, Napa Valley Wine Tour (St. Helena, CA: Vintage
Image, 1978), 184-189.
199
success.27 This feeling of community instilled a spirit and emotion that
encouraged growth in the valley. Yet, in the 1980s, the valley evolved to a
point where tourism would soon threaten the rural balance that gave Napa
its charm.
The 1980s
Less than twenty years after Robert Mondavi broke off to form his
own winery, the meager twenty vineyards that existed in the valley in 1966
had by 1981 reached one hundred and ten.28 With the rapid growth came
more publicity, and with the additional publicity came more tourism.
Magazines and papers were writing about the Napa Valley again, though
this time around it was not always to talk about the wine. As the tourism
industry began to grow once more, Napa Valley and its supporting
businesses needed to adapt their tours, transportation, food services and
lodging provisions to meet the growing needs of the tourists.
Joyce White summed it up best in her 1980 Essence magazine
article titled “Napa Valley: Not for Wine Lovers Only.” In her article, she
related the general routine for touring wine country beginning with the
scenic drive into Napa from San Francisco. Following oneʼs arrival at the
vineyard a twenty-minute tour would be taken and then the tourist would
proceed onto five different samplings. At the end of the tour, one could
stop at a gift shop where they could purchase wine or a number of other
trendy souvenir items such as glasses, corkscrews, bags or t-shirts.29
Following her summary of the tour process, White recommended potential
restaurants, lodging and transportation as tourism options for the reader.
In addition to the vineyards adding gift shops to tours, by 1980
multiple package bus tours were available to tourists, which expanded
upon the original centennial bus tour of the early 1960s. Specific tour
companies such as Grayline Tours, Wine Tours International, and Divine
Wine Tours rose to prominence by offering a number of tour packages for
visitors. These bus tours ranged in pricing, meal provisions and number of
winery stops and tastings. The majority of these bus tours left in the
morning and returned to the Bay area on the same day.30
The food industry revamped itself as well. For example, Jeffrey
Caldewayʼs 1988 Napa Valley tour book devoted a whole chapter to dining
options in which he reviewed restaurants, provided descriptions on the
type of food served, gave contact information to the restaurants, and even
provided hours of operation. Additionally, the following chapter provided
27
Richard Paul Hinkle, Napa Valley Wine Book (St. Helena, CA: Vintage Image, 1979),
11, 170-178.
28
29
Joyce White, “The Napa Valley: Not for Wine Lovers Only,” Essence, June 1980, 2728.
30
White, “The Napa Valley.”
200
advertised menus for a number of restaurants he listed before.31 In the
same way, the 1989 Indian Chief Travel Guide series Guidebook for Napa
Valley listed all the restaurants in the same travel book as the vineyards
while including cuisine descriptions, operational hours and price ranges. 32
Over the course of the 1980s, an increasing number of restaurants appear
in each guidebook as restaurant owners attempted to capitalize on the
diverse and growing clientele of tourists.
In addition to the growing transportation industry and the
development of a new and diverse food industry, the lodging industry
improved tremendously in the Napa Valley during the eighties. In the
Indian Chief Guidebook alone, the lodging listings include regular hotel
accommodations, as well as a large number of bed and breakfast inns.
The development of chain hotel lodging options such as the Best Western,
Embassy Suites, and Clarion Inn provided better accommodations than
the five motels existent in Napa in 1968.33 This rise in chain hotels related
directly to the growing number of tourists visiting the Valley.
In addition to the basic hotel and bed and breakfast lodging
offerings, by the 1980s the Napa Valley housed two exclusive resorts that
belonged to the Relais & Chateaux group of over 350 prestigious luxury
hotels and restaurants. These resorts, the Auberge de Soleil and the
Meadowood Resort Hotel offered two different types of resort experience.
The Auberge de Soleil paid respects to a French style décor and cooking
and provided first class amenities such as tennis courts, a pool, a steam
room, and a masseuse. In 1989, the dining roomʼs fixed-price forty-seven
dollar dinner provided some of the top food in Napa. The 1989 price for a
single room was $220 per night.34 In contrast to the Auberge de Soleil, the
Meadowood resort approximated a grand country estate that provided a
number of hiking paths, a 9-hole golf course, six tennis courts, a heated
pool, and two regulation croquet courts. The Meadowood offered both a
grill and dining room with its 1989 room rates ranging from $175 to $425
per night.35 The emergence of these luxury hotels helped expand the
demographic range of tourists that came to the Napa Valley. During the
1980s these luxury resorts provided premium services and amenities for
those with large disposable incomes and a taste for trendy vacations.
Though each industry went through an individual expansion during
the 1980s the one piece that holds the tours, transportation, restaurants
and lodging together was the travel literature. The travel guide to Napa
31
Jeffrey Caldeway, Napa Valley Wine Tour: The Civilized Travelers Guide (San
Francisco: Wine Appreciation Guild, 1988), 21-48.
32
The Complete Wine Country Guidebook (Tahoe City, CA: Indian Chief Publishing
House, 1989), 60-63.
33
The Complete Wine Country Guidebook, 49-55; Napa Chamber of Commerce, Napa
City and County Business, Industry and Recreational Facilities, 15.
34
Marion Burros, “Beyond Wine: Napaʼs Resorts,” New York Times, May 21, 1989. PHN.
35
Burros, “Beyond Wine.”
201
Valley has evolved with the growth of the valley to become all-inclusive.
The guides of the 1980s, like the Indian Chief book, provided guidance to
wineries, lodging, restaurants, recreation, spa resorts, seasonal events,
golfing, picnic fare and places of interest. Additionally, they provided
detailed maps to help find specific destinations.36 The guides of the 1980s
improved tremendously on the guides of the1970s. These changes
marked a growing trend in economic growth for the valley as each piece fit
together like a puzzle. As more and more attractions sprouted in Napa,
the more complete and in depth the guides became, resulting in a larger
market for potential tourists who then invested in the guides to find the
best lodging, dining, and attractions that Napa had to offer.
As the tourism industry evolved and grew with the Napa Valley in
the 1980s, demand for more income as well as an ever-increasing stream
of tourists pushed a number of Napa Valley residents to engage a specific
study on Napa Valley Tourism. In 1984, the ESA Planning and
Environmental Services released a booklet called the Napa Valley
Tourism Project. The study took an in-depth look at Napaʼs role in the
tourism industry and drafted recommendations for dealing with the
increase in tourism. Some of the suggestions included the establishment
of a valley-wide coordination and planning committee, a focus on and
emphasis on the upscale tourist market, required appointments for winery
visitation during busy periods, and establishment of a central tour bus/van
booking service.37 Suggestions like this would help the town of Napa
control the tourism industry more effectively while at the same time
tailoring it to meet the needs of the county. Though these proposals were
meant to keep tourism in check, a group of entrepreneurs and
businessmen began work in the mid-80s to further promote tourism in the
Napa Valley and deepen their pockets.
The Wine Train
The Napa tourism study was completed two years too soon as word
began spreading in 1986 of the plan for a tourist train to run through Napa
Valley. The “Wine Train,” as its investors dubbed it, would run from Napa
and stretch twenty-one miles north through the valley to St. Helena, one of
the northern-most towns in the valley. The Wine Train would consist of
two six-car trains, complete with lounges and dining cars for meals and
wine tastings. It would make five round trips per day, each lasting for
36
The Complete Wine Country Guidebook, 24-64; Ron Morales, Wine Country Tour
Map: Travel Guide of 94 Wineries in Napa, Sonoma, Mendocino and Lake Counties of
California (Santa Rosa, CA: Graphic Concepts, 1982); Yountville Chamber of Commerce,
Yountville: Napa Valley California: Map & Guide (Yountville, CA: Yountville Chamber of
Commerce, 1987).
37
Planning and Environmental Services, Napa Valley Tourism Project (San Francisco:
ESA Planning and Environmental Services, 1984), 35-46.
202
three hours. The idea for the Wine Train, originally scheduled to begin
operation on March 1, 1988, came under heavy fire from opposition.38
When the Wine Train idea came to light, the plan was for the train
to serve primarily as a transportation service through the Napa Valley,
carrying an estimated half million passengers per year through the region.
On the train, people could eat and drink wine.39 In a sense, the train
would serve as a third party transportation so that those on the train would
not have to worry about driving while indulging in their vintage selections.
The train would stop at various stations along the way to allow for
passengers to get off and continue their wine tasting at various vineyards
or get to a hotel or restaurant.40 This Wine Train would basically serve the
valley as a safe form of mass transit for visiting the Napa Valley.
This proposed idea for the Wine Train, however, did not sit well with
certain locals and anti-train activists who argued the train would promote
more tourism and take away from the rural tradition and character of the
region. In addition to this concern, many of the citizens against the
creation of the Wine Train argued that it would add even more congestion
to the already crowded roads because the train crosses the main road
through the valley more than once per trip. Furthermore, many wineries
could not handle a mass influx of 100-300 tourists at a time if the Wine
Train were to drop off passenger carloads filled with people for tours and
tastings. Some even feared that eventually the rails would run further
south allowing a greater influx of tourists from San Francisco access to the
valley. If these problems were to occur in unison, the Valley would
become too “Disneyfied,” as many locals put it, referring to the
commercialization that would occur due to the Wine Train.41
Though the opponents of the Wine Train raised a number of valid
arguments, in their defense, the supporters of the Wine Train justified their
stance as well. John McCormack, president of the Napa Valley Wine
Train Inc., argued in response that while the Wine Train might attract more
tourists to the valley, he believed that since more people will be using a
mass transit, it would lower congestion on the roads rather than add to it.
Additionally, he argued that the tourists coming into the local towns would
be on foot rather than cars and would not hurt the towns. Others in the
Napa Valley favored the Wine Train as well. Most motel and restaurant
owners along with other local businessmen supported the Wine Train and
38
Robert Lindsey, “Plan for Tourist Train in the Napa Valley Divides Residents,” New
York Times, June 11, 1986. PHN; “A Train to the Vineyards,” New York Times,
39
David Lustig, “Rolling Restaurants,” Trains 66 (2006).
40
Jane Gross, “ Shall Tourists or Grapes Rule in the Napa Valley?,” New York Times,
May 30, 1988. PHN.
41
Frank J. Prial, “Chugging Away,” New York Times, October 30, 1988. PHN; Tessa
DeCarlo, “Railways Revisited in Wine Country,” New York Times, April 8, 1990. PHN;
Lindsey, “Plan For Tourist Train in the Napa Valley Divides Residents.”
203
the prospect of more tourists.42 In this sense, the Wine Train presented a
conflict between two groups of Napa residents. On one side, the
agricultural and small town purists fought for the retention of their rural
community while the business owners and outside entrepreneurs battled
for their right to make commercial gain.
Though the Wine Train missed its scheduled launch date of March
1, 1988, it made its maiden voyage in September of 1989. The fact that
the train ran that day represented a victory for the pro-development forces
led by McCormack. Since that date, the train has been running steadily.
Its original schedule was two trips on weekdays at 11:30am and 6:30pm
and three trips on weekends at 9:00am, 12:20pm, and 6:30pm. The
original rates for the trip were $25 weekday lunches and dinners, $29
dollar weekend lunch and brunches, and $45 weekend dinners.43
Following all the debate, when the Wine Train finally began running,
reviewers such as Frank Prial of The New York Times reacted favorably to
it. He spoke of the warm reception received from the stewards and
stewardesses, the comfort within the club cars, the spacious seating and
the overall elegance of the cars. Furthermore, the food, expected to be
the weakest part of the trip was top quality as evidenced by the grilled
salmon and black angus filet mignon on offer. The trip, however, was
expensive. Prial estimated that a couple on the dinner run could easily
spend about $170 between ticket, meal and drinks.44
To this day the Wine Train still runs through the Napa Valley on its
regular schedule. However, it has made some adjustments to its original
business plan. The Wine Train had to stray from its original plan to
provide mass transit to the Napa Valley as the California Public Utilities
Commission denied multiple Wine Train requests to be allowed to stop
along its route due to pressure from local opposition that could not
accommodate the quantities of tourists that the train would have
produced.45 The train has since converted from transit system to moving
restaurant with a focus on gourmet dining. In this sense, the running of
the Wine Train marked only a partial success for the developers as the
deep-rooted local opposition maintained some control over the tourism
growth associated with the train. To boost its tourism appeal as a
restaurant, the Wine Train has since incorporated dinner concerts, family
trips, murder mysteries, and other important dinners and lunches with wine
makers and vintners as part of the gourmet meal experience.46 Though it
was not the original planned venture for the Wine Train, the compromise
42
Lindsey, “Plan For Tourist Train in the Napa Valley Divides Residents;” Prial,
“Chugging Away;” Gross, “Shall Tourists or Grapes Rule in the Napa Valley?”
43
“A Train to the Vineyards.”
44
Frank J. Prial, “Riding the Napa Valley Wine Train,” New York Times, November 4,
1990. PHN.
45
Prial, “Riding the Napa Wine Train.”
46
Lustig, “Rolling Restaurants.”
204
has proven to be successful as the train continues to run, twenty years
after its first trip.
Conclusion
As a region, the rapid growth and development of the Napa Valley
provided a challenge for the citizens. As a community, however, they
embraced the challenge and the onslaught of tourism resulting from the
growth of the wine industry. By looking at the evolution of tourism in the
Napa Valley, one can trace the economic growth and expansion in the
local communities. As the guidebooks prove over time, the rebirth and
prominence of Napa wines provided a number of opportunities for the
community to grow and prosper economically through tourism business
ventures.
Yet, the local community realized that if outside ventures went
unchecked the charm of Napa Valley would be lost. Without the
Williamson Act, Napa could have fallen victim to the great urbanization in
California following World War II. The wine capital of the United States
could have become another Silicon Valley if Californians had not realized
the importance and historical significance of the Napa agricultural
community. Residents realized this charming rural landscape is what
made Napa such a unique getaway for both locals and tourists and as so
took a stand to limit excessive commercial ventures, like the mass transit
Wine Train, which would have taken away from that way of life. In taking
action, the Napa Valley region created and maintained a delicate balance
between tourism and the traditional rural wine industry.
Today, the entire valley benefits from both businesses working
together in unison. Napa Valley, due to its successes in balancing
tradition and tourist advances has provided a blueprint in how to build and
maintain an intoxication tourism industry that stays loyal to its historical
roots. The successes of the Napa region reach far and wide as tourism
ventures around the world try to emulate Napaʼs achievement. In the
United States, Kentuckyʼs Bourbon Trail is attempting to duplicate Napaʼs
accomplishment and hopes to one day become as renown for bourbon as
their West Coast neighbors are for wine.47 As seen, it is a struggle to get
there, but by using Napa as a blueprint, Kentucky hopes to create an
industry that honors its history while embracing the present and providing
benefits in the future.
47
Dan Dickson, “Kentucky Bourbon Trail Hopes to Emulate Napa Valley,” Business
Lexington, June 25, 2009.
205
Bibliography
“A Train to the Vineyards.” New York Times, September 16, 1987. PHN.
Amerine, Maynard A. “The Napa Valley Grape and Wine Industry.”
Agricultural History 49, no. 1 (January 1975): 289-291.
Bates, Caroline. “Gourmet Holidays: Napa Valley. Where a Man's Winery
Could Be His Castle and Restaurants Reign Supreme.” Gourmet
(March 1994).
Being Elsewhere: Tourism, Consumer Culture, and Identity in Modern
Europe. Edited by Shelley Baranowski and Ellen Furlough. Anne
Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001.
Blumberg, Robert S. The Fine Wines of California. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday and Company, 1971.
Burros, Marian. “Beyond Wine: Napa's Resorts.” New York Times, May
21, 1989. PHN.
Briggs, Susan. Successful Tourism Marketing: A Practical Handbook.
London: Kogan Page Ltd, 1997.
California Bureau of Health Education, Physical Education, and
Recreation. Recreation Services in Napa: A Study With
Recommendations. Sacramento: California State Dept. of
Education, 1967.
Caldeway, Jeffrey. Napa Valley Wine Tour: The Civilized Travelers Guide.
San Francisco: Wine Appreciation Guild, 1988.
