In a 2010 report
by the Common Sense for Drug Policy Organization, the American annual
causes of death were classified under the following categories:
| Tobacco
Related |
430,700 |
| Alcohol
Related |
110,640 |
| Prescription
Drugs |
32,000 |
| Suicide |
30,575 |
| Homicide |
18,272 |
| Drug Induced
Deaths |
16,926 |
| NSAID’s
(such as Aspirin) |
7,600 |
| Marijuana |
0 deaths |
Before you start
to wonder about the veracity of the figures above, you should be
aware that no one has ever been officially declared dead from direct
or indirect marijuana consumption.
This clearly
puts the assertions of politicians, lawmakers and the United States
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) that marijuana is a dangerous
narcotic and deserves its classification as a Schedule 1 substance
as deeply flawed.
(Source: http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html)
Schedule I drugs
are typically substances that possesses no practical use apart from
its’ psychoactive values and creates a very high risks of
dependency, thereby equating marijuana with other infamous Schedule
I drugs such as Methamphetamine and Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD).
To stress the point a little harder, drugs such as heroin and cocaine
are classified as Schedule II substances; implying that these drugs
have alternate, if somewhat limited, beneficial applications and
are less of a risk compared to marijuana!
If we consider
the fact that marijuana is probably the most versatile, productive
and environmentally-efficient farming crop in the world, with a
wide range of trickle down applications, and a well established
medical usage background, the issue becomes stranger; sinister,
some might even be inclined to say, considering that the classification,
and eventual prohibition of marijuana appears to be completely wrong
in the face of the fatality rates of other psychoactive substances.
The United States
government has also repeatedly gone on record since the 1937 Marijuana
Tax Act stating the danger that this ‘single use’ product
posses. In recent years, they have also begun to dismiss documented
scientific findings that go against the government’s position
on the issue. Set against the promptings of our founding fathers,
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who actively encouraged
the growing of the hemp plant due to its economic potential, one
would assume that the government would have some exceptionally strong
scientific basis for the criminalization of marijuana. However,
the most credible reason that the government has managed to provide
over the past seventy years after the initial criminalization of
the product is the ‘gateway drug’ theory, where regular
consumption of marijuana will lead to users gradually experimenting
with drugs that are more dangerous.
American
History of Marijuana and Hemp
The hemp plant is, from
a botanical perspective, one of the most advance plant life on the
face of the earth. Its natural versatility as an edible crop, as
a raw material and as a psychoactive substance has been recognized
for at least 3,000 years. The fact that the plant possesses the
ability to self-reproduce (owing to the prevalence of hermaphrodites
among the male and female majority of the plant), its highly evolved
pest repulsion characteristics and the liberal growth condition
it requires, ensures the plant’s prominence among many civilizations
along the corridors of history.
The hemp’s
medicinal properties are also highly sought after, and has been
documented for its effectiveness on a variety of ailments. Early
American history is littered by the strategic economical and sociological
role it played in our nation building. Some of the most memorable
landmarks the hemp had in our history are chronologically summarized
here.
1619
Jamestown Colony, Virginia
Farmers are compelled by law to grow the hemp
1631
Massachusetts
Hemp cultivation were made mandatory under the law
1632
Connecticut
Similar laws were enacted requiring farmers to plant an acreage
of hemp in their land
1631–1811 National
Hemp was an accepted bartering commodity among the business community.
In fact, payment of government taxes with hemp was also accepted
in several states.
1763–1767
Virginia
During the hemp shortage caused by a prolonged dry season the previous
planting season, some farmers were incarcerated for refusing to
plant the hemp, choosing instead to farm the more lucrative tobaccos.
1786
France
Benjamin Franklin, American Statesman and one time ambassador to
France was reported to be personally involved in an elaborate attempt
to procure prized Chinese hempseeds from a rogue Turkish agent.
The Chinese government made exportation of their hempseed as a capital
crime then to prevent their much sought after hempseeds from falling
into the hands of outsiders. Franklin was also responsible for the
first 18 paper mills using purely hemp fibers in the state of Virginia.
1873
Sacramento, San Francisco
Jacob Davis and Levi Strauss produced the first of the legendary
Levi’s jeans using pure hemp fabric
There were numerous other
historical references on hemp during the period. For instance, marijuana
extracts were the heaviest prescribed medicine during the 19th century
in the United States. A multitude of large pharmaceutical and health
companies led the thrust in popularizing this almost magical and
low risk product to Americans at large.
Even the shipping industry
was heavily dependent on the hemp until the emergence of the steam
engine. Until then, almost every aspect of shipping involved the
hemp; from the sails, ropes, nets, sealants and even a sailors’
attires was made from hemp.
Suffice to say, the hemp
plant was the most important plant in the United States..
How The Hemp Was Lost
"Prohibition will
work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of
intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason
in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation,
and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition
law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government
was founded."
Abraham Lincoln (1809-65) U.S. President (18 Dec. 1840, Illinois
House of Representatives)
It was the 1930’s. One of the darkest period of American history.
