US Cannabis prohibition- A look back at the 1930s

[Rheinpirat]

Hello together,

 

here's some reflections about some aspects of the cannabis prohibition in America. I wrote another detailed essay about the role of media, but the whole essay takes over 20 pages- so I don't know where to post it.

 

Anyways, here it is. Oh yea, by the way, my bibliography is screwed up and i have to rewrite it, but that's going to happen soon.

 

 

Reasons for the cannabis prohibition today

 

 

Cannabis politic in the USA (1930-1940)

 

- Introduction

- Did cannabis have to be eliminated due to its competitive role towards the uprising artificial fibre, paper and pharma industry?

- The ”Marihuana Tax Act” ( 1935- 1937)

- Conclusion

 

 

 

Introduction:

 

As cannabis was used for centuries as a drug, textile and medicine there was less concern about this substance. The “ US- Federal bureau of narcotics and dangerous drugs” ( FBNDD) which was later renamed to the DEA, the “ Drug Enforcement Agency” was nevertheless concerned about cannabis for several reasons I will evaluate throughout my research paper. The question why cannabis had to be forbidden arises inevitably with the treatment of the topic “ cannabis”. The contemporary, general opinion towards the cannabis prohibition is, that it is somehow justified, either by medical or empirical evidence. Both evidences are not present, neither medical ( 1) nor empirical (2). This research paper is mainly concerned with the emergence of cannabis politics, with regard to the increasing “ politilization”, meaning the combination of economic, political and even racial interests of the prohibition of cannabis at this point in time in America.

 

Did cannabis have to be eliminated due to its competitive role towards the uprising artificial fibre, paper and pharma industry?

 

 

The consumption of cannabis was widely spread in the United States since the colonialisation in the 17th century. (3). Its use as medicine was accepted and was prefered to the usage of Heroine and Opium which were at this time used as medicine, too. But as cannabis had significantly less side effects, cannabis rapidly developed into the second most used medicine in America. (4) There is no single reason for the prohibition of cannabis but has to be regarded as an assembly of combined economical and personal aspirations supported by racial predjudices.

At the start of the 20th century, cannabis was predicted a mayor role in world’s economy. Its value as fibre, oil, paper and colour were prooved for centuries (5). However, in the time of the “ industrial revolution”, its value decreased due to its inability of mass production. This inability was egalised as a combined harvester was produced. The “ American Ministry of Agriculture” wrote in her bulletin Nr. 404 that hemp is going to “ regain its meaning as the largest agricultural branch of industry”.This machine was introduced in agricultural magazines such as “Popular Mechanics” or “Mechanical Engineering”. This new aspect of mass production helped cannabis to increase its economic power again and researches took place.

This was the (economic) turning point in the long and traditional history of hemp. As Cannabis was used as a paper for centuries (6) and until the 1880s approximately 80 % of all paper used in the United States were made out of Cannabis. The paper industry, especially the biggest producers Hearst Paper and Kimberly Clark, was dependent on forests which take a long time to recover, discovered that the fast recovering cannabis plant ( a growing period of 100 days) was a considerable competition to wood. In this time, a kinf of joint venture between the paper and chemistry industry appeared. The paper industry was highly challenged and of course they thought about how to solve this misery.

In about this time the chemistry and explosive producer Du Pont patented its method to produce plastic from oil and coal as well as how to produce paper from pulp wood. Lammont Du Pont, chief executive of Du Pont wrote in popular mechanics in 1938 that “…synthetic material is used in a wide range of products which were, in former times, produced from natural material”,namely cannabis.Those products were even dynamite and TNT (7), and, since the turn of the century, Du Pont had a monopol position in this field. In the year 1902, Du Pont controlled about 2/3 of the whole industrial explosive market in America and supplied about 40% of explosives needed during the First World War. But as they had to rely on the supplement of hemp, her monopol position was still a bit dependent on the hemp farmers and other suppliers. But with the help of those two patents, Du Pont was able to manifest its position due to the newly undependent production of synthetic fibres.

Du Pont furthermore was supported by Hearst Paper. In 1898, during the Spanish- American War, Hearst lost 800.000 acres of prime Mexican timber land, ceased from Latinos, Spaniards and Mexican Americans which Hearst denounced as “ the marijuana smoking army of Pancho Villa”. This can be considered as a mayor reason for a 30 years enduring denounciation of cannabis smokers as I will show during the research paper.

Coming back to Du Pont, the company was aware of the fact that the main premiss to reach a complete monopol position was the prohibitition of cannabis. Andrew Mellon, chief of the “ Mellon Bank of Pittsburgh”, were financing Du Pont’s

researches and in his function of being Secretary of the Treasury, he influenced the election of the future executive director of the FBNDD.

