DOCSLIB.ORG

The Evolution of Popular Culture and the Legal Treatment of Marijuana

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Evolution of Popular Culture and the Legal Treatment of Marijuana The Chronic 2013: The Evolution of Popular Culture and the Legal Treatment of Marijuana November 12, 2013 Owen M. Panner Inn of Court 1906 - Pure Food and Drugs Act Requires Labeling of Medicine, Including Cannabis Label for Piso's Cure, a cannabis-based medicine, after the passage of the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act Source: antiquecannabisbook.com (accessed Dec. 12, 2011) "[O]n 30 June 1906 President Roosevelt signed the Food and Drugs Act, known simply as the Wiley Act... The basis of the law rested on the regulation of product labeling rather than pre-market approval." US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) "FDA History - Part I," FDA website (accessed Dec. 28, 2011) "An Act for preventing the manufacture, sale, or transportation of adulterated or misbranded or poisonous or deleterious foods, drugs, medicines, and liquors, and for regulating traffic therein, and for other purposes... That for the purposes of this Act an article shall also be deemed to be misbranded... if the package fail to bear a statement on the label of the quantity or proportion of any alcohol, morphine, opium, cocaine, heroin, alpha or beta eucaine, chloroform, cannabis indica, chloral hydrate, or acetanilide, or any derivative or preparation of any such substances contained therein." Pure Food and Drug Act (1906) , National Center for Biotechnology Information website, June 30, 1906 Source: http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.timeline.php?timelineID=000026 1911 - Massachusetts Becomes First State to Outlaw Cannabis "Bolstered by Progressive Era faith in big government, the 1910s marked a high tide of prohibitionist sentiment in America. In 1914 and 1916, alcohol prohibition initiatives would make the state ballot. Meanwhile, the legislature was tackling such morals issues as prostitution, racetrack gambling, prizefighting, liquor, and oral sex. Amidst this profusion of vices, Indian hemp [aka cannabis] was but a minor afterthought… states banned cannabis in the 1910s: Massachusetts in 1911; Maine, Wyoming and Indiana in 1913; New York City in 1914; Utah and Vermont in 1915; Colorado and Nevada in 1917. As in California, these laws were passed not due to any widespread use or concern about cannabis, but as regulatory initiatives to discourage future use." Dale Gieringer, PhD "The Forgotten Origins of Cannabis Prohibition in California," Contemporary Drug Problems, Summer 1999 1 230 P.3d 518 Page 23 348 Or. 159, 230 P.3d 518, 159 Lab.Cas. P 60,980, 23 A.D. Cases 1, 60 A.L.R.6th 669 (Cite as: 348 Or. 159, 230 P.3d 518) ity under the Commerce Clause. Gonzales v. Raich, As the majority recognizes, the Controlled Sub- 545 U.S. 1, 5, 125 S.Ct. 2195, 162 L.Ed.2d 1 stances Act does not include an express preemption (2005). In enacting the Oregon Medical Marijuana provision. 348 Or. at 173–75, 230 P.3d at 526–27. Act, which permits the circumscribed use of medic- It contains, instead, “a saving clause” intended to al marijuana, Oregon acted pursuant to its historic “preserve state law.” See Wyeth, 129 S.Ct. at 1196 power to define state criminal law and to protect (so construing nearly identical provision in Federal the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act). Thus, the majority Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 603, 603 n. 30, 97 should begin its analysis “with the assumption that S.Ct. 869, 51 L.Ed.2d 64 (1977); Robinson v. Cali- the historic police powers [exercised by the State of fornia, 370 U.S. 660, 664, 82 S.Ct. 1417, 8 L.Ed.2d Oregon] were not to be superseded by the Federal 758 (1962). Act * * *.” Id. at 1194–95. In enacting the Controlled Substances Act, The majority does not do so. It instead implies, Congress did not have the power to require Oregon from the federal policy choice that the Controlled to adopt, as state criminal law, the policy choices Substances Act represents, a Congressional intent represented in that federal act. Congress does not to preempt provisions of Oregon law that makes a have the power to commandeer a state's legislative different policy choice. 348 Or. at 184, 230 P.3d at processes by compelling it to enact or enforce fed- 532–33. To understand the majority's error in ap- eral laws. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, plying the “obstacle” prong of the United States Su- 149, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 120 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992). preme Court's implied preemption analysis, it is im- “[E]ven where Congress has the authority under the portant to understand the purposes and effects of Constitution to pass laws requiring or prohibiting the federal and state laws that are at issue in this certain acts, it lacks the power directly to compel case. the States to require or prohibit those acts.” Id. at 166, 112 S.Ct. 2408. Congress enacted the federal Controlled Sub- stances Act, as the majority explains, to “conquer Because it had authority to enact the Controlled drug abuse” and “control” traffic in controlled sub- Substances Act, Congress did, however, have the stances. 348 Or. at 172–73, 230 P.3d at 526. In list- power to expressly preempt state laws that conflict ing marijuana as a Schedule I drug, Congress de- with the Controlled Substances Act. A cornerstone cided that marijuana has no recognized medical of the Supreme Court's Supremacy Clause analysis use. Therefore, “Congress imposed a blanket feder- is that “[i]n all pre-emption cases, and particularly al prohibition” on the use of marijuana. 