From Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia
The legal history of marijuana in the United States mainly involves the 20th and 21st centuries. In the 1800s, marijuana (also referred to as cannabis) was legal in most states, as hemp to make items such as rope, sails, and clothes, and was used for medicinal purposes; however, after the Mexican Revolution of 1910, a wave of Mexicans immigrated to the United States and introduced the American public to recreational marijuana use.
The first significant instance of marijuana regulation appeared in Washington D.C. in 1906. Prohibitions of marijuana soon followed in the other states. By the mid-1930s, marijuana was regulated in every state by laws instituted through The Uniform State Narcotic Act.[1]
The federal drug policy of the United States began with the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act,[2] and the establishment of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. DuPont and William Randolph Hearst played a role in the criminalization of marijuana. In the 1950s, strict mandatory sentencing laws substantially increased federal penalties for marijuana possession (but were removed in the 1970s). In 1964, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs entered into force, for the first time placing the U.S. under treaty obligations to control marijuana production and distribution. In the 1980s, mandatory sentencing laws were reinstated for large-scale marijuana distribution, three strikes laws were enacted and applied to marijuana possession, and the death sentence was enabled for marijuana drug kingpins.
In the 1970s, many places in the United States started to decriminalize marijuana. Most places that have decriminalized marijuana have one or more of civil fines, drug education, drug treatment in place of incarceration, criminal charges for possession of small amounts of marijuana, or have made various marijuana offenses the lowest priority for law enforcement. In the 1990s many places began to legalize medical marijuana, which conflicts with federal laws, as marijuana is a Schedule I drug according to the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, which classified marijuana as having high potential for abuse, no medical use, and not safe to use under medical supervision. Multiple efforts to reschedule marijuana have failed and the United States Supreme Court has ruled in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop and Gonzales v. Raich that the federal government has a right to regulate and criminalize marijuana, even for medical purposes.
Pre-criminalization
(1700s—1800s)
In the 17th century hemp
was encouraged by the government in the production of rope,
sails, and clothing; however, hemp use declined in the late
eighteenth century. In the late nineteenth century,
marijuana became a common ingredient in medicine and was
openly sold at pharmacies.[3]
Criminalization (1900s)
- See also: Prohibition
in the United States
The first significant instance of marijuana regulation
appeared in District
of Columbia in 1906.[4]
Regulations of marijuana, the word Indian Hemp is
sometimes used, followed in Massachusetts in 1911; Maine,
California, Texas, Wyoming and Indiana in 1913; New York
City in 1914; Utah and Vermont in 1915; Colorado and Nevada
in 1917. These laws were passed not due to any widespread
use or concern about cannabis, but as regulatory initiatives
to discourage future use.[5][6]
Indian hemp regulation (1925)
In 1925 United
States supported regulation of Indian hemp, also
known as hashish,
in the International
Opium Convention.[7]
The convention banned exportation of Indian hemp and
the preparations derived therefrom to countries that have
prohibited its use, and requiring importing countries to
issue certificates approving the importation and stating
that the shipment was required "exclusively for medical
or scientific purposes". The convention did not ban
trade with fibers and other similar products from European
hemp, high growing varieties of hemp from Europe
traditionally grown in United States for production of
fibers with low content of THC
Uniform State Narcotic Act
(1925-1932)
The Uniform State Narcotic Act, first tentative
draft in 1925 and fifth final version in 1932, was a result
of work by The National Conference of Commissioners on
Uniform State Laws. It was argued that the traffic in
narcotic drugs should have the same safeguards and the same
regulation in all of the states. The committee took into
consideration the fact that the federal government had
already passed The Harrison Act in 1914 and The
Federal Import and Export Act in 1922. Many persons
assumed that the Harrison Act was all that was necessary.
