Editing Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 (section)

==Background==
Regulations and restrictions on the sale of [[Cannabis sativa]] as a drug began as early as 1906 (see [[Legal history of cannabis in the United States]]). The head of the [[Federal Bureau of Narcotics]] (FBN), [[Harry J. Anslinger]], alleged, in the 1930s, the FBN had an increase of reports of people using marijuana.<ref name="anslinger">[http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/murd3.htm Harry J. Anslinger, U. S. Commissioner of Narcotics and Will Oursler : The Murderers, the story of the narcotic gangs, Pages: 541-554, 1961]</ref> In 1935, he gained the support of president [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] lobbying states to adoption the model [[Uniform State Narcotic Act]] to regulate of cannabis.<ref>[http://www.druglibrary.net/schaffer/History/e1930/rooseveltasks.htm ROOSEVELT ASKS NARCOTIC WAR AID, 1935]</ref> The Marihuana Tax Act, according to Clinton Hester, the then-Assistant General Counsel to the United States Treasury Department,<ref>{{Cite web |title=Statement of Clinton M. Hester, Assistant General Counsel, Treasury Dept. |url=https://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/t2.htm |access-date=2024-04-02 |website=www.druglibrary.org}}</ref> was itself based on the [[National Firearms Act]] and the [[Harrison Narcotics Tax Act]]: 

{{Quote|text=''"The primary purpose of this legislation must be to raise revenue, because we are resorting to the taxing clause of the Constitution and the rule is that if on the face of the fill it appears to be a revenue bill, the courts will not inquire into any other motives that the Congress may have had in enacting this legislation.''

''This bill is modeled on the Harrison Narcotics Act and the National Firearms Act. The Harrison Narcotics Act has been sustained by the Supreme Court, the first time by a 5-to-4 decision, and a second time by a 6-to-3 decision. The Supreme Court in March of this year [in Sonzinsky v. United States] sustained the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act, insofar as it related to the occupational tax."''}}

The total production of [[hemp]] fiber in the United States in 1933 decreased to around 500 tons per year. Cultivation of hemp began to increase in 1934 and 1935, but production remained low compared with other fibers.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.gametec.com/hemp/fiberwars/chp8fr.html |title=David P. West: Fiber Wars: The Extinction of Kentucky Hemp chapter 8 |access-date=2011-03-08 |archive-date=2011-07-11 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110711071803/http://www.gametec.com/hemp/fiberwars/chp8fr.html |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>[http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/mhc3.htm STATEMENT OF DR. A. H. WRIGHT, 1938]</ref><ref>[http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/nugent1.htm  H.T. NUGENT: COMMERCIALIZED HEMP (1934-35 CROP) in the STATE OF MINNESOTA]</ref>

[[File:Hanfstengel.jpg|thumb|left|Hemp, [[bast fibre|bast]] with fibers. The stem, which can become [[hemp hurds]], in the middle.]]

Interested parties write that the aim of the Act was to reduce the hemp industry through excessive taxation<ref name="nafta-neocolonialism-129">{{cite book|last=French|first=Laurence|author2=Magdaleno Manzanárez|title=NAFTA & neocolonialism: comparative criminal, human & social justice|publisher=University Press of America|year=2004|pages=129|isbn=978-0-7618-2890-7|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4ozF1Yg-c4MC&pg=PA129}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Understanding marijuana: a new look at the scientific evidence|author=Mitchell Earlywine|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2005|isbn=978-0-19-518295-8|page=24|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=r9wPbxMAG8cC&pg=PA24}}</ref><ref name="under-influence-55">{{cite book|last=Peet|first=Preston|title=Under the influence: the disinformation guide to drugs|publisher=The Disinformation Company|year=2004|pages=55|isbn=978-1-932857-00-9|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=uC0_YznYjScC&pg=PA55}}</ref> largely as an effort of businessmen [[Andrew Mellon]], [[Randolph Hearst]], and the [[Du Pont family]].<ref name="nafta-neocolonialism-129" /><ref name="under-influence-55" /> The same parties argue that with the invention of the [[decorticator]], hemp was an economical replacement for [[paper pulp]] in the newspaper industry.<ref name="nafta-neocolonialism-129" /><ref>{{cite book|title=Bound in twine: the history and ecology of the henequen-wheat complex for Mexico and the American and Canadian Plains, 1880-1950|author=Sterling Evans|publisher=Texas A&M University Press|year=2007|isbn=978-1-58544-596-7|page=27|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_wFkZgyuGFAC&pg=PA27}}</ref> Newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst realized cheap, sustainable, and easily-grown hemp threatened his extensive timber holdings. Mellon, [[Secretary of the Treasury]] and the wealthiest man in the US, invested heavily in the Du Pont family's new synthetic fiber, [[nylon]], to compete with hemp.<ref name="nafta-neocolonialism-129" /> 1916, [[United States Department of Agriculture]] (USDA) chief scientists Jason L. Merrill and [[Lyster Hoxie Dewey|Lyster H. Dewey]] created a paper, USDA Bulletin No. 404 "Hemp Hurds as Paper-Making Material", in which they concluded this paper from the woody inner portion of the hemp stem broken into pieces, the 'hemp hurds', was "favorable in comparison with those used with pulp wood".<ref>Lyster H. Dewey and Jason L. Merrill [https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/17855 ''Hemp Hurds as Paper-Making Material''] [[USDA]] Bulletin No. 404, Washington, D.C., October 14, 1916, p.25</ref> Dewey and Merrill believed hemp hurds were a sustainable source for paper production. The concentration of cellulose in hemp hurds is generally around 35%.<ref name="Werf">{{cite web|url=http://www.hempfood.com/iha/iha01213.html |title=Hayo M.G. van der Werf : Hemp facts and hemp fiction |publisher=Hempfood.com |access-date=2011-04-20 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110711162333/http://www.hempfood.com/iha/iha01213.html |archive-date=2011-07-11}}</ref>  Manufacture of paper -- on equipment designed to use wood-pulp -- with hemp as a raw material shows hemp lacks the qualities needed to become a major competitor to the traditional paper industry. 2003, 95% of the hemp hurds in the [[European Union|EU]] were used for animal bedding, almost 5% were used as building material.<ref name="michael">{{cite journal |title=Michael Karus: European Hemp Industry 2002 Cultivation, Processing and Product Lines. Journal of Industrial Hemp Volume 9 Issue 2 2004, Taylor & Francis, London |publisher=Informaworld.com }}</ref> Spokespersons from DuPont and many fiber manufacturers dispute a link between their promotion of nylon over hemp. They explain that the purpose of developing nylon was to produce a fiber competitive with [[silk]] and [[rayon]].<ref>[http://www.caimateriali.org/index.php?id=32 Prof. L. Trossarelli: -the history of nylon, Prof. L. Trossarelli]</ref><ref name="Wolfe">{{cite journal|year=2008|title=Nylon: A Revolution in Textiles|url=https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/magazine/nylon-a-revolution-in-textiles|journal=Chemical Heritage Magazine|volume=26|issue=3|last1=Wolfe|first1=Audra J.|access-date=20 March 2018}}</ref><ref>[https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/carotherspolymers/first-nylon-plant-historical-resource.pdf American Chemical Society: THE FIRST NYLON PLANT. 1995]</ref>

The [[American Medical Association]] (AMA) opposed the taxation because the tax was imposed on physicians prescribing cannabis, retail pharmacists selling cannabis, and [[medical cannabis]] [[Cannabis cultivation|cultivation]]/manufacturing. The AMA proposed cannabis instead be added to the [[Harrison Narcotics Tax Act]] which would have been more efficient and created less burden on doctors.<ref name="Woodward">{{cite web|url=http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/hemp/taxact/woodward.htm|title=Statement of Dr. William C. Woodward, Legislative Counsel, American Medical Association|access-date=2006-03-25}}</ref> Dr. [[William Creighton Woodward]], legislative counsel for the AMA, testified on behalf of the AMA.<ref name="ReferenceA">Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate, 75c 2s. HR6906. Library of Congress transcript. July 12, 1937</ref> He stated that the claims about marijuana addiction, violence, and overdosage were not supported, and that the law should not burden further investigation into medical use.<ref name="ReferenceA"/>

After hearings with lawyers from Du Pont Chemicals and the Hearst Newspapers Group, the taxation was passed on the grounds of 'differing' reports<ref>[http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/t10a.htm The Marijuana Tax Act, Reports]</ref> and hearings.<ref>[http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/taxact.htm The Marijuana Tax Act]</ref> Anslinger also referred to the [[International Opium Convention]] from 1928 included cannabis as a drug not a medicine. All state legislatures approved laws against improper use of cannabis based on the model [[Uniform State Narcotic Act]]. By 1951, however, spokespeople from Du Pont, Hearst and others came up with new improved rationalizations, and the [[Boggs Act]] superseded the Marihuana Taxation Act of 1937.{{Citation needed|date=May 2009}} In August 1954, the [[Internal Revenue Code]] of 1954 was enacted, and the Marihuana Taxation Act was included in Subchapter A of Chapter 39 of the 1954 Code.