REEFER (LEGAL) MADNESS

Re "An ad that worked his nerves" (SN&R Letters, July
8):

Like letter writer Mark, I, too, feel skeptical concerning the
full-page ad in the July 1 SN&R, paid for by the CannaCare folks,
urging the defeat of the California [Regulate, Control and ] Tax
Cannabis Act of 2010, which will appear on the ballot this November.

What bothers me is the ad's very first sentence: "In 1937 the Tax Act
on Marijuana was passed to allow all citizens the right to import,
produce, manufacture, give away, administer or prescribe marijuana."
(The second sentence goes on to clarify that doing any of those things
required a tax stamp that proved unobtainable.)

It may well be that the law included such provisions. But by saying
that the 1937 act "was passed to allow" those activities, the wording
strongly suggests that prior to that time, those activities were
prohibited. The impression left by the ad is that the act was a
legalization effort that passed at the polls, yet failed in its
purpose due to government intransigence. Nothing could be further from
the truth.

Prior to the 1937 act, marijuana was under no legal restrictions
whatever. It was not widely known or used in mainstream American
society, but cultivating it, harvesting it, importing it, buying it
and selling it were all perfectly legal, and no special documents were
required.

So the 1937 act was certainly never intended as a legalization effort.
On the contrary, it was a major illegalization effort. It was promoted
with a campaign of propaganda that included the movie Reefer Madness,
as well as fabrications about peaceable souls turned into psychotic
killers by the demon drug. (Nowadays, we know enough to laugh at
Reefer Madness as high camp, but in those days it was taken quite
seriously indeed.)

Based on those lies, the 1937 act was passed. Thus were enacted the
marijuana prohibitions that have been with us, in one form or another,
ever since.

The purpose of the upcoming 2010 act is just the reverse: It aims to
loosen the legal restrictions on marijuana, not to tighten them. To
suggest that the 2010 act is simply a repeat of the 1937 act is ludicrous.

The remainder of CannaCare's ad cites more reasons to oppose the 2010
act, some of which may be valid points. But when the ad's very first
sentences are so thoroughly misleading, I have to wonder what else in
their arguments is false or distorted.

David Urman

Sacramento