The Harrison Act, however, was a revenue-producing act, and
while it provided penalties for violation, it did not give
the states themselves authority to exercise police power in
regard to seizure of drugs used in illicit trade, or in
regard to punishment of those responsible therefor. The act
was recommended to the states for that purpose.[8]
As a result of the Uniform State Narcotic Act the Federal
Bureau of Narcotics encouraged state governments to
adopt it. In the middle of 1930s had all member states some
regulation of cannabis.[9][10][11]
Federal Bureau of
Narcotics (1930)
FBN
public service announcement used in the late 1930s and
1940s
The use of cannabis and other drugs came under increasing
scrutiny after the formation of the Federal
Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) in 1930[12],
headed by Harry
J. Anslinger as part of the government's broader push to
outlaw all drugs.
- "When the present administration took office ten
countries had ratified the Geneva Narcotic Limitation
Convention. The United States was one of these ten....
It was my privilege, as President, to proclaim, on that
day, that this treaty had become effective throughout
the jurisdiction of the United States....On Jan. 1,
1933, only nine nations had registered their
ratification of the limitation treaty. On Jan. 1, 1935 ,
only nine States had adopted the uniform State statute.
As 1933 witnessed ratification of the treaty by
thirty-one additional nations, so may 1935 witness the
adoption of the uniform drug act by at least thirty-one
more states, thereby placing interstate accord abreast
of international accord, to the honor of the legislative
bodies of our States and for the promotion of the
welfare of our people and the peoples of other
lands." (Franklin
D. Roosevelt, March 1935 in a radio message read by United
States Attorney General, Homer
Stille Cummings )[13]
Anslinger claimed marijuana caused people to commit
violent crime, act irrational, and act overly sexual. The
FBN produced propaganda films promoting Anslinger's views
and Anslinger often commented to the press regarding his
views on marijuana.
The 1936 Geneva Trafficking
Convention
In 1936, the Convention
for the Suppression of the Illicit Traffic in Dangerous
Drugs (1936 Trafficking Convention) was concluded in
Geneva. The U.S., led by Anslinger, had attempted to include
in the treaty the criminalization of all activities –
cultivation, production, manufacture and distribution –
related to the use of opium, coca (and its derivatives) and
cannabis for non-medical and non-scientific purposes. Many
countries opposed this and the focus remained on illicit
trafficking. Article 2 of the Convention called upon
signatory countries to use their national criminal law
systems to "severely" punish, "particularly
by imprisonment or other penalties of deprivation of
liberty," acts directly related to drug trafficking.
The U.S. refused to sign the final version because it
considered the Convention too weak, especially in relation
to extradition, extraterritoriality and the confiscation of
trafficking profits. [14]
Marihuana Tax Act (1937)
Tax stamp for a producer of marijuana
The 1937
Marihuana Tax Act made possession or transfer of
marijuana illegal throughout the United
States under federal
law, excluding medical and industrial uses, in which an
expensive excise
tax was required. Annual fees for the tax were $24 ($337
adjusted for inflation) for importers, manufacturers, and
cultivators of marijuana, $1 annually ($14 adjusted for
inflation) for medical and research purposes, and $3
annually ($42 adjusted for inflation) for industrial uses.
