WHY
IS CANNABIS ILLEGAL IN THE US
Stes de Necker
Many people assume that marijuana was made
illegal through some kind of process involving scientific, medical, and
government hearings; that it was to protect the citizens from what was
determined to be a dangerous drug.
The actual story shows a much different
picture.
Those who voted on the legal fate of this
plant never had the facts, but were dependent on information supplied by those
who had a specific agenda to deceive lawmakers. You’ll see below that the very
first federal vote to prohibit marijuana was based entirely on a documented lie
on the floor of the US Senate.
The
history of marijuana’s criminalization is filled with:
Racism
Fear
Protection of Corporate Profits
Yellow Journalism
Ignorant, Incompetent, and/or Corrupt
Legislators
Personal Career Advancement and Greed
These
are the actual reasons why cannabis is illegal.
Background
For
most of human history, marijuana has been completely legal. It’s not a
recently discovered plant, nor is it a long-standing law. Marijuana has been
illegal for less than 1% of the time that it’s been in use. Its known uses go
back further than 7,000 B.C. and it was legal as recently as when Ronald Reagan
was a boy.
The marijuana (hemp) plant, of course, has an
incredible number of uses. The earliest known woven fabric was apparently of
hemp, and over the centuries the plant was used for food, incense, cloth, rope,
and much more. This adds to some of the confusion over its introduction in the
United States, as the plant was well known from the early 1600’s, but did not
reach public awareness as a recreational drug until the early 1900’s.
America’s first marijuana law was enacted at
Jamestown Colony, Virginia in 1619. It was a law “ordering” all farmers to grow
Indian hempseed.
There were several other “must grow” laws
over the next 200 years (Americans
could be jailed for not growing hemp during times of
shortage in Virginia between 1763 and 1767), and during most of that time, hemp
was legal tender (Americans could
even pay your taxes with hemp)
Hemp was such a critical crop for a number of
purposes (including essential war requirements – rope, etc.) that the
government went out of its way to encourage growth.
The United States Census of 1850 counted
8,327 hemp “plantations” (minimum 2,000-acre farm) growing cannabis hemp for
cloth, canvas and even the cordage used for baling cotton.
The
Mexican Connection
In the early 1900s, the western states
developed significant tensions regarding the influx of Mexican-Americans. (Donald Trump will be excited to know this!)
The revolution in Mexico in 1910 spilled over
the border, with General Pershing’s army clashing with bandit Pancho Villa.
Later in that decade, bad feelings developed between the small farmer and the
large farms that used cheaper Mexican labor. Then, the depression came and
increased tensions, as jobs and welfare resources became scarce.
One of the “differences” seized upon during
this time was the fact that many Mexicans smoked marijuana and had brought the
plant with them, and it was through this that California apparently passed the
first state marijuana law, outlawing “preparations of hemp, or loco weed.”
However, one of the first state laws
outlawing marijuana may have been influenced, not just by Mexicans using the
drug, but, oddly enough, because of Mormons using it. Mormons who traveled to
Mexico in 1910 came back to Salt Lake City with marijuana.
The church’s reaction to this may have
contributed to the state’s marijuana law. (Note: the source for this
speculation is from articles by Charles Whitebread, Professor of Law at USC Law
School in a paper for the Virginia Law Review, and a speech to the California
Judges Association (sourced below).
Other states quickly followed suit with
marijuana prohibition laws, including Wyoming (1915), Texas (1919), Iowa
(1923), Nevada (1923), Oregon (1923), Washington (1923), Arkansas (1923), and
Nebraska (1927).
These
laws tended to be specifically targeted against the Mexican-American
population.
When Montana outlawed marijuana in 1927, the
Butte Montana Standard reported a legislator’s comment: “When some beet field
peon takes a few traces of this stuff… he thinks he has just been elected
president of Mexico, so he starts out to execute all his political enemies.” In
Texas, a senator said on the floor of the Senate: “All Mexicans are crazy, and
this stuff [marijuana] is what makes them crazy.”
Jazz
and Assassins
In the eastern states, the “problem” was
attributed to a combination of Latin Americans and black jazz musicians.
Marijuana and jazz traveled from New Orleans to Chicago, and then to Harlem,
where marijuana became an indispensable part of the music scene, even entering
the language of the black hits of the time (Louis Armstrong’s “Muggles”, Cab
Calloway’s “That Funny Reefer Man”, Fats Waller’s “Viper’s Drag”).
Again, racism was part of the charge against
marijuana, as newspapers in 1934 editorialized: “Marihuana influences Negroes
to look at white people in the eye, step on white men’s shadows and look at a
white woman twice.”
Two other fear-tactic rumors started to
spread: one, that Mexicans, Blacks and other foreigners were snaring white
children with marijuana; and two, the story of the “assassins.”
Early stories of Marco Polo had told of
“hasheesh-eaters” or hashashin, from which derived the term “assassin.” In the
original stories, these professional killers were given large doses of hashish
and brought to the ruler’s garden (to give them a glimpse of the paradise that
awaited them upon successful completion of their mission). Then, after the
effects of the drug disappeared, the assassin would fulfill his ruler’s wishes
with cool, calculating loyalty.
By the 1930s, the story had changed. Dr. A.
E. Fossier wrote in the 1931 New Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal: “Under
the influence of hashish those fanatics would madly rush at their enemies, and
ruthlessly massacre everyone
within their grasp.”
Within a very short time, marijuana started
being linked to violent behavior.
Alcohol
Prohibition and Federal Approaches to Drug Prohibition
During this time, the United States was also
dealing with alcohol prohibition, which lasted from 1919 to 1933. Alcohol
prohibition was extremely visible and debated at all levels, while drug laws
were passed without the general public’s knowledge. National alcohol
prohibition happened through the mechanism of an amendment to the constitution.
Earlier (1914), the Harrison Act was passed,
which provided federal tax penalties for opiates and cocaine.
The federal approach is important. It was
considered at the time that the federal government did not have the
constitutional power to outlaw alcohol or drugs. It is because of this that
alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment.
At that time in our country’s history, the
judiciary regularly placed the tenth amendment in the path of congressional
regulation of “local” affairs, and direct regulation of medical practice was
considered beyond congressional power under the commerce clause (since then,
both provisions have been weakened so far as to have almost no meaning).
Since drugs could not be outlawed at the
federal level, the decision was made to use federal taxes as a way around the
restriction.
In the Harrison Act, legal uses of opiates
and cocaine were taxed (supposedly as a revenue need by the federal government,
which is the only way it would hold up in the courts), and those who didn’t
follow the law found themselves in trouble with the treasury department.
In 1930, a new division in the Treasury
Department was established — the Federal Bureau of Narcotics — and Harry J.
Anslinger was named director.
This, if anything, marked the beginning of
the all-out war against marijuana.
Anslinger was an extremely ambitious man, and he recognized the
Bureau of Narcotics as an amazing career opportunity — a new government agency
with the opportunity to define both the problem and the solution. He
immediately realized that opiates and cocaine wouldn’t be enough to help build
his agency, so he latched on to marijuana and started to work on making it
illegal at the federal level.
Anslinger immediately drew upon the themes
of racism and violence to draw national attention to the problem he wanted to
create. He also promoted and frequently read from “Gore Files” — wild
reefer-madness-style exploitation tales of ax murderers on marijuana and sex
and… Negroes. Here are some quotes that have been widely attributed to
Anslinger and his Gore Files:
“There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in
the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their
Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use.
This marijuana
causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any
others.”
“…the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is
its effect on the degenerate races.”
“Marijuana is an addictive drug which
produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death.”
“Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good
as white men.”
“Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist
brainwashing”
“You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill
your brother.”
“Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug
in the history of mankind.”
And he loved to pull out his own version of
the “assassin” definition:
“In the year 1090, there was founded in
Persia the religious and military order of the Assassins, whose history is one
of cruelty, barbarity, and murder, and for good reason: the members were
confirmed users of hashish, or marihuana, and it is from the Arabs’ ‘hashashin’
that we have the English word ‘assassin.'”
Yellow Journalism
Harry Anslinger got some additional help from
William Randolf Hearst, owner of a huge chain of newspapers. Hearst had lots of
reasons to help. First, he hated Mexicans. Second, he had invested heavily in
the timber industry to support his newspaper chain and didn’t want to see the
development of hemp paper in competition. Third, he had lost 800,000 acres of
timberland to Pancho Villa, so he hated Mexicans. Fourth, telling lurid lies
about Mexicans (and the devil marijuana weed causing violence) sold newspapers,
making him rich.
Some
samples from the San Francisco Examiner:
“Marihuana makes fiends of boys in thirty
days — Hashish goads users to bloodlust.”
“By the tons it is coming into this country —
the deadly, dreadful poison that racks and tears not only the body, but the
very heart and soul of every human being who once becomes a slave to it in any
of its cruel and devastating forms…. Marihuana is a short cut to the insane
asylum. Smoke marihuana cigarettes for a month and what was once your brain
will be nothing but a storehouse of horrid specters. Hasheesh makes a murderer
who kills for the love of killing out of the mildest mannered man who ever
laughed at the idea that any habit could ever get him….”
