You all remember me, right? I did a very long series on the "War on Drugs" right here on the DailyKos, was frontpaged for
War on Drugs: The Masquerade (Part II of III), as well as pretty much writing the
War on Drugs page on Dkospedia. It's been over a year since I have posted anything. After a harsh event with Maryscott O'Connor (whom I have mended fences with and am currently writing something for her,) I left the DailyKos and started my own blog.
That blog went down about a year ago. I have now restarted that blog - Drug War Revealed, and have a whole blog host called HeroinDiaries (in which I am currently offering free webspace and much more to anyone - with or without a drug problem, and am looking for authors re politics,) and have even a personal blog there, nephalim (sorry for the lack of apparent creativity.)
Well, it's time I posted an entry that never got posted here, and I am hoping it's content alone - a part 3 of 4 of a history series - will be a spark to start my drug war blog moving again.
(Pretty Teaser Graphic)
Well, here it is, finally, the third installment of my history of drug prohibition mini-series. I hope you enjoy it as much as my other writing.
This diary will fill in the gap between 1914 and World War II, and will have a large section devoted to the passage of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Much of the background was already covered in The Most Massive Propaganda Campaign in History: Drug Prohibition. But now you'll see how things went in the legislature. And it isn't a pretty sight, that's for sure. Marijuana prohibition has never been properly vetted for a legislative standpoint. And, surely, for good reason. But then again, neither has prohibition of any other kind, really.
----------------------
Previous Installments:
Drug Prohibition: A History (Part I - Pre-Prohibition)
(Ancient to ~1875)
Drug Prohibition: A History (Part II - Prohibition Begins
(~1875 to ~1919 (Harrison Narcotics Act & Effect))
(both originally posted as diaries on the DailyKos)
So, here we go. Part III (of IV).
Back to 1914
If you recall, due to our inheritance of the Philippines in 1898 after the Spanish-American War, we inherited a government-sponsored opium problem (problem for the Filipinos, at least,) from Spain (which was similar to China's with Britian.) We also developed a first-ever imperialistic policy in regards to global affairs. We decided to internationally control opium for numerous reasons. This led to the Hague Comission of 1912, after the Convention at Shanghai in 1909, which came about after intense diplomatic activity on our part, and led to the 1914 Harrison Narcotics Act, and the subsequent development of a previously virtually unknown criminal element and black market at the federal level. You'll have to read Part II to find out more about these developments. The Harrison Narcotic Act effectively outlawed opiates and cocaine.
There are just a few points I want to make that I shouldn't move on without making:
- This was a Roosevelt(R, 1901-1909) -> Taft(R, 1909-1913) -> Wilson(D, 1913-1921) 'movement', the movement being the international control of narcotics and Wilson's 'New World Order'.
(Taft was a Bonesman, and his father founded the secret society!)
- One of those presidents, Taft, was none other than Civil Governor of the Phillippines - and was essentially appointed the Presidency by his predecessor, TR (who thereafter decided he no longer liked Taft, as Taft didn't want to push federal powers, and ran against him in the Bull Moose Party, causing his loss to Wilson.) The reason Taft's plan of continuing to legally supply opium, but not as pushers, and using the money to finance a massive public education campaign was likely because of the very religious people then running the Phillippines (and the US for that matter) - like the Reverend Charles Brent, the chief architect of the international comissions and the policy in the Phillippines. He can be attributed with starting this whole mess. Dr. Hamilton Wright, who I spoke briefly of, was another architect of the Hamilton Act (and, you guessed it, (alcohol) prohibition,) and held a crusade against narcotics, stating completely bogus 'facts' - and starting, personally, the stigmatization of drug users. I wrote more about Dr. Hamilton Wright in The Most Massive Propaganda Campaign in History: Drug Prohibition.. I misstated that he went on to be the government prosecutor in the famous 'Scopes Monkey Trial'. That was William Bryan, the third architect of the act. My apologies for the error. He was the chief proponent of the law, serving as Secretary of State under Woodrow Wilson.
