cannabisnews.com: Federal Marijuana Laws May Be Going Up in Smoke Federal Marijuana Laws May Be Going Up in Smoke Posted by FoM on September 08, 2000 at 10:48:19 PT By David F. Musto MD Source: Los Angeles Times Are our federal marijuana laws unraveling? There is reason to think so. Early in the 20th century, each state had its own laws controlling habit-forming drugs, unaffected by federal statutes. In 1914, for example, it was legal in New York to be maintained on morphine, while in Massachusetts it was illegal for a physician to supply morphine to a habitual user. After lengthy attempts to control morphine, heroin and cocaine, Congress in 1914 passed the Harrison Act, which imposed one rule on these drugs throughout the nation. The law was typical of Progressive Era legislation: A national problem that was being dealt with variously by the states was harmonized by one overriding federal law. A similar patchwork pattern applied to marijuana in the 1920s when it first became a serious worry. Then in 1937, national control also was applied to marijuana. The Marihuana Tax Act made it illegal to buy, sell, barter, etc., marijuana anywhere in the United States unless you had purchased a marijuana tax stamp, and there were, for all practical purposes, no stamps to be bought. This held true until 1970, when the basis for the anti-marijuana law was shifted from the tax power of the federal government to interstate commerce powers, but the overriding control of marijuana continues to reside with the federal government. Usually when a problem has been formulated into a national law, the several states accept this resolution; any alterations are argued in Congress. But there are exceptions. Passing welfare from the federal government to the states is a major shift in the locus of control. A similar trend toward unraveling what long ago had been knitted into national law may be occurring with control of dangerous drugs. Even the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision to prohibit sale of "medicinal marijuana" in Oakland, Calif., at least for the time being, may be just a skirmish in the devolution of drug control from Washington to the states. For example, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has taken the position that the "medical necessity" of marijuana outweighs the federal statute that makes marijuana illicit, an issue that may come before the Supreme Court this fall. If enough of the judiciary were to follow suit, we would have in effect the repeal of the anti-marijuana statute. We would be moving toward an earlier era of variegated state regulations. The marijuana question raises two issues: the value of marijuana as a medicine, and the right to use marijuana for simple recreation. Some of us may believe that those who want to exercise their right to smoke for any reason use the medical marijuana issue to achieve adoption of laws that loosen controls at the state level. Still, an important question remains: Does cannabis have some characteristics that give it unique healing or comforting properties? We do not have a good answer to this. The claims for marijuana are often anecdotal, not scientifically established. Coincidentally, the day the Supreme Court made its latest pronouncement regarding Oakland, the University of California announced that it was opening two centers, in San Francisco and San Diego, to study the health value of cannabis. Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, has said--and reasonably so--that if cannabis were proved to have medical benefits he would favor its use in a medically approved delivery system. Several years ago, the FDA approved a liquid form of cannabis' active ingredient, tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, for physicians to prescribe, although it does not seem to have become a popular remedy. Interestingly, the late Harry J. Anslinger, the legendary head of the federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs from 1930 to 1962, wanted to avoid a federal marijuana law: He urged the states to individually enact a uniform state narcotic act that included marijuana. He told me in the early 1970s that he felt this way because the task of eradicating marijuana was beyond his ability and also because he realized that he would be given neither more money nor more agents when he was given the task in 1937 of controlling marijuana. If each state had a law, then each state could decide for itself how much of its resources it wanted to devote to the control of pot, and federal authorities could concern themselves with just opiates and cocaine. California was one of the Western states that clamored for a federal anti-marijuana law in the 1930s. The perceived connection between Mexican immigrants and marijuana use lay behind some of the most insistent demands for action, but there were also more reasoned concerns about marijuana use, especially among youth. Sixty-some years after pushing for the Marihuana Tax Act, California is pulling the nation toward a dismantling of a national consensus against marijuana. David F. Musto Is a Professor at the Yale School of Medicine and Author of "The American Disease: Origins of Narcotic Control" (Oxford University, 1999)Published: Friday, September 8, 2000 Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)Author: David F. MustoCopyright: 2000 Los Angeles TimesContact: letters latimes.comAddress: Times Mirror SquareLos Angeles, CA 90053Fax: (213) 237-4712Website: http://www.latimes.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperativehttp://www.rxcbc.org/Doctor Rights Backed Under Pot Lawhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6971.shtmlSupreme Court on Medical Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6906.shtmlCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archives:http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml END SNIP --> Snipped Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #5 posted by FoM on September 08, 2000 at 19:44:08 PT: Hi Freedom Fighter & Tim I saw your question Tim and I went out and found these 2 links. You probably are familiar with them but maybe you aren't so here they are.Peace, FoM!History of Legislative Control Over Opium, Cocaine, and Their Derivativeshttp://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/ophs.htmThe History of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/history/mustomj1.