The Forbidden Fruit and the Tree of Knowledge: An Inquiry into the Legal History of

American Marijuana Prohibition

Author(s): Richard J. Bonnie and Charles H. Whitebread, II
Source: Virginia Law Review , Oct., 1970, Vol. 56, No. 6 (Oct., 1970), pp. 971-1203
Published by: Virginia Law Review
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1071903

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1071903?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Virginia Law Review is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Virginia Law Review

This content downloaded from

132.174.254.127 on Wed, 01 Feb 2023 04:29:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW
VOLUME 56 OCTOBER 1970 NUMBER 6

THE FORBIDDEN FRUIT AND THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE:

AN INQUIRY INTO THE LEGAL HISTORY OF AMERICAN
MARIJUANA PROHIBITION

Richard J. Bonnie* & Charles H. Whitebread, II**

Mr. Snell. What is the bill?

Mr. Rayburn. It has something to do with something that is called

marihuana. I believe it is a narcotic of some kind.

Colloquy on the House floor prior to

passage of the Marihuana Tax Act.

* Assistant Professor of Law, University of Virginia. B.A., 1966, Johns Hopkins

University; LL.B., 1969, University of Virginia.
* * Assistant Professor of Law, University of Virginia. A.B., 1965, Princeton Uni-
versity; LL.B., 1968, Yale University.
We wish to express our sincere appreciation to the students who assisted us in the
preparation of the tables at Appendix A. Because the drug statutes of the several
states are particularly confusing and difficult to find, and because so many jurisdictions
have recently changed their drug laws, the preparation of the chart required long,
tedious work which so many were kind enough to perform. To them, our most
sincere thanks.
We should like to thank especially Michael A. Cohen, John F. Kuether, W. Tracey
Shaw, Alan K. Smith, and Allan J. Tanenbaum, all students at the University of Vir-
ginia School of Law, whose research assistance and tireless effort were invaluable.
We are particularly indebted to Professor Jerry Mandel who supplied us with
much of the raw data used in the historical case studies in this Article. In his excel-
lent article on drug statistics in the Stanford Law Review, Problems with Official Drug
Statistics, 21 STAN. L. REV. 991 (1969), Professor Mandel suggested in a footnote that
someone should attempt a history of the passage of anti-marijuana legislation. We have
followed his suggestion and earnestly hope that our product will fill this gap.
A modified and expanded version of this Article will be published in book form in the
spring of 1971.

[971]

This content downloaded from

132.174.254.127 on Wed, 01 Feb 2023 04:29:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
972 Virginia Law Review [Vol. 56:971

PAGE

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................. 974
II. THE ANTECEDENTS: CRIMINALIZATION OF NARCOTICS AND ALCOHOL ..... ..... 975
A. A Review of the Temperance Movement ....... ..................... 977
B. Anti-Narcotics Legislation to 1914 ......... ........................... 981
1. Narcotics Use at the Turn of the Century: A Growing Problem .... 981
2. State Legislative Response Before 1914 ....... ..................... 985
3. Watershed: The Passage of the Harrison Act ...... ................ 986
C. The Judicial Role and the Constitutional Framework: The Police Power
and Intoxicant Prohibition to 1920 .................................... 990
1. Phase One: Prohibition of Sale and Manufacture of Alcohol ........ 991
2. Phase Two: Prohibition of Sale of Opium ....... ................... 996
3. Phase Three: Prohibition of Possession of Alcohol to 1915 ..... ..... 998
4. Phase Four: Prohibition of Possession of Narcotics ...... ............ 1001
5. Phase Five: Prohibition of Possession of Alcohol After 1915 ....... 1005
6. A Postscript on the Police Power: The Cigarette Cases .............. 1008
III. THE GENESIS OF MARIJUANA PROHIBITION .................................. 1010
A. Initial State Legislation: 1914-1931 .................................... 1010
1. Rationale in the West: Class Legislation ......... ................... 1012
2. Rationale in the East: Substitution ........... ...................... 1016
3. The International Scene ............................................. 1020
4. Conclusion . .................................................. 1021
B. Judicial Corroboration ................................................ 1022

IV. PASSAGE OF THE UNIFORM NARCOTIC DRUG AcT: 1927-1937 ...... ............ 1026
A. Origins of the Uniform Law .................. ...................... 1028
B. Drafting the Law ................................................. 1030
C. Passage of the State Laws ............................................ 1034
1. Use Patterns and Public Knowledge: 1931-1937 ....... ............. 1035
2. Role of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics ........... ................. 1037
3. Legislative Scrutiny and Media Coverage ........... ................. 1038
4. Available Medical Opinion ......................................... 1042
S. Provisions of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act and Supplemental Vir-
ginia Marijuana Statute ................................... ...... 1047
(a) Classification and Offenses .1047
(b) Penalties .. 1047

V. PASSAGE OF THE MARIHUANA TAX ACT OF 1937 . . .1048

A. State Enforcement of the Uniform Law . . .1049
B. Public Hysteria or Continued Public Ignorance? . ....... I......... 1052
C. The Tax Act Hearings .. . 1053
1. Toho Were Users? ........................... 1054
2. What's Wrong with Marijuana? .................................... 1055
3. How Dare You Dissent! .1059
D. Congressional "Deliberation" and Action . . .1060
E. Provisions of the Act ..1062
VI. THE 1950's: HARSHER PENALTIES AND A NEW RATIONALE-THE "STEPPING
STONE" THEORY ..1063
A. The Boggs Act and Its Progeny:' The First Escalation .1063

This content downloaded from

132.174.254.127 on Wed, 01 Feb 2023 04:29:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1970] Marijuana Prohibition 973

PAGE

1. The Problem: Increased Narcotics Use ........... ................. 1064

2. The Solution: Harsher Penalties ............... .................... 1066
3. Marajuana and the Boggs Act ...................................... 1068
(a) Increased Use .................................................. 1068
(b) Youthful Users ................................................ 1070
(c) The Danger: A New Rationale ............. ................... 1071
4. The State Response: Mindless Esca'ation ........... ................ 1074
B. The Late 1950's: Another Escalation of the Penalties .................. 1076
1. Provisions of the Narcotic Control Act of 1956 ......... ............. 1077
2. Marijuana: Along for the Ride ............... ..................... 1078
3. Trafficking Patterns ............................................... 1079
4. Origin and Use .................................................... 1080
S. Enforcement Patterns .............................................. 1081
6. The Epitome of Irrationality: Virginia's 1958 Amendment .. ........ 1082

VII. MARIJUANA USERS IN THE COURTS: 1930-1965 .............................. 1083

A. Statutory Fantasies: The Complications of Federal Legislation ........ 1083
1. Quadruple "Jeopardy" and the "Killer Weed" ... ..................... 1083
2. Statutory Presumptions .................. .......................... 1085
B. Attacks on State Legislation .......................................... 1087
C. Procedural Defenses and Entrapment .............. ................... 1088
1. Search and Seizure ........................................ 1089
2. Entrapment ............... ............................ 1091
D. The Pro Forma Trial ........................................... 1093
VIII. THE PUBLIC DISCOVERS THE TRUTH ABOUT MARIJUANA ........ .............. 1096
A. Marijuana and the Masses .......................................... 1096
B. Enforcement of the Marijuana Laws: 1960-1970 ........... ............. 1100
C. Emergence of Medical Opinion ....................................... 1101
1. Research Obstacles ............................................ 1102
2. Current Medical Knowledge ................. 1104
(a) The Myths .1104
(b) Physical Effects .1107
(c) Psychomotor Effects .1107
(d) Psychological Effects .1108
IX. MARIJUANA LEGISLATION CLASHES WITH JUDICIAL SKEPTICISM AND EMERGING
VALUES-PIECEMEAL JUDICIAL RESPONSE: 1965-1970 .1110
A. Mu'tiple Offenses: Untying the Statutory Knots .1111
1. Federal Developments .1111
2. State Developments .1114
B. Procedural Objections to Enforcement Practices . .1116
1. Search and Seizure .1116
2. Entrapment .1119
3. Other Prosecution Practices .1120
C. Sufficiency of Evidence ............................... 1121
D. Sanction ..1123

X. THE HEART OF THE MA

MARIJUANA LAWS: 1965-1970 ..1125
A. The Burden of Justification: The Importance of Having a Presumption
on Your Side . 1126

This content downloaded from

132.174.254.127 on Wed, 01 Feb 2023 04:29:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms