A Hundred Years of Reefer Madness
NORML's Paul Armentano notes that marijuana prohibition in America turns 100 years old today. The federal government did not ban the plant until 1937, but Massachusetts Gov. Eugene Foss signed the first statewide prohibition into law on April 29, 1911. More than 30 states adopted similar laws in the years that followed, so marijuana was already illegal in most of the country by the time Congress got around to approving the Marihuana Tax Act. (As I noted in a 2009 Reason story, prohibition of Salvia divinorum seems to be following a similar pattern.) Today the state that got the cannabis ban wagon rolling has decriminalized possession of up to an ounce, and last week its highest court ruled that the smell of burning cannabis is not sufficient grounds for ordering a passenger out of a car, since smoking pot is merely a citable offense. The government's own survey data suggest that most Americans born after World War II have tried marijuana, positive pot references suffuse popular culture, and polls consistently find that more than two-fifths of the population favors legalization, with a couple indicating majority support. There clearly is majority support for the idea that people should not be arrested for smoking pot. Yet police continue to bust hundreds of thousands of Americans—858,408 in 2009—on marijuana charges every year, the vast majority for simple possession. Meanwhile, the former pot smoker who currently occupies the White House, who once claimed to support decriminalization, now finds the very notion laughable. Let's hope we don't have to wait another century to resolve these contradictions.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I need that poster, my friends would love it
I love the girl getting a 'shot of reefer'. They couldn't even be bothered to learn anything about the drugs they were railing against.
Which also describes drug warriors the past 100 years, too...
Haha I cant wait to inject myself with some marihuana from a syringe labeled "misery"
I prefer a shame-indica hybrid myself.
I'm glad I read the first couple comments before commenting, because that's exactly what I was thinking.
Who the hell injects marijuana?!
I wouldn't be surprised if someone, somewhere, has tried to use a syringe to smoke pot.
-jcr
Dopesmoker
I've listened to the whole thing. I challenge you to.
Good call, but take a break in the middle and listen to some Can:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QLL2j8ZtxE
And everybody loves Electric Wizard.
Don't forget Monster Magnet.
Black Sabbath
I didn't know you were Jewish.
Yup.
Howsabout some Hawkwind? 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3W7ch0oLeA
It took this many posts to get to Hawkwind? The band that Lemmy started in?
You people disgust me.
You gotta build up to the big guns brah.
You should have linked to songs off the Elric album. Moorcock played guitar for them at times on that tour, by the way. Backstage must have been retarded.
They had other songs beside Silver Machine and Motorhead? Who knew?
Completely unrelated but still awesome:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded
Man after all this I want to get stoned and go spacing on the Enterprise-D.
On the D?!? Why, so you can drink Earl Grey with Jean-Luc and rape Wesley in the holodeck?
"Real holographic simulated evil Lincoln is back!"
Dr Cameltoe initiated orgy. You know it's right.
No, it's very, very wrong. That show has to have had the least attractive female cast of any show this side of Maude or The Golden Girls.
It had good female guests though. Famke Janssen, Ashley Judd, Michelle Forbes etc.
What episode was Famke in? I don't remember that, and I should.
The Perfect Mate
See, this is what I'm talking about. You know a show has some fundamental problem with its crew/makeup people/whatever when they can make someone who looks as good as Famke look sort of goofy with an idiotic hairdo. I mean, how do you do that?
To be fair, she's pretty damn hot in the episode. The 24th century definitely needed more bob haircuts and german latex fetish outfits though.
Also, the goofiness of TNG is part of the charm.
Sure, I agree that the goofiness is part of the charm. That still doesn't mean you have to have a female cast that looks like it was pulled from the Bea Arthur Talent Agency dregs list.
The female characters in TNG project more motherly than sexy qualities. Which makes sense; I mean look at the demographic they're trying to connect and relate with: Trekkies.
Mom bombs away!
Also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ck-VIA1GUCY
Ensign Rand FTW.
According to Shatner, she got into drugs and prostitution after the show was canceled. But believing Shatner is a stretch.
She did get into alcohol and drugs (although her main drug was pot). She was very pissed off about being cut from the show - because they wanted Shatner to have different girls to romance.
For once I have to go with Episiarch on the subject of women. Gates McFadden? No way. Whoever cast Star Trek NG wanted it to gay men; matronly women and the ultimate gay sex symbol himself J.L. Pickard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf9oD_xl8mI
Heh. I used to make people listen to Dopesmoker at work.
Weird orgies and wild parties ! as that a pro or anti drugs poster ?
Feature, not a bug!
Well, a century on, surely they've stamped out this horrid plant by now.
We've almost won! We just need more time and money, but the tide has turned and victory over this devil's weed will be ours!
Just a few more dead Mexicans and we've won!
Massachusetts
Well I'm shocked.
I've listened to the whole thing. I challenge you to.
Being high when you do it is cheating.
Longer.
Annoyinger.
Weird orgies [as opposed to normal orgies?] wild parties, unleashed passions
Obviously I've been smoking the wrong shit.
How do you celebrate a hundredth year prohibition party?
Maybe I'll take one hundred cocks up my ass in a single night! SEE IT ON MY BLOG.
don't use my handle asshole
you can't handle my asshole
Oh yes I can! It costs extra to watch though.