This proposal struck a responsive chord in the United States State Department. For many years, Britain had been criticized for shipping opium grown in India into China; indeed, two nineteenth-century "opium wars" between Britain and China had been fought over this issue. Many Chinese saw opium from India as unfair cut-rate competition for their home-grown product. American missionaries in China complained that British opium was ruining the Chinese people; American traders similarly complained that the silver bullion China was trading for British opium could better be traded for other, perhaps American, products.The agitation against British opium sales to China continued unabated after 1900. Thus the United States State Department saw a way not only to solve the War Department's Philippine opium problem but also to please American missionaries and traders. President Theodore Roosevelt in 1906, at the request of Bishop Brent, called for an international opium conference, which was held in Shanghai in 1909. A second conference was held at The Hague in 1911, and out of it came the first international opium agreement, The Hague Convention of 1912, aimed primarily at solving the opium problems of the Far East, especially China.
Some American traders also sent opium into China on a small scale. Some of New England's world-renowned "China clippers" were in fact opium clippers. [American fortunes, too, were made off of China's opium problem]
--Consumer's Union Report on Illicit Drugs
- This was the beginning of America's role as a major power (and an imperialistic one) in the global sphere. This was Roosevelt's legacy. The man did some good things - and some not so good things, especially abroad.
- When Wilson took office it represented a major shift in power from the Republicans to the Democrats, and the Democrats are responsible for these failures in the past - although the Republicans are responsible for the failures (and outright duplicity) in the present and recent past (1970+). Both parties are guilty, and even today the democrats are likely guilty of at least indirectly taking narco-dollars (but don't get the wrong idea, Republican hands aren't exactly clean.) While both parties are guilty, both parties should be involved in the reform. Notice how no politician is willing to even touch the issue, however. As far as I am concerned, every politician in Washington is so far divorced from reality it doesn't really matter what party they are in. But I am digressing.
- Wilson, who signed the Harrison Narcotics Act, was a notorious racist and supporter of the KKK. He was also an extremely religious man, very close with William Jennings Bryan, the guy who went on to prosecute the Scopes Monkey Trial. Wilson was one of the worst Democratic Presidents, and one of the very few to suspend the Constitution, by suspending Habeas Corpus, arresting anti-war protestors via the Espionage & Sedition Acts of 1917 & 1918 (ruled unconstitutional in Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).)
- Very few countries followed the path of the United States policy of relying on prohibition laws. Canada did, however. All 48 States as well as all the provinces also did, as well. Other countries would eventually follow as tougher UN Commissions were enacted, and eventually world-wide prohibition will be mandated.
- The failure of those prohibition laws did not lead to a change in policy, as you well know. Instead, newer and stricter laws were enacted. By 1970, Congress had passed 55 federal drug laws to supplement the 1914 Harrison Act. A list of the anti-narcotics laws passed by the fifty states would run far into the hundreds if not thousands. Canada's Parliament also followed a similar path.
The other countries that signed (44 in all by 1914,) were more or less obligated to put anti-opium legislation on the books. We also got it into the Treaty of Versailles, the treaty ending World War I. We didn't sign it, but there was one significant result of it's inclusion: the passage in Britain of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1920. This was passed not because of any serious problem with addiction, an often erroneous belief, but because by ratifying the treaty, they were obligated.
In case you forgot the result of the Harrison Act, it was something like this:
- Opium and other narcotic drugs [including cocaine] were being used by about a million people. [likely an overstatement]
- The "underground" traffic in narcotic drugs was about equal to the legitimate medical traffic.
- The "dope peddlers" appeared to have established a national organization, smuggling the drugs in through seaports or across the Canadian or Mexican borders-especially the Canadian border.
- The wrongful use of narcotic drugs had increased since passage of the Harrison Act. Twenty cities, including New York and San Francisco, had reported such increases. (The increase no doubt resulted from the migration of addicts into cities where black markets flourished.)
It was because of these findings that heroin was outlawed completely in 1924. Heroin ousted morphine as opiate of choice on the streets soon after the law's passing.
I'm going over old ground a bit. Let's move on.
