# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Public Health versus Private Freedom? | by Peter Singer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There is widespread agreement that governments ought to prohibit the sale of at least some dangerous products. But it seems odd to hold, as a US court recently did, that the state may prohibit the sale of cigarettes, but may not regulate their packaging as it sees fit to promote public health.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The "Cannabis Freedom Act," which would decriminalize marijuana and other cannabis-related products for consumption and sale in Kentucky, is perhaps the most controversial bill to be considered in the state's current legislative session. The bill is modeled after Colorado's cannabis legislation and would allow anyone over 21 years of age to possess up to one ounce of cannabis on their person, cultivate up to five cannabis plants and store any excess cannabis for personal use. But State Senator Perry Clark (author of the bill) said that decriminalizing marijuana isn't just about giving people the freedom to get high, but a chance to address some serious issues plaguing Kentucky.

"I don't personally care about using cannabis. I just know that these laws are outdated and negatively affecting our state, our citizens, and it's ridiculous," said Sen. Clark. "People overregulated cannabis out of fear, and these are bad laws. They're laws that never should have been and it's time that we fix that."

Medical marijuana to curb growing opioid problem

According to a 2014 report by Kentucky's Cabinet of Justice & Public Safety, drug-related overdoses accounted for 59 percent of accidental deaths in Kentucky. Of those overdose deaths autopsied, morphine was detected in 41 percent, monoacetylmorphine (heroin) in 29 percent, hydrocodone in 21 percent and oxycodone in 19 percent. All of these are opioids (commonly known as painkillers).

Mark Chandler, a defense attorney and advocate for decriminalizing marijuana said he has seen the effects of this opioid problem first hand.

"A lot of folks start out with legitimate medical needs, either from a car accident, a workplace injury or something traumatic, so they get prescribed some opiates and they become addicted very quickly," said Chandler. "But some people switch to marijuana instead of opiates for their pain problems, and you can see a difference. They're so much more clear headed and able to navigate society. They're able to work and interact with folks, much more so than if they had stayed on opiates."

Also, in states where medical cannabis is available, overdose death rates attributed to opioids is 25 percent lower than states where no medical cannabis is available, according to a study by The Journal of the American Medical Association.

"What we're doing right now to combat this problem isn't working," said Sen. Clark "But you can see in places where they implement medicinal marijuana and decriminalization laws, that there is a reduction in prescription and opiate overdose deaths, and those amazing numbers are lives being saved."

Decriminalization to help criminal justice

Nationally in 2014, 45 percent of drug arrests were marijuana related, according to FBI Uniform Crime Reporting data. And collectively states spend about $3.6 billion a year enforcing laws against marijuana possession, according to a 2013 report by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). This is time and money that Sen. Clark thinks could be better spent combating more serious issues.

"If there is no violence or property damage involved, why is it a problem? I mean millions of people have consumed cannabis, and millions of people are not hardcore drug addicts or criminals," said Sen. Clark. "I'm from South Louisville; my family, my friends and a lot of people have trouble dealing with marijuana related offenses. And those marks on their record really keep a lot of people downtrodden and impoverished because these cannabis charges carry almost a life sentence of poverty."

Only 12 percent of employers said they'd accept an application from someone with a criminal record, according to a 2003 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Chandler said he has seen first hand how arrests for simply possessing marijuana can destroy lives.

"I had a guy once who had pain issues, anxiety issues and sleep disorders. So he used different strains [of marijuana] to help him get through the day," said Chandler. "But since he kept the different strains separately packaged, the officer arresting him thought he was trafficking it."

In Kentucky, trafficking eight or more ounces of marijuana is a felony, which is a lifelong label with negative consequences.

"We basically isolate people, brand and label them as felons and make it impossible for them to get jobs, which means they now have even fewer resources to try and rebuild their lives with after leaving prison." said Chandler. "There shouldn't be any criminal stigma attached to simple possession of marijuana, and we shouldn't brand people criminals who aren't."

Newly generated tax revenue

"Colorado made over $100 million dollars, pure tax money, off their cannabis industry last year; they decreased marijuana related arrests by 95 percent, saving tens of millions in the criminal justice system; and their tourism went up double digits since they decriminalized marijuana," said Sen. Clark. "If Kentucky could grow its tourism industry by 10 percent next year instead of our usual two or four percent, we'd have another one and a half billion dollars coming into the state, and the tax revenue generated from that would be huge. These are big numbers were talking about."

Currently the Cannabis Freedom Act states that this newly generated revenue would be allocated towards funding public schools, college scholarship funds, "evidence based" substance abuse treatment programs and improving equipment for state law enforcement. But Sen. Clark said others have already suggested using the money for other things.

"I put that in there purely for discussion purposes. It's the way Colorado did it. It's a very successful model, but I am open to any suggestions for different ways to use the money," Sen. Clark. "My job is to stir the pot and get this discussion going on a very adult and rational level."

Voice your opinion

Nationally, 53 percent of Americans approve of the decriminalization of marijuana according to a 2015 survey by the PEW Research Center. But sentiments may be mixed in Kentucky.

"It's gonna be tough in our state, we still have a lot of dry counties and there's still a lot of belts where I don't think it'll be popular," said Chandler. "And I bet some people in the law enforcement camp, officers and prosecutors, wouldn't want to see it legalized just because it's a steady stream of money for them."

But Sen. Clark said the facts are on his side, and that people should voice their opinions to their representatives so that Kentucky can seize this opportunity to right some wrongs in society and generate revenue for the state in the process.