Caldeway, Jeffrey. Wine Tour, Napa Valley. San Francisco: Wine
Appreciation Guild, 1983.
Campbell, Gwyn, and Nathalie Guibert. Wine, Society, and Globalization:
Multidisciplinary Perspectives on the Wine Industry. 1st ed. New
York,: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
Carlsen, Jack. “A Review of Global Wine Tourism Research.” Journal of
Wine Research 15, no. 1 (January 1, 2004): 5-13.
Carlsen, Jack and Stephen Charters. Global Wine Tourism: Research,
Management and Marketing. Wallingford, UK: CABI Pub, 2006.
206
Conway, James. Napa: The Story of an American Eden. New York:
Houghton Mifflin, 1990.
Coodley, Lauren and Paula Amen Schmitt. Napa: The Transformation of
an American Town. Chicago: Arcadia Publishing, 2007.
Davies, Lawrence E. “A Real Taste of Hospitality.” New York Times, July
16, 1961. PHN.
Davies, Lawrence. “Tourist Vintage at the Wineries.” New York Times,
May 22, 1960. PHN.
Dickson, Dan. “Kentucky Bourbon Trail Hopes to Emulate Napa Valley.”
Business Lexington Online, June 25, 2009.
http://www.bizlex.com/Articles-c-2009-06-2487893.113117_Kentucky_Bourbon_Trail_Hopes_to_Emulate_Napa
_Valley.html (accessed October 1, 2009).
DeCarlo, Tessa. “Where the Railroads Ran.” New York Times, April 8,
1990. PHN.
DeCarlo, Tessa. “Railways Revisited in Wine Country.” New York Times,
April 8, 1990. PHN.
Eby, Gordon. Napa Valley. Napa, CA: Eby Press, 1972.
Geraci, Victor W. “Fermenting a Twenty-First Century California Wine
Industry.” Agricultural History 78 (2004): 438-465.
Getz, Donald. Explore Wine Tourism: Management, Development &
Destinations. New York: Cognizant Communication, 2000.
Gross, Jane. “Shall Tourists or Grapes Rule in the Napa Valley?” New
York Times, May 30, 1988. PHN.
Hall, Colin Michael. Wine, Food, and Tourism Marketing. Binghamton, NY:
Haworth Hospitality Press, 2003.
Hinkle, Richard and Sebastian Titus. Napa Valley Wine Book. St. Helena,
CA: Vintage Image, 1979.
Hutchinson, Ralph, and Sidney M. Blummer. The Williamson Act and Wine
Growing in the Napa Valley. Pomona, CA: California State
207
Polytechnic College, 1970.
Jenster, Per V., David E. Smith, Darryl L. Mitry, and Lars V. Jenster. The
Business of Wine: A Global Perspective. Copenhagen:
Copenhagen Business School Press, 2008.
Klein, Kerwin. “Frontier Products: Tourism, Consumerism, and the
Southwestern Public Lands, 1890-1990.” The Pacific Historical
Review 62, 1 (1993): 39-71.
Lindsey, Robert. “Plan for Tourist Train in the Napa Valley Divides
Residents.” New York Times, June 11, 1986. PHN.
Lukacs, Paul. American Vintage: The Rise of American Wine. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin, 2000.
Luskin, Richard. Wine and Urbanization: Issues in Napa Valley. San
Francisco: San Francisco State University Library, 1973.
Lustig, David. “Rolling Restaurants.” Trains 66 (2006): 48-51.
Matson, Robert. North of San Francisco: Point Reyes to the Oregon
Border: Restaurants, Inns, Wineries, and History. Millbrae, CA:
Celestial Arts, 1975.
Matthew, Mary. “Fun in Bunches at Grape Festival.” Los Angeles Times,
Mendelson, Richard. From Demon to Darling: A Legal History of Wine in
America. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2009.
Mondavi, Robert. Harvests of Joy: My Passion for Excellence. New York:
Harcourt Brace & Company, 1998.
Morales, Ron. Wine Country Tour Map: Travel Guide of 94 wineries in
Napa, Mendocino and Lake Counties. Santa Rosa, CA: Graphic
Concepts,, 1982.
Napa Chamber of Commerce. Napa City and County Business, Industry
and Recreational Facilities. Napa, CA: Napa Chamber of
Commerce, 1968.
Napa County Tourism Study Advisory Committee. Planning for Travel and
Tourism in Napa County. S.l.: s.n., 1990.
208
Napa Valley Foundation, and Environmental Science Associates. Napa
Valley Tourism Project. San Francisco, CA: ESA, 1984.
Napa Valley Guide. Santa Rosa, CA: Vintage Publications, 1979.
Pinney, Thomas. A History of Wine in America: From Prohibition to the
Present. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005.
Planning and Environmental Services. Napa Valley Tourism Project. San
Francisco: ESA Planning and Enviornmental Services, 1984.
Prial, Frank J. “Chugging Away.” New York Times, October 30, 1988.
PHN.
Prial, Frank J. “Riding the Napa Valley Wine Train.” New York Times,
Prial, Frank J. “WINE; California, Here I Come.” New York Times, March
29, 1987. PHN.
Roberge, Earl. Napa Wine Country. 2nd ed. Portland, OR: Graphic Arts
Center Pub. Co, 1985.
Sullivan, Charles. A Companion to California Wine: An Encyclopedia of
Wine and Winemaking From the Mission Period to the Present. Los
Angeles: University of California Press, 1998.
Sullivan, Charles L., Napa Wine: A History From Mission Days to
Present. San Francisco: Wine Appreciation Guild, 1994.
The Complete Wine Country Guidebook. Tahoe City, CA: Indian Chief
Publishing House, 1989.
Thompson, Bob and Hugh Johnson. The California Wine Book. New York:
Morrow, 1976.
Topolos, Michael and Betty Dopson. Napa Valley Wine Tour. St. Helena,
CA: Vintage Image, 1978.
Tourism Education Corporation. Wine Service Procedures. Boston:
Cahners Books International, 1976.
209
Verardo, Denzil, Jennie Dennis Verardo, and Napa County Historical
Society. Napa Valley: From Golden Fields to Purple Harvest. 1st
ed. Northridge, CA: Windsor Publications, 1986.
White, Joyce. “The Napa Valley: Not For Wine Lovers Only.” Essence
(June 1980). 27-28, 31.
“Wine Tasting Is a Diversion in California.” Chicago Daily Tribune, January
31, 1960. PHN.
Wine Tourism Around the World: Development, Management and
Markets. Edited by Colin Michael Hall, Liz Sharples, Brock
Cambourne and Niki Macionis. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann,
2000.
Yountville Chamber of Commerce. Yountville, Napa Valley, California:
Map & Guide. Yountville, CA: Yountville Chamber of Commerce,
1987.
Chapter 14
Alcohol and Virginia Tech:
Crisis and Continuity
Joseph S. Mehfoud
September 27, 1991, was an ordinary Friday night for Wayne
Parsons. The nineteen-year-old sophomore escaped from his West
Eggleston dorm room to a party in the Foxridge Apartment Homes. There
the young electrical engineering student met his downfall. Wayne drank
tequila, and he had a few too many drinks. His friends claimed it was
about a literʼs worth of liquor. Parsons passed out from the amount of
alcohol he had consumed. By the time the ambulance arrived to the
scene, Wayne had experienced cardiac arrest. By 6:30 the next morning,
Montgomery Regional Hospital pronounced Wayne Parsons dead due to
alcohol poisoning.1
Since 1968, Virginia Tech has experienced an assortment of issues
pertaining to alcohol and its perceived dangers. This chapter will analyze
these issues by looking at the words of the students themselves through
the student newspaper. Expanding upon that, local newspapers
occasionally picked up the stories that transcended more than just
university issues and impacted the surrounding communities. In a broader
context, various books and academic studies have been written on the
issues of alcohol as they relate to college students, ranging from drinking
and driving to binge drinking.2
This chapter presents several social problems associated with
drinking and exposes them under the microscope of Virginia Tech culture.
These social problems include the drinking age, binge drinking, and
regulation of alcohol consumption by local authorities. From 1968 to
1
David Spates, “Student dies after weekend party,” Collegiate Times, October 1, 1991,
sec. A, 1,3.
2
Magdalena Alagna, Everything You Need to Know About the Dangers of Binge Drinking
(New York: Rosen Publishing Group, 2001); Anon, Under The Influence: The Binge
Drinking Epidemic On College Campuses. U.S. Government, 15 May 2002; William
DeJong and Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention (U.S.).
1996; Looking at Binge Drinking at Four-Year Colleges: Software User's Guide
(Washington, DC: The Center, Haines, Michael P, Higher Education Center for Alcohol
and Other Drug Prevention (U.S.), and United States, 1997); A Social Norms Approach to
Preventing Binge Drinking at Colleges and Universities (Washington, D.C.: Higher
Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention.,Lloyd, John. 2005); Brian
Menaker, Managing alcohol at college football games in the Mid-American Conference.
2007; Brian Menaker, Stadium sales: a comparative analysis of alcohol policies at college
football games, 2007; Cheryl A. Presley, Philip W. Meilman, and Jami S. Leichliter.
“College Factors That Influence Drinking” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 14 (2002): 82-90.
211
1998, these issues would sporadically fade away from the public
consciousness, only to explode back onto the scene. In Policing the Crisis:
Mugging, the State, and Law and Order, the authors quote Stan Cohen,
“Societies appear to be subject, every now and then, to periods of moral
panic. A condition, episode, person, or group of persons emerges to
become defined as a threat to societal values and interests; its nature is
presented in a stylized and stereo-typical fashion by the mass media.”3
Each crisis that occurs typically does two things: first, it highlights the
incident; second, it elicits a response to the incident. This informs the
public about the dangers of a certain activity involving alcohol. As
sociologist Joseph Gusfield states, “It is that social response to the
American customs of drinking which has made the perception of college
student drinking so flamboyantly distressing to the American public.”4
With the Wayne Parsons case, the Collegiate Times took the liberty
of explaining the different levels of blood alcohol concentration.5 The
Roanoke Times in contrast questioned, “Can colleges do more?” They
explained prevention techniques and informed readers how alcohol
poisoning occurs.6 The Roanoke Times & World News also brought up
the point to instruct its readers that alcohol poisoning happens regularly;
fatal alcohol poisoning, however, is rare.7 The articles written after Wayne
Parsons death exhibit the moral panic that arose from the incident. By
examining the alcohol at Virginia Tech—crisis and continuity—it is obvious
the problems never change; they just take new forms over the years as
society adjusts to various crises that arise.
The Beginnings
Between 1968 and 1998, the drinking age has fluctuated. In 1968,
to drink beer, citizens had to be eighteen years old, but the only beer that
an eighteen-year-old could consume was a 3.2 beer, which contained 3.2
percent alcohol by weight. To consume liquor, however, the law stated
that an individual must be twenty-one years of age.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute students in the winter of 1969 reached
3
Stan Cohen. Folk Devils and Moral Panics: the Creation of the Mods and Rockers. In
Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State, and Law and Order(London: The MacMillan Press
Ltd, 1978).
4
Joseph R. Gusfield, Contested Meanings: The Construction of Alcohol Problems
(Madison WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1996).
5
Spates, “Student dies after weekend party.”
6
Madelyn Rosenberg, “'No one was really drunk,' but a bright young man died,” Roanoke
Times & World-News, 6 October 1991, Morning edition, sec. A, p. 1,2.
7
Hatter, Melanie, “Although death was a shock, doctors say cause is common,” Roanoke
Times & World-News, October 6, 1991, Morning edition, sec. A, p. 2.
212
a pivotal crossroads. Until 1969, alcohol was not allowed on campus.
The Student Government Association passed a resolution that year that
read: “Be it resolved that we, the members of the SGA Senate as
representatives of the VPI student body, favor the possession and
consumption of alcoholic beverages on the Virginia Polytechnic Institute
campus by all persons within the limitations of Virginia state law.”8 This
was just the beginning for the liquor bill, as it had to be approved by
various offices including several deans, University President Marshall
Hahn, as well as the University Council, and the Board of Visitors.9
The bill on alcohol was not without its detractors. Dean Hill
represented two factions: the Student Activities Committee and the
Student Personal Division. As a member of the Student Personal Division,
he was forced to recommend prohibiting “actions which bring discredit
upon Virginia Polytechnic Institute.” In his recommendation, he suggested
that prohibiting alcohol on campus was a good idea, proposing an
amendment stating, “the possession of and/or consumption of alcoholic
beverages is strictly prohibited on campus. The student is responsible for
his actions while under the influence of alcohol.” The committee voted
down Dean Hillʼs proposed amendment by a margin of nine to three.
Despite his opinion, Hill, as a member of the Student Activities Committee,
would be obligated to follow the direction that the committee voted on the
matter.10
Since the alcohol bill still needed to pass through the University
Council and the Board of Visitors, Ray Smoot, the President of the Student
Government Association, organized petitions from the student body. The
petitions, signed by 3,200 students, were sent to the members of the
University Council.11 On May 7, 1969, the University Council
recommended that the Board of Visitors pass the Student Life Policies
pertaining to alcohol on campus without any changes.12
Every major hurdle had been cleared except for one: the Board of
Visitors had to pass the Student Life Policies without changing the alcohol
provision. In May of 1969, the Board of Visitors did just that. In a move
that made Tech the “most liberal school in Virginia” according to The
8
Tom Smith, “SGA freshmen orientation?; liquor bill sent to Hahn,” The Virginia Tech,
February 20, 1969, sec. A, 1.
9
Smith, “SGA freshman orientation?; liquor bill sent to Hahn.”
10
John Chaney, “SAC discusses alcohol, Student Life Policies,” The Virginia Tech, April
16, 1969, sec. A, 1,5.
11
Pam Wimmer, “Norris calls Life Policies' new victories 'meaningful',” The Virginia Tech,
May 28, 1969, sec. A, 1,3.
12
Lynn Bottge, “SGA to petition campus for feelings on alcohol,” The Virginia Tech, 2
May 1969, sec. A, 1.
213
Virginia Tech, the authorities moved to allow alcohol on campus.13 The
provision stated that 3.2 beer could be served in Squires Student Center.
Not only did the students obtain the ability to drink on campus, but they
were able to buy beer from the Student Center—though Squires was the
only place on campus where they were allowed to possess and consume
alcohol. Yet, in the students’ eyes, this was still a major victory.14
During the 1970s, the universityʼs alcohol policies grew more
liberal. Students in 1975 could consume beer or alcohol in their dorm
rooms. If the student wanted to throw a party of less than ten people,
approval was unnecessary. If someone wanted to throw a keg party, they
could request permission from the Vice President of Student Affairs.
Furthermore, the only time a student had to be concerned about losing
possession of the alcohol was if the party grew out of control, but it was up
to the resident advisor to make this decision.15 The good times, however,
did not last forever.
More Regulation
During the 1970s and the early part of the 1980s alcohol was
viewed as the lesser of two evils. Parents of teenagers would much rather
have their sons or daughters drinking than doing marijuana, opium, or
heroin. Drug abuse in the region peaked in the late 1970s.16 The situation
then moved from one crisis to another, drugs to alcohol. In 1976, college
students at a roundtable discussion in Gallery Magazine claimed that
alcohol had replaced marijuana as the main means on college campuses
to get high. Cocaine was too expensive; marijuana, although still popular,
was not as cheap as booze, which students could get relatively easily.17
In 1986, Virginia conformed with Ronald Reaganʼs push to make
the drinking age consistent across the United States at 21. The Reagan
administration did this by threatening to withhold interstate funds from the
states if they failed to comply.18 Beginning with the fall semester of 1986,
underage students, born after July 2, 1966, could no longer purchase
13
Pam Wimmer, “Board of Visitors makes Tech most liberal school in Virginia,” The
Virginia Tech, May 28, 1969, sec. A, 1.
14
Wimmer, “Board of Visitors makes Tech most liberal school in Virginia.”
15
“Alcoholic Beverages in University Residence Halls,” Collegiate Times, November 21,
1975, sec A, 4.
16
Chip Jones, “Students start earlier, drink more,” Roanoke Times & World-News,
February 8, 1986, sec. A,1,4.
17
“Alcohol Replaces Marijuana,” Collegiate Times, December 7,1976, sec. A, 6.
18
Alexander C. Wagenaar and Traci L. Toomey. “Effects of Minimum Drinking Age Laws:
Review and Analyses of the Literature from 1960 to 2000” Journal of Studies on Alcohol
14 (2002): 206-225.
214
alcohol.19 If an individual was 20 years of age before the law went into
effect, the law grandfathered them in under the old alcohol rules. Hokies
returning to school had a dilemma; some of them had lost their right to buy
alcohol.
Law enforcement officers made sure that the citizens followed the
new laws that fall semester. Undercover officers, with the help of a few
underage citizens, staged a sting operation in the town of Blacksburg.
The operations achieved success from a police perspective, as they
caught several stores for not checking identification. The police knew they
had achieved their goal when police chief, Donald Carey, who was forty
years old, went to buy alcohol off duty. He was asked for his identification,
even though he was not in uniform.20
Changing attitudes characterized the 1980s. A 1989 survey found
“that more than 67% of college presidents rated alcohol misuse to be a
‘moderate’ or ‘major’ problem on their campuses.”21 Although the drinking
age rose to twenty-one, and college students had less legal access to
alcohol, clearly things were changing for a reason. In the 1980s, the
reason things changed was drunk driving. Blacksburg Police Chief,
Donald Carey, said that 85% of automobile fatalities in the town of
Blacksburg were from a drunk driver; furthermore, most of those drivers
were under the age of twenty-two.22 The popular argument, for proponents
of raising the drinking age, was that if people under the age of twenty-one
could not act appropriately with alcohol, then they should not acquire
alcohol in the first place.
It did not help the student cause that the national studies at the time
showed an inverse relationship between the drinking age to the amount of
highway traffic accidents. Raising the minimum drinking age to twentyone reduced the number of traffic accidents. Mirroring that, when the
drinking age was below twenty-one, states had more of a problem with
accidents occurring on their highways involving younger drivers, especially
involving alcohol.
With this information in mind, the Reagan administration took
action. In 1984, the administration enacted the Uniform Drinking Age Act.
It threatened to withhold federal highway money from the states unless
they complied with the act. Within four years, the Uniform Drinking Age
19
Jerald Hyche, “Police 'sting' has Blacksburg merchants edgy,” Roanoke Times &
World-News, September 21, 1988, sec. NRV, 1,2.
20
Chuck Burress, “Underage drinkers may find Blacksburg running dry for them,”
Roanoke Times & World-News, September 21, 1986, sec. NRV, 2.
21
Presley, Meilman and Leichliter. “College Factors That Influence Drinking,” 82-90.
22
“Alcoholic Beverages in University Residence Halls,” Collegiate Times, November 21,
1975, sec A, 4.
22
Wagenaar and Toomey, “Effects of Minimum Drinking Age Laws: Review and Analyses
of the Literature from 1960 to 2000,” 206-225.
215
Act was passed in every state.23 The government signaled safety as the
number one priority of the Act.
Locally, the reaction to the number of fatalities in Blacksburg from
drunk driving resulted in efforts to end drinking and driving. In 1986, the
Blacksburg Police Department received a federal selective enforcement
grant. This grant enabled the Blacksburg Police Department to set up
sobriety checkpoints throughout the town. The police used computer
analysis to determine where to set up roadblocks by figuring out accident
probability data using high accident rates.24 The roadblocks led to arrests
for driving under the influence. These checkpoints had a positive effect on
public safety; the townspeople and the students used designated drivers
more often.25 The long range effects of this can still be seen in the
present day. Local law enforcement still routinely sets up checkpoints in
Blacksburg and on campus. Designated drivers even have special
parking spots and are served free sodas in the bars and restaurants.
Greeks
Perhaps no group, during the 1970s and 1980s, dealt with more
regulations than the Greek organizations for Virginia Tech. Fraternities
and sororities were able to throw bigger parties because they owned their
own houses. They purchased banquet licenses from the ABC Board to
serve beer and charged for admission. These events were major money
making affairs for the fraternities and sororities because the licenses were
relatively inexpensive. The costs could be made up very easily by
charging admission and selling the alcohol to the large amount of students
who would show up to party.
The town of Blacksburg had issues with this, especially when the
numbers of students showing up to these parties began preventing traffic
from traveling through Roanoke Street. In 1978, a group of four
fraternities had a massive block party. Each fraternity, located on
Roanoke Street, received a banquet license. Hundreds of people showed
up to the block party. This resulted in a public relations nightmare. The
fraternities had requested that the police close the street for them;
however, the police refused. Despite the setback, the fraternities allowed
their guests to shut the streets down on their own, with their sheer
numbers blocking the path of any motorists trying to pass.
After the parties, the fraternities had to answer for their actions.
The head of the Interfraternity Council (IFC) attempted to break up the
party. He did not have any success until the police threatened to arrest
24
“Sobering up Blacksburg,” Collegiate Times, April 18, 1986, sec. A, 9.
25
“Sobering up Blacksburg,” Collegiate Times.
216
the crowds of people. It was then that the party dispersed. Police chief,
R.G. Broyles, vowed that the fraternities would no longer be able to obtain
banquet licenses at the same time. The residents of the town held a
public meeting to voice their displeasure with the activities of the
fraternities.26
Three years later, in 1981, pressure from Blacksburg merchants
forced a change in policy by the Alcohol Beverage Control board. The
fraternities were in the habit of having parties on a weekly basis. The local
restaurants downtown could not compete with the fraternities selling
alcohol. Business owners in downtown Blacksburg dealt with the Greek
society selling draught beer for twenty-five cents a glass. The merchants
did not want to stop the fraternity parties; they only wanted fair regulations.
“It is a shame that they don’t have to follow the same regulations that I
do,” remarked Allen Riffle the owner of Top of the Stairs.27
The economic gain of some fraternities took profits from local
business owners, and the business owners could not cope with that.
Other fraternities only charged enough money to break even. Students
worried that the new policies would affect rush functions and their success
in recruiting.28 Little did they realize that in a few years, the drinking age
would be raised, and the Greek community at Virginia Tech would no
longer be able to use alcohol at their rush functions at all.
With the focus of the media on the drinking laws changing in the
mid-1980s, the attention shifted away from the Greek organizations for a
time. However, fourteen years later, the public eye focused back on the
fraternities, as ABC agents broke up an outdoor fraternity music festival.
The law enforcement officers, over time, had grown much wiser. By 1995,
ABC officials hesitated to give fraternities banquet licenses. ABC officials
denied licenses because of the potential for noise violations, underage
drinking, and disorderly conduct. And when the festival disbanded, the
fraternity eluded being held accountable for the arrests made.29
The fraternity tried to avoid getting into trouble. In this case, Beta
Theta Pi held a closed party. The fraternity brothers set up a station
outside of the party to check identification and distribute wristbands to
people of age to drink. Beta Theta Pi arranged designated drivers to
chauffeur people coming to the party. Aaron Kilinski, who was the
president of the fraternity, summed up the student attitude at the time
towards the ABC agents: “The reason we were denied the license is
26
Wendy Snapp, “Town Complains of Fraternity Misbehavior,” Collegiate Times, October
3, 1978, sec. A, 1.
27
Mike S. Hanger, “ABC board, merchants pressure fraternities to decrease weekly
parties,” Collegiate Times, October 13, 1981, sec A, 1,24.
28
Hanger, “ABC board, merchants pressure fraternities to decrease weekly parties.”
29
Terry Padalino, “20 arrests made at festival,” Collegiate Times, April 28, 1995, sec. A,
1.
217
because they didn’t trust us.”30 This statement was partially true.
Montgomery County ABC never received assurance that no underage
drinking would take place. That prevented them from granting a license to
the fraternity.
Sports
Alcohol had long been a problem during the football season. In
1996, the Virginia Tech administration decided to regulate drinking at
tailgates. The university decided to prevent students from tailgating in two
lots near the stadium due to complaints from visitors claiming “outrageous
student behavior during football games.”31 The administration decided that
tailgating would only be allowed at the two locations if the students and
non-donators stayed sober. The Virginia Tech administration also pledged
to have an enhanced police presence for games that season to enforce
the policies in the books.
The police agreed with the enhanced policies desired by the
Virginia Tech administration. The best way for students to avoid arrest at
the tailgating festivities before the games in the fall of 1996 was to stay
away from alcohol altogether. Since in Virginia it was illegal to drink in
public, any drinking at a tailgate would be illegal. Police also began
enforcing the laws against underage drinking, drunk in public, and
disorderly conduct.32 Police pledged to increase their presence in and
around Lane Stadium by 250 percent to clamp down on student drinking.33
This policy by the police department and the university was not taken
lightly by the students, as both students and some faculty expressed
outrage with the decision.34
Adrian Moris, a Virginia Tech alumnus, remarked in a letter to the
editor of the Collegiate Times, that Virginia Tech allowed tailgating, just
not the consumption of alcohol. “Tailgating without beer is like taking a
bath without water.” 35 Mr. Moris saw this as just a ploy by the university to
raise money, which from a different perspective, it was. Just like the
Blacksburg merchants with the fraternities, Virginia Tech wanted to make
more money off of the tailgating taking place on game day. Hokie Club
30
Padalino, “20 arrests made at festival.”
Christie Walker, “Tech stops tailgating in two lots,” Collegiate Times, September 10
1996, sec. A, 1.
32
Sarah Santer, “Police clarify tailgating protocol,” Collegiate Times, September 20,
1996, sec. A, 1.
33
Jay Hulings and John Auhgenbaugh, “Attention All Tailgaters,” Collegiate Times,
September 10, 1996, sec. A, 9.
34
Adrian Moris, “Tailgating policy a disappointment,” Collegiate Times, 1September 17,
1996, sec. A, 8.
35
Moris, “Tailgating policy a disappointment.”
31
218
members could tailgate in those lots and consume alcohol, because they
donated money to the athletic department. The students on the other
hand, donated nothing to the athletic department and used valuable real
estate for their tailgates.
Nikki Giovanni, an English Professor at Virginia Tech, offered a
valuable editorial on the tailgating matter. She wrote that the
administration was sending the wrong message to the students, that
money and prestige allow you to have privileges. Tailgating should not
only be for the rich people that can afford to donate money to the athletic
department. Nikki Giovanni further argued, “If college doesn’t give young
people the privilege to make mistakes and occasionally to do something in
excess, then how can they learn civilized behavior?”36
Taken out of context, that statement was very controversial.
Drinking in excess and binge drinking was the exact opposite of the
message that university tried to send during the fall of 1996. Two years
earlier, in 1994, Abby Legg, a student writer for the Collegiate Times,
reported that during home game weekends keg sales “skyrocket.” On
game days, a local store, Deli Mart, would sell between sixty and seventy
kegs on a single Saturday. Adding to this, one of the students she
interviewed mentioned how much he enjoyed waking up in the morning
and drinking with his friends before the start of the football game.37 The
notion of starting early would enhance the odds of over-consumption.
The results of this policy were almost a non-issue and discussion
about the tailgating policy faded away rather quickly from the public
consciousness. Following the opening game of the 1996 football season,
only nineteen people were arrested for alcohol offenses in and around the
stadium, forty percent fewer than the number arrested on game day the
previous season. The SGA President, Jay Hulings, said that the
increased publicity given to the issue by the student organizations factored
in with the attention the Collegiate Times paid to the story encouraged
students to use extreme caution when using alcohol for that game.
Hulings also suggests that the university did not enforce the policy as
strictly as they had threatened to.38 Because officials only lightly enforced
the alcohol policy, by the time the next game came along, the crisis had
been averted. The university, in threatening action, achieved the desired
results without coming down severely on the students.
Lane Stadium did not serve alcohol in the stadium. This meant that
anybody seen consuming alcohol on the premises could be arrested. The
36
Nikki Giovanni, “Let the students tailgate!” Collegiate Times, September 20, 1996, sec.
A, 6.
37
Abby Legg, “Before there was Football, there was the Tailgate,” Collegiate Times,
October 21, 1994, sec. B, 1,4.
38
Robin Laatz, “Tailgating policy enforcers arrest few at football game,” Collegiate Times,
September 24, 1996, sec. A, 1,8.
219
only people allowed to drink inside the stadium were the donors who had
suites inside the stadium. Even for those donors, alcohol consumption
came with conditions. The donors stocked their suites the day before the
game with whatever they wanted. If they forgot to stock their suite until
the day of the game, they were not allowed to bring any alcohol into the
stadium. Most students did not have the money to afford suites. This
relegated the students to drinking outside of the stadium before entering.
Menaker’s findings clearly indicate that stadiums that serve beer deal with
fewer alcohol related crimes than stadiums that refuse to serve alcohol.39
Assuming Menaker’s findings apply in Blacksburg, this means that
spectators, including students, would drink more heavily prior to the game
starting; therefore, they would be more apt to engage in disorderly conduct
in the stands at the football game. Furthermore, students were more likely
to binge drink before the football games because Lane Stadium did not
serve alcohol. Virginia Tech students adjusted by consuming alcohol
discretely from airplane bottles or drank enough ahead of time before
entering the stadium.
Binge Drinking
Binge drinking means consuming large quantities of alcohol in a
short period of time. A high percentage of college students nationally
have engaged in binge drinking.40 “Researchers report that approximately
44% of full-time students at 4-year institutions engage in ʻbingeʼ or heavy
episodic drinking patterns.”41 In 1996, a survey done by Harvard
researchers was released, and the results were reported to Virginia Tech
students by the Collegiate Times. This report announced that fifty-four
percent of the Hokies surveyed drank alcohol at least once a week.
Adding to this statistic, fifty-one percent of Virginia Tech students surveyed
engaged in binge drinking at least once in the average two week period.
The Roanoke Times argued that one of the causes for the rise in binge
drinking was simple economics. The price of alcohol became cheaper
over the years from the 1950s onward when the price was adjusted for
inflation. Due to the cheaper alcohol, people could afford to purchase
more of it.42
“Tech students have a high likelihood of forgetting where they
were or what they did (while drinking),” the Dean of Students in 1996,
Cathryn Goree, said. “That’s a strong indication of a real problem with
39
Menaker, Stadium sales: a comparative analysis of alcohol policies at college football
games.
40
Alagna, Everything You Need to Know About the Dangers of Binge Drinking.
41
Presley, Meilman, and Leichliter, “College Factors That Influence Drinking.”
42
Tonia Moxley, “Virginia Tech: Paying the Price for Drinking,” The Roanoke Times,
November 15, 2009, Under 21: Drinking on Virginia College Campuses, 1-3.
220
alcohol.”43 In comparison with other universities, Tech students were
twice as likely, to get injured or potentially hurt from alcohol consumption.
When students drank more, it increased the likelihood that their
classmates at some point would have to look after them. Sixty-four
percent of Hokies surveyed by the Harvard researchers said that had
babysat someone who was sick.44 These numbers indicated a problem
with alcohol at Virginia Tech. A moral panic emerged from the media
attention being paid to the issue, which led to a call for action.
Dean Cathryn Goree made it clear that the administration was
making efforts to curb dangerous student drinking activities. During the
1995-1996 school year, the Virginia Tech administration implemented new
sanctions. These sanctions for drinking on campus used the potential
penalty of suspending Virginia Tech students from attending athletic
events as a deterrent. This especially held true if the student happened to
be caught drinking in the stands of a football game. Goree tried to bring
down the level of dangerous student drinking.45 This crisis emerged with
the release of the survey in the spring of 1996. The response, a new
tailgating policy, went into effect in September of 1996. Virginia Tech was
forced to improve its public image in regards to drinking because the
Harvard study had blemished the school’s brand name.
Virginia Techʼs brand name suffered as well with the Wayne
Parsons case. The students at the party with Wayne did not notice
anything unusual about his drinking behavior until he passed out. A
witness at the party said he consumed about a liter of tequila.46 Most
normal college parties started around 10:00 P.M. on Friday nights. The
911 call for the ambulance to rescue Wayne Parsons was made at 11:30
P.M.47 Wayne consumed a liters worth of tequila within the time span of
ninety minutes.