The national attitude that led up to all these laws was that of purification. Going into World War I, Americans were concerned about their image, about being a pure nation. It's very important to note why all this happened. We were in a period of intolerance and religious purity, similar to today. This is what allowed alcohol prohibition and the Harrison Act to be passed. After the 20s and 30s, the attitude would return, and drug use during the 40s and 50s would be very low.
New Drugs
With the discovery of Heroin and Aspirin, the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, and the outlawing of opiates and cocaine via the Harrison Act, the stage was set for the patent industry business, which essentially just patented mixtures of morphine or opium and alcohol and gave them snazzy names, to give way to the pharmaceutical industry. New synthetic drugs started to be discovered. And we have two big ones in this era - both completely legal over the counter. In case you didn't catch it, opiates and cocaine were illegal - and that's it. Well, there is one other exception - absinthe was banned in 1912, from flawed experiments that showed it to be dangerous (and it had no medicinal use). This, technically, was the first federal prohibition, but it came and went without fanfare. I will write more about it in the future.
The Barbiturates
The barbiturates were the first tranquilizers, and boy were they tranquilizers. They are probably the most dangerous drugs known to man, and are almost never used anymore via prescription, except for a few minor ones such as phenobarbital, for seizures. They were essentially replaced (for medicinal use) by the so-called 'minor tranquilizers', the benzodiazepines by around 1970.
It was 1903 when the barbiturates were first discovered, by a Belgian researcher Adolf von Baeyer. He discovered barbituric acid on the day of St. Barbara, so he chose the name "barbiturate" as a combination of St. Barbara and urea. Yes, barbiturates are synthesized from urea (a.k.a. urine.) In 1912 phenobarbital hit shelves (one of the more minor ones still found today for use in epilepics.) The barbiturates, despite being around since 1903, weren't really considered dangerous until the 1950s. In 1942 that the first article warning against use of barbituates except under "a physicians care," and stigmatized them as "thrill pills" and was titled "1,250,000,000 Doses a Year." The scare began, and barbiturates, once considered safe and were used without problems, grew in abuse greatly. They were a new high - "thrill pills."
The effects of barbiturates are quite similar to alcohol, are extremely addictive, and produce a withdrawal syndrome that is severe and life threatening. They were especially popular during the 60s, but that's for part IV.
The Amphetamines
The amphetamines was first synthesized by German chemist L. Edeleano way back in 1887, probably one of the first synthesized drugs, and was originally named phenylisopropylamine. It was then forgotten, not to be pulled off the shelf until around 1930. While barbiturates are "downers," amphetamines are "uppers." Methamphetamine was first synthesized by Japanese scientist A. Ogata, also to be largely forgotten for a long time. When the amphetamines were first marketed in 1932 under the name "Benzedrine," cocaine would dissapear from the black market. A legal alternative would make a black market for cocaine unsustainable.
Amphetamines were used quite heavily, as were their counterparts, the barbiturates. It has been used for ADHD since 1937. It wasn't until 1942 that Methamphetamine became widely available as "Methedrine."
Tobacco Prohibition
Not many of you know cigarettes were once illegal, do you? Well, they were. In many states, that is.
Cigarettes as we know them didn't come about until the late nineteenth century, before that it was pipes and cigars, and chewing tobacco. Cigarette smoking would explode after 1910, and it can be attributed in part to the public health campaigns against chewing tobacco (and it's accompaniment, the cuspidor - the spit jug.) According to these campaigns, the spit of tobacco chewers spreads diseases including tuberculosis.
The cigarette replaced chewing tobacco, and the ashtray replaced the cuspidor, and lung cancer became a serious public health problem, whereas before cigarette smoke and polution lung cancer was virtually unknown.
