Return With Me Now to the Thrilling Days When Marijuana Was Spelled With an H
Jacob Sullum | August 2, 2007, 10:35am
Today is the 70th anniversary of the Marihuana Tax Act, which Franklin Roosevelt signed into law on August 2, 1937. Ostensibly a revenue measure, the act effectively banned marijuana by imposing prohibitive taxes and onerous requirements for legal possession. In 1970 (by which time Congress had stopped pretending to care about constitutional limits on its powers) the Controlled Substances Act banned marijuana directly, classifying it as a Schedule I drug along with heroin and LSD.
Fun fact: The year before Congress passed the CSA, psychedelic evangelist Timothy Leary persuaded the U.S. Supreme Court that the Marihuana Tax Act violated the Fifth Amendment's ban on compelled self-incrimination because it required even unregistered (and therefore illegal) possessors of cannabis to pay a "transfer tax." Leary was convicted of failing to pay the tax after he was caught at the U.S.-Mexican border with a small amount of pot (his daughter's, actually).
To give you an idea of how much thought Congress put into passing the first federal marijuana ban, here is an exchange that occurred when the bill came to the House floor on the night of June 10, 1937 (emphasis added):
Rep. Robert L. Doughton (D-N.C.): I ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of the bill (H.R. 6906) to impose an occupational excise tax upon certain dealers in marihuana, to impose a transfer tax upon certain dealings in marihuana, and to safeguard the revenue therefrom by registry and recording.
Rep. Betrand Snell (R-N.Y.): Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and notwithstanding the fact that my friend, Reed [Rep. Chauncey Reed (R-Ill.)], is in favor of it, is this a matter we should bring up at this late hour of the afternoon? I do not know anything about the bill. It may be all right and it may be that everyone is for it, but as a general principle, I am against bringing up any important legislation, and I suppose this is important, since it comes from the Ways and Means Committee, at this late hour of the day.
Rep. Sam Rayburn (D-Texas), future speaker of the House: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I may say that the gentleman from North Carolina has stated to me that this bill has a unanimous report from the committee and that there is no controversy about it.
Snell: What is the bill?
Rayburn: It has something to do with something that is called marihuana. I believe it is a narcotic of some kind.
Fred M. Vinson (D-Ky.), future chief justice of the U.S.: Marihuana is the same as hashish.
Snell: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to object, but I think it is wrong to consider legislation of this character at this time of night.
To the extent that members of Congress had heard of marijuana, they knew it as a drug that drove its users mad and caused them to commit horrendous crimes. Fortunately, we are much wiser today.
The Marijuana Policy Project's Rob Kampia sums up the achievement of the courageous legislators who didn't let their ignorance about cannabis prevent them from banning it:
Federal government estimates indicate that marijuana use has increased approximately 4,000 percent since the Marijuana Tax Act took effect. A study by researcher Jon Gettman, Ph.D., published in December 2006 and based on government data, found marijuana to be the country's number-one cash crop, exceeding the value of corn and wheat combined. The federally funded Monitoring the Future survey reports that approximately 85 percent of high school seniors describe marijuana as "easy to get"—a figure that has remained virtually unchanged since the survey began in 1975. In 2005 (the most recent figures available), U.S. law enforcement made an all-time record 786,545 marijuana arrests—89 percent for possession, not sale or trafficking.
Happy anniversary.
Tamsin | August 2, 2007, 8:25pm | #
SIV,
There is a difference between prohibiting drugs and waging a war on them. I understand that it was progressive meddlers who were behind the temperance & prohibition of alcohol. However, when Nixon came along he used drug prohibition as a political ploy to gain votes by assuring Americans that he would return the nation to order after the upheaval of the counter-cultural movement. As president, he was responsible for radically altering the approach to prohibition, starting with making it a federal issue. It was under his leadership that the U.S. attempted for the first time to interfere with heroin production by paying off other countries to not grow poppies. He also created the first federal agency dealing with drug suppression (don't recall the name),was the first to use federal agents to try and infiltrate the drug trade, and was the first to commit federal funding to drug rehabilitation - something Reagan tossed when he became president.