"Money is already being spent on cannabis products in this state; however it's illegal," said Sen. Clark. "But If we change that and bring this into the light of day, we will make a policy that's advantageous for the public, safe for the citizen and allows freedom for the individual." *

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cannabis Freedom for Kentucky - LEO Weekly

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The "Cannabis Freedom Act," which would decriminalize marijuana and other cannabis-related products for consumption and sale in Kentucky, is perhaps the most controversial bill to be considered in the state's current legislative session. The bill is modeled after Colorado's cannabis legislation and would allow anyone over 21 years of age to possess up to one ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
My Daughter's first roller coaster. She was 1 inch too short to ride. After $50 Minnie Mouse heels... * r/videos

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
479 points and 144 comments so far on reddit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
deal primarily with the Northern Hemisphere and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (January 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The personal liberty laws were laws passed by several U.S. states in the North to counter the Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850. Different laws did this in different ways, including allowing jury trials for escaped slaves and forbidding state authorities from cooperating in their capture and return.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Laws Regarding Drugs, Alcohol and Driving | Teens | Survive - Stop Yourself. Stop a Friend.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It is against the law to enter and remain in a bar without lawful business or be under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The court must suspend your driver's license for a year if you are arrested for any of the violations listed above.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Illinois Controlled Substances Act criminalizes the knowing possession, manufacture and delivery of certain controlled substances, counterfeit substances, and "analogs" of controlled substances, or substances intended for human consumption having a chemical structure or effect substantially similar to that of a controlled substance listed in Schedule I or II of the Ac t including those which contain opiates, opium derivatives (such as heroin), hallucinogenic substances (such as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD)), and substances having a depressant or stimulant effect on the central nervous system.
Element of Drug Distribution
An individual commits the crime of "controlled substance trafficking" when he or she knowingly brings or causes to be brought into Illinois a controlled or counterfeit substance for the purpose of manufacture or delivery, or with the intent to manufacture or deliver such substance, within the state or to any other state or country. To convict a defendant of controlled-substance trafficking, the prosecution must therefore prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant

1. knowingly

2. brought a controlled substance into the state

3. for the purpose of delivery or with the intent to deliver it elsewhere.

Keep in mind, the defendant's knowledge of the trafficking must be proved both with respect to the bringing of the controlled or counterfeit substance into Illinois as well as the end-goal of its delivery within or outside of the state.
Illinois Drug Distribution Laws: An Overview
Specific details about drug distribution laws in Illinois, including charges and penalties, are listed in the following table. Remember, certain drug distribution charges can also be charged under federal law depending on the specific facts of the case.

Sentences and Penalties

Penalties for controlled-substance possession, manufacturing and delivery offenses range in seriousness from a Class 3 felony on the "low" end to a Class X felony on the high end.

Class 3 felonies carry a minimum sentence of 2 to 5 years of imprisonment; thus, convicted drug traffickers would be subject to a minimum prison term of double that amount, or 4 to 10 years in prison.

Class X felonies, on the other hand, carry a minimum term of imprisonment of 6 to 30 years and a maximum term of 15 to 60 years, depending on the type and weight of the substance(s) in question.

In theory, then, a convicted drug trafficker could be sentenced to serve a maximum sentence of 30 to 120 years in prison, or "twice the maximum term."

In addition, persons found guilty of trafficking may be required to pay a fine in the minimum amount of up to $75,000 on the "low" end or up $1,000,000, which is twice the amount of a maximum fine for a Class X controlled-substance related felony.

Note: The law also punishes a person's knowing use of a "cellular radio telecommunication device in the furtherance of controlled substance trafficking" with a hefty fine of up to $100,000.

Note: Research the Law Illinois Drug Distribution Laws: Related Resources Next Step: Have Your Case Reviewed for Free State laws are always subject to change through the passage of new legislation, rulings in the higher courts (including federal decisions), ballot initiatives, and other means. While we strive to provide the most current information available, please consult an attorney or conduct your own legal research to verify the state law(s) you are researching.
Being charged with a drug distribution offense in Illinois is a very serious matter. While you may have several defenses available to you, such as possession for personal use instead of distribution, you'll want to speak with a skilled attorney before making any decisions about your case. Start today with a free case review from an Illinois criminal defense lawyer who specializes in drug crimes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Illinois Drug Distribution Laws - FindLaw

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Illinois Controlled Substances Act criminalizes the knowing possession, manufacture and delivery of certain controlled substances, counterfeit substances, and "analogs" of controlled substances, or substances intended for human consumption having a chemical structure or effect substantially similar to that of a controlled substance listed in Schedule I or II of the Ac t including those which contain opiates, opium derivatives (such as heroin), hallucinogenic substances (such as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD)), and substances having a depressant or stimulant effect on the central nervous system.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Emerging Trends & Alerts

Get more information on Emerging Trends and Alerts, we will update this page with the latest research findings as they develop.

APA Style MLA Style AMA Style

NIDA. (). Alcohol. Retrieved from https://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/alcohol

Other Articles of Interest

Get Help

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Brief Description People drink to socialize, celebrate, and relax. Alcohol often has a strong effect on people-and throughout history, people have struggled to understand and manage alcohol's power. Why does alcohol cause people to act and feel differently? How much is too much? Why do some people become addicted while others do not?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
domestic violence law - guide to domestic violence law - domestic violence law info

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Domestic violence law provides the criminal rules for punishing those who cause emotional or physical harm to others with whom they share a family or

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Protecting Our Right to Breathe Clean Air

The scientific evidence is clear: Secondhand smoke causes serious diseases and premature death among nonsmokers.

That's why a growing number of states, cities and countries are enacting laws that require all workplaces and public places to be smoke-free.

These laws protect everyone's right to breathe clean air.

A Global Movement for Smoke-Free Air

There has been enormous progress in the United States and around the world to enact strong smoke-free laws:

In the U.S., 25 states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, plus hundreds of cities and counties, have enacted comprehensive smoke-free laws covering workplaces, restaurants, and bars. The states are: Arizona, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. Another 5 states have enacted strong smoke-free laws covering restaurants and bars: Colorado, Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Mexico and North Carolina.

At least 55 countries also have comprehensive smoke-free laws, protecting nearly 1.5 billion people worldwide.

A Toxic Soup of Chemicals and Carcinogens

Secondhand smoke is a poisonous mixture of more than 7,000 chemicals, including hundreds that are toxic and at least 69 that cause cancer. The U.S. Surgeon General and public health agencies around the world have documented overwhelming evidence of the deadly effects of secondhand smoke:

Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer, heart disease and stroke in non-smoking adults. Among babies and children, it causes sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), low birth weight, respiratory and ear infections, and more severe asthma attacks.

There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Even brief exposure can trigger harmful changes in the cardiovascular system that increases risk of heart attack or stroke.

In the U.S., secondhand smoke kills about 50,000 people each year, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Worldwide, secondhand smoke kills more than 600,000 people each year, according to a 2010 study by the World Health Organization.

Smoke-Free Laws: The Only Solution

Public health authorities have concluded that the only way to protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke is to require completely smoke-free workplaces and public places. Other approaches, such as air ventilation systems and separate smoking and non-smoking sections, do not eliminate exposure to secondhand smoke. Numerous scientific studies have also documented that smoke-free policies do not have an adverse economic impact on the hospitality industry (see our Fact Sheet: Smoke-Free Laws Do Not Harm Business at Restaurants and Bars).

It's time to protect everyone's right to breathe clean air.
Last updated Aug. 17, 2017

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. State and Local Issues: Smoke-Free Laws

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Protecting Our Right to Breathe Clean Air The scientific evidence is clear: Secondhand smoke causes serious diseases and premature death among nonsmokers. That's why a growing number of states, cities and countries are enacting laws that require all workplaces and public places to be smoke-free. These laws protect everyone's right to breathe clean air.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In all 50 states, people on bikes are required to follow the same laws as other drivers.

Here are a few key principles that underpin all US traffic laws:

First Come, First Served
Everyone on the road is entitled to the lane width they need. This includes the space behind, to each side and the space in front. If you want to use someone else's space you must yield to whoever is using it.

Ride on the Right
In the United States, everyone must drive on the right-hand side of the roadway.

Yielding to Crossing Traffic
When you come to an intersection, if you don't have the right of way, you must yield.

Yielding when Changing Lanes
If you want to change lanes, you must yield to traffic that is in your new lane of travel.

Speed Positioning
The slowest vehicles on the road should be the furthest to the right. Where you position yourself on the road depends on the location of any parked cars, your speed, and your destination. Always pass on the left.

Lane Positioning
Bikes can share the same lane with other drivers. If a lane is wide enough to share with another vehicle (about 14 feet), ride three feet to the right of traffic. If the lane is not wide enough to share, "take the lane" by riding in the middle.

Intersection positioning
When there is a lane that is used for more than one direction, use the rightmost lane going in the direction you are traveling.
Follow all street signs, signals, and markings If you would like to know more about bicycle traffic laws, please check out our other resources:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In all 50 states, people on bikes are required to follow the same laws as other drivers. Here are a few key principles that underpin all US traffic laws: First Come, First Served Everyone on the road is entitled to the lane width they need.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Illinois Laws & Penalties - NORML.org - Working to Reform Marijuana Laws

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NORML's mission is to move public opinion sufficiently to legalize the responsible use of marijuana by adults, and to serve as an advocate for consumers to assure they have access to high quality marijuana that is safe, convenient and affordable.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
High sensation-seekers' quest for new experiences leads some to the high-stress jobs society needs done but makes others vulnerable to reckless behavior.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
From drug possession to drug trafficking, a look at laws regulating controlled substances.

Drug laws and drug crimes have gotten lots of attention in the past decade. Laws in every state and at the federal level prohibit the possession, manufacture, and sale of certain controlled substances -- including drugs like marijuana, methamphetamine, ecstasy, cocaine, and heroin. (For more on a related topic, see Substance Abuse Treatment for Defendants Facing Drug and Other Charges.)

Putting aside political arguments over the so-called "war on drugs," it isn't hard to see why controlled substances are the focus of so much attention from legislators and law enforcement. It's estimated that drug and alcohol abuse costs society over $110 billion a year -- through accidental death and injuries, health care, dependency treatment, criminal behavior, and more. (To read about a shift in the federal government's approach to drug crime under President Obama, see the blog post Morally Mandatory.)

Illegal Drugs vs. Legal Drugs

The legality of a drug often depends on how it is being used -- or what it is being used for. For example, amphetamines are used to treat attention deficit disorder, barbiturates help treat anxiety, and marijuana can help alleviate cancer-induced nausea. But unprescribed and unsupervised use of these substances (and many others) is thought to present a danger to individuals and to society in general. So, for decades, lawmakers have stepped in to regulate the use, abuse, manufacture, and sale of illegal drugs.

Federal, State, and Local Drug Laws

Though there is a longstanding federal strategy in place to combat the abuse and distribution of controlled substances, each state also has its own set of drug laws. One key difference between the two is that while the majority of federal drug convictions are obtained for trafficking, the majority of local and state arrests are made on charges of possession. Out of these state and local arrests, over half are for the possession of marijuana.

Another difference between federal and state drug laws is the severity of consequences after a conviction. Federal drug charges generally carry harsher punishments and longer sentences. State arrests for simple possession (i.e. possession without intent to distribute the drug) tend to be charged as misdemeanors and usually involve probation, a short term in a local jail, or a fine -- depending on the criminal history and age of the person being charged.

Drug Crimes: Charges and Terminology

In both the federal and state criminal justice systems, most of the cases stem from charges of possession, manufacturing, or trafficking of controlled substances. Below you'll find a brief overview of these offenses, as well as an explanation of some key terms related to drug crimes.

Controlled Substance

When a federal or state government classifies a certain substance as "controlled," it generally means that the use and distribution of the substance is governed by law. Controlled substances are often classified at different levels or "schedules" under federal and state statutes. For example, under the federal Controlled Substances Act, marijuana is listed as a "Schedule I controlled substance," cocaine is listed under Schedule II, anabolic steroids under Schedule III, and so on. The list includes a number of medications that are fairly common -- you'll find cough medicine containing low levels of codeine classified under Schedule V.

Distribution and Trafficking

As a drug charge, "distribution" usually means that a person is accused of selling, delivering, or providing controlled substances illegally. This charge is often used if someone tries to sell drugs to an undercover officer. Trafficking generally refers to the illegal sale and/or distribution of a controlled substance. Despite the name, trafficking has less to do with whether the drugs cross state lines, and more to do with the amount of drugs involved.

The consequences of a conviction for distribution and trafficking vary significantly depending on:

the type and amount of the controlled substances(s) involved

the location where the defendant was apprehended (for example, bringing an illegal substance into the country carries higher penalties, as does distributing drugs near a school or college), and

the defendant's criminal history.

Sentences for distribution and trafficking generally range from 3 years and a significant fine to life in prison -- with trafficking carrying higher sentences.

Manufacturing

Under federal and state drug laws, the government can charge a person for playing a part in the cultivation or manufacture of a controlled substance. Cultivation includes growing, possessing, or producing naturally occurring elements in order to make illegal controlled substances. These elements include cannabis seeds, marijuana plants, etc. A person can also be charged for producing or creating illegal controlled substances through chemical processes or in a laboratory. Substances created this way include LSD, cocaine, methamphetamine, etc.

