Lectures in history series continues now with a look at marijuana regulation in u. S. History. We also heard about views and laws on marijuana, alcohol, opioids and other narcotics. This is 50 minutes. All right. Welcome to class, everyone, today. Wed like to welcome our cspan viewers that are joining our class today. We are going to be covering a lot today. This class for those of you that are watching at home is a course focused on business and society here at colorado college. And this class in particular we are looking at the making of the u. S. Drug war and particularly how it relates to the prohibition and now the legalization of cannabis and how that impacts consumer access to this particular substance. Ive been doing research ethnic graphically and historically on the drug war and cannabis legalization the last two decades. So you get to join us today on our tour of the last 100 years of drug policy. So as you remember yesterday we were talking a little bit about the impact of culture and science on our approachings to medicine and conceptlizing what is an acceptable substance for medical consumption and what marks the substances that are different from medicine. So today we are going to try to see how those very ideas actually impact the laws that govern our access to these substances. So were going to start just over a century ago with the pure food and drugs act of 1906. This is something that impacts us into the present, and really helps to control our access to a whole range of substances. So the law itself is focused op consumer protection, right . We dont want the American Public to have access to substance nas could potentially be dangerous. This can be something as simple as we have seen in the past, a few years, having contaminated lettuce and other produce on the market that could cause a Public Health scare in the nation. This policy also helped to create the food and Drugs Administration that still continues to govern much of the issues around Consumer Protections when it pertains to food substances and substances that we classify as drugs. So it required clear labeling of products. And in the early 20th century this was particularly important as the regulatory structure was not in place to be able to know what we were actually putting in our bodies, right. You could go to a local vendor and have access to substances, cough medicines, sleep serums that had quantities, measurable quantities of substances like op yates, heroin substances in and coca products in substances. The federal government tried to implement the policy to limit access to the substances. And also to protect to protect us as consumers from being able to Consumer Products we could deem as safe. As this especially becomes important for our class and discussion because its the first policy that really starts to bring cannabis into a discussion with other substances that we now deem as more dangerous, at least in some circles, than this other natural plant substance. Particularly the substances deemed addictive, including alcohol, open up, morphine, heroin and cannabis had to be clearly identified on products. We wanted to know as consumers whether we were putting these potentially problematic substances into our bodies. Now we follow that up shortly there after with the smoking opium exclusion act. We have now a policy in place thats set up to control opium as a consumer good, right, thats to be purchased medicinely. However there was still the presence in the u. S. Of opium in the smokeable form. And this was designated as different from the previous conceptlization of opium products as beinged ned for medicinenle consumption. We already see now in the early 20th century the division and bifurcatation of substances for medicinal and nonmedicinal use. Often times nonmedicinal use gets characterized as quote unquote recreational use. In the case of opium we have an porn case. Because its important as of an medicinal substance that many want access to. However we also have the presence of a population relying on opium in smokeable form. This particular act actually bans the possession, consumption and importation of opium in smokeable form. And i have two other historical events that actually help us to understand and make sense of smoking of opium exclusion act. Thats the chinese exclusion act of 1882, going back a further a few decades. Thats because the chinese come in to settle parts of the west to to aid the u. S. In its development of the western half of the United States as laborers. They are doing a lot of grunt labor work in the western United States, helped to build the railroad from connecting the east coast all the way to the west coast. And as such they also bring the practice with them of consuming opium in smokeable form. We see places like san francisco, even places here in colorado like in denver, the establishment of the opium dens where people are where Chinese People are consuming smokeable opium, right . That started to be deemed as a problem by the federal government for a couple of reasons. Because this was seen as something very foreign and different, right . So chinese men primarily coming into the u. S. And bringing with them a foreign practice that seems to be characterized as a problem really starts to spark the public interest, right . And initially it starts to create antichinese sentiment that results in 1882, the first real sort of exclusionary immigration policy. Thats to say after 1882 we are banning in the u. S. Chinese immigrants from coming into the u. S. If they are coming in as laborers. If you are coming in as a nonlaborer then you could be exempt from the chinese exclusion act. At the same time