|
DEDICATED TO FREE THOUGHT AND FREE SPEECH IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now the elections are behind us, I believe some recognition of the achievements of certain candidate's campaigns is in order. For instance, deserving the "I didn't know you could do that" award is Lakeport city councilman Bill Knoll, who was endorsed by the Lakeport police department. Now that public service agencies are getting into the endorsement business, it probably won't be long before we see the Post Office endorsing school board candidates, or the Library backing Judges.
I haven't checked on this site for quite some time and I do
apologize. But I have seen the rantings of joe and some of the other
incarnates who complain of all things that Bud Wiser and others don't
put their pictures with their stories. I'm sure that mine won't make
them any happier but there it is. After leaving the pillar of news
and information for Lake county better known as the Record Bee I got
a real job at a real newspaper where one check is as much as I made
in a month at the Bee. My new job gave me a 4 day work week even
though the legislators can't figure out how to make it work since the
new 8 hour a day overtime laws were reinstated, my new employers pay
me the overtime, no problem. I've been busy moving, back into the
house we had to rent out up here because of the poor pay at the Bee,
which has been taking a lot of time because renters just don't take
care of your stuff like you do. Oh and my new job doesn't have a
monthly degrading parade around the office and grounds with noise
makers led by your publisher in front of the public sometimes outside
for the world to see just how childish you can be made to look to get
your 25 dollar check or a denim shirt that you can't wear because of
the dress code and don't forget your special parking spot close to
the door for your 10 years of service, your now employee of the month
at the Record Bee. Congratulations Bob how was the parade? Hi Larry,
Brian, Sam, Maile, Leslie, Val, Jose, Albert and everyone else still
there and to all those who have moved on Doug, Mike, Aura, Art, Pat,
Marietta, Roy,to name a few.
A few weeks ago I was invited by the CEO of Penafin Corp. to a 2 day
jazz and bluegrass festival at her home in Potter Valley she had a
beautiful place an old two story brick house with a simple pool
several refurbished barns that were sort of ads for her various wood
products. One of the older barns a giant cathedral sized beauty that
on Saturday had more kinds of chili downstairs than at the cook off
in Lakeport and up stairs was where the bands played and the open bar
was located, it was hot so drinking and swimming were wonderful
condiments to the music. On Saturday it was Jazz and on Sunday it was
Bluegrass.
I would like to thank Bud and some of the others who I can't name or
give their pictures for giving me the article on national wages in
the newspaper industry, it made me go and find out that I had wasted
more than a year and a half working for the Record Bee. THANKS.
The big contest in the local elections was the battle between Peggy McCloud and Anthony Farrington for the district four supervisor seat, which Farrington won by an amazing 2 to 1 margin. Peggy lost in spite of her endorsements from all the local Democratic big shots, and the fact that before the campaign her challenger was basically an unknown must have made the sting of losing even worse for the familiar Mrs. McCloud. Peggy is still in a snit about losing, and made it clear that she blames the Free Press for contributing to her poor showing (shades of Bill Merriman!).
Peggy also says that I have written several untrue statements about her and her campaign, but she was unable to back up any of her accusations with even a tiny shred of evidence when pressed for answers. I asked Peggy if she would like to use the Free press to help hold our new and old supervisors accountable, but the grumpy little troll would rather wallow in self-pity and revenge fantasies than do something productive, so she stomped out of the room in a snit at the suggestion of a collaborative effort. Peggy McCloud is a small-minded person and a poor loser, and the voters of Lake County wisely discerned that she was not right for the job.
The next bit of bad news on the home front came in the Lakeport city council race, where voters had to choose three clueless middle-aged white guys to fill the slots currently occupied by three clueless middle-aged white guys.
All four candidates were middle-aged (or Older) clueless white guys, so there were no winners, we all lost. The only ray of hope in this gloomy picture is that the visionless,spine-free, blandly corrupt Max Ruffcorn has left the council, but again that plus is balanced by the negative that the sometimes useful Roy Parmentier is also gone.
The Clearlake city council race was a very tight one, with the dreadful incumbents Jim McMurray and Sam Sanchez joining newcomer Jo Bennett in the winners circle. The good news is that Bennett beat out the awful Frank Taylor by about fifty votes. Frank Taylor is the chickenshit homophobic Mormon zealot who writes the " anonymous" editorials in the monthly "Outlook" or "Landscape", or whatever that piece of crap is calling itself these days. That sorry excuse for a periodical has gotten even worse since it's only competent writer (Miquel Lanigan), has left that rapidly sinking soap box for bigots and incompetent amateur writers like Franks wife Betty.
Maybe if we are real lucky, Frank will pack up his dog and pony show and head back to Maxwell, where ever the Hell that is.
WHAT IT COSTS
By Phil Murphy 8/7/00
What does it cost to get elected supervisor or judge in Lake County?
Probably more than you thought it would, especially in the context of cost per vote. In the district four race for supervisor nearly $37,000 has been spent by the four candidates so far, and we still have the most important three months of the campaign to go. Peggy McCloud ran a frugal yet effective campaign, spending only $4.95 per vote to come in second and make it to the final round in November. Peggy did take $500 from a labor union that represents county employees, a fact that she may come to regret as it could become an issue in the campaign. She has a mere $1787 on hand to continue her race, and will have to do some serious fundraising to be competitive.
Roy Parmenteir Spent $9.47 per vote to come in last in the four way district four race, and is probably wondering why he bothered to raise and spend the $5716. his run cost.
Mary Ann McQueen spent $9.43 to come in third, less than a hundred votes behind Peggy. Mary had raised and spent $9107 in her failed bid for office, and surprised many people with her poor showing.
Anthony Farrington spent $14,440 on his campaign, which works out to $12.15 per vote. Apparently Anthony's big spending paid off, since the relatively unknown young man ended up in first place by a over a hundred votes.
The amount of cash raised and spent in this campaign is a huge increase from the last district four race in 1996. Four years ago Karen Mackey spent a total of $4,429 to win her seat on the board, far less than any of the candidates in this years race spent just to make the run-offs.
In the district five race Bill Merriman spent a little less this time than during the last election when he spent $7,937 to win is seat. This time around he spent $7,382 ( $4.47 per vote) to lose by a large margin to Rob Brown. Rob spent $7,028 to beat Bill, which works out to $3.39 per vote.
In the judges race Art Mann spent $18,070 to keep his job, and his opponent Mike Lunas coughed up $12,959 of mostly his own money to go on his unproductive ego trip.
The real big spender in this years campaigns was Steve Hedstrom, who spent an astounding $38,531.32 to basically buy his job as judge in department four. His opponent Steve Tulanian spent about half that sum, a mere $18,613.
The trend that is developing here is really disturbing, as the day when your average citizen could afford to run for these local offices without becoming a full-time beggar seem to be coming to an end.
On Sunday evening around eight thirty the staff at the Hill Road Correctional Facility began a cell search in pod "C", the maximum security unit at the jail. The inmates suspected that something was wrong because the usual pattern of search activity was different this time, and some of the correctional officers seemed to be looking for an excuse to start some trouble. According to the two accounts from eye witnesses that we have received, the problem started when officer Monreal referred to inmate Willie Baker as a" punk", to which Mr. Baker replied "don't call me that". At the time of this verbal exchange inmate Baker was obeying the instruction to walk towards a wall and not to turn around. After Baker said "don't call me that" , officer Monreal jumped him from behind and knocked him to the ground, then other officers joined in and Baker was drug into the adjoining hallway out of sight of the other prisoners.
At this point the other inmates were told that the cellblock would be locked down, which caused the inmates to say that they would not obey the lockdown order until inmate Baker was returned to the cellblock, because they could hear the handcuffed Willie Baker having the shit beat out of him in the hallway. Chairs were thrown by the inmates and the officers responded with a pepper spray attack on the 22 disgruntled prisoners of pod "C", including the three inmates that had complied with the orders to lie face-down on the floor. Willie Baker had a doctor brought by his cell, but the doctor was only allowed to see his patient through the cell door, and had no direct contact with Mr. Baker, who had several obvious wounds to his elbow and head, and was also reporting that he was urinating blood.
In all eight inmates were sent to the "hole" where most still remain, including inmate Ronny Cavagna who reported that his cell had no working plumbing and that he was forced to defecate in a bag and urinate in his sink. We will continue to relate developments concerning this incident and also look into other allegations of abuse and thievery perpetrated by the Hill Road staff.
When it comes to getting in line for a piece of the state public pie, rural counties with their small population bases always have to work twice as hard to get their share. So when areas like the North Coast get their hands on some of that hard to get state money it is especially important that the funds be spent in a sensible and efficient manner.
A perfect example of how hard-up for cash Lake County is was illustrated by the recent cash grab by the Lake County Board of supervisors who took $400,00 out of $650,000 tobacco settlement fund to try to fill the $6,000,000 gap in funding for the Basin 2000 project. How else could this important project be funded? Perhaps the Board of supervisors could have asked state senator Wes Chesbro or assemblywoman Virginia Strom-Martin why they are supporting a plan to spend $65,000,000 to try to fix the un-fixable Eel River Canyon section of the North Coast Pacific Railroad instead of getting the money need to finish the far more useful Basin 2000 project.
This new infusion of cash follows the $70,000,000 plus that has been sucked up by this publicly run rail line over the past few years to fund an operation that has not run a train on it's tracks in over two years.
