Statement of Clinton M. Hester, Assistant General Counsel for the Department of the Treasury, and S.G. Tipton, Office of General Counsel

Statement of H. J. Anslinger, Commissioner of Narcotics, Bureau of Narcotics, Department of the Treasury.

Additional statement of H. J. Anslinger (includes "Marihuana as a Developer of Criminals", by Eugene Stanley, district attorney, parish of Orleans, New Orleans, La.)

Answers to Marihuana Questionnaire by Dr. W. L. Treadway Division of Mental Hygiene Public Health Service

Statement of Herbert J. Wollner, Consulting Chemist, Office of the Secretary of the Treasury

Statement of Hon. Ralph F. Lozier, Carrollton, Mo, General Counsel of the National Institute of Oilseed Products

Further Statement of Clinton M. Hester, Assistant General Counsel, Treasury Department

Additional Statement of Hon. Ralph F. Lozier, Carrollton, Mo, General Counsel of the National Institute of Oilseed Products

Statement of Raymond G. Scarlett, Representing William G. Scarlett & Co., Baltimore, MD.

Statement of Joseph B. Hertzfield, Manager, Feed Department, TGhe Philadelphia Seed Co., Philadelphia, PA

Statement of Dr. William C. Woodward, Legislative Counsel, American Medical Association, Chicago, Ill.

Statement of Dr. S. L. Hilton, Representing the American Pharmaceutical Assocation.

Addenda -- Letter from Mrs. Hamilton Wright, special representative, Bureau of Narcotics

Statement of Clinton M. Hester, Assistant General Counsel for the Department of the Treasury, and S.G. Tipton, Office of General Counsel

Additional statement of H. J. Anslinger (includes "Marihuana as a Developer of Criminals", by Eugene Stanley, district attorney, parish of Orleans, New Orleans, La.)

STATEMENT OF CLINTON M. HESTER, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; AND S.G TIPTON, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

MR. HESTER: Mr. Chairman and members of the Ways and Means Committee, for the past two years the Treasury Department has been making a study of the subject of marihuana, a drug which is found in the flowering tops, seeds, and leaves of Indian hemp and is now being used extensively by high-school children in cigarettes. Its effect is deadly.

I would like to say at this point that we have with us this morning Commissioner Anslinger, of the Bureau of Narcotics, who has had charge of the enforcement of the Harrison Narcotics Act, and who will have charge of the enforcement of this act, if this bill is enacted into law. We also have with use a pharmacologist who is prepared to testify as to the effect of the drug on human beings. We also have an expert chemist, and one of the outstanding botanists in the country, who are prepared to testify with

The leading newspapers of the United States have recognized the seriousness of this problem and many of them have advocated Federal legislation to control the traffic in marihuana. In fact, several newspapers in the city of Washington have advocated such

The marihuana cigarette is one of the most insidious of all forms of dope, largely because of the failure of the public to understand its fatal qualities.

The Nation is almost defenseless against it, having no Federal laws to cope with it and virtually no organized campaign for combating it. The result is tragic.

High-school boys and girls buy the destructive weed without knowledge of it capacity for harm, and conscienceless dealers sell it with impunity.

The fatal marihuana cigarette must be recognized as a deadly drug and American children must be protected against it.

As recently as the 17th of this month, there appeared in the editorial columns of the Washington Post and editorial on this subject, advocating the speedy enactment by Congress of this very bill introduced by Chairman Doughton, and now before this

With a Federal law on the books a more ambitious attack can be launched. It is time to wipe out the evil before its potentialities for national degeneracy become more apparent. The legislation just introduced in Congress by Representative Doughton would further this end. Its speedy passage is desirable.

In an editorial on this subject appearing in its editorial columns on April 10, 1937, the Washington Herald quoted the Journal of the American Medical Association, in part, as follows:

The problems of greatest menace in the United States seem to be the rise in use of Indian hemp (marihuana) with inadequate control laws.

A cartoon unusually illustrative of the insidiousness of the illicit traffic in marihuana appeared in the Washington Herald of April 15, under the title "Another Pied Piper". The cartoon pictured the Pied Piper in the form of a marihuana cigarette, marching down a road described as "The Dope Habit", playing his pipe and being followed by a group of children portrayed as "Our High School Youth".

Apropos the seriousness of the problem which H.R. 6385 is designed to correct, is a statement made by Commissioner Anslinger of the Bureau of Narcotics, before a House judiciary subcommittee on Friday of last week. In the course of his testimony in support of two bills, which, like H.R. 6385 are designed to aid the Federal Government in its fight to stamp out the illicit traffic in narcotic drugs, Mr. Anslinger made the statement, supported by statistics of the Department of Justice, that the major criminal in the United States is the drug addict; that of all the offenses committed against the laws of this country, the narcotic addict is the most frequent offender.

The purpose of H.R. 6385 is to employ the Federal taxing power not only to raise revenue from the marihuana traffic, but also to discourage the current and widespread undesirable use of marihuana by smokers and drug addicts and thus drive the traffic into channels where the plant will be put to valuable industrial, medical, and scientific uses. In accomplishing this general purpose two objectives should dictate the form of the proposed legislation: First, the development of a scheme of taxation which would

raise revenue and which would also render virtually impossible the acquisition of marihuana by person who would put it to illicit uses without unduly interfering with the use of the plant for industrial , medical, and scientific purposes; and second, the

development of an adequate means of publicizing dealings in marihuana in order that the traffic may be effectively taxed and controlled.

The Harrison Narcotics Act (U.S.C. title 26, sec 1040-1054 1383-1391), was designed to accomplish these same general objectives with reference to opium and coca leaves and their derivatives. That act required all legitimate handlers of narcotics to register, pay an occupational tax, and file information returns setting forth the details surrounding their use of the drugs. It further provided that no transfer of narcotics (with a few exceptions, notably by practicioners in their bona-fide practice and druggists who dispense on prescription) could be made except upon written order forms. Since it was also provided that no one except registered persons could legally acquire these order forms and since illicit consumers were not eligible to register, the order-form requirement serves the double purpose of publicizing transfers of narcotics and restricting them to legitimate users.

The same objectives impelled Congress to enact the National Firearms Act (U.S.C. title 26, sec. 1132-1132q) In that act, in order to accomplish them, it was provided that all manufacturers, dealers, and importers of firearms should register and pay special taxes ranging from $200 to $500 per year. It was further provided that firearms could not be transferred except in pursuance of a written order form and upon payment of a $200 tax for each transfer, transfers made to law enforcement officers being excepted. Thus, provision was made for publicizing dealings in firearms and for restricting their use to those persons who would have legitimate use for them.

The proposed marihuana bill is something of a synthesis of both of these statutes. It provides that all manufacturers, compounders, importers, producers, dealers, laboratory users, and practicioners must register and pay a special occupational tax ranging from one dollar for practicioners and scientific users to fifty dollars for importers compounders, and manufacturers. The filing of information returns is also required in order to publicize the dealings in the plant. As an additional means of bringing the marihuana traffic out into the open, the bill also makes it illegal, with certain exceptions, to transfer marihuana except in pursuance of a written order form setting forth the facts surrounding the transaction. Substantial criminal penalties are imposed for violating the order form or registry provisions of this bill.

In order to raise additional revenue and to stamp out transfers to persons who would use marihuana for undesirable purposes, it is further required that on any transfer which is required to be made in pursuance of an order form a transfer tax shall be imposed. This tax will be at the comparatively low rate of one dollar per ounce, or fraction thereof, for transfers to registered persons, but at the rate of $100 per ounce, or fraction thereof, on transfers to persons who have not registered and paid the special occupational tax whether or not they are required to register and pay the tax. It is made a criminal offense to acquire marihuana without having paid the transfer tax, when payment of such tax is required. Since those who would consume marihuana are not eligible to register under the bill, and since the $100 tax on unregistered persons is designed to be prohibitive, such persons could not acquire marihuana.

The form of the bill is such, however, as not to interfere materially with any industrial, medical, or scientific uses which the plant may have. Since hemp fiber and articles manufactured therefrom are obtained from the harmless mature stalk of the plant, all

such products have been completely eliminated from the purview of the bill by defining the term "marihuana" in the bill, so as to exclude from it provisions the mature stalks and its compounds or manufactures.

There are also some dealings in marihuana seeds for planting purposes and for use in the manufacture of oil which is ultimately employed by the paint and varnish industry. As the seeds, unlike the mature stalk, contain the drug, the same complete exemption could not be applied in this instance. But this type of transaction, as well as any transfer of completed paint or varnish products, has been exempted from transfer tax. Any negligible medical use which marihuana may have will also be left largely unrestricted by this bill.

It is provided, as in the Harrison Act, that dispensations by registered practicioners in the course of their professional practice and transfers made in good faith by druggists in pursuant of a written prescription issued by a registered practicioner shall be exempt from the order-form provisions and from the transfer tax. Moreover, we are informed by authorities in the Public Health Service that there is no real medical use for the drug marihuana for the reason that its effect on human beings is so variable and also because there are better substitutes.

The heart of this bill is contained in sections 2, 6, and 7. Section 2 imposes an occupational excise tax in the case of (1) importers, manufacturers, and compounders of marihuana, $50 per year; (2) producers of marihuana, $25 per year; (3) physicians, dentists, veterinary surgeons and other practicioners one dollar per year; (4) persons who use marihuana for research, instruction or analysis, $1 per year; (5) dealers, $15 per year.

Upon payment of the tax, the taxpayer is required to register with the collector. These occupational taxes and registration provisions are similar to those imposed by the Harrison Narcotic Act and the National Firearms Act. The constitutionality of such provisions in the Harrison Narcotics Act was sustained by the Supreme Court in Doremus vs. United States (249 U.S. 86) and on the 29th of March of this year, the Supreme Court sustained the validity of the similar occupational taxes and registration provisions imposed by the National Firearms Act in the case of Sonzinsky vs. United States (57 S. Ct. 554).

Section 6 of the bill makes in unlawful for anyone to transfer marihuana except in pursuance of a written order of the person to whom such marihuana is transferred on a form to be issued in blank, for that purpose by the Secretary of the Treasury. This

order form requirement does not apply, however, to a transfer of marihuana by a practicioner to his patient, or by a druggist to a consumer who presents to the druggist a prescription issued by a practicioner registered under the act. Nor does it apply to

exportations of marihuana, transfers of marihuana to Government officials, transfers to paint or varnish of which marihuana is an ingredient, transfers of marihuana to registered persons for use in the manufacture of paint or varnish and transfers of seeds of the marihuana plant. This order form requirement is similar to that contained in the Harrison Narcotics Act and the National Firearms Act.

Section 7 imposes a tax of one dollar per ounce upon all transfers of marihuana to person who have paid the special occupational tax and registered under Section 2 of the bill. It imposes a tax of $100 per ounce on transfers of marihuana to nonregistered person. The types of transfer exempted form the order form requirements under section 6, such as those by practicioners and druggists, are likewise exempted from the payment of any tax under the provisions of this section.

At this point, this bill, like the National Firearms Act, departs from the plan of the Harrison Narcotics Act which limits the right to purchase narcotic drugs to those persons who are permitted to register under that act. This limitation was the focal point of attack against the constitutionality of the Harrison Narcotics Act in the case of Doremus vs. United States, supra, and Nigro vs. United States (1927) (276 U.S. 332). In the latter case, the minority of the court expressed the view that this provision in the Harrison Narcotics Act, which limited the persons entitled to purchase narcotic drugs, was unconstitutional on the ground that it manifested an intention on the part of the Congress to regulate a subject matter reserved to the States under the Tenth Amendment.