The Hoover and Roosevelt administration were helpless in the face
of the Great Depression. The Land of Opportunity has suddenly become
the Land of Desperation. Household income dipped by 40%, a quarter
of the population were jobless and the whole national financial
system were torn to shreds. It was the bleakest of times, where
the most devious and cunning were the major victors.
It was the worst possible
time for the emergence of the state of the art, hemp processing
machine; a machine that was capable of stripping the fibers underneath
the outer bark of the plant delicately, without damaging the cellulose
pulp. The machine that could potentially revolutionize the American
economy, considering the impact it will have on numerous fields;
from farming to paper manufacturing to pharmaceutical supplies –
to name just a few.
Enter the infamous entrepreneur,
magnate, lobbyist, publisher and some say, the face of the shady
side of American business, William Randolph Hearst. Owner of thousands
of acres of prime timber areas, cotton fields, pulp paper manufacturing
plants, newspapers and a host of other commercial entities, Hearst
was facing a very real possibility of bankruptcy over the first
real mass hemp processing technology.
Hearst begun to toy with
an idea to eliminate the hemp threat once and for all, but he needed
some backing. The first tangible support arrived in the form of
DuPont Chemicals.
DuPont has been investing
huge amounts of money into their next generation synthetic fabric
technology, nylon. They restructured their whole company in anticipation
of the windfall that they predict nylon would bring to them. Plants
were constructed in strategic locations around the country to provide
raw material for nylon production; massive investments in their
railway holdings were made and new tracks were laid out for logistical
efficiency. The whole company was geared towards the nylon launch
– but the arrival of hemp (and the rumored technological marvel,
the stripping machine), with its superior and cheaper fabrics, would
decimate DuPont into oblivion. The potential fallout of Hearst and
DuPont sent shivers into the banking community, with the Mellon
Bank of Pittsburgh being the most financially exposed, owing to
their extensive financing of DuPont’s decade long nylon project.
And so it began, with
the cadre comprising of Mellon’s Bank chairman, Andrew Mellon
(who was also the Secretary of the Treasury at the time), William
Hearst and Dupont’s American directors. The first step involved
in Mellon’s appointment of his nephew, Harry Ansliger, as
the head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs
(FBNDD).
And as the war
begun, the hemp industry never knew what hit them….
The Cabal
William Randolph Hearst, Andrew Mellon and DuPont Chemicals were scrambling against time, against the imminent release of the new hemp processing technology. The superior nature of hemp by-products, specifically hemp paper and hemp fabric, were not lost on them. That the hemp was cheaper, with a faster harvesting period and environmentally more efficient only made the situation bleaker.
With pressure mounting, the cabal made a decision to eliminate the threat of hemp once and for all, and in the process, achieved, as some would term it, one of the most blatant displays of abuse of power in the history of the nation.
Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew Mellon initiated the plan by appointing his nephew, Harry Anslinger, who was the Assistant U.S. Commissioner for Prohibition to lead the newly formed Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (FBNDD, which would eventually become what we now know as DEA). Mellon then followed that up by tasking the General Counsel of the Treasury, Herman Oliphant, to pursue the idea of criminalizing, or at the very least, heavily taxing the hemp.
The grateful Oliphant brilliantly decided to hitch their fortune with the 1934 National Firearms Act (which was designed to curtail the prevalence of machine guns among the public), structuring the proposed Marijuana Tax Act along the same concept, where while total ban was not sought after, a prohibitive tax was instead placed on the hemp.
As soon as the National Firearms Act was passed by the Congress, and subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court after it was challenged by gun manufacturers, Oliphant’s officers, and the lobbyist hired by the cabal flooded the capital to lay down the groundwork for the eventual introduction of the Marijuana Tax Act on 14 April 1937.
Hearst meanwhile began to direct his editors to run anti-marijuana themed stories in his publications a few years prior to that. Despite the fact that there has never been any documented case of marijuana deaths, Hearst’s papers repeatedly published stories of criminal acts, accidents and socials ill that were purportedly caused exclusively by marijuana.
Second or third hands accounts by ‘witnesses’, ‘sources’ and ‘unnamed official’ were regularly cited to indict marijuana on various acts of violence, and the themed expanded to the racists territory, with direct allusions on how hemp based marijuana were causing the blacks, Chinese, Mexicans and other minorities of perpetrating dastardly criminal acts against the puritanical whites of the land. Bigotry and racism hid behind the façade of marijuana opposition.
The continuous and repetitive propaganda began to influence the public’s opinion on marijuana, and soon after, the myth became an accepted part of the mainstream body of knowledge on hemp and marijuana. Soon, the archetypical image of the marijuana-addicted dilettante – jobless, penniless and resorting to crime to fund their habit – became synonymous with marijuana.
This flew against scientific findings of the time, with the most famous being the research done by the Siler Commission, a government funded initiative to discover the effects of marijuana smoking among the nation’s soldiers in the Army stationed in Panama. The Commission opines that the habit was no more dangerous than smoking or alcohol consumption; where only an abuse of ingestion could lead to health or social issues.
This was corroborated by the United States Deputy Surgeon, General Walter Treadway, in a speech to the League of Nations (a predecessor of the United Nations) 1937, where he conclusively stated that marijuana consumption is no different from drinking coffee. In other words, it has the potential to be physically addictive, but not psychology addictive like other hardcore drugs.
