Colorado college and in this class in particular, we look at the making of the u. S. Drug war and how it relates to prohibition in the legalization of cannabis and how that impacts consumer access to this particular substance. Ive been doing research on the drug war and cannabis for the last two decades, so you get to join us today on hours tour of the last 100 years of drug policy. Alexa remember yesterday we talked a little bit about the impact of culture and science on the approach to medicine and conceptualizing what is an acceptable substance for medical consumption and what marks the substances that are different from medicine. So, today we will try to see how the very ideas actually impact the laws that govern our access to substances. So, we will start at just over a century ago with the pure food and drugs act of 1906. This is something that impacts us into the present and really helps to control access to a whole range of substances. So, the lie itself is focused on consumer protection. We dont want the American Public to have access to substances that could be dangerous, this could be something as simple that we seen in the past few years, having contaminated lettuce and other produce on the market that could cause a Public Health scare in the nation. This policy also helped to create the fda that still continues to govern much of the issues around Consumer Protections when it pertains to food substances and substances that we classify as drugs. So it wires labeling of products and in the early 20th century this was particularly important as the regular structure was not in place to be able to know what we were actually putting in your body. So, you could go to a local vendor and have access to substances cost medicines, serums, that had quantities got measurable quantities of substances like opiates, heroin syrup for cough, coca in products that we would be using overthecounter as a medicinal product. So, the federal government really tried to implement this policy to be able to limit access to the substances and also to protect us as consumers to be able to consume products that we would deem as safe. Now, this especially becomes important for our class in our discussion because its the first policy that really starts to bring cannabis into a discussion with other substances that we now deem is more dangerous, at least in some circles than this other natural plant. So, particularly the substances that were deemed addict of including alcohol, opium, cocaine, heroin, morphine and cannabis have to be clearly identified on products. We wanted to know as consumers whether we are putting these potentially problematic substances into our body. Now, we follow that up with a smoking opium exclusion act and we now have a policy in place that is really set up to control opium as a consumer good , that is to be purchased medicinally. However, there was still the presence in the u. S. Of opium in snorkel smokable form and this one was designated as different from their previous opium products as being necessary for consumption. So, we start to see now, already early in the 20th century, this division of the conceptualization of substances for medicinal use and non medicinal use. Often times nonmedicinal is classified as nonmedicinal. We have an important case, its very important as a medicinal substance that many people want access to, however, we also have the presence of the population that is relying on opium in smokable form. This particular act, actually bends the possession consumption and importation of opium in the smokable form and i have two other historical events that actually help us understand and make sense of smoking opium exclusion act and thats the exclusion act of 1882, going back even further a few decades and that is because the chinese actually come in to parts of the west to aid the u. S. In the development of the western half of the United States as laborers, so they are doing a lot of the grunt labor work in the western United States to help to build the railroad from connecting the east coast all the way to the west coast and, they also bring the practice with them of consuming opium in smokable form and we start to see, especially in the western half of the united date to places like San Francisco and places in colorado like denver, the establishment of these opium dens where people are consuming smokable opium. That started to be deemed as a problem by the federal government for a couple reasons. Because this was seen as something foreign and different. So, chinese men primarily coming into the u. S. In bringing with them a foreign practice that seems to be characterized as a problem really sets apart the public interest. Initially it starts to create antichinese sentiment that results in 1882, the first real exclusionary immigration policy and thats to say after 1882 we will ban in the u. S. , chinese immigrants from coming into the u. S. If they come in as laborers. If they come in as a non laborer, then you could be exempt from the chinese exclusion act. At the same time in 1898, we have the spanishamerican war, where the u. S. Is able to, as a result of being victorious in the war, is able to acquire several protectorates in puerto rico, guam and especially for this case, the philippines, where the presence of smoking opium is deemed is a problem for not having just acquired this new area of the world to govern. So, as a result we start to see the intersections now of recent substances start to enter the political discussion. This becomes especially important with the pure food and drug act because it limits the access, legal access to opiumbased products. And, as weve seen in the contemporary period, what happens when we cut off legal access to particular substances as we usually see a type of lack market emerge where people now have to navigate for a substitute for the substance they just lost. So what ended up taking place in the case of opium is those individuals who no longer have access to products through the legal system, now search a frequent these in the chinese community. As a result of that we start to have increasing concerns about americans going into racialized neighborhoods, chinese neighborhoods and engaging in behavior