In the aftermath of WW2, the US became a superpower and used this position to influence the UN’s Commission on Narcotic Drugs. So cannabis was deemed dangerous and with little therapeutic benefits. This classification wasn’t scientifically based, but rather leaned on common knowledge and superstitions. Yet, it still stands, and this is basically how cannabis became illegal in most of the world.
The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs is a treaty signed by 186 UN parties, unifying all past international treaties on narcotic drugs. It also lists cannabis as a Schedule 4 drug, the most severe classification, basically positioning it next to heroin as a “particularly dangerous drug with little or no therapeutic value,” prohibiting any recreational use and drastically limiting medicinal use. This decision drastically shifted both the perception of cannabis as a valid remedy and its availability globally. The treaty was signed on March 30, 1961, though today cannabis is gaining a growing amount of popularity as a medicinal plant, and there is plenty of research to back this reputation. And yet it’s still listed as a Schedule 4 drug.
UN General Assembly Hall, New York City (Shutterstock)
One of the reasons for this legislative dissonance is the fact that defining cannabis as a Schedule 4 drug wasn’t backed by any scientific knowledge to begin with. For years the official stance of both governments and international health organizations followed the 1961 convention with regards to the medicinal properties of cannabis, or lack thereof, representing the plant as
addictive and dangerous, a gateway drug. Fast forward to today, cannabis legitimacy as a remedy is constantly growing. To understand how the US influenced the legislative and cultural status of cannabis globally, a brief look at domestic policy is needed.
From an innocent plant to the devil’s creation
Modern use of cannabis as a medical treatment started with the work of the Irish physician William Brooke O’Shaughnessy and, separately, the French physician Jaque-Joseph Moreau. Cannabis as a treatment grew in popularity around the world and the US was no exception. In 1850 it entered the
US Pharmacopeia, the official book listing all medicinal drugs, their effects and instructions for use. Cannabis was used for conditions such as gout, typhus, opiate addiction, abnormal uterine bleeding, and more.
But then in the early 1930s, something changed. A nationwide campaign vilifying and delegitimizing cannabis was launched by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, the FBN (one of the DEA’s precursors), and especially by the man at its helm, Harry Anslinger.
Cannabis has historically been used in medicine around the world (The Cannigma/Anthony Travagliante)
Cannabis was rebaptized and was commonly referred to as marijuana, the name used by the growing Hispanic population arriving from Mexico. According to the British author Martin Booth in his book
Cannabis: A History, this change in terminology was designed by Anslinger as part of his campaign against cannabis. This was most likely a tactic aiming to play on rampant xenophobia in America at the time.
For instance, Anslinger once asserted in a congressional testimony, “Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.” Another good representation for cannabis perception at the time was the movie
Reefer Madness, a propaganda film that vilifies and demonizes cannabis. Watching merely 20 seconds of the movie’s
trailer is enough to get the general idea.
This quote also shines a light on both Anslinger’s intentions and the US zeitgeist: “There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are N*groes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with N*groes, entertainers and any others.”
The campaign succeeded; in 1937 Congress passed the Marijuana Tax Act, prohibiting recreational use nationally, and imposing taxes on medical cannabis producers, prescribing physicians, and pharmacists. The final result was that it was just too complicated and expensive to treat patients with cannabis. Eventually, a few years later, in 1941, cannabis was removed from the
US Pharmacopeia.
The roots of cannabis demonization
Without diving into theories of why Anslinger and the FBN systematically persecuted cannabis, let’s take a quick look at some of the potential factors at play. To be clear—this is little more than conjecture.
One theory that became popular thanks to Jack Herer’s book,
The Emperor Wears No Clothes, points to the fact that before the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act, fiber varieties of cannabis (hemp), were used for the production of paper and textile, and as such became a target for industrial giants like Randolph Hearst and the DuPont family. Herer established his theory upon the direct connection between Hearst and DuPont with Andrew W. Mellon, the Secretary of the Treasury, the bureau that is directly responsible for the FBN. Herer also points to the fact that it was Mellon who appointed Anslinger as head of the FBN, and that Anslinger was married to Mellon’s niece.
***********
From domestic legislation to international crusade
In 1948 the UN approved a US-backed resolution that requested a new treaty to replace all past treaties since the 1912 Hague convention. As you’ve probably guessed, those are the seeds of the 1961 treaty. The draft had three main objectives:
- Limit the production of raw materials (such as coca leaves, cannabis, and poppies)
- Codify past conventions into one
- Simplify the existing drug control mechanism.
The UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) inherited the responsibilities of the Advisory Committee of the League of Nations. Between 1950 and 1958 the above treaty went through three drafts. In terms of cannabis, one of the most important subjects was the question of medicinal value. In order to make things even less complicated, the UN-appointed the
World’s Health Organisation Expert Committee on Drugs Liable to Produce Addiction as the body responsible to determine if cannabis has any medicinal use.
The man chosen to chair this expert committee was somewhat suspect. Pablo Osvaldo Wolff was a close associate of Anslinger, who even wrote the preface to the English edition of Wolff’s book about the threats of cannabis. One commentator, Rufus King, goes so far as to suggest that
Wolff became the WHO’s cannabis expert thanks to US string pulling. Wolff’s role in the legislative dissonance mentioned above is imperative. He single-handedly steered the WHO’s stance on the medicinal benefits of cannabis (or lack thereof), and absurdly none of that was based on scientific facts.
****************
Firstly, though there was plenty of anecdotal evidence for the therapeutic benefits of cannabis, practically all major discoveries of its medicinal properties were made after 1961.
CBD and THC were isolated in their pure form in 1963 and 1964, and cannabinoid receptors 1 and 2 and the endocannabinoids anandamide and
2-AG were discovered in the 1980s and 1990s. So the plant wasn’t researched enough in order to determine its therapeutic value. And secondly, Wolff distorted information and cherry-picked evidence in order to promote his hypothesis about the lack of cannabis therapeutic benefits.
Eventually, the CND adopted the WHO’s suggestions, which were again, based on nothing that even resembles unbiased scientific knowledge. The 1961 treaty classified narcotics into 4 groups:
- Schedule 1 — highly addictive and liable to abuse (including opium, cannabis, heroin, and cocaine)
- Schedule 2 — less addictive and liable to abuse (codeine, for instance)
- Schedule 3 — preparations containing low amounts of narcotics and unlikely to be abused
- Schedule 4 — some Schedule 1 drugs that are particularly dangerous and have no medical use (heroin, cannabis)
The UN’s 2006 World Drug Report says: “much of the early material on cannabis is now considered inaccurate, and that a series of studies in a range of countries have exonerated cannabis of many of the charges leveled against it… Medical use of the active ingredients, if not the plant itself, is championed by respected professionals.”