Detailed marijuana sale logs were required to keep record of
marijuana sales. Selling marijuana to any person who has
previously paid the tax is $1 per ounce or fraction thereof;
however, it is $100 ($1,406 adjusted for inflation) per
ounce or fraction thereof to sell any person who has not
registered and paid the special tax.[15]
The American
Medical Association (AMA) opposed the act because the
tax was imposed on physicians prescribing marijuana, retail
pharmacists selling marijuana, and medical marijuana cultivation/manufacturing;
instead of enacting the Marihuana Tax Act, the AMA proposed
marijuana be added to the Harrison
Narcotics Tax Act.[16]
New York Mayor Fiorello
LaGuardia who was a strong opponent of the 1937
Marihuana Tax Act started the LaGuardia
Commission that in 1944 contradicted the earlier reports
of addiction, madness, and overt sexuality.[3]
In 1969, the case of Leary
v. United States found the Marihuana Tax Act to be
unconstitutional since it violated the Fifth
Amendment.[17]
In response, Congress
passed the Controlled
Substances Act as Title II of the Comprehensive
Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, which
repealed the Marihuana Tax Act.[18]
DuPont, William Randolph
Hearst and hemp
The decision of the United
States Congress to pass the 1937
Marihuana Tax Act was based on hearings[2],
reports[19]
and in part on testimony derived from articles in newspapers
owned by William
Randolph Hearst, who had significant financial interests
in the timber
industry, which manufactured his newsprint.[20]
Marijuana activist Jack
Herer has researched DuPont
and in his 1985 book The Emperor Wears No Clothes,
Herer concluded Dupont played a large role in the criminalization
of cannabis. In 1938, DuPont patented
the processes for creating plastics from coal and oil and a
new process for creating paper from wood pulp. If hemp would
have been largely exploited, Herer believes it would have
likely been used to make paper and plastic (nylon)
, and may have hurt DuPont’s profits. Andrew
Mellon of the Mellon
Bank was DuPont's chief financial backer and was also
the Secretary
of Treasury under the Hoover
administration. Mellon appointed Harry
J. Anslinger, who later became his nephew-in-law, as the
head of the Bureau
of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (FBNDD) and the Federal
Bureau of Narcotics (FBN), where Anslinger stayed until
1962.[21]
In 1916, United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) chief scientists
Jason L. Merrill and Lyster H. Dewe created paper made from
hemp pulp, which they concluded was "favorable in
comparison with those used with pulp wood in USDA Bulletin
No. 404."[22]
Jack
Herer, in the book "The Emperor Wears No
Clothes" summarized the findings of Bulletin No. 404:[23]
- USDA Bulletin No. 404, reported that one acre of hemp,
in annual rotation over a 20-year period, would produce
as much pulp for paper as 4.1 acres of trees being cut
down over the same 20-year period. This process would
use only 1/4 to 1/7 as much polluting sulfur-based acid
chemicals to break down the glue-like lignin that binds
the fibers of the pulp, or even none at all using soda
ash. The problem of dioxin contamination of rivers is
avoided in the hemp paper making process, which does not
need to use chlorine bleach (as the wood pulp paper
making process requires) but instead safely substitutes
hydrogen peroxide in the bleaching process. ... If the
new (1916) hemp pulp paper process were legal today, it
would soon replace about 70% of all wood pulp paper,
including computer printout paper, corrugated boxes and
paper bags.
Hemp
was a relatively easy target because factories already had
made large investments in equipment to handle cotton, wool,
and linen, but there were relatively small investments in
hemp production. Big technological improvements in the wood
pulp industry was invented in the 1930s, for example the
recovery
boiler, and other improvements came later. So, there is
a niche market for hemp paper, but the cost of hemp pulp is
approximately six times that of wood pulp,[24]
There was also a misconception hemp had an intoxicating
effect because it has the same active substance, THC,
which is in potent marijuana strains; however, hemp only has
minimal amount of THC when compared to recreational
marijuana strains.
An alternative explanation for Anslingers
opinion's about hemp is that he believed that a tax on
marijuana could be easier to supervise if it included hemp
and that he had reports from experiments with mechanical
harvesting of hemp reporting that the machines was no
success and reports about marijuana farms[25]
- "The existence of the old 1934-1935 crop of
harvested hemp on the fields of southern Minnesota is a
menace to society in that it is being used by
traffickers in marihuana as a source of supply "[26]
- "they were able to cut only a part of the Tribune
Farm crop by machine, two thirds of it they did by hand
with a sharp hand cuttertuff".[27]
An argument for the alternative theory is that hemp was
not an alternative as material in the new commercial
products from DuPont using oil or coal as raw material, the
nylon-bristled toothbrush (1938) followed more famously by
women's “nylons”
stockings (1940). Nylon was intended to be a synthetic
replacement for silk not hemp.
Mandatory sentencing
(1952, 1956)
Mandatory
sentencing and increased punishment were enacted when
the United
States Congress passed the Boggs Act of 1952 and the
Narcotics Control Act of 1956. The acts made a first time
marijuana possession offense a minimum of two to ten years
with a fine up to $20,000; however, in 1970, the United
States Congress repealed mandatory penalties for
marijuana offenses.[3]
Reorganization (1968, 1973)
In 1968, the United States Department
of the Treasury subsidiary Bureau
of Narcotics and the United
States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
subsidiary Bureau
of Drug Abuse Control merged to create the Bureau
of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs as a United
States Department of Justice subsidiary.
In 1973, President Richard
Nixon's "Reorganization Plan Number Two"
proposed the creation of a single federal agency to enforce
federal drug laws and Congress
accepted the proposal, as there was concern regarding the
growing availability of drugs.[28]
As a result, on July 1, 1973, the Bureau
of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD) and the Office
of Drug Abuse Law Enforcement (ODALE) merged together to
create the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA).[3]
On December
1, 1975
the Supreme Court ruled that it was "not cruel or
unusual for Ohio to sentence someone to 20 years for having
or selling marijuana. Ohio reduces max. sentence to 15
years."[29]
Mandatory sentencing and
three-strikes (1984, 1986)
During the Reagan
Administration the Sentencing Reform Act provisions of
the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 created the
Sentencing Commission, which established mandatory
sentencing guidelines.[30]
The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 reinstated mandatory prison
sentences, including large scale marijuana distribution.[31]
Later an amendment created a three-strikes
law, which created mandatory life sentences for repeat
drug offenders and allowed the death
penalty to be used against "drug kingpins."[3]
United States v. Oakland
Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative (2001)
In 1996, California
passed Proposition
215, which legalized medical
marijuana. The Oakland
Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, an organization overseen
by the city of Oakland,
was created to "provide seriously ill patients with a
safe and reliable source of medical cannabis information and
patient support" in accordance with Proposition 215.
In January 1998, the U.S. Government sued Oakland
Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative for violating federal
laws created as a result of Controlled
Substances Act of 1970. On May
14, 2001,
the United
States Supreme Court ruled in United
States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop that federal
anti-drug laws do not permit an exception for medical
marijuana and rejected the common-law medical necessity
defense to crimes enacted under the Controlled Substances
Act because Congress
concluded marijuana has "no currently accepted medical
use" when the act was passed in 1970.
Gonzales v. Raich (2005)
-
Gonzales
v. Raich ruled in a 6-3 decision that the Commerce
Clause of the United
States Constitution allowed the federal government to
ban the use of marijuana, including medical use. The court
found the federal law valid, although the marijuana in
question had been grown and consumed within a single state,
and had never entered interstate commerce. Congress may ban
the use of cannabis even where states approve its use for
medicinal purposes. So, text or maps about areas in U.S that
have legalized marijuana is misinformation if they do not
inform that marijuana is restricted by federal law.
Decriminalization
(1970s—2000s)
Medical use
Marijuana fluid extract medicine bottle from 1906
In 1978, Robert Randall sued the federal government for
arresting him for using marijuana to treat his glaucoma.
The judge ruled Randall needed marijuana for medical
purposes and required the Food
and Drug Administration set up a program to grow
marijuana on a farm at the University
of Mississippi and to distribute 300 marijuana
cigarettes a month to Randall. In 1992, George
H. W. Bush discontinued the program after Randall tried
to make AIDS
patients eligible for the program. At the time, thirteen
people were already enrolled and were allowed to continue
receiving marijuana cigarettes; today the government still
ships marijuana cigarettes to seven persons. Irvin
Rosenfeld, who became eligible to receive marijuana from the
program in 1982 to treat rare bone tumors, has urged the George
W. Bush administration to reopen the program; however,
he has been unsuccessful.[32]
In 1996, California passed the Compassionate
Use Act, which decriminalized medical
marijuana by enacting laws that allow regulated
marijuana consumption, possession, cultivation, and
distribution for medicinal use; since then twelve states
have enacted similar laws.[33]
As a result of the court rulings of United
States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative and Gonzales
v. Raich, and the classification of marijuana as a Schedule
I drug, the Federal government does not permit marijuana
to be used medically; the DEA
has taken an active stance against medical marijuana and
often raids marijuana dispensories.[34]
In 1972, 1995, and 2002, petitions for marijuana
rescheduling in the United States were filed to remove
marijuana from the "Schedule I" category of
tightly-restricted drugs that have no medical use, as the Controlled
Substance Act allows the executive branch to
decriminalize medical and recreational use of marijuana
without any action by Congress depending on the findings of
the Secretary of the United
States Department of Health and Human Services on
certain scientific and medical issues specified by the Act.[35]
Restrictions on medical use by
state
- California
- On November 5, 1996 56% of voters approved Proposition
215. The law removes state-level criminal penalties on
the use, possession and cultivation of marijuana by
patients who possess a "written or oral
recommendation" from their physician that he or she
"would benefit from medical marijuana."