To fully understand the futility of trying to rehabilitate the rail line running between Willits and Eureka, a short history lesson is in order. The North Western Pacific Railroad has 300 miles of track that stretches from Marin county to Eureka, and when track conditions permit has run freight trains up and down it's line for 85 years. The problem is that on an all-to-often basis the track conditions have not permitted the use of the 200 mile section of the line that runs through the Eel River Canyon between Willits and Eureka, as the following report made about a landslide that shut down the line for 73 days in 1938 by the NWP's chief engineer shows: " The entire slide was completely saturated with water and the movement toward the Eel River, as it is measured at the railroad, attained a velocity of 13 feet in 24 hours on February 2nd, 1938. The surface of the slide takes on the characteristic form of mud glaciers, with lateral terminal moraines, with rolls and pressure ridges forming valleys and hummocks. Great cracks open up into which water from the surface enters. Commencing with the heavy rainfall period of February 1938, evidence appeared of the earth movement developing, and in spite of all efforts to maintain the roadbed the situation became so serious that on February 2nd it was necessary to remove the steam shovel and 600 feet of track in order to save the track material. 600 feet of track and two open deck trestles were destroyed. the moving mass upon entering the Eel River greatly restricted the stream bed area and was in turn washed away by the strong current".
The report estimated that the slide was approximately a quarter mile long. Part of the problem is that every one of the times the track has slid into the river the solution has been to cut further into the mountainside, which creates a steeper, less stable area surrounding the track which invites more wash-outs in the future. This situation has made the Eel River section of track the most expensive in the world to maintain on a cost-per-mile basis. That is why when the railroads were deregulated in the 1980's, the at-the-time owners (Southern Pacific RR) were eager to get rid of the line, in spite of the fact that they were running an average of 200 freight cars a day on the line. That kind of volume is not likely to be seen in the future, since the primary freight carried in that day was lumber, and with most of the good trees gone and the big clients like Georgia-Pacific and Louisiana Pacific leaving town the need for the line has disappeared. What will it cost to fix the line? It depends upon who you ask. 15 years ago Southern Pacific Railroad figured that it would cost about $1,000,000 a mile to save the Eel River section( though that figure did not include normal maintenance or repairs), for a total of about $200,000,000. Two years ago the North Coast Railroad Authority (who governs the NWPRR), contractors and geo-tech consultants surveyed the track between Dos Rios and Alder point, and determined that $600,000,000 would be needed to" fix" the track, though more damage has occurred in the meantime including a tunnel collapse that will undoubtedly add to that figure. Besides the landslides, tunnel collapses and track wash-outs, four railcars are derailed near Longvale, just north of Dos Rios another railcar lays in the Eel River, and eleven flat cars loaded with lumber have been stranded for years south of Alder point.
So why have our elected officials decided to try to do the impossible? Humbolt and Del Norte County politicos have decided that their economic future lies in the development of a deep water port in Eureka, to be served by the NWPRR who will run freight down it's line (weather permitting), to the bay area. Why you would want to send your cargo down 200 miles of shaky railroad track when you could get there much more easily by ship is a question that none of the proponents of this plan have been able to answer. When FEMA gave the NWPRR 8.3 million dollars recently to repair storm related damage to the track, the NCRA voted 4-3 to spend the money to fix the Eel River Canyon instead of using it to re-open the line between Marin and Willits, a far more feasible task. So today the newly constructed, never-seen-a-train depot in Cloverdale is likely to stay that way, while the NCRA sells off public assets like the depot in Ukiah ($468,000) and the Willits depot ($400,000) to fund it's day-to-day expenses.
How well is the NCRA running the line? An internal investigation two years ago found that funds were misspent, accounting was inadequate or missing altogether, and that standard management and related internal controls were non-existent, which is why Virginia Strom-Martin stated that the NCRA "Has at times appeared to be a black hole for public dollars".
When the decision was recently made by a 4-3 vote of the NCRA board to focus on "fixing" the Eel River line instead of re-opening the easily fixed southern section, the tie-breaking vote was cast by NCRA chairman Bob Jehr, who it is rumored is going to run for Strom-Martin's seat when she is term limited out, and he obviously needs the support of the north coast political honchos to fund his campaign, hence his favorable vote. Wes Chesbro continues to insist that the railroad is a" vital link" in the north coast economy, and even though Strom-Martin has questioned the efficiency of the process, she is also supporting the proposed $65,000,000 bailout.
Exactly one year ago today a 21 year old volunteer named Matt Black died when he came in contact with a live power line while he was fighting a small fire in a walnut orchard. To this day several important questions about this tragedy have never been publicly discussed, and very few people outside the department know what really happened. This is Matt's story.
It was 5:00 p.m. on a warm,breezy Wednesday afternoon when I left work and headed my motorcycle down Hill road,then turned eastbound onto the Parkway overpass. As I crossed over highway 29 I was very surprised to see smoke rising from the ridge directly behind the Hill road east fire station. Everything was wrong with the situation, the firehouse looked deserted, the smoke was to close to town and it was to late on this windy day for a controlled burn. I slowed down as I passed the station, debating whether or not to stop and report the smoke. I decided that they must have had an engine on the scene already, and kept on rolling.
As I got to the bottom of the hill, I saw flames along the northside of the road, and no firefighters or equipment were in sight. Two teenagers were running around trying to stomp out the flames that were surrounding a couple of homes, so I slowed down and looked for a place to park, deciding on a spot on lakeveiw road so as not to block the fire engines that I knew would be arriving at any second. The next five minutes were a confusing, frustrating time, because the three of us couldn't find a hose, shovel, or anything else that would qualify as a firefighting tool. We made sure that the homes were empty, and moved some pieces of wood away from the homes that could have started more problems. Beyond that, all we could do is to stamp out the flames with our feet. The fire was mostly fed by the knee-high weeds in the walnut orchard adjoining the homes, and while it produced a lot of smoke, it was not intense or difficult to extinguish.
As I stumbled around in the smoke, it became clear that the fire had started at the road, and I assumed that the cause of the blaze must have been a cigarette tossed from a car window. It never occurred to me that a few feet from where I had been stomping on the burning weeds a live 12000 volt powerline was waiting to cause more destruction. By this time the fire engines had begun to roll, and by the time firechief Al Moorhead was crossing eleventh St. a call came across the radio stating that a downed powerline was involved with the fire, a message that Matt Black's employer confirmed that Matt had heard on his pager.
Matt's crew turned up Lakeveiw road and two men were sent out with hoses to knock down the flames closest to the homes, and Matt was specifically instructed to concentrate on a small pile of burning debris. For some unknown reason, instead of heading for a pile roughly a hundred feet from the downed line, Matt went to the pile next to the road, and the live wire. Chief Moorhead speculated that possibly Matt did this so he could be closer to a fellow firefighter working nearby with whom he had a friendly rivalry. Whatever the case, two eye witnesses claim that as Matt approached the wire the hose he was dragging across the field snagged for a moment, then suddenly broke free,causing Matt to stumble forward onto the line.
In the blowing smoke and flames did Matt know exactly where the downed line was? we will never know for sure, but we do know that the difficult to see hazard was not marked with flagging tape or cones, a simple precaution that may have saved his life. This omission was noted by the several private and governmental agencies that have investigated this case as a flaw in the department's policy, and suggested changing the rules so that in the future all hazards of a serious nature will be identified with some kind of safety/warning device. Chief Moorhead says that his department will make marking hazards a mandatory procedure in the future, so at least the possibility of a repeat of this kind of tragedy is less likely. This aspect of the incident bothered me the most, because over a decade ago when I had served on another volunteer fire department it was taken for granted that simple safety precautions of this type would take place and if they didn't there would be hell to pay if the Chief found out. It was also hard for me to accept that a fine young man that we all assumed would be the kind of guy to really make something of himself had died just as his life as an adult was beginning.
In Lake County we have several sources to choose from when buying building materials and related items, but finding a good deal is a difficult to impossible task. When you look at tiny, one-store-operations like Kelseyville Lumber, Hardsters and Lake Builders supply it is easy to understand that these low volume operations are at a tremendous disadvantage when competing against nationwide operations like Home Depot, even though these three small stores are part of the ACE hardware chain. But there is a large difference between selling some generic ACE hardware products and outfits like Home Base and Home Depot, who discount all of their merchandise all of the time.
So the stores that are best positioned to take on the "big guys" are the mini-chains, like Mendo Mill (with stores in Clearlake, Fort Bragg and Ukiah),Piedmont Lumber (eight stores across the North Bay Area) and Friedman Bros. (Ukiah, Santa Rosa and Sonoma). Freidman Bros. is doing a great job of competing with Home Depot, and can stay within very close range of the huge national outfits in pricing and selection. Thanks to their high prices, Mendo Mill and Piedmont Lumber are actually helping to drive business away from Lake County and the eight store Piedmont chain is using the motto "shop hometown, not Home Depot", in spite of the fact that most of the business lost to out-of-county stores goes to Friedman Bros. in Ukiah, not Home Depot in far-off Santa Rosa.
Before I make the cost comparisons, I would like to point out that Piedmont has a core of knowledgeable,well trained and loyal employees(with the exception of the never-ending stream of trainee cashiers who frequently bring the checkstands to a grinding halt), even though they offer low pay with little chance for advancement. Piedmont also has flaws besides high prices and low pay, they constantly change their hours (closed at 3:00pm Sunday?), and a large part of the locally owned Lakeport store has recently been turned into a marketplace for over-priced dust collectors called Victoria's Corner. It should also be pointed out that Piedmont will match any competitors advertised price, although that time-consuming process wouldn't be necessary if they were competitive in the first place.
Home Depot price Piedmont price
Delta bathroom faucet N520-WFMPU $74.97
$109.99
Round-Up weed killer 1. gallon
$92.00
$129.99
30 gallon natural gas water heater
$137.00
$229.99
Ortho Diazinon insect spray 32 oz.
$8.96
$14.49
Rain Drip watering kit R520D
$23.97
$25.49
Rain Bird sprinkler 25 PJDA-C
$15.88
$19.49
3" ABS drain pipe "T" fitting
$3.19
$4.79
3" ABS drain pipe coupling
$1.19
$1.89
De Walt cordless drill 14.4 volt
$159.00
$219.99
De Walt cordless drill 18 volt
$199.00
$319.00
SKILL "77" worm drive saw
$146.00
$159.99
SKILL 7 1/4" 2.3 HP saw
$37.96
$51.99
Homelite 16" chainsaw
$139.00
$154.99
1/2" CDX
plywood $10.94
$15.38
1/2" particle
board
$10.47
$12.95
7/16" OSB
$9.43
$14.95
It should also be pointed out that some of the Piedmont prices were sale prices while none of the Home Depot prices were sale prices. Also, these prices were not "cherry picked", they represent pretty much the average disparity in prices which is in the 20% range. It is particularly disappointing to see the large disparity in basic building materials prices, a situation that guarantees that we will see more and more Home Depot trucks making deliveries around Lake County.
The History of the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in the United States by Charles Whitebread, Professor of Law, USC Law School A Speech to the California Judges Association 1995 annual conference Links to Related Documents This speech is derived from The Forbidden Fruit and the Tree of Knowledge: An Inquiry into the Legal History of American Marijuana Prohibition by Professor Richard J. Bonnie & Professor Charles H. Whitebread, II In this speech, Professor Whitebread refers to the following documents which are online in this library, either in whole or in part. The Hearings of the Marihuana Tax Act and related documents. Marihuana, A Signal of Misunderstanding, by the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse.
Introduction This session is going to be about the history of the non-medical use of drugs. Let me say that, because this is going to be a story, that I think it will interest you quite a bit. The topic is the history of the non-medical use of drugs and I think you ought to know what my credentials are for talking about this topic. As you may know, before I taught at the University of Southern California, I taught at the University of Virginia for fifteen years, from 1968 to 1981. In that time period, the very first major piece that I wrote was a piece entitled, "The Forbidden Fruit and the Tree of Knowledge - The Legal History of Marihuana in the United States".
I wrote it with Professor Richard Bonnie, still of the faculty of the University of Virginia. It was published in the Virginia Law Review in October of 1970 and I must say that our piece was the Virginia Law Review in October of 1970. The piece was 450 pages long. It got a ton of national attention because no one had ever done the legal history of marijuana before. As a result of that, Professor Bonnie was named the Deputy Director of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse and I was a consultant to that commission. As a result of Richard's two year executive directorship of the National Commission in 1971 and 1972 he and I were given access to both the open and the closed files of what was then called the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, what had historically been called the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and what today is called the Drug Enforcement Agency. Based upon our access to those files, both open and closed, we wrote a book called "The Marihuana Conviction- The Legal History of Drugs in the United States" and that book went through six printings at the University of Virginia press before being sold out primarily in sales to my friends at the FBI over the years. It is based upon that work that I bring you this story.
The Situation in 1900
If you are interested in the non-medical use of drugs in this country, the time to go back to is 1900, and in some ways the most important thing I am going to say to you guys I will say first. That is, that in 1900 there were far more people addicted to drugs in this country than there are today. Depending upon whose judgment, or whose assessment, you accept there were between two and five percent of the entire adult population of the United States addicted to drugs in 1900. Now, there were two principal causes of this dramatic level of drug addiction at the turn of the century. The first cause was the use of morphine and its various derivatives in legitimate medical operations. You know as late as 1900, particularly in areas where medical resources were scarce it was not at all uncommon for you to say, let's say you would have appendicitis, you would go into the hospital, and you would get morphine as a pain killer during the operation, you would be given morphine further after the operation and you would come out of the hospital with no appendix but addicted to morphine.
The use of morphine in battlefield operations during the Civil War was so extensive that, by 1880, so many Union veterans were addicted to morphine that the popular press referred to morphinism as the "soldier's disease". Now I will say, being from Virginia as I am, that the Confederate veterans didn't have any problems about being addicted to morphine because the South was too poor to have any, and therefore battlefield operations on the Confederate Army were simply done by chopping off the relevant limb while they drank a little whiskey. But the Northern troops heavily found themselves, as the result of battlefield operations and the use of morphine, addicted to morphine.
Now, the other fact that I think that is so interesting about drug addiction at the turn of the century, as opposed to today is who the addicts were, because they were the exact opposite of who you would think most likely to be an addict today. If I were to ask you in terms of statistical groups who is most likely to be involved with drugs today, you would say a young person, a male, who lives in the city and who may be a minority group member. That is the exact opposite of who was most likely to be addicted to drugs at the turn of the century. In terms of statistical groups, who was most likely to be addicted to drugs at the turn of the century? A rural living, middle-aged white woman. The use of morphine in medical operations does not explain the much higher incidence of drug addiction among women. What does is the second cause of the high level of addiction at the turn of the century -- the growth and development of what we now call the "patent medicine" industry. I think some of you, maybe from watching Westerns on TV if nothing else are aware that, again, as late as 1900, in areas, particularly rural areas where medical resources were scarce, it was typical for itinerant salesmen, not themselves doctors, to cruise around the countryside offering potions and elixirs of all sorts advertised in the most flamboyant kinds of terms.
"Doctor Smith's Oil, Good for What Ails You", or "Doctor Smith's Oil, Good for Man or Beast."
Well, what the purveyors of these medicines did not tell their purchasers, was that later, when these patent medicines were tested, many of them proved to be up to fifty percent morphine by volume.
Now, what that meant, as I have always thought, was the most significant thing about the high morphine content in patent medicines was it meant they tendedto live up to their advertising. Because no matter what is wrong with you, or your beast, you are going to feel a whole lot better after a couple of slugs of an elixir that is fifty percent morphine. So there was this tendency to think "Wow! This stuff works." Down you could go to the general store and get more of it and it could be sold to you directly over the counter.Now, for reasons that we weren't able to full research, but for reasons, I think, probably associated with the role of women rural societies then patent medicines were much more appealing to women than to men and account for the much higher incidence of drug addiction in 1900 among women than among men. If you want to see a relatively current portrayal of a woman addicted to patent medicine you might think of Eugene O'Neil's play "A Long Day's Journey Into Night". The mother figure there, the one that was played by Katherine Hepburn in the movies was addicted to patent medicines.In any event, the use of morphine in medical operations and the sale of patent medicines accounted for a dramatic level of addiction. Again, between two and five percent of the entire adult population of the United States was addicted to drugs as late as 1900.
Now if my first point is that there was a lot more addiction in 1900 than there is today and that the people who were addicted are quite a different group than the group we would be thinking of today, my next point would be that if you look at drug addiction in 1900, what's the number one way in which it is different than drug addiction today? Answer: Almost all addiction at the turn of the century was accidental. People became involved with drugs they did not know that they were taking, that they did not know the impact of. The first point, then, is that there was more drug addiction than there is now and most of it was accidental. The Pure Food and Drug Act Then the single law which has done the most in this country to reduce the level of drug addiction is none of the criminal laws we have ever passed. The single law that reduced drug addiction the most was the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act. The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 did three things:
1). It created the Food and Drug Administration in Washington that must approve all foods and drugs meant for human consumption. The very first impact of that was that the patent medicines were not approved for human consumption once they were tested.
2) The Pure Food and Drug Act said that certain drugs could only be sold on prescription.
3) The Pure Food and Drug Act, (and you know, this is still true today, go look in your medicine chest) requires that any drug that can be potentially habit-forming say so on it's label. "Warning -- May be habit forming." The labeling requirements, the prescription requirements, and the refusal to approve the patent medicines basically put the patent medicine business out of business and reduced that dramatic source of accidental addiction. The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, not a criminal law, did more to reduce the level of addiction than any other single statute we have passed in all of the times from then to now.
The Harrison Act
The very first criminal law at the Federal level in this country to criminalize the non-medical use of drugs came in 1914. It was called the Harrison Act and there are only three things about the Harrison Act that we need to focus on today. Number one is the date. Did you hear the date, 1914? Some of you may have come this morning thinking that we have used the criminal law to deal with the non-medical use of drugs since the beginning of the Republic or something. That is not true. The entire experiment of using the criminal sanction to deal with the non-medical use of drugs really began in this country in 1914 with the Harrison Act.
The second interesting thing about the Harrison Act was the drugs to which it applied, because it applied to almost none of the drugs we would be concerned about today. The Harrison Act applied to opium, morphine and its various derivatives, and the derivatives of the coca leaf like cocaine. No mention anywhere there of amphetamines, barbiturates, marijuana, hashish,hallucinogenic drugs of any kind. The Harrison Act applied only to opium, morphine and its various derivatives and derivatives of the coca leaf like cocaine. The third and most interesting thing for you all as judges about the Harrison Act was its structure, because the structure of this law was very peculiar and became the model for every single piece of Federal legislation from 1914 right straight through 1969. And what was that model?
It was called the Harrison Tax Act. You know, the drafters of the Harrison Act said very clearly on the floor of Congress what it was they wanted to achieve.They had two goals. They wanted to regulate the medical use of these drugs and they wanted to criminalize the non-medical use of these drugs. They had one problem. Look at the date -- 1914. 1914 was probably the high water mark of the constitutional doctrine we today call "states' rights" and, therefore, it was widely thought Congress did not have the power, number one, to regulate a particular profession, and number two, that Congress did not have the power to pass what was, and is still known, as a general criminal law. That's why there were so few Federal Crimes until very recently.
In the face of possible Constitutional opposition to what they wanted to do, the people in Congress who supported the Harrison Act came up with a novel idea. That is, they would masquerade this whole thing as though it were a tax. To show you how it worked, can I use some hypothetical figures to show you how this alleged tax worked? There were two taxes. The first (and again, these figures aren't accurate but they will do to show the idea) tax was paid by doctors. It was a dollar a year and the doctors, in exchange for paying that one dollar tax, got a stamp from the Government that allowed them to prescribe these drugs for their patients so long as they followed the regulations in the statute. Do you see that by the payment of that one dollar tax, we have the doctors regulated? The doctors have to follow the regulations in the statute. And there was a second tax. (and again, these are hypothetical figures but they will show you how it worked.) was a tax of a thousand dollars of every single non-medical exchange of every one of these drugs. Well, since nobody was going to pay a thousand dollars in tax to exchange something which, in 1914, even in large quantities was worth about five dollars, the second tax wasn't a tax either, it was a criminal prohibition.
Now just to be sure you guys understand this, and I am sure you do, but just to make sure, let's say that in 1915 somebody was found, let's say, in possession of an ounce of cocaine out here on the street. What would be the Federal crime? Not possession of cocaine, or possession of a controlled substance. What was the crime? Tax evasion. And do you see what a wicked web that is going to be? As a quick preview, where then are we going to put the law enforcement arm for the criminalization of drugs for over forty years -- in what department? The Treasury Department. Why, we are just out there collecting taxes and I will show you how that works in a minute. If you understand that taxing scheme then you understand why the national marijuana prohibition of 1937 was called the Marihuana Tax Act. The Early State Marijuana Laws But before we get to that next big piece of Federal legislation, the marihuana prohibition of 1937, I would like to take a little detour, if I may, into an analysis of the early state marijuana laws passed in this country from 1915 to 1937. Let me pause to tell you this. When Professor Bonnie and I set out to try to track the legal history of marijuana in this country, we were shocked that nobody had ever done that work before. And, secondly, the few people who had even conjectured about it went back to the 1937 Federal Act and said "Well, there's the beginning of it." No. If you go back to 1937, that fails to take account of the fact that, in the period from 1915 to 1937, some 27 states passed criminal laws against the use of marijuana.
What Professor Bonnie and I did was, unique to our work, to go back to the legislative records in those states and back to the newspapers in the state capitols at the time these laws were passed to try to find out what motivated these 27 states to enact criminal laws against the use of marijuana. What we found was that the 27 states divided into three groups by explanation. The first group of states to have marijuana laws in that part of the century were Rocky Mountain and southwestern states. By that, I mean Texas, New Mexico,Colorado, Montana. You didn't have to go anywhere but to the legislative records to find out what had motivated those marijuana laws. The only thing you need to know to understand the early marijuana laws in the southwest and Rocky Mountain areas of this country is to know, that in the period just after 1914, into all of those areas was a substantial migration of Mexicans. They had come across the border in search of better economic conditions, they worked heavily as rural laborers, beet field workers, cotton pickers, things of that sort. And with them, they had brought marijuana. Basically, none of the white people in these states knew anything about marijuana, and I make a distinction between white people and Mexicans to reflect a distinction that any legislator in one of these states at the time would have made. And all you had to do to find out what motivated the marijuana laws in the Rocky mountain and southwestern states was to go to the legislative records themselves.
Probably the best single statement was the statement of a proponent of Texas first marijuana law. He said on the floor of the Texas Senate, and I quote, "All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff (referring to marijuana) is what makes them crazy." Or, as the proponent of Montana's first marijuana law said, (and imagine this on the floor of the state legislature) and I quote, "Give one of these Mexican beet field workers a couple of puffs on a marijuana cigarette and he thinks he is in the bullring at Barcelona." Well, there it was, you didn't have to look another foot as you went from state to state right on the floor of the state legislature. And so what was the genesis for the early state marijuana laws in the Rocky Mountain and southwestern areas of this country? It wasn't hostility to the drug, it was hostility to the newly arrived Mexican community that used it. A second group of states that had criminal laws against the use of marijuana were in the Northeast, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York -- had one and then repealed it and then had one again -- New Jersey. Well, clearly no hypothesis about Mexican immigration will explain the genesis of those laws because,as you know, the Northeast has never had, still doesn't really, any substantial Mexican-American population. So we had to dig a little deeper to find the genesis of those laws. We had to go not only to the legislative records but to the newspapers in the state capitols at the time these laws were passed and what we found, in the early marijuana laws in the Northeast, we labeled the "fear of substitution." If I may, let me paraphrase an editorial from the New York Times in 1919 so we will get exactly the flavor of this fear of substitution.
The New York Times in an editorial in 1919 said, "No one here in New York uses this drug marijuana. We have only just heard about it from down in the Southwest," and here comes the substitution. "But," said the New York Times,"we had better prohibit its use before it gets here. Otherwise" -- here's the substitution concept -- "all the heroin and hard narcotics addicts cut off from their drug by the Harrison Act and all the alcohol drinkers cut off from their drug by 1919 alcohol Prohibition will substitute this new and unknown drug marijuana for the drugs they used to use."Well, from state to state, on the theory that this newly encountered drug marijuana would be substituted by the hard narcotics addicts or by the alcohol drinkers for their previous drug that had been prohibited, state to state this fear of substitution carried, and that accounted for 26 of the 27 states -- that is, either the anti-Mexican sentiment in the Southwest and Rocky Mountain areas or fear of substitution in the Northeast. That accounted for 26 of the 27 states, and there was only one state left over. It was the most important state for us because it was the first state ever to enact a criminal law against the use of marijuana and it was the state of Utah.
Now, if you have been hearing this story and you have been playing along with me, you think "Oh, wait a minute, Whitebread, Utah fits exactly with Colorado, Montana, -- it must have been the Mexicans." Well, that's what I thought at first. But we went and did a careful study of the actual immigration pattern and found, to our surprise, that Utah didn't have then, and doesn't have now, a really substantial Mexican-American population. So it had to be something else.Come on folks, if it had to be something else, what do you think it might have been? Are you thinking what I was thinking -- that it must have had something to do with the single thing which makes Utah unique in American history -- its association with the Mormon church. With help from some people in Salt Lake City, associated with the Mormon Church and the Mormon National Tabernacle in Washington -- with their help and a lot of work we found out what the genesis was of the first marihuana law in this country. Yes, it was directly connected to the history of Utah and Mormonism and it went like this. I think that a lot of you know that, in its earliest days, the Mormon church permitted its male members to have more than one wife -- polygamy.
Do you all know that in 1876, in a case called Reynolds against the United States, the United States Supreme Court said that Mormons were free to believe what they wanted, but they were not free to practice polygamy in this country. Well, who do you think enforced that ruling of the Supreme Court in 1876? At the end of the line, who enforces all rulings of the Supreme Court? Answer: the state and local police. And who were they in Utah then? All Mormons, and so nothing happened for many years. Those who wanted to live polygamously continued to do so. In 1910, the Mormon Church in synod in Salt Lake City decreed polygamy to be a religious mistake and it was banned as a matter of the Mormon religion. Once that happened, there was a crackdown on people who wanted to live in what they called "the traditional way". So, just after 1910, a fairly large number of Mormons left the state of Utah, and indeed left the United States altogether and moved into northwest Mexico. They wrote a lot about what they wanted to accomplish in Mexico. They wanted to set up communities where they were basically going to convert the Indians, the Mexicans, and what they referred to as "the heathen" in the neighborhood to Mormonism. By 1914, they had had very little luck with the heathen, but our research shows now beyond question that the heathen had a little luck with them. What happened apparently -- now some of you who may be members of the church, you know that there are still substantial Mormon communities in northwest Mexico -- was that, by and large most of the Mormons were not happy there, the religion had not done well there, they didn't feel comfortable there, they wanted to go back to Utah where there friends were and after 1914 did. And with them, the Indians had given them marijuana. Now once you get somebody back in Utah with the marijuana it all becomes very easy, doesn't it? You know that the Mormon Church has always been opposed to the use of euphoriants of any kind.