Of Men and Laws
The preparatory work was done ahead of time by Oliphant and his team, explaining the ‘facts’ of the matter to lawmakers, and elaborating that they were not seeking the out-and-out banning of marijuana, rather, they intend to tax it so it will be beyond the means of common abusers to procure it. A transfer tax of $1 would be charged for every ounce that an authorized dealer procures. A penalty amount of $100 would meanwhile be charged on any unregistered dealers, as a deterrent measure against unscrupulous traders. They neglect however to mention that they had effectively frozen any new issuance of marijuana trading licenses for dealers.
In another surprising twist, instead of Agricultural or Drugs related Committees, Oliphant introduced the bill to the House Ways and Means Committee, as the committee was headed by Committee Chairman, Robert Doughton, whom records show, has been the recipient of regular campaign contributions from Dupont. Unsurprisingly, the Committee immediately approved the proposed bill and sent it to Congress.
However, a notable incident occurred prior to voting for the bill in Congress, during the oral discussion stage. Answering a question from the floor, the Kentucky Representative and member of the House’s Ways And Means Committee, Frederick Moore Vinson (who will later be rewarded with the Mellon’s position after World War II), stated that the American Medical Association, has communicated their complete agreement of the Act through its representative, a certain Dr. Wharton.
There were two problems with the statement. First, there was no Dr. Wharton. The only American Medical Association representative present during the closed Committee level hearings was Dr. William G, Woodward, their general Counsel. It was later reported that Dr. Woodward categorically denied making any supportive remarks over the bill, whether for the Association or in a personal capacity.
In fact, Dr. Woodward, who was a practicing physician himself, was quoted as saying during the hearings, “We cannot understand yet, Mr. Chairman, why this bill should have been prepared in secret for two years without any intimation, even to the profession, that it was being prepared.”
He intimated that the Association only received noticed of the hearings two days before the date and during the hearing he went as far as to say that the entire bill was not supported by any independent facts, apart from sensationalist newspaper reporting that was patently inappropriate. Anslinger quickly dismissed Dr. Woodward from the hearing. Clearly upset, Dr. Woodward followed up with a letter to the committee which was also released to the public. In the letter, he stated, "The obvious purpose and effect of this bill is to impose so many restrictions on the medicinal use as to prevent such use altogether... It may serve to deprive the public of the benefits of a drug that on further research may prove to be of substantial value". How prophetic.
The Senate Hearings
Henry Anslinger, Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (FBNDD ) director, was the point man for the Cabal in the Marijuana Tax Act congressional hearings, held beginning from April 29, 1937. Anslinger and his men had prepped the entire legislative floor together with their back office staff on the upcoming hearing, and everyone waited with baited breath for his presentation.
To say that it was a disappointing climax would be an understatement. Armed with something akin to a collection of tabloid cut and paste book, which in his later years labeled as the Gore Files, Anslinger comments were unique in the sense that it was not corroborated by any single independent factual data. His testimony was based almost exclusively from newspaper reports, folk tales and absent witnesses.
However, before we proceed to Anslinger’s Congressional Hearing submission, it would perhaps be appropriate to take a peek at an earlier conference held in Room 81 of the Treasury Building in January 14th 1937, that will ultimately provide the foundation for Anslinger and his cohort’s deception.
Cannabis Sativa Linne Conference
Among those present during the conference were
• Dr. Lyster F. Dewey (retired) Department of Agriculture.
•
Dr. James C. Munch, Professor of Pharmacology, Temple University
•
Dr. Carl Voegtlin, Chief, Division of Pharmacology, National Institute of Health
•
Mr. Arthur F. Sievers, Division of Drug and Related Plants, Department of Agriculture
•
Mr. Peter Valaer, Alcohol Tax Unit Washington Laboratory
•
Mr. H. J. Wollner, Consulting Chemist to the Secretary of the Treasury.
•
Mr. A. L. Tennyson, Legal Division, Bureau of Narcotics
•
Mr. S. G. Tipton, General Counsel's Office
•
Dr. John Matchett, Chemist, Bureau of Narcotics
•
Mr. R. L. Pierce, General Counsel's Office
•
And of course, M. H. J. Anslinger, Commissioner of Narcotics
Excerpts from conference transcripts:
Dr. Wollner: I think I am inclined to agree with Dr. Voegtlin. The thing has not been sufficiently investigated to say definitely that there is only one or that there is more than one. From the legal point of view we cannot tie up any legislation with the term cannabinol. I am afraid that has to be out until we know more, and that may take thirty or forty years. There is a concomitant to that, since we do not know the active ingredient or ingredients, we are not in a position to say one chemical treatment or another might not produce those active ingredients from that portion of the plant which at the present time is believed to be totally innocuous. We might be able to take the stalk which is today a harmless part of the plant and generate it from copious quantities of the active ingredient.
Mr. Tennyson: That bears directly on the discussion we had on limiting this for the purpose of a workable piece of legislation to flowering tops, seeds, and leaves of the plant. Our idea was to attempt to help the hemp industry if we could do it.
