And how it relates to the prohibition and now they legalization of cannabis and how that impacts consumer access to the substance. Onave been doing research and cannabis legalization for the last two decades. You get to join us now on our tour of the last 100 years of drug policy. Remember yesterday, we were talking about the impact of culture and science on our approach to medicine in anceptualizing what is acceptable substance for medical consumption and what marks those substances that are different from addison. Today, we are going to try to see how those very ideas impact the laws that govern our access to the substances. We are going to start just over a century ago with the pure foods and drug act of 1906. This is something that impacts us into the present and really helped to control our access to a whole range of substances. Law itself is focused on Consumer Protection. We do not want the American Public to have access to substances that could potentially be dangerous. It could be something as simple as, as we have 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 help to create the fda that still continues to govern much of the issues around Consumer Protection when it pertains to food substances and substances we classify as drugs. A clear labeling of products. In the early 20th century, this is particularly important as the regulatory structure was not in place to know what we were putting in our bodies. You could go to a local vendor and have access to substances, that hadicines, serum measurable quantities of substances like opiates, heroin syrups for coughing. That we wouldts be using as overthecounter home products. The federal government really tried to implement this policy to be able to limit access to those substances and also to protect consumers from being able to consume products that are not safe. This becomes especially important for our discussion because it is the first policy that really starts to bring cannabis into a discussion with other substances that we now deemed as more dangerous, at least in some circles, then this other natural plant substance. Particularly the substances that are determined to be addictive including alcohol. To be clearly identified on products. We wanted to know as consumers whether we were putting these potentially problematic substances into our bodies. We followed that up shortly thereafter with a smoking opium exclusion act. We now have a policy in place that is set up to control opium as a consumer good. To be purchased medicinally. There was still the presence in the u. S. Of opium in the smokable form. This was designated as different from the previous designation of opium products as being necessary for medicinal consumption. In the early 20th century, we are seeing a division and beverage station of our conceptual conceptualization of products for a medicinal use and a nonmedicinal use. Often nonmedicinal use gets characterized as recreational. In the case of opium it is very important as a medicinal substance that many people want access to. However, we also have a presence of a population relying on opium in smokable form. Bans theicular act importing ofand opium in a smokable form. I have two other historical events that actually help us understand and make sense of the smoking opium exclusion act. 1882. At is an act of and that is because the chinese actually come in to settle parts of the west to aid the u. S. In its development of the western half of the u. S. As laborers. They are doing a lot of the labor work in the western half of the United States to help build the railroad from connecting the east coast to the west coast. The practice bring with them of consuming opium in the smokable form. We are starting to see in places like San Francisco and even here in colorado in denver, the establishment of opium dens where Chinese People are consuming smokable opium. Be deemed to as a problem by the federal government for a couple of reasons. Because this was seen as something very foreign and different. Chinese men primarily coming into the u. S. And bringing with them the foreign practice that seemed to be characterized as a problem really starts to spark the public interest. And initially it starts to create antichinese sentiment that results in 1880 two, the first exclusionary immigration policy. After 1882, we are going to ban in the u. S. Chinese emigrants from coming into the u. S. If they are coming in as laborers. If you are coming in as a nonlabor, you could be exempt from the chinese exclusion act. 1898, weme time in have the spanishamerican war or the u. S. Is able to come as a result of being victorious in the war, is able to acquire in puertootectorates for this cased and the philippines. Where the presence of smoking form is deemed as a problem now having just acquired this new area of the world to govern. We start to see the intersections now of race and substances start to enter the political discussion. This becomes especially important as we just talked about with the pure food and drugs act. Legal access to opiumbased products. As we have seen in the contemporary period, what happens when we cut off legal access to a particular substance, a kind of black market emerges so now people have to navigate a substitute for the substance they just lost. Replacing behavior takes place. And what did up taking place in the case of opium is that those individuals that no longer had access to opiumbased products through a legal system now start to frequent the opium dens in these chinese communities. As a result of that, we start to have these increasing concerns about americans going into these racialized neighborhoods, these chinese neighborhoods and engaging in behavior that is seen as deviant. This coalesces these ideas around trying to control these substances in a range of international and federal effort to rein in greater prohibition over the substances. 