Research paper on Harry J. Anslinger

[narcoleptic696]

This is a research paper I just wrote and handed in for freshman english. It's kind of long, but I thought I'd post it for anyone interested in Harry J. Anslinger and his role in making the herb illegal. Enjoy. I like how the formatting has created a bunch of random smilies.




The Influence of Harry J. Anslinger on Current Marijuana Laws and Attitudes

In a chapter entitled ‘Hemp Around Their Necks’, in a book called The Murderers, Harry J. Anslinger wrote: “As the marijuana situation grew worse, I knew action had to be taken to get proper control legislation passed” (38). The book was published in the thirty-first year of Anslinger’s tenure as Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Twenty-four years had passed since the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, written by Anslinger himself, had been signed into law by then-President <st1 ="">lace w:st="on">Roosevelt</st1>lace>. Anslinger had campaigned furiously against the drug in those fourteen years, and the consequences of his actions are still felt today. He played an important role in the development of the views of our society, with his portrayal of the drug user as a rabid creature, drowning in his own dissolution, capable of just about anything and most definitely out there preying on the nation’s children. He also helped define the laws that govern this society, with an attitude that was all stick and no carrot, putting forth the ideas of harsh punishments for drug abusers that have filled the jails and made our prison system the world’s largest (CNN).

Marijuana was made illegal in 1937, during the heyday of legislated morality. Many substances were prohibited in the early 20^th century. The Harrison Act of 1914 sought to make opiates and other drugs illegal and stamp out their use. As with future bans, one Act was not enough to solve anything:

“If the act was passed with the intention of eradicating the narcotics problem, however, it fell woefully short. Not only did the act exclude what would be the most controversial drug in the country in another twenty years, but also it contained ambiguous provisions with regard to the ramifications of its enforcement” (Inciardi 31)

<o ="">> </o>>

Another attempt, one which was opposed by the majority of Americans, was inaugurated by the Eighteenth Amendment and the Volstead Act of 1919. This was Prohibition. Prohibition would last for fourteen years, until 1933. These laws showed that there was no hesitation in Congress or the Presidency to pass legislation which protected the public from things that were thought to be harmful.



Enforcing the current narcotics laws had been the responsibility of several different agencies, but all this was changed in 1930 (Himmelstein 23). The Federal Bureau of Narcotics, created in the Treasury Department, was meant to be a new and more powerful tool for federal control of drugs. The man who was appointed to head up the new Bureau had been the Assistant Commissioner at the Bureau of Prohibition, which was the federal agency responsible for enforcing the Volstead Act. He had distinguished himself at the Bureau, and was known to have some interesting new ideas on how Prohibition should be better enforced (Musto 211). This was Harry J. Anslinger. The task was now given to him to use the newly created FBN to protect the country from the dangerous drugs prohibited in the Harrison Act and elsewhere. However, it was not up to the task on its own. It employed fewer than 250 agents who were theoretically responsible for guarding over 4,000 miles of border and 20,000 miles of coastline. If the Bureau was expected to fully enforce the existing laws, one man would have had to protect 100 miles of the border of the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1 ="">lace w:st="on">USA</st1>lace></st1:country-region>. This would obviously have been unfeasible. (McWilliams 47) The Bureau would therefore be mainly concerned with advising local police forces, controlling international and interstate trade, and fighting the political war on narcotics from <st1 ="">lace w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Washington</st1:city> <st1:state w:st="on">D.C.</st1:state></st1>lace>

Throughout the early 1930s a new moral crusade was taken up against marijuana. This marijuana scare was fueled by state congressmen, newspaper reporters and editors, and the FBN itself. It lead, eventually, to the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Obviously the newly created Bureau and its Commissioner played some role in this fresh outburst of moral outrage, but what exactly it was has been debated. An argument Jerome Himmelstein calls ‘The Anslinger Hypothesis’, in which blame for the ‘crisis’ is laid solely upon Harry J. Anslinger (25), is quite often taken up by those people today who are most in favor of decriminalization. The opposite idea, that Anslinger was forced to do something after coming under increasing political pressure from state governments, can also be argued. However this idea ignores the facts, and the idea that Anslinger was, if not the sole person to blame, the most powerful mover behind the marijuana scare, can be backed up with the fact that he wrote many magazine articles and made many speeches specifically against the drug from 1930-37 (McWilliams 50-51). It is important to remember that most people who have made a serious study of marijuana legislation believe that even without Anslinger a federal law would have been passed prohibiting the drug in the 1930’s, although some place an emphasis on a possible desire for state-level legislation (Musto) and others more on his careerist impulses (McWilliams).