Binge drinking led to another death at Virginia Tech that took place
in 1997. Melinda Somers, a writer for the Collegiate Times, went out to a
Halloween party, like most college students. At the party, she became
highly intoxicated. Her blood alcohol content was .21, about three times
the Virginia legal limit at the time.48 Melinda Somers should not have even
been drinking at the time as she was only eighteen at the time of the party,
though her nineteenth birthday was the following day, November 1.
Melinda’s binge did not actually cause her death, though; it merely led to
43
Tara Tuckwiller, “Drinking at Tech often leads to bad results, study shows,” Collegiate
Times, April 16, 1996, sec. A, 1,3.
44
Tara Tuckwiller, “Drinking at Tech often leads to bad results, study shows.”
45
Tara Tuckwiller, “Drinking at Tech often leads to bad results, study shows.”
46
Rosenberg, “'No one was really drunk,' but a bright young man died.”
47
Spates, “Student dies after weekend party.”
48
Staff. “Medical examiner releases BAC: Police say alcohol concentration almost three
times legal limit in Va.” Collegiate Times, November 14, 1997, sec. A, 1.
221
it. Ms. Somers arrived back to her Slusher dorm room around 3:00 A.M.
that night. She climbed into her lofted twin bed. In her drunken state, she
rolled over and through her window. She fell to her death from the eighth
floor of Slusher tower.49
Officials determined Melinda Somers death to be accidental;
however, reform was inevitable. A committee formed to look at the safety
aspects of the dorms. They recommended that the windows should be
changed so that a person could no longer fit through one if it were open.
At about the same time, fraternities made changes in regards to binge
drinking as well. The national image of fraternities had taken a hit over
time. “On some campuses, the best men are no longer pledging
fraternities – they are too motivated and want more than a drinking club.”50
With this attitude in mind, the National Interfraternity Council passed a
resolution encouraging all the members to make their houses alcohol free.
Several Virginia Tech fraternities: Phi Kappa Sigma, Sigma Nu, Phi Delta
Theta, and Phi Gamma Delta, pledged to be alcohol free by the year
2000.51 This conveniently allowed for the current members of the fraternity
to be out of college if they graduated on time. The fraternity brothers on
campus wanted these reforms to take place, yet they personally did not
want to be held accountable for them. The fraternities, just like the
university, responded to a crisis. The fraternity underwent a public
relations problem for being drinking clubs.
Virginia Tech, from 1968-1998, responded to each alcohol crisis
that emerged. Moral panics, like the one caused by the death of Wayne
Parsons, forced local media to advocate for change at Virginia Tech.
Policies changed over the course of the decades as a result of these
periodic panics. From allowing alcohol to be served on campus at the
student center, to dealing with the drinking age raised by the government,
to combating the binge drinking epidemic, the approach to alcohol
definitely fluctuated through the years. The consistent factor through all
these years was alcohol. As the issues changed, Virginia Tech changed
with the times to accommodate the new challenges and respond to each
crisis.
49
Robin Laatz and Sarah Santer, “Weekend claims lives of two Virginia Tech students:
Officials call sophomore's death 'a freak accident',” Collegiate Times, November 4, 1997,
sec. A, 1,2.
50
Robin Laatz, “Fraternities adopt alcohol-free policy,” Collegiate Times, January 30,
1998, sec. A, 1,3.
51
Laatz, “Fraternities adopt alcohol-free policy.”
222
Bibliography
Alagna, Magdalena, Everything You Need to Know About the Dangers of
Binge Drinking, 1st edition, New York: Rosen Publishing Group,
2001.
“Alcoholic Beverages in University Residence Halls,” Collegiate Times,
November 21, 1975, sec A, 4.
“Alcohol Replaces Marijuana,” Collegiate Times, December 7, 1976, sec.
A, 6.
Anon, Under The Influence: The Binge Drinking Epidemic On College
Campuses. U.S. Government, May 15, 2002.
A Social Norms Approach to Preventing Binge Drinking at Colleges and
Universities. Washington, D.C.: Higher Education Center for
Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention.,Lloyd, John. 2005.
Bottge, Lynn, “SGA to petition campus for feelings on alcohol,” The
Virginia Tech, May 2, 1969, sec. A, 1.
Burress, Chuck, “Underage drinkers may find Blacksburg running dry for
them,” Roanoke Times & World-News, September 21, 1986, sec.
NRV, 2.
Chaney, John, “SAC discusses alcohol, Student Life Policies,” The
Virginia Tech, April 16, 1969, sec. A, 1,5.
Cohen, Stan. Folk Devils and Moral Panics: the Creation of the Mods and
Rockers. In Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State, and Law and
Order, edited by Jock Young and Paul Walton. London: The
MacMillan Press Ltd, 1978.
DeJong, William, and Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug
Prevention (U.S.). 1996.
Giovanni, Nikki, “Let the students tailgate!” Collegiate Times, September
20, 1996, sec. A, 6.
Gusfield, Joseph R., Contested Meanings: The Construction of Alcohol
Problems. Madison WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1996.
Hanger, Mike S., “ABC board, merchants pressure fraternities to decrease
weekly parties,” Collegiate Times, October 13, 1981, sec A, 1,24.
223
Hatter, Melanie, “Although death was a shock, doctors say cause is
common,” Roanoke Times & World-News, October 6, 1991,
Morning edition, sec. A, 2.
Hulings, Jay, and John Auhgenbaugh, “Attention All Tailgaters,” Collegiate
Times, September 10, 1996, sec. A, 9.
Hyche, Jerald, “Police 'sting' has Blacksburg merchants edgy,” Roanoke
Times & World-News, September 21, 1988, sec. NRV, 1,2.
Jones, Chip, “Students start earlier, drink more,” Roanoke Times & WorldNews, February 8, 1986, sec. A, 1,4.
Laatz, Robin, “Tailgating policy enforcers arrest few at football game,”
Collegiate Times, September 24, 1996, sec. A, 1,8.
Laatz, Robin, “Fraternities adopt alcohol-free policy,” Collegiate Times,
January 30, 1998, sec. A, 1,3.
Laatz, Robin, and Sarah Santer, “Weekend claims lives of two Virginia
Tech students: Officials call sophomore's death 'a freak accident',”
Collegiate Times, November 4, 1997, sec. A, 1,2.
Legg, Abby, “Before there was Football, there was the Tailgate,”
Collegiate Times, October 21, 1994, sec. B, 1,4.
Looking at Binge Drinking at Four-Year Colleges: Software User's Guide,
Washington, DC: The Center, Haines, Michael P, Higher Education
Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention (U.S.), and United
States, 1997.
Menaker, Brian, Managing alcohol at college football games in the MidAmerican Conference. 2007.
Menaker, Brian, Stadium sales: a comparative analysis of alcohol policies
at college football games, 2007.
Moris, Adrian, “Tailgating policy a disappointment,” Collegiate Times,
Moxley, Tonia, “Virginia Tech: Paying the Price for Drinking,” The
Roanoke Times, November 15, 2009, Under 21: Drinking on
Virginia College Campuses, 1-3.
224
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (U.S.), What Peer
Educators and Resident Advisors (RAs) Need To Know About
College Drinking. NIH publication 02-5017. National Institute of
Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, U.S.
Dept. of Health and Human Services, 2002.
Padalino, Terry, “20 arrests made at festival,” Collegiate Times, April 28,
1995, sec. A, 1.
Presley, Cheryl A., Philip W. Meilman, and Jami S. Leichliter. “College
Factors That Influence Drinking.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 14,
(2002): 82-90.
Presley, Cheryl A., Philip W. Meilman, and Jami S. Leichliter. Stadium
sales: a comparative analysis of alcohol policies at college football
games., 2002.
Rosenberg, Madelyn, “'No one was really drunk,' but a bright young man
died,” Roanoke Times & World-News, October 6, 1991, Morning
edition, sec. A, 1,2.
Santer, Sarah, “Police clarify tailgating protocol,” Collegiate Times,
September 20, 1996, sec. A, p. 1.
Smith, Tom, “SGA freshmen orientation?; liquor bill sent to Hahn,” The
Virginia Tech, February 20, 1969, sec. A, 1.
Snapp, Wendy, “Town Complains of Fraternity Misbehavior,” Collegiate
Times, October 3, 1978, sec. A, 1.
“Sobering up Blacksburg,” Collegiate Times, April 18, 1986, sec. A, 9.
Spates, David, “Student dies after weekend party,” Collegiate Times,
October 1, 1991, sec. A, 1,3.
Staff. “Medical examiner releases BAC: Police say alcohol concentration
almost three times legal limit in Va.” Collegiate Times, 14
November 1997, sec. A, p. 1.
Tuckwiller, Tara, “Drinking at Tech often leads to bad results, study
shows,” Collegiate Times, April 16, 1996, sec. A, 1,3.
225
Wagenaar, Alexander C., and Traci L. Toomey. Effects of Minimum
Drinking Age Laws: Review and Analyses of the Literature from
1960 to 2000. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 14 (2002): 206-225.
Walker, Christie, “Tech stops tailgating in two lots,” Collegiate Times,
Wimmer, Pam, “Board of Visitors makes Tech most liberal school in
Virginia,” The Virginia Tech, May 28, 1969, sec. A, 1.
Wimmer, Pam, “Norris calls Life Policies' new victories 'meaningful',” The
Virginia Tech, May 28, 1969, sec. A, 1,3.
Chapter 15
Niggaz With Attitude:
Los Angeles during the Crack Epidemic
Matthew Kroetch
I still express, yo, I donʼt smoke weed or a sess.
Cause its known to give a brother brain damage.
And brain damage on the mic donʼt manage
Nuthin
But makin a sucker and you equal.
Donʼt be another sequel...
Express yourself.
Express yourself.
Come on and do it... 1
Language, as symbolic interaction, is viewed as both behavior itself
and a creator of a particular view of reality.2 These lyrics by Niggaz With
Attitude (N.W.A), and other similar lyrics from the gangsta rap genre, have
been blamed for rising drug use among young black males, misogynistic
attitudes and deeds, and (by the former president of the National
Association of the Chiefs of police) the killing of police officers. The
question examined in this paper, then, is whether gangsta rap as written
and performed by N.W.A provided the fuel for and gave rise to such
violence as the Los Angeles riots, poorer relations with the police and
increased drug usage and crime, or whether the pre-existing African
American sentiment that forewarned the coming riots gave rise to the
popularity of gangsta rap. I argue the latter and will try to show that the
preexisting racial tensions were the product of crack, and the
hopelessness of the existing situation, which created and gave rise to
gangster rap (specifically N.W.A).
The N.W.Aʼs lyrics evoke strong reactions in discussion. From
controversial politics to abuse of intoxicants and women, the group and its
lyrics have been regarded both as “shockingly obscene” and as nothing
less than “cheap, shock-value sensationalism,” and the group members
themselves have been described as “despicable, misogynistic swine.”3
One such controversial song by N.W.A is “F--- Tha Police,” a song so
1
N.W.A, “Express Yourself,” on Straight Outta Compton, EMI Records, 1988.
Cliffton Bryant, Sexual Deviancy and Social Proscription (New York: Human Sciences,
1982); Laurel Richardson, "Postmodern Social Theory: Representational Practices"
Sociological Theory 9 (1991): 173-79.
3
Steven Myers, "When the Law and Music Clash, Uproar Follows," New York Times, 10
January 1, 1991; David Browne, "For Adults Only: Love and Sorrow . . . Lust and Hate,"
New York Times, June 23, 1991. PHN.
2
227
charged that it caused an investigation and a letter from the F.B.I.4 The
song is a mock trial of N.W.A against the police that expresses a great
deal of anger and, beyond this, can easily be interpreted as advocating
violence against the police: “F--- tha police and Ren said it with authority
because the niggaz on the street is a majority.” These anger filled lyrics
were written prior to the Los Angeles Riots and clearly reflect the
frustration of the African American community, with N.W.A plainly agitating
against police authority: “I'm sayin f--- you punk Readin my rights and shit,
it's all junk.” N.W.A even advocates violence through force, saying, “ But
take off the gun so you can see what's up and we'll go at it punk, I'ma f--you up...”5
This anger existed because of police abuse, which seemed to be
fueled by a new racially divisive issue, crack cocaine. This new story,
crack, became a political hot button, and news media outlets ran with it to
such an extent that soon after its emergence in the 1980s it seemed to
eclipse all other issues. Newsweek called crack the most significant story
since Vietnam and Watergate; and Time labeled it the issue of the year in
1986. From the period of October 1988 through October 1989, The
Washington Post alone ran 1,565 crack stories.6
The crack epidemic of the 1980s, coincided with a sharp increase in
crime (70 percent in New York City), which helped play up the epidemic
and gave rise to a renewed war on drugs, the effectiveness of which is still
unknown.7 Crack, a ready made form of free-base cocaine, became both
a moral pandemic and a political tool in which each political party strove to
appear to be taking a tougher stance on narcotics in general, and crack in
particular. This led to penalties for dealers that in some cases were worse
than those for rapists and murderers. One result of this turned out to be
the criminalization of young black men, a third of whom were in jail,
leaving “a large number of black men ineligible to vote because of felony
convictions.”8
N.W.A came on the scene in 1986 as the crack epidemic was in full
swing. Being based in Los Angeles, they experienced its effects first
hand. N.W.A saw many of their fellow African Americans being
imprisoned and considered a lot of what they saw to be persecution by the
police, a persecution based on race. They accused the police of racial
profiling, rapping, “F---in with me cuz I'm a teenager, with a little bit of gold
4
Geoff Boucher, “Rapper Ice Cube talks about the 20th anniversary of N.W.A's 'Straight
Outta Compton',” Los Angeles Times, August 16, 2008. PHN; N.W.A, “F--- Tha Police,”
on Straight Outta Compton, EMI Records, 1988.
5
N.W.A, “F--- Tha Police.”
6
Maia Szalavitz, “Cracked up, How did a drug whose addictive properties were once
compared to potato chips become the scourge of America?,” Salon News 1999,
http://www.salon.com/news/ feature/1999/05/11/crack_media/index.html.
7
Szalavitz.
8
Szalavitz.
228
and a pager, Searchin my car lookin for the product, Thinkin every nigga is
selling narcotics.” N.W.A goes on in “F--- Tha Police” to further accuse the
police of racial brutality, saying “I'm brown and not the other color, so
police think have the authority to kill a minority.”9
With all these conflicting elements it is worth deciphering not just
how N.W.Aʼs lyrics are influenced by race and crack, but how the crack
epidemic gave N.W.A a perfect environmental platform for their music. It
is also important to consider the antiestablishment rhetoric conveyed by
N.W.A, especially in the wake of Rodney King and the ensuing L.A. Riots.
This rhetoric seemed to aptly reflect the prevailing sentiment of injustice in
the African American community regarding racial prejudice, particularly
toward the legal system.
A Crack Epidemic
And yo the black police, the house niggaz. They gave you a
motherf---ing gun, so I guess you figure you made out, good to go.
But you didn't know, they would stick your black ass back in the
ghetto, yo to kill another nigga. Catch him with crack, in fact
Freebase - they put in the neighborhood in the first place! But the
brothers ain't stupid, remember that you got a gat, I got a gat, so
whassup with that.10
In 1986 an article written by Sidney Cohen of the UCLA
Neuropsychiatric Institute in Los Angeles argued that, “at times the
repackaging of a product can have marked effects on its sales, distribution
system and consumption patterns. When a drug like cocaine is involved,
improvements in availability, pricing and convenience of use can produce
major shifts in its acceptability.”11 Cohen compared what fast foods did for
cooking to what crack did to freebasing, a drug similar to crack but less
convenient and more dangerous. What makes crack so addictive is that it
can be inhaled every few minutes and causes an almost instant euphoria.
The intense euphoria does not last long, leading the user to continue to
chronically use in order to maintain a high. As one user described, “itʼs
like a Ruffle potato chip. You canʼt have just one.”12 Another described it
by saying that, “the intensity of it was enormous, and I couldnʼt believe the
rush. It was similar if not better than the rush we received from shooting it
9
N.W.A, “Sa Prize, Pt. 2,” on 100 Miles and Runninʼ, EMI Records, 1990.