Possession

The most common drug charge -- especially in arrests made under local drug laws -- involves possession of a controlled substance. Generally, for a possession conviction, the government (usually in the form of a district attorney) must prove that the accused person:

knowingly and intentionally possessed a controlled substance

without a valid prescription, and

in a quantity sufficient for personal use or sale.

A possession charge can be based on actual or "constructive" possession of a controlled substance. Constructive possession means that even if the defendant doesn't actually have the drugs on their person (in a pocket, for example), a possession charge is still possible if the defendant had access to and control over the place where the drugs were found (a locker, for example). This is important to note because, unlike DUI/DWI laws, the government does not have to actually prove that someone is using a controlled substance in order to charge them with possession. The theory of constructive possession is often used when illegal drugs are found in a car during a traffic stop.

It is also usually illegal to possess paraphernalia associated with drug use, such as syringes, cocaine pipes, scales, etc. In fact, being found in possession of these objects -- without any actual drugs -- may be enough for a person to be charged with a misdemeanor or felony.

Drug charges often start with possession, but then overlap with other offenses. For example, if the police find marijuana plants in X's storage room, X can be charged with possession of the marijuana and of cultivation equipment. If the amount of the plants is large enough, X can also face distribution, trafficking, or manufacturing charges.

Charges for simple possession are often less serious than charges for possession with an intent to distribute. The difference here does not necessarily turn on an actual intent to distribute, but on the amount of the substance found in the defendant's possession (i.e. smaller amounts are usually charged as misdemeanors, while larger amounts can be used to suggest felony possession with an intent to distribute).

Diversion. Many states allow diversion for first-time offenders charged with simple possession of illegal drugs. Diversion allows offenders to maintain a clean criminal record by pleading guilty and then completing a prescribed substance abuse program and not committing additional offenses. At the conclusion of the diversionary period (18 months is common) the guilty please is vacated, the case is dismissed, and the offender can legally claim never to have been arrested or convicted of a crime.

"Search and Seizure" Laws

The most common defense to a drug charge -- especially drug possession charges -- is a claim that a police officer overstepped search and seizure laws in detaining a person and obtaining evidence. If a defendant in a criminal case (usually through a criminal defense attorney) can prove that the police violated the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights in finding and seizing drug evidence, that evidence may not be admissible in a criminal case against the defendant. (To learn more about illegal search and seizure and your Fourth Amendment rights, see Nolo's article Understanding Search and Seizure Law.)

Drug Laws and Drug Charges: Learn More

If you or a loved one have been arrested and charged with a drug crime like possession of a controlled substance, there are steps you can take now to understand the situation and protect your legal rights. To learn how to navigate and survive the criminal justice system, read The Criminal Law Handbook, by Paul Bergman and Sara Berman (Nolo). Or if you're looking for legal help now, use Nolo's trusted Lawyer Directory to find a criminal defense attorney near you.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From drug possession to drug trafficking, a look at laws regulating controlled substances. Drug laws and drug crimes have gotten lots of attention in the past decade. Laws in every state and at the federal level prohibit the possession, manufacture, and sale of certain controlled substances -- including drugs like marijuana, methamphetamine, ecstasy, cocaine, and heroin.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
sports law: an overviewSports Law encompasses a multitude areas of law brought together in unique ways. Issues such as antitrust, contracts, and torts are quite common. For further information in these areas see:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Thousands of people still die because they didn't buckle up.

Safety belt laws

There are mandatory safety belt laws in all states except New Hampshire. In some states, these laws cover front-seat occupants only, but belt laws in 29 states and the District of Columbia cover all rear-seat occupants, too.

Belt use laws in only 34 states and the District of Columbia are primary, meaning police may stop vehicles solely for belt law violations. In other jurisdictions, police must have some other reason to stop a vehicle before citing an occupant for failing to buckle up.

Safety belt use can have implications in civil suits - 16 states allow the "safety belt defense," which can reduce damages collected by someone in a crash if the person failed to buckle up. The reduction is permitted only for injuries that would have been prevented by a belt. In some states, the reduction may not exceed a fixed percentage of the damages.

Child safety seat laws

All 50 states and the District of Columbia have child safety seat laws. Child safety seat laws require children to travel in approved child restraints or booster seats and some permit or require older children to use adult safety belts. The age at which belts can be used instead of child safety seats differs among the states. Young children usually are covered by child safety seat laws, while safety belt laws cover older children and adults.

Because enforcement and fines differ under belt use and child safety seat laws, it's important to know which law is being violated when a child isn't restrained. Most child seat safety laws are primary, meaning police may stop vehicles solely for child safety seat violations. Nebraska and Ohio leave some children under a secondary enforcement law, meaning that police must have an additional reason to make a stop. Nebraska's law is secondary only for those children who may be in safety belts and primary for those who must be in a child safety seat. Ohio's law is secondary for children ages 4 through 14 years.

Ideally, all infants and children in all vehicles should be covered by enforceable safety belt laws or child safety seat laws or both. But differences in the way the laws in various states are worded result in many occupants, especially children, being covered by neither law. Lawmakers have eliminated most of these gaps by amending their child safety seat and safety belt laws; still, 15-year-olds riding in the rear seat in Arkansas, Alabama and Ohio, and children age 9 or older who are not taller than 4 feet 9 inches riding in the rear seat in Oklahoma are covered by neither law. All children younger than 16 in the other 46 states and the District of Columbia are covered by one, or both laws.

In April 2011, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a policy statement recommending that children ride in rear-facing child safety seats until at least age 2. Previously, the recommendation was rear-facing until at least age 1 and 20 pounds. Since the AAP's change, eleven states (California, Connecticut, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon and Virginia) have updated their child restraint laws accordingly.

Safety belt law

Child seat law

State

Initial
effective
date

Primary
enforcement?

Who is covered?
In what seats?

Maximum base fine 1st offense, additional fees may apply

Must be in
child safety seat

Adult belt permissible

Maximum base fine 1st offense, additional fees may apply

Preference for
rear seat

SC

8+ years in all seats

younger than 2 years in rear-facing child restraint until exceeding manufacturer height/weight limit; children younger than 2 who outgrow rear-facing system and children 2 and older must be in forward-facing restraint with harness until exceeding manufacturer height/weight limit; children 4 and older who outgrow forward-facing child restraint must be in belt positioning booster using lap/shoulder belts until child is at least 8 years or at least 57 inches

8 years or at least 57 inches tall if (1) lap belt fits across hips and thighs, not abdomen (2) shoulder belt crosses center of chest and not neck (3) knees bend over seat edge when sitting up straight with his/her back firmly against seat back

7 years and younger must be in the rear seat if available

UT

16+ years in all seats

7 years and younger and shorter than 57 inches

8 through 15 years; all children 57 inches or taller

law states no preference for rear seat

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Thousands of people still die because they didn't buckle up. There are mandatory safety belt laws in all states except New Hampshire. In some states, these laws cover front-seat occupants only, but belt laws in 29 states and the District of Columbia cover all rear-seat occupants, too.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Jack Katz, an associate professor of sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles, begins his excellent book by noting that sociological and psychological studies of violent crimes such as robbery rarely focus on its recreational aspects, on what he calls ''the authentic attractions'' of high-risk criminal violence. The particular pleasures of these crimes are not materialistic in his view; instead we can find out why people commit them by learning ''what it means, feels, sounds, tastes, or looks like'' to commit them. What makes crime attractive are the pleasures of consumption, as is true of other forms of recreation such as gambling or adultery.

Mr. Katz has written a series of interpretive essays on what he calls the sensual appeal of homicide, shoplifting and armed robbery. By concentrating on how and why offenders might find such behavior attractive and worth repeating, he tells us much about the personality styles of people who are drawn to violent crime and provides important clues about its prevention and control.

''Follow vandals and amateur shoplifters as they duck into alleys and dressing rooms and you will be moved by their delight in deviance,'' Mr. Katz writes. ''Watch their strutting street display and you will be struck by the awesome fascination that symbols of evil hold for the young men who are linked in the groups we often call gangs. . . . The careers of persistent robbers show us, not the increasingly precise calculations . . . of 'professionals,' but men for whom gambling and other vices are a way of life.''

What links these interpretations for Mr. Katz is an emphasis on what he calls the ''moral emotions'' as an explanation for the appeals of crime.

The material for these interpretive essays comes from first-person accounts from college students, from research by other scholars and from a wide reading of the social science literature on crime. Mr. Katz sifts through these materials almost in the style of a literary critic in pursuit of a grand and plausible thesis about the motives of criminal activity.

Shoplifting in this account is less a property crime than the pursuit of what the author calls ''sneaky thrills.'' In an essay based on recollections from college students, Mr. Katz makes a compelling case that middle-class adolescents are drawn to in-store theft for the thrilling fun of the act rather than a need or desire for material goods. It is thus the war against boredom rather than that against poverty that recruits these young offenders to theft. The consequences of this analysis for policy are direct: make the game less fun and the rate of offense goes down; ignore the ''sneaky thrill'' aspect of shoplifting and anti-theft policies may fail at the starting gate.

The most significant contribution of ''Seductions of Crime'' is in Mr. Katz's examination of the social psychology of violent street crime, particularly robbery. He argues against the notion that street gangs, or ''street elites,'' are victims of the violent nature of the urban ghetto.

''The violence of these groups,'' Mr. Katz writes, ''does not necessarily follow from the nature of the ghetto as an oppressive social background; rather, groups must use violence to create an oppressive background if they are to bring into relief their effective presence.'' Gang members thus depend on the violent nature of ghetto life for their status in the community.

The book's most substantial contribution to criminology is its discussion of armed robbery. Mr. Katz contends that robbery is a crime of dominance as much as a crime of acquisition. It is not only the property acquired but the ceremony of domination that appeals to an offender who chooses to commit armed robbery. Mr. Katz then carries this analysis forward by arguing that only those committed to a self-image as ''hard men,'' who revel in the almost certain risk of punishment, can persist in careers in robbery; any offender more interested in material rewards would give up robbery early in his career. Mr. Katz then ties the taste for robbery to life styles that emphasize the preference of short-term hedonists for risk and thrill-seeking. Turning to crime statistics, Mr. Katz argues that the reason women are underrepresented in robbery arrests is the disinclination of most women to subscribe to the cultural style of the thrill-seeking ''hard man.'' The overrepresentation of big-city black males in robbery arrests, he argues, is tied to the presence of this lifestyle as a male pattern in many ghetto neighborhoods. It is the persistence of this cultural pattern that plays a major role in explaining the particularly American problems of robbery and robbery-homicide.

This interpretation of robbery is persuasively argued, well researched and ultimately convincing. Less convincing are Mr. Katz's discussion of criminal homicide and a concluding attack on what the author calls materialistic sociology. While intelligent and creative, the chapters on homicide do not display the instinct for the behavioral jugular that animates Mr. Katz's analysis of robbery. Instead, the reader encounters high-risk generalizations, often from a limited data base. An attack on the sociologist Robert Merton appears both overstated and gratuitous.

The book also suffers from some of the flaws of contemporary American sociological analyses. The prose style and syntax are frequently labored. The terms ''moral'' and ''morally'' are used in seven or eight different ways, including four distinct usages on one page. Psychological and psychiatric theories are not given anything close to equal time in Mr. Katz's review of recent literature. And this analysis is less than warm-hearted toward the economic analysis of crime.

But these are the problems of a first-rate sociological analysis. The book is brimming with insight and intelligence. The portrait of street crime and the street criminal in these pages is uncomfortably accurate. ''Seductions of Crime'' is a significant addition to the literature on American violent crime.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Jack Katz, an associate professor of sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles, begins his excellent book by noting that sociological and psychological studies of violent crimes such as robbery rarely focus on its recreational aspects, on what he calls ''the authentic attractions'' of high-risk criminal violence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The health and safety of our users is paramount. We are taking an active part in the creation of the new British standards for Parkour facilities, having a member of our team on the steering group contributing to their conception.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Personalities who seek thrills -- so-called "high sensation seekers" -- have a higher risk of addiction than those who are not thrill-seekers. Thrill seeking spikes dopamine just like drugs do.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Adolescents are too often motivated by curiosity and the pressure to perform sexually as expressed by friends, love, interest and the media. They are not learning to control their sexuality and protect their reproductive systems in a responsible way.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Disabled Ontario boy told to stand to prove tall enough to ride bumper cars

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gage Desjardins is just like any other 4-year-old. He's bright, energetic and loves to have fun.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many people assume that marijuana was made illegal through some kind of process involving scientific, medical, and government hearings; that it was to protect the citizens from what was determined to be a dangerous drug.