And thus, anti-cigarette leagues bloomed, made in the image of the anti-saloon leagues of the Temperance Movement that was largely responsible for alcohol prohibition. And tobacco prohibitionists did have some success. In 1921 14 states had laws prohibiting cigarettes, and 92 bills were under consideration in 28 more states. But, much like alcohol prohibition, the laws were a total failure, and in 1927 the last one was repealed. Many of these laws had penalties that were so severe that the tobacco prohibition approach became a source of ridicule for decades to come. Only the laws regarding cigarette sales to minors remained, the laws we still have today. Except back then, the penalties were extremely strict, and in some cases were silly such that a minor could be compelled to testify as to the source of his or her cigarettes. This inevitably led to ridicule and contempt by rebellious youth.
Alcohol Prohibition - the pieces come together (But do not come apart.)
Alcohol prohibition is a topic I will likely devote an entire entry to. I am just going to touch upon it now. Finland, Iceland, and much of Canada would follow the United States, and would go down in flames like the United States.
In 1920, the Temperance Movement finally had it's day, and alcohol prohibition was official. Note that it was widely believed to have required a consitutional amendment, and it had one - the 18th amendment. The Volstead Act made it official, and alcohol prohibition began Jan. 16th, 1920. Many states had already established alcohol prohibition. In 1905 three states had outlawed alcohol. In 1912 it was up to nine states, and by 1916 prohibition was already in effect in 26 states. So you can clearly see the movement here. But the state prohibitions failed just as the federal one did, as they could just buy alcohol from the next state over.
To reiterate, the Temperance Movement was a movement, mostly of women, against alcohol. They felt it was preventing the United States from becoming the Utopia they envisioned. This also included many former abolitionists. In actuality, it was the unfettered capitalism of the Gilded Age that prevented that American Utopia, as close to a utopia is possible that is. The temperance movement had no shortage of bogus propaganda - some examples include that drunks could spontaneously combust due to their blood alcohol content, inhaling alcohol vapors might lead to defective offspring for at least three generations, and the "scientific fact" that a majority of beer drinkers die from 'dropsy' (A build-up of fluid in a body cavity).
By the time (federal) prohibition went into effect, so convinced were many that alcohol was the cause of all crime that many towns sold their jails! Unfortunately, while alcohol IS a large cause of crime, far more than any drug, outlawing it didn't solve the problem - it made it worse. Just look at the murder rate! The rise in the lead-up to prohibition were the state laws prohibiting alcohol and other drugs.
With Alcohol becoming illegal in 1920, and the Harrison Act effectively prohibiting opium and cocaine and making addiction a de facto crime, the stage was set for a massive crime fest. And boy, was there a major crime fest! Crime grew to levels unheard of, the federal penitentiary system began, and a large portion of the population became criminals. Organized crime, which formerly just dealt with things such as prostitution and gambling, had a huge new market, and organized crime blossomed like never before.
So how effective was alcohol prohibition? What were the statistics? Obviously, it was repealed for a reason. It caused, for one, a major disregard for the law (and I argue that the drug laws do the same today.) For example, New York City alone had about thirty thousand speakeasies. Even some public 'servants' flaunted the law, including the Speaker of the House of Representatives, who owned and operated an illegal still.
As far as reducing consumption, the first year of prohibition saw a marked drop in alcohol consumption. However, it went up every year thereafter, until the year prohibition was repealed in 1933 via the 21st Amendment, when consumption was nearly at pre-prohibition levels. Yes, it continued to rise after prohibition was repealed, but it was just following the trend.
As for the other statistics, the cost to arrest and jail someone rose markedly, casualties per arrest rose markedly, police and federal agents injured rose markedly, property siezed rose markedly, and overall arrests and convictions skyrocketed, increasing roughly seven-fold. The murder rate skyrocketted, and nearly 800 gangsters in the City of Chicago alone had been killed in bootleg-related shootings alone. And, don't forget, thousands or more citizens were killed, blinded, or paralyzed as a result of drinking contaminated bootleg alcohol. It wasn't pretty.
The 21st Amendment allowed states to keep prohibition of grain alcohols, and at least three did, the final (Mississippi) being repealed in 1966. We still see some aftershocks of (alcohol) prohibition today, such as the dry Sunday laws.
It's amazing, but even some people, today, insist that prohibition was a success!
