+(,121/,1( Citation: 56 Va. L. Rev. 971 1970 Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Wed Aug 18 15:04:09 2010 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: https://www.copyright.com/ccc/basicSearch.do? &operation=go&searchType=0 &lastSearch=simple&all=on&titleOrStdNo=0042-6601 VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW VoLuME 56 OCTOBER 1970 NUMBER 6 THE FORBIDDEN FRUIT AND THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE: AN INQUIRY INTO THE LEGAL HISTORY OF AMERICAN MARIJUANA PROHIBITION Richard J. Bonnie* & Charles H. Whitebread, II* * Mr. Snell. What is the bill? Mr. Rayburn. It has something to do with somethhzg that is called marihuana.I believe it is a narcotic of some kind. Colloquy on the House floor prior to passage of the Marihuana Tax Act. *Assistant Professor of Law, University of Virginia. B.A., 1966, Johns Hopkins University; LL.B., 1969, University of Virginia. "'Assistant Professor of Law, University of Virginia. A.B., 1965, Princeton Uni- versity; LL.B, 1968, Yale University. We wish to express our sincere appreciation to the students who assisted us in the preparation of the tables at Appendix A. Because the drug statutes of the several states are particularly confusing and difficult to find, and because so many jurisdictions have recently changed their drug laws, the preparation of the chart required long, tedious work which so many were kind enough to perform. To them, our most sincere thanks. We should like to thank especially Michael A. Cohen, John F. Kuether, W. Tracey Shaw, Alan K. Smith, and Allan J. Tanenbaum, all students at the University of Vir- ginia School of Law, whose research assistance and tireless effort were invaluable. We are particularly indebted to Professor Jerry Mandel who supplied us with much of the raw data used in the historical case studies in this Article. In his excel- lent article on drug statistics in the Stanford Law Review, Problems with Official Drug Statistics, 21 STAN. L. REv. 991 (1969), Professor Mandel suggested in a footnote that someone should attempt a history of the passage of anti-marijuana legislation. We have followed his suggestion and earnestly hope that our product will fill this gap. A modified and expanded version of this Article will be published in book form in the spring of 1971. [971] HeinOnline -- 56 Va. L. Rev. 971 1970 972 Virginia Law Review [Vol. 56:971 PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS L INTRODuCTION ............................................................ 974 II. THE ANTECEDENTs: CMmiNALIZATION OF NARCOTICS AND ALCOHOL .......... 975 A. A Review of the Temperance Movement ............................ 977 B. Anti-Narcotics Legislation to 1914 .................................... 981 1. Narcotics Use at the Turn of the Century: A Growing Problem .... 981 2. State Legislative Response Before 1914 ............................ 985 3. Watershed: The Passage of the HarrisonAct ...................... 986 C. The Judicial Role and the Constitutional Framework: The Police Power and Intoxicant Prohibition to 1920 .................................... 990 1. Phase One: Prohibition of Sale and Manufacture of Alcohol ........ 991 2. Phase Two: Prohibitionof Sale of Opium .......................... 996 3. Phase Three: Prohibition of Possession of Alcohol to 1915 .......... 998 4. Phase Four: Prohibition of Possession of Narcotics .................. 1001 5. Phase Five: Prohibition of Possession of Alcohol After 1915 ........ 1005 6. A Postscript on the Police Power: The Cigarette Cases .............. 1008 H. THE GENESIS OF MARIJUANA PROHmITION .................................. 1010 A. Initial State Legislation: 1914-1931 .................................... 1010 1. Rationale in the West: Class Legislation ............................ 1012 2. Rationale in the East: Substitution ................................. 1016 3. The InternationalScene ............................................ 1020 4. Conclusion ........................................................ 1021 B. Judicial Corroboration................................................ 1022 IV. PASSAGE OF THE UNIFORM NARCOTIC DRUG Aar: 1927-1937 .................. 1026 A. Origins of the Uniform Law ........................................ 1028 B. Drafting the Law .................................................... 1030 C. Passage of the State Laws ............................................ 1034 1. Use Patterns and Public Knowledge: 1931-1937 .................... 1035 2. Role of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics ............................ 1037 3. Legislative Scrutiny and Media Coverage ........................... 