11
International Cocaine Symposium and David Franklyn Allen, The cocaine crisis (New
York: Plenum Press, 1987), 27; Bruce A. Jacobs, Dealing crack: the social world of
streetcorner selling (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1999), 4.
12
Dan Waldorf, Craig Reinarman, and Sheigla Murphy, Cocaine changes: the
experience of using and quitting, Health, society, and policy (Philadelphia: Temple
University Press, 1991), 115.
10
229
but you didnʼt have to put holes in your arms. … The sensation starts in
your head and goes down through your body. … Itʼs very similar to an
orgasm, the intensity of it.”13 It was the ultimate high and, with the change
in packaging in the mid-1980s, which made it available in small quantities
that were cheap (as little as 10 dollars a package), crack quickly became
pandemic. Both its cost and its effectiveness made crack a logistical
nightmare to control, and its usage increased to such epidemic levels that
by 1988 it was the most widely sold and popular drug on the street. As
Cohen suggested, the crack customer base seemed at the time to be
endless.14 Summarizing his findings, Cohen suggests that, “It is difficult
not to be alarmed at the trends in cocaine use (the shift to crack)”.15
Crack cocaine is known for its addictive nature and, because of the
widespread use and political platform crack provided, it created a media
frenzy. When crack first received public scrutiny via the New York Times
in 1985, publicity surrounding this drug immediately skyrocketed, to the
point where crack was named issue of the year by Time magazine in
1986.16 Crack received countless exposure and thorough saturation
throughout the media, with one specific CBS news special, “48 Hours on
Crack Street,” receiving 15 million viewers, one of the most viewed
documentaries in television history.17 The publicity crack received made it
a red ticket issue for politicians, putting it at the forefront of public
attention. The issue of crack was significantly worse for those in the inner
cities who not only heard about, but experienced and lived the dramatic
and concomitant increase in crime. Ordinary neighborhoods became
“urban badlands” and homicides and assault cases rose dramatically.
Wendell Foster, a pastor in New York, suggested that, ''As devastating as
drugs may be in the white community, they are 10 times worse in the black
community.” He also asserted that ''For blacks, as a community, drugs
like crack and heroin are the worst problem we've seen since slavery.''18
Given the disdain and panic induced by the arrival of crack, it is both
interesting and mystifying that N.W.A would be as reviled by those in
authority as they were, especially since N.W.A. explicity advocated
abstinence regarding use of narcotics. For instance, in their song “Dope
Man” they discuss their experiences with drugs and with the drug users
around them. The song develops through use of a narrative of a dope
dealer and discusses his motivation and the degradation the drug brings to
the community. At one particularly potent point in the song, N.W.A argues
13
Waldorf, Reinarman, and Murphy, 115.
International Cocaine Symposium and Allen, 28; Jacobs, 4.
15
International Cocaine Symposium andAllen, 30
16
Szalavitz.
17
Szalavitz; Jacobs, 3.
18
Gary Gately, “On City Street Corners, Night of Antidrug Vigil,” New York Times, July
22, 1986. PHN.
14
230
that smoking crack is an dumb choice and speaks to crackʼs addictive
nature, stating that if you:
smoke ʻcaine, you're a stupid motherf---er; known around the hood
as the schoolyard clucka. Doing' that crack with all the money ya
got; on ya hands & knees, searching for a piece of rock. Jonzing for
a hit, now ya lookin' for more. … Canʼt get a 10-piece, need a dollar
fifty's worth. Knucklehead nigga, you turned into a crook; but swear
up and down, boy, that you ain't hooked…. You robbing' and
stealing', bugging and illin'; While the dopeman's dealing. What is
killing' your pain? Cocaine? This shit's insane.19
N.W.A makes clear in this song and in others their stance on narcotics,
particularly crack, trying to enforce, through their lyrics, a negative
stereotype.
N.W.A hits on one of the main problems associated with crack, the
degradation occurring in the inner cities due to the increase in crime and
its social consequences. This conceptual connection between inner
blackness fueled the stereotype that African Americans were drug users
and dealers. This caused a strong polarization of attitudes towards law
enforcement, in which community members felt victimized by the police
and felt that race now established guilt. These feelings erupted in the
protests and in the words of the black community itself. In one such rally,
in 1988, both white and black marched on downtown Brooklyn shouting
slogans demanding an end to racial violence and drugs.20 Crack had
compounded the racial divide and seemed to only reassert to African
Americans that their plight was unimportant and that they were looked on
as almost subhuman. In response, in the midst of the epidemic, N.W.A.
spoke on the effects of racism. They captured the attitude of the black
community by rapping in the song “Niggaz 4 Life” about the reason they
call themselves niggaz:
Why do I call myself a nigger, you ask me? Because police always
wanna harass me … Nigger please, I'm treated like a f---in disease
… nigger this, nigger that, the actual fact is that I'm black and bound
to attract the attention of another. I mean the other (Whites) … I call
myself a nigger 'cause my skin won't whiten. I call myself a nigger
'cause the shit that I'm writing … you're a nigger 'til you die. If
you're a poor nigger, then you're a poor nigger. If you're a rich
19
N.W.A, “Dope Man,” on N.W.A. and Posse, Macola Records, 1987.
Thomas Morgan, “500 March in Brooklyn Over Racism,” New York Times, January 22,
1988. PHN.
20
231
nigger, you're a rich nigger. But you never stop being a nigger, and
if you get to be educated, you's an education nigger.21
This attitude of being helpless and low in social standing is a central
theme that seems to be portrayed by N.W.A as they rail against the
system in their music. The lyrics must also be read in consideration of the
feelings of helplessness that crack fueled in the African American
community. This disenfranchised population needed a voice.
N.W.A: the Voice of Controversy
Rap at its best is a very high form of art that
calls upon the powers of imagination and
organization along with editing skills and a
broad fount of information from which to draw
the absolutely dope or phat metaphor or ironic
turn of phrase form. This is profitable work if
for nothing else the expansion of the mind22
N.W.A. started out of Compton, California, in 1986 during the height
of the crack epidemic. The bandʼs founding members were Easy-E, Dr.
Dre and Ice Cube, later adding Dj Yella, MC Ren, and the Arabian Prince
to the group.23 With the caliber of rappers N.W.A. had, as well as the
environment and climate of the inner city in 1986, N.W.A. became a
unique rap icon of the 1980s. They gave rise (and popularity) to a new
brand of music referred to as gangsta rap. In N.W.A.ʼs five years they
would complete four albums and obtain a large amount of notoriety for
both their record sales and their lyrics.
N.W.A. came into existence as crack use was at its height and drug
references in songs at a low. A recent study of rap music from the late
1970s to the present showed that as time has passed drug references
have increased significantly. From the mid-1980s to the early-1990s,
references jumped almost 50 percent. Two things are important to note in
regards to this statistic. First, most drug references to both cocaine and
crack were overwhelmingly negative. Second, as of the 1990s, the
support of marijuana use in rap songs was almost universal.24 Now,
today, you need only turn on the radio to find rampant promotion of drug
use in rap songs. N.W.A. went against the grain in this respect. They
consistently insisted that drugs, including weed, were stupid “causing brain
21
N.W.A, “Niggaz 4 life,” on Efil4zaggin, EMI Records, 1991.
Keith Boseman, “The Road From Here (III),” Hyde Park Citizen, February 20, 1992, 3.
PQ.
23
“Biography” NWA Legacy, http:www.nwalegacy.com.
24
Sarah Yang, “Glamorization Of Drugs In Rap Music Linked To Greater Risk Of Alcohol
And Drug Use Among Adolescents,” Medical News Today, April 02, 2008.
22
232
damageʼ” and “making a sucker and you equal.”25 With the “rap” rap
music currently has, it seems at odds that this anti-crack stance would be
the case with N.W.A., and with other rap music in general. Even with
statistical evidence making rapʼs positive expression seem obvious, many
critics of rap, particularly of gangsta rap, contend, as does a University of
Washington sociology instructor does, that “much of what is in rap music,
which would include N.W.A, represents a set of values that are not healthy
in the black community.”26
One of the main reasons given for rap and specifically N.W.A being
a negative influence is their degradation of women and their attitude
towards law enforcement. N.W.Aʼs misogyny can be seen in their lyrics:
“and she lets you videotape her, and if you got a gang of niggers the B---will let you rape her,” and while regards to law enforcement the song “F--Tha Police” can be seen as directly inciting violence towards cops.27 With
these lyrics as evidence, it is easy to see that, far from being unwarranted,
N.W.A. has actively earned these remonstrances. With regards to
degradation of women, not much can be said in N.W.A.ʼs defense other
than that they claim some of their songs regarding women are done in jest
and were not meant to be taken seriously.28 As to inciting violence
against cops, however, I would contend that N.W.A. was only vocalizing
community sentiment in 1988 in their song “F--- Tha Police,” which would
in time be reflected by the ensuing violence in the wake of Rodney King.
Many, like N.W.A., believed that law enforcement was not there to protect
them and that justice could not be found if you were black. With this point
in mind, what appeared to be at stake was both the vocalization of Black
oppression by law enforcement and the dangers and stupidity of crack.
N.W.A. saw their popularity peak during the height of the crack
epidemic and they did their best, in their position as a voice of the
community, to speak out on how people were tired, and how they would
fight back. In one such song “Dope Man” rap artist Eazy-E portrays a
Mexican angry with a drug dealer saying: “Yo, Mr. Dopeman, you think
your slick. Ya sold crack to my sister, and now she's sick. But if she
happens to die, because of your drug, Iʼm putting' in your culo, a .38
slug.”29 This song gave a voice to the confluence of race, drugs, and
violence that shaped Los Angeles at the end of the 1980s.
N.W.A. became a clear voice in the community after their second
album went double platinum, and especially after N.W.A.ʼs third album
“Efil4zaggin” found its way to number one on the Billboard charts (in
25
N.W.A, “Express Yourself,” on Straight Outta Compton, EMI Records, 1988.
“Critics Blast Library Ban on NWA Rap Recording,” Sentinel, May 21, 1992. PQ.
27
Jay Cocks, "N.W.A.: A Nasty Jolt for the Top Pops," Time Magazine, July 01, 1991.
28
Sarah Yang, “Glamorization Of Drugs In Rap Music Linked To Greater Risk Of Alcohol
And Drug Use Among Adolescents,” Medical News Today, April 02, 2008,
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/102553.php
29
N.W.A, “Dope Man.”
26
233
1989), selling one million copies of the album in its first two weeks. 30
What makes this even more impressive was the road N.W.A. had to go
down to get there. Their album received little airtime (because of content).
Additionally, their second album “Straight Outta Compton” had received so
much political heat that the F.B.I. sent the group a letter warning that the
agency didnʼt appreciate songs like “F—The Police.” N.W.A. was starting
to push establishment buttons and their publicity was scaring many into
response. Finally, what made this so impressive was that band member
Ice Cube had left the group over financial disputes, yet the group had
made it to the number one spot.31
From Race to Riots
Crack seemed to fuel racial tensions and further promote the
criminalization of black youths. Because of this sentiment, African
Americans saw themselves as victims of the law instead of citizens within
its protection. N.W.A. voices this attitude in their 1991 song “Niggaz 4
Life”: “Why do I call myself a nigger, you ask me? Because police always
wanna harass me. Every time that I'm rollin they swear up and down that
the car was stolen. Make me get faced down in the street, they throw the
shit out my car on the concrete in front of a residence a million white
motherf---rs on my back like I shot the President.”32
With racial tensions already running high, Rodney King was stopped
for speeding, on March 3, of 1991. After a short chase the police pulled
King over, and he was confronted by twenty-one officers from both the
California Highway Patrol and the Los Angeles Police Department.
Following the chase, thee LAPD officers beat Rodney King. The beating
was caught on video, and the entire event occurred in plain view of other
law enforcement officers. When he tried to get up, King was beaten to the
ground and “clubbed into submission”.33 After release and circulation of
the footage, four of the officers were brought to trial in Simi Valley,
California, on charges of police brutality. In the trial that followed, with a
jury that included no African Americans, three of the officers were fully
acquitted, while one was convicted on just one charge.34 This sent shock
waves throughout the black community as the verdict seemed to confirm
30
A. Light, and B. Little, "Beating up the charts," Rolling Stone no. 610 (August 8, 1991).
EBSCO.
31
Yang.
32
N.W.A, Niggaz 4 Life,” on EfiL4zaggiN, EMI Records, 1991.
33
Ronald N. Jacobs, Race, media, and the crisis of civil society from Watts to Rodney
King (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 60; Lou Cannon, Official
negligence: how Rodney King and the riots changed Los Angeles and the LAPD, (New
York: Times Books, 1997), xix.
34
Cannon, xix; Mark Baldassare, The Los Angeles riots: lessons for the urban future.
Urban policy challenges (Boulder: Westview Press, 1994), 73.
234
the belief that there was no justice for African Americans. The King verdict
was the second verdict in a monthʼs time in which the African American
community felt denied justice, as a Korean grocer who was charged with
the murder of 15-year-old Latasha Harlins only received probation a month
before the King verdict was announced. J. Eugene Grigsby III, the director
of UCLAʼs center for African American Studies, concluded that, “both
verdicts served to solidify the belief held by many African Americans that
the justice system does not work for them.”35 He added further that the
community “felt anger because law enforcement simply stood by and did
not stop the violence.”36 When the predominately white jury acquitted the
four officers on April 29, 1992, violence started almost immediately. It
rapidly evolved into a three-day riot and six days of civil unrest.37
It can be argued that N.W.A. expected just this type of result. “You'd
rather see me in the pen then me and Lorenzo rollin in the Benzo. Beat
the police outta shape and when I'm finished, bring the yellow tape to tape
off the scene of the slaughter, still can't swallow bread and water.”38 In
what was then seen as a violent and dangerous expression of hate, N.W.A
wrote these lyrics in 1988. Retrospectively, though, they seem to be a
prelude, a warning of the underlying racial tensions that were to come to
the fore in the early 1990s. “What N.W.A was saying was basically
everything that happened in the Rodney King Trial,” record producer
Marcus Logan commented.39
This assertion is validated in the lyrics above, lyrics which proved to
be eerily similar to the beatings that white and Asian bystanders received
during the first few days of the L.A. riots. In one particular case, Reginald
Denny, a white trucker, was caught on video being dragged from the cab
of his truck and brutally beaten as residents kicked and smashed his head
with a slab of concrete until he was near death. The action of four African
American residents was the only thing that saved Denny. Having seen
Denny being beaten on TV, they got into a car and drove to the
intersection, taking Denny to the hospital. From there, he was handed
over to paramedics who said he was “within a few minutes of dying” and
that his skull was fractured in 91 places. Even after three reconstructive
surgeries, a crater still remains in Dennyʼs head.40
The anger raged on, as police enforcement was negligible until the
next day, by which time the riots had reached historic proportions. This
35
Roland Charles, Toyomi Igus, and Nathaniel Bellamy, Life in a day of Black L.A.: the
way we see it: L.A.'s Black photographers present a new perspective on their city (Los
Angeles: CAAS Publications UCLA, 1992), 116-117.
36
Charles, Igus, and Bellamy, 116-117.
37
Baldassare, 19.
38
39
David Bauder, "Rappers' Anger Is Reaching The Ears Of The Politicians At
Last," Miami Times, July 9, 1992. PQ.
40
Cannon, 304-09.
235
lawlessness, while seemingly inexcusable, appeared to be the ignition of a
powder keg that had been growing with cases of racial discrimination and
police misconduct throughout the 1980s. The media seemed to visually
demonize African Americans during this process, showing images almost
exclusively of black lawlessness, in effect inviting continuation of the racial
perceptions of African Americans.41
Although most of the media attention focused on African Americans
looting and causing destruction, all ethnicities took part in the riots,
including Caucasians. Although most of the media portrayed incidents
focused on African Americans, only 36 percent of those arrested were
black.42 The Los Angeles riots exploded because the police presence was
initially non-existent and because law enforcement was grossly underprepared for the ensuing riots. Although ignorance of the charged climate
is given as a defense for police ineptitude, the racially charged climate
during the Rodney King trail would seem to make ignorance both
unimaginable and inexcusable.