348 Or. at in those in which Congress has legislated in a field 178, 230 P.3d at 529. As noted, Congress did not which the States have traditionally occupied,” the expressly indicate, however, that states could not Court “start[s] with the assumption that the historic enact their own criminal drug laws or make differ- police powers of the States were not to be super- ent decisions about the appropriate use of seded *192 by the Federal Act unless that was the marijuana. clear and **537 manifest purpose of Congress.” Wyeth v. Levine, ––– U.S. ––––, ––––, 129 S.Ct. Oregon did in fact enact its own criminal drug 1187, 1194–95, 173 L.Ed.2d 51 (2009) (internal el- laws, including the state Uniform Controlled Sub- lipsis and quotation marks omitted). The Court re- stances Act (*193ORS 475.005 to 475.285 and lies on that presumption out of “respect for the ORS 475.840 to 475.980). That act controls and States as independent sovereigns in our federal sys- punishes, as state criminal law, the use of all sub- tem.” Id. at 1195 n. 3 (internal quotation marks stances that the federal government classifies as omitted). Schedule I drugs, including marijuana. ORS 475.840; ORS 475.856 – 475.864. Oregon also en- © 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. 230 P.3d 518 Page 28 348 Or. 159, 230 P.3d 518, 159 Lab.Cas. P 60,980, 23 A.D. Cases 1, 60 A.L.R.6th 669 (Cite as: 348 Or. 159, 230 P.3d 518) for the proposition that a state statute that permits Id. at 103, 109 S.Ct. 1661. conduct that the federal government punishes is preempted. In those cases, the federal statutes did Other Supreme Court cases also illustrate the not punish conduct; they created powers or rights. Court's refusal to imply preemption, under the The Court therefore struck down state statutes that “obstacle” prong of its implied preemption analysis, forbade, impaired or prevented exercise of those where state and federal statutes set contrary stand- powers or rights. Because the Controlled Sub- ards or pursue contrary objectives. In Silkwood v. stances Act does not create a federal power or right Kerr–McGee Corp., 464 U.S. 238, 246, 104 S.Ct. and the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act does not 615, 78 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984), a case that the court in forbid, impair, or prevent the exercise of a federal ARC America cited as authority, the jury had awar- power or right, Barnett and Michigan Canners are ded the plaintiff a judgment of $10 million in punit- inapposite. The more relevant Supreme Court cases ive damages against the defendant, a nuclear power are those that consider the circumstance that exists company. The defendant asserted that a conflict ex- when federal and state laws impose different stand- isted between the state law that permitted the judg- ards of conduct. Those cases stand for the proposi- ment and a federal law regulating nuclear power tion that states may impose standards of conduct plants, with which the defendant had complied. different from those imposed by a federal law Despite an earlier ruling that the Nuclear Regulat- ory Commission had exclusive authority to regulate without creating an obstacle to the federal law. FN5 the safety of nuclear power plants, and even In California v. ARC America Corp., 490 U.S. though the Court accepted that “there is tension 93, 109 S.Ct. 1661, 104 L.Ed.2d 86 (1989), the between the conclusion that safety regulation is the Court considered, under the “obstacle prong” of its exclusive concern of the federal law and the con- “actual conflict” implied preemption analysis, the clusion that a State may nevertheless award dam- conflict between Section 4 of the federal *200 ages based on its own law of liability,” id. at 256, Clayton Act, which authorizes only direct pur- 104 S.Ct. 615, the Court refused to invalidate the chasers to recover monopoly overcharges, and a state law. state statute, which expressly permits recovery by indirect purchasers.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Just a Little Bit of History Repeating: the California Model of Marijuana Legalization and How It Might Affect Racial and Ethnic Minorities
    Just a Little Bit of History Repeating: The California Model of Marijuana Legalization and How it Might Affect Racial and Ethnic Minorities ∗ Thomas J. Moran Table of Contents Introduction ....................................................................................... 557 I. When Marijuana Was Marihuana, the "Killer Weed" .................. 561 II. The Whitening of Marijuana ........................................................ 566 III. The Present Day Costs of Marijuana Prohibition ......................... 570 A. Generally, Marijuana Prohibition Has Not Worked .............. 570 B. The Cost of Prohibition on Minorities .................................. 573 IV. Is Legislation such as California’s Marijuana Control Act the Answer for Minority Communities? ...................................... 576 A. Productivity Concerns ........................................................... 578 B. What About Potency Regulation? ......................................... 579 C. The Money Drain from Minority Communities .................... 581 D. Federal Collateral Sanctions Would Still Exist with State Legalization .......................................................... 583 E. Will Legalization Predispose Minority Youth for Future Use? ........................................................................... 586 V. Conclusion ..................................................................................... 589 Introduction In January 2010, a California Assembly Committee passed Assembly Bill 390, entitled the Marijuana Control,
