History of US Cannabis Legislation

[synth]

many of you know this stuff already, but i figure someone may
enjoy it.

this is a research paper complete with annotated bibliography written by
a FOAF.

Money, Politics, and Lies

Cannabis sativa is one of the most infamous plants known to dominant American culture. And why shouldn’t it be? The Federal government’s position regarding the legality of cannabis is quite clear. The <st1:country-region w:st="on">United States</st1:country-region> spends plenty of money trying to prevent its use and distribution, and the D.A.R.E. program is established in 80% of US school districts (Lindenberger). However, it is important to recognize that cannabis has not always been illegal in this country. It was actually quite common to grow hemp that was not specifically bred for low psychoactive alkaloid content. In fact, colonial Jamestown<st1:city w:st="on"></st1:city> had a law requiring farmers to grow the crop. Hemp is an easy crop to grow and can also be quite profitable. The yield is high, and the growing season is relatively short. There are many uses for the plant. The fibers of the plant are very strong and make excellent rope and cording. The fibers can also be woven or pressed together to make a wide variety of paper and cloth products. The Sears Roebuck catalog even carried psychoactive maple-hashish candies (Herer Ch. 2). Considering how well-established and seemingly legitimate the cannabis industry was, an inquiring mind would naturally ponder the history of the plant’s illegalization. Interestingly enough, the illegalization of cannabis was neither the result of new medical discoveries nor a reaction to a new menace. The illegalization of cannabis in the United States<st1:country-region w:st="on"></st1:country-region> was the product of the combined efforts of a handful of individuals who sought to advance their economic and political agendas by manipulating the American public.

Jack Herer explains that cannabis was used extensively in the production of rope and canvas products 18^th and 19^th centuries. Techniques for producing quality hemp paper did exist at this time. In fact, Thomas Jefferson drafted our nation’s Declaration of Independence on hemp paper (Herer Ch. 2). Yet, due to the labor-intensive nature of the process, wood pulp-derived papers were favored (Herer Ch. 4).

However, in the early 1900s, promising new technologies became available. Herer demonstrates that mechanical fiber separators could process hemp fiber for half a cent per pound. Cannabis is a renewable resource, and a crop cycle can be completed in a few months. Hemp cellulose fibers can be used in place of coal and petroleum chemical feed stocks to make several plastics. Also, because hemp pulp contains 67-76% less lignin than tree pulp, comparatively small quantities of chemicals are required to process it into paper. Thus, hemp paper products became promising, highly appealing alternatives to their wood-based counterparts (Herer Ch. 4).

Although the new technological advances in the hemp industry provided exciting possibilities, not everyone was thrilled with the prospect of dirt-cheap hemp processing. Herer gives the example of William Randolph Hearst. Hearst was an incredibly wealthy man. He owned a nation-wide newspaper chain and was heavily invested in timber to fuel his paper-dependant businesses. If cannabis became the dominant paper source, Hearst would have lost a considerable amount of money (Herer Ch. 4).

Larry Sloman states that the practice of smoking the cannabis plant in the US was largely a Mexican influence. The plant was referred to as mariguana, roughly translating to “intoxicant”, and it was commonly rolled into cigarettes (Sloman 29). Mexican immigration rose dramatically during the early 1900s, and, naturally, many Mexicans brought the custom of mariguana smoking with them (Bonnie and Whitebread 38-39).

Around this time, many Americans developed negative feelings towards and racist tendencies against Mexicans (Guither). During the Mexican Revolution, Francisco “Pancho” Villa’s army entered the <st1:country-region w:st="on">United States</st1:country-region> and attacked Colombus, New Mexico, killing 18 Americans (“Mexican Revolution”). Also, the influx of Mexican immigrants seeking economic opportunities provided cheap labor in large farms. This made it difficult for some Americans to find well-paying jobs and increased American-Mexican tensions (Guither).

Sloman goes on to explain that blacks and other minorities were the first to adopt the practice. Most whites were unfamiliar with the practice of smoking cannabis, and they did not have a good understanding of the effects of the plant. It was not long before general ignorance and racist tendencies of many Americans led to the development of stories and stereotypes (Sloman 29).