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by freedom fighter on September 08, 2000 at 18:16:49 PT Musto's Folly TimI agree that Musto is really for the Drug War.He made it sound like Calif. was the first to pass anti-pot law. We all know Colorado is the first to pass this inane law. Musto could have written this way that the western states were the first to pass the law but he did'nt.Musto sounds like he is a tired old drug warrior who did not realize what he is writing. Yes old man, the federal pot laws is going up in smoke. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Tim Stone on September 08, 2000 at 17:28:29 PT Weird Musto I'm somewhat familiar with Prof. Musto's work and his writing always puzzles me, as in this case. In general, I've found him to wear a suit of academic dispassion on drug policy underneath which he is an essential supporter of the drug war. He may deplore some of the excesses, but he has always seemed quite comfortable with prohibition as a national policy. In that sense, this article could be interpreted as a call to arms, an attempt to rally drug war support before it's too late and medpot, the thin end of the wedge, gets a good purchase and starts to unravel national drug laws. Musto's comments on Anslinger are a good example of my difficulty in understanding him. He seems to be trying to exculpate the vile Anslinger for Anslinger's part in bringing about national cannabis prohibition. But as an expert on U.S. drug law history, Musto must know that Anslinger was ideologically opposed to cannabis use, primarily for racist and socially reactionary reasons. Anslinger's initial reluctance to undertake national cannabis prohibition was based purely on the instincts of a savvy, vicious bureaucratic infighter. Anslinger wanted cannabis banned, for sure, but he was reluctant to get stuck with the job because as a bureaucrat he didn't want to get stuck with a no-win new piece of bureaucratic turf that would bring little or no additional funding along with it. As one so learned in U.S. drug prohibition history, how can Musto _not_ be overtly against present policy? That's what bugs me. Maybe Musto is just being very professional about his academic dispasssion, even if his personal views are supportive of the drug war. And maybe he's well aware of the fate of Prof. Lindesmith and other academics who overtly opposed drug war orthodoxy.If anyone has any insight into Musto's drug war positions, I'd very much like to hear them. Thanks. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by observer on September 08, 2000 at 12:59:32 PT Marijuana Laws Unraveling Are our federal marijuana laws unraveling? There is reason to think so.I sure hope he is right! Interestingly, the late Harry J. Anslinger, the legendary head of the federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs from 1930 to 1962, wanted to avoid a federal marijuana law: He urged the states to individually enact a uniform state narcotic act that included marijuana. He told me in the early 1970s that he felt this way because the task of eradicating marijuana was beyond his ability and also because he realized that he would be given neither more money nor more agents when he was given the task in 1937 of controlling marijuana. It seems that accounts of Anslinger's distaste for federal anti-cannabis laws are in some question.Much of the most irrational juvenile violence and that has written a new chapter of shame and tragedy is traceable directly to this hemp intoxication. A gang of boys tear the clothes from two school girls and rape the screaming girls, one boy after the other. A sixteen-year-old kills his en tire family of five in Florida, a man in Minnesota puts a bullet through the head of a stranger on the road; in Colorado husband tries to shoot his wife, kills her grandmother instead and then kills himself. Every one of these crimes had been proceeded by the smoking of one or more marijuana "reefers." As the marijuana situation grew worse, I knew action had to be taken to get the proper legislation passed. By 1937 under my direction, the Bureau launched two important steps First, a legislative plan to seek from Congress a new law that would place marijuana and its distribution directly under federal control. Second, on radio and at major forums, such that presented annually by the New York Herald Tribune, I told the story of this evil weed of the fields and river beds and roadsides. I wrote articles for magazines; [ http://www.redhousebooks.com/galleries/assassin.htm ] our agents gave hundreds of lectures to parents, educators, social and civic leaders. In network broadcasts I reported on the growing list of crimes, including murder and rape. I described the nature of marijuana and its close kinship to hashish. I continued to hammer at the facts. [ http://www.crrh.org/hemptv/misc_reefer.html ]I believe we did a thorough job, for the public was alerted and the laws to protect them were passed, both nationally and at the state level. We also brought under control the wild growing marijuana in this country. Working with local authorities, we cleaned up hundreds of acres of marijuana we and uprooted plants sprouting along the roadsides. The 1937 law does not prohibit the sale of marijuana but puts a tax of $100.00 an ounce on any sale or transfer of drug and makes such sale or transfer illegal without proper registration and approval from the Bureau. Possession without proper authorization can bring a prison term. The Marijuana Tax Act is patterned in general after the Harrison Act, but with some major technical variations, principally based on the fact that while marijuana is used in laboratory tests it is not used for medical purposes...Hemp Around Their Necks (1961, From The Murderers)By HARRY J. ANSLINGER U. S. Commissioner of Narcotics http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/murd3.htm David F. Musto Is a Professor at the Yale School of Medicine and Author of "The American Disease: Origins of Narcotic Control" (Oxford University, 1999)http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195125096/Cannabisnews/ [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on September 08, 2000 at 11:30:15 PT: Unraveling Federal Control Dr. Musto is one of our country's leading scholars of drug policy. If he suggests a loss of federal control is in the cards, he may very well be correct. Now is the time for patients and advocates to make their opinions known as never before to change the laws, challenge those that remain, and demand that clinical cannabis be available to those in need. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: