How Heroin Went From Medicine Cabinet Staple to “Public Enemy”: A History of Panic, Profit, and Prohibition
Heroin didn’t start its life as the boogeyman of the drug war. It started as a pharmaceutical brand name — proudly sold by one of the world’s biggest companies, touted by doctors, and shipped around the globe as a medical miracle.
Today, that same substance is the centerpiece of “opioid epidemics,” mass incarceration, racist policing, and endless political grandstanding. The chemistry hasn’t changed. The laws, the money, and the moral panic have.
This is the story of how heroin went from respectable medicine to prohibited demon — and how that shift has wrecked civil liberties, public health, and basic honesty in drug policy.
From “Heroisch” to Heroin: Bayer’s Wonder Drug
Let’s start with the part the prohibitionists never want to talk about: heroin was invented, marketed, and spread around the world by respectable suits, not street dealers.
In the late 19th century, chemists were looking for new painkillers and cough suppressants. Morphine, isolated from opium early in the 1800s, was powerful but came with something the medical establishment suddenly decided was scandalous: dependence.
In 1874, English chemist C.R. Alder Wright first synthesized diacetylmorphine — what we now call heroin — by modifying morphine. It mostly sat on the shelf for a couple of decades. Then came Bayer.
In the 1890s, Bayer (yes, the aspirin Bayer) started experimenting with diacetylmorphine and found it had strong painkilling and cough-suppressing properties. Their researchers reported that it made them feel “heroisch” — heroic. And just like that, a brand name was born: Heroin.
Bayer launched heroin commercially in 1898. It was marketed as:
- A non-addictive alternative to morphine (spectacularly wrong)
- A treatment for coughs, including tuberculosis and pneumonia
- A general-purpose painkiller
Heroin syrup, heroin lozenges, heroin injectables — all doctor-approved, pharmacy-dispensed, and legally advertised. Children got it. Respectable middle-class patients got it. The state didn’t care, because the state wasn’t in moral-panic mode yet.
“Addiction” Becomes a Crime — But Only for the Poor and Racialized
By the early 1900s, it was obvious that heroin was habit-forming. Surprise: so were morphine and opium, and humanity had been using those for thousands of years. But instead of treating dependence as a medical issue, governments began reframing it as a criminal and moral issue — with a heavy dose of racism and class anxiety.
There were two stories happening at the same time:
- Wealthy and middle-class people, often white, using opiates under medical supervision, with sympathy from doctors.
- Working-class, immigrant, and colonized populations using opium or its derivatives — prompting a wave of pearl-clutching from elites.
Guess which group got targeted by law?
Anti-opium campaigns in the U.S. were explicitly linked to anti-Chinese racism. Newspapers ran hysterical stories about “opium dens” where white women were supposedly lured into depravity. In the American South, opiate scares got tangled with fearmongering about Black men and crime. In Europe and its colonies, opium became a convenient moral weapon against colonized peoples — even as European empires literally ran opium monopolies for profit.
The issue wasn’t “addiction.” It was control.
The Harrison Act: Tax Law as a Backdoor Drug War
The real turning point in U.S. heroin policy wasn’t some sober scientific finding; it was a political maneuver: the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914.
On paper, Harrison was just a tax and registration law. It required people who produced or distributed opium and coca products to register with the federal government and pay a tax. It didn’t say “we criminalize addiction” or “we outlaw heroin use.” That would have been too honest — and probably unconstitutional.
But the way it was enforced turned it into the backbone of early prohibition. Federal agents and courts interpreted the Act to mean that doctors:
- Could prescribe opiates for “legitimate medical purposes,” but
- Could NOT prescribe them simply to maintain a dependent person’s use.
Translation: treating pain and acute conditions was okay, but prescribing to keep dependent patients stable — i.e., early opioid maintenance — was criminalized.
In 1919, the U.S. Supreme Court in Webb v. United States upheld this narrow interpretation. That ruling effectively outlawed what we now call opioid maintenance therapy — the very thing modern harm reduction advocates know saves lives.
Doctors who tried to treat dependent patients humanely were raided and arrested. Patients were cut off and pushed into the black market overnight. Not because the science said this was smart, but because the legal class decided addiction was a moral failing that must not be “coddled.”
So the first public-health disaster caused by heroin wasn’t the molecule. It was the state’s decision to criminalize care.
International Control: Colonial Hypocrisy Goes Global
While the U.S. was busy moralizing at home, it was also exporting its prohibitionist mindset abroad. Beginning with the 1909 International Opium Commission in Shanghai and leading into the Hague Opium Convention (1912) and later treaties, major powers began negotiating “drug control” frameworks.