    [Show full text]
  • Qualitative Reports of Michigan Medical Marijuana David Charles Peters Wayne State University
    Wayne State University Wayne State University Dissertations 1-1-2013 Qualitative Reports Of Michigan Medical Marijuana David Charles Peters Wayne State University, Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/oa_dissertations Part of the Sociology Commons Recommended Citation Peters, David Charles, "Qualitative Reports Of Michigan Medical Marijuana" (2013). Wayne State University Dissertations. Paper 854. This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@WayneState. It has been accepted for inclusion in Wayne State University Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@WayneState. QUALITATIVE REPORTS OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENTS AND CAREGIVERS INCLUDING REDUCED OPIATE USE, DISPENSARY OPERATIONS, LEGAL CONCERNS, AND MARIJUANA STRAINS by DAVID C. PETERS II DISSERTATION Submitted to the Graduate School of Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 2013 MAJOR: SOCIOLOGY (Medical) Approved by: ________________________________ Advisor Date ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ @COPYRIGHT BY DAVID C. PETERS II 2013 All Rights Reserved DEDICATION All my work is dedicated to my wonderful children: Christopher, who grew up much too fast for this project; Andrew who was such a good little boy, playing quietly month after month, while I worked in my home office; but, especially to Katherine Joyce who left us after just five days in 2004. Katie had a very short life, but she made a difference, providing the inspiration for my return to school and showing everybody that she touched during her time on this Earth the real reason we are here: To do good works and contribute to the human condition by acquiring and disseminating knowledge, leaving a legacy of hope, and furthering the spirit of progress for our children and their children’s children.
    [Show full text]
  • Legalizing Marijuana: California's Pot of Gold?
    University of the Pacific Scholarly Commons McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles McGeorge School of Law Faculty Scholarship 2009 Legalizing Marijuana: California’s Pot of Gold? Michael Vitiello Pacific cGeM orge School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/facultyarticles Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael Vitiello, Legalizing Marijuana: California’s Pot of Gold?, 2009 Wis. L. Rev. 1349. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the McGeorge School of Law Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ESSAY LEGALIZING MARUUANA: CALIFORNIA'S POT OF GOLD? MICHAEL VITIELLO* In early 2009, a member of the California Assembly introduced a bill that would have legalized marijuana in an effort to raise tax revenue and reduce prison costs. While the bill's proponent withdrew the bill, he vowed to renew his efforts in the next term. Other prominent California officials, including Governor Schwarzenegger, have indicated their willingness to study legalization in light of California's budget shortfall. For the first time in over thirty years, politicians are giving serious consideration to a proposal to legalize marijuana. But already, the public debate has degenerated into traditional passionate advocacy, with ardent prohibitionists raising the specter of doom, and marijuana advocates promising billions of dollars in tax revenues and reduced prison costs. Rather than rehashing the old debate about legalizing marijuana, this Essay offers a balanced view of the proposal to legalize marijuana, specifically as a measure to raise revenue and to reduce prison costs.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Medical Cannabis Is Still out of Patients' Reach—An Essay by David
    BMJ 2019;365:l1903 doi: 10.1136/bmj.l1903 (Published 1 May 2019) Page 1 of 3 Feature FEATURE BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.l1903 on 1 May 2019. Downloaded from ESSAY Why medical cannabis is still out of patients’ reach—an essay by David Nutt Cannabis has been used as a medicine for millennia, writes David Nutt, who charts its relatively recent prohibition, the effect on patients such as Billy Caldwell, and the failure of legal reform to make much difference David Nutt Edmond J Safra professor of neuropsychopharmacology Imperial College London, London W12 0NN, UK Cannabis is arguably the world’s oldest medicine, with evidence This report was relied on to control cannabis under the 1961 of such use from 3000 year old tombs in Egypt and Siberia. It United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and had a place in Indian and Chinese medical writing from nearly amazingly persisted as the international medical guidance on as long ago. It didn’t enter the UK until the late 1600s, but by cannabis until 2018, being used as the justification by the World the 1800s it was widely used, sold over the counter as an Health Organization for keeping cannabis a schedule 1 http://www.bmj.com/ alcoholic tincture for problems such as tetanus and seizures. Its controlled drug till then. Even more absurdly, the 1934 report efficacy more broadly became apparent, and the definitive has been lost, so we can’t explore its evidential base or overview was published in the Lancet in 1890 by John Russell reasoning.3 1 Reynolds.