The Simi Valley verdict triggered the riots that followed and
subsequently would be the cause of 54 deaths, 2,328 injuries, over $900
million in property loss, more than 800 buildings burned, and 5,633
arrests.43 This was the anger that N.W.A. had warned of:
Show me on the news but I hate to be abused. I know it was a setup, so now I'm gonna get up, even if the FBI wants me to shut up.
But I've got 10,000 niggaz strong, they got everybody singin' my F--Tha Police song … 'Cause it's time for MC Ren to settle the score. I
got a urge to kick down doors.44
Conclusion
The introduction raised the question: Did gangsta rap provide the
fuel for and give warning of the LA riots, or did the African American
sentiment that preceded the coming riots cause the popularity of gangsta
rap? The question belies the answer, which, as I have argued is: Neither
could exist in a vacuum. Both are derived from the racial tensions of the ill
conceived war on drugs that pitted urban black against suburban white.
N.W.A is the cultural culmination of the existing African American feelings
of the time. This argument can at times appear muddled by the fact that
their message is in many ways morally bipolar: one moment they advocate
running a (sex) “train” on a girl, or worse, and the next they argue for
41
Charles, Igus, and Bellamy, 117
Baldassare, 141.
43
Cannon, 186-87; Baldassare, 141.
44
N.W.A, “100 Miles and Running,” on 100 Miles and Runninʼ EMI Records, 1990.
42
236
personal expression.45 Also, they seem at times to promote drinking in
songs like “8 ball,” while at other times they caution against drug use of
any kind.46 The question raised by these identity crises is: who is N.W.A.,
really? Although the answer is unclear, what is obvious is that because of
the climate existing in the African American community they had a large
audience and, because of this audience, their message was widely heard.
It is not hard to imagine that this audience would be significantly
smaller if what was portrayed in their songs had not happened in actuality.
Police brutality, crack, are all subjects spoken of by N.W.A. They are not
just spouting angry diatribes but are instead presenting the world with a
non-scripted, genuine account of how they see their community; and
considering the Los Angeles Riots, and N.W.Aʼs sales, it seems they are
not alone in their thoughts. Because of this, it is simplistic to write off
N.W.A. as merely an angry group with hateful and tasteless lyrics. N.W.A.
was uncompromising in their values and their message, which in a day of
modern pop would be a welcomed change. In N.W.A.ʼs song Express
Yourself, for instance, they argue for rising above and becoming an
individual who is not chained by society, they promote freedom from drugs
and liberation of mind, preach what they see as reality, and advise others
to demand the same:
And those musicians, that cuss at home,
But scared to use profanity, when up on the microphone,
Yah they want reality, but you won't hear none,
They rather exaggerate a little fiction.
Some say no to drugs, and take a stand,
But after the show they go looking for the Dopeman.
Oh they ban my group from the radio, 'here, N.W.A.',
They say 'Hell no!'
But you know it ain't all about wealth,
As long as you make a note to, express yourself.47
Love them or hate them, N.W.A. was pivotal in both connecting and
expressing the link between the crack epidemic and racism. They
cautioned against the impending retaliation that came in the form of the
Los Angeles Riots, violence that resulted directly from African American
sentiment at the time. They fought against crack in their lyrics and argued
against police injustice and racism. Nannette Denouden, a staffer for the
Sno-Isle Regional Library System in Lynwood, Washington, that banned
the album from their library, said: “Itʼs the real world out there, those guys
45
N.W.A, “Dope Man.”
N.W.A, “8 Ball,” on N.W.A. and Posse, Macola Records, 1987.
47
N.W.A, “Express Yourself.”
46
237
arenʼt just sitting around making those things up, thatʼs just the world they
live in.”48
N.W.A. was a voice that resonated in the community and linked
perceptions with actions. More than just reflecting the world they lived in,
they spoke to an outraged African-American population that was sick of
crack and other drugs, a population that blamed a white America that they
believed compounded the problems by holding them back on the grounds
of race.
48
“Critics Blast Library Ban on NWA Rap Recording,” Sentinel, May 21, 1992. PQ.
238
Bibliography
Associated Press, "No Nasty Incidents at 2 live's Crew Miami
Appearance." Boca Raton News. June 10, 1990. Sec C Page 9.
Baldassare, Mark. The Los Angeles riots: lessons for the urban future.
Urban policy challenges. Boulder: Westview Press, 1994.
Bauder, David. "Rappers' Anger Is Reaching The Ears Of The Politicians
At Last." Miami Times, July 9, 1992. PQ.
“Biography.” NWA Legacy. http:www.nwalegacy.com.
Boucher Geoff, “Rapper Ice Cube talks about the 20th anniversary of
N.W.A's 'Straight Outta Compton'.” Los Angeles Times, August 16,
2008. PHN.
Boseman, Keith. “The Road From Here (III).” Hyde Park
Citizen, February 20, 1992. PQ.
Browne David, " For Adults Only: Love and Sorrow . . . Lust and Hate."
New York Times. June 23, 1991, NY Times Archives.
Bryant, Cliffton. Sexual Deviancy and Social Proscription. New York:
Human Sciences, 1982.
Bynoe, Yvonne. Encyclopedia of rap and hip-hop culture. Westport, Conn:
Greenwood Press, 2006.
Cannon, Lou. Official negligence: how Rodney King and the riots changed
Los Angeles and the LAPD. New York: Times Books, 1997.
Charles, Roland, Toyomi Igus, and Nathaniel Bellamy. Life in a day of
Black L.A.: the way we see it: L.A.'s Black photographers present a
new perspective on their city. Los Angeles: CAAS Publications
UCLA, 1992.
“Critics Blast Library Ban on NWA Rap Recording.” Sentinel, May 21,
1992. PQ.
Cocks, Jay. "N.W.A.: A Nasty Jolt for the Top Pops." Time Magazine, July
01, 1991.
239
Dyson, Michael Eric, and Sut Jhally. Material witness race, identity and the
politics of gangsta rap. Northampton, MA: The Media Education
Foundation, 1995.
"Frank Zappa: Statement To Congress, September 19, 1985." The
Download Etext Library.” http://downlode.org/Etext/zappa.html/
Gately, Gary. “On City Street Corners, Night of Antidrug Vigil.” New York
Grant, Elizabeth. " Gangsta Rap, the War on Drugs and the Location of
African-American Identity in Los Angeles, 1988-1992.” European
Journal of American Culture. 21 (2002): 4-15. EBSCO.
Hagedorn, John. A world of gangs: armed young men and gangsta
culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008.
International Cocaine Symposium, and David Franklyn Allen. The Cocaine
Crises. New York: Plenum Press, 1987
Jacobs, Bruce A. Dealing crack: the social world of streetcorner selling.
Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1999.
Jacobs, Ronald N. Race, media, and the crisis of civil society from Watts
to Rodney King. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Keyes, Cheryl Lynette. Rap music and street consciousness. Urbana, IL:
University of Illinois Press, 2002.
Kitwana, Bakari. The hip hop generation: young blacks and the crisis in
African American culture. New York: Basic Civitas Books, 2003.
Krims, Adam. Rap music and the poetics of identity. New perspectives in
music history and criticism. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2000.
Kubrin, Charis. “ʻI See Death around the Cornerʼ: Nihilism in Rap Music."
Sociological Perspectives 48 (2005): 433-459. JSTOR.
Lacayo, Richard. "The rap against a rap group." Time Magazine, June 25,
1990.
Light, A., and B. Little. "Beating up the charts." Rolling Stone, August 8,
1991.
240
Light, Alan. The Vibe history of hip hop. New York: Three Rivers Press,
1999.
Marriott, Michel. "Harlem Pastor to Campaign Against Rap Lyrics." New
York Times, May 8, 1993. PHN.
McCoy, Judy. Rap music in the 1980s: a reference guide. Metuchen, N.J.:
Scarecrow Press, 1992.
Morgan, Thomas. “500 March in Brooklyn Over Racism.” New York Times,
January 22, 1988. PHN.
Morrison, Amanda Maria. "Musical Trafficking: Urban Youth and the
Narcocorrido-Hardcore Rap Nexus.” Western Folklore 67 (2008):
379-396. EBSCO.
Myers, Steven. "When the Law and Music Clash, Uproar Follows." New
York Times, January 10, 1991. PHN.
N.W.A. 100 Miles and Runninʼ. EMI Records, 1990.
N.W.A. EfiL4zaggiN. EMI Records, 1991.
N.W.A. N.W.A. and Posse. Macola Records,1987.
N.W.A. Straight Outta Compton. EMI Records, 1998.
Perkins, William Eric. Droppin' science: critical essays on rap music and
hip hop culture. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1996.
Person-Lynn, Kwaku. “Rap/Hip Hop Music And Parenting: Whose to
Blame?.” African Times, May 15, 2002. PQ.
Parales, Jon. " Outlaw Rock: More Skirmishes on the Censorship Front
POP VIEW; More Skirmishes on The Censorship Front." New York
Times, December 10, 1989. PHN.
Quinn, Eithne. Nuthin' but a "G" thang: the culture and commerce of
gangsta rap. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005.
"Rap Generates Strong Reaction." Milwaukee Sentinel, November 15,
1989.
241
Reeves, Marcus. Somebody scream!: rap music's rise to prominence in
the aftershock of black power. New York: Faber and Faber, 2008.
Richardson, Laurel. "Postmodern Social Theory: Representational
Practices." Sociological Theory 9 (1991): 173-79.
Rule, Sheila. "Rappers Say the Riots Were No Surprise To Their
Listeners," New York Times, May 26, 1992. PHN.
Springhall, John. Youth, popular culture and moral panics: penny gaffs to
gangsta-rap, 1830-1996. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1998.
"Surgeon General's Report on Youth Violence." CQ Press Electronic
Library, Historic Documents Series Online Edition. Originally
published in Historic Documents of 2001 (2002). CQ Press.
Szalavitz, Maia. “Cracked up, How did a drug whose addictive properties
were once compared to potato chips become the scourge of
America?” Salon, May 11, 1999, http://www.salon.com/news/
feature/1999/05/11/crack_media/index.html.
Toop, David. Rap attack 3: African rap to global hip hop. London:
Serpent's Tail, 2000.
Waldorf, Dan, Craig Reinarman, and Sheigla Murphy. Cocaine changes:
the experience of using and quitting. Philadelphia: Temple
Yang, Sarah. “Glamorization Of Drugs In Rap Music Linked To Greater
Risk Of Alcohol And Drug Use Among Adolescents.” Medical News
Today, April 02, 2008, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/
articles/102553.php.
Chapter 16
The Prodigal Son Returns:
Marion Barry and the Crack Epidemic
Mike Giancola
“Police! FBI! Youʼre under arrest!”: the last words any person
wants to hear, especially anyone in a position of great power that
commands respect from the general population. However, famed
Washington, D.C. mayor Marion Barry heard those exact words on the
night of January 18, 1990.On that night, Barry met with a former lover
turned FBI informant, Rasheeda Moore, in room 727 of Washington,
D.C.ʼs Vista International Hotel. After speaking about former love
escapades and possible future sexual endeavors for over an hour with
Moore, Barry engaged in smoking crack-cocaine. Shortly after, Barry
found himself surrounded by a combination of D.C. Metropolitan Police
officers and FBI agents coming to arrest him for possession of crack
cocaine.1 Barry realized what happened immediately: he was the target of
a drug sting. The successful execution of the drug sting by the FBI led to
the arrest of Marion Barry and his subsequent federal trial.
The case of The United States of America v. Marion S. Barry, Jr.,
began on June 19th, 1990, and ended just shy of two months later on
August 10th after eight days of deliberation by the jury.2 Indicted on
fourteen counts ranging from perjury to cocaine possession (eleven of the
counts were for possession of cocaine from 1984-1990, while the other
three perjury charges stemmed from an unrelated grand jury hearing at
which Barry was called to testify) the jury eventually hung on twelve of
them, while finding him not guilty on one.3 Fortunately for Marion Barry,
the jury found him guilty only on one misdemeanor cocaine possession
charge, which ironically dated back to 1989 and had no correlation with his
January 1990 arrest.4
Jubilant from his victory over the federal government, who he felt
went out of their way to persecute and arrest him, Barry thought the worst
was over since the charge against him rarely carried jail time. But on
October 26, 1991, over a year after he thought he had slipped through the
clutches of federal authorities, Barry found himself facing a six-month jail
1
Dana Flor and Toby Oppenheimer, Director/Producer, The Nine Lives of Marion Barry,
2009.
2
For a general discussion about the trial see Harry S. Jaffe and Tom Sherwood, Dream
City (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994), 294.
3
Clarence Lusane and Dennis Desmond, Pipe Dream Blues: Racism and the War on
Drugs (Boston: South End Press, 1992), 167.
4
Robert C. Smith and Richard Seltzer, Contemporary Controversies and the American
Racial Divide (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc., 2000), 110.
243
term.5 Marion Barry, who rose through the political ranks to become one
of the most beloved mayors in Washington, D.C. history, now saw his
career in politics crashing down around him.
The timing of Marion Barryʼs arrest, trial, and sentencing took place
at the worst possible time; the height of the crack epidemic and the “War
on Drugs” in the United States occurred during the late 1980s and early
1990s.6 Ravaged by crack-cocaine, Washington, D.C., as well as many
other cities in the United States, fell into a dismal spiral. Inner cities
across the country fell victim to the drug, which brought with it a dramatic
increase in poverty, violence, disease, and crime. Viewed widely as an
African-American problem by a vast majority of America, the crack
epidemic provided reasons for white-America to scrutinize and demonize
many minorities, and Barryʼs arrest did little to quell that perception. While
the District, especially the African-American communities, lay in shambles
because of crack-cocaine, its mayor perpetuated the dilemma. 7
Even though Barryʼs fall from glory was abrupt and unforeseen, his
eventual return to popularity and public office in Washington, D.C.,
remains equally as unexpected. After serving his time in jail, Marion Barry
became a symbol of redemption among many in the African-American
communities in Washington, D.C. African-Americans saw their
neighborhoods spiraling out of control, and they needed fast and intense
assistance.8
There has been considerable debate about how Marion Barry was
able become a public official again after suffering one of the most
disastrous political blows since Nixon and the Watergate Scandal. Some
believe the ineptitudes of Mayor Sharon Pratt Kelly, Barryʼs replacement,
greatly contributed to Barryʼs resurgence, while others believe Barry won
because he was running as a Democrat in a city where the Democrat to
5
“The New Era of Redemption in Politics” US News and World Report 117, no. 12
(September 26, 1994): 18.
6
For more on height of the crack epidemic see Craig Reinarman and Harry G. Levine,
Crack in America: Demon Drugs and Social Justice (Berkeley: University of California
Press, Inc., 1997), 231.
7
For more information on the history of the crack epidemic in the United States see
Katherine Beckett, Kris Nyrop, Lori Pfingst, and Melissa Bowen, “Drug Use, Drug
Possession Arrests, and the Question of Race: Lessons From Seattle.” Social Problems
52, no. 3 (August 2005): 419-441; Dan Baum, Smoke and Mirrors, (Toronto: Little, Brown
and Company, 1996); Elliott Currie, Reckoning, (New York: Hill and Wang, 1993); Marsha
Lillie-Blanton, James C. Anthony, and Charles R. Schuster, “Probing the Meaning of
Racial/Ethnic Group Comparisons in Crack Cocaine Smoking,” The Journal of the
American Medical Association (1993): 993-97; Craig Reinarman and Harry G. Levine,
Crack in America: Demon Drugs and Social Justice (Berkeley: University of California
Press, Inc., 1997); Beverly Xaviera Watkins, Robert E. Fullilove, and Mindy Thompson
Fullilove, “Arms against Illness: Crack Cocaine and Drug Policy in the United States”
Health and Human Rights 2, no. 4 (1998): 42-58.
8
For further discussion examine Yolanda Woodlee, “Redemption Becomes Barry's
Rallying Cry.” The Washington Post, (September 5, 1994).