1909, just after the act, we have the International Opium Commission in shanghai. The commission is different from a convention because this was mostly a meeting for countries interested in starting to more strictly regulate opium, to be able to make suggestions on how to navigate at the International Level access and control to possession of opium. Followed up in 1912 by the international opium convention, the First International drug control treaty. As part of this meeting, the nations involved of which the u. S. Is a strong proponent, really start to craft the First International drug policy to say we will all do our part as a Global Community to limit the movement of the substance that we see as potentially harmful for our different publics. It also starts to initiate the process where partner countries in the agreement can implement their federal policies. In the case of the u. S. , we end act. The this is an effort at trying to control access through taxation. A business approach, a regulatory approach to try to keep the substance in the hands of those that we see as particularly resourceful for being able to keep us from entering a Public Health problem. One thing to remember is that this is a moment where the American Medical Association and the repression of medicine is darting to become more heavily professionalized. We look to the medical community to weighin with suggestions for how to best navigate, control this substance, opium and a whole range of other narcotics. To be able to have it available for medicinal use but also try to limit access of the substance in a nonmedicinal use. What it did was regulated and taxed opium and Cocoa Products. Become adecades, they sort of metric to be able to launch future drug policies in the u. S. Now that we are talking about limiting medical access and also anyly trying to quell access to nonmedical use, the u. S. Initiates the narcotics drug import and export act of 1922. The policy for oversight for the opium trade and opium consumption. This is because we do not have the ability to produce opium and Cocoa Products in the u. S. Plants thrive in other global settings. In the case of the u. S. , coca is primarily produced in south america, in the andean region. And in the case of opium products, we have a large access to opium in northern mexico that not have the ability to grow and produce opium in the boundaries of our nation. We have to figure out a way to allow access on the medical front. We have to figure out a way to be able to import these substances and have control over them as they are entering the nation. And regulate the access. Another important component of this is it as establishes the federal control board. Two police narcotics. We will see this Organization Start to transform into the present to be able to better navigate the drug lobby and also punish possession of the substances. Particular, with policing nonmedical consumption as well as engaging in Quality Control of the narcotics for medicinal use. Pure foodack in the and drugs act. If you are going to allow access to a substance, it has to be something that is not necessarily harmful to a consumer ingesting the substance. The control board was tasked with trying to figure out a way to do both. We are going to limit. Onmedicinal use if you are going to need these products, we need to figure out a way to best ensure the safety of those products. That entity morphed into, in 1930, the federal bureau of narcotics. Instead of being part of the department of justice or any other federal entity, it is established as part of the department of treasury. These are not outright prohibitions on these products. They are shaped around tax policies. The entity that polices these in ants has to be organization come a federal entity, that is best able to exercise its jurisdiction around these matters. In this case, the drug law in the early 19th century is based around tax policy so it has to be part of the department of the treasury. It replaced the federal narcotics control board. Was atst commissioner the head of this entity from 1930 until 1962. Just over three decades of one individual really having control over our drug policy in the United States. Particularly onesided affects in the case of how we are about to see drug policy transform post 1930. The important thing to remember about him is that he pushed for harsher drug penalties and for further criminalizing of drugs , and he reallye ingets, including cannabis this understanding of drug control as a narcotic. To be able to think of cannabis as something more similar to opium and to coca then dissimilar. We will see him again. Dont worry. Because coming he is the chief architect of the Marijuana Tax act that we see deployed in 1937. This act was tasked with taxing the sale of cannabis and marijuana and in particular, he of problematic use of cannabis in mexico and in the u. S. Southwest and its association with mexican immigrants that were starting to come into the u. S. Between 1910 and the 1930s as a result of an ongoing civil war in mexico. The mexican revolution of 1910 until roughly 1920. That really sparks the mass of mexicans from mexico into the u. S. And as we have already talked about, Cannabis Consumption was a part of ask again culture and the indigenous mexican population. Mexico also had problems with the consumption of cannabis. The exported the negative ideas about what cannabis can do for Peoples Mental Health and what it does in terms of these outbursts of violence for the consumers. Thosee did was took stories circulating in mexico and used them as a justification for why we needed to think about cannabis more like a problematic substance including opium and coca and why we needed to have more strict enforcement and policing of the substance. Really flyuggestions to theway of looking medical community to provide guidance on these issues. The American Medical Association of posed marijuana the Marijuana Tax act because it was going to make it highly burdensome for medical professionals to be able to use medicine for their patients. And in particular, the tax is imposed on the physicians and pharmacists and the cultivators that were being able to grow the supply market for patients in need of cannabis as a medicine. We have an important please of history we have to contend with at the local level because the