1900s through today. Prof. Guerra all right. Welcome to class, everyone. Today, we would like to welcome our cspan viewers joining our class today. We are going to be covering a lot today. This class for those of you that are watching at home is a course focused on business in society here at colorado college. In this class in particular, we are looking at the making of the u. S. Drug war and particularly how it relates to the prohibition and now the legalization of cannabis and how that impacts consumer access to this particular substance. I have been doing research on ethnographical he and historically ethnographically and historically on the drug war and cannabis legalization for the last two decades. So you get to join us now on our tour of the last 100 years of drug policy. As you remember yesterday, we were talking a little bit about the impact of culture and science on our approaches to medicine in conceptualizing what is an acceptable substance for medical consumption and what marks those substances that are different from medicine. So today, we are going to try to see how those very ideas impact the laws that govern our access to these substances. So we are going to start 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 our access to a whole range of substances. So the law itself is focused on consumer protection. We do not want the American Public to have access to substances that could potentially be dangerous. This 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 helped to create the food and Drug Administration that still continues to govern much of the of these issues around Consumer Protections when it pertains to food substances and substances that we classify as drugs. It requires a clear labeling of products. In the early 20th century, this was particularly important as the regulatory structure was not in place to be able to know what we were actually putting in our bodies, right . So you could go to a local vendor and have access to substances, cough medicines, sleep serums, that had quantities, measurable quantities, of substances like opiates. Heroin syrups for coughs. Coca in products that we would be using as overthecounter home products. So the federal government really tried to implement this policy to be able to limit access to those substances and also to protect us, as consumers, from being able to consume product that we could gain as safe. This especially becomes important for our class and our discussions 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, than this other natural plant substance. So particularly those substances that were deemed addictive, including alcohol, heroin, beaine, and morphine had to clearly identified on products. So he wanted to know, as consumers, whether we were putting these potentially problematic substances into our bodies. Now we follow that up, shortly thereafter, with a smoking opium exclusion act. 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. Still thehere was presence, in the u. S. , of opium in smokable form. And this was designated as different from the previous conceptualization of opium products as being necessary for medicinal consumption. We start to see now, already, in the early 20 century, this division and bifurcation of our conceptualization of products as being for medicinal use and for nonmedicinal use. Often times, nonmedicinal use gets characterized as recreational use. In the case of opium, we have a very important case, because it is very important as a medicinal substance that many people people want access to. However, we also have a presence of a publishing that is relying on opium in smokable form. This particle act actually bans the consumption, position, and importing of opium in a smokable form. And i have two other historical events that actually help us to understand and make sense of the smoking opium exclusion act. And that is the chinese exclusion act of 1882. Further agoing back few decades. 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. So they are doing a lot of the grunt labor work in the western half of the United States. Helped 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 the smokable form. We start to see, especially in the western half of the United States, places like san francisco, even places here in colorado, like in denver, the establishment of opium dens, where Chinese People are consuming smokable opium. That started to be deemed as a problem by the federal government for a couple of reasons. Because this was seen as something very foreign and different. So chinese men primarily coming into the u. S. And bringing with them a foreign practice that seems to be characterized as a problem really starts to spark the public interest. And initially, it starts to create antichinese sentiment that results, in 1882, the first exclusionary immigration policy. That is to say, after 1882, we are going to ban, in the u. S. , chinese immigrants from coming into the u. S. If they are coming in as laborers. If you are coming in as a nonlabor, 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 protectorates in puerto rico, guam, and, especially for this case, and the philippines, where the presence of smoking opium is deemed as a problem for now having just acquired this new area of the world to govern. So as a result, 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. Because that limits, now, legal access to opiumbased products. As we have seen in the contemporary period, what happens when we cut off legal access to a particular substances is we usually see a type of black market emerge, where people now have to navigate a