in 1898 we have the spanish american war where the u. S. Is able to as a result of being victorious in the war is able to acquire several protector its in puerto rico, guam and especially for in case the philippines where the presence of smoking opium is deemed as a problem for now having just acquired in new area of the world to govern. As a result we start to see the intersections now of race and substances start to enter the political discussion. In becomes especially important as we just talked about the pure foods and drugs act because that limits now access legal access to opiumbased products. Right . As we have seen in the kemp rather period what happens when we cut off legal access to particular substances is we usually see a black market emerge where people have to navigate to access a substitute for the substance that they just lost,right . Spo there is replacing biever that takes place. And what ended up taking place in the case of opium is those individuals that no longer had access to opium based products through a legal system now start to frequent the opium dens in the chinese communities, right . And as a result of that we start to have these increasing concerns about americans going into these racialized neighborhoods, the chinese neighborhoods within engaging in behavior thats seen in as deviant, right . So all of in really coalesces in a range of international and federal efforts to really rein in greater prohibition over the substances. So in 1909, just after the smoking exclusion act, we have the International Opium Commission in shanghai. A commission is different from as youll see in a second, a convention because this was mostly a meeting for countries interested in starting to more strictly regulate opium to be able to start to make suggestions for how we are going to navigate at an International Level access and control to possession of opium. Thats followed up in 1912 with the international opium convention, the First International drug control treat in. And as hart of this meeting, right, the nations involved of which the u. S. Is a sort of strong proponent really start to craft the First International drug policy to say we are all doing our part as a Global Community to really limit the movement of in substance that we see as potentially harmful for our different publics. It also starts to initiate the process for partner countries in this agreement to be able to complement their federal policies to limit the access to these substances. In the case of the u. S. We end up with the harrison narcotics tax act. Notice its not exclusion act. Not a complete prohibition act. This is an effort at trying to control access through taxation. Its a business approach, a regulatory approach to try to really keep the substance in the hands of those that we see as particularly resource flt for being able to keep us from entering a Public Health problem, right . One thing to remember is that this is a moment that the American Medical Association and the profession of medicine is starting to become more and more heavily professionalized. We look to the medical community to weigh in with suggestions for how to best navigate, access and control of the substance, opium and a whole range of other narcotics to be able to have it available for medicinal use but also try to limit access of the substance in a nonmedicinal use. So what it did is it specially regulated and taxed open yit and coca products. The reason this is important is as youll see shortly is in a few decades this becomes a metric to launch future drug policies in the u. S. Now that we are talking about limiting medical access and also really trying to quell any sort of access to nonmedical use, the u. S. Hinshaws the narcotics drugs import and export act of 1922. And this creates the policy for oversight for the opium trade and consumption. And this is because we do not have the ability to produce opiate and coca products in the u. S. These thrive in it other global sets in the u. S. Coca is produced in south america in the andreaen region and in coca products we have a large access to opium in northern mexico but dont have the ability to really grow and produce opium in the boundaries of our nation, right. We have to figure out a way if we are supposed to be able to allow access on a medical front we have to figure out a way to be able to import the substances and have control over them as they enter the nation to regulate the access. Another important component of this is that it establishes the federal Narcotics Control Board as the Law Enforcement entity to police narcotics. Well see this Organization Start to transform into the present to be able to better navigate our drug laws and to be able to better punish and regulate possession of these substances, right . And in particular it was tasked with policing nonmedical consumption as well as engaging in Quality Control of the narcotics for medicinal use. This is back to the pure foods appear drugs act. That if you allow access to a substance it has to be something that wont be necessarily harmful to a consumer ingesting the substance, right so the federal Narcotics Control Board was really tasked with trying to figure out a way to do both, saying we are going to limit nonkpedle use. If you are going to need compelled use of coca based or opium products we need to figure out a which to best ensure the safety of the products. Now, the that entity morphs into in 1930, the federal bureau of narcotics. And instead of being part of the department of justice or any other sort of federal entity is actually is established as part of the department of treasury. We have to remember that these are not