Legality of cannabis in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Before 1937
Until 1937, consumption and sale of cannabis was legal in most U.S. states. In some areas it could be openly purchased in bulk from grocers or in cigarette form at newsstands, though an increasing number of states had begun to outlaw it. In that year, federal law made possession or transfer of cannabis without the purchase of a by-then-incriminating tax stamp illegal throughout the United States. This was contrary to the advice of the American Medical Association at the time.<ref name="Woodward">Statement of Dr. William C. Woodward, Legislative Counsel, American Medical Association. Retrieved on 2006-03-25.</ref> Legal opinions of the time held that the federal government could not outlaw it entirely. The tax was $100 per pound of hemp, even for clothes or rope. The expense, extremely high for the time, was such that people stopped openly buying and making it. The decision of the United States Congress was based 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.<ref name="News">Additional Statement of H.J. Anslinger, Commissioner of Narcotics. Retrieved on 2006-03-25.</ref>
[edit] DuPont
Some analysts theorize DuPont played a role in the criminalization of the cannabis.<ref name="The Emperor Wears No Clothes">The Emperor Wears No Clothes, Chapter 4. Retrieved on 2006-10-21.</ref> The company, suffering from declining post-war textile sales, wished to eliminate hemp fiber as competition. Many argue that this seems unlikely given DuPont's lack of concern with the legal status of cotton<ref name="DuPont vs. United States">DuPont vs. United States, 300 U.S. 150 (1937). Retrieved on 2006-10-21.</ref> , wool, and linen; although it should be noted that hemp's textile potential had not yet been largely exploited, while textile factories already had made large investments in equipment to handle cotton, wool, and linen.[citation needed] Others argue that DuPont wanted to eliminate cannabis because its high natural cellulose content made it a viable alternative to the company's developing innovation: modern plastic.[citation needed] Still others could argue that hemp could never truly compete with the high strength and elasticity of synthetics, such as nylon.[citation needed] Furthermore, hemp would have been an easy target due to the misconception of its equivalence to certain strains of cannabis having intoxicating effect, while no rational justification could have been made for outlawing cotton, wool, or linen.
[edit] Decriminalization
Image:Map-of-US-state-cannabis-laws.png
Eleven states<ref name=medprocon>State Medical Marijuana Laws. Retrieved on 2006-04-12.</ref> in the United States passed laws allowing cannabis possession and consumption for medical purposes; however, the Supreme Court of the United States in Gonzales v. Raich ruled that the listing of cannabis as a Schedule I controlled substance was constitutional, and that possession for any reason other than approved medical research was therefore illegal under federal law. This remained consistent with their ruling in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, an 8-0 decision stating that there is no exception as a Schedule I drug for people to use cannabis for medical purposes.<ref name="FindLaw USvOCBC">FindLaw U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative. Retrieved on 2006-03-25.</ref> This creates an interesting tension between state and federal laws.<ref>Pacula, R. L. Chriqui, J. F. Reichmann, D. A. Terry-McElrath, Y. M. (2002). "State Medical Marijuana Laws: Understanding the Laws and their Limitations". Journal of Public Health Policy 23 (4): 413-439. ISSN 0197-5897.</ref>
Some local and state governments have either partially decriminalized the possession of small amounts of cannabis, or simply advised local authorities to limit enforcement of controlled substance laws to more serious offenses. A 2005 initiative ordinance in Denver, Colorado, for instance, repealed municipal penalties for possession of less than one ounce of cannabis by adults twenty-one and older, though Colorado state and federal penalties remain in effect.<ref name=denver_initiative>Denver Voters Pass Key Ballot Initiatives. City and County of Denver (2005-11-03). Retrieved on 2006-09-18.</ref> A 2006 advisory policy adopted by the city of West Hollywood, California holds that the city's contracted law enforcement agency, the Los Angeles County Sheriff, should not target simple possession or private consumption of cannabis by adults within the city.<ref name=weho1>Council Considers Formal Position Regarding Marijuana Consumption and Possession. City of West Hollywood (2006-06-16). Retrieved on 2006-09-06.</ref><ref name=weho2>City Council, City of West Hollywood, Minutes, Monday, June 19, 2006. Retrieved on 2006-09-06.</ref> With the 1975 Ravin v. State decision, the Alaska Supreme Court declared the state's anti-drug law unconstitutional with respect to possession of small amounts of cannabis, holding that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Alaska state constitution outweighed the state's interest in banning the drug.<ref name=ravin_decision>Supreme Court of Alaska (1975-05-28). Ravin v. State, 537 P.2d 494 (Alaska 1975). Schaffer Library of Drug Policy.</ref> Despite a 1990 initiative statute and a 2006 legislative statute contradicting the Ravin decision, Alaska courts continue to follow Ravin, voiding laws which criminalize possession of small amounts of cannabis.<ref name="alaska">Superior Court for the State of Alaska (1993-10-29). Alaska v. McNeil. Carl E. Olsen's Marijuana Archive. Retrieved on 2006-11-07.</ref><ref name="alaska2">Sutton, Anne. "Alaska Recriminalizes Marijuana Possession", Associated Press/Officer.com, 2006-06-05. Retrieved on 2006-11-07.</ref><ref name="alaska3">Volz, Matt. "Judge Rules Against Alaska Marijuana Law", Associated Press/Seattle Times, 2006-07-11. Retrieved on 2006-11-07.</ref>
In the November 7, 2006 election, voters in Colorado, Nevada and South Dakota rejected propositions that would have legalized possession of up to one ounce of marijuana.<ref name="legalize_JURIST">Marijuana legalization measures fail in Colorado, Nevada, South Dakota (November 8, 2006). Retrieved on 2006-11-08.</ref>
[edit] See also
[edit] Notes
<references/>