Patients diagnosed with any illness where the medical
use of marijuana has been "deemed appropriate and
has been recommended by a physician" are provided
with legal protection under this act. Conditions
typically covered by the law include: arthritis;
cachexia; cancer; chronic pain; HIV or AIDS; epilepsy;
migraine; and multiple sclerosis. No regulations
regarding the amount of marijuana patients may possess
and/or cultivate were provided by this act, though the
California Legislature adopted guidelines in 2003.[36]
In practice, as certain doctors will prescribe marijuana
for any condition, the drug is essentially
decriminalized for those who can afford to obtain the
paperwork.[37]
- Nevada
- On November 7, 2000 65% of voters approved Question 9.
The law, which removes state-level criminal penalties on
the use, possession and cultivation of marijuana by
patients who have “written documentation” from a
licensed physician, took effect on October 1, 2001.
Patients diagnosed with the following illnesses can
obtain a medical card: AIDS; cancer; glaucoma; and
any medical condition or treatment to a medical
condition that produces cachexia, persistent muscle
spasms or seizures, severe nausea or pain. Other
conditions are subject to approval by the health
division of the state Department of Human Resources.
Once a medical marijuana card is obtained patients may
legally possess no more than one ounce of usable
marijuana, and may grow no more than seven marijuana
plants. The law establishes a state-run patient registry
that issues identification cards to qualifying patients.
Patients who do not join the registry or possess greater
amounts of marijuana than allowed by law are subject to
arrest on marijuana charges.[38]
- Oregon
- On November 3, 1998 55% of voters approved Measure 67.
The law, wich took effect on December 3, 1998, removes
state-level criminal penalties on the use, possession
and cultivation of marijuana. Patients are required to
possess a signed recommendation from their physician
stating that marijuana may help alliviate his or her
symptoms. Patients diagnosed with the following
illnesses are given legal protection under this act: cachexia;
cancer; chronic pain; epilepsy and other disorders
characterized by seizures; glaucoma; HIV or AIDS;
multiple sclerosis and other disorders characterized by
muscle spasticity; and nausea. Other conditions are
subject to approval by the Health Division of the Oregon
Department of Human Resources. Patients may legally
possess no more than three ounces of marijuana, and may
grow no more than seven marijuana plants. The law
establishes a state-run patient registry that issues
identification cards to qualifying patients. Patients
who do not join the registry or possess greater amounts
of marijuana than allowed by law may be subject to
arrest on marijuana charges.[39]
- Washington
- On November 3, 1998 59% of voters approved Measure
692. The law removes state-level criminal penalties on
the use, possession and cultivation of marijuana. Valid
documentation from a physician affirming that the
patient suffers from a medical condition and that the
"potential benefits of the medical use of marijuana
would likely outweigh the health risks" is
required. Patients diagnosed with the following
illnesses are given legal protection under this act: cachexia;
cancer; HIV or AIDS; epilepsy; glaucoma; and multiple
sclerosis. Other conditions are subject to approval
by the Washington Board of Health. Patients may legally
possess or grow no more than a 60-day supply of
marijuana.[40]
These votings have however, as mentioned above, today no
effect on federal laws that criminalize use of marijuana.
