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 i