Thus, in order to obviate the possibility of a similar attack up the constitutionality of this bill, it , like the National Firearms Act, permits the transfer of marihuana to nonregistered persons upon the payment of a heavy transfer tax. The bill would permit the transfer of marihuana to anyone, but would impose a $100 per ounce tax upon a transfer to a person who might use it for purposes which are dangerous and harmful to the public, just as the National Firearms Act permits a transfer of a machine gun to anyone but imposes a $200 tax upon a transfer to a person who would be likely to put it to an illegal use.

Although the $100 transfer tax in this bill is intended to be prohibitive, as is the $200 transfer tax in the National Firearms Act, it is submitted that it is constitutional as a revenue measure.

In the case of Veazie Bank v. Fenno (1869, 8 Wall, 533) the Supreme Court sustained as a proper exercise of the taxing power a ten percent tax upon state-bank notes, notwithstanding the tax, as it was intended to be, was so heavy as to drive such notes out of circulation. The Court said that the fact that a tax was prohibitive would not invalidate it if, on its face, it appeared to be a revenue raising measure, and the fact that a tax is burdensome or tends to restrict or suppress the thing taxed, does not make it any the less a valid exercise of the taxing power. Where the taxing act appears on its face to be a revenue measure, the Court stated that it is not within the province of the judiciary to inquire other motives that may have influenced the Congress in enacting the tax.

In 1913 the Ways and Means Committee reported out a bill which became the Smoking Opium Act of January 17, 1914 (38 Stat. 277). That act imposed a prohibitive tax of $300 per pound upon the manufacture of smoking opium. The act further required anyone desiring to engage in the business of manufacturing smoking opium to give to the United States a bond in the minimum amount of $100,000 to insure the collection of this tax. The constitutionality of this prohibitive tax was considered by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in the case of Lee Mow Lin v. United States (195 U.S. 27), in which the court considered the constitutionality of the Oleomargarine Act of 1902. That act imposed a tax of one-quarter cent per pound upon the manufacture or white oleomargarine and a tax of ten cents per pound upon the manufacture of yellow oleomargarine. The latter tax was deliberately designed to discourage the manufacture of yellow oleomargarine. The constitutionality of the ten cent tax on yellow oleomargarine was challenged on the grounds, first, that it was so heavy as to indicate an intention by

Congress to regulate a subject-matter reserved to the States by the tenth amendment; and second, that it was an unreasonable classification in that the ten cent tax arbitrarily discriminated against yellow oleomargarine and in favor of white oleomargarine in

The Supreme Court overruled both of these contentions. IN answer to the first, it held that, although the ten cent tax was prohibitive, it was nevertheless within the power of Congress to impose such a tax. The Court repeated the rule that so long as a

statute appears upon its face to be a revenue measure, the Court cannot go behind the statute and inquire as to the motives which impelled Congress to enact it, although these motives may have been to regulate, rather than to raise revenue.

In answer to the second contention, namely, that the classification as between the two kinds of oleomargarine violated the due process clause of the fifth amendment, the Court stated that a classification need be based only on a reasonable difference between the subjects of the classification. Since yellow oleomargarine was likely to deceive the public into buying it as butter, the classification was held to be a reasonable one. Just as many of the States now prohibit the manufacture of marihuana, many

of the States then prohibited the manufacture of yellow oleomargarine. Since there is obviously a material difference between a transfer of marihuana which may be used for purposes dangerous or harmful to the public, and a transfer of marihuana to a legitimate dealer who will put it to industrial, scientific, or medical uses, it is submitted that the imposition of the one dollar tax upon transfers of marihuana to registered persons and the $100 tax upon transfers to nonregistered persons is a reasonable classification and, therefore, valid.

Finally these same principles were reiterated in the recent case of Sonzinsky v. United States, supra. In that case, the defendant was indicted and convicted for failing to pay the occupational tax and register under the National Firearms Act. He contended that the whole act was an unconstitutional, regulatory scheme, because of the cumulative effect of the heavy occupational tax, coupled with the transfer taxes, was to prohibit traffic in firearms. Although the court did not pass upon the validity of the transfer tax standing by itself, the court brushed aside this argument, remarking:

It has long been established that an act of Congress which on its face purports to be an exercise of the taxing power is not any the less so because the tax is burdensome, or tends to restrict or suppress the thing taxed.

It is urged, therefore, that the $100 transfer tax imposed by H.R. 6385 is a valid taxing provision on the authority of the banknote, smoking opium, oleomargarine, and firearms cases, supra, which hold that if a statute is on its face a revenue measure, the court will not inquire as to what other motives may have impelled Congress to enact it. Of course if a purported taxing measure appears on its face to be regulatory, that is, contains regulatory provisions which are not reasonably necessary to protect or aid in the collection of the revenue, but the tax is imposed to compel obedience to such regulatory provisions, the statute will be held unconstitutional as an attempt by Congress to regulate a subject-matter which is reserved to the States by the tenth amendment. The court so held in the Child Labor Tax Case (1921) 259 U.S. 20 and Hill v. Wallace (1922 259 U.S.

In the Child Labor Case, the court considered a statute which levied a ten percent tax upon the annual net earnings of employers who had at any time during the year employed child labor except where it was done in an honest mistake as to the employee's age. The statute was held unconstitutional as an attempt to regulate a subject matter reserved to the States by the tenth amendment, because the purported excise was not a tax, but a penalty to enforce the regulation of child labor.

As indicative of this fact, the court pointed out that the act provided a heavy exaction for departure from a detailed and specific course of conduct n business set out on the face of the law, without basing the amount of the so-called tax in any degree upon the extent or frequency of the departures. The element of intent involved in the act was also associated, the court thought, with criminal penalties rather than taxes. Finally, the court pointed to the fact that the Secretary of Labor was to participate in the administration of the act, and stated that this also indicated that the law was not a revenue measure, since revenue laws are administered by the Secretary of the Treasury.

The Grains Futures Trading Act which was held unconstitutional in Hill v. Wallace, imposed a tax of twenty cents a bushel on all contracts for the sale of grain for future delivery,. but exempted contracts, consummated on boards of trade designated as

contract markets by the Secretary of Agriculture, the designation being reserved for those markets which had complied with a large number of stringent regulations set out in the act. The court found it impossible to escape the conclusion that the act under consideration was regulatory on its face, and that the tax was merely imposed as a penalty to compel boards of trade to comply with these regulations, many of which were not relevant to the collection of the tax.

The court pointed out that the elaborate mechanism set up in the statute for hearings by the Secretary of Agriculture to determine whether or not a particular board of trade had complied with the prescribed regulations and the fact that the title of the act expressly recited that one of its purposes was that of regulating boards of trade were also strong evidence of the regulatory nature of the act.

It is submitted that the $100 tax imposed by H.R. 6385 could not be held unconstitutional under these cases, for the only regulation is that bill with which the taxpayer need comply is that which requires him to make a transfer of marihuana upon an order form. This order form requirement cannot be resorted to, however, as indicating that the $100 transfer tax is intended to regulate a subject-matter reserved to the States under the tenth amendment, for the reason that the much more drastic order form requirement in the Harrison Narcotic Act was upheld by the Supreme Court in Doremus v. United States, supra, as a regulation reasonably necessary to aid in the collection of the occupational taxes imposed by that act. In the course of its decision the Court stated:

Congress, with full power over the subject, short of arbitrary and unreasonable action which is not to be assumed, inserted these provisions in an act specifically providing for the raising of revenue. Considered of themselves, we think they tend to keep the traffic aboveboard and subject to the inspection of those authorized to collect the revenue. They tend to diminish the opportunity of unauthorized persons to obtain the drugs and sell them clandestinely without paying the tax imposed by the Federal law.

After the Doremus case, Congress amended the Harrison Narcotic Act, raising the occupational taxes and imposing a manufacturer excise tax on narcotics. In Nigro v. United States, supra, the Supreme Court again sustained the order for requirement as reasonable and necessary to aid in the collection of the occupational taxes and, in passing, stated that it was also reasonably necessary to aid the collection of the manufacturers' excise taxes. Furthermore, the Supreme Court sustained the additional and more stringent requirement absent in the National Firearms Act and in this bill, which limits the persons to whom the order forms may be sold and, consequently, those to whom narcotics may be sold. In that decision, the Court stated:

It would seem admissible and wise, in a law seeking to impose taxes for the sale of an elusive subject, to require conformity to a prescribed method of sale and delivery calculated to disclose or make more difficult any escape from the tax. If this may be

done, any departure from the steps enjoined may be punished, and added penalties may be fixed for successive omissions, but all for the one ultimate purpose of making it difficult to sell opium or other narcotics without registering or paying the tax.

The reasonableness of such requirements is will illustrated in the many limitations which were imposed upon the ancient freedom in the making and sales of distilled spirits, to the end that the collection of the heavy tax on the subject matter might be successfully secured in spite of the temptation to avoid the tax. The provision of section 2 making it an offense to sell unless the purchaser gives a particular official form of order to the seller was enacted with a like object. The sale without such an order thus carries its illegality on its face. Its absence dispenses with the necessity of sending to examine the list of those registered to learn whether the seller is engaged in a legal sale. The requirement that the official forms can only be bought and obtained by one entitled to buy, who name shall be stamped on the order form, and that after the sale the order form shall be recorded, effects a kind off registration of lawful purchasers, in addition to one of lawful sellers, and keeps selling and buying on a plane where evasion of the tax will be difficult.

Since the similar order-form requirement in the Harrison Act was sustained as a regulation reasonably necessary to aid in the collection of the occupational taxes imposed by that act, anyone challenging the constitutionality of the $100 transfer tax imposed by this bill will be unable to rely upon the order-form requirement as indicating that the $100 tax is regulatory in character, but will be compelled to rely solely upon the fact that the tax is too heavy. Thus, the $100 transfer tax is brought squarely within the bank-note, smoking-opium, and oleomargarine cases which establish the proposition that the prohibitive character of a tax does not make it any the less a valid revenue measure.

In the final analysis, after the committee has given full consideration to the subject of marihuana, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the committee may conclude that the legitimate uses of marihuana are so negligible as compared to the injurious effect it has upon the public health and morals of the people of this country, that the committee will conclude to impose a prohibitive tax upon the production, manufacture, and sale of marihuana, and thus discourage its use in any form in this country.

MR. LEWIS: The treatment of this subject as a matter of method, and so far as constitutional basis is concerned, is about the same as the Harrison Narcotic Act, is it not?

MR. LEWIS: I was thinking you might add this drug as an amendment to the Harrison Narcotic Act.

MR, HESTER: No; there are three reasons why we think that would be a bad thing to do.

The first is that while the Harrison Narcotic Act would include producers, there are actually no producers in the United States of the plant from which opium and coca leaves are obtained. Therefore, we have never had a problem under the Harrison Narcotic Act with respect to products which are produced in this country but have only been concerned with products which are imported from abroad.

here we have the reverse situation. Practically all of this marihuana is grown in the United States and for that reason, instead of being concerned only with importation and sale as under the Harrison Act, provision must also be made for regulation of production of marihuana.

There is the further point that opium and coca leaves, which are the subjects of the Harrison Act, are legitimately used almost exclusively as medicines, whereas there are many industrial uses for marihuana. That is another distinction between the Harrison

The third is this, that the Harrison Narcotic Act has twice been sustained by the Supreme Court of the United States and lawyers are no longer challenging its constitutionality. If an entirely new and different subject matter were to be inserted in its provisions, the act might be subjected to further constitutional attacks.

