were problematic. It showed that addicts are from all races and classes, that most traffickers are white, that law enforcement only targets low-level dealers, that there is little difference between addiction to legal and illegal drugs, that cocaine is not necessarily addictive, that drug addicts are not violent, that law-enforcement control of it is impossible, and that drug addiction is a sickness. The film heartened Alfred R. Lindesmith, an Indiana University sociology professor who advocated the medical treatment of drug addiction. In 1940, he published the article Dope Fiend Mythology, in which he criticized the media’s use of stereotypes such as ‘freak’ and ‘dope fiend’, and stated that drug addicts are normal human beings with an illness, and that punitive actions against them are unreasonable. Drug Addict outraged Harry J. Anslinger, the ‘moral enforcer’ who was head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) from 1930 to 1962. The early 20th-century mass migration of minorities to northern U.S. cities, and the emergence of an illicit narcotics market, had created public anxiety and suspicion directed at immigrants and people of color. Anslinger, who had a hard-line drug policy, and who had the support of Democrats, Republicans, the Women's Christian Temperance Union and many churches, exploited these fears by linking drugs to minorities. As he also controlled licensing for the importation of opiates, he had the support of drug companies. And he controlled the flow of information about drugs and drug addiction; as late as the 1950s, the intimidation of the FBN made it difficult to publish books on drugs or drug use. Beginning in 1939, Anslinger directly targeted Alfred Lindesmith with a campaign of intimidation, slander and guilt-by-association. He attempted to intimidate the Indiana University, he formally called Lindesmith a ‘drug addict’, a ‘crackpot’ and a ‘communist’. It is believed that the FBN tapped Lindesmith's phone and planted, or attempted to plant, drugs in his house and car. Lindesmith, who initially had no support from his peers, viewed Drug Addict as the opening of a window, a significant aid in affecting American perceptions of drug use and addiction, and an opportunity to end prohibitionist policies. Drug Addict depicts addicts as desperate, pathetic, and sick individuals, suffering from guilt and withdrawal—it was a direct rebuttal to the rationale for Anslinger's policies. Anslinger knew of the potential political hazards which Drug Addict could engender if the public was presented with such a rebuttal,