Talk:Marihuana Tax Act of 1937
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 comment
- 2 Tax of $1?
- 3 TERRIBLE TERRIBLE TERRIBLE ARTICLE
- 4 Anslinger's Statements and Neutrality
- 5 Legislation pre 1937
- 6 Article name
- 7 Timothy Leary v. US, US Court of Appeals, 1967
- 8 POV-Check
- 9 Former POV and factual issues
- 10 No J???
- 11 in the 'russia'?
- 12 Silk not Hemp
- 13 Pure bullshit
- 14 420-15?
- 15 The semantics the last edit on 1942 Marijuana Stamps
- 16 Is Dupont 's size relevant here
I removed these questions from the article:
(Does the US have an equivilent to Hannsard that I can link to?)
Perhaps someone more up on US law can explain how Tax Acts become prohibition acts?
It seems this article is entirely non-NPOV. It says starts off with a statement about a hearing that doesn't make any sense to me, then says very little about the tax act itself, and leaves me with nothing other than a very strong feeling that the authors have an axe to grind about marijuana criminalization. Speaking of "wild, entirely unsupported claims" ... 18.104.22.168 20:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.
Cannabis, aka marijuana was a commodity, a legal product, for thousands of years before 1937. Another commodity, a machine gun, prior to the MTAct, was not only legally sold, but were protected by the Second Amendment. To get around that the government enacted the tax... but the catch was, you needed to have it in your possession to pay the tax. Since it was illegal to "possess it" without having paid the tax, it became illegal. This paradox was finally brought before the US Supreme Court, and found to be unconstitutional. Both laws were annulled, and new laws were crafted quickly to assure that the machine gun and marijuana remained illegal to possess. How ingenious to mix machine guns and marijuana! They are so, not alike.
RE: "Authors have an ax to grind", rather common among authors, i'd say. But your point seems to suggest we are attempting to undermine the foundations of law, and that marijuana is illegal, so end of story. I hope this isn't your view, but if it is, you're not alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twearth (talk • contribs) 01:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Tax of $1?
In the second paragraph, it says "...levied a tax equaling roughly one dollar". That doesn't seem correct. I heard it was $100/oz, with the intent of making it prohibitively expensive for anyone to grow cannabis. Perhaps someone can clear this up, and provide a citation? 0xDEADC0DE (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: Growing and selling marijuana were still legal, but only if you bought a $1 government stamp. The problem was that he stamp was not available for purchase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
TERRIBLE TERRIBLE TERRIBLE ARTICLE
"The act did not itself criminalize the possession or usage of cannabis, but levied a tax equaling roughly one dollar on anyone who dealt commercially in marijuana." "this act was found to be unconstitutional . . . since a person seeking the tax stamp would have to incriminate him/herself." The nature of the taxation & the unconstitutional nature of it should be made clear. The article indicates all a grower would have to do is pay the tax, not indicating why that would be incriminating. This article aught mention the stringent body of Regulation 1 enforcement proceedings, the threat to doctors prescribing marijuana to patients, and the severe & abusive machinations of Harry J. Anslinger in harassing growers when the act as passed. --Rektide 22:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes there is conflicting information here. IN the legal history of Marijuana in the US. It says that the Act did make possession and usage of cannabis illegal under federal law, so which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure possession and use were only legal if the tax was paid to the government. Paying the tax would incriminate oneself of later laws passed in the states (not the 1937 tax act) , that banned the drug entirely regardless of whether the tax was paid to the federal government. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Anslinger's Statements and Neutrality
The entire fourth paragraph seems to conflict with many quotes on the Anslinger wiki and it also attacks pro-marijuana ralliers ADarkerBreed 22:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Legislation pre 1937
Would be useful to see some context in terms of US legislation re cannabis cultivation, use etc prior to 1937. Cannabis was already a controlled substance in the UK, under an act dating from 1928, and was probably contolled before then. UK legislation was generally in line with international conventions to which the US was also signatory. The Marijuana Tax Act, however, seems to have gone far beyond anything expected in terms of those conventions, and for reasons which represented the racial prejudice of a powerful US clique. In the UK medical prescription of cannabis was not prohibitted until 1971. Laurel Bush 12:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC).
I'm left with a considerable amount of confusion about this act, and what it actually did.
It was my understanding that the act required licenses for marijuana production and sale, but in order to be issued a license you would have to already have possesion of some marijuana. Basically, you had to break the law in order to comply with it. :)
- I was thinking exactly the same thing myself.--Lairor 22:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Timothy Leary v. US, US Court of Appeals, 1967
I've read the entire opinion, and it seems to me that the 5th Circuit actually upheld the conviction, not overturned. If the Marihuana Tax Act was, in fact, found unconstitutional, it was not as a result of this case. --Eric 13:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems that this article is full of wild speculation and conspiracy theory against cannibis. It needs to be entirely rewritten with a NPOV or deleted entirely if it is indeed redundant. --Thenormalyears 22:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The whole History portion seems to be pretty radically anti-criminalization. I'm recommending this for review for probable violations of the Neutral Point of View policy. --184.108.40.206 21:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm as anti-criminalization as anyone, but I recognize that the "history" section of this article had nothing to do with the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act. Since it was not only POV but also irrelevant, I've simply deleted it, as no amount of cleanup would have made it suitable for inclusion in this article. JoeCatch 23:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Former POV and factual issues
The article had a few POV and factual issues. The statement "It is worth noting that Marijuana has many known links to cancer and other health problems..." seemed to me to present exaggerated view of Marijuana's cancer risks. Also the section on possible racial motives for the act included statements of opinion and fact unsourced to credible sources I removed that I removed. Evidence clearly suggest that various forces used racism to help gain support for the act though the issue of stopping the production of hemp based paper and fiber products in favor of alternatives offered by the Dupont Corporation has also been argued by some as motivations for the law. The claim "The bill itself is also unlikely to be racially motivated." is opinion which I have removed. If some notable source has offered such opinion then it could be added back attributed to to that source. The article should probably flesh out info on what the stated arguments for the act used by it's supporters and the claims of what the true motivations for act really where by pro-Marijuana legalization activists and others. Also, there is usefull info relating to the act that is present in the article on Anslinger that should be included in this article. --Cab88 07:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about any of the factuality issues, but the language use here is really sloppy: e.g. typos/misspellings like "cannbis" and "testemonies", or the misbegotten phrase "bad founded arguments".
in the 'russia'?
"In the russia, the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act ... was a significant bill".
In the 'russia'? What does that mean, and why does it link to the article for the Russian Federation?
Silk not Hemp
A widespread legend is that hemp could become a major competitor of pulp from trees. That this is a legend can be easily demonstrated by looking at developments in other countries than the USA, where hemp cultivation was permitted even after the 1937. Hemp remained in these countries a very marginal raw material to produce paper. From the end of 1920s onwards, came successively better and better technologies to make pulp from wood, for example the recovery boiler that enabled recycling of chemicals in a pulp plant. What DuPoint was doing was to replace silk, a very expensive luxury that was largely imported from Japan before World War II, with nylon.Dala11a (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- That nylon was out-competed by hemp. No known primary sources ! Have someone heard of nylon stockings?
- That pulp from hemp was a threat to pulp from well managed forest. No known primary sources !
The semantics the last edit on 1942 Marijuana Stamps
I mentioned in my edit summary how the previous word, "became," was bad usage. As to a replacemnt, one might say that tax stamps "were" issued. This does not connote development, so I replaced it with "began to be," which suits the sentence better. The essential actor remains somewhat unclear, though, so this passage could still be written better, but it is now at least correct grammar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsnow75 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Is Dupont 's size relevant here
In business is it true that size can be important. A big company can take a loss in one product and move on, for a small company can that become the end for the company. The DuPont Group in 1930-1937 was very big and profitable. It is therefore very unlikely the company was dependent of a success for the nylon-project.
Jack Herer and his followers has claimed that Dupont Group or its owners felt fear for hemp. How, Why, When and Whom??? Where are the sources from the 1930s??? There are no known documents from the DuPont Group or its owners about that hemp was a threat. The new law about marijuana came on the agenda at a time when nylon still was a very small project compared with the total DuPont Group. Less than 1 % of the more than 40 000 employed in the Dupont Group worked with the nylon-project. Several major technological problems with mass production of nylon were not yet solved in the beginning of 1937, these solutions came later. And the patent was not approved until 1938. With nylon it was possible to produce many products that was in practice not possible with hemp as raw material. It was obvious that hemp and nylon could coexist on the market.
A few users in Wikipedia have deleted text about how big DuPont Group was in the 1930. As I see it is some words about DuPont's size relevant in this article if Jack Herer's claims shall be a part of the text. Dala11a (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)