The actual story shows a much different picture. Those who voted on the legal fate of this plant never had the facts, but were dependent on information supplied by those who had a specific agenda to deceive lawmakers. You'll see below that the very first federal vote to prohibit marijuana was based entirely on a documented lie on the floor of the Senate.

You'll also see that the history of marijuana's criminalization is filled with:

Racism

Fear

Protection of Corporate Profits

Yellow Journalism

Ignorant, Incompetent, and/or Corrupt Legislators

Personal Career Advancement and Greed

These are the actual reasons marijuana is illegal.

Background

For most of human history, marijuana has been completely legal. It's not a recently discovered plant, nor is it a long-standing law. Marijuana has been illegal for less than 1% of the time that it's been in use. Its known uses go back further than 7,000 B.C. and it was legal as recently as when Ronald Reagan was a boy.

The marijuana (hemp) plant, of course, has an incredible number of uses. The earliest known woven fabric was apparently of hemp, and over the centuries the plant was used for food, incense, cloth, rope, and much more. This adds to some of the confusion over its introduction in the United States, as the plant was well known from the early 1600's, but did not reach public awareness as a recreational drug until the early 1900's.

America's first marijuana law was enacted at Jamestown Colony, Virginia in 1619. It was a law "ordering" all farmers to grow Indian hempseed. There were several other "must grow" laws over the next 200 years (you could be jailed for not growing hemp during times of shortage in Virginia between 1763 and 1767), and during most of that time, hemp was legal tender (you could even pay your taxes with hemp - try that today!) Hemp was such a critical crop for a number of purposes (including essential war requirements - rope, etc.) that the government went out of its way to encourage growth.

The United States Census of 1850 counted 8,327 hemp "plantations" (minimum 2,000-acre farm) growing cannabis hemp for cloth, canvas and even the cordage used for baling cotton.
The Mexican Connection
In the early 1900s, the western states developed significant tensions regarding the influx of Mexican-Americans. The revolution in Mexico in 1910 spilled over the border, with General Pershing's army clashing with bandit Pancho Villa. Later in that decade, bad feelings developed between the small farmer and the large farms that used cheaper Mexican labor. Then, the depression came and increased tensions, as jobs and welfare resources became scarce.

One of the "differences" seized upon during this time was the fact that many Mexicans smoked marijuana and had brought the plant with them, and it was through this that California apparently passed the first state marijuana law, outlawing "preparations of hemp, or loco weed."

However, one of the first state laws outlawing marijuana may have been influenced, not just by Mexicans using the drug, but, oddly enough, because of Mormons using it. Mormons who traveled to Mexico in 1910 came back to Salt Lake City with marijuana. The church's reaction to this may have contributed to the state's marijuana law. (Note: the source for this speculation is from articles by Charles Whitebread, Professor of Law at USC Law School in a paper for the Virginia Law Review, and a speech to the California Judges Association (sourced below). Mormon blogger Ardis Parshall disputes this.)

Other states quickly followed suit with marijuana prohibition laws, including Wyoming (1915), Texas (1919), Iowa (1923), Nevada (1923), Oregon (1923), Washington (1923), Arkansas (1923), and Nebraska (1927). These laws tended to be specifically targeted against the Mexican-American population.

When Montana outlawed marijuana in 1927, the Butte Montana Standard reported a legislator's comment: "When some beet field peon takes a few traces of this stuff... he thinks he has just been elected president of Mexico, so he starts out to execute all his political enemies." In Texas, a senator said on the floor of the Senate: "All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff [marijuana] is what makes them crazy."
Jazz and Assassins
In the eastern states, the "problem" was attributed to a combination of Latin Americans and black jazz musicians. Marijuana and jazz traveled from New Orleans to Chicago, and then to Harlem, where marijuana became an indispensable part of the music scene, even entering the language of the black hits of the time (Louis Armstrong's "Muggles", Cab Calloway's "That Funny Reefer Man", Fats Waller's "Viper's Drag").

Again, racism was part of the charge against marijuana, as newspapers in 1934 editorialized: "Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice."

Two other fear-tactic rumors started to spread: one, that Mexicans, Blacks and other foreigners were snaring white children with marijuana; and two, the story of the "assassins." Early stories of Marco Polo had told of "hasheesh-eaters" or hashashin, from which derived the term "assassin." In the original stories, these professional killers were given large doses of hashish and brought to the ruler's garden (to give them a glimpse of the paradise that awaited them upon successful completion of their mission). Then, after the effects of the drug disappeared, the assassin would fulfill his ruler's wishes with cool, calculating loyalty.

By the 1930s, the story had changed. Dr. A. E. Fossier wrote in the 1931 New Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal: "Under the influence of hashish those fanatics would madly rush at their enemies, and ruthlessly massacre every one within their grasp." Within a very short time, marijuana started being linked to violent behavior.
Alcohol Prohibition and Federal Approaches to Drug Prohibition
During this time, the United States was also dealing with alcohol prohibition, which lasted from 1919 to 1933. Alcohol prohibition was extremely visible and debated at all levels, while drug laws were passed without the general public's knowledge. National alcohol prohibition happened through the mechanism of an amendment to the constitution.

Earlier (1914), the Harrison Act was passed, which provided federal tax penalties for opiates and cocaine.

The federal approach is important. It was considered at the time that the federal government did not have the constitutional power to outlaw alcohol or drugs. It is because of this that alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment.

At that time in our country's history, the judiciary regularly placed the tenth amendment in the path of congressional regulation of "local" affairs, and direct regulation of medical practice was considered beyond congressional power under the commerce clause (since then, both provisions have been weakened so far as to have almost no meaning).

Since drugs could not be outlawed at the federal level, the decision was made to use federal taxes as a way around the restriction. In the Harrison Act, legal uses of opiates and cocaine were taxed (supposedly as a revenue need by the federal government, which is the only way it would hold up in the courts), and those who didn't follow the law found themselves in trouble with the treasury department.

In 1930, a new division in the Treasury Department was established - the Federal Bureau of Narcotics - and Harry J. Anslinger was named director. This, if anything, marked the beginning of the all-out war against marijuana.