244
Republican ratio was 10 to 1.9 While those arguments are all valid and
worth examining, I believe they fail to capture the principal cause of
Marion Barryʼs rebirth in Washington, D.C.ʼs political scene: Marion Barry
was an African-American political deity in a city with an overwhelmingly
majority of African-American citizens. Even though placing race at the
forefront of a controversial situation is a risky endeavor for most, the
connection between Marion Barryʼs return to politics and his racial status
as an African-American must be examined because the two are
intrinsically intertwined. African-Americans throughout Washington, D.C.,
felt targeted by the policies and laws that resulted from Americaʼs “War on
Drugs”, and Marion Barry became a symbol of redemption and triumph
over oppression for African-Americans across D.C. African-Americans
related to Marion Barryʼs troubles with the law, because many of them had
the same troubles. Barry became a man African-Americans could rally
behind, and in 1994 he rode their wave of support all the way back to city
hall.
The Rise of a King: Marion Barryʼs Ascension to Political
Powerhouse
Marion Shepilov Barry, Jr., was born in Mississippi Delta region
in1936 to a poor sharecropper and his wife. Life for young Marion Barry
was not easy. Poverty was apart of everyday life for Barry and his family.
Like most other African American families in the South during the early
20th century, the Barrys struggled to put food on the table every day. To
make matters harder on Barry and his family, Barryʼs father died when he
was only five years old.10
Segregation, unjust and unconstitutional, created Marion Barry the
politician. Rooted in the Civil Rights Movement, Barryʼs political career
began in 1958 at Lemoyne College, located in the heart of Memphis,
Tennessee. 11 As a young college student, Barry became increasingly
active in the fight for civil rights for African-Americans. Showing his
political prowess at a young age, Barry became the first chairman of the
civil rights activist group SNCC (Student Non-Violent Coordinating
Committee) in 1960.12
Because of his involvement in SNCC, Barry gained recognition and
overwhelming support in African-American communities in Washington,
9
Michael Janofsky, “The 1994 Campaign: The Comeback Man in the News; From
Disgrace to 'Amazing Grace': Marion Shepilov Barry Jr” The New York Times (September
14, 1994).
10
For a specific discussion about Marion Barryʼs early life see Jonathan I. Z. Agronsky,
Marion Barry: the Politics of Race (Latham: British American Publishing, 1991), 79-81.
11
Jonetta Rose Barras, The Last of the Black Emperors (Bancroft Press, 1998), 1.
12
Robert L. Woodson, A Conversation with Mayor Marion Barry (Washington, D.C.: the
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1979).
245
D.C., when he became the head of D.C. operations for SNCC in 1965.13
Barry held non-violent rallies throughout inner-city D.C., petitioning the
government for equal rights for all American citizens. Martin Luther King,
Jr., was the focal symbol for the Civil Rights Movement, but AfricanAmericans of Washington, D.C., now embraced Marion Shepilov Barry,
Jr., as their principal local leader in the fight for civil rights.
With increased positive visibility came increased support for Marion
Barry. The Marion Barry wildfire ignited in African-American communities
throughout Washington, D.C., in the 1960s, and it would prove almost
impossible to extinguish. Beginning in the 1920s with the Great Migration,
massive numbers of African-Americans moved from rural areas into cities
throughout the United States, including Washington, D.C.14 The large
number of African-Americans populating Washington planted the political
seeds Barry would need for his political career to grow. As Barry
increasingly became a figure head for the Civil Rights Movement in
Washington, D.C., he laid a solid political foundation within the cityʼs
African-American communities, which proved to be vital for Barry in his
future political endeavors.
Barry had a special gift that escapes many politicians; he knew
exactly which political buttons he needed to push in order to gain the
maximum amount of support he needed, especially in African-American
communities. When activists all over the country protested Americaʼs
involvement in Vietnam in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Marion Barry
organized a march against those protests. He did not object to the
protests because he was pro-war, rather he protested because he
believed African-Americans were being excluded from anti-Vietnam War
rallies because of their race.
By the 1970s, Barry had established himself as a force to be
reckoned with in Washingtonʼs political scene. In 1971, Barry won his first
elected governmental position: a seat on the Board of Education.15 After
his landslide victory, Barry used his new title to advance his political power
and standing within the District. Barryʼs political career then began to
snowball. In 1974, he was elected to a D.C. Council seat. Only a year
later Barry received a promotion to chairman of the Revenue and Finance
Committee for Washington.16 Yet Marion Barry still had one goal to
achieve: to become the mayor of the nationʼs capital.
13
David R. Colburn and Jeffery S. Adler, African-American Mayors: Race Politics, and
the American City (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2001), pg. 203.
14
For more extensive discussion about impacts of the Great Migration see Joe William
Trotter Jr., The Great Migration in Historical Perspective: New Dimensions of Race,
Class, and Gender (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991).
15
“Marion S. Barry Jr. News.” The New York Times (August 10, 2009).
16
Jonathan I. Z. Agronsky, Marion Barry: the Politics of Race (Latham: British American
Publishing, 1991), 175-177.
246
In the late 1970s, Marion Barry had a considerable political
momentum. All he needed now was a victory in the Democratic mayoral
primary to open the door to city hall and the mayorʼs office. Such a
triumph almost eluded him. In 1978, Barry barely won the primary over
incumbent mayor Walter Washington, who was the first African-American
mayor in the history of Washington, D.C., and Sterling Tucker, leader of
the Washington Urban League. From there, it was smooth sailing for the
quick-witted, charismatic titan of Washingtonian politics. To make his
victory in the mayoral election even more meaningful than it already was,
Barry was sworn in by the first African-American Supreme Court Justice,
Thurgood Marshall.17
Crack Cocaine, Race, and the Effects of the “War on Drugs” on
African-Americans
As Marion Barryʼs political successes peaked throughout the
1980s, Ronald Reaganʼs “War on Drugs” made nightly news on every
major media outlet in the country. Reagan was not the first, or last,
president to have a formal policy against narcotic use in the United States.
In 1919, the United States government outlawed the possession, sale, and
transportation of alcohol with the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment
and the Volstead Act.18 Almost two decades later the government took
large strides towards making marijuana possession illegal with the help of
Harry J. Anslinger and his idea for the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.19
President Richard Nixon also had an extensive anti-drug policy in the early
seventies. Following Nixonʼs lead, Reagan declared a war against drugs.
His main focus was crack-cocaine.
Crack, at its most basic level, was simply cocaine. There were
subtle differences in the forms of crack and powered cocaine; however,
the effects of both were dissimilar. Changing powered cocaine into crack
involved cooking the powered cocaine in water and baking soda until it
crystallized into a small, rock shaped substance that was meant to be
smoked. Powered cocaine offered users an extended, expensive high
compared to the shorter, much cheaper high one received from smoking
crack. What drew people to crack is the intensity of the euphoric
17
Milton Coleman, “Barry Inaugurated, Pledges to Build Full Citizen Partnership.” The
Washington Post (January 3, 1979).
18
For more in depth discussion of Prohibition see J.C. Burnham, “New Perspectives on
the Prohibition "Experiment" of the 1920's.” Journal of Social History 2, no. 1 (Autumn
1968): 51-68.
19
More information about the criminalization of marijuana can be found in Douglas Clark
Kinder and William O. Walker III, “Stable Force in a Storm: Harry J. Anslinger and United
States Narcotic Foreign Policy, 1930-1962.” The Journal of American History 72, no. 4
(March 1986): 908-927.
247
sensations experienced only seconds after smoking it.20 Such a powerful
sensation, coupled with how cheap crack was sold for on city streets (a
small bag could be bought for prices as low as $5), gave underprivileged
drug addicts a quick, affordable high. Some, like journalist Marable
Manning, argued that crack was also much more addictive than powered
cocaine.21
The side effects of crack addiction were equally as powerful as the
drug itself. Regular crack users experienced “irritability, depression,
extreme fatigue, anxiety, compulsive and repetitive behavior, intense
cravings for more cocaine, agitated delirium, toxic paranoid psychosis, and
tactile hallucinations of something crawling beneath the skin”.22 For those
who never used crack, the side effects of the drug are hard to
comprehend. Only those that experienced the side effects of addiction
can truly understand how powerful and devastating the addiction to crack
is.
Because of the fairly easy accessibility of crack to the poor in
Americaʼs cities, low income urban areas became breeding grounds for
drug dealers peddling crack to drug addicts looking for a fix. By 1986
crack was available in 28 states and Washington, D.C.23 With the
increase of illegal activity brought about by the emergence of crack came
a predictable increase in social problems within inner-cities, which
disproportionately affected African-Americans in ways that were unseen
outside of American cities.24 The risk of infection of HIV/AIDS and other
sexually transmitted diseases increased in crack users because many,
especially women, would perform sexual favors in exchange for crack.
Beginning in 1987, there was a remarkable 71% increase in firearm
related deaths of inner-city African-American male youths. Many of those
deaths were directly related to the crack exchange occurring all throughout
cities across the United States.25
Ronald Reagan and his administration saw the threat crack posed
upon inner-city America, and the “War on Drugs” was their response.
20
Jeff Grogger and Michael Willis, “The Emergence of Crack Cocaine and the Rise in
Urban Crime Rates.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 82, no. 4 (November
2000): 520.
21
Marable Manning, “ALONG THE COLOR LINE: The Crack Crisis: A War Against the
Black Community.” Michigan Citizen (December 8, 1990).
22
Henry Wiley, “Cracked Up On Cocaine: Is There Disparity in Drug Sentencing Between
Black and White Offenders?” Tri-State Defender 54, no. 21 (May 21, 2005): 1A.
23
Beverly Xaviera Watkins, Robert E. Fullilove, and Mindy Thompson Fullilove, “Arms
against Illness: Crack Cocaine and Drug Policy in the United States.” Health and Human
Rights 2, no. 4 (1998): 46.
24
Joseph E. Kennedy, “Drug Wars in Black and White.” Law and Contemporary
Problems 66, no. 3 (Summer 2003): 154.
25
Beverly Xaviera Watkins, Robert E. Fullilove, and Mindy Thompson Fullilove, “Arms
against Illness: Crack Cocaine and Drug Policy in the United States.” Health and Human
Rights 2, no. 4 (1998): 47-51.
248
Even though the Reagan administration had good intentions and placed
Americaʼs well-being as the center piece of the “War on Drugs”, what
followed during the middle and late 1980s and on into the 1990s was a
“War on Race,” particularly a war against African-Americans. Drugs
associated with minorities, like crack and African-Americans in the 1980s,
“are likely to be defined as highly dangerous and to be the target of antidrug efforts”.26 By primarily attempting to decrease the influence of crack
on America, the “War on Drugs” targeted the inner-city poor. The “War on
Drugs” identified widespread drug use as being prevalent mostly in nonwhite races, which was far from the truth. Drug abuse had no propensity
for skin color or ethnicity, but rather for economic deprivation, which the
federal government and policy makers failed to realize.27 In the book
Crack in America: Demon Drugs and Social Justice, Craig Reinarman and
Harry G. Levine best summarize the link between the “War on Drugs” and
its effects on the inner-city poor:
By contrast, the inner-city poor and working class are far
less often employed and more often live at the margins of
the conventional order. When their lives become too difficult,
they rarely have psychiatrists, but they sometimes selfmedicate, escape, or seek moments of intense euphoria with
what might be called antidespondents, such as crack. When
some of them become addicted, they have far fewer
resources to use to pull themselves out of trouble and far
fewer opportunities to make a successful life. And when
some of the inner-city poor began having trouble with crack,
politicians declared a drug war that did not help them
stabilize their lives.28
In 1986 President Reagan signed into law the 1986 Anti-Drug
Abuse Act. While the bill had many aspects, the most important included
the increase of funding for law enforcement across the country, the
creation of more rehabilitation centers near major cities, and public
education about drugs and drug abuse.Yetthe bill also set new
punishments for those found in possession of illicit drugs. Specifically
dealing with crack, anyone who was found in possession of five grams of
crack was subject to a mandatory five year minimum jail sentence, while
26
Katherine Beckett, Kris Nyrop, Lori Pfingst, and Melissa Bowen, “Drug Use, Drug
Possession Arrests, and the Question of Race: Lessons From Seattle.” Social Problems
52, no. 3 (August 2005): 421.
27
Elliott Currie, Reckoning (New York: Hill and Wang, 1993), 80-82.
28
Craig Reinarman and Harry G. Levine, Crack in America: Demon Drugs and Social
Justice (Berkeley: University of California Press, Inc., 1997), 13.
249
those who were found in possession of 50 grams received a mandatory
minimum of 10 years.
While none of the provisions of the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act as
would seem unusual to the majority of Americans living during the crack
epidemic, others, like Doris Marie Provine, disagreed. In her book
Unequal Under Law: Race in the War on Drugs, Provine argues that three
racially charged themes underlie the law: Crack was moving from AfricanAmerican ghettos to White suburbia; all crack dealers were AfricanAmerican; and White youths were at risk of becoming addicted to crack.29
As a result, many African-Americans at the time believed the harsher
penalties were fueled by racism.
Even with the implementation of harsher penalties for drug
possession across the board in 1986, crack and crack-related social
quandaries still existed all over the United States. When President
Reagan and Congress revisited the drug crisis in America in 1988 in light
of increases in crack related violence and crime, more stringent penalties
concerning crack were enacted yet again. Building upon the 1986 AntiDrug Abuse Act, the 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Act imposed a mandatory fiveyear minimum sentence for those who were found in possession of any
amount of crack, while the penalties for possession of powdered cocaine
remained relatively mild.30
Unfortunately for Ronald Reagan and all those who believed the
“War on Drugs” would eradicate, or at least significantly decrease, the
availability of crack, all this symbolic war resulted in was the incarceration
of hundreds of thousands of African-Americans. The accessibility to the
drug by the public was barely affected, but African-Americans all across
the country felt the ramifications of the harsher laws and penalties
endorsed by the federal government. The disproportionate imprisonment
of African-Americans compared to other races during the “War on Drugs”
was astounding. In 1996, after the Reagan and Bush tactics to rid the
United States of drugs like crack had ceased to be used any longer, Anna
Manzo wrote a journal article in the Reunion describing the imbalanced
incarceration rates for African-Americans in the Washington, D.C. area
during the “War on Drugs”:
African-Americans make up only 12% of the population and
13% of drug users, but 55% of all convictions and 74% of all
prison sentences, according to the Washington, D.C.-based
Sentencing Project. Three of four white (Non-Hispanic) are
29
More information concerning racial undertones during the War on Drugs are discussed
in Doris Marie Provine, Unequal Under Law: Race in the War On Drugs (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2007).
30
A more general discussion about law changes brought about by the 1986 and 1988
Anti-Drug Acts can be found in Doris Marie Provine, Unequal Under Law: Race in the
War On Drugs (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007).
250
drug users but blacks are much more likely to be arrested
and convicted for drug offenses and receive harsher
sentences , according to Holly Sklar, author of Chaos or
Community: Seeking Solutions, Not Scapegoats of Bad
Economics.
The overall arrest rate for drug possession is more
than twice as high for sale and/or manufacturing, she says.
The Los Angeles Times reported that law officers and judges
say, ʻAlthough it is clear whites sell most of the nation's
cocaine and account for 80% of its consumers, it is blacks
and other minorities who continue to fill up America's
courtrooms and jails largely because, in a political climate
that demands that something be done, they are the easiest
to arrest.ʼ And easiest to scapegoat, Sklar writes.31
FBI records showed that even though arrests of Caucasians related
to heroin or cocaine rose from 19 per 100,000 in 1980 to 68 per 100,000 in
1990, African-American youth arrests exploded, jumping from 31 per
100,000 to 766 per 100,000 over the same time period. This drastic
increase was directly related to the harsher penalties set forth by the
Reagan administration for drug related offenses, along with the inherent
racial profiling that accompanied the “War on Drugs” unspoken belief that
crack was an African-American problem that was threatening white
suburbia.
The imprisonment of so many African-Americans not only affected
those who served jail terms but their communities as a whole. Because
crack-related crimes usually carried felony charges, people who were
convicted of such offenses were stripped of certain rights after their
release from jail, most notably voting rights. Voter turnout for both local
and federal elections among underprivileged minorities was usually lower
than the national average, and the “War on Drugs” significantly reduced
the numbers even more. For African-Americans in cities such as
Washington, D.C., where things went from bad to worse in the latter years
of the 1980s, change was needed.
The early 1990s brought about hard times for African-Americans all
across Washington, D.C. Crime and violence increased, morale
decreased across the board, and Washington, D.C., needed a hero; and
even though Marion Barry began serving his jail sentence in 1991, he
became a free man in 1992.The timing of his release could not have been
more perfect. The District needed someone to believe in, and who better
than the man who used to be king of the nationalʼs capital? Marion Barry
was poised to make his triumphant comeback to the political realm of
31
Anna Manzo, “Inner Cities Easiest To Target in War on Drugs: Second in a Series on
Race and Policy in the War on Drugs.” Reunion 4 (May 31, 1996), 12.
251
Washington, D.C., and the discontent within African-American
communities in D.C. over the ineffectiveness of the “War on Drugs” would
be his ticket to become a political official once again.
The Prodigal Son Returns: The Improbable Return of Marion Barry
Since taking political office decades earlier, Marion Barry had
almost always been surrounded by controversy. Stories of scandal,
corruption, and mischief around and within Barryʼs mayoral administration
consistently found their way into newspapers in the D.C. metro area, at
times, almost daily. After becoming mayor in 1978, Marion Barry was on
top of the world. However, his successes in politics brought about a
change in Barryʼs personality.
Barryʼs political policies changed drastically after becoming mayor
for a second straight term; the platform that won him the office of mayor in
1978dealt with helping the disadvantaged and destitute of Washington,
D.C. Yet after claiming victory in his second straight mayoral election in
1982, Barry began aiming his political policies toward the beautification of
the Districtsʼ wealthier areas.32 As a result, his support from the AfricanAmerican communities of D.C. began to dwindle. However, as Barry
began campaigning for his third term in office in the mid-1980s, his
political focus once again shifted to its traditional roots.
In the mid-1980s, African-Americans all over Washington, D.C., felt
upset with the federal governmentʼs “War on Drugs”, and Marion Barry
used that disgruntlement to his advantage. By appealing to AfricanAmerican needs all over the city, Barry easily won his third straight
election for mayor in 1986 with 61% of the vote, a large majority of which
came from African-Americans.33
Before Marion Barryʼs arrest in 1990, there was a gaping racial
divide in the District. The lines were drawn all over Washington, D.C., and
they split the poor African-American communities from the upper-class
white ones. Tensions between two groups, especially when those faults
deal specifically with race, did not die easily. During Barryʼs trial in 1990,
many African-Americans believed Barry was scapegoated by the federal
(and white controlled) government because the government needed
someone to take the heat of them and their failures in fixing Americaʼs
drug problem.
United States District Judge Thomas Penfield Jacksonʼs decision
that Barry must serve six months in jail for his conviction embittered many
32
Publishing, 1991), 190.
33
Publishing, 1991), 195.
252
African-Americans.34 African-Americans, after Barry had left office in
1991, found themselves fighting for scraps at the bottom of the economic
ladder due to the enormous increase of other minorities in the
Washington, D.C., area.35 Upset and feeling belittled just months after
Barryʼs trial, African-Americans in Washington, D.C. yearned for the days
of old when Barry had control of their city.
Marion Barry, released from prison on April 23rd, 1992, almost
immediately discretely campaigned to win back the people of D.C.36 Upon
his release, Barry claimed to be a changed man who had found God,
which played well in the hearts of religious African-Americans. Instead of
portraying himself as a political powerhouse, he related to the AfricanAmerican citizens of Washington, D.C., by claiming to be one of them, and
he took that statement to heart by almost immediately moving to Ward
Eight, the poorest and predominately African-American ward within D.C.,
and running for its D.C. Council seat.
Due to his previous arrest and prison sentence, Marion Barry found
it difficult to gather any kind of endorsement from former political allies.
Barry had been alienated from most political circles. In order claim victory
as Ward Eightʼs Councilman, Barry had to revert back to grassroot
politicking. Barry took to the streets of Ward Eight with a fervor unseen
from him since his days fighting for civil rights, with his main focus being
increased opportunity economically, socially, and politically for AfricanAmericans.37
Only months after being released from prison, Barry proved
successful in his bid to become the D.C. councilman of Ward Eight.38
African-American journalist Samuel L. Banks described the importance of
Barryʼs move to Ward Eight and his race for D.C. Council seat:
In his move to Ward 8, a largely poor area, he positioned
himself to rise from ignominy, personal pain and public
disgrace, to wage a spirited, thoughtful and able campaign
against the incumbent, Wilhelmina Rolark, a very adroit,
caring and redoubtable lawyer-politician, and he was
victorious.39
34
“Barry Judge Refuses to Withdraw From Case.” The Washington Post (September 11,
1991).
35
Harry S. Jaffe and Tom Sherwood, Dream City (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994),
304.
36
Bill Nichols, “Former Mayor May Go From Prison to Campaign.” USA Today (April 23,
1992).
37
An examination of Marion Barryʼs life while living in Ward 8 can be seen in Harry S.
Jaffe and Tom Sherwood, Dream City (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994).
38
“Barry Wins Council Seat Easily.” The Washington Post (November 4, 1992).
39
Samuel L. Banks, “The Winds of Change for Barry.” Afro-American Red Star
(November 5, 1994).
253
Barryʼs triumph in the 1992 D.C. Council election for Ward Eight was a
meaningful political victory for Barry as well as the African-Americans of
Washington, D.C., but Barry had another surprise up his sleeve for the
District.
In 1994, Marion Barry decided to once again run for the position of
mayor of Washington, D.C. It was time for Marion Barry to make his
triumphant return as mayor. Barry saw Washington, D.C., as his city, and
in many ways it was.
At the time Barry ran for mayor in 1994, two-thirds of the cityʼs
population consisted of African-Americans, who gave their full-fledged
support to Barry.40 Also, many citizens in D.C. were exceptionally
dissatisfied with how the city was being run under Sharon Pratt Kelly.
Even though Barry had been mayor three times before, in 1994 he
represented change, and people embraced this change as a remedy for
the policies of Sharon Pratt Kelly.41
African-Americans across Washington, D.C., willingly forgave
Marion Barry, and he realized this early on in his campaign for mayor.
Barry ran in the 1994 mayoral election on a platform of redemption.
Washington Post correspondent Yolanda Woodlee described Barryʼs
redemption tactics as part of his mayoral platform in 1994:
The city's problems worsened considerably during Mr.
Barry's latter years [of his first set of terms] as mayor. But
that stark fact seems lost amid the enthusiasm he's
generating, especially among young black residents who see
his downfall and revival as a tale of inspiration and hope
rather than debauchery and betrayal.42
Young African-American voters sympathized with Marion Barry, and
sympathy can go a long way when it comes to voting trends.
Along with running on a redemptive platform that African-Americans
could relate to because of their bleak situation in D.C., Barry took on
issues that African-Americans cared about most. Among those issues
were “issues that affect the quality of life in the city, especially for many
people in the less affluent sections, issues like the high crime rate,
deterioration of schools and decline in services, as well as the need to
expand the District's tax base by attracting more businesses through
40
Yolanda Woodlee, “Redemption Becomes Barry's Rallying Cry.” The Washington Post
(September 5, 1994).
41
For a general discussion about Sharon Pratt Kellyʼs troubles in office see Harry S. Jaffe
and Tom Sherwood, Dream City (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994), 310-313.
42
Yolanda Woodlee, “Redemption Becomes Barry's Rallying Cry.” The Washington Post
(September 5, 1994).
254
property tax exemptions and by requiring city employees to live in
Washington.” 43
After what seemed to be nearly impossible after being arrested and
spending six months in jail on a cocaine possession charge, Marion Barry
won his fourth mayoral election in 1994, handily defeating his other
opponents.44 Marion Barryʼs tale had finally come full circle. He was once
again the head of a city that loved him as much as he loved it.
Conclusion
Marion Barryʼs renaissance in politics was not a coincidence. Aside
from a small period of time during Barryʼs first reign as mayor of
Washington, D.C., he had consistently received a vast majority of his
votes from African-Americans. African-Americans shared common
interests with Barry because he belonged to their community himself.
Much like the recent presidential election in 2008, when African-American
voter support for candidate Barack Obama vastly overshadowed AfricanAmerican support for any presidential candidate in history, AfricanAmericans spoke in 1994 and elected Marion Barry the mayor of
Washington, D.C.
In an August 1994 survey, 38% of people living in Washington,
D.C., said they planned to vote for Marion Barry in the upcoming mayoral
election. Of that 38%, only 1% of those people registered to vote as
Caucasians.45 An overwhelming majority of the people who voted for
Marion Barry were African-American. The immortalization of Barry among
African-Americans in the first three mayoral terms Barry served, along with
the accentuated racial lines drawn throughout Washington, D.C., between
African-Americans and whites, proved to be essential factors in Barryʼs
victory in the 1994 election for mayor.
Marion Barry also profited politically from federal governmentsʼ
inability to properly administer anti-drug policies during the crack epidemic
of the 1980s and early 1990s. The Reagan, and later the Bush,
administration fueled racial tensions throughout inner-cities in America by
failing to realize how the “War on Drugs”, particularly its policies, affected
minorities. The “War on Drugs” did little to impede the flow of drugs like
crack-cocaine into the country, though it did result in vast numbers of
African-American incarcerations for what are now considered to be petty
43
Laurie McGinley, “In the Shadow of the Capitol: The Other Washington D.C.:
Washington's Marion Barry Talks of Redemption as He Stages a Comeback Campaign
for Mayor.” Wall Street Journal (September 1, 1994).
44
For poll results in the 1994 Mayoral Election in Washington, D.C. see Michael
Janofsky, “Barry Rebounds From Disgrace to Win Again in Washington.” The New York
Times (November 9, 1994).
45
Michael Janofsky, “Ex-Mayor Barry Rises From Ashes.” The New York Times (August
1, 1994).
255
crimes (most notably the possession of small amounts of illicit drugs). In
return, African-Americans felt as though the federal governmentʼs policies
passed during the “War on Drugs” specifically targeted them, oppressing
them and pushing them further down the social ladder.
Upon Barryʼs release from jail, African-Americans rallied around
him as a symbol for the oppression they felt the federal government
imposed on them. He, like many African-Americans living in inner-cities
during the “War on Drugs”, served jail time for possessing a small amount
of drugs. Marion Barry, however, was one who could rise from such a
setback in stride, and this gave African-Americans, especially in
Washington, D.C., hope and an icon they could believe in.
Chiefly an African-American city, Washington, D.C., voted in 1994,
and Marion Barry once again became the man the city wanted as mayor.
Laurie McKinley from the Wall Street Journal described Barryʼs
resurgence best when she wrote, “an unusual combination of patronage
and class and racial resentment, as well as the strange local politics of
Washington, has allowed the resurrection of Marion Barry”.46 Marion
Barry may not be perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but for a city as
imperfect as Washington, D.C., had been throughout the 1980s and into
the 1990s,that made Barry just the man the city needed.
46
Laurie McGinley, “In the Shadow of the Capitol: The Other Washington D.C.:
Washington's Marion Barry Talks of Redemption as He Stages a Comeback Campaign
for Mayor.” Wall Street Journal (September 1, 1994).
256
Bibliography
Agronsky, Jonathan I. Z. Marion Barry: the Politics of Race. Latham: British
American Publishing, 1991.
Banks, Samuel L. “The Winds of Change for Barry.” Afro-American Red Star,
November 5, 1994. PQ.
Barras, Jonetta Rose. The Last of the Black Emperors. Bancroft Press, 1998.
“Barry Judge Refuses to Withdraw From Case”. The Washington Post,
September 11, 1991. LN.
“Barry Wins Council Seat Easily”. The Washington Post, November 4, 1992. LN.
Beckett, Katherine, Kris Nyrop, Lori Pfingst, and Melissa Bowen. “Drug Use, Drug
Possession Arrests, and the Question of Race: Lessons From Seattle.”
Social Problems 52, no. 3 (August 2005), 419-441. PQ.
Burnham, J. C. “New Perspectives on the Prohibition "Experiment" of the 1920's.”
Journal of Social History 2, no. 1, Autumn 1968: 51-68.
Clardy, Jim. “Barry to Enter ʻClub Fedʼ Today”. The Washington Times, October
21, 1991. LN.
Colburn, David R., and Jeffery S. Adler. African-American Mayors: Race Politics,
and the American City. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2001.
Currie, Elliott. Reckoning. New York: Hill and Wang, 1993.
Flor, Dana, and Toby Oppenheimer. Director/Producer. The Nine Lives of Marion
Barry. 2009.
Grogger, Jeff, and Michael Willis. “The Emergence of Crack Cocaine and the
Rise in Urban Crime Rates.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 82,
no. 4, November 2000: 519-529. JSTOR.
Jaffe, Harry S., and Tom Sherwood. Dream City. New York: Simon and Schuster,
1994.
Janofsky, Michael, “Barry Rebounds From Disgrace to Win Again in
Washington.” The New York Times, November 9, 1994. LN.
257
Janofsky, Michael. “Ex-Mayor Barry Rises From Ashes.” The New York Times,
August 1, 1994. LN.
Janofsky, Michael. “The 1994 Campaign: The Comeback Man in the News; From
Disgrace to 'Amazing Grace': Marion Shepilov Barry Jr.” The New York
Times, September 14, 1994. LN.
Kennedy, Joseph E. “Drug Wars in Black and White.” Law and Contemporary
Problems 66, no. 3, Summer 2003: 153-181. JSTOR.
Kinder, Douglas Clark, and William O. Walker III. “Stable Force in a Storm: Harry
J. Anslinger and United States Narcotic Foreign Policy, 1930-1962.” The
Journal of American History 72, no. 4, March 1986: 908-927.
Lusane, Clarence, and Dennis Desmond. Pipe Dream Blues: Racism and the
War on Drugs. Boston: South End Press, 1992
Manning, Marable. “ALONG THE COLOR LINE: The Crack Crisis: A War Against
the Black Community.” Michigan Citizen, December 8, 1990. PQ.
Manzo, Anna. “Inner Cities Easiest To Target in War on Drugs: Second in a
series on race and policy in The War on Drugs.” Reunion 4, no. 7, May 31,
1996, 12. PQ.
“Marion S. Barry Jr. News.” The New York Times, ed. August 10, 2009. PHN.
McGinley, Laurie. “In the Shadow of the Capitol: The Other Washington D.C.:
Washington's Marion Barry Talks of Redemption as He Stages a
Comeback Campaign for Mayor.” Wall Street Journal, September 1, 1994.
PQ.
“The New Era of Redemption in Politics.” US News and World Report 117, no.
12, September 26, 1994, 18-19. PQ.
Nichols, Bill. “Former Mayor May Go From Prison to Campaign”. USA Today,
April 23, 1992. LN.
Provine, Doris Marie. Unequal Under Law: Race in the War On Drugs. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2007.
Reinarman, Craig, and Harry G. Levine. Crack in America: Demon Drugs and
Social Justice. Berkeley: University of California Press, Inc., 1997.
258
Smith, Robert C., and Richard Seltzer. Contemporary Controversies and the
American Racial Divide. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc.,
2000.
Watkins, Beverly Xaviera, Robert E. Fullilove, and Mindy Thompson Fullilove.
“Arms against Illness: Crack Cocaine and Drug Policy in the United
States.” Health and Human Rights 2, no. 4, 1998: 42-58. JSTOR.
Wiley, Henry. “Cracked Up On Cocaine: Is There Disparity in Drug Sentencing
Between Black and White Offenders?.”Tri-State Defender 54, no. 21, May
21, 2005. PQ.
Woodson, Robert L. A Conversation with Mayor Marion Barry. Washington,
D.C.: the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1979.

Wasted States - Scholar

Transcription

Similar documents

diRosa Art Preserve!

augusten burroughs

IMPORTInsider

2012 Marilyn Merlot Nova1.3

Vancouver/Richmond Fax to: 604-253

November 2014 - Child Cancer Foundation

With FromHOME - Queen of the Valley Medical Center

whale tail

IMPORTInsider

Cocktail Menu - The Ritz