We feel, in view of the reasons I have cited, that this problem is one that should be dealt with under a separate act.

We have departed from the Harrison Narcotic Act in one major respect, and we have done that because the Ways and Means Committee departed from the plan of the Harrison Act in preparing the National Firearms Act.

Under the Harrison Narcotic Act no one can buy narcotics unless he has registered and paid the occupational tax. In the National Firearms Act the committee did not follow that plan. Anyone is permitted to buy a machine gun or a submachine gun, but he must pay a $200 transfer tax, and carry out the purchase on an official order form.

The focal point of attack on the Harrison Narcotic Act by the judges who dissented in the Doremus case and the Nigro case, was that the provision of the act which limited the persons to whom narcotics could be sold clearly indicated that the primary purpose of the act was not to raise revenue but to regulate matters which were reserved to the States under the tenth amendment.

MR, HESTER: In the first case the Court stood 5 to 4, and in the second case the Court stood 66 to 3.

MR, HESTER: The firearms case involved only the occupational tax under the Firearms Act.

MR, HESTER: Yes, that was a unanimous decision. That is the decision of March 29, In the Firearms Act you arranged it of that anybody can buy a machine gun but he must pay a transfer tax of $200 and would have to use an order form.

We have looked into the records in connection with the transfer tax in the Firearms Act, and we found that only one machine gun was purchased at $200 last year.

MR, HESTER: Yes, this bill would permit anyone to purchase marihuana, as was done in the National Firearms Act in permitting anyone to buy a machine gun, but he would have to pay a tax of $100 per ounce of marihuana and make his purchase on an official order form. A person who wants to buy marihuana would have to go to the collector and get an order form in duplicate, and buy the $100 tax stamp and put it on the original order form there. He would take the original to the vendor, and keep the duplicate. If the purchaser wants to transfer it, the person who purchases the marihuana from him has to do the same thing and pay the $100 tax. That is the scheme that has been adopted to sto high-school children from getting marihuana.

MR. VINSON: I notice in your statement -- and I want to say it is a good statement; the gentleman does not have any other kind of a statement when he comes before our committee.

It is provided, as in the Harrison Act, that dispensations by registered practitioners in the course of their professional practice and transfers made in god faith by druggists in pursuance f a written prescription issued by registered practitioners shall be exempt from the order-form provisions and from the transfer tax.

MR. VINSON: It seems to me that is a weakness of the Harrison Act. I think the good-faith provisions in this act will strengthen the law.

MR. TIPTON: Exactly. That is the reason we put that in there. That provision is not in the Harrison Act.

MR, HESTER: Mr. Tipton says they have had difficulty in enforcing the Harrison Act because of the absence of that requirement.

MR. VINSON: I had the notion that the provision would really strengthen the law in regard to a menace of this kind.

MR. VINSON: I would like to have some information as to where you get this plant.

MR, HESTER: I have completed my statement, and I may say, Mr. Vinson, that we have here a pharmacologist, a chemist, and an outstanding botanist, who can give you information of that nature.

MR. VINSON: I take it, Mr. Hester, from your citations of the decisions in the Doremus case, and in the Firearms case, together with the decision in the Veazie case and the McCray, or Oleomargarine case - - -

MR, HESTER: that is a decision from the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Eighth Circuit which sustained the imposition of a tax of $300 per pound upon smoking opium.

MR. VINSON: In view of these cases you have no doubt as to the power of Congress to enact this character of legislation?

MR, HESTER: My answer to that is, no; we have given it a great deal of consideration. In the final analysis we submit it to your judgment.

MR. ANSLINGER: Mr. Chairman, my name is H. J. Anslinger; I am Commissioner of Narcotics in the Bureau of Narcotics, in the Treasury Department.

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Ways and Means Committee, this traffic in marihuana is increasing to such an extent that it has come to the be cause for the greatest national concern.

This drug is as old as civilization itself. Homer wrote about, as a drug that made me forget their homes, and that turned them into swine. In Persia, a thousand years before Christ, there was a religious and military order founded which was called the

Assassins and they derived their name from the drug called hashish which is now known in this country as marihuana. They were noted for their acts of cruelty, and the word "assassin" very aptly describes the drug.

The plant from which the drugs comes is a hardy annual, growing from 3 to 16 feet in height.

Marihuana is the same as Indian hemp, hashish. It is sometimes cultivated in backyards. Over here in Maryland some of it has been found, and last fall we discovered three acres of it in the Southwest.

As I say, marihuana is the same as Indian hemp, and is sometimes found as a residual weed, and sometimes as the result of a dissemination of birdseed. It is known as cannabin, cannabis Americana, or Cannabis Sativa. Marihuana is the Mexican term for

cannabis indica. We seem to have adopted the Mexican terminology, and we call it marihuana, which means good feeling. In the underworld it is referred to by such colorful, colloquial names as reefer, muggles, Indian hay, hot hay, and weed. It is known in various countries by a variety of names.

MR. ANSLINGER: Yes, sir. There is a great deal of use of it in Egypt, particularly. It was found years ago in Egypt. The traffic has grown so that something like 14 percent of the population are addicts. In India it is sold over the counter to the addicts, direct, and there it is known as bhang and ganja.

At the Geneva Convention is 1895 the term "cannabis" included only the dried flowering or fruiting top of the pistillate plant as the plant source of the dangerous resin, from which the resin had not been extracted. That designation was used in the uniform

State act. "but research that has been made during the past few months has shown that this definition is not sufficient, because it has been found by experiment that the leaves of the pistillate plant as well as the leaves of the staminate plant contain the active

principle up to 50 percent of the strength prescribed by the United States Pharmacopoeia.

So we have urged the States to revise their definition so as to include all parts of the plant, as it now seems that the seeds and portions other than the dried flowering tops contain positively dangerous substances.

We were anticipating a challenge in one of the States of that old definition. There was a case in Florida recently in which a defendant appealed to a higher court on the ground that the prosecution had not proven that this was the dried flowered top of the pistillate plant.

"We are of the opinion, therefore, that the information was insufficient to clearly apprise accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him because of the sale of cigarettes containing cannabis, from which the resin had not been extracted may

relate to the resin of the staminate plant, the resin of which appears to be harmless."

As a matter of fact the staminate leaves are about as harmless as a rattlesnake.

In medical schools, the physician-to-be is taught that without opium he would be like a one-armed man. That is true, because you cannot get along without opium.

But here we have drug that is not like opium. Opium has all of the good of Dr. Jekyll and all the evil of Mr. Hyde. This drug is entirely the monster Hyde, the harmful effect of which cannot be measured.

I have here an excerpt from a report made to the League of Nations by the Council at its last session. It says:

Excerpt of League of Nations Document O.C. 1542 (O) Dated Geneva, February 17, 1937

Advisory Committee on Traffic in Opium and Other Dangerous Drugs, Sub-Committee on Cannabis

(Report by Dr. J. Bouquet, hospital pharmacist, Tunis, inspector of pharmacies, Tunis, containing answers to questionnaire submitted to the experts)

(7) (A) Do any preparations of Indian hemp exist possessing a therapeutic value such that nothing else can take their place for medical purposes?

(a) Indian hemp extract has been recommended for the preparation of corn cures products, that most often consist of a solution of salicylic acid in collodion; the action of the cannabis extract is nil.

At my request, experiments were made for several months in 1912 with different preparations of cannabis, without the addition of other synergetic substances (Profession Lannois' Service, Lyons Hospital). The conclusion reached was that in a few rare

cases Indian hemp gives good results, but that in general it is not superior to other medicaments which can be used in therapeutics for the treatment of the same affliction.

To sum up, Indian hemp, like many other medicaments, has enjoyed for a time a vogue which is not justified by the results obtained. Therapeutics would not lose much if it were removed from the list of medicaments.

MR. DINGELL: I want to be certain what this is. Is this the same weed that grows wild in some of our Western States which is sometimes called the loco weed?

MR. VINSON: When was this brought to your attention as being a menace among our own people?

MR. VINSON: Why did you wait until 1937 to bring in a recommendation of this kind?

MR. ANSLINGER: Ten years ago we only heard about it throughout the Southwest. It is only in the last few years that it has become a national menace. It has grown like wildfire, but it has only become a national menace in the last three years. It is only in the last two years that we have had to send reports about it to the League of Nations.

MR. VINSON: We did not have to have any convention adopted by the League of Nations in order to legislate on this subject?

MR. VINSON: It seems to me you have been rather slow in getting to this legislation.

MR. ANSLINGER: We have been urging uniform state legislation on the several States, and itt was only last month that the last State legislature adopted such legislation.

MR. ANSLINGER: There is no law in the District. This uniform act has been urged upon the states for four or five years.

MR. VINSON: But you have not urged Congress to pass this act or anything that looks like it until now.

MR. VINSON: I am not talking about their defense. It seems to me it has taken a long time to get this before Congress.

MR. ANSLINGER: It is only in the last two years that we have a report of seizures anywhere but in the Southwest. Last year, New York State reported 195 tons seized, whereas before that I do not believe that New York could have reported one ton

This discussion disclosed that, from the medical point of view in some countries the use of Indian hemp in its various forms is regarded as in no way indispensable and that it is therefore possible that little objection would be raised to drafting limitations upon medical use of derivatives.

Here is what Dr. J. Bouquet, hospital pharmacist at Tunis, and inspector of pharmacists at Tunis, says. He is the outstanding expert on cannabis in the world. He says:

MR. MCCORMACK: What are its first manifestations, a feeling of grandeur and self-exaltation, and things of that sort?

MR. ANSLINGER: It affects different individuals in different ways. Some individuals have a complete loss of sense of time or a sense of value. They lose their sense of place. That have an increased feeling of physical strength and power.

Some people will fly into a delirious rage, and they are temporarily irresponsible and may commit violent crimes. Other people will laugh uncontrollably. It is impossible to say what the effect will be on any individual. Those research men who have tried it have always been under control. They have always insisted upon that.

MR. ANSLINGER: Yes, it is. It is dangerous to the mind and body, and particularly dangerous to the criminal type, because it releases all of the inhibitions.

I have here statements by the foremost expert in the world talking on this subject, and by Dr. Cutter a noted and distinguished medical man in this country.

Does Indian hemp (Cannabis Sativa) in its various forms give rise to drug addiction?

The use of cannabis, whether smoked or ingested in its various form, undoubtedly gives rise to a form of addiction, which has serious social consequences (abandonment of work, propensity to theft and crime, disappearance of reproductive power).

Ever since the world began man has been searching for chemicals or charms that would relieve pain. Out of the East came Indian hemp, and it is surprising how rapidly its properties were recognized and how widespread became its use.

History relates that in the eleventh century a remarkable sect of Mohammedans established themselves as a powerful military unit under the leadership of a sheik who led his marauding band to victory while under the influence of hemp. In South Africa the

The plant was originally native in Persia and India, but because of the desirability of its fiber it is now cultivated in all parts of the world. For the last few years marihuana, as it is commonly called, has been sold in the United States and Canada, chiefly in the form of cigarettes, which are peddled frequently in dance halls. Much of the raw material comes from Mexico or the West Indies, and occasionally press dispatches will report that the weed had been grown even within prison walls.

As a stimulant to crime the drug is probably as important as cocaine, certainly far more so than opium or any of its derivatives, and narcotic-control agencies will be put to a severe test in routing out this traffic.