<st1:city w:st="on">El Paso</st1:city> and New Orleans<st1:city w:st="on"></st1:city> were among the first cities to develop a negative view of marijuana usage. Sloman notes,

A 1917 Department of Agriculture investigation noted that El Paso passed a city ordinance banning the sale and possession of marijuana in 1914. The town at that time was characterized as a “hot bed of marihuana fiends,” and consumption of the drug was attributed not only to Mexicans, but also to “negroes, prostitutes, pimps and a criminal class of whites.”
Similarly, marijuana first appeared to be used in New Orleans around 1929 by blacks, and early fears were that the vice would spread to the white schoolchildren. (29-30)

<o></o>
The arguments made by proponents of anti-marijuana laws demonstrate the ethnocentricity and racism that fueled the movement. On the floor of the Texas Senate, a Texas<st1:state w:st="on"></st1:state> senator reasoned, “All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff [marijuana] is what makes the crazy” (Whitebread). According to the Butte Montana Standard, a legislator in favor of the Montana’s first anti-marijuana law explained, “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” (Guither). Additionally, a proponent of the same law stated, “Give one of these Mexican beet field workers a couple of puffs on a marijuana cigarette and he thinks he is in the bullring at Barcelona” (Whitebread).

William Hearst lost some 800,000 acres of timberland because of Pancho Villa, and many sources hypothesize that Hearst was prejudiced against Mexicans (Guither). Throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s, Heart’s newspaper chain defamed Mexicans and other minority groups. As mechanical hemp fiber separators became available, the frequency of sensationalist propaganda articles increased (Herer Ch. 4).

Hearst worked hard over several decades to paint images of dangerous minorities and the effects of their deadly “marihuana” in the minds of the American public. Many articles claimed that the plant made blacks and Mexicans disrespectful, defiant, and violent (Herer Ch. 4). One such example, published in Hearst’s San Francisco Examiner, reads:

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 […] (Guither)

<o></o>
Herer provides other examples, such as extraordinary emphasis placed on the story of a marijuana-related car accident. Although alcohol-related car accidents were over 10,000 times more common, the story made headlines for weeks. Also, during the 1910s, Hearst’s newspapers claimed that cocaine was responsible for the majority of cases of blacks raping white women. However, after this period, the articles instead claimed that it was the “marijuana-crazed Negroes” that were raping white women (Herer Ch. 4). This sudden change is interesting considering that it occurred when mechanical hemp separators became available. Pete Guither makes another interesting point: Hearst was certainly wanted to protect his timber investment, but he was also motivated to print such articles because they sold his papers quite well (Guither).

Herer notes that the term marijuana (and other variations, including mariguana and marihuana) was used almost exclusively in the context of smoking and drug abuse. The usage of this word helped create a firmer association between the substance and Mexican immigrants. Herer also speculates that many Americans were actually not aware that marijuana, the “Mexican killer weed” that they read about in the papers, is actually the hemp that many farmers grew. Therefore, it can be reasoned that the usage of this word contributed to the birth of federal anti-marijuana legislation (Herer Ch. 4).

Hearst was not the only one that stood to suffer financial losses. Herer indicates that DuPont held patents for processing coal and petroleum products into certain plastics, and the company also created a new chemical process for producing wood-based paper. According to internal records acquired by Herer, the above processes accounted for approximately 80% of the company’s railroad car loadings over much of the 20^th century (Herer Ch. 4). Thus, the availability of cheap cannabis fiber also proved to be a great risk to DuPont, and it is speculated that “[…] DuPont actively supported the criminalization of the production of hemp in the US in 1937 [,the year of the first federal anti-marijuana legislation,] through private and government intermediates […]” (“DuPont”).

In 1931, Andrew Mellon, President Hoover's Secretary of the Treasury, hired Harry J. Anslinger as the head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. Mellon was DuPont’s chief financial backer, and Anslinger was Mellon’s future nephew-in-law (Herer Ch. 4). Anslinger was an ambitious man and worked hard to advance his career (Guither).

The United States has changed considerably since its birth in the sense that the federal government has become very powerful, and much of the nation’s power is centralized. Much of this change has taken place over the last 100 years. Charles Whitebread explains that the Harrison Act of 1914, the first federal anti-drug legislation, did not actually outlaw non-medical use of drugs. The American public still favored strong, decentralized governmental authority, and so the Harrison Act was actually a taxation act. Therefore, when Anslinger and his supporters moved to create federal anti-marijuana legislation, they also used a punitive taxation strategy (Whitebread).