And
other nationwide columns:
“Users of marijuana become STIMULATED as they
inhale the drug and are LIKELY TO DO ANYTHING. Most crimes of violence in this
section, especially in country districts are laid to users of that drug.”
“Was it marijuana, the new Mexican drug, that
nerved the murderous arm of Clara Phillips when she hammered out her victim’s
life in Los Angeles?… THREE-FOURTHS OF THE CRIMES of violence in this country
today are committed by DOPE SLAVES — that is a matter of cold record.”
Hearst and Anslinger were then supported by
Dupont chemical company and various pharmaceutical companies in the effort to
outlaw cannabis. Dupont had patented nylon, and wanted hemp removed as
competition. The pharmaceutical companies could neither identify nor
standardize cannabis dosages, and besides, with cannabis, folks could grow
their own medicine and not have to purchase it from large companies.
This all set the stage for The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.
After two years of secret planning, Anslinger
brought his plan to Congress — complete with a scrapbook full of sensational
Hearst editorials, stories of ax murderers who had supposedly smoked marijuana,
and racial slurs.
It was a remarkably short set of hearings.
The one fly in Anslinger’s ointment was the
appearance by Dr. William C. Woodward, Legislative Council of the American
Medical Association.
Woodward started by slamming Harry Anslinger
and the Bureau of Narcotics for distorting earlier AMA statements that had
nothing to do with marijuana and making them appear to be AMA endorsement for
Anslinger’s view.
He also reproached the legislature and the
Bureau for using the term marijuana in the legislation and not publicizing it
as a bill about cannabis or hemp. At this point, marijuana (or marihuana) was a
sensationalist word used to refer to Mexicans smoking a drug and had not been
connected in most people’s minds to the existing cannabis/hemp plant. Thus,
many who had legitimate reasons to oppose the bill weren’t even aware of it.
Woodward went on to state that the AMA was
opposed to the legislation and further questioned the approach of the hearings,
coming close to outright accusation of misconduct by Anslinger and the
committee:
“That there is a certain amount of narcotic
addiction of an objectionable character no one will deny. The newspapers have
called attention to it so prominently that there must be some grounds for
[their] statements [even Woodward was partially taken in by Hearst’s
propaganda]. It has surprised me, however, that the facts on which these
statements have been based have not been brought before this committee by
competent primary evidence. We are referred to newspaper publications
concerning the prevalence of marihuana addiction. We are told that the use of
marihuana causes crime.
But yet no one has been produced from the
Bureau of Prisons to show the number of prisoners who have been found addicted
to the marihuana habit. An informed inquiry shows that the Bureau of Prisons
has no evidence on that point.
Americans have
been told that school children are great users of marihuana cigarettes. No one
has been summoned from the Children’s Bureau to show the nature and extent of
the habit, among children.
Inquiry of the Children’s Bureau shows that
they have had no occasion to investigate it and know nothing particularly of
it.
Inquiry of the Office of Education— and they
certainly should know something of the prevalence of the habit among the school
children of the country, if there is a prevalent habit— indicates that they
have had no occasion to investigate and know nothing of it.
Moreover, there is in the Treasury Department
itself, the Public Health Service, with its Division of Mental Hygiene. The
Division of Mental Hygiene was, in the first place, the Division of Narcotics.
It was converted into the Division of Mental Hygiene, round about 1930.
That particular Bureau has control at the
present time of the narcotics farms that were created about 1929 or 1930 and
came into operation a few years later. No one has been summoned from that
Bureau to give evidence on that point.
Informal inquiry indicated that they have had no record of
any marihuana of Cannabis addicts who have ever been committed to those farms.
The bureau of Public Health Service has also
a division of pharmacology. If you desire evidence as to the pharmacology of
Cannabis, that obviously is the place where you can get direct and primary
evidence, rather than the indirect hearsay evidence.”
Committee members then proceeded to attack
Dr. Woodward, questioning his motives in opposing the legislation.
Even the
Chairman joined in:
The Chairman: If you want to advise us
on legislation, you ought to come here with some constructive proposals, rather
than criticism, rather than trying to throw obstacles in the way of something
that the Federal Government is trying to do. It has not only an unselfish
motive in this, but they have a serious responsibility.
Dr. Woodward: We cannot understand yet,
Mr. Chairman, why this bill should have been prepared in secret for 2 years
without any intimation, even, to the profession, that it was being prepared.
After some further bantering…
The Chairman: I would like to read a
quotation from a recent editorial in the Washington Times:
The marihuana cigarette is one of the most
insidious of all forms of dope, largely because of the failure of the public to
understand its fatal qualities.
The Nation is almost defenceless against it, having no Federal
laws to cope with it and virtually no organized campaign for combating it.
The
result is tragic.
School children are the prey of peddlers who
infest school neighbourhoods.
High school boys and girls buy the
destructive weed without knowledge of its capacity of harm, and conscienceless
dealers sell it with impunity.
This is a national problem, and it must have
national attention.
The fatal marihuana cigarette must be
recognized as a deadly drug, and American children must be protected against
it.
That is a pretty severe indictment.
They say
it is a national question and that it requires effective legislation. Of
course, in a general way, you have responded to all of these statements; but
that indicates very clearly that it is an evil of such magnitude that it is
recognized by the press of the country as such.
And
that was basically it. Yellow journalism won over medical science.
The committee passed the legislation on. And
on the floor of the house, the entire discussion was:
Member from upstate New York: “Mr.
Speaker, what is this bill about?”
Speaker Rayburn: “I don’t know. It has
something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it’s a narcotic of some
kind.”
“Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical
Association support this bill?”
Member on the committee jumps up and says: “Their
Doctor Wentworth[sic] came down here. They support this bill 100 percent.”
And on the basis of that lie, on August 2, 1937,
marijuana became
illegal at the federal level!
The entire coverage in the New York Times:
“President Roosevelt signed today a bill to curb traffic in the narcotic,
marihuana, through heavy taxes on transactions.”
Anslinger
as precursor to the Drug Czars
Anslinger was essentially the first Drug
Czar. Even though the term didn’t exist until William Bennett’s position as
director of the White House Office of National Drug Policy, Anslinger acted in
a similar fashion. In fact, there are some amazing parallels between Anslinger
and the current Drug Czar John Walters. Both had kind of a carte blanche to go
around demonizing drugs and drug users. Both had resources and a large public
podium for their voice to be heard and to promote their personal agenda. Both
lied constantly, often when it was unnecessary. Both were racists. Both had the
ear of lawmakers, and both realized that they could persuade legislators and others
based on lies, particularly if they could co-opt the media into squelching or
downplaying any opposition views.
Anslinger even had the ability to circumvent
the First Amendment. He banned the Canadian movie “Drug Addict,” a 1946
documentary that realistically depicted the drug addicts and law enforcement
efforts. He even tried to get Canada to ban the movie in their own country, or
failing that, to prevent U.S. citizens from seeing the movie in Canada. Canada
refused. (Today, Drug Czar John Walters is trying to bully Canada into keeping
harsh marijuana laws.)
Anslinger had 37 years to solidify the
propaganda and stifle opposition. The lies continued the entire time (although
the stories would adjust — the 21 year old Florida boy who killed his family of
five got younger each time he told it).
In 1961, he looked back at his efforts:
“Much of the most irrational juvenile
violence and that has written a new chapter of shame and tragedy is traceable
directly to this hemp intoxication. A gang of boys tear the clothes from two
school girls and rape the screaming girls, one boy after the other. A
sixteen-year-old kills his entire family of five in Florida, a man in Minnesota
puts a bullet through the head of a stranger on the road; in Colorado husband
tries to shoot his wife, kills her grandmother instead and then kills himself.
Every one of these crimes had been proceeded [sic] by the smoking of one or
more marijuana “reefers.”
As the marijuana situation grew worse, I knew
action had to be taken to get the proper legislation passed. By 1937 under my
direction, the Bureau launched two important steps First, a legislative plan to
seek from Congress a new law that would place marijuana and its distribution
directly under federal control. Second, on radio and at major forums, such that
presented annually by the New York Herald Tribune, I told the story of this
evil weed of the fields and river beds and roadsides. I wrote articles for
magazines; our agents gave hundreds of lectures to parents, educators, social
and civic leaders. In network broadcasts I reported on the growing list of
crimes, including murder and rape. I described the nature of marijuana and its
close kinship to hashish. I continued to hammer at the facts.
I believe we did a thorough job, for the
public was alerted and the laws to protect them were passed, both nationally
and at the state level. We also brought under control the wild growing
marijuana in this country. Working with local authorities, we cleaned up
hundreds of acres of marijuana and we uprooted plants sprouting along the
roadsides.”
