The Cannabis 411 is a joint venture between Meadow and The Cannabis Conservancy. The series aims to take an in-depth look at issues surrounding Cannabis criminalization, commerce, cultivation, and consumption.
Overview
From the California Poison Amendment to the formation of the DEA, in the past 110 years a lot has changed in how Cannabis is criminalized and regulated in the United States. This issue of the Cannabis 411 focuses on the legal bodies and decisions that have moved the U.S. down the road of Cannabis Criminalization during the 20th and 21st centuries. There is a special focus on California, as the state has been a trailblazer for Cannabis. Though California was the first Western state to criminalize Cannabis, the state also attempted decriminalization decades before the rest of the country, and has pioneered the way for compassionate care. In order to write a document and not a book, this issue does not touch on every single law, nor does it delve into the many implications surrounding these laws.
Criminalization
The 20th century, particularly the first half, saw a sea change in government's involvement in the products that people consumed. As the nascent industry took shape, Cannabis and other drugs were shuffled between acts and amendments by a variety of state and federal bureaus. After decades of shakedown, the U.S. Government placed Cannabis in the strictest possible federal category. Nearly 50 years later, that is where it remains. Many states, including California, continue to craft new Cannabis laws that are a better fit for their health, safety, and economy. At present, any and all state laws that give any freedoms related to Cannabis are in violation of Federal law.
The Pure Food and Drug Act - 1906
In 1906, the U.S. passed the Pure Food and Drug Act. In part a reaction to "The Jungle", Upton Sinclair's expose on the Chicago Meat Industry, as well as the fraudulent yet flourishing patent medicine industry, the Pure Food and Drug Act made labeling of all food and drugs mandatory for the first time.
Furthermore, the act mandated that any product containing one of 11 potentially habit-forming drugs must include the amount of that substance on the label. These drugs were acetanilide, alcohol, alpha or beta eucaine, cannabis indica, chloral hydrate, chloroform, cocaine, heroin, morphine, and opium.
According to Thomas Szasz, author of "Our Right to Drugs", the phrasing of the law tells us the government more or less accepted the existence of a market in drugs, including cannabis, cocaine, heroin, and morphine.[1]
The California Poison Act Amendment - 1913
In 1913, the California State Board of Pharmacy added "loco-weed" to the state's Poison Act, effectively banning its sale. Many sources claim this was a legislative error.[2]
The Harrison Act - 1914
The Harrison Act levied a tax on anyone involved in the creation or movement of narcotics (specifically opium or coca products). The act originally excluded doctors, and did not explicitly include Cannabis; however, it is noteworthy for a few reasons. It is the first example of this sort of federal taxation, and paved the way for future prohibition, and it is an example of how frequently drugs were incorrectly classified in U.S. law. The Act was first enforced by the Treasury Department's Bureau of Internal Revenue.[3]
The California Poison Act Amendment - 1915
In 1915, California expanded on its Poison Act Amendment, banning non-prescription sale of "flowering tops and leaves, extracts, tinctures and other narcotic preparations of hemp or loco week (Cannabis sativa), Indian hemp".[4]
Eighteenth Amendment - 1919
The Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution banned the production and distribution (though not consumption) of alcohol; it went into effect the following year.[5]
Narcotic Division - 1921
The Narcotic Division was formalized in the Federal Bureau of Internal Revenue in 1921. It is one of the earliest predecessors to the DEA.[6] Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Tax - 1922 The aptly named Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Tax banned the import and export of narcotics in the U.S. Like the Harrison Act, it only mentioned Opium and Coca, but was used as a stepping stone for further Cannabis prohibition down the line. It led to the creation of the Federal Narcotics Control Board.[7]
California penalties increase - 1925–1929
As anti-narcotics sentiment hardened in California in the 1920s, so did penalties. Illegal sale, which had initially been a misdemeanor punishable by a $100-$400 fine and/or 50–180 days in jail for first offenders, became punishable by 6 months to 6 years in 1925. Possession, which had previously been treated the same as sales, became punishable by up to 6 years in prison. In 1927, the law against opium dens was finally extended to Indian hemp, as originally envisioned in the 1880 Walker bill. In 1929, second offenses for possession became punishable by sentences of 6 months - 10 years"[8]
Federal Bureau of Narcotics - 1930
Established in 1930, the Bureau of Narcotics was a merger of the Narcotics Division (1921) and the Federal Narcotics Control Board (1922). The Bureau was headed by Harry Anslinger, who played a key role in the U.S.'s increasingly stricter drug laws.[9] Mr. Anslinger has a troubled legacy. He is positively credited with dismantling many violent gangs throughout the country, and for running a successful government bureau on a shoestring budget during the Great Depression.[10]
However, Mr. Anslinger viewed Cannabis as the same, if not worse than, heroin, and would frequently give statements about cases of violence and insanity purportedly caused by Cannabis. With the inclusion of these embellished and apocryphal examples, Mr. Anslinger's testimony often reads like the script of a racist and misogynistic propaganda film - and a poorly written one at that. Unfortunately, his lies about Cannabis are one of the longest lasting parts of his legacy.[11]
The Uniform State Narcotic Act - 1932