Anti-marijuana legislation disguised as taxation was opposed early on. Herer provides an exchange between Matt Rens of Rens Hemp Company and Senator Brown during the 1937 Senate hearings:

Mr. Rens: Such a tax would put all producers out of the business of growing hemp, and the proportion of small producers is considerable […] The real purpose of this bill is not to raise money, is it?
Senator Brown: Well, we’re sticking to the proposition that it is.
Mr. Rens: It will cost a million.
Senator Brown: Thank you. (Witness dismissed.)
(Herer)

<o></o>
The first conference to discuss the legislation’s planning was held at the Treasury Department on January 14, 1937 (Sloman 52). To support his claim that cannabis was a serious threat, Anslinger assembled a “gore file,” which was a collection of ghastly, outlandish stories and newspaper articles. These articles, many of which were from Hearst’s newspapers, revealed stories of blacks sleeping with young white girls and crazed youths murdering their families (Sloman 58, 61).

Over the next few months, Anslinger began his campaign. He gave speeches and made radio appearances to rally up temperance and prohibition supporters. Finally, on April 27, 1937, the hearings for the Marihuana Tax Act began (Sloman 65). During the hearings, Anslinger testified, “Marihuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death” (Whitebread). This testimony was Anslinger’s primary argument that he used to establish the danger of cannabis (Whitebread). However, this testimony is not consistent with knowledge currently held by the scientific community or by the general American public.

Lynn Zimmer, Ph. D., and John Morgan, M.D. concur that cannabis does not cause physical dependence. In fact, less than one percent of Americans develop any dependency (26). Furthermore, they state that there “[…] is no convincing scientific evidence that marijuana causes psychological damage or mental illness[…]” (80). They also state that the “[…] vast majority of marijuana users do not commit crimes other than the crime of possessing marijuana […]” and “Almost all human and animal studies show that marijuana decreases rather than increases aggression” (87). In addition, there has never been a reported case of a cannabis overdose leading to death (130).

The scientific evidence that Anslinger used to back up his thesis is almost comical. Whitebread states that Dr. James Munch, a pharmacologist at Temple University, essentially provided the entirety of the scientific backing. This doctor claimed to have injected the active ingredient of cannabis into the brains of 300 dogs. Two of these 300 animals died as a result. However, the active ingredient of cannabis was not synthesized until after World War II. In addition, Dr. Munch admitted that he knew of no way of accurately standardizing the drug. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the doses administered to these animals were standardized, and Whitebread supposes that the active ingredient in cannabis may not have even been injected at all (Whitebread).

Interestingly enough, the representative of the American Medical Association, Dr. William C. Woodward, opposed the Marihuana Tax Act. Dr. Woodward felt that cannabis was a valuable medicine and feared that the bill would “ […] strangle any medial use of marihuana” (Bonnie and Whitebread 164). Dr. Woodward directly attacked the legitimacy of Anslinger’s claims by stating, “The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug” (Whitebread). In response to Woodward’s opposition, Chairman Doughton retorted, “[…] you ought to come here with some constructive proposals, […] rather than trying to throw obstacles in the way of something that the Federal Government is trying to do” (Bonnie and Whitebread 172). Another Congressman said, “Doctor, if you can’t say something good about what we are trying to do, why don’t you go home” (Whitebread)?

How could the Dr. Woodward’s testimony be so rudely rejected? Whitebread speculates that the answer lies in the country’s politics, and that the “[…] history of drugs in this country perfectly mirrors the history of this country.” One year prior to the Marihuana Tax Act hearings, President Franklin Roosevelt was reelected, and he established his New Deal legislation. However, the American Medical Association opposed all components of the New Deal legislation. Therefore, when Dr. Woodward of the AMA opposed tax act, he was shot down by the New Deal Democrat-dominated committee brought in by President Roosevelt (Whitebread). The bill made its way to President’s desk, and the first federal anti-cannabis legislation was made effective in October (Musto).

Whitebread also notes that in the years that followed, Anslinger attempted to seek out experts to do more research on the drug. However, the three most knowledgeable people Anslinger could find were Dr. Woodward, the doctor’s assistant, and Dr. Munch. The AMA clearly did not agree with Anslinger’s conclusions, so it was Dr. Munch that remained again. Anslinger proceeded to appoint the doctor as the FBN’s Official Expert on the drug. As Whitebread puts it, “the irony of trying to find out what the drug did after it had been prohibited – finding out that only one person agrees with you – and naming him the Official Expert, speaks for itself” (Whitebread).