The narrative since then has been a continual
litany of:
Politicians wanting to appear tough on crime
and passing tougher penalties
Constant increases in spending on law
enforcement and prisons
Racist application of drug laws
Taxpayer funded propaganda
Stifling of opposition speech
Political contributions from corporations
that profit from marijuana being illegal (pharmaceuticals, alcohol, etc.)
Chronology of the cannabis saga
7000-8000 B.C.
First woven fabric believed to be from hemp.
1619
Jamestown Colony, Virginia passes law
requiring farmers to grow hemp.
1700s
Hemp was the primary crop grown by George
Washington at Mount Vernon, and a secondary crop grown by Thomas Jefferson at
Monticello.
1884
Maine is the first state to outlaw alcohol.
1906
Pure Food and Drug Act is passed, forming the
Food and Drug Administration. First time that drugs have any government
oversight.
1913California, apparently, passes the first
state marijuana law, though missed by many because it referred to “preparations
of hemp, or loco weed.”
1914
Harrison Act passed, outlawing opiates and cocaine
(taxing scheme)
1915
Utah passes state anti-marijuana law.
1919
18th Amendment to the Constitution (alcohol
prohibition) is ratified.
1930
Harry J. Anslinger given control of the new
Federal Bureau of Narcotics (he remains in the position until 1962)
1933
21st Amendment to the Constitution is
ratified, repealing alcohol prohibition.
1937
Marijuana Tax Act
1938
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
1951
Boggs Amendment to the Harrison Narcotic Act
(mandatory sentences)
1956
Narcotics Control Act adds more severe
penalties
1970
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and
Control Act.
Replaces and updates all previous laws concerning narcotics and other dangerous drugs. Empasis on law enforcement. Includes the Controlled Substances Act, where marijuana is classified a Schedule 1 drug (reserved for the most dangerous drugs that have no recognized medical use).
Replaces and updates all previous laws concerning narcotics and other dangerous drugs. Empasis on law enforcement. Includes the Controlled Substances Act, where marijuana is classified a Schedule 1 drug (reserved for the most dangerous drugs that have no recognized medical use).
1972
Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act.
Establishes federally funded programs for prevention and treatment
Establishes federally funded programs for prevention and treatment
1973
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
Changes Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs into the DEA
Changes Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs into the DEA
1974 and 1978
Drug Abuse Treatment and Control Amendments.
Extends 1972 act
1988
Anti-Drug Abuse Act.
Establishes oversight office: National Office of Drug Control Policy and the Drug Czar
Establishes oversight office: National Office of Drug Control Policy and the Drug Czar
1992
ADAMHA Reorganization.
Transfers NIDA, NIMH, and NIAAA to NIH and incorporates ADAMHA’s programs into the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)
Transfers NIDA, NIMH, and NIAAA to NIH and incorporates ADAMHA’s programs into the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)
Anyone
wanting to know more about the history of marijuana,
Harry Anslinger, and the saga of criminalization in the United States and elsewhere,
can visit
the links
below. (All data and quotes for this article
came from these sources as well).
• The History of the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in the United States by
Charles Whitebread, Professor of Law, USC Law School. A Speech to the
California Judges Association 1995 annual conference.
• THE FORBIDDEN FRUIT AND THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE: AN INQUIRY
INTO THE LEGAL HISTORY OF AMERICAN MARIJUANA PROHIBITION by
Richard J. Bonnie & Charles H. Whitebread, II. VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW. VOLUME 56 OCTOBER 1970 NUMBER 6
Richard J. Bonnie & Charles H. Whitebread, II. VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW. VOLUME 56 OCTOBER 1970 NUMBER 6
• The Consumers Union Report – Licit and Illicit Drugs
by Edward M. Brecher and the Editors of Consumer Reports Magazine
by Edward M. Brecher and the Editors of Consumer Reports Magazine
• The History of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937
By David F. Musto, M.D., New Haven, Conn.
Originally published in Arch. Gen. Psychiat. Volume 26, February, 1972
By David F. Musto, M.D., New Haven, Conn.
Originally published in Arch. Gen. Psychiat. Volume 26, February, 1972
• The Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and
Drug Abuse
I. Control of Marihuana, Alcohol and Tobacco.
History of Marihuana Legislation
I. Control of Marihuana, Alcohol and Tobacco.
History of Marihuana Legislation
• The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.
The history of how the Marihuana Tax Act came to be the law of the land.
The history of how the Marihuana Tax Act came to be the law of the land.
• Marijuana – The First Twelve Thousand Years by
Ernest L. Abel, 1980
