July 12, 2006
The History of Cannabis Prohibition, 1937 - 1962, Part Eight, Stricter Penalties Still No Scientific Evidence
After the hysteria and racism of the 1930s regarding cannabis came the 1950’s and a linkage to heroin, communist hysteria, and passage of extremely harsh penalties. Of course as in the 1930’s virtually no scientific evidence was done, and the studies that had been conducted were ignored.
The beginning of the 1950s set the start for the harsh drug laws we have today. This time also saw cannabis being categorized with cocaine and heroin. In order to change the future we must understand the past.
The increased hysteria of cannabis use leading to the use of opiates during the 1950s led to legislation whose goal was to expand penalties regarding cannabis. The 1950s can best be characterized as a time in which the punitive approach to the use of cannabis dominated. Two key pieces of legislation passed through Congress during this time, the Boggs Act of 1951 and the Narcotics Control Act of 1956. Although numerous other bills were introduced in Congress to expand the penalties regarding cannabis these are the two that passed and outlined the new sentences that would be imposed.
The Boggs Act of 1951 represented the most punitive approach to cannabis to this point in the plants history. Most importantly this piece of legislation was the first time that cannabis was lumped together with other drugs (heroin, cocaine etc.). This meant that according to the Boggs Act sentences for heroin, cocaine, cannabis, etc… offenses would be identical (Bonnie and Whitebread 204).
Today we can now see that this legislation was a prelude to cannabis being together with heroin under Schedule 1. This placement is a key turning point in the legal status of cannabis, because the time of being separate from other narcotics had ended.
The other significant turning point that the Boggs Act introduced into the history of cannabis was the mandatory minimum sentence. Because Anslinger and many members of Congress wished to limit the discretion available to judges mandatory minimum sentences were introduced. The new penalties for cannabis under the Boggs Act read as follows:
1st offense: 2-5 years $2000 fine
2nd offense: 5-10 years $2000 fine
3rd offense: 10-20 years $2000 fine
It is important to note that the new penalties introduced under the Boggs Act made no distinction between the user and the peddler, or between the person who possessed a joint and the person who had a garage full of heroin (Bonnie and Whitebread 210). Therefore a first time offender convicted of smoking one cannabis cigarette would be sentenced to a minimum of two years in prison and a $2000 fine as would the first time offender who was convicted of selling massive amounts of heroin.
After the passage of the Boggs Act in 1951 the FBN convinced many of the states to follow suit and expand their cannabis penalties. In fact between 1953 and 1956 twenty-six states passed legislation raising penalties for cannabis offenses. Some states becoming so caught up in the expanding of penalties that they soon had penalties stiffer than that passed by the Boggs Act. By 1956 Louisiana had the harshest drug penalties in the country calling for a 5 – 99 year sentence without the possibility of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence for the sale, possession, or administering of any drug (Bonnie and Whitebread 215). Again it is important to note that no distinction was made between the peddler and the user.
Although the Boggs Act was passed and penalties were expanded to their greatest, considerable dissent did indeed exist. Although this dissent was not powerful enough to block this critical piece of legislation it is still important to note of its presence, because during the time of the Marihuana Tax Act (the last piece of important cannabis legislation) virtually no dissent existed, outside of Dr. Woodward of the AMA.
Congressman Cellar speaking at the hearings consistently stated that he believed the introducing of mandatory minimum sentences would be unjust to addicts (Bonnie and Whitebread 210). The director of the United States Bureau of Prisons James V Bennett stated, “The Boggs Bill was passed due to hysteria”, after the passage of the act (Bonnie and Whitebread 211).
Most importantly science finally entered the legal history of cannabis. The Boggs Act hearings marked the first occurrence of a scientific paper being filed as an exhibit into cannabis related legislative hearings, this paper was by Dr. Harry Isbell the director of research at the public health service hospital in Lexington, Kentucky. Dr. Isbell’s research showed that cannabis was not physically addictive (Bonnie and Whitebread 213). Furthermore Dr. Isbell went on to testify before the Kefauver committee in the Senate stating:
“Marihuana smokers generally are mildly intoxicated, giggle, laugh, bother no one, and have a good time… ordinarily will not attempt to harm anyone. It has not been proven that smoking marihuana leads to crimes of violence or to crimes of a sexual nature. Smoking marihuana has no unpleasant after-effects, no dependence is developed on the drug, and the practice can be stopped at any time” (Bonnie and Whitebread 213).
Unfortunately the statements by Dr. Isbell were disregarded by the majority in Congress, as were the statements of Dr. Woodward at the Marihuana Tax Act hearings, and the Boggs Act of 1951 was passed.
The American Medical Association remained an important voice of dissent during the period that the Boggs Act was passed, much like it was at the time of the passage of the Marihuana Tax Act. Between 1951 and 1955 the AMA was joined by the American Bar Association (ABA) in calling for a reexamination of the legislative approach to stopping drugs (Bonnie and Whitebread 215).
This is crucial because it represents two powerful entities standing together against the punitive approach that was pushed through the legislature in the Boggs Act. Further calls by the AMA and ABA came in 1955 when the coalition called for a Congressional investigation of the FBN (McWilliams 111). By calling for such an investigation of the force that pushed the crime, sexual excess, insanity, stepping stone to heroin, and communist hysteria movements this represented the first real threat to the power that the FBN had undoubtedly held since 1937.
In 1955 the joint ABA / AMA investigation of the FBN began. Later upon publication of the findings the committee asked Anslinger if he would meet in order to talk about what was found. Anslinger angrily refused any such meeting and disregarded and discredited the findings of the committee by stating it was “incredible that so many glaring inaccuracies, manifest inconsistencies, apparent ambiguities, important omissions, and even false statements could be found in one report” (McWilliams 117). Although Anslinger followed his usual plan of ignoring any dissent and did not meet with this joint committee it was becoming nonetheless apparent that his reasoning was that he was afraid of the possible effects any credible dissent could have on his campaign against cannabis.
Parallel to the pushing of the Boggs Act there existed a considerable voice in the United States that wished to move even farther with the punitive approach. At this time another bill regarding penalties for cannabis offenses existed in Congress, this was the Dirksen Bill.
The Dirksen Bill suggested going above and beyond what was being considered under the Boggs Act and called for a possibility of the death penalty for certain offenders. In writing to a Oregon State Senator in 1951 Anslinger stated, “You no doubt know that Senator Dirksen has introduced a bill in the US Congress which could provide the death penalty for peddling narcotics to minors. This has our complete endorsement” (Bonnie and Whitebread 207-208).
Although the Dirksen Bill was never passed it is nonetheless still a significant force in the history of the prohibition of cannabis. The Dirksen Bill allows us to see early, before the passing of the Boggs Act, that Anslinger and some members of Congress were not satisfied with the already heavy penalties proposed in the Boggs Act. This bill shows that many in power at this time were ready to test the extremes of the punitive approach.
Outside of the happenings of the Dirksen Bill there were many other occurrences of persons calling for penalties far more extreme than that contained in the Boggs Act. Congressman Edwin Arthur Hall of New York called for a minimum sentence of no less than 100 years for anyone who peddles cannabis. A Californian writing to Commissioner Anslinger wrote, “I strongly support your request for legislation to impose life sentences on narcotics peddlers. In fact I would go further and urge nothing less than death sentences for these viscous enemies of society”.. The mass media also joined in this campaign, on August 12 1951 the Washington Post wrote, “these are criminals of the ugliest and most dangerous type…” speaking of drug dealers (McWilliams 208).
From this we can note that in 1951 this national hysteria created an extreme of the punitive approach. For the mass media, regular citizens, the FBN, and members of Congress were all asking for the most severe penalties, many of which would have made cannabis offenses more punishable than murder in some cases.
Works Cited:
Bonnie, Richard J and Charles H Whitebread. The Marihuana Conviction.
Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press, 1974.
Mcwilliams, John C. The Protectors: Harry J Anslinger and the Federal Bureau of
Narcotics 1930-1962. Newark, NJ: University of Deleware Press, 1990.
Previous parts in this series can be found at:
Part One: http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/003700.html
Part Two: http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/003707.html
Part Three: http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/003720.html
Part Four: http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/003737.html
Part Five: http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/003883.html#more
Part Six: http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/003909.html#more
Part Seven: http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/003914.html
Here’s an idea:
Legalize all drugs, then the suppliers can cut out most of the middle men and deal directly with retailers, thus driving down the price. Then use a sales tax to get the prices back up to the same or just lower than current street level prices. Ban all radio and TV advertisements for the drugs like what we already do with tobacco. Make the minimum age for purchasing these drugs 21. Only allow these drugs to be sold from special stores, like how NY state only allows liquor to be sold from liquor stores. Use the money collected by the sales tax on these drugs to pay for anti-drug advertising and recovery programs. Now some people will start screaming “What about the children?” Well I wouldn’t have any problem with requiring mandatory random drug tests for every high school student followed by a 3 strike policy. The first positive results in a call to the parents as well as a week long suspension. Second positive requires the parents to place the child in a recovery program or face expulsion, and the third positive means they’re expelled for good. It may seem harsh but it will keep more kids off drugs while allowing the rest of us adults the freedom of choosing whether or not to use them.
Posted by: bushflipflops at July 13, 2006 03:09 AMbushflipflops- Whether I agree with your comment or not does not matter. The point to be made is that cannabis should not be categorized with the likes of heroin, cocaine, morphine, etc.
Posted by: Richard Rhodes at July 13, 2006 03:42 AMAnd by saying “legalize all drugs” you are categorizing cannabis with these other drugs whether knowingly or not.
Posted by: Richard Rhodes at July 13, 2006 03:45 AMbushflipflops,
Instituting mandatory drug testing of Highschool students is not just expensive, its completely intrusive. It is entirely unreasonable to treat students essentially as potential criminals, and it would reflect in student behavior. Plus, it doesn’t take long to figure out the ways around the urine tests.
Posted by: iandanger at July 13, 2006 10:18 AMRichard,
I don’t believe cannabis should be categorized with other hard drugs, but the sorry fact of the matter is that it currently is. All I am saying is that if we are supposed to be living in the most free country on the planet why can’t an adult enjoy recreational drugs, gambling, prostitution, or any other vices if they so desired? I am of the opinion that making these vices illegal causes way more problems than if they were legal. If you could have the choice of buying whatever drug you wanted from a store that carries brands that you know are going to be of a certain quality, compared to getting it on the street where the dealers could have put any sort of dangerous chemicals into it, which would you choose? If you had the choice of going to a legal brothel where the prostitutes are required by law to get weekly STD tests, or picking up any old hooker on the street which would you choose?
By making these things legal we could make them much more safer, remove the primary source of income for gangs, as well as reducing the prison population of people incarcerated for minor violations. By taxing these vices we could raise enough money to warn people about the dangers of using them, as well as pay for the treatment of people who may have become addicted. Instead we are throwing money away trying to catch drug dealers and users, and arrest prostitutes and their johns, when we know that people are always going to engage in these activities.
Iandanger,
We can pay for the drug tests with the revenue collected by taxing these drugs. We can prevent most of the kids from using them by having RANDOM drug tests twice a year. If they don’t know when they are going to be tested they will be less likely to use. As far as being intrusive and treating them as potential criminals, I guess you could say the same thing about metal detectors at the entrances and cameras in the hallways. I know my children don’t carry weapons, but I am glad that the school has metal detectors to prevent all the other kids from having them. I know my kids don’t bully or fight other children, but I am glad the school has cameras to catch the children that do. So I would have no problem with drug tests if it meant knowing my children wouldn’t be associating with kids that would try to pressure them into using.
Posted by: bushflipflops at July 13, 2006 04:08 PMbushflipflops,
How about this, what you are suggesting is authoritarian and unreasonable. I am against metal detectors and being alowed to search lockers without a warrant and anything else that treats students as less than a full citizen. We limit students free speech, yet require them to be in school. it is unreasonable, and if something like that were instituted while I was in highschool, you can be damn sure I would have organized a school boycott. And I know at least half the school would have come with me. draconian policies should not be used and should be fought against, no matter who they affect. All we are teaching students is that the state will be monitoring them, getting them used to the kind of unconstitutional intrusion they will deal with for the rest of their lives.
The government has no place testing me or my children for drugs unless we have done something wrong.
Posted by: iandanger at July 13, 2006 04:49 PMIandanger,
Since you feel minors should have the same rights as everyone else, do you think they should be able to buy alcohol and cigarettes? Should a 32 year old be able to have sex with a 14 year old if the 14 year old was consenting? Should two 13 year olds be able to get married, quit school, move out of their parents houses, and get full time jobs? Should a 6 year old be able to vote for President, or serve in the military, or purchase a handgun? I can keep going on and on with examples, so do you still believe that minors should have every right that an adult citizen has? Or do you agree that we keep certain adult rights from children in order to protect them from themselves?
Posted by: bushflipflops at July 13, 2006 05:22 PMParents do have discretion over their children, and have the right to drug test their children if they want. I do think banning drinking under 21 is unreasonable, because we are the only country in the world with as harsh a minimum age. I understand banning those under 18 from smoking because developing bodies can be injured moreso by the toxins in smoke, but does this prohibition really stop kids from drinking or smoking? Of course not, anyone who is sixteen can get ciggarettes or booze if they want it.
Yes it should be illegal for someone who is much older to have sex with someone who is much younger, I am not saying that children should be treated AS adults, I’m saying they should have the same civil liberties as the rest of us. I would not allow the government to drug test my child, and I don’t think a good parent would drug test their child without reason. This is a mark of paranoia and a lack of trust. I say, let parents parent and leave the government out of it.
Posted by: iandanger at July 13, 2006 06:40 PMIandanger,
The right to bear arms is a civil liberty, so even though I don’t own any guns and don’t allow my children to have them, you are saying it is perfectly alright for my 12 year old to purchase a handgun? If you can make a legal argument to suspend just one constitutionally guaranteed civil liberty in the case of a minor, it sets a precedence where you can suspend the others. Children should not autimatically be given every right of a citizen, but instead should earn that right by going to school, and hopefully by the time they turn 18 they will be well informed citizens.