Non-medical use
- See also: Places
that have decriminalized marijuana in the United States
After the 1960s, a time characterized by widespread use
of marijuana
as a recreational drug,[3]
a wave of legislation in America
sought to reduce the penalties for the simple possession of
marijuana, making it punishable by confiscation
and/or a fine
rather than imprisonment.
Some of the first examples of decriminalization in drug
policy were found in Alabama,
when state judges decided to no longer impose five year
mandatory minimum sentences for small possession (one
marijuana cigarette); Missouri,
when their legislature reformed statutes that made second
possession offenses no longer punishable by life in prison;
and in Georgia,
when that state revised second sale offenses to minors no
longer punishable by death.[citation
needed]
In 1970, the United
States Congress repealed mandatory penalties for
marijuana offenses and The Comprehensive Drug Abuse
Prevention and Control Act separated marijuana from other
illicit narcotics and removed mandatory sentences for
possession of small amounts of marijuana.[3]
In 1972 President Richard Nixon commissioned a
comprehensive study from the National
Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse. The Commission
found that the constitutionality of marijuana prohibition
was suspect, and that the executive and legislative branches
had a responsibility to obey the Constitution, even in the
absence of a court ruling to do so. The Richard
Nixon administration did not implement the study's
recommendations. However, the report has frequently been
cited by individuals supporting cannabis rescheduling in the
United States.[citation
needed] (View
Report)
In 1973 Oregon
decriminalized marijuana[41]
and Colorado,
Alaska,
Ohio,
and California
followed suit in 1975. By 1978, Mississippi,
North
Carolina, New
York, and Nebraska
had some form of marijuana decriminalization.[citation
needed] In 2001, Nevada
reduced marijuana possession from a felony
offense to a misdemeanor,
but only for adults age 21 and older, with other
restrictions.[42]
Starting in the 1970s, multiple states, counties, and
cities decriminalized
marijuana for non-medical
purposes. While many states, counties, and cities have
partially decriminalized marijuana, on November
3, 2004,
Oakland
passed Proposition
Z, and became the first place to fully decriminalize
marijuana to allow the licensing, taxing, and regulation of
marijuana sales if California
law is amended to allow so. (see Places
that have decriminalized marijuana in the United States
for further information).
A recent vote of 54% to 46% in Denver has voted to
legalize the possession of up to an ounce of marijuana,
although this does not overrule federal laws and one may
still be arrested for it, and it only applies to people age
21 and older.
Drug courts
Drug
courts are fast growing in number. The first started in
1989; 2140 drug courts were in operation May 2008, with
another 284 being planned or developed.[43]
They offer offenders charged with less-serious crimes of
being under the influence, possession of a controlled
substance, or even drug-using offenders charged with a
non-drug related crime the option of entering the drug court
system in lieu of serving a jail sentence. Offenders will
have to plead guilty to the charge, agree to take part in
treatment, regular drug screenings, and regular reporting to
the drug court judge for a minimum of one year. Should the
offender fail to comply with one or more of the requirements
they may be removed from the drug court and incarcerated at
the judge's discretion. If they complete the drug court
program the charges brought against them are dropped or
reduced.
References
- ^
Richard
J. Bonnie & Charles H. Whitebread, II: PASSAGE OF
THE UNIFORM NARCOTIC DRUG ACT
- ^ a
b
The
Marihuana Tax Act
- ^ a
b
c
d
e
f
g
Marijuana
Timeline. Public
Broadcasting Service. Retrieved on 2007-04-23.
- ^
STATEMENT
OF DR. WILLIAM C. WOODWARD
- ^
Richard
J. Bonnie* & Charles H. Whitebread, II*
- ^
The
Origins of California's 1913 Cannabis Law
- ^
W.W.
WILLOUGHBY: OPIUM AS AN INTERNATIONAL PROBLEM,
BALTIMORE, THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS, 1925
- ^
ANSLINGER
H. J.,TOMPKINS W F THE TRAFFIC IN NARCOTIC
- ^
Keel, Robert. Drug
Law Timeline, Significant Events in the History of our
Drug Laws. Schaffer
Library of Drug Policy. Retrieved on 2007-04-24.
