Historically, how the hate of drugs started? Drugs usage is the

>>2113967
drug addict detected

>>2113976
addicts are the most anti-fun crybabies ever.

>hurr don't make the same mistakes I did
yeah I'm not going to because I'm not retarded.

>>2113967
this son of a bitch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger

If we're talking just modern attitudes, it started around the late 19th and early 20th century after the Opium War where a huge international market for opiates and opium derived substances led to government interest in regulation and taxation, restricting the trade to the more powerful and better connected drug importers in the world. In order to support the initiative, however, they latched onto nativist and racial sympathies by linking unregulated drug usage to foreigner and minority crimes. For about a century afterwards this was the general strategy - heavily regulate a drug until it or its pharmaceutical equivalent/rival is only profitable for large corporations, and gain unbending public support through moral panic, xenophobia, and racism.

>>2113967

I'm inappropriately excited that I know the exact real answer to this question because of a criminology course I took seven years ago.

>Historically, how the hate of drugs started?

The first modern drug prohibition law was an ordinance passed by San Francisco in 1875 prohibiting the smoking of opium in opium dens. It was passed in response to miscegenation anxiety; many male Chinese immigrants came into the US in the preceding decades to work on railroads and people were afraid white women were getting taken advantage of in Chinese opium dens.

In fact, most of the history of drug prohibition has its origins in racism. Here's the gold standard resource for drug prohibition history (Brecher's Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs):

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm

File: Patriotaque (404).jpg (217KB, 469x600px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 469x600px

>>2115039
Quality answer, anon

>>2113967
What the fuck is that picture trying to tell me?

>>2115039
Somewhat unrelated but would smoking opium the plant be more or less addictive than the extracts and variants of the opium such as heroin, oxycontin, percocet, etc?

>>2113967

Opium destroyed China. Injuns couldn't hold their liquor and that fucked their cultures up a fair bit.

>>2115093

Can't say for sure but I would assume the plant would not be as bad since it is not concentrated

>>2115105
You mean Brits destroyed China with opium

>>2115093
>>2115113
"Natural" Opium is still way above the addiction levels of other drugs, barring cocaine. It's not exactly harmful however, you'll only die by overdosing and suffocating in your sleep, not due to long term side-effects.

>>2113967
>Takes flintstones vitamins once

>>2115135
Cocaine doesn't cause physical dependence. It's easy to come off compared to extremely painful opiod, benzo, or alcohol withdrawal.

>friend takes opium
>wastes all his money on opium
>fucks things up at work and loses job
>steals for opium money
>lots of people end up like this
>opium banned

>other drugs are invented with a similar effect
>politicians and voters lack expertise and know little about the differing effects of these drugs at different dosages, just that they all affect the nervous system
>LSD and cannabis get banned

>because they are illegal they become further associated with crime
>state likes hunting it down because it gives them something to do and bigger budgets
>ban persists for decades

>>2115161
Agreed, but the substance, like a searing rod, burns deep and fast. More so than methamphetamine or similar medium-to-high addicting products.

>>2113967
Say that to Qing China not online and see what happens mofo

>>2115196
>not online
They never had internet, or anything else technologically going for them

>>2115247
>autism

>>2115039
Go far enough back and you can find ancient Romans and Greeks bitching about over consumption of alcohol and a subsequent desire to discourage or ban its use entirely. A little after that Christians moaned about alcohol being something that convinced people to sin.

Want another example, as soon as the adverse health effects of smoking became apparent western nations started trying to prohibit the use of tobacco because it was shaving a decade off of life expectancy.

Read up on the Chinese opium wars. The Chinese state itself temporarily banned opium use entirely and would kill people who sold, distributed, or consumed it. Their justification was that it was crippling their society because everyone was too high to work and the relative cheapness of it prompted some to smoke it until they straight up starved themselves. The only reason the Chinese mad it's consumption legal again was because they lost the opium war with England.

Miscegenation may only be one catalyst for drug ban in one time period and in one place. There are many different reasons why it was and is discouraged. Stop looking for a simple answer to a complex question.

>>2115164
R u saying it all started with opium? How did it not become a problem b4 china opium war tho? I mean people must of smoked opium before that.

>>2115557
see >>2114349

It's not so much the opium as the people behind the trade. Drugs were almost always considered a vice, but opium in mid 19th century China was very much seen as a foreign menace which enriched Western merchants at the expense of the Chinese.

In the past trade in vice was highly regulated by state and local government, but The Opium Wars differed in that you had a foreign economy forcing themselves on a market at an unprecedented scale. After that the problem spread throughout the world. Combined with the breakup of many traditional communities through urbanization and industrialization and you had a recipe for disaster. It was one thing for some youths and upper class hedonists of your city state to indulge in the latest drug in the 16th century, and another thing for millions of working class people across a country as large as China or the United States.

>>2115510

>Go far back enough

Both op and I explicitly qualified our posts with "modern." This is the best source for walking through the history leading up to modern drug laws:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm

>>2113967


What kind of reasoning is that?
Both things are absolutely unrelated.
Why do you save such cancerous pictures?

>>2113967
Neglected wives.

>>2116133
If you want to understand the reasons for the modern perseption of it then you need to understand the historical one.

It has almost always been frowned upon and to blame on one concept like miscegenation is an incredible narrow answer to a very broad question.

I'll also add that my response mostly contained modern answers, all of which had nothing to do with miscegenation.

>>2116133
That library of yours lists many different reasons than miscegenation, btw.

>>2117227
>>2117232

I never claimed all drug prohibition was passed in respose to miscegination anxiety. That was specific to the 1875 San Francisco opium den law. What I claimed is most of those drug laws have their origins in racism, which is true.