As a rule the addict passes into a dreamy state in which judgment is lost and imagination runs riot. Fantasies arise which are limitless and extravagant. Scenes pass before the mind's eye in kaleidoscopic confusion and there is no sense of the passing of time.

Under relatively large doses consciousness does not leave entirely, even though actions and movements are out of control. As the influence of the drug persists there may be periods of stupor from which, however, the patient can be aroused. In most individuals there is no succeeding nausea and the thrill seeker finds inhibitions destroyed and, abandoning his normal sense of propriety, he may do and say things quite foreign to his makeup.

Cannabis indica is the medicinal preparation known to physicians. But the potent resin produced chiefly by the top of the female plant is as much sought after in certain quarters as is opium. Its legitimate use in the field of medicine is relatively limited, as other

Cases of fatal poisoning rarely if ever occur. Nevertheless, it is one of the dangerous drugs that should be known only to be shunned--an intoxicant with the most vicious propensities.

I will give you gentleman just a few outstanding evidences of crimes that have been committed as a result of the use of marihuana.

MR. REED: The testimony before the committee of which I was formerly chairman in reference to heroin said in reference to the effect of it that it made men feel fearless, and that a great majority of the crimes of great violence that were committed were committed by addicts, and one man stated that it would make a rabbit fight a bulldog. Does this drug have a similar effect?

MR. ANSLINGER: Here is a gang of seven young men, all seven of them, young men under 21 years of age. They terrorized central Ohio for more than two months, and they were responsible for 38 stick-ups. They all boast they did those crimes while under the influence of marihuana.

MR. LEWIS: Does it strengthen the criminal will; does it operate as whisky might, to provoke recklessness?

MR. ANSLINGER: I think it makes them irresponsible. A man does not know what he is doing. It has not been recognized as a defense by the courts, although it has been used as a defense.

MR. LEWIS: Probably the word "excuse" or "mitigation" would be better than defense, I think.

MR. ANSLINGER: Here is one of the worst cases I have seen. The district attorney told me the defendant in this case pleaded that he was under the influence of marihuana when he committed that crime, but that has not been recognized.

We have several cases of that kind. There was one town in Ohio where a young man went into a hotel and held up the clerk and killed him, and his defense was that he had been affected by the use of marihuana.

MR. FULLER: The only question was whether or not he knew what he was doing, whether he was insane. That is always a defense, whether or not a man is in such a state of mind that he does not know good from evil. The question is whether or not his mind is right, whether he is responsible.

MR. ANSLINGER: As to these young men I was telling you about, one of them said if he had killed somebody on the spot he would not have known it.

In Florida a 21-year-old boy under the influence of this drug killed his parents and his brothers and sisters. The evidence showed that he had smoke marihuana.

In Chicago recently two boys murdered a policeman while under the influence of marihuana. Not long ago we found a 15-year-old boy going insane because, the doctor told the enforcement officers, he thought the boy was smoking marihuana cigarettes. They traced the sale to some man who had been growing marihuana and selling it to these boys all under 15 years of age, on a playground there.

MR. JENKINS: In my home town just recently two boys were sent to the penitentiary for life for killing a man, and their defense was built upon the fact that they had used a drug. I do not believe it was this drug.

MR. ANSLINGER: I do not think there is such a thing as not being able to cure an addict. Marihuana addicts my go to a Federal narcotic farm. But I have not seen many addicts who could not be cured. An addict could drop it and he will not experience any ill effects.

One of these boys I referred to went insane, and they stopped it. Here in Colorado -- and Colorado seems to have had a lot of cases of violence recently -- in Alamosa County, and in Huerfano County the sheriff was killed as the result of the action of a man under the influence of marihuana. Recently in Baltimore a young man was sent to the electric chair for having raped a girl while under the influence of marihuana.

MR. MCCORMACK: Have you completed your statement in reference to the criminal cases?

MR. MCCORMACK: Are you acquainted with the report of the public prosecutor at New Orleans in 1931?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think that would be valuable. That was a case where 125 our of 450 prisoners were found to be marihuana addicts, and slightly less than one-half of the murderers were marihuana addicts, and about 20 percent of them were charged with being addicts of what they call "merry wonder".

MR. ANSLINGER: That is one of the finest reports that has been written on marihuana by that district attorney. He had daily contact with the problem and saw its effect on crime in that city.

I might say in that connection, that he said this-- and this is the report of Eugene Stanley -- in which he has said:

Inasmuch as the harmful effects of the use of the drug is becoming more widely known each day, and it has been classed as a narcotic by the statutory laws of 17 American states --Since that time we have that in every State--- England and Mexico, and persons addicted to its use have been made eligible for treatment in the United States narcotic farms, the United States Government, unquestionably, will be compelled to adopt a consistent attitude toward the drug, and include it in the Harrison Anti-Narcotic Law, so as to give Federal aid to the States in their effort to suppress a traffic as deadly and as

destructive to society as the traffic in the other forms of narcotics now prohibited by the Harrison Act.

This drug is not being used by those who have been using heroin and morphine. It is being used by a different class, by a mostly younger group of people. The age of the morphine and heroin addict is increasing all the time, whereas the marihuana smoker is

MR. DINGELL: I am just wondering whether the marihuana addict graduates into a heroin, an opium, or a cocaine user.

MR. ANSLINGER: No, sir; I have not heard of a case of that kind. I think it is an entirely different class. The marihuana addict does not go in that direction.

MR. ANSLINGER: No, sir: he would not touch that. Dr. Walter Bromberger, a distinguished psychiatrist in New York has made this statement:

Young men between the ages of 16 and 25 are frequent smokers of marihuana; even boys of 10 to 14 are initiated (frequently in school groups); to them as other; marijuana holds out the thrill. Since the economic depression the number of marihuana smokers has increased by vagrant youths coming into contact with older psychopaths.

MR. ANSLINGER: Yes, sir. The cigarette is usually rolled by the peddler. It is crudely rolled cigarette.

MR. MCCORMACK: Is not Dr. Bromberger the senior psychiatrist at Bellevue Hospital?

MR. ANSLINGER: He argued one way and then he argued another way. His conclusions were based on a study made of those men who had been sentenced to prison. But that is not a fair conclusion because at the present time we have so many in prison in the several states sent up as a result of using marihuana.

I think in some states today that study would show a fairer conclusion than he arrived at, although in one part of his article he did say he believed that this excited to crime a man who would be less likely to commit a crime.

MR. ANSLINGER: Yes, sir. I think he realized, and his article indicated that he realized, the danger of it.

Last year several states made 338 seizures of marihuana that we know of. In most of those we participated, because we are cooperating with the states in carrying out the uniform State legislation. We have also assisted several states by sending chemists

to the local police to show them how to identify this drug, and we have conducted chemical research here.

Most of the complaints about this drug have been coming to the Federal office, and because time is of the essence we would like to have this legislation enacted very much, so we can step into the situation where it is highly desirable that we do so.

I will refer you to the case of a man in one of the Southern States. One of our good friends gave us information to indicate that this man had about a ton of these high explosives stored in his barn. There was no Federal law and no State law. We took up

the matter with the attorney general of that state, and we had to wait until the state had its act enacted, before we could take any

MR. ANSLINGER: Every one of them, yes, sir. But they do not all have central enforcement agencies.

MR. MCCORMACK: You say every state has a law, and there are about 35 of the states that have the uniform state act?

THE CHAIRMAN: With this uniform state legislation, why can they not stamp this out? What progress are they making?

MR. ANSLINGER: They are making some progress, as is indicated by the 338 seizures made last year. Last year the state of Pennsylvania destroyed 200,000 pounds.

MR. LEWIS: Under the uniform state act the growth and distribution is prohibited. Is that correct?

MR. LEWIS: What would the effect be in this case of our imposing an act under which we would be collecting revenue, and making the growth and distribution legitimate from the standpoint of the Federal Government.

MR. ANSLINGER: The state acts provide for that. They provide for legitimate distribution and for licensing of the grower under certain conditions.

MR. LEWIS: What is the legitimate distribution of this drug? You spoke of the industries.

MR. ANSLINGER: There is its use in medicine. Then the hemp product is used in some parts of Kentucky, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. It is grown for hemp purposes. It makes very fine cordage, and this legislation exempts the mature stalk when it is grown for hemp purposes.

MR. JENKINS: Mr. Hester said that he thought the commercial purposes were practically negligible . I understand you to say that most of the products that are made from the seed are made from imported seed.

MR. JENKINS: You say that 35 of the states have adopted uniform legislation. Where do they get that uniformity from?

MR. ANSLINGER: That is from the commissioners on uniform state laws. They were adopted by the American Bar Association and approved by the American Medical Association and some of the drug trade.

MR. JENKINS: If each state has a law on this subject I wonder why that does not reach it.

MR. ANSLINGER: It does reach it, but in spite of the act, we get requests from public officials from different states, and I will name particularly the states of Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Louisiana, and Oklahoma that have urged Federal legislation for the purpose of enabling us to cooperate with the several states.

MR. JENKINS: It seems to me if the states have taken such action on this subject so far, and if we are going to take any action at all, we ought to be able to stamp it out.

MR. JENKINS: If you are going to temporize with them and say as it seems you say here "No, we can not stamp it out; we will encourage its growth. it is all right to grow it." I do not see how you will stamp it out.

MR. ANSLINGER: We do not do that for hemp production, and we recognize the fact that it is grown, that the farmers in some of these states grow it for hemp purposes. I think about 10,000 acres cover that. Dr. Dewey can tell you about that. He has been with this problem for 30 years, and I would defer to his judgment, particularly as to legitimate uses.

MR. ANSLINGER: The uniform state act covers opium and its derivatives, coca leaf and its derivatives, but there is a twilight zone there that the peddler breaks right through if the state has not taken action.

MR. MCCORMACK: This is a tax measure and we might as well get the revenue out of it that enables the Federal government to cooperate with the states in connection with the state activities.

MR. ANSLINGER: And you get a certain uniformity. You also get to help the local police, and they always want it. You also get to help the state police, and the always ask for this help. Whenever they find marihuana the first place on which they call for help is the Federal narcotic office, so that they can take a man along who is a specialist on narcotic matters.

The have 35 states under the uniform act, and we have Federal legislation dealing with opium and coca leaves.

With this legislation we will make a drive on this traffic, and bend every effort to stamp it out, and it will not cost very much.

I say that advisedly because we have men throughout the country at the present time who are dealing with the narcotic problem. But the use of marihuana is increasing.

I want to show you one more thing and that is in reference to the international side of this problem. Canada made some seizures over here last year and they pointed the finger of scorn at us and said, "Why do you not do something about this?" We had to admit that we did not have any legislation.

There is some evidence that this drug is being smuggled to China today. We have always pointed the finger of scorn at China, and now marihuana is being smuggled out to China, by sailors.

We are far ahead of any government when it comes to the 1912 Hague Convention, and the 1931 convention, but we are behind on the 1925 convention. We are not signatories to it, but we cooperate with them.

We were in a curious position only a few months ago when an exporter sent a lot of cannabis to a British firm. It was a legitimate shipment, but the British law demanded an export certificate, and we had to tell the British government that we did not have a law to compel that exporter to stop the shipment of cannabis. He will probably do so, as a matter of cooperation. But we had to warn him to stop violating British law, and that goes for practically every government on the face of the earth, except the United States. Over 50 nations have national legislation on this problem, and it is very humiliating to have to say to these people when they trace the matter right to our shore, to tell them that we have no legislation to deal with that problem:

MR. LEWIS: You spoke about the District of Columbia having no law. How about the Territories?