So, somebody saw them with the marijuana, and in August of 1915 the Church, meeting again in synod in Salt Lake City decreed the use of marijuana contrary to the Mormon religion and then -- and this is how things were in Utah in those days -- in October of 1915, the state legislature met and enacted every religious prohibition as a criminal law and we had the first criminal law in this country's history against the use of marijuana. That digression into the early state marijuana laws aside, we will now get back on the Federal track, the year is 1937 and we get the national marijuana prohibition -- the Marihuana Tax Act The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 Now, first again, does everybody see the date, 1937? You may have thought that we have had a national marijuana prohibition for a very long time. Frankly, we haven't. The marijuana prohibition is part and parcel of that era which is now being rejected rather generally -- the New Deal era in Washington in the late 30s.
Number two, you know, don't you, that whenever Congress is going to pass a law, they hold hearings. And you have seen these hearings. The hearings can be extremely voluminous, they go on and on, they have days and days of hearings. Well, may I say, that the hearings on the national marijuana prohibition were very brief indeed. The hearings on the national marijuana prohibition lasted one hour, on each of two mornings and since the hearings were so brief I can tell you almost exactly what was said to support the national marijuana prohibition. Now, in doing this one at the FBI Academy, I didn't tell them this story, but I am going to tell you this story. You want to know how brief the hearings were on the national marijuana prohibition? When we asked at the Library of Congress for a copy of the hearings, to the shock of the Library of Congress, none could be found. We went "What?" It took them four months to finally honor our request because -- are you ready for this? -- the hearings were so brief that the volume had slid down inside the side shelf of the bookcase and was so thin it had slid right down to the bottom inside the bookshelf. That's how brief the were. Are you ready for this? They had to break the bookshelf open because it had slid down inside.
There were three bodies of testimony at the hearings on the national marijuana prohibition. The first testimony came from Commissioner Harry Anslinger, the newly named Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Now, I think some of you know that in the late 20s and early 30s in this country there were two Federal police agencies created, the FBI and the FBN -- the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. In our book, I talk at great length about how different the history of these two organizations really are. But, the two organizations, the FBI and the
FBN had some surface similarities and one of them was that a single individual headed each of them for a very long time. In the case of the FBI, it was J. Edgar Hoover, and in the case of the FBN it was Harry Anslinger, who was the Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics from 1930 until 1962. Commissioner Anslinger gave the Government testimony and I will quote him directly. By the way, he was not working from a text that he had written. He was working from a text that had been written for him by a District Attorney in New Orleans, a guy named Stanley. Reading directly from Mr. Stanley's work, Commissioner Anslinger told the Congressmen at the hearings, and I quote,
"Marihuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death." That was the Government testimony to support the marijuana prohibition from the Commissioner.
The next body of testimony -- remember all of this took a total of two hours -- uh .. You understand what the idea was, don't you? The idea was to prohibit the cultivation of hemp in America. You all know, because there has been some initiative here in California, that hemp has other uses than its euphoriant use. For one, hemp has always been used to make rope. Number two, the resins of the hemp plant are used as bases for paints and varnishes. And, finally, the seeds of the hemp plant are widely used in bird seed. Since these industries were going to be affected the next body of testimony came from the industrial spokesmen who represented these industries. The first person was the rope guy. The rope guy told a fascinating story -- it really is fascinating -- the growth of a hemp to make rope was a principle cash crop right where I am from, Northern Virginia and Southern Maryland at the time of the Revolutionary War. But, said the rope guy, by about 1820 it got cheaper to import the hemp we needed to make rope from the Far East and so now in 1937 we don't grow any more hemp to make rope in this country -- it isn't needed anymore. If you heard that story, there are two things about it that I found fascinating. Number one, it explains the long-standing rumor that our forefathers had something to do with marijuana. Yes, they did -- they grew it. Hemp was the principal crop at Mount Vernon. It was a secondary crop at Monticello.
Now, of course, in our research we did not find any evidence that any of our forefathers had used the hemp plant for euphoriant purposes, but they did grow it. The second part of that story that, to me is even more interesting is -- did you see the date again - 1937? What did the rope guy say? We can get all the hemp we need to make rope from the Far East, we don't grow it hear anymore because we don't need to. Five years later, 1942, we are cut off from our sources of hemp in the Far East. We need a lot of hemp to outfit our ships for World War II, rope for the ships, and therefore, the Federal Government, as some of you know, went into the business of growing hemp on gigantic farms throughout the Midwest and the South to make rope to outfit the ships for World War II. So, even to this day, if you are from the Midwest you will always meet the people who say, "Gosh, hemp grows all along the railroad tracks." Well, it does. Why? Because these huge farms existed all during World War II. But, the rope people didn't care. The paint and varnish people said "We can use something else." And, of the industrial spokesmen, only the birdseed people balked. The birdseed people were the ones who balked and the birdseed person was asked, "Couldn't you use some other seed?" These are all, by the way, direct quotes from the hearings. The answer the birdseed guy gave was, "No, Congressman, we couldn't. We have never found another seed that makes a birds coat so lustrous or makes them sing so much."So, on the ground that the birdseed people needed it -- did you know that the birdseed people both got and kept an exemption from the Marihuana Tax Act right through this very day for so-called "denatured seeds"?
In any event, there was Anslinger's testimony, there was the industrial testimony -- there was only one body of testimony left at these brief hearings and it was medical. There were two pieces of medical evidence introduced with regard to the marijuana prohibition. The first came from a pharmacologist at Temple University who claimed that he had injected the active ingredient in marihuana into the brains of 300 dogs, and two of those dogs had died. When asked by the Congressmen, and I quote, "Doctor, did you choose dogs for the similarity of their reactions to that of humans?" The answer of the pharmacologist was, "I wouldn't know, I am not a dog psychologist."
Well, the active ingredient in marijuana was first synthesized in a laboratory in Holland after World War II. So what it was this pharmacologist injected into these dogs we will never know, but it almost certainly was not the active ingredient in marijuana. The other piece of medical testimony came from a man named Dr. William C. Woodward. Dr. Woodward was both a lawyer and a doctor and he was Chief Counsel to the American Medical Association. Dr. Woodward came to testify at the behest of the American Medical Association saying, and I quote, "The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug."What's amazing is not whether that's true or not. What's amazing is what the Congressmen then said to him. Immediately upon his saying, and I quote again, "The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug.", one of the Congressmen said, "Doctor, if you can't say something good about what we are trying to do, why don't you go home?"
That's an exact quote. The next Congressman said, "Doctor, if you haven't got something better to say than that, we are sick of hearing you." Now, the interesting question for us is not about the medical evidence. The most fascinating question is: why was this legal counsel to the most prestigious group of doctors in the United States treated in such a high-handed way? And the answer makes a principle thesis of my work -- and that is -- you've seen it, you've been living it the last ten years. The history of drugs in this country perfectly mirrors the history of this country. So look at the date -- 1937 -- what's going on in this country? Well, a lot of things, but the number one thing was that, in 1936, President Franklin Roosevelt was reelected in the largest landslide election in this country's history till then. He brought with him two Democrats for every Republican, all, or almost all of them pledged to that package of economic and social reform legislation we today call the New Deal.
And, did you know that the American Medical Association, from 1932, straight through 1937, had systematically opposed every single piece of New Deal legislation. So that, by 1937, this committee, heavily made up of New Deal Democrats is simply sick of hearing them: "Doctor, if you can't say something good about what we are trying to do, why don't you go home?" So, over the objection of the American Medical Association, the bill passed out of committee and on to the floor of Congress. Now, some of you may think that the debate on the floor of Congress was more extensive on the marijuana prohibition. It wasn't. It lasted one minute and thirty-two seconds by my count and, as such, I will give it to you verbatim. The entire debate on the national marijuana prohibition was as follows -- and, by the way, if you had grown up in Washington, DC as I had you would appreciate this date. Are you ready?
The bill was brought on to the floor of the House of Representatives -- there never was any Senate debate on it not one word -- 5:45 Friday afternoon, August 20. Now, in pre-air-conditioning Washington, who was on the floor of the House? Not very many people. Speaker Sam Rayburn called for the bill to be passed on "tellers". Does everyone know "tellers"? Did you know that for the vast bulk of legislation in this country, there is not a recorded vote. It is simply, more people walk past this point than walk past that point and it passes -- it's called "tellers". They were getting ready to pass this thing on tellers without discussion and without a recorded vote when one of the few Republicans left in Congress, a guy from upstate New York, stood up and asked two questions, which constituted the entire debate on the national marijuana prohibition. "Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?" To which Speaker Rayburn replied, "I don't know. It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it's a narcotic of some kind."
Undaunted, the guy from Upstate New York asked a second question, which was as important to the Republicans as it was unimportant to the Democrats. "Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?" In one of the most remarkable things I have ever found in any research, a guy who was on the committee, and who later went on to become a Supreme Court Justice, stood up and -- do you remember? The AMA guy was named William C. Woodward -- a member of the committee who had supported the bill leaped to his feet and he said, "Their Doctor Wentworth came down here. They support this bill 100 percent." It wasn't true, but it was good enough for the Republicans. They sat down and the bill passed on tellers, without a recorded vote.