that is seen as deviant. So, all of these ideas around trying to control substances in a whole range of both international and federal efforts to really raining greater prohibition over the substances. So, in 1909, just after this act we have the International Opium Commission in shanghai. The commission is different than a convention because this was mostly a meeting for countries interested in starting to more strict deregulate opium to make suggestions for how we are going to navigate on an International Level, access and controls to possession of opium. Followed up in 1912 for the international Opium Convention, the First International drug control treaty and, its part of this meeting, the nations involved of which the u. S. Has been a strong proponent that really starts to craft the First International drug policy to say that we are all gonna do our part as a Global Community to really limit the movement of the substance that we see as potentially harmful for the different publics. It also starts to initiate the process for private countries in the agreement implement federal policies to limit the access of the substances. In the case of the u. S. We end up with the harrison narcotics tax act. Its not an exclusion act or a complete prohibition act is an effort at trying to control access to taxation. Its a big approach and a regulatory approach to try to really keep the substance in the hand of those that we see as particularly social and being able to keep us from entering a Public Health problem. One thing to remember is this is a moment that the American Medical Association and the profession of medicine is starting to be more heavily professionalized. We look to the medical community to weigh in with suggestions on how to best navigate access and control the substance of opium and a whole range of other narcotics, to be able to have it available for medicinal use and have to limit access for the substance in non medicinal use. So, what it did is they taxed products and this is important and you see in a few seconds that in a few decades they become a metric to be able to launch future drug policies so, now that we are talking about limiting medical access and also are really trying to quell any kind of access for nonmedical use, the u. S. Initiates a narcotic drug import and export act of 1922, and this creates a policy for oversight of the opium trade and consumption and this is because we do not have the ability to produce opiate and Cocoa Products in the u. S. These are plants that are really thriving in other settings and in the case of the u. S. , coca is primarily produced in south america and in the case of opium products, we have a large access to opium in northern mexico, but we dont have the ability to really grow and produce opium in the boundaries of our nation. So, we have to figure out a way if we are supposed to allow access on the medical front, we have to figure out a way to be able to import these substances and have control of the them to regulate the access. Another important component of this is that it establishes the federal Narcotics Control Board. As a Law Enforcement and to see the brush entity that polices and aquatics we see the organization transform into the present to be able to better navigate our drug laws and be able to better punish and regulate possession of these substances. And in particular text with nonmedical consumption as well as engaging in Quality Control of the narcotics from medicinal use this goes back to the pure food and drug act but if you cannot allow access to the substance, it has to be something that will not be harmful to the consumer that is ingesting it. So the federal Narcotics Control Board was tasked with trying to figure out a way to do full and to say we are going to limit and were going to need the cocoabased products that we need to figure out a way to best ensure the safety of the products that entity morphs into in 1930, the federal bureau of narcotics and instead of being part of the department of justice or the other federal entity, it establishes part of the department of treasury, we have to remember these are not outright prohibitions but are instead shaped around tax policy and as such the entity has to be in an organization, federal entity that is best able to emphasize the jurisdiction around these matters. So in this case, its really all based around tech policy so it has to be part of the department of the treasury so, to replace the federal Narcotics Control Board, the first commissioner was at the head of the entity from 1930 through 1962 that is just over three decades of one individual really having control over our drug policy in the United States , and that leads to, particularly one side and how we affect and see drug policy transform and post 1930. He pushed for harsher drug penalties and further criminalizing of drugs and in this case we have something important for our area of study in that to really target including cannabis in the understanding of drug control as a narcotic to be able to think of cannabis as something similar to opium and coca than dissimilar. We will see him again dont worry hes a chief architect of the act we see to put in 1937 but they were taxed with taxing the sale of cannabis and marijuana and he used stories of problematic use of cannabis in mexico and in the u. S. southwest and the association with mexican immigrants that start to come in the u. S. Between 1910 in the 1930s as a result of an ongoing civil war in the mexican revolution of 1910 through 1920, it really sparks a mass exodus of mexicans from mexico into the u. S. And as we talked about cannabis was part of mexican populations but mexico also had problems with the consumption of cannabis but they have negative ideas about what cannabis can do and what it does in terms of outbursts for violence but problematic substances like opium and coca and why they need to have more strict enforcement and policing of the substance. His suggestions really fly in the wake of as we talked about earlier, looking to the medical community to provide guidance on the issues and the American Medical Association oppose marijuana the Marijuana Tax act because it was gonna make it highly burdensome for medical