Prior to the 1900s, not only were there no laws prohibiting the use of cannabis, it was a staple commodity in the United States, highlighting its many uses and functions. Chief of these functions was hemp, which was used to make rope, clothing, and sails. In the late 1800s, cannabis was used more frequently in medicines, and was available at pharmacies without restriction. At the turn of the century, however, cannabis regulation began to pop up in the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Maine, California, Texas, and Indiana. Also at this time, cannabis was being referred to more commonly as "Indian hemp," referring to traditions in some Native American tribes that used the psychological effects of cannabis as a spiritual aid. As more Native Americans were assimilated into the U.S., coupled with an increase in immigration from Mexico, where recreational use of cannabis was far more widespread (introducing the term "marijuana" for the first time), more Americans became aware of the use of cannabis as a drug.
In response to the increasing opium problem China, the United States sponsored the International Opium Convention in 1912, which was the first international initiative to control drug trade. The Convention became exponentially more significant when it was incorporated into the Treaty of Versailles (ending World War I). The Convention's original agreement made no mention of cannabis. In 1925, however, as scrutiny of "marijuana" and "Indian hemp" increased, the United States together with Egypt and China, signed a revised agreement prohibiting hashish to be traded among countries that had outlawed its use (Completely speculation on my part, but the rise of terms like "marijuana" and "Indian hemp" to describe what had always been known as cannabis seems to be indicative of a racist component of these prohibitions. I would imagine associating hashish with Indians and using the Spanish word for cannabis would be powerful propaganda tools at a time where prejudice toward these two groups flourished in the United States). As cannabis had yet to be federally outlawed in the U.S. and its importation was still allowed in the form of hemp, its prohibition had yet to reach its zenith.
As the influence of the federal government grew, so did the prohibitions of cannabis. The Uniform State Narcotics Act of 1932 established a standard of drug trafficking enforcement that gave the states power to more strictly police illicit trade of banned substances. The Federal Bureau of Narcotics strongly encouraged all state governments to adopt the law. By this time, almost all of the states had some kind of cannabis reg
ulation for non-medicinal use. For the first time, there was federal and multiple state collaboration in policing cannabis trade for recreational use. The Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) and its head, Harry J. Anslinger, are the Nazi Party and Adolf Hitler of my original analogy, respectively. Anslinger used the FBN to spread propaganda about the dangers of marijuana use, and myths about marijuana exploded into the public consciousness. Anslinger claimed marijuana caused people to commit violent crime, act overtly sexual, and overall irrational. Through the FBN, Anslinger organized the production of propaganda films (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM_vLk1I6G4), radio advertisement, and print advertisement (pictured), that echoed his message. Theories about Anslinger's motives abound, but it is clear his motivation had much to do with the 21st Amendment, repealing the prohibition of alcohol, that had been established in the 18th Amendment (and we should note how much of an unmitigated disaster the prohibition of alcohol was). Anslinger, previous to his leadership of the FBN, was the Assistant Prohibition Commissioner in the Bureau of Prohibition, which was charged solely with enforcing the prohibition of alcohol. When this group was dissolved, many of Anslinger's employees and friends were left unemployed, and the infrastructure that had been in place for alcohol prohibition was left abandoned. Some believe Anslinger filled the void by implicating marijuana as a drug dangerous to public health. Other historians believe Anslinger was misled by racially driven and inaccurate studies of cannabis use at the time, which claimed to be of scientific origin. Whatever the reason, Anslinger had begun a cycle of ignorance that continues to be felt to this day.
ulation for non-medicinal use. For the first time, there was federal and multiple state collaboration in policing cannabis trade for recreational use. The Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) and its head, Harry J. Anslinger, are the Nazi Party and Adolf Hitler of my original analogy, respectively. Anslinger used the FBN to spread propaganda about the dangers of marijuana use, and myths about marijuana exploded into the public consciousness. Anslinger claimed marijuana caused people to commit violent crime, act overtly sexual, and overall irrational. Through the FBN, Anslinger organized the production of propaganda films (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM_vLk1I6G4), radio advertisement, and print advertisement (pictured), that echoed his message. Theories about Anslinger's motives abound, but it is clear his motivation had much to do with the 21st Amendment, repealing the prohibition of alcohol, that had been established in the 18th Amendment (and we should note how much of an unmitigated disaster the prohibition of alcohol was). Anslinger, previous to his leadership of the FBN, was the Assistant Prohibition Commissioner in the Bureau of Prohibition, which was charged solely with enforcing the prohibition of alcohol. When this group was dissolved, many of Anslinger's employees and friends were left unemployed, and the infrastructure that had been in place for alcohol prohibition was left abandoned. Some believe Anslinger filled the void by implicating marijuana as a drug dangerous to public health. Other historians believe Anslinger was misled by racially driven and inaccurate studies of cannabis use at the time, which claimed to be of scientific origin. Whatever the reason, Anslinger had begun a cycle of ignorance that continues to be felt to this day.If Anslinger is the Adolf Hitler of our sad story, William Randolph Hearst is the Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels. Hearst, who was the most powerful media mogul of the time (perhaps akin today to Rupert Murdoch, but even more influential), used his newspapers to propagate the myths permeating society about marijuana. It should be noted that any coordination or cooperation between Anslinger and Hearst's efforts are tenuous, although some strange coincidences exist. I invite you to investigate these further at your own pleasure. Nevertheless, Hearst was an agent in the dissemination of lies about marijuana that would eventually lead to its full prohibition and in the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act and its later cousin, the Controlled Substances Act. Hearst was known to have significant financial interest in the timber industry, which controlled the production of paper. This industry was threatened by the discovery in 1916 that hemp could be used to make paper that was "favorable over that made of pulp wood." As hemp was readily available and relatively easy to produce, it posed a potentially significant problem for the timber industry. The problem would never manifest itself, however, as the Marihuana Tax Act and its related laws would ensure in 1937, as Hearst's publications continued to criticize marijuana. Interestingly, New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, who was in strong opposition to the Marihuana Tax Act, started the LaGuardia Commission, investigating the fantastical claims against cannabis that were becoming entrenched in public opinion. Prepared by the New York Academy of Medicine in 1944, the LaGuardia Commission systematically contradicted claims that smoking marijuana results in insanity, deteriorates physical and mental health, assists in criminal behavior and juvenile delinquency, is physically addictive, and is a "gateway" drug to more dangerous drugs. Despite this scientific study, no changes were made to national policy, a reoccurring theme in subsequent studies on the subject that found similar results, such as the Nixon Administration's National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse.
As time went on, no self corrections were made in either public opinion or federal legislation. The damage had been done. Soon, mandatory sentencing guidelines were passed in the 1950s, repealed, and then reestablished in the 1980s. The fractured agencies that had previously enforced drug laws were combined in 1973 into the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). In 1975, the Supreme Court ruled that it was "not cruel or unusual for Ohio to sentence someone to 20 years for having or selling marijuana." In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional for the federal government to ban marijuana, even medicinal use, under their interpretation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. What a sad state of affairs.
The third and final section of this three part piece on marijuana in the United States will focus on the economic consequences of marijuana prohibition.
Sources:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment