Newsgroups: alt.hemp,talk.politics.drugs,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: [g--a--l] at [socrates.ucsf.edu] (Rick Graul)
Subject: Re: Prohibition Constitutional?
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1993 18:12:47 GMT

[w--li--t] at [athena.Eng.Sun.COM] (William Turnbow) writes:
>	The original prohibition on alcohol required a constitutional
>amendment for it to be illegal.  Why has has there been no such
>requirement for other drugs such as hemp?  By what legal/constitutional
>authority are drugs such as hemp made illegal?

Here's a quote from an excellent book, that I recommend you read.  Sorry
about the length, but I think it's worth reading.  Any typos are mine.

From _Our Right To Drugs_ by Thomas Szasz, Praeger Publishers, NY (1992):

begin quote

*The Food and Drugs Act of 1906*

  Before 1907, all drugs could be sold and bought like any other consumer
good.  The manufacturer did not even have to disclose the contents of his
concoction.  Hence the name patent medicine, the adjective alluding to
the fact that the composition was a trade secret, protected by a patented
name.
  Although there is no evidence that the American consumer ever complained
about the free market in drugs, there is plenty of evidence that his self
appointed protectors complained bitterly and loudly.  The first landmark
event in the federal regulation of drugs (and foods) was the Food and
Drugs Act of 1906.  What did Congress intend to achieve with this seemingly
laudable legislation?  To protect people from the sale of "adulterated" or
"misbranded" foods or drugs, that is, "assur[ing] the customer of the
identity of the article purchased, not of its usefulness."
  I say Congress's aim in enacting this legislation was seemingly
laudable because, while it is desirable that people know what drugs they
buy, forcing manufacturers by law to list the ingredients of their
products is an unnecessary infringement on the free market -- the foot
in the door of paternalistic-statist protectionism.  If Great American
Drugs, Inc., wants to market a mystery product, there is no reason why
the government should prevent it from doing so.  And if I want to buy
such a pig in a poke, why should the government prevent me from making
that choice?  People who want to be informed about the drugs they buy
and use would abstain from purchasing mystery products, and market forces
would then create a supply of truthfully labeled drugs.  In short, there
would be no need to prohibit the non-disclosure of the contents of
medicinal (or other) products.  It is enough to prohibit false disclosure
and to punish it, as fraud, by both criminal and civil penalities.  As for
nondisclosure, it would be "punished" by the invisible hand of the market.
  The truth is that behind Congress's ostensible aim of combating drug
misbranding lay its growing antagonism to the habit of pharmacological
self-pleasuring, manifested by the act's specifically mandating the
listing on the label of what were then the main ingredients of Americans'
favorite nostrums: alcohol, hypnotics, and sedatives.  The relevant lines
of the Food and Drugs Act read as follows:

    That for purposes of this Act an article shall also be deemed
    misbranded: ... if the package fails to bear a statement on the
    label of the quantity or proportion of any alcohol, morphine,
    opium, cocaine, heroin, alpha or beta eucaine, chloroform,
    cannabis, chloral hydrate, or acetanilide.

  It is implicit in this sentence that, back then, Congress took for
granted the legality of a free market in drugs, including cannabis,
cocaine, heroin, and morphine.
[...]

*The Harrison Act (1914) and It's Aftermath*

  In 1914, Congress enacted another landmark piece of anti-drug
legislation: the Harrison Narcotic Act.  Originally passed as a
record-keeping law, it quickly became a prohibition statute.  In the
course of the next seven years, by a curious coincidence of history
-- if, indeed, it is a coincidence -- in Russia the Soviet Union
replaced the czarist empire, while in the United States the free market
in drugs was replaced by federal drug prohibition possessing
unchallengeable authority.  Excerpts from two key Supreme Court
decisions quickly tell the story.
  In 1915, in a test of the Harrision Act, the Court upheld it but
expressed doubts about its constitutionality: "While the Opium
Registration Act of December 17, 1914, may have a moral end, as well
as revenue, in view, this court, in view of the grave doubt as to its
constitutionality except as a revenue measure, construes it as such."
Yet, only six years later the Court considered objection to federal
drug prohibition a taboo.  In Whipple v. Martinson the justices
declared,

    There can be no question of the authority of the State in the
    exercise of its police power to regulate the administration, sale,
    prescription, and use of dangerous and habit-forming drugs....
    The right to exercise this power is so manifest in the interest of
    public health and welfare, that it is unnecessary to enter upon
    a discussion of it beyond saying that it is too firmly established to
    be successfully called in question.

  In 1914, trading in and using drugs was a right.  In 1915, limited
federal drug controls were a constitutionally questionable tax revenue
measure.  By 1921, the federal government had gained not only complete
control over so-called dangerous drugs, but also a quasi-papal
immunity to legal challenge of its authority.  Thus has the rejection
of one of our most basic constitutional rights become transformed into
reverence for one of our most baneful therapeutic-religious dogmas.
  Once ignited, the fire of "progressive" drug protectionism spread and
soon enveloped the whole contry, transforming the Harrison Act into
the legislative embodiment of the "moral principle that taking narcotics
for other than medicinal purposes was harmful and should be prevented."
That threw the monkey wrench medicinal purpose into the machinery of the
trade in drugs; this undefined and undefinable concept has haunted us ever
since.  In 1920, drug prohibitionists won another major victory: America
was, at last, alcohol-free -- if not de facto, then at least de jure.
Since 1924, when Congress made it illegal to manufacture, possess, or
sell heroin, America has been free from heroin as well -- if not in
practice, then at least in theory.
[...]
  In retelling this tale, it is impossible to overemphasize that, although
initially the drug laws were intended to protect people from being
"abused" by drugs others wanted to sell them, this aim was soon replaced
by that of protecting them from "abusing" drugs they wanted to buy.  The
government thus succeeded in depriving us not only of our basic right
to ingest whatever we choose, but also of our right to grow, manufacture,
sell, and buy agricultural products used by man since antiquity.

end quote

Regarding hemp, in 1937 a law was passed which placed a Transfer Tax on
hemp, non-payment of which was a felony.  The same law also declared hemp
to be a narcotic.  I believe the only time the Tax Stamp has ever been
issued was to American hemp farmers during the war effort in the 1940's.
Possessing hemp is still a felony in many states.

Now it is a legal requirement, as a prerequisite to employment, to have to
urinate in a cup to prove that one hasn't been taking certain drugs (ie,
you have to prove your innocence to get a job).

It's notable that this current, sad state of affairs has been arrived at
without a public vote of any kind.  We have arrived here as a result of a
series of administrative decisions.  What's scarey is that most people, if
given the chance, would probably vote to continue the prohibition.

Sure, drug prohibition is unconstitutional, but just try to convince the
Supreme Court of that!

Rick
-- 
Rick Graul
[g--a--l] at [socrates.ucsf.edu]