Grischa Metlay1. 1. Office of NIH History, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda MD, USA. grischa.metlay@nih.gov
Abstract
CONTEXT: The formation of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) and the Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention (SAODAP) in the early 1970s dramatically expanded scientific and medical efforts to control alcoholism and drug abuse in the United States. METHODS: Drawing on a variety of primary, secondary, and archival sources, this article describes the creation and early years of these agencies. FINDINGS: I show that while the agencies appeared at roughly the same time, their creation involved separate sets of issues and actors. In addition, I show that SAODAP received more money and resources, even though advocates for alcoholics mobilized a stronger lobbying campaign. CONCLUSIONS: Two factors explain this discrepancy in money and resources: (1) alcoholism was framed as a public health problem, whereas drug abuse was drawn into broader debates about crime and social decline; and (2) alcohol programs relied on congressional support, whereas drug programs found champions at high levels of the Nixon administration. These political and cultural factors help explain why current programs for illegal drugs receive more federal support, despite alcohol's greater public health burden.
CONTEXT: The formation of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) and the Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention (SAODAP) in the early 1970s dramatically expanded scientific and medical efforts to control alcoholism and drug abuse in the United States. METHODS: Drawing on a variety of primary, secondary, and archival sources, this article describes the creation and early years of these agencies. FINDINGS: I show that while the agencies appeared at roughly the same time, their creation involved separate sets of issues and actors. In addition, I show that SAODAP received more money and resources, even though advocates for alcoholics mobilized a stronger lobbying campaign. CONCLUSIONS: Two factors explain this discrepancy in money and resources: (1) alcoholism was framed as a public health problem, whereas drug abuse was drawn into broader debates about crime and social decline; and (2) alcohol programs relied on congressional support, whereas drug programs found champions at high levels of the Nixon administration. These political and cultural factors help explain why current programs for illegal drugs receive more federal support, despite alcohol's greater public health burden.