first narrow one at tax act arrest takes place in denver, colorado. He is charged with possession and Samuel Caldwell is charged with dealing and they are in violation of the Marijuana Tax act. Part of what the act imposes is if you wanted to be in possession of marijuana, you had to petition the government for a tax stamp to be able to be in possession of that. I am not in violation of the law. However, the problem was in order to acquire it come you had to present the cannabis you are trying to acquire. And it becomes an issue for how this law is intended to really stop access to cannabis as a medicine. In terms of the outcome of the he as a buyeract, is sentenced to 18 months in prison at Fort Leavenworth and caldwell is sentenced to four years for dealing. Both in violations of the tax act as a consumer and a seller. The Marijuana Tax act also did not come out of nowhere. It is important to remember that because of our own approach to government in the United States and federal versus state policy, that many states were already on the path to outlying access to cannabis. ,his makes it a more favorable National Policy to pass. In this case, you can take a look at this time line, massachusetts restricts the sale of cannabis. In 1913, we see more outright bans of cannabis for any possession, production or consumption. Indiana ining, and 1914 are responsible for the first bands. In 1950, utah and vermont. In 1917, we have a policy in colorado to make the possession and cultivation of marijuana a misdemeanor. Colorado not at the forefront of legalization, we are at the forefront of prohibition. Washington in nebraska. 1931, illinois and texas. 1933, north dakota and oklahoma joined in the list of states ,hat ban cannabis possession cultivation, and production. We will take a quick little detour to talk about the 18th and 21st amendments. These are important pieces of history because they show the clear approach to prohibiting substances and what the federal government has to do when that prohibition actually fails. A lot of you are familiar with event where we have an amendment to the constitution that prohibits the sale, consumption, and possession of alcohol. But after less than a couple of decades, we actually, basically, have to undo that. We have to approach the fact that alcohol prohibition was unsuccessful and it leads to a large black market and the increasing proliferation of organized crime to provide consumers with access to that substance. Thatederal government sees as more of a problem than it is to just be able to go back and undo prohibition. In 1933, we have the repeal of prohibition and now, the u. S. , has access to a whole range of come a plethora of alcoholic substances. The followup policy after the Marijuana Tax act is what is referred to as the act of 1954. This becomes important because it is how we navigate boost post1950s the punishment of drug crimes. We require mandatory sentencing for drug crimes because the federal government really starts 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 important because less than two decades after the passing of the Marijuana Tax gs acte have the bog which gives the Marijuana Tax act more teeth. It requires a minimum of two years in prison to have a crime on your record. And it could lead to a fine of up to 20,000. In the case of the first Marijuana Tax act arrest, that means that his sentencing wouldve been harsher. He was only sentenced to a year and a half of prison time and under the new regulations come he would have to be sentenced to a minimum of two years. It creates the logic around drug punishment that requires us to be really forceful with these crimes that are viewed as morality issues. We continue that into the present really. Something we are still trying to undo as part of our drug policy. Going to reference International Law as it pertains to the u. S. Convention on narcotics act. This is a followup to the opium intion in the early the early 20th century. In 1961, as a result of this escalation of drug control in the u. S. And around the world, partners come together to try to figure out how to best revisit the Transnational Movement of these substances we are trying to control and how to better enforce these policies. With the Single Convention, and International Treaty to prohibit unlicensed drug production and distribution. The substances can still be used, cultivated, and produced for medicinal purposes. However, we have a strong ethicist on cannabis, opiates, and coca. Trying to figure out how to put fornd to the consumption nonmedicinal use of the substances. An important component of this is that it introduces the scheduling of substances. Ideas framef these from a policy perspective and a medical perspective of how can we classify drugs as substances that we need to regulate but also still have access to. The scheduling system for the Single Convention looks a lot different then what you have heard about in everyday conversation. It really has a more circular understanding that there are four schedules. The medicalconsider utility and the potential harm of a substance. Those factors are weighed to be able to craft a policy that would allow or not allow medicinal use for the substance the ability to prescribe and in what quantities and it sets up a hard and Firm Regulatory framework for how to think about the medical community being able to access and the Scientific Community being able to access the substances for knowledge production around its medical utility. This is also important in terms of the u. S. Because around all party nations, it governs how governments are able to control the cultivation of the substances, particularly marijuana, for testing to gain a Greater Knowledge base about the impact and affects this has on the wellbeing and personal health of a person. The convention is expanded through the 1971 convention on psychotropic substances. From not just the use of narcotics but also scientific language that is being developed and popularized to more accurately talk about the effect of the substances on our brain. The narcotics become an issue in the history of the