Transcripts For CSPAN3 Lectures In History Marijuana Regulat

CSPAN3 Lectures In History Marijuana Regulation In U.S. History July 13, 2024

Watching at home, is a course focused on business in society here at Colorado College and this class in particular were looking at the making of the u. S. Drug war and in particular how it relates to the prediction and now the legalization of cannabis and how that impacts consumer access to this particular sub stan. Ive been doing research either no graphically and historically on the drug war and for the last two decades so you get to join us today on our tour of the last 100 years of drug policy. We were talking about the impact ourulture and science in approaches to medicine, and what is a sub acceptable substance and what marks those substances that are different from medicine. Today, we are going to try to see how those ideas impact the laws that govern access to these substances. We are going to start over a century ago with the food and drug act of 1906. It impacts us into the present and helps control our access to a whole range of substances. The law itself is focused on consumer protection. The American Public to have access to substances that can be dangerous. Something as simple as we have seen in the past few years having contaminated lettuce and other produce that can cause a Public Health scare to the nation. This policy also helps create the food and Drug Administration that continues to govern much of the issues around Consumer Protections when it pertains to food substances and substances we classify as drugs. Requires clear labeling of products. In the early 20th century, it was important as the regulatory structure was not in place to be able to know what we are putting in our bodies. We can go to a local vendor and have access to substances, medicine, sleep serum, that had quantities of substances like opiates. Cough, products we would be using is over the counter medicinal products. The federal government really tried to implement this policy to be able to limit access to the substances and protect consumers from being able to consume products that we could deem as safe. Becomes important for our class and discussions, because it is the first policy that starts to bring cannabis into a discussion with other substances that we now deemed as more dangerous, at least in some circles, then this other natural plant substance. Particularly the substances that are determined to be addictive including alcohol. They have to be clearly identified on products. We wanted to know as consumers whether we were putting these potentially problematic substances into our bodies. We followed that up shortly thereafter with a smoking opium exclusion act. We now have a policy in place that is set up to control opium as a consumer good. To be purchased medicinally. There was still the presence in the u. S. Of opium in the smokable form. This was designated as different from the previous designation of opium products as being necessary for medicinal consumption. In the early 20th century, we are seeing a division and bifurcation of our conceptualization of products for a medicinal use and a nonmedicinal use. Often nonmedicinal use gets characterized as recreational. In the case of opium it is very important as a medicinal substance that many people want access to. However, we also have a presence of a population relying on opium in smokable form. This particular act bans the consumption, and importing of opium in a smokable form. I have two other historical events that actually help us understand and make sense of the smoking opium exclusion act. And that is an act of 1882. And that is because the chinese actually come in to settle parts of the west to aid the u. S. In its development of the western half of the u. S. As laborers. They are doing a lot of the labor work in the western half of the United States to help build the railroad from connecting the east coast to the west coast. And they also bring the practice with them of consuming opium in the smokable form. We are starting to see in places like San Francisco and even here in colorado in denver, the establishment of opium dens where Chinese People are consuming smokable opium. That started to be deemed to as a problem by the federal government for a couple of reasons. Because this was seen as something very foreign and different. Chinese men primarily coming into the u. S. And bringing with them the foreign practice that seemed to be characterized as a problem really starts to spark the public interest. And initially it starts to create antichinese sentiment that results in 1880 two, the first exclusionary immigration policy. After 1882, we are going to ban in the u. S. Chinese emigrants from coming into the u. S. If they are coming in as laborers. If you are coming in as a nonlabor, you could be exempt from the chinese exclusion act. At the same time in 1898, we have the spanishamerican war or the u. S. Is able to come as a result of being victorious in the war, is able to acquire several protectorates in puerto rico, guam, and for this case and the philippines. Where the presence of smoking opium is deemed as a problem for now having just acquired this new area of the world to govern. We start to see the intersections now of race and substances start to enter the political discussion. This becomes especially important as we just talked about with the pure food and drugs act. It limits legal access to opiumbased products. As we have seen in the contemporary period, what happens when we cut off legal access to a particular substance, a kind of black market emerges so now people have to navigate a substitute for the substance they just lost. Replacing behavior takes place. And what did