I wish to begin these progress reports – for my own benefit, as much as anyone else’s – by establishing the baseline work I have already done prior to the beginning of the semester. I think it will be useful in outlining what foundation I am working with. Currently, my project stands somewhat as an argument of the dangers of bureaucratic autonomy, using Harry J. Anslinger as a case study through which one can see bureaucratic overreach in action. In general, I want my paper to establish:
-
that Harry J. Anslinger did not have a foundation for the authority granted to him in his position as head of the FBN, and thus his views and guidance stemmed not from expertise but from personal prejudice,
-
that Anslinger’s opinion was accepted at face-value as authoritative and true, which altered both public opinion and governmental policy around drug legislation (particularly marijuana), despite protests from the scientific community,
-
that this combination resulted in a dangerous lack of oversight into Anslinger’s work, leaving him free to embed his personal prejudices and ideas surrounding drugs into American drug policy
-
and that, with the origin of said policies camouflaged into the broader racial tensions of the mid-20th century, Anslinger’s work folded into the CSA, which continues to disproportionately affect Black and Brown communities in the United States, and specifically does not follow scientific opinion regarding marijuana.
In short, I want to prove that, if Anslinger had never existed, American drug legislation, especially around marijuana, would look substantially different. One man does not systemic oppression make, but I will argue that Anslinger’s impact was significant enough to alter the course of American drug policy for the worse.
These four aspects each require different elements to prove them. I have some already locked and loaded: The LaGuardia Report of 1950, ordered by Mayor LaGuardia of NYC, found an overwhelming lack of evidence to support any of Anslinger’s touted beliefs. Anslinger’s “Gore Files,” a selection of cherry-picked instances of violence by (usually black male) drug users toward (usually white female) victims that Anslinger used in Congressional meetings and as propaganda. McWilliams’ The Protectors, which establishes Anslinger’s early years and their lack of any scientific study, as well as specific attempts to silence or downplay scientific findings that contradicted Anslinger’s narrative. My political theory for this project is Daniel Carpenter’s Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy, though I remain cautious in overreliance on it.
My most important next step is connecting with the Penn State Archives, which houses most of Anslinger’s personal papers (one singular box is in the Truman library in MO, for some reason) to see if I can go through his papers in person. If not, I need to begin compiling a set of what I will be most useful to request as digitized material. Ideally, I will be able to find concrete instances in which Anslinger is directly responsible for language in drug policy, but this is a cross-referencing scavenger hunt that will begin a bit further down the road.
I do feel I am in a good place with my project and am excited to continue!