Harry J. Anslinger

Anslinger was an extremely ambitious man, and he recognized the Bureau of Narcotics as an amazing career opportunity - a new government agency with the opportunity to define both the problem and the solution. He immediately realized that opiates and cocaine wouldn't be enough to help build his agency, so he latched on to marijuana and started to work on making it illegal at the federal level.

Anslinger immediately drew upon the themes of racism and violence to draw national attention to the problem he wanted to create. He also promoted and frequently read from "Gore Files" - wild reefer-madness-style exploitation tales of ax murderers on marijuana and sex and... Negroes. Here are some quotes that have been widely attributed to Anslinger and his Gore Files:

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."
"...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."

"Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."

"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."

"Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing"

"You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother."

"Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."

And he loved to pull out his own version of the "assassin" definition:

"In the year 1090, there was founded in Persia the religious and military order of the Assassins, whose history is one of cruelty, barbarity, and murder, and for good reason: the members were confirmed users of hashish, or marihuana, and it is from the Arabs' 'hashashin' that we have the English word 'assassin.'"

Yellow Journalism

Harry Anslinger got some additional help from William Randolf Hearst, owner of a huge chain of newspapers. Hearst had lots of reasons to help. First, he hated Mexicans. Second, he had invested heavily in the timber industry to support his newspaper chain and didn't want to see the development of hemp paper in competition. Third, he had lost 800,000 acres of timberland to Pancho Villa, so he hated Mexicans. Fourth, telling lurid lies about Mexicans (and the devil marijuana weed causing violence) sold newspapers, making him rich.

Some samples from the San Francisco Examiner:

"Marihuana makes fiends of boys in thirty days - Hashish goads users to bloodlust."
"By the tons it is coming into this country - the deadly, dreadful poison that racks and tears not only the body, but the very heart and soul of every human being who once becomes a slave to it in any of its cruel and devastating forms.... Marihuana is a short cut to the insane asylum. Smoke marihuana cigarettes for a month and what was once your brain will be nothing but a storehouse of horrid specters. Hasheesh makes a murderer who kills for the love of killing out of the mildest mannered man who ever laughed at the idea that any habit could ever get him...."

And other nationwide columns...

"Users of marijuana become STIMULATED as they inhale the drug and are LIKELY TO DO ANYTHING. Most crimes of violence in this section, especially in country districts are laid to users of that drug."
"Was it marijuana, the new Mexican drug, that nerved the murderous arm of Clara Phillips when she hammered out her victim's life in Los Angeles?... THREE-FOURTHS OF THE CRIMES of violence in this country today are committed by DOPE SLAVES - that is a matter of cold record."

Hearst and Anslinger were then supported by Dupont chemical company and various pharmaceutical companies in the effort to outlaw cannabis. Dupont had patented nylon, and wanted hemp removed as competition. The pharmaceutical companies could neither identify nor standardize cannabis dosages, and besides, with cannabis, folks could grow their own medicine and not have to purchase it from large companies.

This all set the stage for...
The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.
After two years of secret planning, Anslinger brought his plan to Congress - complete with a scrapbook full of sensational Hearst editorials, stories of ax murderers who had supposedly smoked marijuana, and racial slurs.

It was a remarkably short set of hearings.

The one fly in Anslinger's ointment was the appearance by Dr. William C. Woodward, Legislative Council of the American Medical Association.

Woodward started by slamming Harry Anslinger and the Bureau of Narcotics for distorting earlier AMA statements that had nothing to do with marijuana and making them appear to be AMA endorsement for Anslinger's view.

He also reproached the legislature and the Bureau for using the term marijuana in the legislation and not publicizing it as a bill about cannabis or hemp. At this point, marijuana (or marihuana) was a sensationalist word used to refer to Mexicans smoking a drug and had not been connected in most people's minds to the existing cannabis/hemp plant. Thus, many who had legitimate reasons to oppose the bill weren't even aware of it.

Woodward went on to state that the AMA was opposed to the legislation and further questioned the approach of the hearings, coming close to outright accusation of misconduct by Anslinger and the committee:

"That there is a certain amount of narcotic addiction of an objectionable character no one will deny. The newspapers have called attention to it so prominently that there must be some grounds for [their] statements [even Woodward was partially taken in by Hearst's propaganda]. It has surprised me, however, that the facts on which these statements have been based have not been brought before this committee by competent primary evidence. We are referred to newspaper publications concerning the prevalence of marihuana addiction. We are told that the use of marihuana causes crime.

But yet no one has been produced from the Bureau of Prisons to show the number of prisoners who have been found addicted to the marihuana habit. An informed inquiry shows that the Bureau of Prisons has no evidence on that point.

You have been told that school children are great users of marihuana cigarettes. No one has been summoned from the Children's Bureau to show the nature and extent of the habit, among children.

Inquiry of the Children's Bureau shows that they have had no occasion to investigate it and know nothing particularly of it.

Inquiry of the Office of Education- and they certainly should know something of the prevalence of the habit among the school children of the country, if there is a prevalent habit- indicates that they have had no occasion to investigate and know nothing of it.

Moreover, there is in the Treasury Department itself, the Public Health Service, with its Division of Mental Hygiene. The Division of Mental Hygiene was, in the first place, the Division of Narcotics. It was converted into the Division of Mental Hygiene, I think, about 1930. That particular Bureau has control at the present time of the narcotics farms that were created about 1929 or 1930 and came into operation a few years later. No one has been summoned from that Bureau to give evidence on that point.

Informal inquiry by me indicates that they have had no record of any marihuana of Cannabis addicts who have ever been committed to those farms.

The bureau of Public Health Service has also a division of pharmacology. If you desire evidence as to the pharmacology of Cannabis, that obviously is the place where you can get direct and primary evidence, rather than the indirect hearsay evidence."

Committee members then proceeded to attack Dr. Woodward, questioning his motives in opposing the legislation. Even the Chairman joined in:

The Chairman: If you want to advise us on legislation, you ought to come here with some constructive proposals, rather than criticism, rather than trying to throw obstacles in the way of something that the Federal Government is trying to do. It has not only an unselfish motive in this, but they have a serious responsibility.

Dr. Woodward: We cannot understand yet, Mr. Chairman, why this bill should have been prepared in secret for 2 years without any intimation, even, to the profession, that it was being prepared.

After some further bantering...

The Chairman: I would like to read a quotation from a recent editorial in the Washington Times:

The marihuana cigarette is one of the most insidious of all forms of dope, largely because of the failure of the public to understand its fatal qualities.

The Nation is almost defenseless against it, having no Federal laws to cope with it and virtually no organized campaign for combating it.

The result is tragic.

School children are the prey of peddlers who infest school neighborhoods.

High school boys and girls buy the destructive weed without knowledge of its capacity of harm, and conscienceless dealers sell it with impunity.

This is a national problem, and it must have national attention.

The fatal marihuana cigarette must be recognized as a deadly drug, and American children must be protected against it.

That is a pretty severe indictment. They say it is a national question and that it requires effective legislation. Of course, in a general way, you have responded to all of these statements; but that indicates very clearly that it is an evil of such magnitude that it is recognized by the press of the country as such.

And that was basically it. Yellow journalism won over medical science.

The committee passed the legislation on. And on the floor of the house, the entire discussion was:

Member from upstate New York: "Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?"

Speaker Rayburn: "I don't know. It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it's a narcotic of some kind."
"Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?"
Member on the committee jumps up and says: "Their Doctor Wentworth[sic] came down here. They support this bill 100 percent."

And on the basis of that lie, on August 2, 1937, marijuana became illegal at the federal level.

The entire coverage in the New York Times: "President Roosevelt signed today a bill to curb traffic in the narcotic, marihuana, through heavy taxes on transactions."
Anslinger as precursor to the Drug Czars
Anslinger was essentially the first Drug Czar. Even though the term didn't exist until William Bennett's position as director of the White House Office of National Drug Policy, Anslinger acted in a similar fashion. In fact, there are some amazing parallels between Anslinger and the current Drug Czar John Walters. Both had kind of a carte blanche to go around demonizing drugs and drug users. Both had resources and a large public podium for their voice to be heard and to promote their personal agenda. Both lied constantly, often when it was unnecessary. Both were racists. Both had the ear of lawmakers, and both realized that they could persuade legislators and others based on lies, particularly if they could co-opt the media into squelching or downplaying any opposition views.

Anslinger even had the ability to circumvent the First Amendment. He banned the Canadian movie "Drug Addict," a 1946 documentary that realistically depicted the drug addicts and law enforcement efforts. He even tried to get Canada to ban the movie in their own country, or failing that, to prevent U.S. citizens from seeing the movie in Canada. Canada refused. (Today, Drug Czar John Walters is trying to bully Canada into keeping harsh marijuana laws.)

Anslinger had 37 years to solidify the propaganda and stifle opposition. The lies continued the entire time (although the stories would adjust - the 21 year old Florida boy who killed his family of five got younger each time he told it). In 1961, he looked back at his efforts:

"Much of the most irrational juvenile violence and that has written a new chapter of shame and tragedy is traceable directly to this hemp intoxication. A gang of boys tear the clothes from two school girls and rape the screaming girls, one boy after the other. A sixteen-year-old kills his entire family of five in Florida, a man in Minnesota puts a bullet through the head of a stranger on the road; in Colorado husband tries to shoot his wife, kills her grandmother instead and then kills himself. Every one of these crimes had been proceeded [sic] by the smoking of one or more marijuana "reefers." As the marijuana situation grew worse, I knew action had to be taken to get the proper legislation passed. By 1937 under my direction, the Bureau launched two important steps First, a legislative plan to seek from Congress a new law that would place marijuana and its distribution directly under federal control. Second, on radio and at major forums, such that presented annually by the New York Herald Tribune, I told the story of this evil weed of the fields and river beds and roadsides. I wrote articles for magazines; our agents gave hundreds of lectures to parents, educators, social and civic leaders. In network broadcasts I reported on the growing list of crimes, including murder and rape. I described the nature of marijuana and its close kinship to hashish. I continued to hammer at the facts.
I believe we did a thorough job, for the public was alerted and the laws to protect them were passed, both nationally and at the state level. We also brought under control the wild growing marijuana in this country. Working with local authorities, we cleaned up hundreds of acres of marijuana and we uprooted plants sprouting along the roadsides."

After Anslinger
On a break from college in the 70s, I was visiting a church in rural Illinois. There in the literature racks in the back of the church was a lurid pamphlet about the evils of marijuana - all the old reefer madness propaganda about how it caused insanity and murder. I approached the minister and said "You can't have this in your church. It's all lies, and the church shouldn't be about promoting lies." Fortunately, my dad believed me, and he had the material removed. He didn't even know how it got there. But without me speaking up, neither he nor the other members of the church had any reason NOT to believe what the pamphlet said. The propaganda machine had been that effective.

The narrative since then has been a continual litany of:

Politicians wanting to appear tough on crime and passing tougher penalties

Constant increases in spending on law enforcement and prisons

Racist application of drug laws

Taxpayer funded propaganda

Stifling of opposition speech

Political contributions from corporations that profit from marijuana being illegal (pharmaceuticals, alcohol, etc.)

... but that's another whole story.
Interlude...

This account only scratches the surface of the story. If you want to know more about the history of marijuana, Harry Anslinger, and the saga of criminalization in the United States and elsewhere, visit some of the excellent links below. (All data and quotes for this piece came from these sources as well).

* The History of the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in the United States by Charles Whitebread, Professor of Law, USC Law School. A Speech to the California Judges Association 1995 annual conference.

* THE FORBIDDEN FRUIT AND THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE: AN INQUIRY INTO THE LEGAL HISTORY OF AMERICAN MARIJUANA PROHIBITION by
Richard J. Bonnie & Charles H. Whitebread, II. VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW. VOLUME 56 OCTOBER 1970 NUMBER 6

* The Consumers Union Report - Licit and Illicit Drugs
by Edward M. Brecher and the Editors of Consumer Reports Magazine

* The History of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937
By David F. Musto, M.D., New Haven, Conn.
Originally published in Arch. Gen. Psychiat. Volume 26, February, 1972

* The Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse
I. Control of Marihuana, Alcohol and Tobacco.
History of Marihuana Legislation

* The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.
The history of how the Marihuana Tax Act came to be the law of the land.

* Marijuana - The First Twelve Thousand Years by Ernest L. Abel, 1980

[Porqué la marihuana es ilegal]
http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many people assume that marijuana was made illegal through some kind of process involving scientific, medical, and government hearings; that it was to protect the citizens from what was determined to be a dangerous drug. The actual story shows a much different picture.