Cannabis has been used for thousands of years until it was suddenly outlawed in the US by corrupt politicians and bureaucrats. Weed became illegal in the United States with the enactment of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, a decision driven by social tensions and economic pressures of the era. This landmark legislation initiated a wider prohibition that continues to evolve today.
Our article discusses Cannabis history and the historical context, legal developments, and ongoing debates surrounding the question, “why did weed become illegal?” This will help you to better understand the landscape of cannabis legality in America and why its still under attack today. As we move towards legalization a new threat emerges the corporatization of cannabis.
Key Takeaways
Cannabis is found in fossil records that date back 12,000 years and is documented use dating back to 2000 BC.
The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was a pivotal law marking the start of cannabis prohibition in the U.S., driven by racial prejudices, xenophobia, and economic interests of competing industries, alongside propaganda by influential figures such as Harry Anslinger and media magnate William Randolph Hearst.
The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 classified marijuana as a Schedule I drug, reinforcing cannabis’s status as an illegal substance and intensifying the War on Drugs with severe penalties that disproportionally affected marginalized communities.
Current cannabis policy is marked by a significant decrease in federal sentences for possession and increasing state-level legalization, revealing a national shift towards acceptance and the urgent need for federal policy to align with changing societal views and state legislations.
A Brief History of Cannabis 10,000 BC to 1930s
The use of cannabis for medicinal purposes has a rich history dating back thousands of years. From the mythical Emperor Shén Nóng of China around 2000 BC to the 19th-century physicians O’Shaughnessy and Moreau de Tours, cannabis has woven its way through medical history.
Tracing the roots of the Cannabis sativa plant takes us back around 12,000 years to Central Asia, near the Altai Mountains. This demonstrates the long history of cannabis cultivation, which some scholars propose may have begun in South-East Asia with cannabis plants. Historically, cannabis has been utilized for a range of applications, from making ropes and nets to providing edible seeds and oils, and even for its psychoactive uses when heated.
The linguistic evidence supports this theory, with related names for the plant existing in most languages of the Eurasian landmass.
Colonial America
In Colonial America, cannabis was highly valued for its strong and durable fibers, crucial for making ropes, sails, and textiles. Figures like Thomas Jefferson and William Byrd II championed cannabis cultivation for its utility and potential to thrive perpetually on the same land, unlike the more nutrient-depleting tobacco. The plant was integral to naval and agricultural needs, becoming a staple in Virginia, where it was cultivated extensively. Despite its historical significance and versatility, hemp's association with THC led to its decline in favor as competing synthetic fibers emerged in the turn of the century, overshadowing its use.
Pre-Mexican Revolution
In the era leading up to the Mexican Revolution, its fibers were commonly used in the production of textiles and ropes, being a cash crop that bolstered the country’s early economy.
Nevertheless, cannabis was not just a workhorse of industry. It also had its place in the medicine cabinets of the time, albeit in a more subdued fashion compared to its later recreational notoriety. The plant’s therapeutic properties were recognized, though not as prominently as other medicinal substances of the period.
While the recreational use of cannabis existed, it did not hold the cultural significance or widespread acknowledgment it would garner in the following century. It remained largely in the periphery of society’s consciousness, a latent chapter in the plant’s history that would soon unfold in unexpected ways. The stage was set, but the actors – and their motives – for cannabis’s prohibition had yet to step into the spotlight.
The Path to Prohibition: Key Events and Legislation
With the turn of the 20th century, several crucial events and legal actions paved the way for cannabis prohibition. The influx of Mexican immigrants following the 1910 revolution introduced recreational cannabis to American culture, inadvertently weaving the plant into the fabric of racial and cultural tensions that would later define its legal journey.
The conditions were ripe for a succession of judgments and statutes that would eventually vilify and ban the cannabis plant, portraying it as a threat to society and triggering extensive suppression of its use.
Early Cannabis Use and Regulation
Cannabis’s nature, housing both THC and CBD, has long been a source of intrigue and misunderstanding. THC, with its psychoactive effects, became synonymous with recreational use and abuse. In contrast, CBD was recognized for its sedative and pain-relieving properties, aligning it more with medical applications. This duality would later become a focal point in the debates around cannabis regulation and use.
Despite the plant’s long history of medicinal and industrial applications, the early 20th century saw a societal shift toward viewing cannabis through a lens of suspicion and fear. The recreational use of cannabis, particularly smoking pot, began to rise in visibility and cultural significance, leading to a reaction from lawmakers and the public who were unfamiliar with its effects and potential benefits.
This change in perception laid the foundation for rules that would not only focus on the drug’s recreational use but also question its medicinal value. The conditions were primed for the cannabis plant to evolve from a valuable crop to a regulated substance, a transformation fueled by sensational media, political tactics, and the vested interests of influential individuals and sectors.