The one who in fact was elected was the future husband of his niece, Harry J. Anslinger. However, during my research I could not find out whether this was planned or just a coincidence . Anyways, Du Pont now started to exercise political pressure to prohibit cannabis, as proclaimed in their annual report to stockholders 1937. They wanted to have “ radical changes”, and wanted the Government to be transformed “…into an instrument for forcing acceptance of sudden new ideas of industrial and social reorganisation…” (8). The so called “new ideas of the industrial reorganisation” were synthetic fibre and materials. However, the claims of Du Ponts of making restrictions concerning cannabis were accepted. On the 14th of April 1937, the government introduced a new law called the Marihuana Tax Act about which I will talk in detail in my next subtopic. However, the consequence was that due to the newly introduced book-keeping the prescribtion of cannabis was much more complicated and with the time,doctors were more likely to prescribe new, synthetic medicine. From the industrial perspective, small hemp farmers who were the main suppliers of the total production of hemp fibres, had to withdraw due to the high tax.

 

 

 

 

The “ Marihuana Tax Act “

 

 

Introduction

 

Due to the mayor influence of Du Pont, the chief adviser of the U.S. Ministry of Finance, Herman Oliphant handed in a dossier stating that there should be a trade taxation of all products related with cannabis (9). The price were stipulated on 1$ per ounce if the dealer was registrated. If not, the price was regulated on 100$ per ounce. In case of neglection the fee ranged between 2000$ up to five years of prosecution. This bill was directly handed in to the budget committee of the congress. Due to this it was not proposed and discussed in other compitent committees such as the committee of agriculture, textile and trade as the budget committee deals with proposed laws directly in the plenum of the congress. Finally it was just discussed in the budget committee and throughout this, a complete briefing with all the different aspects of a prohibition was avoided. Only one question arose during the discussion in the plenum, namely, if the “ American Medical Association” (AMA) was consulted. Despite of knowing that all other committees were against a prohibition, delegate Vinston stated that “…Dr. Wharton ( the representative expert of the AMA) and the AMA perfectly agree with us” (10). And nobody noticed that he misspelled the name as the representative’s name was Dr. Woodward. However, now the decision was made and Cannabis is until nowadays prohibited.

The great challgenge cannabis represented, the connected economic interests and finally the “ Marihuana Tax Act” could have been a coincidence. However it is remarkable that at this time only a few of the 100 different cannabis species produced the psychotrope “ THC” ( tetrahydrocannabinol), but since the “ Marihuana Tax Act” cannabis, with all its economic and medical abilities, was proscripted. With regard to Germany, the cultivation of THC- free cannabis was prohibited until 1996, and even now there are several restrictions. Keeping in mind that THC- free cannabis plants do not have any psychedelic effect, this issue is highly discussable and makes the industrial cultivation for the use as a textile more difficult. But the way how the law passed the congress and the doubtable arguments are mayor factors why I think that this was a planned campaign. To add authencity I will evaluate the main arguments for the “ Marihuana Tax Act”.

 

 

Arguments for and against the “ Marihuana Tax Act” (1935-1937)

 

Before the “ Marihuana Tax Act” was agreed, two years of consultations take place. During this time, the FBNDD constantly tried to discreditate cannabis. Harry J. Anslinger and the FBNDD used the uprising media industry, mainly Hearst Paper to propagate books (11) or movies (12), portraying cannabis as an evil drug which causes mental destruction or even death. When Herman Oliphant handed the dossier of the “ Marihuana Tax Act” in to the congress, there was no medical evidence against any side effects of the consumption of the drug cannabis. The preliminary decision was made from the 27.4 to 4.5.1937 when the congress was informed by the tax committee of the congress about the drug cannabis. The tax committee was represented by Clinton Hester and Harry J. Anslinger who mainly stated arguments that cannabis is the most violence- producing drug mankind has ever seen and that her usage is followed by death. Those predjudices were mainly the result of police reports and newspaper articles , regarded as the necessary evidence.

However, the congress believed those arguments although experts such as the representative expert of the AMA, Dr. William Woodward were present. Woodward was not asked a single time asked during the time of consultation. During this congress he tried to criticize those unstated, populistic arguments pushed forward by the FBNDD and the tax committee. Woodward criticized among other things the masking of the facts by the useage of the Mexican slang word "marijuana" instead of the scientific term "Cannabis". He criticized also the press, which likewise diverted by the permanent use of the word "marijuana" from the industrial material and medicine. This was an important note, because around such and other theses like those that approximately 50 per cent of all heavy crimes were committed by marijuana-consuming foreigners, were now tried to be challenged.

