July 13, 2009
America's Love-Hate History with Pot
With a New CBS News Poll Finding 41% Now Support Legalization, CBSNews.com Examines Changing Views of Marijuana in the U.S.
-
Play CBS Video Video Politics of Pot Highlights of Presidents and Presidential Candidates addressing the marijuana question.
-
Video CBS Reports: Marijuana In 1968, Mike Wallace's report on the controversy surrounding marijuana looked at the significant increase in use and drug-related arrests.
-
(CBS/iStockPhoto)
Norm Stamper still remembers the day, nearly six decades ago, when a police detective visited his elementary school class to warn of the dangers of smoking the "devil weed."
"That was the term he used -- and he even brought along a bag of marijuana to show us," said Stamper, 65, who would later become Seattle's police chief. "I remember him saying something to the effect that, 'If you smoke this, it will rot the membrane in your nose.' He was an authority figure, and so I figured he could tell me something about the dangers of this drug. That was my early education about marijuana."
By today's standards, such a warning might sound as dated as the bug-eyed, morally-depraved pot fiends portrayed in the 1936 movie Reefer Madness.
But it was in line with the prevailing view of the 1950s, which considered marijuana to be not just a dangerous drug, but a stepping stone to the use of heroin or even more dangerous controlled substances. In 1979, 27 percent of Americans favored legalization, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll at the time.
A new CBS News poll released today finds that more Americans now support legalization. Forty-one percent said they think marijuana should be made legal and 52 percent are opposed. That's even more than in a CBS News poll in March when 31 percent said they were in favor of legalization in all cases with another seven percent saying they would favor legalization if marijuana were taxed and the money went to projects. (Read more from the poll.)
"They told us that marijuana was a gateway drug," said Stamper, who these days is a speaker for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. "It was not."
The story of how a child of the post-war era came to doubt, and then reject, conventional wisdom about the horrors of the "devil weed" parallels the story about how the rest of America has gradually rethought its views of marijuana. The transformation has been intertwined with the rise of the Baby Boom generation and its successors, the societal upheaval of the 1960s and 1970s, and a generational shift that chipped away at long-held assumptions about trust and authority.
Today the potent smell of marijuana legalization is in the air. States including California and New Mexico -- and, as of mid-June, Rhode Island -- already permit marijuana's use for medicinal purposes. The success of those initiatives, coupled with an economic downturn, a president who did inhale and governors who are willing to discuss complete legalization, make it seem possible that legal bans on recreational use of marijuana will, in the not-so-distant future, go up in smoke.
Smoke or Fire: How Pot Got Banned
By historical standards, today's federal ban on possession of marijuana may eventually be viewed as something of an aberration. There's evidence that the intoxicating properties of cannabis were known to Chinese physicians about 2,000 years ago. And for the first few hundred years after colonies were established on Jamestown and Plymouth Rock, the possession of intoxicants was not forbidden.
That began to change about 100 years ago. In response to worries about opium addicts, the International Opium Convention was held in 1909, which led to a drug-control treaty signed three years later by the major nations at the time, including the United States.
The domestic political debate over opiates had unmistakable racist overtones. A 1914 headline in the New York Times said "Negro Cocaine 'Fiends' Are A New Southern Menace; Murder And Insanity Increasing Among Lower Class Blacks Because They Have Taken To 'Sniffing' Since Deprived Of Whisky By Prohibition." Another article about a black man who was lynched refers to him as a "cocaine fiend"; another says that "opium, the most pernicious drug known to humanity, is surrounded, in this country, with far fewer safeguards than any nation in all Europe fences it with."
Congress enacted a law known as the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914, which regulated cocaine and opiates. Because that era coincided with a robust view of states' rights, the federal law did not seek to prohibit the private possession of pot directly. Such a measure probably would have experienced a swift demise at the hands of the judicial system at the time. So the Harrison Act's drafters took a more circuitous approach: they imposed stiff taxes.
Cannabis was believed to be a narcotic having practically the same effect as morphine and cocaine, and state restrictions began sprouting like weeds.
Some western states seem to have restricted it out of hostility to Mexican immigrants; a Chicago Tribune article from 1919 called cannabis "a weed of the Mexican desert." During the debate on Texas' first marijuana law,
That was not an isolated sentiment. In a letter to the Bureau of Narcotics, Floyd Baskette, then the city editor of The Alamosa Daily Courier in Colorado, complained in 1936 about felons arrested while under the influence of marijuana.