1038 4. Available Medical Opinion ......................................... 1042 5. Provisions of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act and Supplemental Vir- ginia Marijuana Statute ............................................ 1047 (a) Classificationand Offenses ...................................... 1047 (1) Penalties ...................................................... 1047 V. PASSAGE OF THE MARIHUANA TAX Act OF 1937 ............................ 1048 A. State Enforcement of the Uniform Law .............................. 1049 B. Public Hysteria or Continued Public Ignorance? ...................... 1052 C. The Tax Act Hearings ............................................... 1053 1. Who Were Users? ................................................ 1054 2. What's Wrong with Marijuana? .................................... 1055 3. How Dare You Dissent! ........................................... 1059 D. Congressional "Deliberation" and Action .............................. 1060 E. Provisions of the Act ................................................ 1062 VI. THE 1950's: HARSHER PENALTIES AND A NEW RATIONALE-THE "STEPPING STONE" THEORY .......................................................... 1063 A. The Boggs Act and Its Progeny: The First Escalation ................ 1063 HeinOnline -- 56 Va. L. Rev. 972 1970 1970] Marijuana Prohibition 973 PAGE 1. The Problem: Increased Narcotics Use ............................ 1064 2. The Solution: Harsher Penalties ................................... 1066 3. Marajuana and the Boggs Act ...................................... 1068 (a) Increased Use .................................................. 1068 (b) Youthful Users ................................................ 1070 (c) The Danger: A New Rationale ................................ 1071 4. The State Response: Mindless Esca!ation ........................... 1074 B. The Late 1950's: Another Escalation of the Penalties .................. 1076 1. Provisions of the Narcotic Control Act of 1956 ...................... 1077 2. Marijuana: Along for the Ride .................................... 1078 3. Trafficking Patterns ............................................... 1079 4. Origin and Use .................................................... 1080 5. Enforcement Patterns .............................................. 1081 6. The Epitome of Irrationality: Virginia's 1958 Amendment .......... 1082 VII. MARIJUANA USERS IN THE COURTS: 1930-1965 .............................. 1083 A. Statutory Fantasies: The Complications of Federal Legislation ........ 1083 1. Quadruple "Jeopardy" and the "Killer Weed" ...................... 1083 2. Statutory Presumptions ............................................ 1085 B. Attacks on State Legislation .......................................... 1087 C. Procedural Defenses and Entrapment ................................. 1088 1. Search and Seizure ................................................ 1089 2. Entrapment ....................................................... 1091 D. The Pro Forma Trial ................................................. 1093 VIII. THE PUBLIC DxscovERs THm TRUrH ABOUT ARIAijUANA ...................... 1096 A. Marijuana and the Masses ............................................ 1096 B. Enforcement of the MarijuanaLaws: 1960-1970 ........................ 1100 C. Emergence of Medical Opinion ....................................... 1101 1. Research Obstacles ................................................. 1102 2. Current Medical Knowledge ....................................... 1104 (a) The Myths .................................................... 1104 (b) Physical Effects ............................................... 1107 (c) Psychomotor Effects ........................................... 1107 (d) Psychological Effects .......................................... 1108 IX. MARIJUANA LEGISLATION CLASHES WITH JUDICIAL SKEPTICISM AND EMERGING VALUES-PEcEMEAL JUDICIAL RESPONSE: 1965-1970 ........................ 1110 A. Mu'tiple Offenses: Untying the Statutory Knots ...................... 1111 1. Federal Developments ............................................. 1111 2. State Developments ................................................ 1114 B. Procedural Objections to Enforcement Practices ...................... 1116 1. Search and Seizure ................................................. 1116 2. Entrapment ....................................................... 1119 3. Other Prosecution Practices ....................................... 1120 C. Sufficiency of Evidence ............................................... 1121 D . Sanction ............................................................. 1123 X. THE