outright prohibitions on the products. Instead they are shaped around tax policy. As such the entity policing the practices has to be in a a organization, federal entity thats best able to exercise its jurisdiction around the matters. Right . So in this case drug law in the early 20th century is based around tax policy. It has to be part of the department of the treasury. So it replaced the federal Narcotics Control Board. Its first commissioner was at the head of the entity from 1930 to 1962. So thats you know just over three decades of one individual really having control over our drug policy in the United States. That leads to particularly one side it affects in the case of how we are about to see drug policy transformed post 1930. Right . The important thing to braer the commissioner is he pushed for harsher drug penalties and criminalizing of drugs. And in this case we have something particularly important for our area of study in that he really targets including cannabis in this sort of understanding of drug control as a narcotic to be able to think of cannabis as something more similar to opium and coca than dissimilar. Well see him again. Dont worry. Because he is a chief architect of the Marijuana Tax act that we see deployed in 1938. In act was tasked with taxing the sale of cannabis and marijuana. And in particular the commissioner used stories of problematic use of cannabis in mexico and in the u. S. Southwest and its association with mechanics. Immigrants that were starting to come into the United States between the 1910 and the 1930s as a result of the ongoing civil war in mexico, the mexican revolution of 19109 to roughly 1920 really sparks the sort of mass exodus of mexicans from mexico into the u. S. As we have already talked about Cannabis Consumption was a part of mexican culture and indigenous mexican populations. But mexico also had problems with the consumption of cannabis. And so any exported the negative ideas about what cannabis can do for Peoples Mental Health and what it does in terms of these outbursts of violence for the consumers . What anslinger did is took the storien and used them for a justification why to think about cannabis as a problematic substance like opium and coca and why we needed more strict policies and enforcement of the substance. Now this his suggestions fly in the wake of as we talk about earlier looking to the medical community to provide guidance on the issues. So the American Medical Association actually opposed marijuana the Marijuana Tax act because it was going to make it highly burdensome for medical professionals to be able to use cannabis as a medicine for patients. And in fishing the tax was actually imposed on the physicians, the pharmacies and the medical kbz can you tell me ecultivators that were alk to grow the supply market for patients that were in need of cannabis as a medicine. We have an important piece of history that we have to contend with here at the local level. Because the first Marijuana Tax act arrest actually takes place in denver, colorado. The person is charged with possession and Samuel Caldwell is charged with dealing. And theyre in violation of the Marijuana Tax act because part of what the Marijuana Tax act imposes is that if you wanted to be in possession of marijuana and see you had to petition the government for a tax stamp to be able to be in possession of that. Its your documentation to say im not in filing of the law i have this cannabis legally. However, the problem was in order to acquire the tax stamp you had to present the cannabis you were trying to acquire. We see that becomes an issue for how this law is actually intended to really stop access to cannabis as a medicine. In terms of the outcome of the Marijuana Tax act, baka as a buyer is sentenced to 18 months in prison at ft. Leavenworth. And caldwell is sentenced to four years for dealing, right, both in violation of the tax act as consumer and as seller. Now the Marijuana Tax act didnt come out of no where. Its important to remember that because of our own sort of approaching to government in the United States and federal versus state policy, that many states were already on the path to outlaws access to cannabis. Right this makes it a more favorable National Policy to pass. So the in the this case we you can look at this time line. In 1911, massachusetts restricts the sale of cannabis. However. In 1913 we see more and more outright bans of cannabis for any possession, production, consumption. So 19139, california, maine, wyoming and indiana are responsible for the first bans. Raert in 1915, utah and vermont. In 1917 we have a policy in colorado to make the possession and cultivation of marijuana a misdemeanor, right. So we are also in colorado not just at the forefront of legalization weres are at the forefront of prohibition because this predates the federal prohibition High Pressure 1943 organ, washington, vermont. 1931, illinois and texas. And then by 1933 as we are seeing the ramp up to the Marijuana Tax act, north dakota and oklahoma join in the list of states that ban cannabis possession consumption and cultivation. Well take a quick detour to talk about the 18th and 21st amendments. These are important pieces of history because they show clear approach to hibbing access to a substance and what the federal government has to do when that prohibition actually fails, right. As a lot of you are familiar with in 1917 we have we have an amendment to the constitution that prohibits the sale, consumption, possession of alcohol. But after less than a couple of decades we actually basically have to undo that, right. So we have to approach the fact that alcohol prohibition was unsuccessful, leads to large black market. The increasing pro plifr liveration of oh organized driem to provide consumers with the access to the substance and the federal government sees that as more of a problem than its worth to be able to go back and undo prohibition in 1933 we have the repeal of prohibition and flou the u. S. Has access to as we can see a whole range and plethora of alcoholic substances. The followup policy after the Marijuana Tax act is whats referred to as a bogs act of 1954. In in particular becomes important because its how we navigate post 1950s the punish of drugs crimes. We require mandatory sentencing for drug crimes. Because from a moral standpoint the federal government really starts to frame drug crimes as a failure of morality and something we have to punish from a very harsh standpoint, right . So in the case of cannabis, this becomes particularly important because, you know, less than two decades after the passing of themileanhour tax act we have the bogs act that really makes gives the Marijuana Tax act greater teeth. Because it now results in a minimum of two years in prison to have a cannabis crime on your record. And it can lead to a fine up to 20,000. Now as you saw in the case of the first Marijuana Tax act arrest, that means that since the bakas sentencing would have been harsher. He was only sentence today a year and a half really of prison time. Under the new regulations he would have to be sentenced to a minimum of two years. Right. So this creates the logic around drug punishment that requires us to be really forceful with the crimes viewed as failures in morality. Well continue that into the present really. And something we are trying to do as part of u. S. Drug policy. Is so we are going out a little to reference International Law as it pertains to the Un Single Convention on narcotic drugs. This is the follow up the of the opium investigation that we have already discussed of the early 20th century. In 1961 as a result of all the escalation of drug control in the u. S. And around the globe, partner countries of the United Nations come together to try to figure out how to best revisit the Transnational Movement of the substances that were trying to control. And how better to enforce the policies. So they come up with the Single Convention which is an International Treaty to prohibit unlicens unlicensed illicit drug production and consumption. It still lah allows for the substances to be used cultivateds produced for medicinal purposes. However we have a strong emphasis on cannabis, open yits and coca including in the agreement how to put an end to the consumption for nonmedicinal use of the substances. An important component of this is that it introduces the scheduling of substances. Scheduling is the ideas framed from a policy perspective. And a medical professional perspective of how can we classify drugs as substances that we need to regulate but also still have access to. And so the scheduling system for the Single Convention looks dinner than im sure youve heard about in everyday conversation. It really has a more circular understanding that there are four schedules. You have to consider the medical utility, potential harm of a substance, and those factors are weighed to be able to craft a policy allowing or not allowing smelledle use for the substance, ability to prescribe, what quantities and really sets up a hard and Firm Regulatory framework for how to think about the medical community being able to access and the Scientific Community being able to access substances for knowledge production around its medical utility. This is also important in terms of the u. S. Because it around all partner nations it really governs how governments are able to control the cultivation of the substances, particularly marijuana, for testing to gain a Greater Knowledge base about the impact and effects that this has on persons well being and personal health, right . The Single Convention is expanded through the 1971 convention on psycho tropic substances as a whole range of substances to the list. Also important, we move away from not just the use of narcotic but also scientific language thats being really developed and popularized to more accurately talk about the effects of the substances on our brain. Right . So we talk about narcotics this becomes an issue in the history of drug policy because its a fairly rigid definition that has to be expanded and maneuvered through to be able to include more and more substances in there, right . So the term narcotic really just means comes from words meaning to numb. In that case it was hialeah applicable to opiates coca products. But when cannabis is becomes part of it thats an issue. We talk about other substances, mesk lynn. Psilocybin. And others. The medical community has to reconcile the fact that the substances we are talking about dont have the same effects. Even though we want to heavily restrict and regulate access to them. And then in 1988, the u. N. Follows up with a convention against illicit traffic in narcotic and psychotropic substances. Because from 1961 to the mid80s we see a proliferation of large scale occurred crime to provide consumers around the world with access to the prohibited substances. So this is where we see really the intensifiation of large scale drug smuggling. Here is a important moment in u. S. Drug legal history because it it is something that we dont really often think about. And the type of influence that it has on our drug policy into the present. So Timothy Leary if you are not familiar with, a sort of infamous proves frere the 1960s that was a strong proponent of the use of the psycho active substances