MR. ANSLINGER: Hawaii has a law. I cannot tell you about Alaska. Puerto Rico dos have a law. The only place I am not sure about is Alaska.

MR. ANSLINGER: Yes, sir; because last year there were 15 dealers arrested here for peddling marihuana, and they had to be prosecuted for practicing pharmacy without a license.

MR. BUCK: Have you suggested the enactment of such a law to the Committee on the District of Columbia?

MR. ANSLINGER: Yes, sir; they have had a proposed uniform state laws for 3 or 4 years.

MR. ANSLINGER: The addict pays anywhere from 10 to 25 cents per cigarette. It will be sold by the cigarette. In illicit traffic the bulk price would be around $20 per pound. Legitimately, the bulk is around $2 per pound.

MR. THOMPSON: How does that compare with the price of opium or morphine? Do the class of people who use this drug use it because it is cheaper than the other kinds?

MR. ANSLINGER: That is one reason, yes, sir. To be a morphine or heroin addict it would cost you from $5 to $8 a day to maintain your supply. But if you want to smoke a cigarette you pay 10 cents.

MR. MCCORMACK: Some of those cigarettes are sold much cheaper that 10 cents, are they not? In other words, it is a low-priced cigarette, and that is one of the reasons for the tremendous increases in its use.

MR. MCCORMACK: And they have parties in different parts of the country that they call "reefer parties".

MR. FULLER: Another thing is that they will not be able to get other kinds of dope, but they do have an opportunity to get this marihuana, which causes it to be so much sought after and used in the community.

MR. ANSLINGER: That is true, and the effect is just passed by word of mouth and everybody wants to try it.

MR. WOODRUFF: Have you put into the record a statement showing the names of the different states in which this drug plant is grown?

MR. ANSLINGER: It is grown in practically all states. I have a statement in reference to the seizures, which I will put in the record.

MR. THOMPSON: I would like to know whether or not these marihuana cigarettes move through legitimate channels. Are there manufacturing concerns that make them, or are they rolled in the kitchens and cellars like illicit liquor used to be made?

MR. MCCORMACK: As a matter of fact, I understand they found that some were grown in one of our Federal prisons.

MR. ANSLINGER: They found some marihuana growing in one of the prisons. We heard of that.

There was a seizure made in the Colorado State Reformatory for boys not long ago.

MR. BUCK. Mr. Hester testified that there were about 11,000 acres in cultivation in the country. Is that legitimate cultivation?

MR. ANSLINGER: That would be legitimate cultivation. Dr. Dewey of the Department of Agriculture can give you that exact information.

MR. REED: Mr. Anslinger, you have been interrupted in your statement from time to time, and I am wondering if you have not some statement that would give the general information to the committee on this subject which you might like to put in the record.

MR. ANSLINGER: I would like to put in the record the statement of the district attorney that I referred to. I also have a statement showing the seizures of marihuana during the calendar year 1936 in the various states.

THE CHAIRMAN: Without objection, you may extend your statement in the record by inserting such information as you think would be helpful to the committee.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF H. J. ANSLINGER, COMMISSIONER OF NARCOTICS

(The following statements were submitted by Mr. Anslinger)

ORIGIN

The origin of this drug is very ancient. In the year 1090 A.D., the religious and military order or sect of the Assassins was founded in Persia and the numerous acts of cruelty of this sect were known not only in Asia, but in Europe as well. This branch of the Shiite sect, known as Ismalites, was called Hashishan, derived from hashish, of the confection of hemp leaves "marihuana". In fact, from the Arabic Hasishan we have the English word "assassin."

The plant was known by the Greeks as "nepenthe" and was lauded in the immortal Odyssey of Homer. It was known in ancient times to the Egyptians, and its use in Egypt at the present time is widespread. Its effect upon the Malays has been terrific and the

natives of the Malay Peninsula have been known, while under its influence, to rush out and engage in violent and bloody deeds, with complete disregard for their personal safety, of the odds arrayed against them. to run "amok" in the Malay Peninsula is

synonymous with saying one is under the influence of this drug.

DESCRIPTION:

Indian hemp is a rough, annual plant, and grows to varying heights, from about 3 to 16 feet. Its stem is erect, branching and angular; the leaves are alternate or opposite and coarsely serrated. Marihuana is the same as Indian hemp, hashish, cannabin, cannabis Americana, or cannabis sativa. Marihuana is the Mexican term for cannabis indica. In the argot of he underworld it has colloquial, colorful names such as reefer, muggles, Indian hay, hot hay, and weed. The drug is known in many countries by a variety of different names. In India it is known as bhang and ganja; as dagga in Africa.

the term "cannabis" in the Geneva Convention of 1925 and in the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act included only the dried flowering or fruiting tops of the pistillate plant as the source of the dangerous resin. Research during the past few months shows conclusively that this definition is insufficient, as we have found by experiment that the leaves of the pistillate plant as well as the

leaves of the staminate plant contain the active principal up to 50 percent of the U.S.P. strength. Accordingly, we are urging the several states to revise their definition to include all parts of the plant, as it now appears that the seeds and portions other than the dried flowering tops contain positively dangerous substances. We have been anticipating a challenge of the old definition in the courts and only a few weeks ago a defendant in a case in Florida in appealing to the higher court of that State said:

"We are of the opinion, therefore, that the information was insufficient to clearly apprise the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him because of the sale of cigarettes containing cannabis from which the resin had not been abstracted may relate to the resin of the staminate plant, the resin of which appears to be harmless."

This challenge demonstrates the advisability of making our definition all-inclusive, which has been done with respect to the bill under discussion, H.R. 6385.

EFFECTS

The toxic effects produced by "cannabin", the active narcotic principal of the cannabis sativa, hemp, or marihuana, appear to be exclusively to the higher nerve centers. The drug produces first an exaltation with a feeling of well-being; a happy, jovial mood,

usually; and increased feeling of physical strength and power; and a general euphoria is experienced. Accompanying this exaltation is a stimulation of the imagination, followed by a more-or-less delirious state characterized by vivid kaleidoscopic visions, sometimes of a pleasing sensual kind, but occasionally of a gruesome nature. Accompanying this delirious state is a remarkable loss in spatial and time relations; persons and things in the environment look small; time is interminable; seconds seem like minutes and hours like days. Let us think, for instance, of what might happen if a person under its influence were

driving a high-powered automobile.

Those who are habitually accustomed to use of the drug are said to develop a delirious rage after its administration, during which they are temporarily, at least, irresponsible and liable to commit violent crimes. The prolonged use of this narcotic is said to produce mental deterioration. It apparently releases inhibitions of an antisocial nature which dwell within the individual.

It is said that the Mohammedan leaders, opposing the Crusaders, utilized the services of individuals addicted to the use of hashish for secret murders.

Despite the fact that medical men and scientists have disagreed upon the properties of marihuana, and some are inclined to minimize the harmfulness of this drug, the records offer ample evidence that it has a disastrous effect upon many of its users. Recently we have received many reports showing the crimes of violence committed by persons while under the influence of marihuana.

The effect of the use of the drug depends largely upon the individual. Among some people the dreams produced are usually of an erotic character, but the principal effect is on the mind which seems to lose the power of directing and controlling its thoughts.

Then follow errors of sense, false convictions and the predominance of extravagant ideas where all sense of value seems to disappear.

The deleterious, even vicious, qualities of the drug render it highly dangerous to the mind and body upon which it operates to destroy the will, cause one to lose the power of connected thought, producing imaginary delectable situations and gradually weakening the physical powers. Its use frequently leads to insanity.

I have statement here, giving an outline off cases reported to the Bureau or in the press, wherein the use of marihuana is connected with revolting crimes.

EXTENT OF TRAFFIC

The rapid development of a widespread traffic in marihuana during the past several years, particularly during 1935 and 1936 is a matte of grave national concern. About ten years ago there was little traffic in marihuana except in parts of the Southwest. The weed now grows wild in almost every state in the Union, is easily obtainable, and has come to be widely abused in many states. The situation is especially fraught with danger because this drug is being carried as a new habit to circles which heretofore have not been contaminated. Incomplete reports that have come to my attention during the past year on marihuana seizures effected throughout the country by state authorities show the existence of a dangerous and rapidly increasing traffic in this drug in at least 29 states.

Seizures of marihuana in the United States, calendar year 1936, as reported by State and municipal enforcement officers.

Bulk Marihuana Growing plants

State Number Cigarettes/Tons Pounds Ounces Plants Pounds Acres Quantity

of unknown

seizures

Alabama 1 12 2

Arizona 1 10

California 120 1,146 623 9.09 158

Colorado 19 168 53 2 61

Delaware 1 3

District of Col. 2 28 17

Florida 6 98 10

Georgia 1 24

Hawaii 3 9

Illinois 4 51 7 4

Indiana 1 4

Kentucky 1 50

Louisiana 20 1,217 1,195 11 10,600 9,000

Maryland 16 474 700 13.3 200

Massachusetts 7 51 3 12.1

Michigan 15 291 95 5.25 2,500 2

Minnesota 2 52 8

Mississippi 5 1 1 1,308 10 Large number

Missouri 4 123 2

New Jersey 8 60 61 8.2 131,500

New Mexico 3 4 15 6

New York 14 484 10.5 38, 195 1 Large Crop

Ohio 41 1,318 430 12

Pennsylvania 11 118 4 13.25

Texas 17 58 362 13 303 30

Utah 6 39 .3

Virginia 2 14 4

Washington 6 44 6

Wisconsin 1 Large quantity

Total: 338 5,892 3 951 3.99 11,322 181,225 6 3 Large crops

Note—No seizures of marihuana were reported during 1936 for the States not shown in the above list.

Three hundred and thirty-eight arrests for violations during 1936, but this by no means represents extent of traffic, because not many of the states have actually begun real enforcement as against marijuana -- many of the states lack special enforcement

facilities and require education of their enforcement officers in the detection and prevention of marihuana traffic, especially in identifying the drug.

All of the states now have some type of legislation directed against the traffic in marihuana for improper purposes. There is no legislation in effect with respect to the District of Columbia dealing directly with marihuana traffic. There is unfortunately a

loophole in much of this state legislation because of a too narrow definition of the term. Few of the states have a special narcotic law enforcement agency and, speaking generally, considerable training of the regular polce officers of the states will be required

together with increased enforcement facilities before a reasonable measure of effectiveness under the state laws can be achieved.

Even in states which have legislation controlling in some degree the marihuana traffic, public officials, private citizens, and the press have urged or suggested the need for national legislation dealing with this important problem. A partial list of states wherein officials or the press have urged the need for Federal legislation on the subject are Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Louisiana, and Oklahoma.

The uniform state narcotic law has now been adopted by some 35 states, many of these including cannabis or marihuana within the scope of control by that law. However, it has been recently learned that the legislative definition of cannabis in most of these laws is too narrow, and it will be necessary to have the definition amplified in amendatory legislation in most of the states, to accord with the definition in the pending Federal bill. As is the case at present with respect to opium, coca leaves, and their respective alkaloids, the uniform state law does not completely solve the enforcement problem with respect to marihuana but it will provide the necessary supplement to the Federal act and permit cooperation of state an Federal forces, each acting within its respective sphere, toward suppression of traffic for abusive use, no matter in what form the traffic is conducted. The Bureau of Narcotics, under the Marihuana Taxing Act, would continue to act as an informal coordinating agency in the enforcement of the uniform state law, exchanging information as between the respective state authorities in methods of procedure and attempting to secure true uniformity in the enforcement of the act in the various states which have adopted it.