Mr. Wollner: We might, among ourselves, compromise the situation. That situation must be acknowledged in the same way you have to accept the fact that morphine can be extracted from the stalk of the opium plant.
Mr. Anslinger: We might be in a bad position if we eliminated the stalks and later found it to be present in them.
Dr. Fuller: My experience with it was that the active principle was tied up in the resin -- whether this was gathered up and held there mechanically and did not exist in the more cellular portions of the plant I do not know. That was my only experience. I made no tests on the stems.
Mr. Anslinger: We could make those tests, couldn't we?
Mr. Wollner: I wonder whether our botanist friends could help us? What is the history of plants of this type? Are we likely to have them behaving as morphine and present in all parts of the plants?
Dr. Fuller: I can tell you our experience with belladonna, which is easily identified. The succulent parts, that is, the leaves toward the ends of the lateral stems and tops were always the most potent. We grew some that were over 2 percent alkaloid. As you come down to the big leaves which grew to maturity early and were beginning to disappear, there was very little alkaloid. The main stem and lateral stems that were woody were devoid of alkaloid. Toward the ends -- in the top stems -- we got alkaloid. Where they were more or less woody there was none.
Mr. Wollner: Wouldn't that be predicated on the sensitivity of your tests? Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that at any one time you would find it in the pipe lines?
Dr. Fuller: Yes, the pipe lines contained it all the way through as long as they were succulent. The root as well as the leaves of the belladonna contains the alkaloid. The woody stem did not contain it.
Dr. Sievers: The resin is probably parallel to essential oils which are present in leaves or flowers more than in the woody part. The stems as a rules contain a great deal less. Occasionally you will find it in the root. I hardly think the seed would contain much resin and at this time I would like to be put clear on what Dr. Munch has developed -- whether he really thinks the seed will produce any effects as the resin does.
Dr. Munch: The active material from the fruits does not produce the same type of pharmacological response as the active material from the leaves. We have instances recorded in the literature of narcotic effects on children from the fruits.
Mr. Tennyson: When you speak of fruits, do you include seed?
Dr. Munch: Technically this is a fruit and not seed.
Dr. Fuller: The words are more or less synonymous in the way they are used.
Dr. Dewey: It says the young shoots here showed a very high percentage in comparison with the old shoots.
Mr. Sievers: The old stems would still contain less.
Dr. Munch: Yes.
Mr. Tennyson: It occurs to me, Dr. Wollner, that if we get a law we have to support it and everything in it when we go before the committee. We have here some other uses -- I don't know whether I am anticipating one of these questions or not. There is a use for fiber, for bird-seed, and for oil in the varnish industry. Those people will probably come in and complain about what they consider a foolish attempted control if we try to make this all-inclusive. If we are going to cast suspicion on every part of the plant we certainly will have to be fortified.
Mr. Wollner: I would offer this question to that, although we think it is well taken. It does not follow that because the seeds or the stalks are potential sources that we wish legislation to control their use. I do feel that we should be in a position to know what the situation is. I think that would be a preferred position to be in -- to be able to say that there is a possibility, but if it is existing, it is in amounts not sufficient to warrant its inclusion.
Mr. Tennyson: We had a complaint from the Sherwin-Williams Company who wanted to start a farm. We tried to discourage that. The point was raised in connection with this tentative act we have drafted. We are faced, on account of constitutional limitations, with the necessity of drafting this as a tax measure, with lessening of application of the tax to the legitimate articles of commerce which are innocent. In that phase of the situation we have quite a problem to qualify the exemptions, say seed, where there is apparently such a use for it.
Mr. Wollner: One thing would help us a great deal. It would be relatively simple, I imagine, to delete certain portions of the plant if we could say how much of the active principle was available in those parts of the plant. I turn to Dr. Voegtlin on this. Is it possible to use a bio-assay?
Dr. Voegtlin: No, I don't think it is characteristic enough. We are interested in the psychic manifestations which are produce by this product. These are, of course, not recognized in dogs or rabbits.
Mr. Wollner: Could you answer this question: Has an active principle ever been separated from Cannabis Sativa, which was not associated with cannabinol?
Dr. Munch: If, by cannabinol, you refer to a particular product mentioned in the literature by Fraenkel, then I can answer the question. I believe that if the material reported by Fraenkel is considered as an entity, there may be another constituent in the leaf of Cannabis. Subsequent work has not confirmed the original cannabinol, and there are possibly three or four active principles at the present time, depending on the author.
Mr. Wollner: We are after limiting specifications. It is not necessary that the active principle be cannabinol or that it be the one and only, but if we could definitely establish that the active principle has been found then we could say "a substance which contains less than a certain amount of cannabinol is exempt." Do you see what I mean? How do you feel, Commissioner?
Mr. Anslinger: I would like to ask Dr. Munch a question. I thought you had found one other principle?
Dr. Munch: I believe there are at least three active principles.
Mr. Wollner: What would the legal aspect of this be, Mr. Tennyson? Would it be legally sound to measure the activity of the product by the amount of a material which is present and always associated with the material?