As said above, the violence- enducing effect of cannabis were one of the main thesis pushed forward by Anslinger. In my opinion, this predjudice was used for two purposes: At first, the effect on society. As violence is generally outlawed, it had the effect that the consumption of cannabis in general and especially the people who used it were branded as future outlaws. The second reason concerned those people who used it: The argument of violence was slowly transformed into a political instrument to discreditate certain “ society- groups” ( no matching translation found): During the 1920s and 30s, cannabis use was mostly identified with mexicans, who disturbed the equilibrium on the American job market, and black jazz musicians ( one of the most popular “ representatives” were Bix Beiderbecke and Louis Armstrong)(13). In the 1960s and 70s, rebellious youth groups such as the “ Hippies” were accused. Both incidences were used to discreditate those groups and to have a reason for harming them on a legal way. I agree with Dr. Woodward that the press was main means to distribute those prejudices, mainly the so called “yellow press” which is naturally interested in shocking people, was keen on spreading articles such as seen on the folio.

Main carrier of those arguments was the newspaper chain of the newspaper mogul Randolph Hearst as I already mentioned. He seemed to have a deepgoing interest in this issue, as he lost a great area of timber at the turn of the century. In particular his “ New York Journal” stepped out. Due to this I think I can state that it was above all its country-wide operating newspaper chain, which provided articles for the "proofs" Anslingers. It accomplished between 1916 and 1937 a proper rushing campaign against cannabis, but even newspapers like the New York times, reported in this time frequently over rapes and car accidents in connection with marijuana. These reports provided the base for an absolutely negative and one-sided image of cannabis, which concentrated exclusively on its use as drug and only in connection with murder and homicide.

Except with these “horror messages”, which Anslinger stated with critical demands as “arguments”, the anti- cannabis politic was not to be justified.

Harry J. Anslinger colected those articles in a special folder, the so called “ Gore Files”. He passed this folder after his “carrier” to the University of Cleveland. Laterwards those articles where scientificly evaluated by an expert group which stated that they believe those articles were fictional and could not be considered as a proof due to its interferation with contemporary medical studies.

Apart from the AMA there were further voices against the law such as from the hemp fiber -, lubricating oil -, hemp seed and dye industry, in whose eyes it did make no sense to proceed so rough against the processing and production of this plant with so rigide taxes. But they did not have any chances against the superiority of institutes such as the FBNDD and the fact that cannabis had already experienced an international proscription. Contemporary medical studies concerning the consumption of canabis at this time were very little. Despite of this I want to mention the most reputated studies and their conclusion, as those highly contradict Anslinger’s “arguments” thus interfering with the reasons for the “ Marihuana Tax Act”. The “ Indian Hemp Drug Comission Report” ( 1894) and the “ Siler Comission Report” (1930) both stated its minor effect on the human psyche and did not recommend a taxation of other legal penalties for its use. Despite of knowing this, Anslinger ignored those two studies. Another ironic issue is that Walter Treadway, assistant U.S. Surgeon General stated at the Cannabis Advisory Subcommittee of the “League of Nations” that the use of cannabis is “…habit forming in the same way as sugar or coffee…”.(14)

 

 

Conclusion

 

Whilest cannabis was used as a drug, textile and medicin for centuries, America started its “ War on Drugs” with highly discussable and partly contradicting arguments. American drug policy was mainly shaped by Anslinger, who led the FBNDD for more than 30 years. He could be regarded as the “ hinge”, the protagonist of the prohibition. The reason for his effort is unknown, but fact is that he biased and shaped the society’s opinion and approach in a very delicate way. Supported by Hearst Paper which was main deliverer of Anslinger’s doubtful arguments, it discovered that the only way to save her business is the prohibition respectively discreditation of cannabis. As well as Hearst Paper, Du Pont’s monopol position was highly challenged. The consequence was the formation of a “ Triumvirat” for the sake to save her business.

[dlopez]

I like this piece, i learnt a few things from reading it through. However i really think you need to go back through it and write it properly. it looks like a draft.

 

I don't think you put it in word? Reading the writting on the forum's green background was hurting my stoned eyes, so i put it in word to adjust the size and read it easier. Alot of bad spelling mistakes and gramma errors popped up instantly.

 

I'm saying this because -i don't know why you researched or why you posted, but i am assuming you have interest in journalism or activism, so it would be in your interest either way to do your work up all good and right.

 

It's good you left the little numbers to refer to resources.. not that they were posted in here but that's what they are there for right? I think you could have left more links and made a few more references to back up some points. I mean it's not hard to believe or follow the facts you say but it's nice to always be able to check the authenticity of apparent statistics and such.

 

Hm you know something random that come to mind while reading your piece, is how many things are able to be constructed out of hemp. I see a photo in a text book of a Ford car chasis made entirely out of this strong plastic or something shit made apprently entirely out of hemp. In the picture there was a guy with a sledge hammer 'proving the strength' of the chasis -as the quote states.

 

Any how. I am interested in speaking with you to hear other opinions. If you feel like an activist or a journalist than contact hiphop_non_stop@hotmail.com

Yeh that's my e-mail, it's a wierd name but it is actually many years old.

 

-Dan