The Marihuana Tax Act (1937)
In 1937, amidst a maelstrom of anti-cannabis sentiment, the Marihuana Tax Act was introduced, marking a pivotal moment in the history of marijuana legislation. The act was a culmination of a variety of factors, including:
Racial prejudices that linked marijuana use with Mexican immigrants and African American musicians
Xenophobia that painted the plant as a foreign scourge
Economic interests, as industries like pharmaceuticals and synthetic fibers saw cannabis as a threat to their burgeoning markets.
Key figures such as Harry Anslinger, the first commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, stoked the flames of fear with propaganda that characterized cannabis users as violent and degenerate, thus rallying public support for the act. Media magnate William Randolph Hearst further sensationalized the issue, using his vast newspaper empire to spread lurid tales that linked cannabis use to crime and moral decay.
He was quoted at the time as saying:
“Users of marijuana become STIMULATED as they inhale the drug and are LIKELY TO DO ANYTHING. Most crimes of violence in this section, especially in country districts, are laid to users of that drug.”
The Marihuana Tax Act effectively made marijuana illegal, laying the groundwork for subsequent federal laws and establishing the plant’s status as a prohibited substance. The act not only shaped the course of marijuana laws in the United States but also reflected broader societal tensions, as economic, racial, and cultural dynamics converged to cast cannabis as a public enemy.
Nixon Tapes and Political Motivations:
The political landscape of the United States in the 1970s was marked by unrest and upheaval, and the Nixon administration saw an opportunity to disrupt his political rivals through the War on Drugs.
The Nixon tapes, a series of recordings released to the public, exposed the administration’s strategy of using drug policy as a political weapon to suppress and discredit groups opposed to its agenda. African Americans and anti-war activists, in particular, were targeted, with cannabis being labeled the drug of choice for these communities. Nixon sought to enact the Controlled Substance act and included "marijuana" and heroin as the most dangerous drugs. John Ehrlichman one of Nixon's advisors testified later that the War on Drugs was invented to attack Nixon's political rivals:
"The Nixon campaign in 1968 and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black...but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities...We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? OF COURSE WE DID."
These revelations offered a stark glimpse into the true motivations behind the government’s drug enforcement efforts. Rather than being based on concerns for public health or safety, the criminalization of cannabis was leveraged as a means to:
fracture and weaken political opposition
maintain control and power
suppress dissenting voices
perpetuate systemic inequalities
This manipulation of drug policy for political gain underscored the extent to which the War on Drugs was rooted in political expedience rather than empirical evidence of harm.
The Nixon administration’s attitude towards cannabis became a model for future policies, integrating political prejudice and racial bias into the very core of the nation’s drug control strategy. This politicization of drug policy would have far-reaching consequences, shaping the experiences of countless individuals and communities for decades to come.
The War on Drugs and The Controlled Substances Act (1970):
The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 signified the official beginning of the War on Drugs, heralding a new era of federal drug policy that would deeply affect marijuana legislation.
By classifying marijuana as a Schedule I substance, alongside the most dangerous drugs with no accepted medical use, the act codified the government’s hardline stance on cannabis. This decision, heavily influenced by Attorney General John Mitchell under Nixon’s command, entrenched the narrative of marijuana as a substance of drug abuse and societal harm.
The act served as a legislative cornerstone for the War on Drugs, a campaign characterized by aggressive law enforcement, severe criminal penalties for drug offenses, and a zero-tolerance attitude toward narcotics, all in the name of comprehensive drug abuse prevention.
Cannabis, despite its complex history and potential medical benefits, was ensnared in this battle, facing draconian measures designed to eradicate its use, distribution, and cultivation.
The repercussions of the Controlled Substances Act and the War on Drugs continue to reverberate throughout American society to this day. The rigid classification of cannabis as a Schedule I substance has not only influenced legal and medical perspectives but has also perpetuated a cycle of criminalization that has disproportionately affected marginalized communities.
Under Ronald Reagan, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 was passed which allocated $1.7 billion ($4.8 billion inflation-adjusted) and established "mandatory minimum" prison sentences for various drug offenses.
The Role of Federal Agencies in Cannabis Criminalization
The crusade against cannabis was not fought by legislators alone; federal agencies were instrumental in enforcing prohibition and influencing public perception. The Federal Bureau of Narcotics, established in the early 20th century, laid the groundwork for later efforts by the Drug Enforcement Administration, both of which played critical roles in maintaining cannabis’s outlaw status and shaping national drug policy.
Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN)
The Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) emerged as a formidable force in the early days of drug prohibition, operating under the Treasury Department to enforce the Harrison Narcotics Act. At its helm was Harry J. Anslinger, whose tenure as commissioner lasted an astonishing 32 years. Anslinger’s fervent anti-drug campaigns and his portrayal of cannabis users as dangerous criminals helped to cement the plant’s illicit status.