Reagan clearly regarded the WoD as a personal moral mission, so despite his belief in small government, he brought new federal impetus to it. It seems his social conservatism was at odds with his belief in state/local control because he escalated things to unprecedented heights at the federal level.
I appreciate your attempt to familiarize todays liberals with the progressive roots of drug prohibition, especially given the direction things are going with regard to food choices and apparently any behavior that can affect a person's health. However, let it not blind you to the fact that conservatives with authoritarian leanings tend to want freedom within the confines of their idea of traditional moral order, and will suppress behavior that is in opposition to it.
Yes, the book I'm reading (which is not "my book") goes into the death of Len Bias. Baum draws a parallel between the period preceding the rise of crack in the 80s and the period preceding heroin use by US soldiers in the late 60s/70s. He argues that Nixon's crackdown on the supply of pot to soldiers in Vietnam led to increases in the supply of heroin. One of the ways heroin supply was increased was by reducing its strength (increasing the quantity of the substances used to cut it). Soldiers responded by switching from smoking it to mainlining it, which increased addiction rates/negative consequences of heroin use.
Similarly, as the the Reagan administration - during his first term - was cracking down on pot, it was ignoring cocaine. When pot became scarce, crack was developed so drug rings could continue to sell to poor people. It was the spectre of crack-using blacks and Hispanics that fueled the drug panic of the mid/late 80s, and it was the Reagan administration's escalation of the drug war that led to crack.
So yes, you successfully predicted some of the content of "my book." But not all of it.
BTW, I never credited the Democrats with being better on drug policy. But I'm pretty convinced about Nixon, and don't need much prompting to be convinced about Reagan. I started high school the year he was elected and finished college during his last term. I remember those days, including changes in the drinking age. Protesting that was the first political action I ever took.
Is it possible that the degree to which Democrats are less bad on drug policy than Republicans does not equal the degree to which they are good on drug policy?
John Thomas | August 4, 2007, 2:15pm | #
Democrats - Republicans, Liberals - Conservatives. These labels are smoke and mirrors.
There is little relevance between the era of 1937 and today. We used to have slavery too. Things change. The most important question is why is marijuana STILL illegal?
For various reasons, some, because of the covert style of our current "leaders," we may never know. But it seems the reasons we do know are enough.
The growing police state has found marijuana prohibition to be a great tool in facilitating it's growth. One hundred million Americans have smoked marijuana. That translates into a lot of control by a police state over "lawbreakers."
A huge gathering of industries has sprung up around the destruction caused by marijuana prohibition. California prison guards constitute a significant power in the state. They are thriving on the huge influx of prisoners who, by all reports, are much better to get along with and so easier to deal with. Drug testing and "treatment" industries are also holding their thumbs on the scales. Their dependence on marijuana prohibition needs no explanation, other than to note that marijuana is by far the most widely consumed "illegal" drug.
Of course, the whole pogram of a nation-wide witch hunt is presided over by the hugely elevated district attornies who have become mega-maniacal.
The big corporations like to be able to screen out "those people." Plain and short.
The emerging influence of the religious right has been astounding, considering the traditional American skepticism. They, of course, have decided consuming marijuana is a big sin, so "end of discussion!"
The alcohol and pharmaceutical industries obviously stand much to lose with marijuana prohibition's end. Much healthier than alcohol and more effective than many "approved" medicines.
The trillions of dollars made by black-marketeers have not been buried in a whole in their back-yards. They have 'washed' and invested it in business. Many think it underpins our fraudulent economy and it would crash without this "illegal" boost. Check out Catherine Austin Fitts' "Narco Dollars For Beginners."
http://www.narconews.com/narcodollars1.html
Those are the reasons we know about. Pretty ugly explanation for why we hang permanent weights and obstacles on almost 800,000 Americans every year.