substitute for the substance they just lost. So there is replacing behavior that takes place. And what ends up taking place in the case of opium is those individuals that no longer had access to opiumbased products through a legal system now start to frequent these opium dens in these chinese communities. And 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. So all of this really coalesces these ideas around trying to control these substances in a whole range of both international and federal efforts to rein in greater prohibition over these substances. So, in 1909, just after the smoking exclusion act, we have the International Opium Commission in shanghai. A commission is different from, as you will see in a second, a convention, because this was mostly a meeting or countries interested in starting to more strictly regulate opium to be able to make suggestions for how we are going to navigate, at an International Level, access and control to possession of opium. That is followed up in 1912 with the international Opium Convention, the First International drug control treaty. And 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 are all going to do our part, as a global community, to really 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 this agreement, to be able to implement their federal policies to limit the access to these substances. In the case of the u. S. , we end taxith a harrison narcotics act. It is not an exclusion or prohibition act. This is an effort at trying to control access through taxation. So a business approach, a regulatory approach to try to really 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 that the American Medical Association and the profession of medicine is starting to become more and more heavily professionalized. So we look to the medical community to weighin with suggestions for how to best navigate, control access to this 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 this substance in a nonmedicinal use. So what it did was it specially regulated and taxed opium and Cocoa Products. The reason why this is important, is because, as you will see, in a few decades, it becomes sort of a metric to be able to launch future drug policies in the u. S. So now that we are talking about limiting medical access and also really trying to quell any sort of access to nonmedical use, the u. S. Initiates the narcotics drugs import and export act of 1922. And this creates the policy for oversight for the opium trade and opium consumption. And this is because we do not have the ability to produce opia and Cocoa Products in the u. S. These are plants that really thrive in other global settings. In the case of the u. S. , cocoa 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, but we do not have the ability to grow and produce opium in the boundaries of our nation. So we have to figure out a way, if we are supposed to figure out how to allow access on a 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. To be able to regulate that access. Another important component of this is that it establishes the federal not kartiks control board as a Law Enforcement entity to police narcotics. Narcotics federal control board as a Law Enforcement entity to 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 and regulate possession of the substances. In particular, in the past, with policing nonmedical consumption as well as engaging in quality forrol of the narcotics medicinal use. This was back in the pure food and drugs act. If you are going to allow access to a substance, it has to be something that will not be necessarily harmful to a consumer ingesting that substance. So the federal Narcotics Control Board was tasked with trying to figure out a way to do both. To say we are going to limit nonmedicinal use if youre going to need medicinal use of cocabased or opium products, we need to best ensure the safety of those products. That entity morphed into, in 1930, the federal bureau of narcotics. And instead of being part of the department of justice or any other federal entity, it actually is established as part of the department of treasury. We have to remember that these are not outright prohibitions on these products. Instead, they are shaped around tax policies. As such, the entity that polices these practices has to be in an organization, a federal entity, that is best able to exercise its jurisdiction around these matters. So in this case, drug law in the early 19th century is based around tax policy, so it has to be part of the department of the treasury. So it replaced the federal Narcotics Control Board. Its first commissioner, harry anslinger, was at 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. That leads to particularly onesided affects in the case of how we are about to see drug policy transform post1930. The important thing to remember about anslinger is that he pushed for harsher drug penalties and for further criminalizing of drugs and, in this case, we have something particularly open important for our area of study in that he really targets including cannabis in this sort of understanding of drug control as a narcotic. To be able to think of cannabis as something more similar to opium and to coca than dissimilar. We will see him again. Dont worry. Because 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. Used stories 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 to roughly 1920 really sparks the mass exodus of mexicans from mexico into the u. S. And, as we have already talked about, Cannabis Consumption was a part of mexican culture and indigenous mexican populations. But mexico also had problems