UNRAVELING AN AMERICAN DILEMMA: THE DEMONIZATION OF MARIHUANA A Masters Thesis presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School Pepperdine University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts By John Craig Lupien April, 1995 Acknowledgments First and foremost I would like to express my unbounded gratitude to my parents, Brooks H. Lupien and Celia R. Lupien, who have allowed me the opportunity to complete this project. Without their love and support I would not have been able to finish this thesis. Special thanks to my parents’ dear friend, Raymond Gagné, who helped me focus my thoughts and produce the paper before you. For his patience and timely advice, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. John McClung. Likewise, for his patience and belief in my abilities, I would like to thank Dr. Paul Randolph. Thank you to all the wonderful women at the DEA who helped me during my brief hiatus in Washington, DC. For understanding and friendship thanks to everyone at the Westchester County Records and Archives Center. And last but not least thanks to the Tortolanis and Amelios for extending their gracious hospitality to me in New York. TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ii Table of Contents • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • iii Introduction: Hidden Motives • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 Chapter 1: An Old Path to a New Frontier • • • • • • • • • • • • 14 Chapter 2: The Evolution of the Marihuana Issue in America • • • • • • 42 Chapter 3: The Final Assault • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 63 Chapter 4: The Immediate Repercussions of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 101 Conclusion: The Aftermath of the Prohibition of Marihuana • • • • • • 136 Bibliography • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 151 About the Author • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 160 Abstract of Masters Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Division of Humanities of Pepperdine University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts UNRAVELING AN AMERICAN DILEMMA: THE DEMONIZATION OF MARIHUANA By John Craig Lupien April, 1995 Chair: John McClung, Ph. D. The primary goal of this thesis is to reveal a new perspective with regard to the dilemma of the prohibition of marihuana. In particular, the subject matter delves into the specific history of the hemp industry of the 1930s. According to this author’s research, the circumstances surrounding the evolution of the marihuana issue in the United States were directly effected by certain developments in the hemp and wood pulp industries of the 1930s. Aspects of this thesis are not entirely original and the author is indebted to the efforts of previous researchers. However, the main arguments of this thesis have been based upon original material. Chair: _________________________ Members:___________________________ ___________________________ Introduction Hidden Motives Since the dawn of civilization, people have cultivated the plant known scientifically as cannabis and agriculturally as hemp for its fiber, seed, and pharmaceutical properties. Throughout the world, the records of archaeology and history reveal that humanity universally recognized the benefits of this unique plant. Such recognition ended abruptly in 1930, when the newly created Federal Bureau of Narcotics began to educate the American public about marihuana, as hemp had been known colloquially in the Sonoran region of Mexico.1[1] Between 1930 and 1934, the Bureau compiled a body of misinformation which suggested that the use of marihuana was directly linked to crime, induced violent behavior, and caused insanity. Then, suddenly, in 1935, the Bureau flooded the nation with educational propaganda against marihuana use. During this act of demonization, the Bureau continuously cited its own accumulated body of misinformation as a precedent for legislation on the federal level. Through this 1[1]Jack Herer, The Emperor Wears No Clothes (Van Nuys, California: HEMP Publishing, 1991) p. 25. Herer also explains that “marihuana” is the Americanized spelling. The correct spelling is “marijuana.” To avoid confusion, the spelling which will be used throughout this paper, will be the Americanized version, “marihuana.” The use of “h” appears in the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 and the records of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Also see the Oxford English Dictionary listing for “marijuana, marihuana.” studied deception, the Bureau effectively lobbied for the passage of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, which considerably restricted the usage, distribution, and production of marihuana. Significantly, restrictions on marihuana automatically implied restrictions on the cultivation