Posted by: bushflipflops at July 13, 2006 07:16 PMIandanger,
The right to privacy, while not explicitly written in the Constitution, has been described by the SCOTUS as an inherent civil liberty. Would that not mean in your line of reasoning that a minor should have control over who they have sex with? Therefore, if a 14 year old was consenting, they could engage in sex with whomever they choose, thus nullifying laws against statutory rape. Just admit that children should not be granted every civil liberty that an adult citizen has.
Posted by: bushflipflops at July 13, 2006 07:25 PMFor all of the complaining about our educational system with respect to other countries, the typical solutions have been more money, more teachers, more tests. When will people admit that a major part of the problem is the coddling of the students? Their job is to attend school and get an education, but for most of them it is a fashion show, or a place to hang out and hook up with the opposite sex, or a place to deal drugs. If we want to reform the educational system in this country we need to be more strict with students. This could mean implementing a dress code, separating boys and girls for most classes, installing cameras in hallways, or random drug tests. When they graduate and go to work or college they’ll have earned the rights of an adult citizen.
Posted by: bushflipflops at July 13, 2006 07:40 PMbushflipflops,
“When will people admit that a major part of the problem is the coddling of the students? Their job is to attend school and get an education, but for most of them it is a fashion show, or a place to hang out and hook up with the opposite sex, or a place to deal drugs. If we want to reform the educational system in this country we need to be more strict with students. This could mean implementing a dress code, separating boys and girls for most classes, installing cameras in hallways, or random drug tests.”
Gee, couldn’t we just hold the parents responsible for the actions of their children, including not being ready to learn?
The statement you made isn’t the teachers job.
It isn’t their job to police how the children dress, or what they do after school.
It isn’t even the teacher’s job to make sure the students are ready to learn.
It’s the parents that should be held responsible for the state of our schools. It is their ridiculous expectations of teachers and their lack of support of teachers, that have caused most of these issues.
Posted by: Rocky at July 13, 2006 08:13 PMRocky,
I agree it should be the parents job, but they aren’t doing it. Parents today want to be their childrens best friend instead of being their parent. Instead of holding their kids to the rules they end up compromising with them. All that says is if you want something bad enough throw a fit and then your mommy or daddy will eventually give in. Everybody can see that the line between what is acceptible behavior and what is not has been shifting for decades, and nobody is doing anything to stop it. If we wait for the parents to grow up and start raising their children right we will be waiting forever. Not to mention that many times the parents or parent is too busy working to know what their kids are doing. As far as having the parents police their childrens wardrobe istead of the school, it would be difficult to keep parents from allowing their children to wear whatever they want, but the schools can simply say if you show up dressed like a slut or a thug you will not be allowed in for the day. If the parents don’t want to get a phone call from the school saying their kids are dressed inapropriately and they need to bring them a different set of clothes or take them home, then they will have to start thinking about what they allow their children to wear. We should also think about shifting high school hours later in the day. In my district the kids get out at 2:30 pm, and most parents don’t get home until 4 or 5 pm. If the school day started later kids would be getting home just before their parents, but not early enough to get into trouble. Plus the fact that most teenagers require more sleep and they aren’t gettting it by having to wake up at 6 am to catch the 7 am bus. Curfews are also good for keeping kids off the streets late at night and my town has one. Also, our local mall had to ban teenagers that weren’t accompanied by an adult because they were getting into fights and harassing older shoppers. The days when we could just say “boys will be boys” and look the other way are long gone, many teenage boys in my town are joining gangs. I consider myself a liberal on most issues, but when it comes to youth I am all for getting tough.
Posted by: bushflipflops at July 13, 2006 09:48 PMbff,
It’s about values and that is the parent’s job. Beyond that it becomes the job of the police, not the school.
It is up to the parents to pressure the school district for guidelines, not the other way around.
The money for the “outfits” that teens are wearing has to come from somewhere, I can only assume it is from the parents.
When I was growing up I had no privacy. I knew my parents could walk into my room at any time, and search it if they wanted to.
It may have been my home, but it was their house, if you get my meaning.
bushflipflops,
The right to bear arms is expressly stated to be part of keeping a well maintained militia. If your militia requires arming 14 year olds, the problem is deeper than prohibiting those who are younger owning weapons.
Again, parents can take their children shooting, buy them weapons, and take them hunting. Children are not prevented from possesing guns, they simply cannot purchase them, their parents have to. Parenting, it is an important thing, and it is not our government’s responsibility. Want to create laws punishing parents for repeated bad behavior on the part of their students? I’d agree with that, though I doubt you could really get any decent returns from those fines, because there are many parents of bad students who are in such bad situations (working 50-60 hours a week at two different jobs, not being able to keep bills paid, etc) that a bill for their student’s bad behavior would be low on the list, compared to say keeping the power and water turned on.
Posted by: iandanger at July 14, 2006 10:22 AMHTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation.