Here we go - Marijuana Joins the Club
The 1930s saw a man named Harry Anslinger enter in the picture, widely considered the first United States Drug Czar, although many consider it to be Hamilton Wright. This is what Wikipedia has to say:
Harry J. Anslinger (1892-1975) is widely considered to be "The first United States drug czar". Currently, many firmly oppose Anslinger for his rhetoric-based crusade against marijuana, fueling decades of misinformation about the drug based on racism and fear. He served as the Assistant Prohibition Commissioner in the Bureau of Prohibition, before being appointed as the first Commissioner of the Treasury Department's Bureau of Narcotics on August 12, 1930, serving until 1962 when he was dismissed by President John F. Kennedy. While there are many examples in Anslinger's writings and behavior that justify today's intense abhorrence of his character, some contend that Harry J. Anslinger was really just a representative puppet for a thriving political belief. In other words, although it would appear that Anslinger was a conservative who truly believed marijuana to be a threat to the future of American civilization, his biographer maintained that he was an astute government bureaucrat who viewed the marijuana issue as a means for elevating himself to national prominence.
It's very important to note that he was the first Comissioner of the brand new Bureau of Narcotics in the Treasury Department (remember, this is tax law), one of the predecessors of the DEA. I spoke much about him, and about the propaganda campaigns that led to the state laws against Marijuana in The Most Massive Propaganda Campaign in History: Drug Prohibition. I suggest you read it if you haven't. I will quote one important piece.
There is no propaganda more egregious than that you are about to read. It was one of the biggest propaganda campaigns ever out of war - and it worked. Enough to make people ambivalent about the law, at least, much like with the Harrison Narcotics Act. In both cases, there was little support for these laws, even after the propaganda (and in the first case the legislators didn't even realize what they were doing - in the second, also, even.) There was major support for an anti-marijuana laws, but on local levels, from this massive propaganda campaign.
The whole thing was a giant campaign by a guy named Harry Anslinger - America's first Drug Czar - a position he held until 1962 when he was finally dismissed by the Democrat who I said was willing to admit the mistake - John F. Kennedy. The passage of the act is something that will make your jaw drop - but it's for another diary. By the time the law was passed, 37 states had laws against marijuana - mostly a uniform act that he engineered.
Before this act passed, marijuana was considered a legitimate medical drug and was even used often at times. After Ansligner's Campaign, however, it was completely removed from any literature.
It's very important to make note of the racist intent of the original laws - against Mexicans this time around.
By 1937, 27 states already passed the Uniform Act that was designed by Ansligner for this reason (mostly - read on), and in 1937 another 8 would join (I am not 100% sure on those numbers, there is conflicting reports, just a disclaimer). By 1937, every state had some sort of law about cannabis.
States that outlawed Cannabis fell into 3 categories:
1 - Purely racist fears of Mexicans. This included, obviously, the South.
2 - Fear of "substitution" of Marijuana for the now-illegal opium or cocaine. This was mostly the Northeast.
3 - There was one special case: Utah. Utah didn't have any Mexicans. What did it have a lot of? Mormons!It's actually quite an interesting story. To make it short, many Mormons left the country due to polygamy being outlawed, and fled to Mexico, where they picked up Marijuana habits. When they brought the custom home with them, after being unable to convert the "heathens," Utah's legislature - which was closely tied with the Mormon Church - acted.
The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.
Many question the real motive of this act, and marijuana prohibition, and there are numerous theories. One is simply that Anslinger was trying to make a name for himself, trying to climb the political ladder using fear tactics and propaganda. Another is the Anslinger/Mellon/Hearst theory that was described by Jack Herer in his book The Emporer has no clothes. Harry Anslinger was married to one of the Dupont girls, and worked for Mellon. Dupont developed a patented way of using synthetic fibers instead of cotton, as cotton was very labor intensive to harvest. On the other hand, it was very difficult to seperate hemp fiber from the plant itself. Well someone invented a way to do it easily. Since cheap natural fiber was a threat to Dupont's Synthetic's business, Anslinger put an end to it. That's one of the theories, as best as I understand it and as simply as I can put it.