"I wish I could show you what a small marijuana cigarette can do to one of our degenerate Spanish-speaking residents," he wrote. "That's why our problem is so great; the greatest percentage of our population is composed of Spanish-speaking persons, most of who are low mentally, because of social and racial conditions..."
Other states and cities -- including New York City in 1914 -- outlawed pot for fear it was, or would become, a gateway drug leading to the use of opium or cocaine.
The Legal War Over the Weed
One year after the filming of "Reefer Madness," Congress enacted a law restricting the use of marijuana, cannabis or hemp. While it was a tax bill that did not officially ban pot, the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was the first step toward a complete federal prohibition. (note: "Marihuana" was the spelling used in 1937)
The net effect of this Prohibition-era provision was to deter -- and stigmatize --recreational use of these substances for more than the next couple of generations. The Marihuana Tax Act is perhaps most remembered for the controversial testimony supporting its passage.
One of its chief proponents, Harry J. Anslinger, then the Commissioner of Narcotics for the Treasury Department, offered testimony depicting marijuana in stark terms.
"Some individuals have a complete loss of sense of time or a sense of value," Anslinger said. "They lose their sense of place. They have an increased feeling of physical strength and power. Some people will fly into a delirious rage and they are temporarily irresponsible and may commit violent crimes... It is dangerous to the mind and body, and particularly dangerous to the criminal type, because it releases all of the inhibitions."
At the time, there were more than two dozen medicinal products on the market which contained marijuana. In the new political climate, replete with warnings from the federal government, they didn't last long.
© MMIX, CBS Interactive, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
More From U.S.
Add a Comment See all 296 Comments
- Trying to LEGALIZE this DRUG.......That you SMoke or shoot up...But NI SMOKING CIGARETTES...hmmmmmmmmmmm Talk about an UPSIDE DOWN COUNTRY....
- Reply to this comment
- Hey weeds good Like ALCOHOL right ? Just dont SMOKE CIGARETTES the PASSIVE SMOKE KILLS EVERYONE right ????? WRONG
- Reply to this comment
- Who hates weed?
Only people who have never tried it.
People who have smoked it know it's no threat to society.
And it's a shame our industries can't utilize its many great properties.
God knows it's much, much safer than alcohol. - Reply to this comment
- You know it is quite hilarious, how the people who do market a product that surpasses gold in price ounce for ounce,along with the federal government do not want prohibition to end either. Why is that?
1.)Prohibition WILL NEVER WORK.
2.) The government doesn't want to hurt the big bucks from pharmecuetical companies that are so afraid of a plant giving so many resources in the terms of medicine. "Oh no son nature cannot provide for you the fine quality of drugs we have here at pfizer. We have degrees and lobbyist, that "devil weed" uses a deadly concoction of photosynthesis.
3.) If prohibition ended thats money out of their pocket. growers trying to compete with factories turning out perfectly rolled J's. Oh no let the madness continue (haha, price goes up.) and whom do you think puts that kind of power into the business...it is a direct decent from you guessed it the prohibition of marijuana via the U.S. Government. The Government are the ones who create ANY violence or criminal action surrounding cannabis, NOT THE FLOWERING PLANT CALLED MARIJUANA.
4.)Because the Federal government has wasted so much money portraying these fabricated lies about Cannabis that it just simply could not go against that.
NOTE:Government of the United States...YOU ARE WRONG!!! - Reply to this comment
- The Last Word
By John Silveira
Backwoods Home Magazine
www.backwoodshome.com
Let prisoners get high on marijuana
Anyone who reads this column knows I don?t think drugs should be illegal. I?m not saying I want to take them, because I don?t. I?m just saying that what you want to do with your own body is your own business and not the state?s nor your neighbor?s. The primary reason the United States imprisons a greater proportion of its own citizens than any other is because of drug laws. Make most, if not all, drugs legal and the prisons will empty out. In fact, the price of drugs will plunge so far that you won?t have to steal to buy an ?eighth? of weed any more than you have to rob or burgle to buy a six-pack of beer.
