U
ultimauw@hotmail.com
Guest
http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html
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
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