The Uniform State Narcotic Act expanded on the Harrison Act to impose greater fines on those in violation of drug laws. Another aim of this act was to encourage states to pass further legislation against drugs; California had already done so with its Poison Act Amendment.[12]
Twenty-first Amendment - 1933
The Twenty-First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution repealed the Eighteenth Amendment, thus ending the country's prohibition of alcohol.[13]
Reefer Madness Released - 1936
The propaganda film Reefer Madness was first released in 1936; it may be best understood by watching the trailer.[14]
The Marihuana Tax Act - 1937
While the basis of the Marihuana Tax Act was to simply tax the legal sale of Cannabis, the Act's provisions were so expensive and extensive that it effectively rendered all Cannabis and its derivative products beyond the reach of any average citizen.[15]
Boggs Act - 1951
The Boggs Act imposed more serious sentences for drug convictions, including large fines and mandatory minimum sentences for first convictions.[16]
Narcotic Control Act - 1956
The Narcotic Control Act further expanded the fines and mandatory minimum sentences of the Boggs Act.[17]
Federal Bureau of Drug Abuse Control - 1965
The Bureau, a DEA predecessor, was part of the Food and Drug Administration.[18]
Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs - 1968
Part of the Department of Justice, the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs was a merger of the Bureau of Narcotics and the Bureau of Drug Abuse Control.[19]
Leary v. United States - 1969
In 1965, Dr. Timothy Leary was arrested for possession of Cannabis in Texas under the Marihuana Tax Act. He appealed this sentence, stating that the Act violated his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination; his case, Leary v. United States, reached the Supreme Court. In 1969, Leary won his case, as the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously deemed the Marihuana Tax Act unconstitutional. Dr. Leary's name may be familiar from his work with other psychotropics, particularly the Harvard Psilocybin Study.[20] [21]
Also in 1969, Leary ran for Governor of California against the incumbent Ronald Reagan. John Lennon penned "Come Together" for Leary's campaign.[22] Source: Docuhistorias
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act - 1970
The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act (CDAPCA) was enacted in 1970 "to amend the Public Health Service Act and other laws to provide increased research into, and prevention of, drug abuse and drug dependence; to provide for treatment and rehabilitation of drug abusers and drug dependent persons; and to strengthen existing law enforcement authority in the field of drug abuse."[23]
Title II of the CDAPCA is known as the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Up until this point, most drugs were lumped into one or more categories without much thought. It is the CSA which first separated drugs into different categories - or Schedules - based on their alleged danger vs. potential for beneficial medical use.
Cannabis was placed in Schedule I of V. According to the original law, the findings required for Schedule I are:
A. "The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
B. The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
C. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision."
Cannabis is listed on Schedule I both by name ("Marihuana") and chemical compound ("Tetrahydrocannabinols"). Up until this point, Cannabis was generally lumped in with opium and coca-derived products; however, according to this new scheduling, these drugs were allowed in the Schedule II category.[24]
Of the 11 potentially dangerous drugs listed in the Pure Food and Drug Act back in 1906, only Heroin and Cannabis were deemed as Schedule I. The rest of those drugs either had some form that was listed in a less severe schedule (including cocaine, opium, and morphine), or they were not on the list at all. It is worth noting that the Attorney General has the power to increase or reduce the Schedule of a drug as new information comes to light.
Drug Enforcement Administration - 1973
Created through an Executive Order by President Nixon, the DEA replaced the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. Nixon wanted to "establish a single unified command to combat 'an all-out global war on the drug menace.'"[25]
Comprehensive Crime Control Act - 1984
The Comprehensive Crime Control Act was a wide sweeping piece of legislation that included a steep increase in fines for a variety of quantities of Cannabis.[26]
U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Club - 2001
In 1998, the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, an organization formed to safely provide medical cannabis to very ill patients, was sued by the U.S. government; in effect, this suit claimed that Proposition 215, which had legalized medical Cannabis two years earlier, was in violation of the CDAPCA. The U.S. won this case, claiming that "There is no medical necessity exception to the Controlled Substances Act's prohibitions on manufacturing and distributing marijuana."[27]
Gonzales v. Raich - 2005
This case was brought to the Supreme Court by a medical patient in California who had their Cannabis seized by the DEA. The outcome of the case asserted that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution - which states the U.S. has power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes" - allows the federal government to continue to criminalize Cannabis, even when patients are following the proper state laws of medical consumption.[28]
Conclusion
The criminalization of drugs in the U.S. - specifically Cannabis - has been a meandering quest for public safety, fraught with misinformation and ingrained prejudices. It is perhaps best summed up with this quote below by Alexander Pope:
Works Cited
[1] Szasz, Thomas. Our Right to Drugs: The Case for a Free Market. Syracuse, 1996.