In the Senate there never was any debate or a recorded vote, and the bill went to President Roosevelt's desk and he signed it and we had the national marijuana prohibition. 1938 to 1951 Now, the next step in our story is the period from 1938 to 1951. I have three stories to tell you about 1938 to 1951. The first of them. Immediately after the passage of the national marijuana prohibition, Commissioner Anslinger decided to hold a conference of all the people who knew something about marijuana -- a big national conference. He invited forty-two people to this conference. As part of our research for the book, we found the exact transcript of this conference. Ready? The first morning of the conference of the forty-two people that Commissioner Anslinger invited to talk about marijuana, 39 of them got up and said some version of "Gee, Commissioner Anslinger, I don't know why you asked me to this conference, I don't know anything about marijuana." That left three people. Dr. Woodward and his assistant -- you know what they thought. That left one person -- the pharmacologist from Temple University -- the guy with the dogs. And what do you think happened as a result of that conference? Commissioner Anslinger named the pharmacologist from Temple University the Official Expert of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics about marijuana, a position the guy held until 1962. Now, the irony of trying to find out what the drug did after it had been prohibited -- finding out that only one person agrees with you -- and naming him the Official Expert, speaks for itself. The next story from this time period was a particular favorite of the police groups to whom I spoke at the FBI Academy, because it is a law enforcement story.
After national marijuana prohibition was passed, Commissioner Anslinger found out, or got reports, that certain people were violating the national marijuana prohibition and using marijuana and, unfortunately for them, they fell into an identifiable occupational group. Who were flouting the marijuana prohibition? Jazz musicians. And so, in 1947, Commissioner Anslinger sent out a letter, I quote it verbatim, "Dear Agent So-and-so, Please prepare all cases in your jurisdiction involving musicians in violation of the marijuana laws. We will have a great national round-up arrest of all such persons on a single day. I will let you know what day." That letter went out on, I think, October 24, 1947. The responses by the resident agents were all in the file. My favorite -- at the bottom line, there wasn't a single resident agent who didn't have reservations about this idea -- came from the Hollywood agent. This is the exact letter of the FBN agent in charge in Hollywood. "Dear Commissioner Anslinger, I have your letter of October 24. Please be advised that the musical community here in Hollywood are unionized and very tight we have been unable to get an informant inside it. So, at the present time, we have no cases involving musicians in violation of the marihuana laws." For the next year and a half, Commissioner Anslinger got those kinds of letters. He never acknowledged any of the problems that the agents said they were having with this idea and always wrote them back the same letter. "Dear Agent so-and-so,
Glad to hear you are working hard to give effect to my directive of October 24, 1947. We will (and he always underlined the word 'will') have a great national round-up arrest of musicians in violation of the marijuana laws all on a single day. Don't worry, I will let you know what day." This went on -- and, of course, you know that some jazz musicians were, in fact, arrested in the late 40's -- this all went on until it ended just the way it began -- with something that Anslinger said. I don't see anybody in here really old enough to appreciate this point, but Commissioner Anslinger was testifying before a Senate Committee in 1948. He was saying, "I need more agents." And, of course, the Senators asked him why. "Because there are people out there violating the marijuana laws."
Well, you know what the Senators asked -- "Who?" And in a moment that every Government employee should avoid like the plague, Anslinger first said, "Musicians." But then he looked up at that Senate committee and he gave them a little piece of his heart and said the single line which provoked the most response in this country's history about the non-medical use of drugs. Anslinger said, "And I don't mean good musicians, I mean jazz musicians." Friends, there is no way to tell you what a torrent ensued. Within 24 hours, 76 newspaper editorials slammed him, including special editions the then booming trade press of the jazz music industry. With three days, the Department of the Treasury had received fifteen thousand letters. bunches of them were still in bags when I got there -- never been opened at all. I opened a few. Here was a typical one, and it was darling.
"Dear Commissioner Anslinger, I applaud your efforts to rid America of the scourge of narcotics addiction. If you are as ill-informed about that as you are about music, however, you will never succeed." One of the things that we had access to that really was fun was the Commissioner's own appointment book for all of his years. And, five days after he says "I don't mean good musicians, I mean jazz musicians." there is a notation: 10 AM -- appointment with the Secretary of the Treasury." Well, I don't know what happened at that appointment, but from that appointment on, no mention is ever made again of the great national round-up arrest of musicians in violation of the marijuana laws all on a single day, much to the delight of the agents who never had any heart for it in the first place.
The final story from this period is my favorite story from this period, by far, and, again, there is simply nobody here who is really old enough to appreciate this story. You know, if you talk to your parents -- that's the generation we really need to talk to -- people who were adults during the late 30's and 40's. And you talk to them about marijuana in particular you would be amazed at the amazing reputation that marijuana has among the generation ahead of you as to what it does to its users. In the late 30's and early 40's marihuana was routinely referred to as "the killer drug", "the assassin of youth". You all know "reefer madness", right?
Where did these extraordinary stories that circulated in this country about what marijuana would do to its users come from? The conventional wisdom is that Anslinger put them over on Americans in his effort to compete with Hoover for empire-building, etc. I have to say, in some fairness, that one of the things that our research did, in some sense, was to rehabilitate Commissioner Anslinger. Yes, there was some of that but, basically, it wasn't just that Anslinger was trying to dupe people.
The terrific reputation that marijuana got in the late 30s and early 40s stemmed from something Anslinger had said. Does everybody remember what Anslinger said about the drug? "Marihuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."
Well, this time the magic word -- come along lawyers out there, where's the magic word? -- Insanity. Marihuana use, said the Government, would produce insanity. And, sure enough, in the late 30s and early 40s, in five really flamboyant murder trials, the defendant's sole defense was that he -- or, in the most famous of them, she -- was not guilty by reason of insanity for having used marijuana prior to the commission of the crime. All right, it's time to take you guys back to class here. If you are going to put on an insanity defense, what do you need? You need two things, don't you?
Number one, you need an Expert Witness. Where, oh where, in this story, are we going to find an expert witness? Here it comes -- sure enough -- the guy from Temple University -- the guy with the dogs. I promise you, you are not going to believe this. In the most famous of these trials, what happened was two women jumped on a Newark, New Jersey bus and shot and killed and robbed the bus driver. They put on the marijuana insanity defense. The defense called the pharmacologist, and of course, you know how to do this now, you put the expert on, you say "Doctor, did you do all of this experimentation and so on?" You qualify your expert. "Did you write all about it?" "Yes, and I did the dogs" and now he is an expert. Now you ask him what? You ask the doctor "What have you done with the drug?" And he said, and I quote, "I've experimented with the dogs, I have written something about it and" -- are you ready -- "I have used the drug myself."
What do you ask him next? "Doctor, when you used the drug, what happened?" With all the press present at this flamboyant murder trial in Newark New Jersey, in 1938, the pharmacologist said, and I quote, in response to the question "When you used the drug, what happened?", his exact response was: "After two puffs on a marijuana cigarette, I was turned into a bat." He wasn't done yet. He testified that he flew around the room for fifteen minutes and then found himself at the bottom of a two-hundred-foot high ink well.
Well, friends, that sells a lot of papers. What do you think the Newark Star Ledger headlines the next day, October 12, 1938? "Killer Drug Turns Doctor to Bat!" What else do we need to put on an insanity defense? We need the defendant's testimony -- himself or herself. OK, you put defendant on the stand, what do you ask? "What happened on the night of . ." "Oh, I used marijuana." "And then what happened?" And, if the defendant wants to get off, what is he or she going to say? "It made me crazy." You know what the women testified? In Newark they testified, and I quote, "After two puffs on a marijuana cigarette my incisor teeth grew six inches long and dripped with blood." This was the craziest business you ever saw. Every one of these so-called marijuana insanity defenses were successful. The one in New York was just outlandish. Two police officers were shot and killed in cold blood. The defendant puts on the marijuana insanity defense and, in that case, there was never even any testimony that the defendant had even used marijuana. The testimony in the New York case was that, from the time the bag of marijuana came into his room it gave off "homicidal vibrations", so he started killing dogs, cats, and ultimately two police officers. Commissioner Anslinger, sitting in Washington, seeing these marijuana insanity defenses, one after another successful, he writes to the pharmacologist from Temple University and says, "If you don't stop testifying for the defense
in these matters, we are going to revoke your status as the Official Expert of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics." He didn't want to lose his status, so he stopped testifying, nobody else would testify that marijuana had turned them into a bat, and so these insanity defenses were over but not before marijuana had gotten quite a reputation, indeed.
The next step -- and now we are going to move very quickly here -- in 1951. We get a whole new drug law called the Boggs Act and it is important to us for only two reasons. Number one, it reflects what I am going to call the formula for drug legislation in this country. Here is the formula. The formula really is always the same, think about it in our lifetime. The formula is that someone, and by the way, that someone is usually the media, perceive an increase in drug use. What's the answer? The answer in the history of this country is always the same -- a new criminal law with harsher penalties in every single offense category. Where did the perception come from this time? Well, if you have ever seen movies from this time period like High School Confidential, the perception was that kids in high school were starting to use drugs. What's the answer? The answer is always the same. The Boggs Act of 1951 quadrupled the penalties in every single offense category and, by the way, the Boggs Act had a whole new rationale for the marijuana prohibition. Do you remember the old rationale -- that marijuana was an addictive drug which caused in its users insanity, criminality, and death? Just before Anslinger was to testify on the Boggs Act, the doctor who ran for the Government the Lexington, Kentucky narcotics rehabilitation clinic testified ahead of Anslinger and testified that the medical community knew that marijuana wasn't an addictive drug,. It doesn't produce death, or insanity, and instead of producing criminality, it probably produces passivity, said the doctor.
Who was the next witness? Anslinger. And, if you see, that the rug had been pulled out from under everything he had said in the 1937 hearings to support the marijuana prohibition. In what I call a really slick Federal shuffle -- Anslinger, you know, had been bitten bad enough by what he said, he didn't want that again -- he said, the doctor is right, marijuana -- he always believed, by the way, that there was something in marijuana which produced criminality -- is not an addictive drug, it doesn't produce insanity or death but it is "the certain first step on the road to heroin addiction." And the notion that marijuana was the stepping stone to heroin became, in 1951, the sole rationale for the national marijuana prohibition. It was the first time that marijuana was lumped with all the other drugs and not treated separately, and we multiply the penalties in every offense category.
By the way, I told you that the history of drug legislation reflects the history of the country. 1951, what's going on? The Korean War, the Cold War. It didn't take the press a minute to see this perceived use in drug use among high school kids as our "foreign enemies", using drugs to subvert the American young. In our book, we have ten or fifteen great political cartoons. My favorite is a guy with a big Fu Man Chu (mustache) labeled "Oriental Communism." He has a big needle marked "Dope" and he has the American kids lying down -- "Free World" it is marked. There it was -- that our foreign enemies were going to use drugs to subvert the American young. What did we do?
We passed a new law that increased the penalties in every offense category by a factor of four. Well, now once you buy it, the ball is going to roll like crazy.
1956 and the Daniel Act
1956, we get another new drug law, called the Daniel Act, named for Senator Price Daniel of Texas. It is important to us for only two reasons. One, it perfectly reflects the formula again. What is the formula? Somebody perceives an increase in drug use in this country and the answer is always a new criminal law with harsher penalties in every offense category. Where did the perception in 1956 come from that there was an increase in drug use? Answer: Anybody remember 1956? In 1956, we had the first set ever of televised Senate hearings. And whose hearings were they? They were the hearings of Senator Estes Kefauver of Tennessee about organized crime in America.
These hearings, which everybody watched on their little sets showed two things that we all know today, but it sure made their socks roll up and down then. Number one, there is organized crime in America and number two, it makes all its money selling drugs. There it was, that was all the perception we needed. We passed the Daniel Act which increased the penalties in every offense category, that had just been increased times four -- times eight. With the passage of each of these acts, the states passed little Boggs acts, and little Daniel acts, so that in the period 1958 to 1969, in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and Virginia was typical, the most heavily penalized crime in the Commonwealth was possession of marijuana, or any other drug. It led to a mandatory minimum sentence of twenty years, no part of which you were eligible for parole or probation, and as to no part of it were you eligible for a suspended sentence. Just to show you where it was, in the same time period first degree murder in Virginia had a mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years. Rape, a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years. Possession of marijuana -- not to mention sales of marijuana with its mandatory minimum of forty years -- mandatory minimum of twenty years.
That is the situation in 1969 when we have a new drug law, the first one in this country's history that does not follow the formula. It is the 1969 Dangerous Substances Act. For he first time in this country's history, we have a perception of an increase in drug use during the Sixties, but instead of raising the penalties, we lower them. And, further, in the Dangerous Substances Act of 1969, for the first time we finally abandon the so-called "taxing" mythology. In the 1969 Act, what the Federal law does is, it takes all the drugs we know -- if you can't fill in this next blank, you are in trouble -- except two -- which two? Which two are never going to be mentioned? Nicotine and alcohol.
But, other than nicotine and alcohol -- every other drug. By the way, I tried this with the FBI for twenty years and they wouldn't listen, and you won't listen either but, I am going to try. If you are going to go out and talk about drugs and whatever you are going to do with drugs, will you please discard the entirely antiquated and erroneous word "narcotics." Narcotics are drugs that put people to sleep. Almost all of the drugs that we are interested in today don't do that. So, in 1969, the Dangerous Substances Act gave up the effort to define what are narcotic drugs. What the 1969 act did, and what most state laws still do, is to classify all drugs except nicotine and alcohol by two criteria. What is the drug's medical use? And, what is the drug's potential for abuse?
We put all the drugs, by those two criteria, in schedules, and then we tie the penalties for possession, possession with intent to sell, sale, and sale to a minor to the schedule of the drug in question. Now, again, I am no good at this anymore, I have not kept up with the drug laws, I don't know who is in what schedule, and many states have abandoned the schedule but, to give you a flavor of it: The first schedule, Schedule One Drugs were drugs that had little or no medical use and a high potential for abuse. What's going to go in there? LSD, marijuana, hashish, they are all in Schedule One -- little or no medical use and a high potential for abuse.
Then you get some medical use, high potential for abuse -- what do you want there? Barbiturates, amphetamines,. Then we are going to get what? High medical use and high potential for abuse. Morphine, codeine. Codeine is the best one because codeine is in almost every single prescription cough medicine and it is addictive as can be Then you go on down and get the antibiotics -- high medical use, almost no potential for abuse, and there you are. Once you schedule your drugs, you then tie the penalties for the drugs to no medical use and a high potential for abuse.Then you get some medical use, high potential for abuse -- what do you want there? Barbiturates, amphetamines,.Then we are going to get what? High medical use and high potential for abuse. Morphine, codeine. Codeine is the best one because codeine is in almost every single prescription cough medicine and it is addictive as can be.
Then you go on down and get the antibiotics -- high medical use, almost no potential for abuse, and there you are. Once you schedule your drugs, you then tie the penalties for the drugs to the schedule and then, because in 1969 they wanted to reduce the marijuana penalties they had to deal with marijuana separately and did so. But the 1969 act important for two reasons again: One, we abandoned the taxing mythology and; two, it was the first law in this country's history that, instead of raising the penalties in every offense category, lowered them. Well, then you know what happened. We get the War on Drugs. You know how it all went down. We got perceptions in the 80s that there was an increase in drug use, a great dramatic decision to declare war on drugs and, predominantly, war on drug users.What I want to say to you is this, and this is where I think some of you are going to be a little surprised. You know as much about that process as I do. You watched it. You saw how we had one law after another, raising the penalties so that as late as 1990, thirty percent of the minority group population of the City of Baltimore who are male and between 20 and 29 are under court supervision for drugs. Thirty percent, that's the number you are looking for. The War on Drugs, a very interesting war, because why? It was cheap to fight. It was cheap to fight at first -- why? You heard me in the "Recent Decisions" talk. What was last year's big moment, and the year before? The change in cheap and easy forfeiture. Criminal forfeiture was used to make this a costless war. That is, easy forfeiture from those who were caught allowed us to pay for the war in that way. I think we are going to have some real questions about whether people want to pay for the war on drugs through their taxes because now the Court has made forfeiture much, much more difficult in their overall concern for property rights. But here is what I think may surprise some of you.
You guys know as much about the War on Drugs as I do. I didn't come hear to talk, or to harangue, or to give you any opinions on that point. I think it speaks for itself. It is a failure and I think it will be judged as a failure. What I wanted to bring you instead was, instead of talking about that that everybody is talking about -- and you guys will ultimately resolve it and you guys are the ones who are seeing all the drug cases, day in and day out, and always will, until this changes. But, what I thought I could bring you was the part of the story you hadn't heard -- how we got to where we were when the War on Drugs was declared. Conclusion - The Issue of Prohibition And one other thing I want to do with you this morning, and that's this -- I want to say one thing. To tell you the real truth, my interest isn't in drugs, or in the criminalization of drugs although I think we should abolish the criminal penalties for drugs, and deal with it as the Europeans do in a medical way, but who cares? That's an opinion. What interests me though, isn't drugs. What interests me is that larger issue, and the reason that I wrote the piece, and the reason they were my tenure pieces, I am interested in a much larger issue, and that is the idea of Prohibition -- the use of criminal law to criminalize conduct that a large number of us seem to want to engage in. And, for my purposes, -- now, Professor Bonnie went on to be associated with NIDA and with all kinds of drug-related organizations and continues to be interested in the drug laws -- I am not. My interest is in criminal prohibitions and, for my purposes, as a criminal law scholar, we could have used any prohibition -- alcohol prohibition, the prohibition against gambling that exists still in many states. How about the prohibition in England from 1840 to 1880 against the drinking of gin? Not drinking, just gin -- got it? We could have used any of these prohibitions. We didn't. We chose the marijuana prohibition because the story had never been told -- and it is an amazing story. We could have used any of these prohibitions. We could have used the alcohol prohibition. The reason we didn't is because so much good stuff has been written about it. And are you aware of this? That every single -- you know how fashionable it is to think that scholars can never agree? -- Don't you believe that -- Every single person who has ever written seriously about the national alcohol prohibition agrees on why it collapsed. Why? Because it violated that iron law of Prohibitions. What is the iron law of Prohibitions? Prohibitions are always enacted by US, to govern the conduct of THEM. Do you have me? Take the alcohol prohibition. Every single person who has ever written about it agrees on why it collapsed. Large numbers of people supported the idea of prohibition who were not themselves, opposed to drinking. Do you have me? What? The right answer to that one is Huh?
Want to hear it again? Large numbers of people supported the idea of prohibition who were not themselves, opposed to drinking. Want to see it? Let me give you an example, 1919. You are a Republican in upstate New York. Whether you drink, or you don't, you are for the alcohol prohibition because it will close the licensed saloons in the City of New York which you view to be the corrupt patronage and power base of the Democratic Party in New York. So almost every Republican in New York was in favor of national alcohol prohibition. And, as soon as it passed, what do you think they said? "Well, what do you know? Success. Let's have a drink." That's what they thought, "let's have a drink." "Let's drink to this." A great success, you see.
Do you understand me? Huge numbers of people in this country were in favor of national alcohol prohibition who were not themselves opposed to drinking. I just want to go back to the prohibition against the drinking of gin. How could a country prohibit just the drinking of gin, not the drinking of anything else for forty years? Answer: The rich people drank whiskey and the poor people drank what? -- gin. Do you see it?
Let's try the gambling prohibition. You know when I came to Virginia, this was a very lively issue, the gambling prohibition. By the way, I think it's a lively issue in California. Are you ready for it?
Have you ever seen the rhetoric that goes around the gambling prohibition? You know what it is. Look, we have had a good time. We have been together yesterday, we have been together today, I have known a lot of you guys for ages. How about after the talk, we have a minute or two, let's go on up to your room and we will play a little nickel, dime, quarter poker. Want to play some poker this afternoon? Why not? It's a nice thing to do. Would we be outraged if the California State Police came barreling through the door and arrested us for violation of California's prohibition on gambling?
Of course we would. Because, who is not supposed to gamble? Oh, you know who is not supposed to gamble -- them poor people, that's who. My God, they will spend the milk money. They don't know how to control it. They can't handle it. But us? We know what we are doing. That's it. Every criminal prohibition has that same touch to it, doesn't it? It is enacted by US and it always regulates the conduct of THEM. And so, if you understand that is the name of the game, you don't have to ask me, or any of the other people which prohibitions will be abolished and which ones won't because you will always know. The iron law of prohibitions -- all of them -- is that they are passed by an identifiable US to control the conduct of an identifiable THEM. And a prohibition is absolutely done for when it does what? Comes back and bothers US. If, at any time, in any way, that prohibition comes back and bothers us, we will get rid of it for sure, every doggone time. Look at the alcohol prohibition if you want a quick example. As long as it is only THEM --- you know, them criminals, them crazy people, them young people, them minority group members --- we are fine. But any prohibition that comes back and bothers US is done for. Let's just try the marijuana prohibition as a quick one. Who do you think was arrested 650,000 strong two years ago for violation of the marijuana laws?
Do you think it was all minority group members? Nope. It was not. It was some very identifiable children of US -- children of the middle class. You don't have to answer my opinion. No prohibition will stand -- ever-- when it comes back and penalizes our children -- the children of US who enacted it. And in fact, do you have any real doubt about that? Do you know what a fabulous sociological study we will be if we become the first society in the history of the world to penalize the sons and daughters of the wealthy class? Unheard of. And so, yeah, we will continue the War on Drugs for a while until everybody sees its patent bankruptcy. But, let me say that I am not confident that good sense will prevail. Why? Because we love this idea of prohibition. We really do. We love it in this country.
And so I will tell you what I predict. You will always know which ones are going out and which ones are coming in. And, can't you see the one coming right over the hill? Well, folks, we are going to have a new prohibition because we love this idea that we can solve difficult medical, economic, and social problems by the simple enactment of a criminal law. We adore this, and of course, you judges work it out, we have solved our problem. Do you have it? Our problem is over with the enactment of the law. You and the cops work it out, but we have solved our problem. Here comes the new one? What's it going to be? No, it won't be guns, this one starts easy. This one is the Surgeon General has what? --Determined -- not "we want a little more checking it out", not "we need a few more studies", not "reasonable people disagree" -- "The Surgeon General has determined that the smoking of cigarettes will kill you." Now, all you need, and here is my formula, for a new prohibition every time is what? We need an intractable, difficult, social, economic, or medical problem.
But that is not enough. There has to be another thing. It has to divide by class --- by social or economic class, between US and THEM. And so, here it comes. ' You know the Federal Government has been spending a lot of money since 1968 trying to persuade us not to smoke. And, indeed, the absolute numbers on smoking have declined very little. But, you know who has quit smoking, don't you? In gigantic numbers? The college-educated, that's who. The college- educated, that's who doesn't smoke. Who are they? Tomorrow's what? Movers and kickers, that's who. Tomorrow's movers and kickers don't smoke. Who does smoke? Oh, you know who smokes out of all proportion to their numbers in the society -- it is the people standing in your criminal courtrooms, that's who. Who are they? Tomorrow's moved and kicked, that's who.
And, there it is friends, once it divides between the movers and kickers and the moved and kicked it is all over and it will be all over very shortly. It starts with "You know, they shouldn't smoke, they are killing themselves." Then it turns, as it has -- you see the ads out here -- "They shouldn't smoke, they are killing us." And pretty soon, that class division will happen, we will have the legislatures full of tomorrow's movers and kickers and they are going to say just what they are going to say any time now. "You know, this has just gotta stop, and we got an answer for it." We are going to have a criminal statute that forbids the manufacture, sale, or possession of tobacco cigarettes, or tobacco products period. You know that the cigarette companies are expecting it. What have they been doing? They have been shifting all of their operations out of the United States and diversifying like crazy. Where are they going to sell their cigarettes? In China, that's where. And they are already moving, because they see it and I see it. Ready? What are we going to have? You know what we are going to have.
Nestled between the base of Hull mountain and the shores of Lake Pillsbury is the small Gravelly Valley airport, an unpaved airstrip that was built by the Forest Service to resupply forest fire fighting efforts in the Mendocino National Forest, but is used mostly by private pilots on weekends. The Forest Service plans on shutting down the field on July 8th unless someone besides the Forest Service shows an interest in maintaining the facility and renews the operating permit. THIS VALUABLE ASSET SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO DISAPPEAR!
Gravelly Valley is unique in several respects, out of around four hundred airports in California, Gravelly Valley is the ONLY one where you can park your plane and camp a short walk from a lake, let alone a lake with spectacular scenery, great fishing, swimming and boating. There are only a few airports in California where you can camp, and they can be very popular, as a visit to Columbia or Pismo Beach on any nice weekend will confirm.
Gravelly Valley needs several things to be a really popular destination field, first of all, IT HAS TO REMAIN OPEN! It needs to have its maintainance taken over by the county, it needs to be promoted to the flying public, and it needs to have it's boulder strewn surface made more inviting to pilots used to paved runways who are leery of causing damage to their airplanes landing gear. The runway is currently 4050 x200, but to handle light plane traffic a runway of about 2500 x40 would be adequate, and could be smoothed out with road base type rock for a relatively inexpensive all-weather surface that would need little further maintainance. If the County showed the iniative to take over operations at the field, PG&E might be coaxed into improving the adjacent campgrounds which are very basic and rather stark , which in turn would attract even more use if the field had even minamal promoting. Lake Pillsbury is one of Lake County's great untapped resources, and this county is already down to its last public airport, NOW is the time to combine these two diamonds in the rough and utilize them to their fullest potential. Several years ago we traded Pierce Field for a McDonalds, and all the promises made to find a replacement site have been quietly forgotten about.
Now we have an opportunity that is not likely to come again to get an airport that could be a real benefit to the county from an economic and image standpoint, and Gary Lewis should lead the effort to keep this irreplacable one-of-a-kind asset open to the public.
To: Honorable Judge Crone
County of Lake
April 13, 2000
From: Joan Moss
9291 Wildcat Road
Kelseyville, Ca 95451
1-707-279-1650
Dear Judge Crone,
I am writing to support Alfonso Robles, CR 4881, for his sentence hearing. As a long time friend of his grandmother Theresa Brown, I know Alfonso on a greeting basis only, and I have never known him to be out of line. However, after reading his file and talking to Theresa, I question whether or not justice is being served by Alfonso's plea of guilty to CT I to 288[c][1], "willfully and unlawfully and lewdly committing a lewd and lascivious act upon and with the body of Jennifer Sue Albee Place who was 15 years old with the intent of arousing, appealing to, and gratifying the lust, passions, and sexual desires of the defendant, who was at least 10 years older than Jennifer Place." I am attaching records to this letter, copies of investigation reports by Clear Lake Police. In these reports, Jennifer and her friends tell investigators that Jennifer lied about her age to Alfonso Robles, telling him she was eighteen. Alfonso apparently believed that Jennifer was 18 when he began his relationship with her. He did not knowingly have intercourse with a minor child. Furthermore, Jennifer told police that her mother was responsible for bruises on her body. Her mother told investigators that she was having trouble with her daughter Jennifer, and Jennifer told Theresa Brown that her mother had kicked her out of the house. Jennifer also told Theresa Brown that she, Jennifer, was 18 years old.
Soon after Alfonso Robles learned in September that Jennifer was in fact a minor, he left to attend school in Sacramento October 10, 1997.
Except for what Theresa told me about Jennifer telling her she was 18, the information I am writing about is contained in his file. In another case, the jury ultimately acquitted a woman named Patricia Munoz for resisting arrest because her attorney Susan Feeney proved that she did not willfully resist arrest. The word willfully is very important, in Patricia's case and in Alfonso Robles's case also.
Thank-you for reading this letter.
Joan Moss