up taking place in the case of opium is that those individuals that no longer had access to opiumbased products through a legal system now start to frequent the opium dens in these chinese communities. As a result of that, we start to have these increasing concerns about americans going into these racialized neighborhoods, these chinese neighborhoods and engaging in behavior that is seen as deviant. All of this coalesces these ideas around trying to control these substances in a range of international and federal effort to rein in greater prohibition over the substances. In 1909, just after the act, we have the International Opium Commission in shanghai. The commission is different from a convention because this was mostly a meeting for countries interested in starting to more strictly regulate opium, to be able to make suggestions on how to navigate at the International Level access and control to possession of opium. That is followed up in 1912 by the international Opium Convention, the First International drug control treaty. As part of this meeting, the nations involved of which the u. S. Is a strong proponent, really start to craft the First International drug policy to say we will all do our part as a Global Community to limit the movement of the substance that we see as potentially harmful for our different publics. It also starts to initiate the process where partner countries in the agreement can implement their federal policies. In the case of the u. S. , we end up with the act. This is an effort at trying to control access through taxation. A business approach, a regulatory approach to try to keep the substance in the hands of those that we see as particularly resourceful for being able to keep us from entering a Public Health problem. One thing to remember is that this is a moment where the American Medical Association and the repression of medicine is darting to become more heavily professionalized. We look to the medical community to weighin with suggestions for how to best navigate, control this 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. What it did was regulated and taxed opium and cocoa products. In a few decades, they become a sort of metric to be able 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 access to nonmedical use, the u. S. Initiates the narcotics drug import and export act of 1922. The policy for oversight for the opium trade and opium consumption. This is because we do not have the ability to produce opium and coca products in the u. S. These plants thrive in other global settings. In the case of the u. S. , coca is primarily produced in south america, in the andean region. And in the case of opium products, we have a large access to opium in northern mexico that we do not have the ability to grow and produce opium in the boundaries of our nation. We have to figure out a way to allow access on the medical front. We have to figure out a way to be able to import these substances and have control over them as they are entering the nation. And regulate the access. Another important component of this is it as establishes the federal control board. Two police narcotics. We will see this Organization Start to transform into the present to be able to better navigate the drug lobby and also punish possession of the substances. In particular, with policing nonmedical consumption as well as engaging in Quality Control of the narcotics for medicinal use. This was back in the pure food and drugs act. If you are going to allow access to a substance, it has to be something that is not necessarily harmful to a consumer ingesting the substance. The control board was tasked with trying to figure out a way to do both. We are going to limit nonmedicinal use. If you are going to need these products, we need to figure out a way to best ensure the safety of those products. That entity morphed into, in 1930, the federal bureau of narcotics. Instead of being part of the department of justice or any other federal entity, it is established as part of the department of treasury. These are not outright prohibitions on these products. They are shaped around tax policies. The entity that polices these products has to be in an organization come a federal entity, that is best able to exercise its jurisdiction around these matters. In this case, the drug law in the early 19th century is based around tax policy so it has to be part of the department of the treasury. It replaced the federal narcotics control board. Its first commissioner was at the head of this entity from 1930 until 1962. Just over three decades of one individual really having control over our drug policy in the United States. That leads to particularly onesided affects in the case of how we are about to see drug policy transform post 1930. The important thing to remember about him is that he pushed for harsher drug penalties and for further criminalizing of drugs and in this case, and he really targets, including cannabis in this understanding of drug control as a narcotic. To be able to think of cannabis as something more similar to opium and to coca then dissimilar. We will see him again. Dont worry. He is the chief architect of the Marijuana Tax act that we see deployed in 1937. This act was tasked with taxing the sale of cannabis and marijuana and in particular, he used stories of problematic use of cannabis in mexico and in the u. S. Southwest and its association with mexican immigrants that were starting to come into the u. S. Between 1910 and the 1930s as a result of an ongoing civil war in mexico. The mexican revolution of 1910 until roughly 1920. That really sparks the mass exodus of mexicans from mexico into the u. S. And as we have already talked about, Cannabis Consumption was part of mexican culture and the indigenous mexican population. Mexico also had problems with the consumption of cannabis. They 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 he did was took those stories circulating in mexico and used them as a justification for why we needed to think about cannabis more like a problematic substance including opium and coca and why we needed to have more strict enforcement and policing of the substance. This, his suggestions really fly in the way of looking to the medical community to provide guidance on these issues. The American Medical Association opposed 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 their patients. And in particular, the tax is imposed on the physicians and pharmacists and the cultivators that were being able to grow the supply market for patients in need of cannabis as a medicine. We have an important please of history we have to contend with at the local level because the first Marijuana Tax act arrest takes place in denver, colorado. He is charged with possession and Samuel Caldwell is charged with dealing and they are in violation of the Marijuana Tax act. Part of what the act imposes is if you wanted to be in possession of marijuana, you had to petition the government for a tax stamp to be able to be in possession of that. I am not in violation of the law. However, the problem was in order to acquire it come you had to present the cannabis you are trying to acquire. And it becomes an issue for how this law is intended to really stop access to cannabis as a medicine. In terms of the outcome of the Marijuana Tax act, he as a buyer is sentenced to 18 months in prison at Fort Leavenworth and caldwell is sentenced to four years for dealing. Both in violations of the tax act as a consumer and a seller. The Marijuana Tax act also did not come out of nowhere. It is important to remember that because of our own approach to government in the United States and federal versus state policy, that many states were already on the path to outlying access to cannabis. This makes it a more favorable, National Policy to pass. In this case, you can take a look at this time line, massachusetts restricts the sale of cannabis. In 1913, we see more outright bans of cannabis for any possession, production or consumption. Maine, wyoming, and indiana in are responsible for the first bans. In 1950, utah and vermont. In 1917, we have a policy in colorado to make the possession and cultivation of marijuana a misdemeanor. We are also in colorado not at the forefront of legalization, we are at the forefront of prohibition. Iowa, washington in nebraska. 1931, illinois and texas. 1933, north dakota and oklahoma joined in the list of states that ban cannabis possession, cultivation, and production. We will take a quick little detour to talk about the 18th and 21st amendments. These are important pieces of history because they show the clear approach to prohibiting substances and what the federal government has to do when that prohibition actually fails. A lot of you are familiar with the 1917 event where we have an amendment to the constitution that prohibits the sale, consumption, and possession of alcohol. But after less than a couple of decades, we actually, basically, have to undo that. We have to approach the fact that alcohol prohibition was unsuccessful and it leads to a large black market and the increasing proliferation of organized crime to provide consumers with access to that substance. The federal government sees that as more of a problem than it is worth to just be able to go back and undo prohibition. In 1933, we have the repeal of prohibition and now, the u. S. , has access to a whole range of alcoholic substances. The followup policy after the Marijuana Tax act is what is referred to as the act of 1954. This becomes important because it is how we navigate post1950s the punishment of drug crimes. We require mandatory sentencing for drug crimes because the federal government really starts to frame drug crimes is a failure of morality and something we have to punish from a very harsh standpoint. In the case of cannabis, this becomes important because less than two decades after the passing of the Marijuana Tax act, we have the boggs act which gives the Marijuana Tax act more teeth. It requires a minimum of two years in prison to have a cannabis crime on your record. And it could lead to a fine of up to 20,000. In the case of the first Marijuana Tax act arrest, that means that his sentencing wouldve been harsher. He was only sentenced to a year and a half of prison time and under the new regulations come he would have to be sentenced to a minimum of two years. It creates the logic around drug punishment that requires us to be really forceful with these crimes that are viewed as morality issues. We continue that into the present really. Something we are still trying to undo as part of our drug policy. We are going to reference International Law as it pertains to the u. S. Convention on narcotics act. This is a followup to the Opium Convention in the early 20th century. In 1961, as a result of this escalation of drug control in the u. S. And around the world, partners come together to try to figure out how to best revisit the Transnational Movement of these substances we are trying to control and how to better enforce these policies. They come up with the Single Convention, and International Treaty to prohibit unlicensed drug production and distribution. The substances can still be used, cultivated, and produced for medicinal purposes. However, we have a strong ethicist on cannabis, opiates, and coca. Trying to figure out how to put an end to the consumption for nonmedicinal use of the substances. An important component

© 2025 Vimarsana