    [Show full text]
  • Up in Smoke: Removing Marijuana from Schedule I
    UP IN SMOKE (DO NOT DELETE) 4/9/2018 12:38 PM UP IN SMOKE: REMOVING MARIJUANA FROM SCHEDULE I DAVID R. KATNER* I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 167 II. DESCRIPTION OF MARIJUANA AND PUBLIC OPINION .......................... 170 III. HISTORY OF MARIJUANA USES AND LAWS IN THE U.S. AND ABROAD ......................................................................................... 174 IV. CREATION OF SCHEDULES OF DRUGS ................................................ 177 V. EVOLUTION OF MEDICINAL APPLICATIONS OF MARIJUANA ............... 178 VI. ADDICTIVE? ........................................................................................ 181 VII. DISSEMINATED PROPAGANDA ABOUT MARIJUANA, AND LEGAL ARBITRARINESS .............................................................................. 184 VIII. RESCHEDULING MARIJUANA TO SCHEDULE II ................................ 190 IX. REMOVING MARIJUANA ALTOGETHER FROM FEDERAL REGULATION .................................................................................. 195 X. CONCLUSION........................................................................................ 202 I. INTRODUCTION Billions of dollars are spent each year arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating Americans convicted of possession of cannabis or marijuana.1 During the 1970’s, annual marijuana arrests ranged between 420,000 and 500,000 people each year.2 By 1995, there were roughly 600,000 marijuana arrests nationwide, with more Americans being imprisoned
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter One: Postwar Resentment and the Invention of Middle America 10
    MIAMI UNIVERSITY The Graduate School Certificate for Approving the Dissertation We hereby approve the Dissertation of Jeffrey Christopher Bickerstaff Doctor of Philosophy ________________________________________ Timothy Melley, Director ________________________________________ C. Barry Chabot, Reader ________________________________________ Whitney Womack Smith, Reader ________________________________________ Marguerite S. Shaffer, Graduate School Representative ABSTRACT TALES FROM THE SILENT MAJORITY: CONSERVATIVE POPULISM AND THE INVENTION OF MIDDLE AMERICA by Jeffrey Christopher Bickerstaff In this dissertation I show how the conservative movement lured the white working class out of the Democratic New Deal Coalition and into the Republican Majority. I argue that this political transformation was accomplished in part by what I call the "invention" of Middle America. Using such cultural representations as mainstream print media, literature, and film, conservatives successfully exploited what came to be known as the Social Issue and constructed "Liberalism" as effeminate, impractical, and elitist. Chapter One charts the rise of conservative populism and Middle America against the backdrop of 1960s social upheaval. I stress the importance of backlash and resentment to Richard Nixon's ascendancy to the Presidency, describe strategies employed by the conservative movement to win majority status for the GOP, and explore the conflict between this goal and the will to ideological purity. In Chapter Two I read Rabbit Redux as John Updike's attempt to model the racial education of a conservative Middle American, Harry "Rabbit" Angstrom, in "teach-in" scenes that reflect the conflict between the social conservative and Eastern Liberal within the author's psyche. I conclude that this conflict undermines the project and, despite laudable intentions, Updike perpetuates caricatures of the Left and hastens Middle America's rejection of Liberalism.
    [Show full text]
  • Legalization of Marijuana and the Conflict with International Drug Control Treaties
    Legalization of Marijuana and the Conflict with International Drug Control Treaties Biju Panicker* Independent Study Spring 2015 Professor Jalila Jefferson-Bullock Abstract The present system of worldwide drug control is based upon three international conventions: the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs as amended by the 1972 Protocol, the 1971 Convention on Pyschotropic Substances, and the 1988 Convention Against Illicit Trafficking of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. These treaties require participating nations to limit and even criminalize the possession, use, trade, and distribution of drugs outside of medical and scientific purposes, and work together to stop international drug trafficking. This paper argues that the recent move toward legalization of use, possession, and sales of marijuana in the United States (U.S.) and other foreign nations is in conflict with international treaty obligations. While each state in the U.S. has its own drug laws and controlled substances acts, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution places international treaties on the same legal footing as federal law. Under this argument, Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Washington D.C., as well as Uruguay and The Netherlands’ legalization of marijuana for recreational use, allowance of possession and sales, is in contravention of U.S. federal law and international treaties. Finally, this paper will also look at Portugal’s 2001 decision to decriminalize all drug use to answer the question as to whether the international drug treaties place a “firm limitation” on the legal, “non-medical” sale of schedule drug or truly obligate countries to penalize drug use. Keywords: Marijuana Legalization, International Conventio * © Biju Panicker, J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Richard Nixon's Drug War: Politics Over Pragmatism
    Richard Nixon's Drug War: Politics over Pragmatism Edmund Carlton April 20, 2012 Abstract: This thesis is an historical observation Richard Nixon's role as the instigator of America's Drug War. This Drug War is a war fought both against international drug smugglers and America's own citizens. This thesis will summarize some major trends of the politicization of the drug issue and give an in-depth analysis of how race played a role in both winning Richard Nixon the presidency in 1968 as well as how that victory has inflected itself back on to the American race dynamic. This thesis will utilize the substantial wealth of academic publications on the subject and will serve as a survey of sorts of the major drug politic academia discussing the years 1967-1972. I will also be utilizing films from this era in order to illustrate the social and race dynamic that were being negotiated in post-Civil Rights Act America. This thesis will utilize two primary documents from Richard Nixon, a Reader's Digest article from October, 1967, and a pivotal message to Congress given on July 14th, 1969 which accompanied the proposal of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act which was passed a year later in 1970. Table of Contents Introduction P. 3 THE RELEVANT HISTORY OF DRUGS IN FILM p. 8 Its Racial Implications p.13 THE RHETORICAL PRE-AMBLE TO RICHARD NIXON's PRESIDENTIAL p.15 CAMPAIGN: The Reader Digest article "What Has Happened to America" White Backlash p. 22 RICHARD NIXON'S PIVOTAL MESSAGE TO CONGRESS p.
    [Show full text]
  • Drug Harms in the UK: a Multicriteria Decision Analysis
    Articles Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis David J Nutt, Leslie A King, Lawrence D Phillips, on behalf of the Independent Scientifi c Committee on Drugs Summary Background Proper assessment of the harms caused by the misuse of drugs can inform policy makers in health, Published Online policing, and social care. We aimed to apply multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) modelling to a range of drug November 1, 2010 DOI:10.1016/S0140- harms in the UK. 6736(10)61462-6 See Online/Comment Method Members of the Independent Scientifi c Committee on Drugs, including two invited specialists, met in a DOI:10.1016/S0140- 1-day interactive workshop to score 20 drugs on 16 criteria: nine related to the harms that a drug produces in the 6736(10)62000-4 individual and seven to the harms to others. Drugs were scored out of 100 points, and the criteria were weighted to Neuropsychopharmacology indicate their relative importance. Unit, Imperial College, London, UK (Prof D J Nutt FMedSci); UK Expert Adviser to the European Findings MCDA modelling showed that heroin, crack cocaine, and metamfetamine were the most harmful drugs to Monitoring Centre for Drugs individuals (part scores 34, 37, and 32, respectively), whereas alcohol, heroin, and crack cocaine were the most harmful and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), to others (46, 21, and 17, respectively). Overall, alcohol was the most harmful drug (overall harm score 72), with Lisbon, Portugal (L A King PhD); heroin (55) and crack cocaine (54) in second and third places. and Department of Management, London School of Economics and Political Interpretation These fi ndings lend support to previous work assessing drug harms, and show how the improved scoring Science, London, UK and weighting approach of MCDA increases the diff erentiation between the most and least harmful drugs.