I believe that this law is an important step in the transition from decentralized, state-based power that we once enjoyed to the centralized, federal power that is prevalent today. After the Revolutionary War, the United States worked to construct its government and constitution. The federal branch was created, but I doubt that many of our founding fathers would be pleased with how powerful it is today. At the time, <st1:country-region w:st="on">America</st1:country-region> resented the memory of England’s external, virtually uncontestable rule. America<st1:country-region w:st="on"></st1:country-region> wished for the individual states to play a largely govern themselves in order to hold and maintain freedom and to prevent standardized, uncontestable, and unjust power. Such a thing as the Controlled Substances Act, which is responsible for instituting the “scheduling” of human-consumable substances, simply could not have been ratified in the early 20^th century. However, as the distribution of power in the United States gradually shifted to the federal level, drug legislation followed.

The progression of anti-drug legislation compliments the shift of national power distribution, but, in many instances, it certainly does not follow logic. According to the records of the Marihuana Tax Act Hearings Sloman provides, Anslinger claimed, “This drug is not being used by those who have been using heroin and morphine. […] I have not heard of a case of [a marihuana addict graduating into a heroin, opium, or cocaine user]” (67). However, just over a decade later, Anslinger would justify anti-cannabis legislation by claiming that using cannabis does in fact lead to heroin use (Sloman 67). The absence of factuality in many of his arguments and the blatant contradictions discredit Anslinger’s administration.

Clearly, anti-cannabis legislation was not initiated by presenting factual evidence. The justification for the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was a sum of incorrect information accepted as truth by the ignorant masses. The propaganda articles published by Hearst succeeded in establishing a strong anti-marijuana sentiment in the <st1:country-region w:st="on">United States</st1:country-region>, but their effectiveness in doing so reflects one of America<st1:country-region w:st="on"></st1:country-region>’s great flaws. The American public in the early 20^th century was undeniably xenophobic. Our nation has gone through several such phases. We harbored racist tendencies defaming African Americans (most notoriously in the South). We feared the “yellow peril” and the “red scare” of far East, and the upper ranks of our government were rattled by McCarthy’s “witch hunts.” After the 9/11 tragedy, many Americans harbored negative feelings towards Middle Easterners. America<st1:country-region w:st="on"></st1:country-region>, it seems, has historically been susceptible to xenophobia and racism. However, as we have (hopefully) improved over the years, it is interesting to think about how the United States react to the practice of smoking cannabis if it was introduced at a later time, perhaps well after the civil rights movement? Certainly, temperance supporters would support a marijuana prohibition, but after the failure of the great alcohol prohibition experiment, would it be successful?

Annotated Bibliography

Bonnie, Richard J., and Charles H. Whitebread. The Marihuana Conviction: a History of Marihuana Prohibition in the United States<st1:country-region w:st="on"></st1:country-region>. <st1:city w:st="on">Charlottesville</st1:city>: University Press of Virginia<st1:state w:st="on"></st1:state>, 1974. This book is interesting because the authors are among the first to research the legal history of cannabis in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1>United States</st1></st1:country-region>. The authors were given exclusive access many important primary resources, including open and closed records from the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (now known as the Drug Enforcement Agency). Their findings are consistent with much of the pro-cannabis literature available on this subject. This is not surprising, however, considering the fact that this is relatively groundbreaking literature that contributed to the opinions of future researchers. This work presents plenty of factual information from reliable records to back up its claims. I agree with most or all of the information presented, and it has been helpful in shaping my view on this topic.

"DuPont." Wikipedia. 29 Oct. 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuPont<http:>.
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to. This encyclopedia is moderated. Even so, some articles contain inaccurate information because academic credentials are not required contribute. This article provides general information on and history of the E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. The information that I took from this article appears to be credible, and is consistent with a similar point made in Herer’s work. However, the article states that the point is a controversial subject, which makes sense considering the absence of definitive evidence presented in Herer’s work. This is the reason that I used this article to present the DuPont controversy.

Guither, Pete. "Why is Marijuana Illegal?" Drug War Rant. 22 Dec. 2003. 29 Oct. 2006 <http:></http:></http:>http://marijuana.drugwarrant.com<http:><http:>. This article presents a good summary of the legal history of cannabis in the United States<st1:country-region w:st="on"></st1:country-region>. It includes a fairly good bibliography which I found to be helpful. However, I avoided some of the information because it seems rather opinionated and subjective. It was a good introduction to the topic and provided some good examples of anti- cannabis propaganda articles.