The United Sates is not a party to the Geneva Convention off 1925 which includes Indian hemp in the classes of drugs with respect to which the convention operates. It is a party to the Hague Convention of 1912 and the Manufacturing Limitation Convention of 1931, under both of which it submits complete reports of progress in enforcement to the League of Nations (insofar as opium, coca leaves, and their alkaloids are concerned.) The United States goes beyond the letter of its obligations under the last-mentioned conventions in international cooperation with respect to opium and coca leaves and their alkaloids. It is

only with respect to cannabis (marihuana) that it cannot afford complete cooperation with other countries, since it is obviously handicapped by the lack of national drug legislation which would permit a reasonable degree of control over this drug and afford a direct means of information concerning the trend of the traffic. The United States has more than kept pace with other world powers in the united battle against the opium, morphine, and cocaine traffic; it continues to fall behind in the international movement directed against the use of marihuana. The importation and exportation of marihuana, with respect to the United States is practically unrestricted, and on once occasion the attention of the Bureau was called to an excess exportation of cannabis, by one of our exporters, to England, When the British governmental agency called attention to this exportation of a

quantity from the United States in excess of the British import certificate, we were in the humiliating position of informing it that our laws did not cover cannabis, and remedial action had to be limited to a warning to the exporter -- not that he was violating a law of the United States, but an admonition that he would please refrain from violating the British laws.

Gentlemen: Two weeks ago a sex-mad degenerate, named Lee Fernandez, brutally attacked a young Alamosa girl. He was convicted of assault with intent to rape and sentenced to 10 to 14 years in the state penitentiary. Police officers here know

But this case is one in hundreds of murders, rapes, petty crimes, insanity that has occurred in southern Colorado in recent years.

The laws of this state make the first offense of using, growing, or selling marihuana a mere misdemeanor. The second offense constitutes a felony.

Indian hemp grows wild within the limits of this city. It is clandestinely planted in practically every county in this section. Its use amounts to a near traffic in drugs.

The people and officials here want to know why something can't be done about marihuana. The sheriff, district attorney, and city police are making every effort to destroy this menace. Our paper is carrying on an educational campaign to describe the

Your bulletins on traffic in opium and other dangerous drugs state that the production and use of Indian hemp are not prohibited by Federal law. Why?

Is there any assistance your Bureau can give us in handling this drug? Can you suggest campaigns? Can you enlarge your Department to deal with marihuana? Can you do anything to help us?

I wish I could show you what a small marihuana cigaret can do to one of our degenerate Spanish-speaking residents. That's why our problem is so great; the greatest percentage of our population is composed of Spanish-speaking persons, most of who are low mentally, because of social and racial conditions.

While marihuana has figured in the greater number of crimes in the past few years, officials fear it, not for what it has done, but for what it is capable of doing. They want to check it before an outbreak does occur. Did you read of the Drain murder case in

Pueblo recently? Marihuana is believed to have been used by one of the bloody murderers.

Through representatives of civic leaders and law officers of the San Luis Valley, I have been asked to write to you for help. Any help you can give us will be most heartily appreciated.

(By Dr. Frank R. Gomila, commissioner of public safety, and Miss Madeline C. Gomila, assistant city chemist)

Many papers have been written on the effects, physical and mental, of the marihuana weed. Some of the best descriptions that we have read can be found in Bromberg's (1) paper called Marihuana Intoxication; Bragman's (2) Toxic Effects - Weed of Insanity; and Kingman's (3) Green Goddess. But talking and writing of the various results that ensue from constant use of this weed in no way impresses the reading public with the seriousness of the problem that faces it today.

To our knowledge, this is the first time that such a paper as this will be presented. After searching the literature thoroughly we could find no complete record of the situation in this country. We have not deluded ourselves into believing that the information compiled her is in any way a complete record of the situation, but we do believe that it is the best that can be obtained. The difficulty encountered is that any drug addiction is such a secretive affair that not even the authorities in charge know all the culprits. Also, we have encountered some rather unexpected reluctance on the part of some of the state authorities to furnish the information. The large gaps in the table that we compiled are due to this lack of information.

Referring to Table 1, we find that 46 out of 48 states, or 94 percent, have found it necessary to pass some legislation against the use, possession, and sale of this menacing weed. the urgent reason for all these laws was that in many states the discovery was

made that scores of youngsters of high school age had become victims of the weed. It was only last year that the St. Louis Star Times in a series of newspaper articles, led the people of Missouri in a stirring fight for the passage of a state law for the protection of their children. Quoting from the St. Louis Start-Times of February 4, 1935, we read: "Those acquainted with the traffic say there are more women smokers than men. If you are a 'right guy' a 'giggle smoke' is available in places of lenient morals and may be purchased from a 'bystander' in many of the cheaper downtown resorts.

"One gentleman of the byways explained, 'The worst thing about that loco weed is the way these kids go for them. Most of them, boys and girls, are just punks and when they get high on the stuff you can write your own ticker.'" (4)

The article goes on to tell how, when the number of muggle smokers increased, marihuana dives came into existence. Here is a description, "The windows were covered with blankets and a single electric bulb flickers through smoke so dense you can

barely see across the room. A dozen person around a penny-ante poker game. They range from boys of 16 to men in their late 20's, all in a state of dazed exhilaration.

"There are only a few rickety charis and the table for furnishings and the gang lolls about the room, some chasing cheap whisky with long muggles drags, others content to smoke, laugh vacuously and 'walk on air.'" (5)

Still quoting from the St. Louis Star-Times of an earlier date we find the case of a young high school student reported. "A case in point is that of a young man, an intelligent high school student, now confined to an institution for the mentally diseased. His experience is entirely the result of acquiring the habit of smoking marihuana cigarettes.

"One of his friends said to a Star-Times reporter, calling the youth by name, 'He was a swell fellow until marihuana got him. Like the rest of us, he thought the weed wasn't habit-forming and had no idea of the possible consequences of smoking it. He smoked so many he couldn't quit. finally he went crazy and his folks put him in a sanitarium.'" (6) From this same article we read: "'Weed' smoking among young St. Louisians appears to be chiefly confined to boys. Girls who indulge do so largely as a result of association with boys who smoke the drug."

"A girl student, still in her teens told a reporter she had seen some of her friends under the influence and named a boy and a girl who lost their senses so completely after smoking marihuana that they eloped and were married.

"'Another boy I know got the habit so bad he didn't have enough money to buy all the cigarettes he craved. To get the money he stole jewelry from his mother while under the influence of marihuana and pawned it. He was arrested, but when his mother found out who the thief was she naturally dropped her complaint.

"'I know at least 20 boys, some of them in school, whom I have seen smoking marihuana cigarettes. Sometimes three or four of them crowd into a telephone booth and puff on a single cigarette.

"'Several girls I know have smoked marihuana and I smoked with them, but I've decided its bad business and haven't smoked lately.

"'Sometimes we would go to a beer tavern and smoke, the boys always supplying the muggles.'"

Referring to table II, we find then that Colorado reports that the Mexican population there cultivates on an average of 2 to 3 tons of the weed annually. This the Mexicans make into cigarettes, which they sell at two for 25 cents, mostly to white high school students. Strangely enough, it has been noted that when this weed is grown at altitudes considerably higher than sea level, it is much more potent. Colorado, a state that has an average altitude than sea level (sic), can therefore grow a plant that is much more powerful than one grown in Louisiana. (8)

From Massachusetts we learn that cigarettes sell for 25 cents apiece and that they are chiefly used among the younger people between the ages of 18 and 21. In Louisiana the age range is 18-37 years. Minnesota, like Missouri, has its difficulties with high school addicts. Oklahoma is another of the afflicted states,. Reports state that the weed is used widely among the high school students there.

The tragic picture of all these youngsters coming under the influence of the drug certainly must have some significance. It means that more drastic action is necessary. All these states have passed laws concerning this drug but though the law has curbed the use of marihuana to a certain degree it has by no means eradicated it. This is still a very important problem. Why shouldn't our Federal government, with its wheels of action already set in motion, take over the control of the use of this dangerous drug in the

United States? We said "wheels of action, already set in motion", because in many large cities the Federal narcotic squads are cooperating with the local police in stamping out the danger threatened by this drug. The states, individually, are doing what they can, though in many instances they are sorely handicapped by lack of experience with this problem, insufficient funds and ignorance of the proper methods. Referring to Table 1, again, we find that the narcotic squad is even now helping curb this menace in Louisiana, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, and Wyoming.

In New Orleans we were called in a case in which Federal narcotics agents had made the wholesale arrests of 36 peddlers simultaneously. This is just one case out of many handled by the Federal men this year. These men are more thoroughly trained and much better equipped to handle the situation than the local police. Certainly our government could help out in this deplorable situation by amending the Harrison Narcotic Act to include marihuana as a potent and dangerous drug. As long ago as 1931 our country was one among 57 other countries that met at Geneva Switzerland, in order to draw up a treaty convention for restricting the manufacture and cultivation of narcotic drugs. Included among the narcotics listed by this treaty convention is marihuana. by the end of the year 1935, 55 nations had ratified this convention, the United States being the second nation to do so in 1932. Why then should our Government ratify this treaty convention and not include marihuana in our own Harrison Narcotic Act(11)?

The increasing prevalence of this menace is another matter for serious thought. From Table 1, we find that eight states enacted legislation against the use, sale, and possession of this weed in 1935 and 1936. by glancing over Table II you'll find that New York State alone destroyed 187 tons of the weed in 1935. There seems to be no shortage there. In Louisiana, in recent months, the state police have destroyed more weed here than every before. there are many states in a similar dilemma. This problem seems in no way to be solved butt on the contrary is growing to be a more dangerous one every day.

From table II we ascertain that out of 450 persons arrested in New Orleans, La. in 1934, 125 were marihuana addicts; out of 37 murders 177 were addicted to the use of marihuana, and out of 193 convicted of thefts, 34 were under the influence of this

drug. Therefore, the ratio is that approximately 1 out of every 4 persons arrested in this city has become a victim of this dangerous drug. (12)

In the state of New Mexico, 4 percent of the inmates of the penitentiary are confessed users of the weed. In New York we find that ten percent of all the narcotic violators are marihuana cases. The warden of the state penitentiary in North Dakota reports that some of the prisoners are addicted to the drug but that there are none there at present. In Minnesota 10 out of 348 cases at the reformatory confessed to being addicts, while in Mississippi 6 confessed users were arrested. Illinois reports having arrested 30 marihuana addicts since 1933.

In the case of the city of New Orleans, if we refer to table III for the year 1936, we find that in the first 4 months of that year 36 arrests were made. This number does not include the arrests made by the Federal narcotics men which greatly exceeds this figure. If we consider this figure 36 as an average figure for that period we find that the total number of arrests for the year of 1936 will substantially exceed the total for any one of the preceding years. This is a significant fact and proves that the danger is growing instead of abating.

Practically every article written on the effects of the marihuana weed will tell of deeds committed without the knowledge of the culprit, while he was under the influence of this drug. There are many arguments for and against this statement, and many cases reported which uphold it, and still others which contradict it. Our opinion is that both arguments for and against are correct because of the inconsistency of the action of this drug on individual victims. The reactions resulting depend to a large extent on the innate characteristics of the individual. The person who is so unfortunate as to come under the influence of this drug, in many cases, becomes the unwilling offender of the law because the central nervous system has become affected, as is the case with other habit-forming drugs. As a representative case, note the tragic predicament of this Californian. "A man under the influence of marihuana actually decapitated his best friend; and then, coming out of the effects of the drug, was as horrified as anyone over what he had done" (9). Then we have the case of a young boy in Florida. The story runs as follows: "A young boy who had become addicted to smoking marihuana cigarettes, in a fit of frenzy because, as he stated while still under the marihuana influence, a number of people were trying to cut off his arms and legs, seized an axe and killed his father, mother, two brothers and a sister, wiping out the entire family except himself." (10)

Those of us who are native New Orleanians must well remember the tragic incident that happened in our city last year. In a downtown section a man under the influence of the weed became so frenzied and angered at his wife as to kill her out on the street in front of many witnesses.