drug policy because it is a fairly rigid definition that has to be expanded and maneuvered through to be able to include more and more substances. The term narcotics just means they come from words meaning to numb. Highly applicable to opioid and Cocoa Products. When it was introduced as part of a framework, that becomes an issue. In 1971, we talk about other substance is that have different psychoactive effects. The Regulatory Community has to figure out a way to reconcile the fact that these substances we are talking about do not all have the same effects. Even though we want to be able to heavily restrict and regulate access to them. 1988, the u. N. Follows it up with a convention against narcoticsaffic in drugs and psychotropic substances. To the mid1980s, we see a proliferation of largescale organized crime to be able to provide consumers around the world with access to these prohibited substances. This is where we see the intensification of largescale drug smuggling around the globe. And here we get to an important moment in u. S. Drug legal history because it is something that we do not really often think about and the types of influence it has on our drug policy to the present. , and infamousy professor from the 1960s that was a strong proponent of the use of these substances for a range of Health Benefits including the use of cannabis, to be able to a mind altering humans have experience that could be beneficial for themselves and their mental health. Proponent ofong psychoactive substances, in december of 1965, he goes on a Family Vacation to mexico. As a psychoactive substances consumer he goes out and purchases marijuana and then he tries to reenter the u. S. Through a port in laredo. As he is entering, theres a misunderstanding and he is subject to a vehicle search and as part of the vehicle search, Border Agents discover small cannabisf dried flower and especially seeds in his car. They charge him and he is basically supposed to be sentenced on these violations as we have seen. However, you have timothy leary, an individual, a professor who is highly educated, who figures he can do research to get his. Ay out of this legal bind theso, what he discovers is Marijuana Tax act is unconstitutional. As i mentioned earlier, if you wanted to be in possession of , you have to get the tax stamp. The only way to get the tax stamp is you would have to present the marijuana. That is an issue because it violates the fifth amendment of because the touche and p can give me a tax stamp all the constitution. You cant give me a tax stamp and i can be in possession of marijuana if i have not gotten stamp yet. Whoas causing individuals wanted access to marijuana selfincrimination, right . He is able to convince these Supreme Court in a decision, leary versus the United States in 1969. They decided in may 2 team it unconstitutional for the fifthion of the amendment. The u. S. Does not rest on this. We have the Court Decision that basically declares the tax act unconstitutional. Aside from a range of drug culture that should allow for ,trong control of the substance we see that, for at least a , the u. S. Is in limbo around its policy for how to possession,rijuana cultivation, and importation. What it does is shortly 1969, itr in september launches Operation Intercept at the u. S. Mexico border. Septemberppening is is the harvesting for outdoor mexico. Rijuana in so they were expecting a large influx of marijuana. At the same time we do not have to criminalize and prosecute the possession of the substance. What the u. S. Does is part of the nixon administration, is send as many officials as a can to the u. S. Mexico border. Borderlizes all of the agents and essentially shuts down the border for 10 days to try to stop mexican marijuana from injuring the u. S. That is important because at the 70 of the marijuana in the u. S. Was sourced from mexico, right . That is shortlived. This is probably the one you have heard about the most. It is really controlling our drug policy in the u. S. , right . Comprehensivee drug control and abuse act, and its an important thing as far as International Law. Prior to the revocation of the tax act, we at least had this in accordance with International Drug policy. We had yet to mirror the policies on an International Level with our federal policies. What it does is it really pushes the framework, the International Framework into a federal policy. We have what we know a lot of is that is based on the potential for abuse and medical utility, so what we need to know, as far as scheduling is concerned, a schedule one substance is deemed as having a high potential for abuse and a low potential for medical utility. Those factors combine make it to where the classification makes it very difficult to access at all through a legal challenge as we move down the scale, those factors are adjusted, right . Some medical utility until you get to those substances with limited intergovernment regulation and interference. The other important thing it does is it creates these that willschool zones be reinforced through other legislation to make it so possession or attempted sale of prohibited substances in drugfree school zones that includes parks, a range of other areas, that will allow for a harsher punishment of violators of the controlled substances act. Marijuanaa graham of and i am somewhere in an area that is not considered a drugfree school zone, i am subject to mandatory sentences. But those fines are higher in closer proximity to these drugfree school zones. This becomes really an important part of how we see the drug war targeting particularly communities of color in the u. S. And also africanamerican communities because they tend to be in close proximity to the drugfree zones. To have at harder fair and balanced Justice System around drugs, right . Thing is we have the establishment of the Drug Enforcement administration in 1973, replacing the bureau of dangerous drugs and an important component of that is we see in the decade running up to the controlled substances act, the federal bureau of narcotics moved over to the department of justice. Right . So