The 'Drug war': A sham built on racism, greed, and corruption which has cost countless lives

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIlleg...

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 Senate.

You'll also see that 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 marijuana is illegal.

A picture named leaf.gif 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 (you 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 (you could even pay your taxes with hemp

-- try that today!) 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. 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.

However, the first state law outlawing marijuana did so not because of

Mexicans using the drug. Oddly enough, it was because of Mormons using

it. Mormons who traveled to Mexico in 1910 came back to Salt Lake City

with marijuana. The church was not pleased and ruled against use of

the drug. Since the state of Utah automatically enshrined church

doctrine into law, the first state marijuana prohibition was

established in 1915. (Today, Senator Orrin Hatch serves as the

prohibition arm of this heavily church-influenced state.)

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 every one 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.

A picture named anslinger.jpg Harry J. Anslinger

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. Some of

his quotes regarding marijuana...

"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.'"

A picture named hearst.jpg 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.

You 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, I think, 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 by me indicates 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 defenseless 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

neighborhoods.

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."

After Anslinger

On a break from college in the 70s, I was visiting a church in rural

Illinois. There in the literature racks in the back of the church was

a lurid pamphlet about the evils of marijuana -- all the old reefer

madness propaganda about how it caused insanity and murder. I

approached the minister and said "You can't have this in your church.

It's all lies, and the church shouldn't be about promoting lies."

Fortunately, my dad believed me, and he had the material removed. He

didn't even know how it got there. But without me speaking up, neither

he nor the other members of the church had any reason NOT to believe

what the pamphlet said. The propaganda machine had been that

effective.

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.)

.... but that's another whole story.

This account only scratches the surface of the story. If you want to

know more about the history of marijuana, Harry Anslinger, and the

saga of criminalization in the United States and elsewhere, visit some

of the excellent links below. (All data and quotes for this piece came

from these sources as well).

bullet imageThe 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.

bullet imageTHE 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

bullet image The Consumers Union Report - Licit and Illicit Drugs by

Edward M. Brecher and the Editors of Consumer Reports Magazine

bullet image 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

bullet image The Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and

Drug Abuse I. Control of Marihuana, Alcohol and Tobacco. History of

Marihuana Legislation

bullet imageThe Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. The history of how the

Marihuana Tax Act came to be the law of the land.

bullet image Marijuana - The First Twelve Thousand Years by Ernest L.

Abel, 1980

Reefer Madness cover cover