These weren’t neutral health agreements. They were soaked in colonial politics and trade interests. Western powers:
- Had long run state opium monopolies (e.g., the British in India and China)
- Wanted to protect their commercial and geopolitical interests
- Also wanted to perform moral leadership by “cleaning up” opium
So we got a beautiful double standard: the same governments that had trafficked opium on a vast scale now positioned themselves as global drug cops. Heroin and morphine, once traded as legal commodities, were reclassified as dangerous substances to be tightly controlled.
The 1925 Geneva Opium Convention explicitly targeted heroin, tightening controls on manufacture and trade. Eventually, post–World War II, the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961) consolidated this framework: heroin for medical and scientific use only, effectively illegal outside state-sanctioned channels.
Meanwhile, legal opioid markets for pain continued — just under tighter corporate and state control. The message: drugs are not bad, unsanctioned drugs are bad.
From Medicine to Menace: The Media Builds a Monster
By the mid-20th century, heroin was no longer just a medicine; it had become a political symbol. Stories of “heroin fiends” exploded in newspapers and radio. The language was pure panic: “enslaving drug,” “soul-destroying habit,” “criminal underclass.”
Media coverage wasn’t interested in nuance. You rarely saw discussion of:
- Why people used heroin (trauma, war injuries, mental health, poverty)
- The role of prohibition in causing adulterated, dangerous street supplies
- The relative safety of pharmaceutical-grade opioids used under supervision
Instead, the narrative went: heroin equals crime, decay, and social collapse. That narrative laid the emotional groundwork for more aggressive policing, harsher sentences, and public support for “crackdowns.”
Politicians loved it. Nothing sells like fear. So while alcohol — a known driver of violence and disease — was re-legalized after the failure of Prohibition, heroin stayed locked in the “evil drug” category, perfect for moral grandstanding and racialized enforcement.
The War on Drugs Supercharges Heroin Criminalization
By the 1960s and 70s, heroin had firmly moved from medical journals to “law and order” speeches. President Nixon notoriously declared drugs “public enemy number one” and launched what we now call the War on Drugs.
Let’s be direct: this wasn’t about evidence-based health policy. Nixon’s own domestic policy advisor, John Ehrlichman, later admitted the strategy was about targeting political enemies — Black communities and anti-war activists — by criminalizing their associations with certain drugs.
Heroin, associated with urban Black and brown communities and returning Vietnam veterans, made excellent propaganda. Instead of asking why traumatized soldiers or marginalized youth were using opioids, the state built a policing-and-prison solution:
- Mandatory minimum sentences for drug possession and distribution
- Expanded police powers for searches, surveillance, and raids
- Federal funding tied to “drug arrests” and “drug seizures” as success metrics
The result? A massive increase in incarceration for nonviolent drug offenses, including simple possession. People caught with small amounts of heroin — often dependent users, not kingpins — had their lives destroyed in the name of “saving” society.
Did heroin use vanish? Of course not. It went underground, got riskier, and increasingly overlapped with other structural harms: poverty, racism, untreated mental health conditions, and housing instability. But hey, politicians got campaign ads bragging about being “tough on drugs,” so mission accomplished, right?
Public Health vs. Punishment: The Split Approaches
The irony is that while the U.S. and many other countries doubled down on punishment, some places quietly proved another path was possible.
In the 1980s and 90s, Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands, and later Canada and others experimented with supervised heroin-assisted treatment (HAT) for people with long-term opioid dependence who hadn’t benefited from methadone or abstinence-based treatment.
The results were consistent and boring in the best way:
- Huge drops in overdose deaths
- Lower rates of HIV and hepatitis transmission
- Reduced criminal activity related to drug acquisition
- Stabilized housing and employment for patients
In other words, when heroin was brought back into the legal, regulated medical sphere, harm plummeted. Not because the molecule magically changed — but because prohibition-related harms (adulteration, unsafe injection environments, criminal markets) were dialed down.
Meanwhile, in countries clinging to punitive models, overdose deaths soared, especially with the arrival of potent synthetic opioids like illicit fentanyl. Street drug supplies became a game of Russian roulette. And the state’s answer? More arrests, more surveillance, more stigma.
Corporate Opioids Good, Street Opioids Bad?
The late 1990s and 2000s added another grotesque twist: the rise of corporate-driven opioid prescribing, especially in the United States.
Pharmaceutical companies like Purdue Pharma aggressively marketed OxyContin and other opioids as safe and effective for chronic pain, downplaying dependence risks. Doctors, trained to believe pharma’s glossy brochures and incentivized by a system that rewards pill-based fixes, wrote millions of prescriptions.
