FruityBud
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2007
- Messages
- 2,294
- Reaction score
- 3,399
This week the AMA is officially asking the federal government to review the status of cannabis in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. They have acknowledged the medical benefits of marijuana and its component cannabinoids. It is poetic justice that the official stance adopted November 10th represents a 72-year full-circle for the AMA.
In 1937 the first federal marijuana prohibition was debated in Congress. The infamous prohibitionist Harry Anslinger was pushing though the Marijuana Tax Stamp Act.
Anslinger's racist and fantastical demonization of marijuana, encompassed in the propaganda film Reefer Madness, unfortunately ruled that summer day. But one group stood up to officially oppose the legislation on very realistic grounds.
It was the American Medical Association, then and now, the largest physician group in the nation. In 1937 medicine was in the hands of the "country doctors" who employed a variety of methods to bring relief to their patients.
Cannabis tinctures, creams, teas, poultices, edibles and the smoke itself had long been in the American physicians' tool chest of solutions. They were used for a wide variety of ailments including nausea, but were especially used for pain relief.
The AMA observed the politics of Anslinger and prophetically saw what the future would be for cannabis therapies should the prohibitionist machinations move ahead.
Their Legislative Council, William Woodward, offered compelling testimony before Congress begging them not to pass the bill.
Woodward's 1937 testimony is a tribute to the AMA and important to revisit this week. It follows, in full, care of PortlandNORML's online library.
Pennsylvania will have the first public hearings ever on medical marijuana when the House Health and Human Services committee considers HB 1393 on December 2, 2009 in Harrisburg. More information at hxxp://www.phillynorml.org and hxxp://www.pa4mmj.org
hxxp://tinyurl.com/ygf8tgv
In 1937 the first federal marijuana prohibition was debated in Congress. The infamous prohibitionist Harry Anslinger was pushing though the Marijuana Tax Stamp Act.
Anslinger's racist and fantastical demonization of marijuana, encompassed in the propaganda film Reefer Madness, unfortunately ruled that summer day. But one group stood up to officially oppose the legislation on very realistic grounds.
It was the American Medical Association, then and now, the largest physician group in the nation. In 1937 medicine was in the hands of the "country doctors" who employed a variety of methods to bring relief to their patients.
Cannabis tinctures, creams, teas, poultices, edibles and the smoke itself had long been in the American physicians' tool chest of solutions. They were used for a wide variety of ailments including nausea, but were especially used for pain relief.
The AMA observed the politics of Anslinger and prophetically saw what the future would be for cannabis therapies should the prohibitionist machinations move ahead.
Their Legislative Council, William Woodward, offered compelling testimony before Congress begging them not to pass the bill.
Woodward's 1937 testimony is a tribute to the AMA and important to revisit this week. It follows, in full, care of PortlandNORML's online library.
American Medical Association Opposes the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937
American Medical Association
Bureau of Legal Medicine and Legislation
Chicago, July 10, 1937
Hon. Pat Harrison
Chairman, Committee on Finance, United States Senate
Washington D.C.
SIR: I have been instructed by the board of trustees of the American Medical Association to protest on behalf of the association against the enactment in its present form of so much of H.R. 6906 as relates to the medicinal use of cannabis and its preparations and derivatives. The act is entitled "An Act to impose an occupational excise tax upon certain dealers in marihuana, to impose a transfer tax upon certain dealings in marihuana, and to safeguard the revenue therefrom by registry and recording."
Cannabis and its preparations and derivatives are covered in the bill by the term "marihuana" as that term is defined in section 1, paragraph (b). There is no evidence, however, that the medicinal use of these drugs has caused or is causing cannabis addiction. As remedial agents, they are used to an inconsiderable extent, and the obvious purpose and effect of this bill is to impose so many restrictions on their use as to prevent such use altogether. Since the medicinal use of cannabis has not caused and is not causing addiction, the prevention of the use of the drug for medicinal purposes can accomplish no good end whatsoever. How far it may serve to deprive the public of the benefits of a drug that on further research may prove to be of substantial value, it is impossible to foresee.
The American Medical Association has no objection to any reasonable regulation of the medicinal use of cannabis and its preparations and derivatives. It does protest, however, against being called upon to pay a special tax, to use special order forms in order to procure the drug, to keep special records concerning its professional use and to make special returns to the Treasury Department officials, as a condition precedent to the use of cannabis in the practice of medicine. in the several States, all separate and apart from the taxes, order forms, records, and reports required under the Harrison Narcotics Act with reference to opium and coca leaves and their preparations and derivatives.
If the medicinal use of cannabis calls for Federal legal regulation further than the legal regulation that now exists, the drug can without difficulty be covered under the provisions of the Harrison Narcotics Act by a suitable amendment. By such a procedure the professional use of cannabis may readily be controlled as effectively as are the professional uses of opium and coca leaves, with less interference with professional practice and less cost and labor on the part of the Treasury Department.
It has been suggested that the inclusion of cannabis into the Harrison Narcotics Act would jeopardize the constitutionality of that act, but that suggestion has been supported by no specific statements of its legal basis or citations of legal authorities.
Wm. C. Woodward,
Legislative Counsel {American Medical Assn}
Whereupon at 11:37 AM Monday, July 12, 1937, the subcommittee adjourned.
American Medical Association
Bureau of Legal Medicine and Legislation
Chicago, July 10, 1937
Hon. Pat Harrison
Chairman, Committee on Finance, United States Senate
Washington D.C.
SIR: I have been instructed by the board of trustees of the American Medical Association to protest on behalf of the association against the enactment in its present form of so much of H.R. 6906 as relates to the medicinal use of cannabis and its preparations and derivatives. The act is entitled "An Act to impose an occupational excise tax upon certain dealers in marihuana, to impose a transfer tax upon certain dealings in marihuana, and to safeguard the revenue therefrom by registry and recording."
Cannabis and its preparations and derivatives are covered in the bill by the term "marihuana" as that term is defined in section 1, paragraph (b). There is no evidence, however, that the medicinal use of these drugs has caused or is causing cannabis addiction. As remedial agents, they are used to an inconsiderable extent, and the obvious purpose and effect of this bill is to impose so many restrictions on their use as to prevent such use altogether. Since the medicinal use of cannabis has not caused and is not causing addiction, the prevention of the use of the drug for medicinal purposes can accomplish no good end whatsoever. How far it may serve to deprive the public of the benefits of a drug that on further research may prove to be of substantial value, it is impossible to foresee.
The American Medical Association has no objection to any reasonable regulation of the medicinal use of cannabis and its preparations and derivatives. It does protest, however, against being called upon to pay a special tax, to use special order forms in order to procure the drug, to keep special records concerning its professional use and to make special returns to the Treasury Department officials, as a condition precedent to the use of cannabis in the practice of medicine. in the several States, all separate and apart from the taxes, order forms, records, and reports required under the Harrison Narcotics Act with reference to opium and coca leaves and their preparations and derivatives.
If the medicinal use of cannabis calls for Federal legal regulation further than the legal regulation that now exists, the drug can without difficulty be covered under the provisions of the Harrison Narcotics Act by a suitable amendment. By such a procedure the professional use of cannabis may readily be controlled as effectively as are the professional uses of opium and coca leaves, with less interference with professional practice and less cost and labor on the part of the Treasury Department.
It has been suggested that the inclusion of cannabis into the Harrison Narcotics Act would jeopardize the constitutionality of that act, but that suggestion has been supported by no specific statements of its legal basis or citations of legal authorities.
Wm. C. Woodward,
Legislative Counsel {American Medical Assn}
Whereupon at 11:37 AM Monday, July 12, 1937, the subcommittee adjourned.
Pennsylvania will have the first public hearings ever on medical marijuana when the House Health and Human Services committee considers HB 1393 on December 2, 2009 in Harrisburg. More information at hxxp://www.phillynorml.org and hxxp://www.pa4mmj.org
hxxp://tinyurl.com/ygf8tgv
