Drug War Ranting Pt. 1 Of 4

In the first of this four piece series, we will analyse how it is, historically, that American drug - specifically marijuana - policy came to be inadequate, ineffective, and in need of a major revision. (In future installments we'll look at why ideologically it remains that way, what the societal and economic consequences of bad policy are, and how (and to what) we can change it for the better).

According to the Schaffer Library of Drug Policy, marijuana's first statewide prohibition came into effect in Utah in 1915 and was largely a racist anti-Mexican intiative. Trade of the plant was common on the US-Mexico border and "The combination of increasing Mexican immigration and the traditional aversion of the Mormons to euphoriants of any kind led inevitably to the inclusion of marijuana in the state's omnibus narcotics and pharmacy bill." Colarado's prohibition began in an equally questionable (but slightly more comic) way --

There was fun in the House Health Committee during the week when the Marihuana bill came up for consideration. Marihuana is Mexican opium, a plant used by Mexicans and cultivated for sale by Indians. "When some beet field peon takes a few rares of this stuff," explained Dr. Fred Fulsher of Mineral County, "He thinks he has just been elected president of Mexico so he starts out to execute all his political enemies. I understand that over in Butte where the Mexicans often go for the winter they stage imaginary bullfights in the 'Bower of Roses' or put on tournaments for the favor of 'Spanish Rose' after a couple of whiffs of Marijuana. The Silver Bow and Yellowstone delegations both deplore these international complications" Everybody laughed and the bill was recommended for passage.

I seeeee.

National prohibition began with its inclusion in the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act in 1932, and more importantly the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. The deliberations preceding the passage of the Acts were less than commendable, characterized by comparisons to marijuana's degenerative effects on the personalites of dogs, the quick passing of the bill and the total ignorance of the American Medical Association's support of the bill. It is reported, in fact, that the Act's proponents mislead Congress in claiming that the AMA advocated prohibition, when in fact the opposite was true. To conclude - this legislation, which is now responsible for hundreds of thousands of Americans' impisonment every year, did not receive honest and deliberate consideration in Congress, and was not a reflection of the decision of an informed populace. But of course it wouldn't be illegal if it wasn't terrbily bad and dangerous, right?