When people became dependent or misused these drugs, the media dubbed it an “opioid epidemic,” as if this had descended from the sky, unrelated to corporate lobbying, misleading marketing, and decades of prohibitionist lies about “street junkies.”
Then, when the backlash hit, regulators cracked down on prescribing — but without building robust, humane systems for dependence treatment and safe supply. Many people cut off from legal opioids pivoted to illicit heroin and, increasingly, fentanyl-laced supplies.
So let’s recap the moral logic on display:
- Heroin was fine when sold by Bayer as a cough syrup.
- Opiates were fine when sold by empires to colonized people for profit.
- OxyContin was fine when sold by Purdue with a fraudulent marketing campaign.
- But if you, as an individual, seek out opioids outside those approved channels, you’re a criminal, a “junkie,” and a target.
This isn’t about the inherent “evil” of heroin. It’s about who controls the supply and who gets punished.
Prohibition’s Real Legacy: Death, Prison, and Lost Trust
What has a century-plus of heroin prohibition actually accomplished? Let’s be blunt:
Overdose Deaths from an Unregulated Supply
When you criminalize a drug with high demand, you don’t eliminate it; you hand the market to unregulated suppliers. That means:
- Unknown potency from batch to batch
- Adulterants and contaminants (including fentanyl and its analogues)
- No quality control, no labeling, no consumer protections
People die not just because opioids can depress breathing, but because prohibition ensures they can’t know what they’re taking, can’t safely test it, and often feel forced to use in hidden, isolated settings where no one can intervene if they overdose.
Mass Incarceration and Racialized Enforcement
Heroin laws have been enforced in wildly unequal ways. Black, brown, Indigenous, and poor communities are more heavily policed, more frequently searched, and more harshly sentenced than white or affluent users with similar behavior.
The War on Drugs has filled prisons with people whose primary “crime” was possession or low-level selling to support their own use. Criminal records then block housing, employment, and education — perpetuating cycles of marginalization. All this, while corporate actors who helped fuel opioid dependence walk away with fines and settlements that barely dent profits.
Suppressed Harm Reduction and Honest Education
Prohibition doesn’t just punish users; it also censors information. Needle and syringe programs, safe consumption sites, and heroin-assisted treatment have been fought every step of the way in many countries — not because evidence doesn’t support them, but because they offend puritanical ideologies about “sending the wrong message.”
That “message” obsession kills. People are denied life-saving interventions because some politician wants to posture about morality. Meanwhile, teenagers grow up with D.A.R.E.-style propaganda instead of honest drug education, making them less prepared, not more, to navigate the real world.
What an Evidence-Based Heroin Policy Could Look Like
If we stopped treating heroin as a metaphysical evil and started treating it as what it actually is — an opioid drug with risks, benefits, and predictable pharmacology — policy could shift dramatically.
An evidence-based approach would include:
- Legal, regulated access for adults, with clear dosing information and quality control
- Heroin-assisted treatment as an option for long-term dependent users who don’t benefit from other therapies
- Comprehensive harm reduction: safe consumption sites, drug checking, naloxone distribution, needle and syringe programs
- Non-coercive, voluntary treatment options for people who want to reduce or stop use, rooted in respect, not punishment
- Decarceration and expungement for people with nonviolent heroin-related offenses
- Honest education that teaches adults and young people how drugs actually work, how to reduce risks, and how to seek help without fear
We’ve already seen pieces of this in action in countries that dared to put health over hysteria. It’s not utopian; it’s just politically inconvenient for those who’ve built careers on fear.
Heroin’s History Is a Mirror — And It’s Not Flattering
Follow heroin’s journey and you don’t just learn about one drug — you get a crash course in how power works:
- How corporations and empires profit from drugs while demonizing the people who use them
- How racist and classist panics shape law more than science ever does
- How states are happy to weaponize health issues as tools of social control
The molecule didn’t change when it moved from Bayer’s catalog to the black market. What changed was who got to profit and who got punished. Civil liberties shrank. Prisons swelled. Overdose deaths climbed. And through it all, prohibitionists claimed the moral high ground while standing on a pile of preventable harm.
Adults have the right to make informed choices about their own bodies — including opioid use. The real obscenity isn’t that people use heroin; it’s that governments have spent over a century making those choices as dangerous, stigmatized, and criminalized as possible, all while pretending it’s for our own good.
Heroin’s history isn’t a warning about drugs. It’s a warning about what happens when fear, moral panic, and profit are allowed to write the law.
—
Tags: drug policy, harm reduction, legalization, antiprohibit, education-history