The other, that Tom Murphy appears to find compelling, was that marijuana prohibition was done, at least in part, to protect the Southern yellow pine timber and paper pulp industry, which is detailed in the thesis "Unravelling an American Dilemma: The Demonization of Marihuana" by John Craig Lupien. It's doubtful we will ever really know the real reasons. See this excellent post by Tom Murphy
The federal government decided to stick with the tax masquerade. And it worked just fine. Reading how this bill passed was the most shocking thing that ever happened to me as a liberal. It's almost a case study in legislative carelessness. There was no real empirical scientific evidence given about the drug, and the congressmen didn't question the assumed evils. There was little objection to the bill - except from industry - and all said "we can deal" except for one case. The one witness who actually appeared in opposition to the bill, representing the AMA, was insulted for having the audacity to question the act.
This is how the extroadinarily short "debate" went on in the House Ways and Means committee, taking a whopping total of two hours:
1 - Harry Ansligner. Testified that "Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users "insanity, criminality, and death," and that it had a violent "effect on the degenerate races". He made the connection to Mexicans directly - "The Mexican laborers have brought seeds of this plant into Montana and it is fast becoming a terrible menace, particularly in the counties where sugarbeets are grown."
He again presented marijuana as an agent that the underworld was using to enslave the youth of America. He even testified that the (young) marijuana user "does not go in [the] direction" of graduating to heroin or cocaine, when he later said exactly the opposite to support the Boggs Act - that it was "the certain first step on the road to heroin addiction".
Three things were used to back up his claims. The first was his "Gore File", a collection of newspaper horror stories about criminal acts committed under the influence marijuana. They were all unsubstantiated and debunked.
The second was studies by Eugene Stanley, the District Attorney of New Orleans, who prepared the speech that Anslinger read. The study linked marijuana and the population of the Louisiana jails. Apparently the study was one of the most flawed ever produced, consisting of nothing but quotes from histerical news reports and reports on the number of marijuana users found in the prison population. He concluded that the drug must be regulated, but provided no reasoning linking the figures to the assertion.
Finally, they presented a medical witness, who did a study on dogs. Read on.
2 - Industry. We can't have a law if it's going to hurt industry, now, can we? First was the rope guy. He said that it's not even used anymore. Next up was the paint and varnish guy. He could use something else. Finally came the birdseed guy, and he insisted that nothing else made their coat so lustrous or made them sing as much. He got an exemption - one that exists to this day.
3 - They had someone from Temple University, Dr. Munch, report on some experimentation on dogs, that was mentioned earlier. He injected the "active ingredient" of marijuana into the brains of 300 dogs. I don't know what that "active ingredient" was, but it's highly unlikely it was THC, the actual active ingredient(s) in marijuana. He concluded that "continuous use will tend to cause the degeneration of one part of the brain." A paragraph later he admitted "Only about 1 dog in 300 is very sensitive to the test."
Then there was this proposterous exchange:
Mr. McCormack. Have you experimented upon any animals whose reaction to this drug would be similar to that of human beings.
Dr. Munch. The reason we use dogs is because the reaction of dogs to this drug, closely resembles the reaction of human beings.
Mr. McCormack. And the continued use of it, as you have observed the reaction on dogs, has resulted in the disintegration of the personality?
Dr. Munch. Yes. So far as I can tell, not being a dog psychologist...
4 - Finally, they had to have the AMA be represented. And the person representing the AMA, Dr. Woodward, wasn't in the mood to humor the government. I will quote a large portion of his testimony.
That there is a certain amount of narcotic addiction of an objectionable character no one will deny. The newspapers have called attention to it so prominently that there must be some grounds for their statements. It has surprised me, however, that the facts on which these statements have been based have not been brought before this committee by competent primary evidence. We are referred to newspaper publications concerning the prevalence of marihuana addiction. We are told that the use of marihuana causes crime.
But yet no one has been produced from the Bureau of Prisons to show the number of prisoners who have been found addicted to the marihuana habit. An informal inquiry shows that the Bureau of Prisons has no evidence on that point.
You have been told that school children are great users of marihuana cigarettes. No one has been summoned from the Children's Bureau to show the nature and extent of the habit, among children.
Inquiry of the Children's Bureau shows that they have had no occasion to investigate it and know nothing particularly of it.
Inquiry of the Office of Education-and they certainly should know something of the prevalence of the habit among the school children of the country, if there is a prevalent habit-indicates that they have had no occasion to investigate and know nothing of it.
Moreover, there is in the Treasury Department itself, the Public Health Service, with its Division of Mental Hygiene. The Division of Mental Hygiene was, in the first place, the Division of Narcotics. It was converted into the Division of Mental Hygiene, I think, about 1930. That particular Bureau has control at the present time of the narcotics farms that were created about 1929 or 1930 and came into operation a few years later. No one his been summoned from that Bureau to give evidence on that point.
Informal inquiry by me indicates that they have had no record of any marihuana or Cannabis addicts who have even been committed to those farms.
The Bureau of the Public Health Service has also a division of pharmacology. If you desire evidence as to the pharmacology, of Cannabis, that obviously is the place where you can get direct and primary evidence, rather than the indirect hearsay evidence.
This testimony clearly indicates the deficiences and carelessness of the hearings. He also said, and I quote, "The AMA knows of no evidence that marijuana is a dangerous drug".
But how dare he dissent?! He was responded to with "Doctor, if you can't say something good about what we are trying to do, why don't you go home?" The next Congressman said, "Doctor, if you haven't got something better to say than that, we are sick of hearing you."
Apparently, the AMA opposed all the New Deal Era Legislation, and Congress was sick of hearing from them. Although this I cannot directly verify.
And that was that. Bill passed the committee, and went to the House Floor. You might think that the debate on the House Floor was more extensive. It wasn't. A back-and-forth began with this:
Mr. DOUGHTON. I ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of the bill (H.R. 6906) to impose an occupational excise tax upon certain dealers in marihuana, to impose a transfer tax upon certain dealings in marihuana, and to safeguard the revenue therefrom by registry and recording.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
Mr. SNELL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and notwithstanding the fact that my friend, Reed, is in favor of it, is this a matter we should bring up at this late hour of the afternoon? I do not know anything about the bill. It may be all right and it may be that everyone is for it, but as a general principle, I am against bringing up any important legislation, and I suppose this is important, since it comes from the Ways and Means Committee, at this late hour of the day.
Mr. RAYBURN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I may say that the gentleman from North Carolina has stated to me that this bill has a unanimous report from the committee and that there is no controversy about it.
Mr. SNELL. What is the bill?
Mr. RAYBURN. It has something to do with something that is called marihuana. I believe it is a narcotic of some kind.
Mr. FRED M. VINSON. Marihuana is the same as hashish.
Mr. SNELL. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to object but I think, it is wrong to consider legislation of this character at this time of night.
When the bill re-emerged, a member of the committee repeated Anslinger's claims on request by four members, and the bill was passed by the house without a roll call. It returned from the Senate with minor modifications, and they were accepted.
And then we have the final days, in which the bill passes. I will give you in full the debate in the House and Senate.
This is what happened in the House:
Speaker Sam Rayburn called for the bill to be passed on "tellers". A Republican from Upstate NY stood up and asked:
"Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?"
Speaker Rayburn replied, "I don't know. It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it's a narcotic of some kind."
The Congressman from NY Replied "Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?"
Mr. Fred Vinson, a member of the committee who had supported the bill, leaped to his feet and he said, "their Doctor Wharton came down here. They support this bill 100 percent."
And that's it. Not only did they get the guys name wrong - it was Woodward - it was wholly untrue. But it was good enough. The bill passed without a roll call.
In the Senate, there was no recorded vote or debate. The bill went to President Roosevelt's Desk and marijuana prohibition, masquerading as a tax act, was signed into law.
And that, as best as I can make sense of it (I hope I got it all correct, this wasn't easy,) was how we got marijuana prohibition. It's one of the saddest displays I have ever seen.
To Be Concluded....