for a range of health benefits, including the use of psilocybin, cannabis, acid, lsd to allow for humans to have mind altering experience that could be beneficial for themselves and their mental health. Now as a strong proponent of the psycho active substances, in december of 196 appear o 5 he fwoes down on a Family Vacation to mexico. We as a psycho active substance consumer, he goes and purchases marijuana he consumes on vacation. And then he tries to return to the u. S. And reenter the country through our port in laredo. And as he is entering there is this sort of misunderstanding. And he is subject to a vehicle search. As part of the vehicle search Border Agents discover small amounts of dried flower cannabis and especially seeds in his car. And as such they charged him with a vials of the Marijuana Tax act. And he is basically supposed to be sentenced on niece violations as we have seen. However, here you have Timothy Leary abhighly educated individual that figures he can do research to get his way out of this legal bind he is in. And so what he discovers is that through the work of the legal team that the Marijuana Tax act is unconstitutional because as i mentioned earlier, right, if you wanted to be in possession of marijuana youd have to get a tax stamp. Right . The only way for the government to give you the tax stamp is youd have to present the yau li marijuana you wering trying to get the stamp for. Thats an issue because it violates the fifth amendment of the constitution around sel selfincrimination. You cant give into me a stamp if i dont have the marijuana to pay tax for and i cant be in possession of it if i havent gotten the marijuana yet. It caused them to have this seven incrimination. So he is able to convince the Supreme Court and in this edition in leary versus United States, 1969, that decided in may to deem it unconstitutional for its violation of the fifth amendment. And the u. S. Does not rerest on this. Because we have in Court Decision that basically clairs the tax act unconstitutional. Aside from the range of other drug policies we talked about that should allow for strong control of the substance, we see that for at least a short period the u. S. Is in willynilly o around its policy for how to prosecute marijuana possession, importation. Shortly there after in 1969 it launches Operation Intercept at the u. S. mexico border. Whats happening is that september is the harvest season for marijuana outdoor groan marijuana in mexico. So they expected this large influgs ofo flux of marijuana at the same time we dont have the teeth to potentially really sort of criminalize and prosecute the possession of the substance. And so what the u. S. Does as part of the Nixon Administration is just send as many officials as it can to the u. S. mexico border, mobilizing all of its Border Agents. And and essentially shuts down the u. S. mexico border for ten days to try to stop mexican marijuana from entering the u. S. And thats important because at the time something something between 70 and 80 of the marijuana consumed in the u. S. Was sourced from mexico, right . Now thats sort of short lived because we actually are able to were enforce our marijuana policies very quickly there after through the passage of the controlled substances act. And this is probably the one youve heard about the most, really sort of controlling our drug policy in the u. S. Right . So its passed as titles 2 of the comprehensionive drug control act of 1970. And it does an important thing as far as International Law. Right . Because at least prior to the revocation of the Marijuana Tax act as unconstitutional, we at least had that to be able to be in accordance with International Drug policy. However, we had yet to implement the u. N. Single convention on a federal level to be able to sort of mirror the policies we have at an International Lawful with the federal policies. What the 1970 controlled substances act does is it really pushes the framework. The framework of drug control flew a federal policy. We have what we know of in the u. S. Context as drug scheduling on a fiveschedule scale based on potential for abuse and medical utility. And what we need to to know and see as far as scheduling is concern. Schedule i substance is deemed as having a high potential for abuse, and a low potential for medical utility. Right. Those two factors combined make it to where classification of a substance as a schedule one drug makes it very difficult to access at all through a legal channel, right . And as we move down the scheduling scale those factors just are adjusted, right. Schedule ii substance has a lower likelihood for abuse. And has some medical utility until you get down to schedule 5 substances that we should be able to access with limited government regulation and interference. The other important thing that the controlled sins swnss act down ises casey the Drug Free School zones that will be reinforced through other legislation into the future to make it so that possession or attempted sale of of prohibited substances in drugfree school zones, including parks and a range of other areas, child care centers, that that would allow for a harsher punishment of of violators of the cbss act. Right . So, yeah, if i have a gram of marijuana and im, you know, somewhere in an area that isnt considered a drugfree school zone im sure im subject to mandatory minimum sentencing. However, those sentences get to be harsher fines, considerably higher in close proximity to the drugfree school zones. This becomes an important part of how we see in the present the drug war tarring particularly communities of color in the u. S. Communities of hispanic and