Mr. Tennyson: This is a taxing measure, you know. We like to think of it as some standard definite term that can be referred to that everybody knows about. If you are going to tax something on the basis of its strength, you have a lot of trouble.
Mr. Wollner: You tax liquors by nature of their content and material.
Mr. Anslinger: Wouldn't that place a colossal burden on your division, Dr. Wollner, when we get these cases into court?
Mr. Wollner: I think the Beams reaction would give evidence of cannabinol.
Mr. Tipton: If the Commissioner finds a field of fifteen acres growing will it be necessary to test ever plant to determine that, or can you, when you have tested one strain, say the rest of the field is the same?
Mr. Wollner: That would not be necessary, would it? If you find a man with one hundred heroin pills it is not necessary to test the hundred. We are trying to exempt the usable parts of the plant.
Mr. Anslinger: I am afraid of making it too complicated. The agents out in the sticks would be confused.
Mr. Wollner: What's wrong with Mr. Valaer's approach?
Mr. Pierce: That would make the question easier constitutionally to defend I think, than if you were to link it with some constituent part.
Mr. Wollner: Suppose Dr. Matchett, as a result of his investigations in the laboratory, finds he is able to recover a certain amount of this green resin from the stalks, what is Commissioner Anslinger supposed to do then? For the purpose of this act could we define the substance first as a resin, secondly, as the leaves of the male and female plant, third, as the tops of the plants?
Mr. Pierce: Would that include bird seed?
Mr. Tennyson: No.
Mr. Wollner: If Sherwin-Williams wants to put in an acreage then they could do it.
Mr. Fuller: They can winnow the seeds out of the flowering tops.
Mr. Anslinger: The reason I am after the seed is the preventive measure. Getting the seed out will make our trouble disappear.
Mr. Sievers: Isn't that the same situation you have with regard to poppy? You can grow them in this country for seed legally, can't you?
Mr. Tennyson: What you say is probably true, but we like to discourage that as far as possible.
Mr. Sievers: There is no law at present that would prohibit me from growing poppy as a seed poppy.
Mr. Anslinger: In every case I know of where it was done we got the defendant.
Dr. Fuller: Can't you have some provision in your legislation for destroying the seed after the oil has been taken out?
Mr. Tipton: I would like to pursue this definition further. That sounds pretty good if you can define this greenish substance.
Mr. Wollner: I don't know whether it would be necessary to define it beyond stating its generic state: "The resin which is derived from this plant."
Mr. Tipton: Can you say that the active principle is in the resin?
Mr. Wollner: Yes, we can definitely say that the active principle is in the resin.
Mr. Tipton: Your suggested definition is the flowering tops, the leaves, and the greenish resin?
Mr. Wollner: But that doesn't satisfy Commission Anslinger because potentially every seed is harmful.
Mr. Anslinger: Our experience has been that in almost every large seizure made we got a large quantity of the seed from the defendant for growing purposes.
Mr. Wollner: What would happen if we proscribed the use of seed for bird seed?
Mr. Anslinger: Dr. Munch told me it would stop the birds from singing.
Mr. Wollner: Bird seed only in part contains the Cannabis Sativa seed. I do not think our state of knowledge on that is sufficient. Not enough work has been done to say that it is detrimental tot the birds. The idea would be to license the growing of this stuff and to rule out the use of it for bird seed. If anybody else had it after that they would be guilty of a violation.
Mr. Tennyson: The tentative idea was to place a transfer tax on whatever we should cover, for instance, marihuana, or a general term which would be recognized -- a moderate tax for recognized purposes and a prohibitive transfer tax for any other purpose. What was the first amount?
Mr. Tipton: $1.00 to register.
Dr. Dewey: The use of hemp seed for bird seed costs about $1.00 per hundred pounds.
Mr. Wollner: I don't see that it would present any difficulties from the point of view of our technical side to include all the parts of the plants we know to contribute to the drug.
Mr. Pierce: We have excluded transfers to certain users. We would like to know if it would be safe to exclude transfers to persons just selling bird seed and who do not plant tit? Can any ill effect come from this?
Mr. Wollner: Suppose a man said he just discarded some bird seed and threw it out his window?
Mr. Pierce: If it is growing he is liable for the tax.
Mr. Wollner: Suppose he plants it on someone else's property?
Dr. Dewey: Practically all of our wild hemp is from bird seed. I don't know of a single instance in America where the fiber type has become wildly grown.
Mr. Tipton: Is hemp seed indispensable from bird seed? If Commissioner Anslinger would agree to cut out bird seed it would certainly help the bill and enforcement.
Mr. Anslinger: Can they prove that the birds need this food?
Dr. Matchett: Two people told me the hemp seed had potentialities for evil for the bird if the husks were not removed; furthermore, that the seed is an oily seed and is dangerous especially if the oil is rancid. I gathered that the hemp would not be indispensable, but did not ask it directly.
Mr. Wollner: Can we start setting up a definition for the purposes of the legal division? We include in that the resin derived from the plant Cannabis Sativa.
Dr. Fuller: Would you want to include the solid extract too?
Mr. Wollner: Any extract or derivative thereof.
Mr. Tennyson: You would not need to do that.
Mr. Wollner: In other words, the usual terminology would obtain with reference to this. Can't we get away from the use of the term marihuana?
Mr. Tennyson: We just happened to mention it as a general term.
Mr. Wollner: I think we would be on sounder ground if we left t in the scientific name Cannabis Sativa Linne.
Mr. Tipton: In a statute you can pick a term and define it as you please. Marihuana struck us as a good short form. Its meaning in any other regard would be of no consequence.
Mr. Tennyson: But don't you think, in order to be a little more scientific, we might call it Cannabis?
Dr. Munch: Certain state laws prohibit the use of marihuana. If your Federal law defines marihuana, will that strengthen your state laws?
Mr. Tennyson: One of the purpose of the conference is to give the States a better definition.
Mr. Wollner: We can say that Cannabis Sativa means Cannabis Sativa Linne.
Mr. Pierce: Isn't there some advantage in using the popular term marihuana?
Mr. Wollner: It is technically unsound and wrong, but that's up to you men to decide.
Whatever you call it, it means Cannabis Sativa L, and any preparations, derivatives, etc. -- what else should there be?
Mr. Tennyson: "The salts, derivatives and preparations" or "any resin, salt, derivative and preparation thereof." Do you want to give that? Marihuana means Cannabis Sativa L. and any resin, compound, mixture, salt, preparation, etc." Would that mean everything?
Dr. Dewey: Yes.
Mr. Wollner: Cannabis means the flowering tops, the leaves and any resin, compound, mixture, salt, derivative or preparation of the plant Cannabis Sativa L.
Dr. Munch: That will include the fiber, won't it?
Mr. Pierce: We can exclude the fiber.
Dr. Munch: In the Mexican Pharmacopoeia it says that marihuana refers to the feminine inflorescence of Cannabis Sativa.
Mr. Wollner: Can we deliberately exempt the stalks?
Mr. Tipton: I think it would be better to say "Marihuana is the resin, and the flowering tops and leaves of the plant Cannabis Sativa L., the preparations, etc." That will eliminate the stalks yet include the resin.
Mr. Tennyson: Is the "flowering top" sufficient to include the seed.
Mr. Wollner: It is not quite specific
Mr. Valaer: Let me give you a rough idea of what I have in mind. For the purposes of this act marihuana shall include all of the species of Cannabis Sativa Lynne, Noraceae and its synonyms: Cannabis eradica paludosa endrs; Cannabis indica Lamarck; Cannabis macoosperma stokes; Cannabis chinensis, delile; Cannabis giganta, delile; and by all other designations known. The provisions of this act shall pertain to all parts of the pistillate (female plant) and all parts of the staminate (male plant) and all parts that have been found to secrete the characteristic resin of Cannabis Sativa L.
Mr. Wollner: That throws it wide open again. We would have you out in the field looking for secretions. I don't think you give us enough leeway for exempting the stalks. The suggestion of Mr. Tipton fortifies us in this respect. The stalks as such cannot be smoked.
Mr. Wollner: Would you be authorized to issue specific regulations interpreting this?
Mr. Tipton: You have to be pretty definite in your act.
Mr. Wollner: Would you be undertaking too much if you exempted the oil?
Mr. Pierce: In ou transfer tax we could make exceptions for the paint companies.
Mr. Wollner: If you are going to take care of these things in your transfer tax why not take care of your stalk there too?
Mr. Pierce: We could. We are attempting to thrust the marihuana traffic into legal channels where it could be taxed some.
Mr. Wollner: Mr. Pierce, would you try to re-word that definition?
Mr. Pierce: How would it be if you let us work out the definition. We have pretty well in mind what you wish to have exempted.
Mr. Wollner: Commissioner Anslinger, have you any suggestions?
Mr. Anslinger: No, I think that's going to be a great improvement over the definition we started with. I wanted to show the extent of the traffic and give some of the gentleman an idea of this problem to show we are not on a fishing expedition. Last year there were 296 seizures we know about. The illicit traffic has shown up in almost every state.
There was a question about the forms of Cannabis derivatives employed medicinally. This will take care of that trade, won't it? Is the tax to be prohibitive as to the trade? We prepared for the legal division a statement as to what was used. We had a list of about three hundred compounds.
Mr. Pierce: We have allowed exemptions in another part of the law for medical or veterinary uses.
Mr. Tennyson: Even that's going to be awfully expensive, Mr. Pierce
Mr. Anslinger: I was surprised to hear some medical experts at Geneva recently say that is has absolutely no medical use. I think that the Indian delegate wanted to know what he was going to do for his corn plaster, and one of the medicos said it wasn't the cannabis, but something else, that had the analgesic effect.
Mr. Anslinger: (Reading the 14th question.) "What are the proofs that the use of marihuana in any of its forms, are habit-forming or addicted, and what are the indications and positive proofs that such addiction develops socially undesirable characteristics in the user?" We have a lot of cases showing that it certainly develops undesirable characteristics. We have a case of a boy, about 15, (reads from report of case). This took place in a community playground in Finely, Ohio. The playground supervisors were the men who were selling the stuff. It all developed from the case of this youngster who was evidently going crazy. That's only one of the many cases we have.