These are only three cases of which there are hundreds. Each one is a blot on the history of the State where the crime was committed and so it is very difficult to unearth such information.

Is marihuana sufficiently like any other habit-forming drug that it should receive recognition as a real menace? For an answer we have only to glance over table IV, where we find that in comparison with other habit-forming drugs, heroin, morphine, opium, and cocaine, marihuana has an established place. Like these drugs named, it , too, derives it effects chiefly from resultant changes to the central nervous system. It decreases pain and in certain instances dispenses it completely. Comparable to the other drugs mentioned, a certain amount of tolerance is set up rather easily with marihuana.

In its action of depression and stimulation it is very much like that noted under small doses of morphine. Habit-forming drugs in ever case disturb the vision and heart. In this instance marihuana reacts like cocaine, in that the pupils become dilated and the pulse is accelerated. Habitual use of heroin weakens judgment, self-control, and attention. IN this sense, marihuana is like heroin as constant use results in loss of judgment and measurement of time and space. Marihuana makes the imagination run rampant

and the dreams that result are as extravagant as those reported by opium eaters. Social dangers that ensue from the use of marihuana are comparable to those that result from heroin. The heroin habit produces an utter disregard for conventions and moral; similar results ensue from the smoking of the weed. Here, however, the skeptic has a point which he can dispute. The action of marihuana is much less constant than heroin, as it depends to a certain extent on the disposition and intellectual activity of the victim. However, we must remind friend skeptic that the great majority of users are ignorant and inexperienced youngsters and members of the lowest strata of humanity. When you think this fact over there should be no room for argument on that point.

After an exhaustive search on marihuana from its earliest history to the present time, it is easy to see that the destruction of the plant is absolutely essential in all communities in this country. To this end we believe that the members of the Orleans Parish Medical Society should lend their wholehearted cooperation.

1. The seriousness of the problem as it concerns youngsters who are willing to take a chance at all times.

2. The increasing prevalence of this menace which results in a large percentage of criminal users.

3. The tragedy of persons who use the weed becoming unwilling offenders of the law because the central nervous system has

Table III -- Statistics of number of arrests, number of cigarettes confiscated, and pounds of weed destroyed in the city of New

Table IV. An interesting comparison of the action of heroin, morphine, opium, cocaine, and marihuana

(1) American Journal of Psychiatry, Marihuana Intoxication, Clinical Study of Cannabis Sativa Intoxication. Walter Bromberg, Volume 91, Pages 303-330, September, 1934.

(2) Medical Journal and Record, The Weed Insanity. Louis J. Bragman, Syracuse, NY, October 7, 1925, pages 416-417.

(3) Ibid., October 19, 1927, pages 470-475. The Green Goddess (A Studyin Dreams, Drugs, and Dementia). Robert Kingman, Brooklyn, NY

(4) St. Louis Star Times, February 4, 1935. Louisville Paper Finds Marihuana a Menace There.

(6) St.. Louis Star Times, January 18, 1935. Young Slaves to Dope Cigaret Pay Tragic Price For Their Folly. Hulius Kleen.

(8) World Narcotic Defense Association. Marihuana or Indian Hemp and Its Preparations.

(11) World Narcotic Defense Association. Narcotic Drug Addiction and How to Fight It.

(12) World Narcotic Defense Association. Marihuana or Indian Hemp and Its Preparations. US Treasury Department, Bureau of Narcotics, Washington, DC, Traffic in Opium and Other Dangerous Drugs, 1934. Cushny's Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Edmunds and Gunn, pages 278-293, 1934.

Cannabis. W. G. Walker, Chief, Division of Narcotic Enforcement, San Francisco, California, July 1, 1934.

Legal Mediciine and Toxicology. Webster, W. B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, United States of America, 1930.

Many prosecuting attorneys in the South and Southwest have been confronted with the defense that, at the time of the commission of the criminal act, the defendant was irresponsible, because he was under the influence of marihuana to such a

degree he was unable to appreciate the difference between right and wrong, and was legally insane. A great deal of difficulty has been experienced in rebutting this defense by the testimony of psychiatrists, for, while some of these experts are conversant with

the nature and effect of this drug, it has been the experience of the author that many psychiatrists know nothing whatsoever of the effect of the drug.

This may be due to the fact that this drug has come into wide use in certain parts of the South only within the last 10 years.

It is the purpose of this article to give a brief outline of the nature and origin of this drug, the legislation enacted which prohibits its sale and use, to recommend that this drug be placed within the provisions of the Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act, and to give a list of some of the works which may be consulted by any persons interested in making a thorough study of the drug.

The plant or drug known as Cannabis indica, or marihuana, has as its parent the plant known as Cannabis Sativa.

It is popularly known in India as Cannabis Indica,; in America, as Cannabis americana; in Mexico as Cannabis mexicana, or marihuana.

It is all the same drug, and is known in different countries by different names. It is scientifically known as Cannabis sativa, and is popularly called Cannabis americana, Cannabis indica, or Cannabis mexicana, in accordance with the geographical origin of the

In the East it is known as charras, as gunga, as hasheesh, as bhang, or siddi, and it is known by a variety of names in the countries of continental Europe.

Cannabis sativa is an annual herb from the "hemp" plant; it has angular, rough stems and deeply lobed leaves.

It is derived from the flowering tops of the female plant of hemp grown in semi-tropical and temperate countries. It was once thought that only the plant grown in India was active, but it has been scientifically determined that the American specimen termed "marihuana" or "muggles" is equal in potency to the best weed of India. The plant is a moraceous herb.

In India, where the plant is scientifically cultivated on a wide scale for the drug obtained from it, the plants, when small, are separated, the female plant being used exclusively for the purpose of obtaining the drug.

In Mexico and in America, the plants are permitted to grow together indiscriminately, without separating the male and female plants, so that the potency of the female plant is lessened by the admixture of the male element.

In semitropical climates, because of the fertility of the soil and the ease with which hemp seed may be procured, the plant can be easily cultivated, and prohibition of the actual cultivation is rendered practically impossible. It resembles a weed, and has been found growing in some of the back yards and lots of the cities. the traffic in the plant , and the drug derived therefrom, has been found to be considerable, particularly in the South and Southwestern States.

Hemp is cultivated all over the world; its culture probably originated in China, from whence it spread. It is cultivated for three purposes; For the fiber, out of which rope, twine, cloth, and hats are made; for the seed, from which a rapidly drying oil is obtained that is used in the arts and as a commercial substitute for linseed oil; and for the narcotic contained in the resin of the dried, flowering tops of the pistillate plant. The seed is also sold as a constituent of commercial bird seed.

Hemp is grown in the New England Colonies for fiber used in the making of homespun. It was also grown in the Virginia and Pennsylvania Colonies and cultivated at an early date in the settlements of Kentucky, from whence the industry spread to Missouri. Hemp has been grown at various times in Illinois, near Champagne; in the Kankakee River Valley, in Indiana; in southeastern Pennsylvania, and in Nebraska, Iowa, and California. It is now abundant as a wild plant in many localities in Western Missouri, Iowa, Southern Minnesota, and in the southwestern and western states, where it is often found as a roadside weed. It is not known when the plant was introduced into Mexico, and the southwest, but probably along with the early Spanish settlements. It was introduced into Chile in the 16th Century.

The early cultivation of hemp in the United States was of the small European variety, but this has been replaced since 1857 by the larger Chinese hemp. Practically all the seed for present-day American hemp culture is grown in the Kentucky River Valley.

Cannabis Sativa is designated as a "narcotic" in a number of State laws. It is sometimes mentioned in the laws as "loco weed" because of its inebriate effect upon men and cattle; in others a "marihuana", "hemp", or "hashish"; in fact, the drug is known by a wide variety of names.

It is one of the several drugs included under the antinarcotic laws of 17 States, namely Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Nevada, California, Oregon, Idaho, Washington, Utah, Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Iowa. It is also prohibited under the laws of Mexico and England.

In a great many of the states where this legislation was enacted, so widespread was the use of marihuana, and so terrific the result, that grave emergencies were declared to exist which justified the legislation taking effect immediately.

The restrictions respecting the smoking of "hemp" are mentioned along with those restricting opium smoking.

Although the different forms of the plant have been described under different botanical names, there are no essential differences in any of the specific characteristics, and all cultivated or wild hemp is now recognized as belonging to one species - Cannabis

In the year 1090 A.D. the religious and military order or sect of the Assassins was founded in Persia, and the numerous acts of cruelty of this sect was known not only in Asia, but in Europe as well. This branch of the Shiite sect, known as Ismalites, was

called Hashishan, derived from Hashish, or the confection of the hemp leaves (Cannabis indica).

In fact, from the Arabic "Hashishan" we have the English word "Assassin". It is mentioned in the Arabian Knights, and was known at the time of the Crusaders. It is known to the Greeks as "Nepenthe", and was lauded in the immortal Odyssey of

Homer as a drug to lull all pain and anger, and to bring forgetfulness of all sorrow.

It was known in ancient times to the Egyptians, and its use in Egypt, at the present time is widespread.

In fact, it is presently as widely used amongst the Egyptians, and in the East, as opium is used by the Chinese, and alcohol by the Americans and Europeans. Its effect upon the Malays has been terrific, and the natives of the Malayan Peninsula have been known, while under its influence, to rush out and engage in violent or bloody deeds, with complete disregard for their personal safety, or the odds arrayed against them. To run "amok" in the Malayan Peninsula is synonymous with saying one is under the influence of this drug.

In America, particularly in the South and Southwestern portions of the United States, it is called marihuana. It is popularly known amongst the criminal element as "muggles", or "mooter" and addicts are commonly termed "muggle heads."

The flowering tops of the female plant are the source from which the drug is obtained, and in American these flowering tops are gathered and rolled into cigarettes and smoked, the smoke being inhaled.

A favorite method of smoking these cigarettes is for a person to draw into the mouth the smoke from one of these cigarettes and to blow the smoke from the mouth against the cupped hands, and then inhale the smoke.

In India, marihuana or "muggles" is mostly used in "ganja" form, which is the Indian name for a mixture of the stems, leaves, andflowering tops of the cultivate female plants. It is smoked, as in America, in the form of cigarettes, or in the pipe; its smell is typically offensive, and is easily recognized by the initiated.

In Inida, Bhang, or siddi, are the Indian names for the mixture of these dry leaves and capsules without stems, whether male or female, cultivated, or in its wild state. It is the cheapest and the weakest of all the preparations of hashish, and is taken as tea.

In India, the resinous substance which exudes from the flowering head of the female plant is called "chearris", and is either smoked or taken in pills or in confections, or mixed with sugar or honey, and is commonly sold amongst the bazaars of Egypt

In many respects, the action of cannabis sativa is similar to that of alcohol or morphine. Its toxic effects are ecstasy, merriment, uncontrollable laughter, self-satisfaction, bizarre ideas lacking in continuity, and its results are extreme hyperacidity, with occasional attacks of nausea and vomiting. It has also been described as producing, in moderate doses, from a mild intoxication

to a dead drunk, a drowsy and semicomatose condition, lapsing into a dreamy state, with a rapid flow of ideas of a sexual nature and ending in a deep sleep, interrupted by dreams. On awakening, there is a feeling of great dejection and prostration.