To understand how a drug, barely known and hardly legislated against, could suddenly be perceived as a national menace in just a few short years, it is important to take in all the misinformation about marijuana that was put out by Anslinger and others. These arguments usually followed one or both of two major ideas. The first was that it made dangerous minorities such as blacks and Mexicans commit racially suspect offenses. The second was that marijuana made innocent people go insane and commit violent acts. In his personal correspondence, public testimonies, speeches, and other forms of communication, Anslinger used both:

To Anslinger marijuana was the most dangerous of drugs; it was more degenerating and debasing to a person’s character than opium. Where opium’s effects at least were predictable, marijuana’s destructiveness lay in its propensity to transform one’s rational thoughts into the commission of unspeakable, heinous acts. In this respect Anslinger saw the battle against marijuana as analogous to good versus evil…(McWilliams 51)

<o ="">> </o>>

The best known example of misinformation from this time period is Reefer Madness, which is the name given in the 1960’s to a 1936 propaganda film about marijuana called Tell Your Children. Many people who watch it believe that it is a dramatization of a society in which marijuana is illegal and illicit, as it is today, because most people believe that drug has been illegal for much longer than 68 years. In fact it is an argument for a new brand of prohibition, not just an appeal for greater parental discipline or stricter enforcement of existing laws (although many state laws against marijuana were in place in 1936). Tell Your Children put forth all the ideas of Anslinger in a dramatic fashion designed to shock its viewers into action, with dialogue such as “Just a young boy…under the influence of drugs…who killed his entire family with an axe.” That line is in fact a modified version of Anslinger’s favorite story about the dangers of marijuana, of a dazed and confused 21 year old named Victor Licata who supposedly killed four family members while in a drug-induced ‘dream’, which he told to congress and to the public in one of his magazine articles (McWilliams 54). .

All this misinformation eventually culminated in the first piece of national legislation specifically making marijuana illegal, the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Although again it can be argued whether or not Anslinger played the major role in the passage of the Act, the fact remains that he was essentially the author of the bill and that he was the leading expert consulted by Congress. The bill was passed based on the supposition that smoking marijuana caused addiction, extreme violence, and insanity. Anslinger’s main tool was the use of horrific example after horrific example to try and shock people into action. This can be shown in his book The Murderers, from 1961:<o ="">></o>>

A gang of boys tear the clothes from the two school girls and rape the screaming girls, one boy after another. A sixteen-year-old kills his entire family of five in <st1:state w:st="on">Florida</st1:state>, a man in <st1:state w:st="on">Minnesota</st1:state> puts a bullet through the head of a stranger on the road; in <st1 ="">lace w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">Colorado</st1:state></st1>lace> a husband tries to shoot his wife, kills her grandmother instead, and then kills himself. (Anslinger 38) <o ="">></o>>

<o ="">> </o>>

Although this book was written decades after he helped bring about the Marihuana Tax Act, Anslinger used the exact same tactic when testifying before Congress:<o ="">></o>>

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 <st1 ="">lace w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">Ohio</st1:state></st1>lace> 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

Whether or not the men of Congress believed Anslinger’s horror stories and rhetoric and genuinely thought a national law was necessary, or they were simply buckling under pressure from their constituents and powerful morality groups, the bill was passed and signed by President Roosevelt. It came into effect on October 1^st, 1937.<o ="">></o>>

When considering all of Anslinger’s actions taken since he became Commissioner of the FBN in 1930, an important question is that of motive. Conjectures about his motives have been put forward for decades. The most benevolent interpretation of his actions is that he was simply another <st1:state w:st="on">Washington</st1:state> bureaucrat whose actions were a direct result of political pressure from congressmen and activist groups, and by extension the people of the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1 ="">lace w:st="on">United States of America</st1>lace></st1:country-region>. Another possible reason is that he truly believed marijuana was a menace to every American, that it was a killer and that it caused violence, insanity, and racial indiscretion, and he acted out of his own sense of morality. However, Anslinger was an intelligent man, and there was much evidence to the contrary even during the 1930’s. A less kind explanation is that upon taking the office of Comissioner in 1930 Anslinger simply saw which way the political winds were blowing and made the decision that was best for his career. As a bureaucrat in a newly created and poorly defined office he needed to make a name for himself and show that the work that needed to be done was getting done. Fueling the marijuana scare and helping along the Marihuana Tax Act simply gave his agency, and by extension himself, greater jurisdiction and good publicity. In this way he kept his job. This hypothesis is supported by his actions throughout his career, and indeed he did keep his high-ranking post throughout the terms of several presidents and into old age. The real truth is that he was probably motivated by a combination of all three. The only motive that is unlikely is one most put forward by the radical decriminalization activists of today, a conspiracy theory that says that Anslinger crusaded against marijuana in support of traditional textile makers, to suppress the use of hemp as an alternative. A specious case can be made in favor of this idea, but no hard evidence can be produced to show that this was the case.