Mr. Tipton: Have you a lot of cases on this--horror stories -- that's what we want.
Mr. Tennyson: Isn't there some literature on the effects, Dr. Voegtlin?
Dr. Voegtlin: Oh, yes.
Mr. Anslinger: And it leads to insanity?
Dr. Voegtlin: I think it is an established fact that prolonged use leads to insanity in certain cases, depending upon the amount taken, of course. Many people take it and do not go insane, but many do.
Mr. Wollner: At the League of Nations they whitewashed the whole thing.
Mr. Tipton: the Commission inquired into the fact and said there was no more reason to control the hashish than to control alcohol. If it leads to insanity, and we have a lot of horror stories, we can build it up.
Mr. Wollner: There was a report given out by Wilbert in 1910 in which he claimed, as one of his conclusions, that there was no evidence of a habit-forming nature from the use of Cannabis by the Anglo-Saxon race. I just mention that because it may be pulled on you in opposition some time.
Dr. Dewey: Dr. Patrick, of the Bureau of Chemistry, definitely stated it was the most dangerous habit-forming drug he had taken, and he tried all of them.
Mr. Wollner: Are there any other questions?
Mr. Pierce: I think we can work out the tax on medicinal uses so that it won't be prohibitive.
Dr. Fuller: I don't think you will find the volume is very great. I think the ue of Cannabis is diminishing as a legitimate use. that is just my opinion from the point of view of one who has studied the situation for a good many years.
Anslinger and the subordinates of the SecTreas, Andrew Mellon, as evident to any neutral observer, were gently manipulating the scientists present during the conference to acknowledge in a term as broad as possible, of the inherent dangers of the entire hemp plant, while at the same time making assurances that the Act would be managed in such a way that any benevolent usage of marijuana would be only mildly affected.
Senate Hearings, H.R 6385: Henry Anslinge
Anslinger’s congressional testimony postulated that the hemp plant came into prominence in 1090AD via the infamous Sect of Assassins in Persia. Consuming the derivative of the plant, marijuana, enabled the men of the sect, known then as the Hashishan (the presumed etymological root to the word ‘assassin’), to commit unrivalled acts of atrocities across the land. In years to come, the term ‘Hashish’, long synonymous with the sect, became the de facto term for the hemp derivative. References to the plant were also found in the works of the great Greek poet, Homer, marking the chasm of geography and time that the hemp managed to bridged. A single speculative reference to the natives of the Malaysian peninsular, detailing the lore of ‘amok’ - of a man going berserk under the influence of the plant also highlighted the perils of the dastardly hemp!
Presumably to lend an air of credence to his narrative, Anslinger expounded a few botanical aspects and traits of the hemp plant. However, he cleverly overlay his arguments to present a viewpoint that the hemp plant is a common name for the whole family of the species (including the Indian hemp, Cannabis America, Cannabis Indica and Cannabis Sativa, among others) as they share the same characteristics, both visually, botanically and psychoactively. He further elaborated on the error of limiting the psychoactive components of the plant exclusively to the flowers or seeds; instead, according to some unnamed study that was conducted the preceding months, the WHOLE plant, right down to its leaves and stalks, apparently possesses equal concentration of the psychoactive components.
Anslinger added that consumption of the derivative marijuana affects the users’ nerve centers, emotional core, physical attributes and spatial time perception (for once, he was actually correct, albeit in a very limited manner, as would eventually be proven by modern science). Under prolonged usage, he claims that acute mental deterioration begins to take place and users are eventually driven into a violent, uninhibited raging mood with an inability to distinguish the border of society’s moral, ethical and legislative parameters. In fact, he claimed that this was one of the strategies employed by ‘Mohammedan’ soldiers during the war against the Crusaders almost ten centuries back.
The relative lack of consensus on the absolute composition and properties of marijuana were cast aside in favor of an absolute definition that insists upon the predominantly negative physical and emotional effect it has on the human body. The malevolent effect it has on users ensures that physical crimes can be exclusively attributed to marijuana, which given time will force a user into mental deterioration leading to, in most cases, insanity.
The dispersion of the crop nationwide has also lead to an increase in its circulation, contributing to its low market price and availability to the most vulnerable segment of the society. Anslinger also detailed the 338 marijuana related arrests across the nation in the previous year, a massive increase that can only be attributed to the surge in popularity of the cheap and harmful product. Law enforcement officials were at a disadvantage in combating the marijuana related crime owing to lack of education and experience in the matter, and corrective measures requires an investment of time and money that the nation can ill afford in the era of Depression.
As such, he alluded that the time has come for the government to face the issue head on and attempt to regulate the farming, distribution and consumption of the hemp plant to ensure that the supposed menace are contained and its minimal beneficial properties are not made an excused for its other flagrant, harmful flaws. He cited support for the bill from the administration of states such as Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Louisiana and Oklahoma as another indication that the nation wanted help in combating the marijuana threat.
Anslinger also outrageously claimed that marijuana is the most ‘violence-causing’ drug in the history of mankind, and attributed the dramatic increase in American homicide rates on marijuana, despite the fact that the FBI’s own statistics indicated then that almost three quarters of murders in the country were alcohol related.