professionals to be able to use cannabis has a medicine for the patients and in particular the taxes imposed on the physicians , pharmacists and medical cannabis cultivators that were being able to grow the supply market for patients in need of cannabis and this takes place in denver colorado. Charged with dealing in violation of the Marijuana Tax act as part of what the act opposes that you had to petition but this became an issue how the law stopped access as cannabis as a medicine. Caldwell is sentenced to four years both in violation of the tax but its important to remember that because of our own approach to government in the United States and hetero versus state policy, many state were already on the path to outline access to cannabis this makes it a more favorable National Policy to pass so, in this case, you can take a look at the timeline, in 1911, massachusetts in 1913 we see more out right cannabis for any possession, production, consumption, so they are responsible for the first bands later in in vermont. In 1917 we have a policy in colorado to make the possession and cultivation of marijuana a misdemeanor. So, we are also in colorado, not just at the forefront, we are at the forefront of prohibition predates the prohibition of cannabis. I will, oregon, washington, vermont, new york, canada, nebraska. Illinois and texas in 1931 and by 1933 we see the ramp up in north dakota and oklahoma joining in the list of states that ban cannabis possession, consumption and cultivation. We will take a quick detour to talk about the 18th and 21st amendment. These are important pieces of history because they show the short of clear approach to prohibiting access to substances and what the federal government has to do when prohibition failed. So, a lot of you are familiar with this, in 1917, we have an amendment to the constitution that prohibits the sale, consumption of alcohol, but after less than a couple decades, we actually basically have to undo that. We have to approach the fact that alcohol prohibition is unsuccessful and leads to a large black market. The increasing proliferation of organized crime to provide consumers to access to the substance and the federal government sees that as more of a problem than its worth to go back and undo prohibition. So in 1933 we repeal prohibition and now the u. S. Has access to a whole range, a plethora of alcoholic substances. The followup policy after the Marijuana Tax act is referred to as a boggs act of 1954. This becomes important because its how we navigate post 1950s, the punishment of drug crimes. So, we read wire mandatory sentencing drug crimes because from a moral standpoint, the federal government start to frame drug crimes is a failure of morality and something we have to punish from a very harsh standpoint. In the case of cannabis this becomes particularly important because less than two decades of the passing of the Marijuana Tax act we have the boggs act that makes or makes the Marijuana Tax act have greater teeth because it now results in a minimum of two years in prison to have a cannabis crime on your record and could lead to a fine of up to 20,000. As we saw in the case of the first Marijuana Tax act that means that sentencing would have been longer and under the new regulations you would have to be sentenced to a minimum of two years and creates the logic around drug punishment that requires us to be forceful with these crimes that are viewed as failures. We continue that into the present and something were still trying to view as the u. S. Drug policy. So, going now to reference International Law as it pertains to the un convention, this is the followup of the Opium Convention that weve already just discussed in the early 20th century. In 1961 as a result of all the regulation in drugs in the u. S. For partner countries of the United Nations come together to try to figure out how to best visit the transnational substances we are trying to control and how better to enforce policies. So, they come up with a Single Convention of the International Treaty for unlicensed distribution. They allow for the substances to be used or cultivated, produced for medicinal purposes. However, we had a strong emphasis on coca includes included in the agreement and an important component of this is it introduces the scheduling of some statuses. It has a more circular understanding and they have to consider the medical facility and put into harm of a substance and those factors are a way to be able to crack a policy that allow additional use of a substance and how you think about the medical community being able to access substances for around medical utility. Its important in the u. S. Because it governs how governments are able to control the cultivation of substances are particularly marijuana for testing to gain a Greater Knowledge base about the impact and effect this has on persons while being personal. The Single Convention is expanded through the 1971 convention as a whole range of substances, its also important as we move away the use of narcotics and the scientific language thats really developed and popularized and we talk about the effect of the substances on our brains. So we talk about narcotics and it becomes an issue in the history of drug policy because its a fairly rigid definition that has to be expanded and maneuver through to include more substances in their. So the term narcotic really means words meaning to numb so in that case it was highly applicable to opiate and Cocoa Products but when cannabis is introduced as part of a narcotic substance framework, that becomes an issue and we start to talk in 1971 about other substances that have different psychoactive effects, the Regulatory Community has to figure out a way to reconcile the fact that the substances were talking about dont have the same effect. Even though we want to be able to have them regulated so then in 1988, the un follows it up with the convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and this is because from 1961 to the mid80s we see a proliferation of organized crime to be able to provide to consumers around the world with access to prohibited substances. This is where we see the intensification of largescale drug smuggling around