- ^
The
Marihuana Tax Act of 1937,Transcripts of Congressional
Hearings
- ^
ANSLINGER
H. J.,TOMPKINS W F THE TRAFFIC IN NARCOTIC, ch 6, 1953
- ^
Records
of the Drug Enforcement Administration [DEA]
- ^
ROOSEVELT
ASKS NARCOTIC WAR AID, 1935
- ^
Jay
Sinha, Law and Government Division: THE HISTORY AND
DEVELOPMENT OF THE LEADING INTERNATIONAL DRUG CONTROL
CONVENTIONS
- ^
Full
Text of the Marihuana Tax Act as passed in 1937. Schaffer
Library of Drug Policy. Retrieved on 2007-05-15.
- ^
Statement
of Dr. William C. Woodward, Legislative Counsel,
American Medical Association. Retrieved on 2006-03-25.
- ^
Timothy
Leary v. US, Supreme Court of the United States, 1969
- ^
Pub. L. No. 91-513, 84 Stat. 1236 (Oct. 27, 1970).
- ^
The
Marihuana Tax Act, Reports
- ^
Additional
Statement of H.J. Anslinger, Commissioner of Narcotics.
Retrieved on 2006-03-25.
- ^
The
Emperor Wears No Clothes, Chapter 4. Retrieved on 2006-10-21.
- ^
Dewey and Merrill, U.S.D.A. Bulletin No. 404,
Washington, D.C., October 14, 1916. Page 25
- ^
The
Emperor Wears No Clothes. www.jackherer.com/.
Retrieved on 2007-04-02.
- ^
Gertjan
van Roekel jr.:Hemp Pulp and Paper Production
- ^
MARIHUANA
FARM FOUND IN MARYLAND, New York Times 1936
- ^
REPORT
OF SURVEY COMMERCIALIZED HEMP (1934-35 CROP)
- ^
Letter
from Elizabeth Bass - November 5, 1936
- ^
History
of the DEA: 1970 - 1975. www.deamuseum.org.
Retrieved on 2007-04-30.
- ^
Supreme
Court / Marijuana / Busing / Speedy Trial NBC News
broadcast from the Vanderbilt Television News Archive
- ^
An
Overview of the United States Sentencing Commission.
United
States Department of State. Retrieved on 2007-04-30.
- ^
1985
- 1990. Drug
Enforcement Administration. Retrieved on 2007-04-30.
- ^
Koch, Wendy. "Court's
pot ruling won't apply to patients in federal program",
USA
Today, 2005-06-07.
Retrieved on 2007-05-02.
- ^
State
Medical Marijuana Laws. Retrieved on 2007-04-12.
- ^
Klausner, Manuel. "Opinion:Let
them have their pot", Los
Angeles Times, January
26, 2006.
Retrieved on 2007-05-12.
- ^
http://www.millionmarijuanamarch.com/mmm1_047.htm.
www.millionmarijuanamarch.com/mmm1_047.htm.
- ^
State
by State Laws (HTML). Retrieved on 2008-05-07.
- ^
Stein, Joel (2008-05-09).
This
bud's for you, and you, and you too: How I got my
hands on some marijuana -- the legal (and easy) way.
Los Angeles Times.
- ^
State
by State Laws (HTML). Retrieved on 2008-05-07.
- ^
State
by State Laws (HTML). Retrieved on 2008-05-07.
- ^
State
by State Laws (HTML). Retrieved on 2008-05-07.
- ^
McVeigh, Frank J. Brief History of Social Problems:
a critical thinking approach, 2004. Page 62.
- ^
Harrison, Ann. "Capitol
Hill's cannabis catch-up? Medical marijuana ruling
puts spotlight on pending legislation", San
Francisco Bay Guardian, 2001-06-05.
Retrieved on 2007-04-24.
- ^
Drug
courts