Senate Hearings, H.R 6385: Clinton Hester
Anslinger vitriolic against the hemp industry was supported strongly by Clinton M. Hester, the Assistant General Counsel for the Treasury Department, who addressed the floor a few days after. Hester started his testimony by pointing out the presence of a pharmacologist, chemist and botanist that can corroborate any statement he made concerning the effects of marijuana on humans.
He then proceeded to point out the seriousness of the issue and the need for a legislative control mechanism over the hemp plant has been recognized by “leading newspapers in the country” and pointed out specifically to a recent editorial piece in the Washington Times, which he directly quoted,
“The marihuana cigarette is one of the most insidious of all forms of dope, largely because of he 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 it capacity for 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.”
Unsurprisingly, the rest of his testimonies were in made in almost the same vein, with a lot of allegation and references to prominent personalities and institutions that sadly lack any credible substantiation. Hester reiterated that the main purpose of the bill was to equipped the Federal Government with a power of taxation that will allow marijuana to be effectively regulated at its most basic level without impinging on its uses in the ‘industrial, medical and scientific’ fields.
Hester cited the success that the Harrison Narcotics Act had in managing the opiates and cocaine menace in the country, without mentioning the obvious differing addiction and criminal statistics of the products in question, to strengthen his point. He stressed that the observation of the proposed Act would ensure that marijuana would only be available to ‘manufacturers, compounders, importers, producers, dealers, laboratory users, and practitioners’ and thus eliminating the opportunity for illicit users to access the product.
A thorough elaboration on the finer points of the Act by Hester followed suit, with parallels drawn with the Harrison Narcotics Act and the National Firearms Act, as well as the constitutionality of the provisions in the proposed Act – all clearly designed to create the appearance that marijuana is only being regulated by the Act while generating additional revenue for the Federal Government, and not to place it out of the reach from the market altogether.
There was a brief clarification sought then by Representative Lewis of the House Ways and Means Committee that perhaps appeared just a little too rehearsed.
MR. LEWIS: The treatment of this subject as a matter of method, and so far as constitutional basis is concerned, is about the same as the Harrison Narcotic Act, is it not?
MR. HESTER: With one exception.
MR. LEWIS: I was thinking you might add this drug as an amendment to the Harrison Narcotic Act.
MR. HESTER: No; there are three reasons why we think that would be a bad thing to do.
The first is that while the Harrison Narcotic Act would include producers, there are actually no producers in the United States of the plant from which opium and coca leaves are obtained. Therefore, we have never had a problem under the Harrison Narcotic Act with respect to products which are produced in this country but have only been concerned with products which are imported from abroad. Here we have the reverse situation. Practically all of this marihuana is grown in the United States and for that reason, instead of being concerned only with importation and sale as under the Harrison Act, provision must also be made for regulation of production of marihuana. There is the further point that opium and coca leaves, which are the subjects of the Harrison Act, are legitimately used almost exclusively as medicines, whereas there are many industrial uses for marihuana. That is another distinction between the Harrison Act and this bill.
The third is this, that the Harrison Narcotic Act has twice been sustained by the Supreme Court of the United States and lawyers are no longer challenging its constitutionality. If an entirely new and different subject matter were to be inserted in its provisions, the act might be subjected to further constitutional attacks. We feel, in view of the reasons I have cited, that this problem is one that should be dealt with under a separate act.
We have departed from the Harrison Narcotic Act in one major respect, and we have done that because the Ways and Means Committee departed from the plan of the Harrison Act in preparing the National Firearms Act. Under the Harrison Narcotic Act no one can buy narcotics unless he has registered and paid the occupational tax. In the National Firearms Act the committee did not follow that plan. Anyone is permitted to buy a machine gun or a submachine gun, but he must pay a $200 transfer tax, and carry out the purchase on an official order form.
MR. HESTER: Yes, this bill would permit anyone to purchase marihuana, as was done in the National Firearms Act in permitting anyone to buy a machine gun, but he would have to pay a tax of $100 per ounce of marihuana and make his purchase on an official order form. A person who wants to buy marihuana would have to go to the collector and get an order form in duplicate, and buy the $100 tax stamp and put it on the original order form there. He would take the original to the vendor, and keep the duplicate. If the purchaser wants to transfer it, the person who purchases the marihuana from him has to do the same thing and pay the $100 tax. That is the scheme that has been adopted to stop high-school children from getting marihuana.
MR.VINSON: What is the fair market value, per ounce, of marihuana?
MR. HESTER: In its raw state it is about a dollar per ounce, as a drug.
A perfectly legitimate question and answer session that nevertheless perfectly illustrates the apparent affordability and availability of marijuana under the proposed Act, while distancing itself from the more questionable provisions of the other two Acts mentioned earlier.
And so forth, it went. Testimonies after testimonies which demonized marijuana without any credible evidence, yet tempered with a very conscientious Act that was designed only to regulate the lawless marijuana/hemp industry.
Next: The Repercussion of The Marijuana Tax Act 1937
|