the globe here we get to an important moment in u. S. Legal history because it is something that we dont often think about and the type of influence we have on the drug community. An infamous professor from the 1960s with a strong proponent of the use of psychoactive substances for a whole range of health benefit, including the use of cannabis, acid, lsd to be able to really allow for humans to have mind altering experience that could be beneficial for themselves and mental health. Now, a strong proponent of psychoactive substances in december 1965, he goes down on a Family Vacation to mexico and as a psychoactive substance consumer that he reenters the country to the port of laredo. As hes entering. Theres a misunderstanding and hes subject to a vehicle search. As part of the vehicle search the Border Agents discover small amounts of dried flower, cannabis and especially seeds in his car. As such they charge them with a violation of the Marijuana Tax act and he is basically supposed to be sentenced on the violations that weve seen, however, they have individuals and a professor thats highly educated figures he can do research to get his way out of the legal bind he is in. So, what he discovers is, and through the work of the legal team that the Marijuana Tax act is unconstitutional. Because, as i mentioned earlier, if you wanted to be in possession of marijuana he would have to get a tax stamp and the only way to get a tax stamp you have to present the marijuana you were trying to get the tax stamp four. Thats an issue because it violates the constitution around self incrimination. You can get a tax stamp if i dont have marijuana that im trying to pay tax for and i cant be in possession of marijuana if i havent gotten the tax stamp yet. So its causing individuals who want to have access to marijuana to self incriminate. So, hes able to convince the Supreme Court on their decision that is decided in may to deem it unconstitutional for the violation of the eighth amendment. The u. S. Is not less than this but because we have a part of the constitution we have drug policies that allow for strong control of the substance so we see that for at least a short period the u. S. Is in limbo around the policy for how to prosecute Marijuana Possession cultivation and deportation. So, what it does is, shortly thereafter and in september 1969 it launches on Operation Intercept at the u. S. mexico border. But, what is happening in septembers harvest season for outdoor grown marijuana in mexico and so, they were expecting a large influx of marijuana and at the same time we dont have the potential to criminalize and prosecute the possession of the substance. So, with the u. S. Does as part of the Nixon Administration is it sends as many officials as it can to the u. S. Border and mobilizes all the board of regents and it essentially shuts down the u. S. mexico border for 10 days to try to stop mexican marijuana from entering the u. S. Thats important because something between 70 and 80 of the marijuana consumed was sourced from mexico. Now, that is sort of shortlived because we are actually able to reinforce the marijuana policies we thereafter the passage of the controlled substances act this is probably the one youve heard about the most that controlling the drug policy in the u. S. Title ii of the control act of 1970 drug abuse act, it doesnt important thing as far as International Law. But prior to the revocation of the Marijuana Tax act we do that in accord with interNational Policy and International Level with federal policies and with the 1970s controlled substances act, it really pushes the framework of the International Framework of drug control into a federal policy and we have what we know of based on federal utility and what we need to know, as far as scheduling is concerned, schedule one substance is deemed as having a high potential for abuse and a low potential for medical utility. The two factors combined make it to where classification of a substance as a schedule one drug makes it difficult to access through legal channels. And, as we move down to the scheduling scale the factors are adjusted. So, i scheduled to substance has a lower likelihood of abuse and as you get down to schedule five you can access with limited government regulation the other important thing that the drug access does it gives Drug Free School zones reinforced and to make it so that possession or an attempted sale of prohibited substances in Drug Free School zones including parks and a range of other areas, childcare centers, that would allow for a harsher punishment of violators of the controlled substances act. So if i have a gram of marijuana and i am somewhere in an area that isnt considered a Drug Free School zone and mandatory sentencing, however, those get harsher and higher in close proximity to Drug Free School zones. This becomes an important part of how we see into the presence of the drug war, targeting particularly communities of color and hispanic and African American communities because they tend to be close to proximity of drugfree zones and possession of drug substances in the area make it harder to have a fair and balanced Justice System but in the decade running up to the controlled substance act, they move over as the bureau of narcotics and dangerous drugs to the department of justice. So weve left we have now entered the world of crime and justice and we have greater flexibility in how we exercise the punishment of drug violations we navigate to post 1970. The last couple policies we focus on are really because they start to shape what is then navigated through as we start to see states try to really push back and swing prohibition into some sort of legal access were having such a hard time really stopping the flow of the substances into the u. S. , this is a volatile issue politically because it involves the human rights individuals and if you start to see a spreading of harsh pesticides and chemicals for crops in the close proximity of communities in latin america that they are being exposed to harsh chemicals as part of a drug control policy that has problematic affects of the health of the population. Something you in the classroom might be familiar with pushes and promotes the drug abuse prevention platform that we know is in a drugfree america sort of program, and there are right, these programs that go into schools now to try to get young people that if adults are not limiting the consumption of substances, lets see if we can use an educational platform and schools to educate students to not become consumers of these substances, right we also have policies as part of antidrug abuse act to really engage in Money Laundering control. You can stop the entities engaging in across borders smuggling and if they can really cut out their supply to cash flow as part of the sales of these substances, we could maybe start to have an impact on crossborder smuggling for these substances and it also helped to establish the office of National Drug control policy really in the present. The sort of Government Entity that drives and fishes for were how we approach and think about drug control in the u. S. Another important component of the antidrug abuse act is that it now brings cannabis into the mandatory minimum law framework. This is why, for example that we have authors like Michelle Alexander and the new jim crow that argue that post1980s we have these three institutions of the drug war and a targeted fashion because if cannabis is the widely consumed substance and we use these minimums applying them to cannabis and use drugfree laws and urban centers to target communities and sentencing, then it make the ability to try to push a harsh prohibitionist agenda and have a Lasting Impact on the communities. Additionally, as part of that , it implements the harsher punishments and targeting of the crack market at the same time that we see the punishments for other substances like powdered cocaine remained relatively stable in the 1980s. Now, we go into why it becomes important for us into the present. At the same time that we talked about this rapid escalation of drug control across the board at a federal level we are also seeing states really grapple with this is really the best idea moving forward. So, states start to engage in legal policies to try to pull back some of the controls around cannabis. So, in the case of decriminalization, many start to think well is there a way that we could not have to use federal policy to punish cannabis crimes, decriminalize asian starts to take place in 1973 but states like texas allow for you to be in possession of up to 4 ounces of cannabis and have it just be a misdemeanor right so its not a felony crime and it doesnt then bring in a whole range of other policies that we just talked about. If the state can handle the violators and keep them in the local court system than they are not subject to these harsher federal penalties but at the same time, in 1996 we see the growth with california and arizona and the growth of the states medical marijuana laws. We have to remember that the escalation really cuts off axis to cannabis as a medical substances states have to try to figure out how they can use state policy to provide access to the substance is a medicine for people a whole variety of states figure out different ways to approach the issue and we still see states into the present trying to implement their own medical marijuana policies to figure out how best to do that. More recently in 2012 we start to see a range of states not just think about medical use of cannabis adult use of cannabis how can we more effectively at the state level regulate access to a substance that is prohibited on the federal level and still have the type of drug control policy that will limit access to use and well have a strong enforcement arm and will allow consumers know what is safe for them to consume. So, this is some and that we will grapple through and the rest of the class. How can we look at the legal history of prohibition, specifically targeting cannabis to know how the state governments have to really find ways around this long history of escalation to provide medical access to cannabis and it will use to cannabis. So, i hope this help inform the discussion to the rest of the class and i hope its informative for viewers at home to know where the policies originate and how they have impacted the ability to access certain substances and the effect they have had on society to the present thank you. Clap all we your future in American History tv programs is a whats available every weekend on cspan3. Lectures in history, american artifacts, real america. The civil war, oral history presidency and special event coverage about our nations history enjoy American History tv now and every weekend on cspan3 nights this month we feature American History tv programs as a preview of what is available every weekend on cspan3. This week i look at the week the lectures and history series which takes you into College Classrooms from the country friday test programs that examine legal history including the 1981 trial of jean harris accused of murdering scarsdale diet dr. Herman tarr howard the university of colorado fairfield discusses the background and her long relationship with the doctor and her conviction for his murder watch American History tv friday at 8 p. M. Eastern and every saturday and sunday on he spent three. Labor day weekend on American History tv, saturday at 8 pm eastern on lectures in history. A discussion about Abraham Lincoln and native american sunday at 4 p. M. On real america for the 1950 army film invasion of Southern France and carl monday, as 8 p. M. Eastern, the commemoration of the 400th anniversary of virginias first generalist some held at jamestown explore nations past on American History tv every weekend on cspan3. Sunday night on q a, the university of Pennsylvania Law School professor on Free Expression on College Campuses and the conflict surrounding an opinion piece she coauthored in the philadelphia inquirer. I think this is what ruffled a lot of people, but not all cultures are alike we were trying to tell a code of behavior as being one that was particularly functional and suited to our current technological democratic capitalist society and comparing it to other cultures which are not as functional and we gave some examples and that immediately caused a firestorm. This is one hour 15 minutes