    [Show full text]
  • Mind Medicine Australia’S Submission to the Royal Commission Into Victoria’S Mental Health System
    SUB.0002.0029.0347 Mind Medicine Australia’s Submission to The Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System 5th July 2019 “...My hope is that we will engage in mature, evidence-based discussions about how best to fund and deploy psychedelic-assisted psychotherapies to augment existing approaches to the treatment of mental illness. I hope that governments will have the courage to put the welfare of their citizens ahead of their fear of controversy ‒ and that our politicians will deploy their considerable skills and positions of influence to nurture a balanced and objective understanding amongst the public.” ‒ Dr Simon Longstaff AO, Leading Australian Ethicist and Executive Director of The Ethics Centre Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System | Mind Medicine Australia SUB.0002.0029.0347_0002 Level 1, 10 Dorcas St Southbank, VIC 3006 Australia 5th July 2019 The Commissioners The Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System Dear Commissioners We live in one of the wealthiest countries and we have one of the best medical systems in the world. Yet despite the high calibre of our medical practitioners and institutions, and the enormous associated system costs, we also have one of the highest rates of mental illness in the world, and the situation appears to be getting worse. Simply doing more of the same, or making only incremental changes to the current system, is not going to solve this problem and relieve the suffering of so many Victorians. To create positive change, we have to broaden the tools available to our medical practitioners and qualified therapists in this area.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise and Decline of Cannabis Prohibition the History of Cannabis in the UN Drug Control System and Options for Reform
    TRANSNATIONAL I N S T I T U T E THE RISE AND DECLINE OF CANNABIS PROHIBITION THE HISTORY OF CANNABIS IN THE UN DruG CONTROL SYSTEM AND OPTIONS FOR REFORM 3 The Rise and Decline of Cannabis Prohibition Authors Dave Bewley-Taylor Tom Blickman Martin Jelsma Copy editor David Aronson Design Guido Jelsma www.guidojelsma.nl Photo credits Hash Marihuana & Hemp Museum, Amsterdam/ Barcelona Floris Leeuwenberg Pien Metaal UNOG Library/League of Nations Archives UN Photo Printing Jubels, Amsterdam Contact Transnational Institute (TNI) De Wittenstraat 25 1052 AK Amsterdam Netherlands Tel: +31-(0)20-6626608 Fax: +31-(0)20-6757176 [email protected] www.tni.org/drugs www.undrugcontrol.info www.druglawreform.info Global Drug Policy Observatory (GDPO) Research Institute for Arts and Humanities Rooms 201-202 James Callaghan Building Swansea University Financial contributions Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP Tel: +44-(0)1792-604293 This report has been produced with the financial www.swansea.ac.uk/gdpo assistance of the Hash Marihuana & Hemp Museum, twitter: @gdpo_swan Amsterdam/Barcelona, the Open Society Foundations and the Drug Prevention and Information Programme This is an Open Access publication distributed under (DPIP) of the European Union. the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which of TNI and GDPO and can under no circumstances be permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction regarded as reflecting the position of the donors. in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. TNI would appreciate receiving a copy of the text in which this document is used or cited.
    [Show full text]
  • Lost Taxes and Other Costs of Marijuana Laws
    Lost Taxes and Other Costs of Marijuana Laws by Jon Gettman, Ph.D. The Bulletin of Cannabis Reform www.drugscience.org September 5, 2007 Lost Taxes and Other Costs of Marijuana Laws Executive Summary Government reports indicate that the nation's marijuana laws cost taxpayers $41.8 billion annually. This calculation is based on (a) a reconciliation of estimates of the annual supply of marijuana in the United States and estimates of its overall value and (b) Office of Management and Budget (OMB) data on the share of the Gross Domestic Product diverted by regulatory taxes to US Government budgets. Government reports from the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Library of Congress, and other sources indicate that the supply of marijuana in the United States is 14,349 metric tons, or 31.1 million pounds. Various price indexes from public and private sources produce a retail price of $7.87/gr or $3,570/lb, setting the overall retail value of the illicit marijuana market at $113 billion. The Office of Management and Budget reports that local, state, and the federal government receipts represent 28.7% of the gross domestic product as tax revenue. The diversion of $113 billion from the taxable economy into the illicit economy deprives taxpayers of $31.1 billion annually. According to the Uniform Crime Reporting Program of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, marijuana arrests consist of 5.54% of all arrests. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that total criminal justice expenditures in the United States in 2004, for example, were $193 billion.
    [Show full text]