latin and also africanamerican communities. Because they tend to be in close proximity for the drug free zones, possession of the substances in those areas make it harder to to have a fair and balanced Justice System around drugs. All right. The other important thing is that we have the establishment now of the Drug Enforcement administration in 1973 replacing the bureau of narcotics appear dangerous drugs. And an important component of this is that we see in the decade running up to the controlled substances act the federal bureau of narcotics moved over as the bureau ofas the department of justice. We now entered the world of crime and justice, right . We have greater flexibility on how we exercise the punishment of drug violations, but also the ability to better navigate the department to give the war chief post1970. His last couple of policies that will focus on really are saving because they start to shape what is going to be navigated as we start to see they tried to really push back and swing for prohibition into a legal access of the substance. This is to policies that really do a whole range of things that create pressure for the drug crops. We are having a hard time stopping the flow of the substances into the u. S. We are not seeing a demand reduction in terms of u. S. Consumers. Hackett we limit access for the substances . You have the ability using the drug abuse act. Using the conventions of 1988. To be able to go into source countries like peru, colombia, and eradicate. Going to mexico and flyover marijuana crops and spray pesticides. It involves the human rights violation of a lot of individuals in the resource country. We start to see pesticides and chemicals within close proximity of the communities in latin america. They are exposed to harsh chemicals as part of the drug control policy that has problematic effects of the health to that population. It pushes and promotes the drug abuse prevention platforms that we know is there. These programs that going to schools to be able to retire to when people. If adults arent limiting their consumption, but see if we can use an educational platform in schools to educate the students to not become consumers of the substances. We also have policies to really engage in moderate Money Laundering control. If we can stop these entities that are engaging in the smuggling that are bringing these drugs to market, if we could really cut off their supply as part of the substances, maybe we can start to have an impact on the smuggling of the substances. It will help to establish the drug control policy in the presence. The Government Entity that really drives and pushes forward how we approach and think about drug control in the u. S. Another important component of the antidrug abuse act is that it now brings cannabis into the mandatory minimum of flight framework. With authors like Michelle Alexander who are you that post1980s we have these institutions of the drug war. Of cannabis is in the substance, you can apply them to cannabis, and we can use drug in urban centers and target communities incentives. Makes the ability to push an agenda and have a Lasting Impact on these communities. Additionally as part of that it also implements the harsher punishment and targeting of the crack market at the same time as the punishments for other substances like powder cocaine remains relatively stable. Now we go into why it becomes important for us in the present. At the same time we talked about this rapid escalation of drug control at a federal level we also see states grapple with this being the best idea moving forward. They start to engage in legal policies to try to pull back some of the controls around cannabis. In the case of state criminalization is there a way we cannot use federal policy to punish cannabis crimes. For states like texas they allow for you to be in possession of up to four ounces of cannabis and have it be a misdemeanor. Is not a felony and it doesnt change in a whole range of these other policies. These violators, keep them in the local court system so they are not subjected to these harsher penalties. At the same time, we see the growth with california, arizona , and the growth of state mayor medical marijuana laws. It really cuts off access to cannabis as a medical substance. Then have to try to figure out how they can use the state policy to start to provide access to the substance as medicine for people. A whole variety of states but are different ways to approach the issue. You still see states lamenting their own medical policies to figure out the best way to do them. More recently we start to see a range of states not just thinking about medical use of cannabis, but also the adult use of cannabis. Hackett we more effectively at the state level regulate access to a substance that is prohibited on the federal level . We still have the type of drug control policy that will limit access. It will have a strong enforcement arm and will allow consumers to know what is safe for them to consume. This will something youll go through the rest of the class. Half we look at the legal history of prohibition, specifically targeting cannabis to know how the State Government has to really find ways of around this long history of prohibition for cannabis. I hope this helps inform our discussion. I hope this was informative. To know where our policies have originated and how its our ability to access substances and the respect theyve had on the society. Thank you. Will give an overview of america in the 1970s. River in the beginning we talked about how it takes time for historians to understand what the year is about. For a while the 1970s were seen as a bit of a jo