Approximately 23 years later, the same type of system of taxation and self-incrimination would be implemented for marijuana.As Doris Marie Provine illustrates in her book UnEqual Under the Law , Drug laws in the U.S. have always been predicated on racist assumptions of criminality and social control. The first drug law implemented in 1872 in San Francisco’s China Town banned opium smoking. Opium smoking was a common practice amongst the Chinese laborers that worked on the railroad. Various notions about Chinese men luring white women in to opium dens and selling them into sexual slavery pervaded at the time. The Opium law was seen as a way to control the population. White opium users were frequently shielded from the law as they frequently used opium from a vile. In a similar vein, cocaine was outlawed during the Harrison tax act not because of its dangerous properties, but because racist ideas abounded that the use cocaine put black men into frenzies that caused them to rape white women. It was believed that cocaine gave black men super human strength that allowed them to withstand bullets . Much the same way that Chinese and African-American men were demonized in popular culture, Mexicans faced a similar racial drug fear mongering campaign . Following the Mexican revolution of 1910, Mexicans flooded into the United States introducing the recreational use of cannabis. This was the first large scale use of cannabis as a recreational drug in the U.S. although it had been around since colonial times and had been in use in medical practice since the mid-1800s. However, plant growing rack in the 1930s, as the depression era took hold and many white Americans could not find jobs, Mexicans became the target of discrimination .
The hatred of Mexicans was so severe, that in 1931 Mexican repatriation began. Much like the opium laws and ordinances that targeted the Chinese in San Francisco, and the black codes that pursued blacks in the south, anti-marijuana laws were designated primarily for controlling the unwanted immigrant Mexican population . By 1931, based on dubious scientific studies showing links between marijuana use and violence, over 29 states outlawed marijuana. Many newspapers at the time, combined with the film Refer Madness in 1936 promoted this type of propaganda as legitimate. The specific reason given for the outlawing of the hemp plant was its supposed violent, effect on the degenerate races. In 1937, Congress implemented the Marijuana Tax Act, which levied a tax on anyone who dealt commercially in cannabis, hemp, or marijuana. Like the 1914 Harrison Narcotics act, the act itself did not criminalize cannabis use, it simply penalized cannabis handlers who did not get the proper marijuana stamp and pay the proper tax for handling marijuana. The act restricted cannabis use by never issuing marijuana stamps to anybody that may wish to sell, purchase or use the plant. Moreover, in order to get a stamp one would have to have marijuana in hand to get the license, effectively creating a system of self-incrimination .The fact that the marijuana tax act led to a system of self-incrimination, the law was abolished after the court case of Leary v. United States in which the Supreme Court held the tax act unconstitutional since it violated the Fifth Amendment . However, drug laws were by this time so entrenched in the American consciousness, drug crusaders had no problem enacting a law that outright illegalized the plant. This led to the 1970s Controlled Substances Act. This act regulated the manufacture, importation, possession, use and distribution of certain substances . The legislation created five schedules for a substance to be included.
A discussion of the classification criteria and the drugs listed in all five schedules would be far too extensive and not germane to this dissertation. Therefore, I will only discuss marijuana’s classification as a schedule I drug. Schedule I substances are defined by the Controlled Substances Act as a drug or substances that has a high potential for abuse, has no currently accepted medical use, and there is a lack of accepted safety for the use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision . What is noteworthy about this classification is that pure THC is listed as a schedule III narcotic5 under the trademark Marinol . Likewise, far more dangerous drugs such as cocaine, methamphetamine and oxycodone are classified as schedule II drugs, implying that they are less dangerous and less like to cause dependence and abuse . In 1996, California voters passed historic legislation, Proposition 215, concerning the use of cannabis for medical purpose. The proposition was a statewide voter initiative to allow patients with a valid doctor’s recommendation to possess and cultivate cannabis for personal medical use. This was the first stepping-stone in the legalization of marijuana. It also created a conflict between state and federal law, with prosecution and imprisonment still enforceable at the federal level. In response to Proposition 215, the federal government threatened to revoke the license of any physician who recommended the use of cannabis to any patient . Such threats did not last long as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that, “the harm to patients from being denied the right to receive candid medical advice” and the “the harm to doctors from being unable to deliver such advice” were both insupportable. Proposition 215 was later expanded in 2004 with the introduction of SB 420. Senate Bill 420 was to create a uniform system of guidelines for medical marijuana regulation .
The provisions allows for an individual to possess a minimum of 6 mature or 12 immature plants and a half pound of processed cannabis. The bill established the voluntary medical marijuana identification card program and guidelines on aggregate possession and the operation of cooperatives and collectives . Theoretically, collectives/cooperatives are collectively owned non-profit establishments designed to grow and distribute cannabis on behalf of its members that have neither the time, resources or knowledge to grow on their own behalf. By operating collectively, growers and distributors, known as growing operations and dispensaries/delivery services pull together the aggregate passion of its members to grow on their behalf. Aggregate possession allows for a cooperative to grow and distribute medical cannabis on behalf of its members. This allows cooperatives the ability to grow much more cannabis than would typically be legal for an individual grower or growers. Many medical marijuana patients have not the time, knowledge or ability to grow medical marijuana plants. Moreover, the sale, purchase and trafficking of cannabis is still illegal under California state and federal law for both medical marijuana patients and non-medical marijuana patients alike. Joining a cooperative or collective allows medical marijuana patients that otherwise would have to grow cannabis on their own or buy it from a street dealer the ability to obtain cannabis in a relatively safe and secure way. However, indoor vertical garden system cooperatives are expressly non-profits that operate for the benefit of their members. Cannabis is grown for the benefits of the members and donations are made to keep the cooperative operational.The passage of California’s Compassionate Use Act and the enactment of Senate Bill 420 opened the floodgates for the shifting of public opinions about cannabis and cannabis legalization in the United States. As of this writing April 2016, there are currently twenty-three states in the U.S. that have some form of legalized marijuana production and distribution system either already in place or in the works. On top of that, four states , and the District of Columbia , have outright legalized recreational cannabis for adult use , and another twenty states are working to put pot legalization measures on their November 2016 election ballots . Although times are changing and a trend towards legalization appears inevitable, a new form of racial and class hierarchy is emerging in the recreational marijuana system. As stated earlier in the chapter, drug prohibition and the war on drugs has always relied on a system of racialized assumptions. Today, in response to mounting state debt, and a per capita prison population that far surpasses that of nation states typically considered to be repressive, states are enacting laws to help reduce the economic cost of mass incarceration and the war on drugs. Unfortunately, as history has proven time and time again, the more things change the more they stay the same. Much of the pro-legalization and anti-mass incarceration rhetoric centers around the issue of the taxation burden on the white middle class. In fact, one of the most cited statistics, and perhaps one of the most significant reasons for the wild fire spread of pro-cannabis legislation has been the boon to state coffers following the Colorado and Washington’s marijuana legalization. The state of Colorado alone collected nearly 135 million dollars in marijuana taxes in its first year following the institution of legal recreational marijuana. In the state of Colorado in 2015, licensed marijuana stores sold approximately 1 billion dollars worth of medical and recreational cannabis. Additionally, the state collected 135 million in taxes in year over year totals for taxes and license fees in 2015 .
What is going on today is nothing short of what many have described as a modern day gold rush, or, a “Green Rush” to be exact. In Oregon’s first month of legal recreational marijuana sales, the retailers sold an estimated 13.9 million dollars worth of pot generating 3.48 million dollars in taxes . Unfortunately, everybody does not share in the spoils of cannabis legalization equally. Similar to the way certain cities institute ordinances to effectively bar medical marijuana dispensaries in cities, many of the states that have enacted rules for the application process that effectively bars poor and middle class Americans from participating in the industry.In addition to maintaining class hierarchy, the racial inequity remains intact as a criminal record bars individuals from working in the marijuana industry . By barring former criminals, and in particular, criminals charged with prior drug offenses, the laws practically guarantee a middle-class white work force. Although research unequivocally shows that whites and blacks use drugs at approximately the same rates, blacks have been disproportionately arrested and convicted of drug offenses. And as a consequence of this racial targeting, a defacto system of racial segregation is emerging in this newly found industry. As Amanda Chicago Lewis so eloquently puts it, “After having borne the brunt of the “war on drugs,” black Americans are now largely missing out on the economic opportunities created by legalization.” Moreover, as the application process has become prohibitively expensive, minorities are excluded from entrepreneurial ventures as the lack of wealth of keeps many from attempting to enter the industry. It is estimated that it takes a quarter of a million dollars to start a recreational marijuana business . Thus, the legal marijuana system, at the dispensary ownership level and the production process is still very much dominated by white upper class males. Notwithstanding, regardless of the barriers enacted by the state, city or any other type of governmental entity, it is important to understand that cannabis as a plant can not be controlled, unlike other forms of drugs such as cocaine and methamphetamine, a chemically rigorous production process is not necessary. Any individual with a pot and a plant can grow cannabis and thus the system can never be completely controlled. According to a report released by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice pot legalization hasn’t done anything to shrink the racial gap in drug arrest rates. Although the study pointed to the fact that arrest rates plummeted in states in Washington and Colorado, the racial disparity between black and white arrest remains unchanged . However, it should be noted that while disparity in arrest rates remain consistent, arrest overall in states with legal recreational marijuana has seen dramatic decreases . In the state of Washington alone from 2008 to 2014, arrest rates dropped by 90 percent. Thus, one of the major consequences of our half semi-legalized marijuana system in the U.S. is much the same that it has been for generations, as poor and minorities are locked up for selling and using marijuana, white male capitalists get rich off from the exact same act. Thus, the cannabis industry in the U.S. today is at an interesting crossroad between legalization, taxation and regulation on end and prohibition and the war on drugs and more of the same on the other. However, it is important to understand that the inequities of the war on drugs cannot be redressed with a simple process of legalization without redressing and remediating the inequities the war on drugs produced.