we have entered the world of crime and justice. With greater flexibility in how of drugise punishment theations, but also, ability to better navigate between institutions post 1970. And these last couple of policies we will be focusing on our salience because they start to shape what is going to have to be navigated through as we start to see state tried to push back and turn of bish and into. Ome legal act so the drug abuse act of 1986 and 1988 are two policies that do a whole range of things. They create international pressure. A hard timeg such getting these substances into the u. S. We not saying a demands reduction. How can we limit these substances . We have the ability, using the u. N. Conventions of 1988, to go intos into source countries spray pesticides. This becomes a really harmful issue because it violates the human rights of a lot of individuals. Crops inroy these. Heir close proximity there are communities in latin america. They are being exposed to these have chemicals that impacts for that population. Abuseit promotes the Drug Prevention platform. School to try to get not limiting their consumption. Lets see if we can use an educational platform to educate the students to not become consumers of the substances, and we have Money Laundering control. Entities stop these that are engaging in crossborder smuggling, if we can really cut off their supply, maybe we can start to have an impact. Establish these policies, and this is the Government Entity that really tries to push for how we up roots and think about drug control in the u. S. Component istant intoit now rings cannabis the mandatory minimum framework. We have Michelle Alexander and the new jim crow argue post 1980s we have the reinstitution of the drug war in this really targeted fashion. If cannabis is the most targeted substance, if you apply these targetan centers to communities, then it makes the theity to try to push prohibition agenda, it has a Lasting Impact on the community, right . Targetsally, it also the market at the same time we see punishments for other substances remain relatively stable in the 1980s. Now we get into why it becomes ortant in the present day at the same time we talked about drug controls at the federal level, we see states grapple with whether this is the best idea moving forward. Back some of pull in the case ofd fake decriminalization, they may think, is there a way we can not use federal policy to punish . You look at states like texas where they allow all for possession of four ounces of cannabis and it is just a misdemeanor crime. It does not bring in a whole range of these other policies we just talked about. Right . They can handle these violators, keep them in the state or local court system so they are not subject to these harsher penalties. 1990 six,e time, in we see that growth with california and arizona with state medical marijuana laws. That escalation cuts off access to cannabis. States have to figure out how they can provide access to the substance for people and its a whole variety of states figure out ways to approach the issue. And they are trying to figure out the best way to do this. State not range of just think about the medical use also how can we more effectively at the state access to ate substance that is prohibited at the federal level and still have the kind of drug control policy that will have a strong that will allow consumers to know what is safe for them to consume. This is something that we will be grappling with. How do the state governments longways around this history of drug prohibition to . Rovide access to cannabis i hope this helps inform our discussion for the rest of the class. I hope it was informative for viewers at home to know how these policies originate. Thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2019] you can watch lectures in every weekend on American History tv. We take you into american classrooms to learn about topics. Every saturday at 8 00 and midnight eastern on cspan three. This week on the presidency, a look at political cartoons focusing on presidencies from lyndon b. Johnson to ronald reagan. Moving on to the nixon campaign, this is right after Richard Nixon reaches out as a republican candidate that he will end the war and win the peace in vietnam. So he is rebranding himself as a supportedr having every hawkish escalation of the war up until that point. And i think this captures the commentary at the point and captures later did not just how impossible it would be for any of the candidates to come up with a satisfactory outcome in vietnam. Nixon was trying to avoid saying he would win the war because he knew he could not do that. It would not be credible. He did not have much of a plan for ending it or winning the peace. As we will get into a little bit later. Pull aa of scrambling to rabbit out of a hat is perfect, i think. I do want to draw everyones attention to the facial expression on the rabbit. I read it as jaded, but others might take a different tack. This is really curious. When i thought of the phrase, ick nixon, i never thought of a magician. I thought of someone who did other tricks. It was not that he was in incompetence trickster. But he was way too good at it. I guess my reaction was tricky dick, too. Lot about the eisenhowernexen relationship. Eisenhower thought nixon was to partisan and also immature. Rebrand himself when he ran for president. There was the new nixon, the guy who was more mature, who could poke fun at himself. You may remind you may remember him appearing on laugh me . Aying sock it to doy they knew nixon could that. But i think this recalls the image of the tricky dick. Learn more about the political cartoons of president s sunday at 8 p. M. And midnight eastern. Author Christy Pichichero talks about french officers in the American Revolution. She argues that their expereinces influenced french politics and perspectives. The American Revolution institute hosted this event. Greetings, everyone. In Ellen Alan Clark and i am the Library Director for the American Revolution institute and it is my special pleasure to welcome you and to introduce our dr. Christy