of hemp.2[2] Several highly suspicious circumstances surround the Federal Bureau of Narcotics’ demonization of marihuana in the 1930s. First, there never was a marihuana problem; this manufactured malady was a great media spoof. Secondly, the misinformation, which was disseminated to the public by the Bureau, was based on conjecture and hearsay; the objective truth and the scientific method were summarily discarded. Furthermore, the Bureau even suppressed and ignored information which was unbiased, objective, and contradicted its own special brand of demonization. The whole scenario of the Bureau’s “marihuana education” program is an amazing example of how 2[2]Richard J. Bonnie and Charles H. Whitebread II, The Marihuana Conviction: A History of Marihuana Prohibition in the United States (Charlottesville, Virginia: University of Virginia Press, 1974) pp. 93-126; Ernest L. Abel, Marihuana: The First Twelve Thousand Years (New York: Plenum Press, 1980) pp. 237-247; David F. Musto, The American Disease: Origins of Narcotic Control (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987) Chapter 9, “Marihuana and the FBN;” Jack Herer, Hemp & The Marijuana Conspiracy: The Emperor Wears No Clothes (Van Nuys, California: HEMP Publishing, 1991) pp. 15-30; Jack Frazier, The Great American Hemp Industry (Peterstown, West Virginia: Solar Age Press, 1991) pp. 40-71; Chris Conrad, HEMP: Lifeline to the Future (Los Angeles, California: Creative Xpressions Publications, 1993) pp. 38-55; Michael Schaller, “The Federal Prohibition of Marihuana” Journal of Social History 4, no. 1 (1970): 61-74. National Archives: Washington National Research Center, Suitland, Md, Record Group 170, Accession Number: W 170-74-0005 (boxes 1-5), “Marihuana Tax Act of 1937” [Hereafter cited as “Marihuana Tax Act of 1937,” National Archives]. easily the American public could be deceived by a slick propaganda campaign. In retrospect, this trail of deceitful acts raises the possibility that the Bureau’s decision to demonize marihuana may have been prompted by hidden motives. 3[3] By strange coincidence the final assault of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics on marihuana occurred simultaneously with its own awareness of the emergence of a new hemp industry in America in 1935. This new hemp industry was based on the commercial practicability of producing raw cellulose pulp from hemp for the manufacture of paper. The Bureau seems to have demonized marihuana for motives that went far beyond its mandate to legally regulate the production and distribution of the drug. Specifically, the Bureau provided the perfect vehicle for vested interests who wanted to terminate the movement to develop a hemp-based paper industry. Marihuana was demonized by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics in the 1930s because of the hemp plant’s promising economic future.4[4] This hypothesis, that the demonization of marihuana was a result of the hemp plant’s economic potential, is not entirely original. In large part it is based on the observations of previous researchers. Their insights into why the Federal Bureau of Narcotics demonized marihuana in the 1930s are particularly relevant to this hypothesis. Because of this relevancy, it is necessary to briefly introduce the basic arguments of these 3[3]The set of conclusions which have been presented in this paragraph will be developed and thoroughly explained in Chapter 2: “The Evolution of the Marihuana Issue in America;” and Chapter 3: “The Final Assualt.” 4[4]Herer, The Emperor, pp. 15-30; Frazier, Great American Hemp Industry, pp. 40- 71; Conrad, HEMP, pp. 38-55; “Marihuana Tax Act of 1937,” National Archives. previous researchers. The arguments may be easily separated into two sets of explanations. The first explanation was provided by the decriminalization movement, which started in the late 1960s.5[5] According to decriminalization scholars, the prohibition of marihuana should be understood as an unfortunate result of the ideological climate of the day. Typically, modern historians use the term Progressive to describe the ideological climate of the early twentieth century. This period of time was characterized by strong convictions favoring the ideals of Calvinistic Protestantism, Scientific Materialism, and Uninhibited Capitalism. Aspects of these three philosophies were blended in America and became manifest in Progressivism, the ideology of the predominantly WASP upper- and middle-classes.6[6] 5[5]The following books are the foundation of the decriminalization movement: Richard J. Bonnie and Charles H. Whitebread II, The Marihuana Conviction: A History of Marihuana Prohibition in the United States (Charlottesville, Virginia: University of Virginia Press, 1974). Ernest L. Abel, Marihuana: The First Twelve Thousand Years (New York: Plenum Press, 1980). David