Speaking of prisons, I?ve been watching documentaries on The History Channel, National Geographic, and others about American prisons and prisoners. Prisons are very violent places. I wouldn?t want to be in one, not as a guard, not as an inmate. Then it suddenly dawned on me what the solution to prison violence could be: Let those who are incarcerated smoke marijuana, as in weed, pot, grass, maryjane, cannabis, etc. Let ?em smoke as much as they want. All day! Twenty years? Hey, do the time calmly. What do we care. Let ?em grow it in their cells.
What would a prison full of pot smokers be like? As many others have pointed out, when some guy?s about to rob a bank, beat his wife, or steal a car, the drug he?s going to take is a drink of alcohol, not a puff of pot. A puff of pot and all the plans go up in smoke. Stoners I?ve known want to socialize, not victimize. Inmates will be sitting around ?zoning??moving slowly, talking slowly. Many will just want to sleep.
The story of Clyde, the poker player
When I was young and playing lots of poker, drunks were tolerated in the game as long as they didn?t slow it down. Drunks lost their money. But stoners? I hated them at the table. They couldn?t lose their money fast enough to make up for the time they wasted. All they wanted to do was talk, socialize, or stare off into space. They couldn?t focus on the business at hand. Everything slowed down. I figured in the games I ran, hands were dealt at about 20 to 30 hands per hour. More hands meant more money for me. But one stoner in the game slowed it to about seven hands an hour?one hand every 8½ minutes. It killed my hourly earnings.
One guy who frequented our game often showed up stoned. Each time the action came around to him he had to have everything explained to him again.
?Your bet, Clyde ....Clyde, your bet ...CLYDE!?
?Huh??
?Your bet.?
Who?s in??
I?d patiently explain to him what each player had done before him?who had checked, bet, called, folded, or raised. He?d stare at his hand for several seconds, examine his cards carefully, then he?d ask, ?What?s the game??
I?d tell him.
?Who bet??
Again, I?d go through who had checked, bet, called, folded, or raised. He?d call, then resume socializing or staring.
There?d be cards drawn, or another stud card dealt, or a community card flopped, and then the next betting round of the hand began. The action would get back to him, and I?d say, ?Clyde, your bet ...Clyde ...CLYDE!?
?What?s up, man??
?The bet?s to you.?
He?d look around the table. ?Who bet??
I?d take a deep breath and go through the entire process once more. I?d even have to tell him, again, what the game was. Too many games of seven stud, with all of its betting rounds, made for a long night.
The downside is fat prisoners
In a poker game a guy like Clyde, when stoned, is exasperating. But if I were a prison guard, a warden, or especially if I were a fellow prisoner, that?s what I?d want around me or occupying the next cell?guys like Clyde. Nice, slow inmates afflicted with logorrhea.
The downside? About the only things I can think of is that prisoners would exercise less, eat more, and gain weight. So what! The food bill would be going up on far fewer inmates. And gang warfare? Stoners aren?t violent. Most would just want to socialize and satisfy the maryjane-induced munchies.
I know someone?s going to say people will be committing crimes just to go to jail for the free weed. But I don?t believe it. I don?t know anyone who?d willingly go to prison, with the exception of some who have already been in so long that they?re capable of nothing other than institutionalized lives. And even if there are some, don?t worry. As I said, decriminalize drugs and there will be plenty of room for the few who think a nice way to spend what remains of their three score and ten is in a six-by-eight concrete condo.
You think I?m joking? Irresponsible? Insane? I?m not.
Legalize marijuana and we?ll empty our prisons, and those violent people who do end up there will be more docile, making the prisons safer for both inmates and guards.