This is why we can't have nice things.
In other news, more raids in San Diego County.
Along with the dispensary, several patient homes were also raided.
Next weekend are the Global Marijuana Marches. Search the web for the time and location of your local march to legalize marijuana.
The DEA claims only 30,567 domestic arrests for all drugs combined in 2009 (www.justice.gov/dea/statistics.html). The vast majority of marijuana arrests must be made by local police.
5 years before Federal prohibition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D44pyeEvhcQ
I think I need to get high and watch that again.
I think people who do not want to legalize marijuana must be high.
And for the record, I don't use it.
And yet, when legalization (more or less) goes on the ballot for people to vote on, like it did in California, it was voted down.
Unfortunately, people get the government they deserve.
If it's legal MONSANTO will hold the exclusive patent and you can only buy it from WALMART
The government is just keeping marijuana free of corporate dominance.
So, the ball of stupidity got to rolling in Massachusetts. Sometimes when I listen to people engage in time travel fantasies about going back to take out key figures in order to change history, hopefully for the better, almost everybody that does so mentions someone like Hitler, or Wilson, or maybe FDR. Me, I'd sink the damned Mayflower about mid-Atlantic somewhere. Fucking puritanical assholes.
The puritans actually get a bad rep. They were not that oppressive for their time. And a lot of what people think about them (that they hated fun and music and such) is not true. The fact is people are assholes not just Puritans.
Massachusetts nearly voted against the constitution because of the "no religious test for public office" clause. They were plenty oppressive, even for their time.
The "Puritans" (Puritan has almost always been a slur, not a name for a definite set of beliefs) that invaded what would become Massachusetts were extreme by the standards of their English brethren.
They expelled the guy (Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island) who actually thought freedom of religion and dealing fairly with the Indians were GOOD ideas.
Well, it seems to me that the Puritans helped establish the tradition of fucking with other people's lives for the promise of a Godly pat on the head and free ticket to heaven.
Bet those motherfuckers were surprised as shit to find out they missed the point entirely, and had utterly failed at the test otherwise known as life. . .
They were not that oppressive for their time.
Hey, what's a witch hunt between friends?
-jcr
The burned a lot more witches in Europe than they ever did in America.
Well, that's easy. No witches were burned in America.
They and other heretics (like Quakers) were hanged.
But you're generally right. there were executions of witches well into the 18th century in much of Europe with non-capital prosecutions into the 19th. England's witchcraft statute was still on the books in the 1950s.
It usually does. Or at least that's its point of entry into the USA. And I don't think you can blame the Pilgrims; that stupidity was already there and sucked them in.
$10 download, Rifftrax: Reefer Madness - Three Riffer Edition!
Now that marijuana (aka "reefer", "bud", "stick", "whoopie doopie", "happy grass", "tingle weed", "Abe Lincoln", "the halt", "muffin", "chew", "altoid", "the Fonz", "little Ricky", "sleestack", "chumba wumba", "red dynamite", "the oaf", "fat man", "little boy", "Richard Milhouse Nixon", "Area 51") has been eliminated as a scourge, it's interesting to go back and look at the film that was almost singlehandedly responsible for its demise. Yes, Reefer Madness let the world know that even a single dose of marijuana (aka "whip scorpion", "Batman", "Holyfield vs. Lewis", "the Kremlin", "babelfish", "Mason Reese", "chowhound", "slab bacon") caused insane laughter, enhanced skill at ragtime piano, the inability to avoid hitting old men with your car, and defenestration.
Mike, Kevin and Bill light up...THE STUDIO to take on Reefer Madness....
Wow, I never even thought about it like that before. Wow.
http://www.real-privacy.eu.tc
If I just knew how to get me some real-privacy, I would be real-happy!
That's how I feel about fresh porn.
It really sucks that Massachusetts outlawed marijuana, but that's vastly different from the federal government doing it.
A lot of people that read Reason have no problem with states making their own laws (yes, they even have the right to pass bad ones) as long as the fed stays out of it.
Point being, either get back to me in 2037, change the title, or redo this in 2012 and call it "75 Years of Reefer Madness."
Even if the states were allowed to de/criminalize marijuana on their own, it could still remain Schedule I for FDA testing purposes, grounds for termination of employment with the military and 3 letter agencies, etc. Without being able to test it, we aren't allowed to "certify" that it has any medical benefits. Unlike opium, which is fine. Obviously.
The states aren't waging wars in Colombia over drugs.
The problem is 95+% federal.
Bullshit. If the states that, for example, allow medical marijuana would use their police (or the state Guard) to defend against federal raids on dispensaries, you might have a point. But they dont and you dont.
The overwhelming majority of the enforcement is at the state and local level. The problem is 99% there, not federal.
Even the small amount of federal interference could be obliterated within a state if the state really wanted to. States and localities are allowed to have their law enforcement agents manufacture & distribute controlled substances without federal registration. However, if a state amended its pharmacy laws to make cannabis preparations accepted medicines in that state, they could then petition DEA to allow registration of its manufacturers, because that would be irrefutable legal evidence that the products had an accepted medical use in that state.
Wow, really? I never thought about it like that dude.
http://www.real-privacy.eu.tc