Herer, Jack. "The Emperor Wears No Clothes." Jack Herer. 1998. 27 Oct. 2006 </http:></http:>http://www.jackherer.com/chapters.html<http:><http:><http:>. This is actually an online version of the paperback edition published by Ah Ha Publishing Company (ISBN 1878125028). The hard copy was not available to me at the time of writing this paper, but most of the chapters are provided free of charge on the author’s website. This book describes, among other things, the history of the usage of the cannabis plant, the many uses for the cannabis plant, and the history of the cannabis-related law and culture in the United States. This is perhaps one of the most biased works in this bibliography; it is very pro-cannabis. I avoided some of the information because it seems rather opinionated, subjective, and inconsistent with the works of others.

Lindenberger, Michael A. "A New D.A.R.E. Dawning." The Dallas Morning News. 29 Oct. 2006 <http:></http:></http:></http:></http:>http://www.dare.com/new_site/curriculum/a_new_dare.htm<http:><http:><http:><http:>. This is a newspaper article mirrored on the D.A.R.E. program’s website. I used it in order to provide a D.A.R.E.-related statistic.

"Mexican Revolution." Wikipedia. 29 Oct. 2006 <http:></http:></http:></http:></http:></http:>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Revolution<http:><http:><http:><http:><http:>. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to. This encyclopedia is moderated. Even so, some articles contain inaccurate information because academic credentials are not required contribute. This article provides a general history of the Mexican Revolution. The information that I took from this article appears to be credible. I used it to confirm some Pancho Villa-related facts.

Musto, David F. "The History of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937." Schaffer Library of Drug Policy. 1972. 29 Oct. 2006 </http:></http:></http:></http:></http:>http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/history/mustomj1.html<http:><http:><http:><http:><http:><http:>. This was originally published in volume 26 of the Archives of General Psychiatry. It provides a fairly comprehensive and objective history of the Marihuana Tax Act and the events leading up to it. I used it to confirm the accuracy of other sources, and I found that the information is fairly consistent with the works of others.

Sloman, Larry. Reefer Madness: a History of Marijuana. <st1:state w:st="on">New York</st1:state>: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1998. This work that is somewhat similar to The Marihuana Conviction. The author is accomplished, and has written for Rolling Stone and other famous publications. This work presents plenty of factual information from reliable sources to back up its claims. I agree with most or all of the information presented, and it has been helpful in shaping my view on this topic.

Whitebread, Charles H. "The History of the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in the <st1>United States</st1>." Schaffer Library of Drug Policy. 1995. 29 Oct. 2006 <http:></http:></http:></http:></http:></http:></http:></http:>http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm<http:><http:><http:><http:><http:><http:><http: >. This was originally a speech to the California Judges Association 1995 annual conference. It was written by one of the authors of The Marihuana Conviction. It provides some of the information stated in the aforementioned work in addition to interesting political speculation. The majority of the information presented seems accurate and consistent with the works of others.

Zimmer, Lynn E., and John P. Morgan. Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: a Review of the Scientific Evidence. <st1:state w:st="on">New York: </st1:state><st1><st1>Lindesmith,</st1></st1> 1997. The authors of this work appear to be accomplished scholars with prestigious degrees. The authors present a series of myths concerning cannabis and proceed to systematically debunk them with widely-accepted scientific evidence of the modern era. The information appears accurate. I primarily used it to debunk some of the testimony given in favor of the first federal anti-cannabis legislation.</http:></http:></http:></http:></http:></http:></http:>

[StroFun]

Thank you for sharing this, i enjoyed it.

[acriddesolation]

Yeah this was an interesting read....tell your FOAF someone far far away congratulates him on a well put together paper that was throughly enjoyed .

Thanks for sharing...

Peace Love And Mushies
AD

[synth]

i'm glad.

thanks =]

[Walls Have Teeth]

That was a damn good paper. If only it took a handful of people to re-legalize our favorite substance.

[hyphaenation]

The Hemp Revolution movie

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...emp+revolution part 1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...BaCErAOz7527DA part 2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...BaCErAOz7527DA part 3
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...JZCEqgOi_NC2DA part 4


Henry Ford's Hemp car




Hemp For Victory. US government movie