I finally got to see the 1936 American propaganda film, Reefer Madness. For those that haven't seen it, it's a pseudo-biopic that claims to a retelling of actual events. It's corny. It's melodramatic. It's also wildly inaccurate.
The film portrays events surrounding the purported dangers of marijuana abuse. Centered on a couple of unfortunate youth who fall in with the wrong crowd, the rapid decline into madness is frightening, or rather would be if it had any basis in fact. Through the magic of scientific discovery, we now know the representation to be a complete farce. The US Government funded this film, which is shockingly prurient for the period, to induce hysterical support for a ban on marijuana.
The success of the anti-marijuana campaign that followed the release of the film was dependent entirely on the ignorance of the public, which was seemingly considerable. The year following its release, the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act was passed. Within that legislation, heavy restrictions on the sale and transport of the drug were in place, along with penalties for mishandling. From that point forward, weed was increasingly criminalized until the final complete ban instituted by President Nixon in the early 70's.
In my previous post on this topic, I pointed out that marijuana is non-toxic, non-carcinogenic, and non-addictive. One would be hard pressed then to identify just what the objection is. Having grown up as a child of the 80's, I sat through the DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) presentations. I even knew our school's DARE officer. I learned to "just say no" like Nancy Reagan wanted. I also accepted, by way of indoctrination, that marijuana was a "gateway drug."
I recall in the 5th grade having our school counselor do a drug presentation. He asked one classmate after another if drugs were "bad." Without hesitation, they answered "yes." Mr. White continued to ask students until he came to one who said "no." It was then that he let us in on the little secret that no one really bothered to tell us about. The definition of what a drug was. It's remarkably simple, really.
A drug is a substance that is put into the body to change how the body works.
This is why Mr. White insisted on finding a student who said drugs weren't bad. They're not. At least not intrinsically. However, Reefer Madness was produced in such a way that demonized marijuana. The portrayal makes it clear that even minimal exposure robs one of their faculties, turning them into a lust driven lunatic bent on mayhem and murder.
Show me an article, publication, news story, or any other vetted source that tells such a tale. Truth is, they don't exist. Harry J. Anslinger, first Commissioner of the US Treasury Department's Federal Bureau of Narcotics, began lobbying heavily to criminalize marijuana following the repeal of Volstead Act (Prohibition), which died with the ratification of the 21st Amendment in 1933. Previously, he'd been quite neutral and disinterested in the use of marijuana. However, setting his sights on a new pariah, he launched a campaign to make weed illegal. He cited dozens, if not hundreds, of stories of murder or violence committed under the influence of marijuana. Most of them were simply falsely attributed to cannabis. Some were outright fabrications. The tactic was effective, however. He garnered enough support to put it before Congress, even convincing them of his lies, and helped get the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act passed.
Yes, I titled this entry "Suspension of Disbelief." The phrase normally refers to the ability of a film to convince you, at least while you're watching, that the events are real. In this case, I'm not referring to Reefer Madness. I'm most interested in the concerted efforts of US officials to ban something which presents no public health hazard and kills precisely zero people each year from disease related to consumption.
I cannot suspend my disbelief! I admit that deliberate ignorance is a pet peeve. In this case, the deliberate ignorance of scientific evidence, and the active limitation on establishing more scientific data, for the purposes of moral temperance... staggers me.
Logical conclusions are not hard to establish. Logically, our lawmakers are ignorant of scientific fact. Logically, the legislature has no interest in the impact that criminalization of marijuana has on non-violent offenders who end up in prison for extended stays. Logically, our elected officials are mired in decades-old propaganda with little respect for reality.
I will agree that these are incomplete conclusions and that other truths may exist. However, this theory explains the observation based on the available evidence.
Why is this topic becoming one of my favorites? Because it's so easy to pick on. The laundry list of fallacious reasoning, collusion, and public deception make it a poster child for malicious governance. The polls will be opening in a few weeks, and we will again have the opportunity to weigh in on our representation. Each passing year brings me a little bit more angst and disbelief in the people who waste taxpayer dollars while claiming to be public servants.
My next entry will focus on the current "opioid crisis." Juxtaposed against the Federal ban on medical marijuana, you may be just as confused as I am.
Good one.
ReplyDelete