But for the love of Pete, whatever we do, let?s keep it illegal to smoke the stuff at poker games. - Reply to this comment
- I am a 49 year old man and I have chosen to use marijuana continually as an adult starting since age 9. I find that the more correct term of cannabis is seldom used. I consider it an anti-Catholic, anti-Mexican slang term which is involved with the disqualification of Americans like myself who made a 34 minute movie in high school in Pittsford, NY, in 1976, and was denied by the high school to even enter my film in a competition in Buffalo, NY, for a scholarship. I was told years later by a local friend who worked in TV, that if my film had been entered, "I would of had a house bigger than his." Although, my only intention was to facilitate a scholarship to be a film editor in Radio/TV and pay for my education. I also worked to decriminalize marijuana in NY state standing on street corners in all weather conditions, but marijuana was decriminalized on Sept. 1, 1978, upto 7/8th's of an ounce. President Jimmy Carter tried to federally decriminalize up to 2 ounces Federally unsuccesfully. Possibly this is because most American states have reclassified marijuana over time from a narcotic to a hallucinogen to, currently, a mild euphorant, however, I do not believe this is in the international language of the laws of the United Nations which are primarily involved in International traffic controls. The easy way would of been to legalize cannabis by import only ,having no production, advertisement, or resale in the US. The UK has completely decriminalized cannabis and permits full medical marijuana potential. The United States must not continue schizophrenic policies which have backed it into a corner which now must be addressed again with locality and medical cannabis compound problems. The Federal change would permit the cost of law enforcement/interdiction to be discontinued and no law enforcement agency loses when the American system continues to assert itself to its advantage. Full legalization without limit of amount which involves traffic or sale is the last option. We cannot continue this ignorance into the next century. The developing world has limited its childbirth rate and reforestation in many Middle Eastern and Eurasian states and does not need to continue the industrially and falsely societal prohibitions implaced by American Statesmen primarily since the 3rd decade of the 20th century.
- Reply to this comment
- I am a 49 year old man and I have chosen to use marijuana continually as an adult starting since age 9. I find that the more correct term of cannabis is seldom used. I consider it an anti-Catholic, anti-Mexican slang term which is involved with the disqualification of Americans like myself who made a 34 minute movie in high school in Pittsford, NY, in 1976, and was denied by the high school to even enter my film in a competition in Buffalo, NY, for a scholarship. I was told years later by a local friend who worked in TV, that if my film had been entered, "I would of had a house bigger than his." Although, my only intention was to facilitate a scholarship to be a film editor in Radio/TV and pay for my education. I also worked to decriminalize marijuana in NY state standing on street corners in all weather conditions, but marijuana was decriminalized on Sept. 1, 1978, upto 7/8th's of an ounce. President Jimmy Carter tried to federally decriminalize up to 2 ounces Federally unsuccesfully. Possibly this is because most American states have reclassified marijuana over time from a narcotic to a hallucinogen to, currently, a mild euphorant, however, I do not believe this is in the international language of the laws of the United Nations which are primarily involved in International traffic controls. The easy way would of been to legalize cannabis by import only ,having no production, advertisement, or resale in the US. The UK has completely decriminalized cannabis and permits full medical marijuana potential. The United States must not continue schizophrenic policies which have backed it into a corner which now must be addressed again with locality and medical cannabis compound problems. The Federal change would permit the cost of law enforcement/interdiction to be discontinued and no law enforcement agency loses when the American system continues to assert itself to its advantage. Full legalization without limit of amount which involves traffic or sale is the last option. We cannot continue this ignorance into the next century. The developing world has limited its childbirth rate and reforestation in many Middle Eastern and Eurasian states and does not need to continue the industrially and falsely societal prohibitions implaced by American Statesmen primarily since the 3rd decade of the 20th century.
- Reply to this comment
- You can go and drink "energy" drinks which can give you a heart attack if you drink too many. You can drink a bottle of 190 proof liquor and kill yourself or someone else. You can buy an AK-47. You can smoke cigarettes until your lungs are full of cancer. You can buy toys made in China that have lead paint. You can order a fast food meal at Burger King and clog your arteries. You can go the the doctor and get prescribed a box full of pills if you tell them all your problems.
BUT you still can't legally smoke a bong, joint, spliff, eat a brown or cookie, or use a vaporizer with cannabis.
Now you tell me what is wrong? It sure the hell isn't marijuana.
Thank you CBS for this unbiased look at cannabis.
Legalize, regulate, and CONTROL cannabis finally. - Reply to this comment
- Your survey suggest that 41% are for legalizing cannabis. Surveys depend on who you ask, a small sample of people and where you ask. Recent surveys on the west coast suggest 90-95% in favor. Another thing, some people are too affraid to admit they've even tried it and some may be affraid to admit they are in favor of legalizing it. When it comes to surveys like these the error is always going to be less in favor than actually feel that way.
Something else to consider, the demise of the family farm started with the prohibition of hemp. There we're other factors of course but between this and other government controls like subsidies have led to less families being able to keep their farms.
One more thing, go to Jack herer's site and check out his book "The Emporer Wears No Clouths". - Reply to this comment
- Oregon James...You're the MAN!
- Reply to this comment
Author Thomas Friedman on Obama's Afghanistan plan and the war on terror.