with the consumption of cannabis. And so they exported these 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. Now what anslinger did was he basically took those stories that were circulating in mexico and use that as a justification for why we needed to think about cannabis more like a problematic substances, like opium and coca, and why we needed to have more strict enforcement and policing of this substance. This, his suggestions really fly in the wake of, as we talked about earlier, looking to the medical community to provide guidance on these issues. So the American Medical Association actually opposed the Marijuana Tax act, because it was going to make it highly burdensome for medical professionals to be able to use cannabis as a medicine for their patients. And in particular, the tax is actually imposed on the physicians, pharmacists, and the medical cannabis cultivators that were being able to grow the supply market for patients that were in need of cannabis as a medicine. We have an important piece of history we have to contend with at the local level, because the first Marijuana Tax act arrest actually takes place in denver, colorado. One man is charged with possession, and Samuel Caldwell is charged with dealing, and they are in violation of the Marijuana Tax act. Because part of what the Marijuana Tax 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. It is your documentation to say i am not in violation of the law, i have this cannabis legally. However, the problem was, in order to acquire the tax stamp, you had to present the cannabis you are trying to acquire. And it becomes an issue for how this law is actually intended to really stop access to cannabis as a medicine. In terms of the outcome of the Marijuana Tax act, baca, as a buyer is sentenced to 18 months in prison at fort leavenworth, and caldwell is sentenced to four years for dealing. Both in violation of the tax act, as a consumer and a seller. Now 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 outlawing access to cannabis. This makes it a more favorable National Policy to pass. So in this case, you can take a look at this time line in 1911, massachusetts restricts the sale of cannabis. However, in 1913, we start to see more and more outright bans of cannabis for any possession, production, or consumption. 1913, california, maine, wyoming, and indiana are responsible for these bans. Firstlater in 1915, utah and vermont. In 1917, we have a policy in colorado to make the possession and cultivation of marijuana a misdemeanor. We are also, in colorado, not at the forefront of legalization, we are also at the forefront of prohibition. Because it predates the federal prohibition of cannabis. 1923, iowa, oregon, washington, and vermont. 1931, illinois and texas. By 1933, as we are seeing the ramp up to the marijuana expected, north dakota and oklahoma joined in the list of states that banned cannabis possession, cultivation, and possession, consumption, and cultivation. 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 axis to a substance and what the federal government has to do when that prohibition actually fails. As a lot of you are familiar with, in 1917, 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. So we have to approach the fact that alcohol prohibition was largeessful, leads to a black market, the increasing proliferation of organized crime to provide consumers with access to that substance. And the federal government sees that as more of a problem than it is worth to just be able to go back and undo prohibition. So, in 1933, we have the repeal of prohibition, and now, the u. S. Has access to, as we can see, a whole range of a plethora of alcoholic substances. The followup policy after the Marijuana Tax act is what is referred to as the boggs act of 1954. This becomes important because it is how we navigate post1950s the punishment of drug crimes. So we require mandatory sentencing for drug crimes, because, from a moral standpoint, the federal government really starts to frame drug crimes is a failure of morality and something we really have to punish from a very harsh standpoint. So in the case of cannabis, this becomes particularly important because less than two decades after the passing of the Marijuana Tax act, we have the boggs act that really gives the Marijuana Tax act more teeth. Because it now results in a ,inimum of two years in prison to have a cannabis crime on your record. And it could lead to a fine of up to 20,000. Now if you saw, in the case of the first Marijuana Tax act arrest, that means that bacas sentencing wouldve been harsher. He was only sentenced to a year and a half, really, of prison time. And under these new regulations, he would have to be sentenced to a minimum of two years. So it creates the logic around drug punishment that requires us to be really forceful with these crimes that are viewed as failures in morality. We will continue that into the present, really. Something we are still trying to undo as part of our u. S. Drug policy. So we are going out a little to reference international law, as it pertains to the u. N. Convention on single narcotic drugs. This is a followup to the Opium Convention in the early 20th century we already discussed. In 1961, as a result of this escalation of drug control in the u. S. And around the globe, partner countries of the United Nations come together to try to figure out how to best revisit the Transnational Movement of these substances that we are trying to control and how better to enforce these policies. They come up with the Single Convention, an international treaty, to prohibit unlicensed