Large doses produce excitement, delusions hallucinations, rapid flow of ideas, a high state of ecstasy, psychomotor activity with a tendency to willful damage and violence, and a temporary amnesia of all that has transpired. In cases of prolonged addiction,

especially in the Malays, the somnolent action of Cannabis indica is replaced with complete loss of judgment and restraint, the same effects so frequently observed in alcohol intoxication.

It is commonly used as an aphrodisiac, and its continued use leads to impotency. This has been observed among the natives of India.

At the time of the founding of the religious sect of the "Assassins" in Persia, by Hassan Ben Sabbat, young men whom the sheik desired to subjugate were given this drug, and when under its influence, were taken, blindfolded, into the garden of the sheik, where every pleasure which appealed to the sense awaited them.

When complete indulgence in these pleasures were had, they were taken from this garden, and so eager were they for a further opportunity to use this drug and a repetition of these pleasures, that they were under the complete domination of the sheik, who

alone knew the secret of this drug, and gladly followed his will, even to the extent of sacrificing their lives is he commanded them to do so, in order to further experience the pleasures to which they had been initiated.

At the present time, the underworld has been quick to realize the value of this drug in subjugating the will of human derelicts to that of the master mind. Its use sweeps away all restraint, and to its influence may be attributed many of our present day crimes.

It has been the experience of the police and prosecuting officials in the South that immediately before the commission of many crimes the use of marihuana cigarettes has been indulged in by many criminals, so as to relieve themselves from a sense of natural restraint which might deter them from the commission of these criminal acts, and to give them the false courage necessary to commit the contemplated crime.

Indian hemp (marihuana) addicts were made eligible for treatment in recent legislation enacted by the Seventieth Congress, approved January 19, 1929, establishing narcotic farms for the confinement and treatment of persons addicted to the use of habit-forming narcotic drugs.

This legislation is somewhat unique in congressional legislation, since Indian hemp is not classified as a habit-forming drug or narcotic in other Federal narcotic laws.

Inasmuch as the harmful effects of the use of the drug is becoming more widely known each day, and it has been classed as a narcotic by the statutory laws of 17 American states, England, and Mexico, and persons addicted to its use have been made eligible for treatment in the United States narcotics farms, the United States Government, unquestionably, will be compelled to adopt a consistent attitude toward this drug, and include it in the Harrison antinarcotic law, so as to give Federal aid to the States in their effort to suppress a traffic as deadly and as destructive to society as the traffic in the other forms of narcotics now prohibited by the Harrison Act.

Arny, Henry V. Principles of Pharmacy (3rd Ed.) Philadelphia and London, W. B. Saunders Co. (1926, 1978pp. Cannabis, pp 767-768, Reference p. 779)

Boyce, Sidney S. Hemp (Cannabis Sativa), a practical treatise on the culture of hemp for seed and fiber, with a sketch of the history and nature of the hemp plant. New York, Orange Judd Co. (1900, 112 pp)

Briosi, Giovanni, Interno alla anatomia canapa (Cannabis sativa) Milano, Tip. Bernardoni di C. Rebeschini (cc. 1894-96, 2 v., bibliografia; ff. 1 pp. 2-28; v. 2, pp. 14-38)

Daggett, Charles H. Theory of Pharmaceutical Chemistry. Philadelphia and New York, Lea & Febiger, 1910 (539 pp. Cannabis Indica; p. 480).

Edmunds, C. W. and J. A. Gunn. A textbook of pharmacology and therapeutics (9th ed.) , Philadelphia, Lea & Febiger, 1928 (743 pp. Cannabis; pp. 280-282)

Evers, Norman and G. D. Elsdon. The analysis of drugs and chemicals. London C.Griffin & Co. (1929, 372 pp. Cannabis Indica; p. 190)

India. Department of Finance and Commerce. Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (No. 1369 ex. Government of India, Calcutta, 1925 23 pp.)

-- Memorandum on excise administration in India, so far as it is concerned with hemp drugs * * * (3d, 1. e. 2d ed.; Simla, Printed at the government central printing office 1902, 22 pp.)

-- Hemp Drugs Commission. Report, Simla, printed at the government central printing office (1894 7 v.)

--- Supplementary Volume. Answers received to selected questions for the native army. * * * Calcutta, 1895 (186 pp)

-- Supplementary Volume. Evidence of witnesses from nattive states. Calcutta, office of the superintendent of government printing, India, 1895 (218 pp.)

Marshall C. R. The active principle of Indian hemp; a preliminary communication. Lancet (London), Jan.23 1897 (pt. 1, pp. 235-238)

Marihuana (Mex) In Mexico, any one of several plants having narcotic properties; in many localities; Cannabis indica and in the State of Sonora, Nicotiana glauca.

Medical -- Jurisprudence & Technology, Prof. Jno. Glaister and Hon. Jno. Glaister, Jr. (5th Ed. 1931) Wm. Wood & Co., New York, E & S Livingstone, Edinburgh (p. 849)

Merck's Index; an encyclopedia for the chemist, pharmacist, and physician (4th ed.), Rahway, NJ Merck & co., Inc. (1930, 585 pp), Cannabis (p. 147)

Moreau Jacques J. Du hachich et de l'alienation mentale. Etudes psychologiques. Paris, Fortin Masson et cie, 1845 (431 pp).

Munch, James Clyde. "Bioassays; a handbook of quantitative pharmacology", Baltimore, the William & Wilkins Co., 1931 (pp. 190-197) An article on the subject, including a few references in the text (covers, pp. 67 -88)

Perez, Genaro. La Marihuana. Breve estudio sobre esta planta. Mexico, 1886. Noted in Nicolas, Leon. "Biblioteca botanico - mexicana." Mexico, Officina tip. de la secretaria de fomento, 1895 (p. 207)

Poulsson, E. A textbook on Pharmacology and therapuetics (Eng. ed.) London, W. Heinemann, 1923 (519 pp.). Cannabis indica; (pp. 90-91)

Prain, Sir David. on the morphology, teratology, and diclinism of the flowers of Cannabis, * * * Calcutta, office of the superintendent of government printing, India (9104, 32 pp.) Scientific memoirs of officers of th medical and sanitary departments of the government off India (new ser. no. 12)

Robinson, Victor. An essay on hasheesh, historical and experimental (2d ed.), New York. E. H. Ringer (1925, 91 pp.)

Sollman, Torald. A manual of pharmacology, and its applications to therapeutics and toxicology (3d ed.) Philadelphia and London, W. b. Saunders Co. (1926, 1184 pp.) (Marihuana (Cannabis) (pp. 323-324)

United States Departemtn of Publich Health, See Report of Surgeon-General, Hugh S. Cummings, to the Seventieth Congress. See Index Catalogue of the Surgeon General's Office, as follows:

Wood, George B., The dispensatory of the United States of America (21st ed.) Philadelphia and London, J. b. Lippinscott Co. 1926, 1892. Cannabis indica (Marihuana in Mexican) p. 277-281 A few references are given in the text.

See (Bragman) Toxic effects: Weed of insanity (M. J. & Rec. 122; pp. 416-18, 1925)

(Del Favero) mental effect o hashish on Central African Negroes. Pensiero med. 17;270-277, 1928

(Dontas and Zis) Narcotic action of potassium chlorate added to smoking tobacco; comparison with hasheesh Wien. Klin. Wehnsehr. 41:161-163, 1928

(Fantchenko) Case history of intoxication psychosis from poisoning with tinct. cannabis indicae. Klin. Med. 6: 770-773, 1927

Hasheesh Insanity (by Dr. Warnock, superintendent Cairo Lunatic Asylum), British Medical Journal, vol. 2, p. 2 or 8, 1903

(Joel) Cultivation of cannabis indica; reply to Sabaltschka, Klin. Wehhenschr., 5: 364-365, 1926 Abst J.A.N.A. 86: 1490

(Djunjibhoy) Role of Indian hemp in causation of insanity in India. Far East Assn. Trop. Med. Trans. 7th Cong. 1927, V. 1: 400, 1928

(Joel and Frankel) Hashish intoxication; contribution to experimental psychopathology. Klin. Wehnschr.5: 1707-1709, 1926.

(Kant and Krapf) Psychic phenomena by ingestion of Hashish Archiv. f. exper. Path. u. Pharmakol. 129: 319-338, 1928

(Kant and Krapf) Question off intact function in hashish intoxication, Ztschr. f. d. ges. Neurol u. Psychiat. 112: 302-305, 1928

(Kingman) Gren Goddess, study in dreams, drugs and dementia. M. J. & Rec. 126-470-475, 1927

(Sabalitschka) Cultivation of cannabis indica; comment on Joel's article, Klin. Wehnschr. 5: 1279-1280, 1926

(Kent) Forms of reaction of psychotic indivisuals to hashish intoxication; study of problem of hallucination. Arch. f. Psychiat. 91: 694-721, 1930.

(Dhunjiohoy) "Indian Hemp Insanity" peculiar to India, J. Ment. Sc. 76; 254-264, 1930

California - Code of California, statutes and amendments (1929), page 381, chapter 216

Indiana -- A. Burns' Annotated Indiana Statutes, volume 1, section 2494, page 1228, act 1911, page 45

Texas -- Vernon's Annotated Criminal Statutes of the State of Texas (Penal Code) volume 2, 1926, chapter 3, article 720.

Washington -- Remington's Compiled Statutes of Washington (1923), supplementing chapter 7, sections 2509-2511, 2509-2512.

Wisconsin -- Wisconsin Statutes (1929), tenth edition, section 146.02, formerly sectioon 1419 of the Old Wisconsin Statutes, paragraph 16.

(see descriptive word index and tables of cases affirmed. Revised or modified, covering "Current Digest". vols, 1 to 5 (1926030) (West Publishing Co. "Marijuana", p. 327.)

Criminal law: 507 (1), 730 (2) 569, 338 (7) 1170 1-2 (2), 1153 (6) 814 (8,9), 459, 741 (1)

(Thereupon the committee adjourned to meet tomorrow, Wednesday, Apr. 28, 1937, at 10:30 a.m.

The Online Reefer Madness Teaching Museum.Org

An Online History Museum Of Reefer Madness Propaganda
Dating Back To The Mid 1800's & The Lies That Were Told To Us.

The Online Reefer Madness Teaching Museum

Marijuana Tax Act of 1937

TAXATION OF MARIHUANA

Committee on Ways and Means

Seizures of marihuana in the United States, calendar year 1936, as reported by State and municipal enforcement officers.

Bulk Marihuana Growing plants

Year

SECTION 2

Back to Reefer Madness Museum Page #1

The Online Reefer Madness Teaching Museum.Org

An Online History Museum Of Reefer Madness Propaganda Dating Back To The Mid 1800's & The Lies That Were Told To Us.

The Online Reefer Madness Teaching Museum

Marijuana Tax Act of 1937

TAXATION OF MARIHUANA

Committee on Ways and Means

Seizures of marihuana in the United States, calendar year 1936, as reported by State and municipal enforcement officers.

Bulk Marihuana Growing plants

Year

SECTION 2

Back to Reefer Madness Museum Page #1

An Online History Museum Of Reefer Madness Propaganda
Dating Back To The Mid 1800's & The Lies That Were Told To Us.