Although the actions of the FBN were not as dramatic during the rest of Anslinger’s career, some very important steps were taken against the drug. The Bureau fought against any dissenting voice that claimed marijuana was not an immediate and pressing threat, an extreme danger. The most prominent of these was the La Guardia report, produced as the result of an exhaustive series of studies and surveys produced at the request of <st1:state w:st="on"><st1 ="">lace w:st="on">New York</st1>lace></st1:state> mayor Fiorello La Guardia in the mid-1940s. This report found no evidence that marijuana was the ravaging unstoppable killer that had been campaigned so vigorously against in the 1930’s. However, Anslinger fought against it and managed to largely discredit its findings (McWilliams 103). He even makes special mention of the report in his book The Murderers, calling it “…a government printed invitation to youth and adults-above all teen-agers-to go ahead and smoke all the reefers they felt like.” (40) Anslinger also censored movies and other forms of media that did not conform to the hard line taken by the FBN. One of these was a Canadian film of 1946 called Drug Addict, which contained such radical ideas as “addiction is a sickness” and “law enforcement control is impossible” (Galliher).

The 1950’s brought the evolution of the Stepping-Stone, or Gateway Drug hypothesis. The idea of marijuana as the “killer weed” was being disproved, and this became a new reason for harsher and harsher laws against it. It is one of Anslinger’s greatest legacies to us today, an idea which is still believed by many. Anslinger had specifically rebutted any such idea in his testimony before Congress prior to the passage of the Marihuana Tax Act:

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. (Schaffer)

The first reference to this idea in an official document of the FBN came in 1949. “This new claim against marihuana gained commonsense status quickly. Less than two years later, the progression from marihuana to heroin was already regarded as a ‘tragically familiar story.’”(Himmelstein 84-85). 50 years later this remains one of the pillars on which our ideas about marijuana rest. It has even become part of the arguments against other drugs. Use of the prescription drug adderall is often portrayed in alarmist propaganda as leading naturally to a terrible addiction to speed (MTV). The Gateway Drug hypothesis is firmly ingrained in our beliefs, despite the shaky foundations on which it rests.

While Anslinger sought to preserve the reasons for keeping marijuana illegal, he also pushed for harsher penalties for and mandatory minimum sentencing of those convicted of breaking the laws, an aspiration which was fulfilled with the passage of the 1951 Boggs Act. Before the Act the maximum penalty was a maximum sentence of ten years. After the Act penalties increased from no less than two years in prison for the first offense, no less than five for the second, and no less than twenty for the third. Also harsh fines were introduced (McWilliams 108). Like the Gateway Drug Hypothesis, the idea of mandatory minimum sentences for offenders remains influential today.

The production of hemp was and is also influenced by Anslinger’s time as Commissioner. The prohibition on marijuana did not, at first, too adversely affect domestic hemp production. Anslinger himself extolled the benefits of hemp in his testimony before Congress in 1937:

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 <st1:state w:st="on">Kentucky</st1:state>, <st1:state w:st="on">Minnesota</st1:state>, and <st1 ="">lace w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">Wisconsin</st1:state></st1>lace>. 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. (Schaffer)

Also hemp production was actively encouraged during World War Two, with propaganda films listing its values and its American tradition playing in movie theaters across the country (Schaffer). However, this hemp production was strongly controlled and watched over and Anslinger himself could boast that “Less than one thousandth of one percent was ever diverted into illegal channels.” (Anslinger 39) After the war this cultivation stopped and gradually almost all legal hemp production was ended in the <st1 ="">lace w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">US</st1:country-region></st1>lace>. <o ="">></o>>