drug production and distribution. It still allows for these substances to be able to be used, cultivated, produced for medicinal purposes. However, we have a strong emphasis on cannabis, opiates, and coca that are all included in the agreement, trying to figure out how to really put an end to the consumption for nonmedicinal use of the substances. An important component of this is that it introduces the scheduling of substances. Scheduling of these ideas frame, 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. So the scheduling system for the Single Convention looks a lot different than i am sure you have heard about in everyday conversation. It really has a more circular understanding that there are four schedules. You have to consider the medical utility and the potential harm of a substance. And 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 really 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 these substances for knowledge production around its medical utility. This is also important in terms of the u. S. Because, around all party nations, it really governs how governments are able to control the cultivation of these substances, particularly marijuana, for testing to gain a Greater Knowledge base about the impact and affects that this has on a persons wellbeing and personal health. The Single Convention is expanded through the 1971 convention on psychotropic substances. Adds a whole range of substances to the list. Also important, we move away from not just the use of narcotics but also scientific language that is being developed and popularized to more accurately talk about the effects of these substances on our brain. We talk about narcotics this becomes an issue in the history of 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. Reallyerm narcotic just mean they come from words meaning to numb. In that case, it was highly applicable to opiates and coca products. But when cannabis is just as part of a narcotics substance framework, that becomes an issue. We start to talk, in 1971, we talk about other substance that substances that have different psychoactive effects. The Regulatory Community has to figure out a way to be able to reconcile the fact that 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. And then, in 1988, the u. N. Follows it up with a convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. And this is because, from 1961 to really the mid1980s, we see a liberation of largescale organized crime, to be able to provide consumers around the world with access to these prohibited substances. So this is where we see, really, 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 type of influence it has on our drug policy to the present. So timothy oleary, if youre not familiar with, a sort of infamous professor from the 1960s that was a strong proponent of the use of psychoactive substances for a range of health benefits, including the use of cannabis, acid, lsd, to be able to really allow for humans to have mind altering experiences that can be beneficial to themselves and their mental health. Now as a strong opponent of these psychoactive substances, in december of 1965, he goes on a Family Vacation to mexico. He, as a psychoactive substance consumer, he goes out and purchases some marijuana that he is consuming while on vacation. And then he tries to return to the u. S. And reenter the country through a port in laredo. And as he is entering, there is this sort of misunderstanding, and he is subject to a vehicle search. And as part of the vehicle search, Border Agents discover small amounts of dried flower cannabis and, especially, seeds in his car. And as such, they charge him with a violation of the Marijuana Tax act, and he is basically supposed to be sentenced on these violations, as we have seen. However, here you have timothy leary, an individual, a professor who is highly educated, who figures he can do some research to get his way out of this legal bind he is in. So what he discovers is, and through the work of his legal team, that the Marijuana Tax act is actually unconstitutional. Because, as i mentioned earlier, if you wanted to be in possession of marijuana, you have to get a tax stamp. The only way for the government to give you that tax stamp is you have to present the marijuana that youre trying to get the tax stamp for. That is an issue because it violates the fifth amendment of the consultation around selfincrimination. You cannot give me a tax stamp if i do not have the marijuana that i am trying to pay the tax for, and i cannot be in possession of marijuana if i have not gotten the tax stamp yet. It was causing an individual who wanted access to marijuana to face selfincrimination. So he is able to convince the Supreme Court in this decision the United States in 1969 that decided, in may, to deem it unconstitutional for the violation of the fifth amendment. The u. S. Does not rest on this. So because we have this Court Decision that basically declares the tax act unconstitutional, aside from a range of drug policy that we talked about that should allow for strong control of the substance, we see that, for at least a short period, the u. S. Is in limbo around its policy for how to prosecute marijuana possession, cultivation, importation. So what it does is, shortly thereafter, in september of 1969, it launches Operation Intercept at the u. S. Mexico border. What is happening is september is the harvest season for marijuana, outdoor grown marijuana, in mexico. So they were expecting this large influx of marijuana at the same time we do not have the teeth to potentially really sort of criminalized and prosecute possession of the substance. And so what the u. S. Does, as part of the nixon administration, is send as many officials as it can to the u. S. Mexico border. It mobilizes all of its Border Agents, and it essentially shuts down the u. S. Mexico border for 10 days to try to stop mexican marijuana from entering the u. S. And that is important because, at the time, something between 70 and 80 of the marijuana consumed in the u. S. Was sourced from mexico. Now that is sort of shortlived, because we actually are able to reinforce our marijuana policies very quickly thereafter through the passage of the controlled substances act. And this is probably the one that you have heard about the most really sort of controlling our drug policy in the u. S. It passes title ii of the comprehensive drug control and abuse act of 1970, and it also does an important thing as far as international law. Prior to the revocation of the Marijuana Tax act as unconstitutional, we at least had that to be able to be in accordance with International Drug policy. However, we had yet to implement the u. N. Single convention, on a federal level, to be able to sort of mirror that policy we had at an International Level with our federal policy. What the 1970 controlled substances act does is it really pushes the sort of framework, the international framework, of drug control into federal policy. We have what we know of in the u. S. Context of drug scheduling on a five schedule scale 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 two factors combined make it to where classification of a substance of a schedule one drug makes it very difficult to access at all through a legal channel. And as we move down the scheduling scale, those factors just are adjusted. Substanceduled two has a lower likelihood of abuse and has some medical utility, until you get to schedule five happens is that we should be able to access with limited government regulation and interference. The other important thing that the drug controlled substances act does is it creates these drugfree school zones that will be reinforced through other legislation into the future to make it so that possession or attempted sale of prohibited substances in drugfree school zones that includes parks, a whole range of other areas, Childcare Centers that 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 is not considered a drugfree school zone, i am subject to mandatory minimum sentencing. However, those sentences get to beharsher, finds get to higher, in closer proximity to these drugfree school zones. This becomes really an important part of how we see come into the present, the drug war targeting particularly communities of color in the u. S. Communities of hispanic and and also africanamerican communities, because they tend to be in close proximity to the drugfree zones. It makes it harder to have a fair and balanced Justice System around drugs, right . The other important thing is we have the establishment, now, of the Drug Enforcement administration in 1973, replacing the bureau of narcotics and dangerous drugs. And an important component of this is that we see, in the decade running up to the controlled substances act, the federal bureau of narcotics over as the bureau of narcotics and dangerous drugs to the department of justice. So we have sort of left the tax world and entered the world of crime and justice. Fluxo we have greater ability and how we exercise the punishment of drug violations, but also the ability to better navigate between institutions at the department of justice to really give the drug war teeth post1970. And these last couple of policies that we are going to be focused on really are salient because they start to shape what is then going to have to be navigated through as we start to try to really push back and swing prohibition into some sort of legal access to the substance. Abuse act ofrug 1986 and 1988 are two policies that do a whole range of things. They create International Pressure for the eradication of drug crops and source countries. So we are having such a hard time of stopping the flow of these substances into the u. S. We are not seeing a demand reduction in terms of u. S. Consumers. How can we limit access to these substances . Well we now have the ability, using the antidrug abuse act, using the u. N. Conventions of 1988, at this point, to be able to go into source countries, like peru and colombia, and eradicate coca crops. Go into mexico and spray pesticides over marijuana. This becomes a really harmful issue, because it violates the human rights of a lot of individuals in these source countries. If you see that spraying of harsh pesticides and michaels to destroy these crops and their close passivity to indigenous villages or communities in latin america, they are being exposed to harsh chemicals as part of this drug control policy that has probably met effects for the health of that population, right . It also, as some of you in the classroom may be familiar with, pushes and promotes the drug abuse and prevention platform that we know as a drugfree America Program and d. A. R. E. Going to school to try to get young people if adults are not limiting their inception of these substances, lets see if we can use an educational platform in schools to educate these students to not become consumers of these substances, right . Policies as part of act totidrug abuse engage in Money Laundering control. If we can stop these entities that are engaging in crossborder smuggling, that are bringing these drugs to market, if we can really cut off their supply to cash flow as part of the sale of these substances, maybe we can start to have an impact on crossborder smuggling of prohibited substances. It also helped to establish the office of the National Drug policy, and this is, in the present, the Government Entity that really drives and pushes forward 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, we have authors like Michelle Alexander and the new jim crow post1980s, we have the reinstitution of the drug war in this really targeted fashion. Because if cannabis is the most largely consumed substance, if , if youinimum minimums apply these to urban centers to target communities, then it makes the ability to try to push a harsh prohibitionist agenda have a really Lasting Impact on these communities. Additionally, as part of that, it also implements the harsher punishments and targeting of the crack market at the same time we see the punishments for other substances, like powder cocaine, remain relatively stable in the 1980s. Go into why this becomes important for us into the present. At the same time that we just talked about this rapid escalation of drug control across the board at a federal level, we are also seeing states really grapple with whether this is the best idea, moving forward. So state start to engage in legal policies to try to pull back some of the controls around cannabis. Fake the case of decriminalization, many think, is there a way we can not use federal policy to punish cannabis crimes . So states like texas, for example, allow for you to be in possession of up to four ounces of cannabis and have it just be a misdemeanor crime. Crime, andt a felony it does not then bring in a whole range of other policies that we just talked about. So if they can handle these violators, keep them in the state or local court system, so they are not subject to these harsher federal penalties. 1996, weme time, in californiawth, with and arizona, the growth of state medical marijuana laws. You have to remember that that escalation cuts off access to cannabis as a medical substance. States have to figure out how they can you state policy to provide access to the substance as a medical substance for people. We still see states, in the present, trying to implement their own medical marijuana policies to figure out how best to do this. More recently, in 2012, we started to see a range of states usejust think about medical of cannabis but also the 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 that will have a strong enforcement arm that will the food, as we saw in and drug acts, allow consumers to know what is safe for them to consume. So this is something we will be grappling through the rest of the class. How do we look through prohibition, specifically targeting cannabis, to know how the state governments have to really find ways around this long history of escalation of drug prohibition to provide medical access to cannabis an adult use to cannabis . I hope this helps inform our discussion through the rest of class. I hope this was informative, for our viewers at home, to know where our policies originate and how it has impacted our ability to access certain substances and the sort of effects that have had on our society in the present. Thank you. [applause] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] listen to lectures in history on the go by streaming our podcasts anywhere, anytime. You are watching American History tv, only on cspan 3. The house will be in order. For 40 years, cspan has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the Supreme Court, and Public Policy events from washington, d. C. And around the country, so you can make up your own mind. Created by cable in 1979, cspan is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. Cspan your unfiltered view of government. This weekend on American History tv, Pulitzer Prize winner Caroline Fraser discusses the life of Laura Ingalls wilder , the author of little house on the prairie books. I often say that i do not think we would have the little house books if it were not for rose, because rose had a lot of experience as a writer. She had a polish and professionalism. She knew publishing people. She knew a lot of editors in new new editors at magazines. She was the driving force pushing her mother to take advantage of these memories. She had been hearing about these stories about the pioneering she all of her life, and figured there was money to be made off of that, that there was a real market for that. And possibly, i do not know, the fact that the country was becoming more modern made people nostalgic or interested in those older stories, i assume. Definitely. You can really see that kicking in during the depression. In farmer boy, about a childhood, for example obviously really appealing to a public that does not know where the next meal is coming from. And the stories about wonderful farms and these amazing meals that they used to prepare. Full ofboy is accounts of eating pie for breakfast. It was wonderful nostalgia for a time of plenty during a time when people were desperate. Learn more about the life of author Laura Ingalls wilder sunday at 6 00 p. M. And 10 00 p. M. Eastern. This is American History tv, only on cspan 3. Author Christy Pichichero talks about french officers in the American Revolution. She argues that their experiences influenced french politics and perspectives. The American Revolution institute hosted this event. Ellen greetings, everyone. I am ellen clark, and i am the Library Director for the American Revolution institute of the society of the cincinnati. And it is my special pleasure to welcome you to edison house this evening and to introduce our