Pubdate: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 Source: Sacramento News & Review (CA) Copyright: 2010 David Urman Contact: http://newsreview.com/sacto/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/540 Author: David Urman Referenced: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10/n531/a03.html 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 - --- MAP posted-by: Jo-D