Under Anslinger’s leadership, the FBN not only disseminated anti-cannabis rhetoric but also targeted organized crime involved in drug trafficking. This approach to drug enforcement reflected the broader social anxieties of the time, as the agency sought to maintain control over the perceived drug menace. The FBN’s aggressive tactics and propaganda campaigns were integral to the ensuing decades of marijuana criminalization, leaving an indelible mark on the nation’s drug policy landscape.
The legacy of the FBN is:
Relentless pursuit of drug prohibition
Setting a precedent for the federal government’s approach to drug enforcement
Shaping societal attitudes toward cannabis and those who used it
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
In the wake of the FBN’s dissolution, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) took up the mantle as the primary federal agency tasked with combating drug use and trafficking. With a vast network of domestic and international offices, the DEA’s reach extended far beyond American borders, reflecting the global nature of the War on Drugs. Its army of special agents and analytical staff was bolstered by specialized units, demonstrating the agency’s commitment to a comprehensive approach to drug enforcement.
The DEA’s enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act has had a significant influence on cannabis policy. By upholding the classification of marijuana as a Schedule I substance, the agency has been a significant barrier to the plant’s legalization and research into its medical potential. This stance has been a source of tension as states have moved to legalize cannabis for medical and recreational use, challenging the federal government’s authority.
The DEA’s contribution to the continued outlawing of cannabis attests to the persistent influence of federal drug policy. Despite shifting societal attitudes and increasing evidence of cannabis’s medical benefits, the agency’s commitment to the status quo has ensured that cannabis remains a key target in the War on Drugs.
State Laws vs. Federal Laws: Conflicting Views on Marijuana
The landscape of cannabis legislation in the United States is a patchwork of conflicting state and federal laws. While some states have embraced legalization, the federal government maintains its stance on marijuana as an illegal substance, creating a complex and often contradictory legal environment.
Medical Marijuana
The field of medical marijuana has witnessed growing acceptance across the United States, as numerous states recognize its therapeutic benefits and enact laws to permit its use under medical supervision. This shift in policy reflects a growing consensus that the benefits of cannabis for certain conditions should not be overshadowed by its federal classification as a Schedule I substance.
Yet, the state-level legalization of medical marijuana has led to a legal quagmire, as patients and physicians navigate a landscape where federal prohibition stands in stark contrast to state-sanctioned use. This divergence has raised questions about the legitimacy of federal drug policy and its alignment with contemporary medical understanding and patient needs.
As states forge ahead with medical marijuana programs, the discord between state and federal laws highlights the need for a reevaluation of national drug policy. The medical community’s embrace of cannabis’s therapeutic potential is a call to action for policymakers to reconsider the plant’s legal status and reconcile the discrepancies between state and federal regulations.
Recreational Marijuana
Along the same lines, the sanctioning of recreational marijuana poses a direct confrontation with federal drug policy. States like Colorado and Washington have led the charge in breaking away from prohibition, setting a precedent that has prompted others to follow suit. These state-level initiatives represent a significant shift toward public acceptance of cannabis use for pleasure, rather than strictly for medicinal purposes.
Despite this trend, marijuana’s federal classification under the Controlled Substances Act remains a formidable barrier to full legalization. This creates a scenario where states’ rights clash with federal authority, with individuals and businesses operating in a gray area of legality. The tension between state and federal laws underscores the need for a unified approach to cannabis regulation that respects both individual freedoms and national legal standards.
The trend toward legalizing recreational marijuana at the state level signifies a wider cultural change. It reflects a growing consensus that the criminalization of cannabis is not only outdated but also wrong. As more states embrace legalization, the pressure mounts for the federal government to reassess its stance and align with the changing tide of public opinion.
The Impact of Criminalization on Society
The outlawing of cannabis has wide-ranging consequences for American society, influencing aspects such as:
Incarceration rates
Racial disparities in the criminal justice system
Hindering the medical community’s ability to explore cannabis’s therapeutic potential
The enforcement priorities of agencies like the DEA have contributed to these issues.
Incarceration and Racial Disparities
The War on Drugs has had a profound impact on the U.S. prison system, with mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses contributing to an explosion in incarceration rates. The racial implications of these policies have been stark, with evidence showing that Black individuals, despite a decline in absolute arrests post-cannabis policy reforms, still face significant disparities in the criminal justice system.
This trend is even more pronounced in states without cannabis policy reforms, where racial disparities in arrest rates have continued to rise.
Prior marijuana possession sentences have often resulted in more severe punishments during federal sentencing, especially impacting Black and Hispanic males who are U.S. citizens.
This has created a cycle of criminalization that disproportionately affects communities of color, with prior sentences for possession continuing to influence sentencing even in states where cannabis has since been decriminalized or legalized.
Medical Community's Response
The medical community has expressed worries about the Schedule I classification of marijuana, which has hindered research and clinical use of cannabis-based treatments. Organizations like the American Medical Association have publicly challenged the federal government’s position, advocating for a reevaluation of marijuana’s legal status to facilitate scientific inquiry and patient care.
The approval of medications such as Epidiolex, derived from cannabidiol, by the FDA for medical use, underscores the disconnect between federal policy and the medical community’s recognition of cannabis’s therapeutic potential.
This restrictive classification not only hampers the advancement of medical knowledge but also limits access to treatments that could benefit patients suffering from a range of conditions. The medical community’s response to the federal government’s stance on cannabis has been one of frustration and advocacy, pushing for change that aligns drug policy with scientific understanding and human health needs.
Recent Developments and Future Outlook
In recent years, there has been a significant change in the legal environment of cannabis in the United States. This change is characterized by a significant decrease in federal offenders sentenced for simple possession of marijuana and an increasing number of states legalizing cannabis for both medical and recreational use.
Rescinding the Cole Memorandum (2018)
The withdrawal of the Cole Memorandum in 2018 signified a crucial juncture in federal cannabis policy, giving prosecutors more flexibility to enforce the Controlled Substances Act against marijuana businesses legally operating under state laws. This decision introduced a new layer of complexity and uncertainty for cannabis businesses, which now faced the prospect of federal intervention despite being in compliance with their respective state laws.
The rescinding of the Cole Memorandum raised critical questions about the balance of power between state and federal governments regarding drug policy. It underscored the need for clarity and consistency in the laws governing cannabis, as businesses and consumers alike navigated an increasingly complicated legal environment.
Potential Future Changes
As the national dialogue around cannabis continues to progress, the possibility for future policy revisions becomes more probable. The recommendations by the Department of Health and Human Services’ proposal to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule III substance, reflect ongoing discussions about federal reform.
State-level legalization movements, such as those in Delaware, Minnesota, and Ohio, are driving the conversation forward and could play a significant role in shaping the trajectory of cannabis policy developments. These efforts illustrate the growing momentum behind a shift in public policy that recognizes the need for a more reasonable and humane approach to cannabis regulation.
The future of cannabis policy in the United States remains uncertain, but the trend toward legalization and decriminalization at the state level suggests a gradual movement away from prohibitionist policies. As more states embrace reform, the pressure increases for federal policymakers to revisit the legal status of cannabis and potentially enact changes that would align with contemporary social and medical attitudes.
The War on Drugs 2.0: Legalization for the Elite
The progression of cannabis legalization in the United States has moved into a new stage, which we refer to as “The War on Drugs 2.0”. This phase is characterized by the emergence of a cannabis industry that is increasingly controlled by political elites and powerful business interests. The influence of these actors on legalization efforts has raised concerns about:
The creation of a monopolistic market
The concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a few
The potential exploitation of consumers and small businesses
The use of political bribes in order to enact cannabis policies such as limited licensing schemes that ensure only those well-connected can participate in this new industry.
Advocating the ban on intoxicating hemp products or any other type of cannabinoid that competes with dispensary sales and state tax revenue.
These concerns highlight the need for careful regulation and oversight to ensure that the benefits of legalization are shared equitably and that the industry operates in the best interest of the public.
Drawing parallels with Milton Friedman’s warnings about the collusion between state and monopolies, this new landscape of cannabis legalization poses significant challenges to the principles of fairness and democracy. The current approach to legalization not only perpetuates economic inequality but also risks undermining the larger goals of social justice and public health that many advocates for cannabis reform have fought for.
As such, “The War on Drugs 2.0” presents a cautionary warning about the potential pitfalls of a legalization process that has been hijacked by entrenched interests. To truly realize the potential benefits of cannabis legalization – including economic opportunity, social equity, and improved public health outcomes – it is imperative to confront and challenge the status quo.
A more inclusive and equitable approach to cannabis policy is needed, one that ensures the gains of legalization are shared broadly rather than concentrated in the hands of the few.
Summary
In summary, the journey of cannabis from a widely used industrial and medicinal plant to a symbol of criminality in the United States is a complex and multifaceted story. It is a narrative steeped in cultural, economic, and political influences that have shaped the plant’s legal status over the past century.
The ongoing struggle between state and federal laws, the societal impact of criminalization, and the evolution of public opinion reflect a nation grappling with the legacy of the War on Drugs and the future of cannabis policy. As we stand at a pivotal moment in this ongoing saga, the possibility of a more rational, just, and inclusive approach to cannabis legislation offers a glimmer of hope for the future.
References Not Linked Above:
https://www.hempacresusa.com/blogs/blog/hemps-history-in-america#:~:text=The%20earlier%20laws%20in%20the,in%20his%20lamps%20in%201840.
