preview

The Marijuana Tax Act Of 1937

Decent Essays

Adding history and background to the issues and conflicts that will be discussed later in the paper is critical in order to discern them. Following the Mexican revolution, the United States in the early 1900s experienced an increase of immigrants coming from Mexico. These immigrants brought their native language, culture, and customs. One of their customs was the use of cannabis plants, which at the time was used for medicinal purposes and as a major relaxant. These new Americans referred to the plant as marijuana, which is the same as cannabis. However, at this time many Americans were oblivious to that. Media reports supported the fears that had risen from the general population of believing immigrants were dangerous, claiming that they …show more content…

The Act, initiated by, Reiman, Amanda, and Malik Burnett issued a tax of one dollar on anyone who worked with hemp, cannabis, or marijuana. The Act did not fully criminalize self-command or usage of hemp, marijuana, or cannabis, but it did include a penalty and enforcement preparation to which marijuana, cannabis, or hemp handlers were subject. Any infraction of these procedures could result in a fine of up to $2000 and five years incarceration (Princeton). Later the Act was ruled unconstitutional and was replaced with the Control Substance Act in 1970. The new Act settled schedules for ranking different substances based off their potency (Reiman, Amanda, and Malik Burnett). Marijuana was placed in the most restrictive of the categories known as schedule I. According to the (DEA) the classifications consist of five categories: Schedule I being the most serious and having the highest potential for addiction and abuse. Schedule II, III, IV, and V drugs have less potential risk for addiction and …show more content…

This court case took place in California and dealt with a federal issue. California passed a “compassionate use act” that allowed medical marijuana for use. The defendants were arrested under federal DEA laws but were compliant with the state laws. The defendant argued that congress had violated their interstate commerce authority. The issue was whether or not congress could regulate homegrown medical marijuana to be used at home. The law upheld yes, congress can regulate interstate actions where the behavior in a person could have an impact on commerce. The Federal government cannot distinguish from marijuana being grown in someones house and sold into interstate commerce. In order to fully regulate, congress must be able to control the marijuana grown in ones own home (Gonzales v

Get Access