[2] Gieringer, Dale H. The Origins of Cannabis Prohibition in California. http://canorml.org/background/Origins_MJ_Proh_2012.pdf (24 October 2016)
[3] National Archives. Records of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Record Group 170: 1915–45, 1969–80. https://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/170.html (24 October 2016).
[4] Gieringer, Dale H. The Origins of Cannabis Prohibition in California. http://canorml.org/background/Origins_MJ_Proh_2012.pdf (24 October 2016)
[5] Congress.gov. Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpreted. https://www.congress.gov/constitution-annotated/ (24 October 2016).
[6] National Archives. Records of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Record Group 170: 1915–45, 1969–80. https://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/170.html (24 October 2016).
[7] Sixty-Seventh Congress of the United States. Session II. Chapters 201–201. 1922. http://legisworks.org/congress/67/publaw-227.pdf
[8] Gieringer, Dale H. The Origins of Cannabis Prohibition in California. http://canorml.org/background/Origins_MJ_Proh_2012.pdf (24 October 2016)
[9] National Archives. Records of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Record Group 170: 1915–45, 1969–80. https://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/170.html (24 October 2016).
[10]Fearns, Sean. Transcript of "Standing in the Shadows: the Legacy of Harry J. Anslinger". DEA Lecture Series. October 15, 2014. https://www.deamuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/101514-DEAMuseum-LecturesSeries-StandingintheShadows-transcript.pdf (25 October 2016).
[11] Statement of Harry J. Anslinger, Commissioner of Narcotics, Bureau of Narcotics, Department of the Treasury. 1936. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/anslng1.htm (25 October 2016).
[12] Bonnie, Richard J., and Charles H. Whitebread, II. The Forbidden Fruit and the Tree of Knowledge: an Inquiry into the Legal History of American Marijuana Prohibition. Virgina Law Review 56.6: 971–1203 (1970). https://www.votehemp.com/PDF/The_Forbidden_Fruit_and_The_Tree_of_Knowledge.pdf (24 October 2016)
[13] Congress.gov. Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpreted. https://www.congress.gov/constitution-annotated/ (24 October 2016).
[14] IMDb. Reefer Madness. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0028346/ (24 October 2016)
[15] Solomon, David. The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Schaffer Library of Drug Policy. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/mjtaxact.htm (24 October 2016)
[16] Rothwell, Virgina L. Boggs Act. Encyclopedia of Drug Policy. http://sk.sagepub.com/reference/drugpolicy/n42.xml (24 October 2016)
[17] Cameron, Jennifer M., and Ronna J. Dillinger. Narcotic Control Act. Encyclopedia of Drug Policy. http://sk.sagepub.com/reference/drugpolicy/n238.xml (24 October 2016)
[18] National Archives. Records of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Record Group 170: 1915–45, 1969–80. https://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/170.html (24 October 2016).
[19] National Archives. Records of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Record Group 170: 1915–45, 1969–80. https://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/170.html (24 October 2016).
[20] ACLU. Leary v. United States. ACLU Pros & Cons. http://aclu.procon.org/view.background-resource.php?resourceID=003427 (24 October 2016).
[21] Sigel, Efrem. Psilocybin, Senate Race Highlight Harvard Year. The Harvard Crimson. July 9, 1963. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1963/7/9/psilocybin-senate-race-highlight-harvard-year/ (24 October 2016)
[22] The Beatles Bible. Come Together. https://www.beatlesbible.com/songs/come-together/ (25 October 2016)
[23] Public Law 91–513. The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. October 27, 1970. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-84/pdf/STATUTE-84-Pg1236.pdf (24 October 2016)
[24] Public Law 91–513. The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. October 27, 1970. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-84/pdf/STATUTE-84-Pg1236.pdf (24 October 2016)
[25] Drug Enforcement Administration. DEA History. https://www.dea.gov/about/history.shtml (24 October 2016).
[26] Public Law 98–473. Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1894. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-98/pdf/STATUTE-98-Pg1837.pdf (24 October 2016).
[27] United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperative. 2001. Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-151.ZS.html (25 October 2016).
[28] Body Politic: The Supreme Court and abortion law. Gonzalez v. Raich. Oyez - IIT Chicago Kent College of Law. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-1454 (25 October 2016)