Anslinger retired in 1962 at age 70, the mandatory retirement age for government employees. It is still unclear whether his retirement was voluntary, which is probable, or whether he had been forced out by President Kennedy (McWilliams 180). He had served as Comissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics under five presidents. He is responsible, either directly or indirectly or in between, for giving us the idea that marijuana is a gateway drug, that those who break laws concerning marijuana should receive mandatory minimum sentences and that marijuana should be illegal at all. He is also responsible for ending our long-standing production of hemp and for rooting out most wild marijuana throughout the country. Indeed the popularization of the name ‘marihuana’ or ‘marijuana’ is often attributed to Anslinger, although this is unlikely. The influence of the life and career of this man, unknown by most people in our country, affects many legal and social issues today, thirty years after his death.

<o ="">> </o>>







<o ="">> </o>>

<o ="">> </o>>

<o ="">> </o>>

<o ="">> </o>>

<o ="">> </o>>

<o ="">> </o>>

<o ="">> </o>>

<o ="">> </o>>

<o ="">> </o>>

<o ="">> </o>>

<o ="">> </o>>

<o ="">> </o>>

<o ="">> </o>>

<o ="">> </o>>

<o ="">> </o>>

<o ="">> </o>>

<o ="">> </o>>

<o ="">> </o>>

<o ="">> </o>>

<o ="">> </o>>

<o ="">> </o>>

<o ="">> </o>>

<o ="">> </o>>

<o ="">> </o>>

<o ="">> </o>>

<o ="">> </o>>

<o ="">> </o>>

<o ="">> </o>>

<o ="">> </o>>

<o ="">> </o>>

<o ="">> </o>>

<o ="">> </o>>

<o ="">> </o>>

<o ="">> </o>>

<o ="">> </o>>

<o ="">> </o>>

<o ="">> </o>>

Works Cited<o ="">></o>>

<o ="">> </o>>

Anslinger, Harry J., and Will Oursler. The Murderers. <st1:state w:st="on">New York</st1:state>: Farrar, Straus and <st1 ="">lace w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Cudahy</st1:city></st1>lace>. 1961

<o ="">> </o>>

CNN. 28 April 2005. http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/24/pri...eut/index.html

<o ="">> </o>>

Galliher, John F., David P. Keys, and Michael Elsner. “Lindesmith v. Anslinger: an early government victory in the failed war on drugs.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 88 (1998): 661–683.

<o ="">> </o>>

Himmelstein, Jerome L. The Strange Career of Marihuana: Politics and Ideology of Drug Control in <st1 ="">lace w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">America</st1:country-region></st1>lace>. <st1:city w:st="on">Westport</st1:city>, <st1:state w:st="on">Connecticut</st1:state>: <st1 ="">lace w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Greenwood</st1:city></st1>lace> Press. 1983

<o ="">> </o>>

Inciardi, James A., ed. Handbook of Drug Control in the <st1 ="">lace w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">United States</st1:country-region></st1>lace>. <st1:city w:st="on">Westport</st1:city>, <st1:state w:st="on">Connecticut</st1:state>: <st1 ="">lace w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Greenwood</st1:city></st1>lace> Press. 1990

<o ="">> </o>>

McWilliams, John C. The Protectors: Harry J. Anslinger and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 1930-1962. <st1:city w:st="on">Newark</st1:city>: <st1 ="">lace w:st="on"><st1lacetype w:st="on">University</st1lacetype> of <st1lacename w:st="on">Delaware</st1lacename></st1>lace> Press. 1990

<o ="">> </o>>

McWilliams, John C. Letter to the author. 25 April 2005.

<o ="">> </o>>

MTV. 28 April 2005. http://www.mtv.com/onair/dyn/truelif...pisodeID=73056

<o ="">> </o>>

Musto, David F. The American Disease: Origins of Narcotic Control. <st1:state w:st="on">New York</st1:state>: <st1 ="">lace w:st="on"><st1lacename w:st="on">Oxford</st1lacename> <st1lacetype w:st="on">University</st1lacetype></st1>lace> Press. 1999

<o ="">> </o>>

Musto, David F. Letter to the author. 19 April 2005.

<o ="">> </o>>

Schaffer Library of Drug Control. 14 April 2005. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/...ct/anslng1.htm

<o ="">> </o>>

Schaffer Library of Drug Control. 28 April 2005.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/hemp4v.htm

<o ="">> </o>>

[narcoleptic696]

Bump