Ree er Madness at
The New Yori(Times
AMERICA'S PAPER OF RECORD, WHICH OFFICIALLY
AGAINST MARIJUANA PROHIBITION
PREVIOUS CENTURY CREDULOUSLY
JACOB SULLUM
"THEFEDERALGOVERNMENTshou ld repeal the ban on mar ijuana ."
The New York Times declared in a n ed itor ial published on Ju ly
27, 2014. That week, the paper ran a series of essays fleshing out
the case for legal izat ion, includ ing a piece in which editoria l
writer Brent Sta ples exposed t he ug ly roots or pot prohibit ion .
"The fede ral law that makes possess ion of marijuana a crime
bas its origins in legislation that was passed in an atmos phere of
hysteria du ring the 1930s a nd that was firm ly rooted in preju-
d ices against Mexican immigrants and African -Americans, who
were associated with marijuana use at the tin1e," Staples wrote.
He men tioned "sensa tionalistic newspaper a n icles" that tied
marijuana to "murde r a nd mayhe m" and "depicted pushers hov-
ering by the sc hoolhouse door turn ing ch ildren into 'addicts ."'
He did not mention t hat many suc h stories appea red in The New
York Times.
In the context of the era , when pa pers across the cou ntr y
were run ni ng news repons with head lines like "Evil Mexican
Plants That Drive You Insane" (Richmond Times-Dispatch) and
"Smoking\Veed Tur ns Mexicans to \Vild Beasts" (CheyenneState
Leader), th e Gray Lady's ma rijua na coverage during the first few
decades of the 20th century was not espec ially egregious . Butto
mode rn eyes, it is remarkably naive, alarmist , and racist. There
were occasional bu rsts of skepticism, but in general lhe paper
eage rly echoed the fantastica l fean n ongering of anti -d rug cru -
sade rs suc h as Harry J. An slinger. wh o ran the Federal Bureau
of Narcot ics (FBN) from 1930 to 1962.
The path the Times tra veled from promote r tooppo nent of pot
prohibition p arallels the journey of Americ.ans gene rally, mos t
of whom supported legalizat ion by th e time the paper 's edito -
rial board came arou nd o n the issue . In both cases, th e single
most powerful explanation for the reve rsa l ls growing famllia r-
ity with n1arijuana, which discredited the govern ment's clai ms
TURNED
IN 2014 , SPENT MOS T OF THE
PROMOTING IT .
about its hazards . Since exotic intoxicant s tend to be scarie r
than the ones you a nd your friends use. it is not surpr ising that
fear of marijua na receded as di rect or indi rect exper ience with
it became a norma l part of adolescence an d young adulth ood .
Conversely, people are m uch more inclined to accept outland
ish claims about drugs they have never personally encou n tered .
In that res pect. the supposedly sop histicated and empir ically
grounded journal ists employed by ?'he News York Times are no
different from thei r fellow citize ns.
'MEXICAN, CRAZED BY MARIHUANA , RUNS
AMUCK WITH BUTCHER KNIFE '
ON THE FACE of it, the facl t hal marij uana seemed exot ic to
Americans at the t urn of the 20th centu ry is puzili ng, since
it was a com n1on ingred ient in paten t medicines dur ing the
19th ce ntury. Elix irs contain ing canna bis were sold as treat
ments for a wide ra nge of ma ladies. includi ng coughs, colds,
corns . cholera . and cons umpt ion . An 1857 lett er to what was
then known as the New -York Daily Times even recom mended
ca nn abis l ndica , the East Ind ian hemp, known most wide ly
as Hesheesh," as "a sure counteractive to rhe poison of rabies ."
The letter cited "that famous benefac tor to medical scien ce,"
Irish physician \Villiam O'Shaughnessy, who encou ntered can
nabis as a folk cu re in Indi a and intr oduced it as a medicine to
Europeans in the ea rly 1840s . By 1876 , a Timesstory (reprinted
from The Boston Globe)was describi ng cannabis as a 111 edi cine
that "has been used by the facttlty here with g reat success in
cases of dropsy."
Butt hatwascannab is, a.k.a. Indian hemp .The fitstrefe re nce
to "the Marihuana" in the Times, in a 1901 story with a Mexico
City datel ine, descr ibed it as "a ha rmless -looking plant" chat
REASON 43

"sends its vict ims ru nning amuck when they awaken
from the long, death like sleep it produces ."
The o rigin of the word marijuana (also spelled mar-
lhuc111aand mariguarul) is uncertain. A quarter -
centu ry after the term first appeared in the Times.
the paper's Latin An1erica n correspondent
spec ul ated that it "is p robab ly a combinat ion
of the names Mary and Jane in Span ish. Maria y
Ju ana." By 1937, the year Congress banned the Fl.UIOEXI RACT
plan t in the U.S.,the Timeswas matter -of-factly
asserting that "the weed derives its name from
CANNABIS
INOICA
the Mexican equivalent of t he names of Mary
and Jolu1,a fact which th ose who are e ngaged in
--
...... .. .
the attac k on it say suggests its uni versal appea l
to boys and girls." Anslinger claimed mar(iuana
was derived frommallihuan, the Aztec word for
prlsorier. but th at seems unlike ly, since canna -
- ................
-- .......
. ~
bis was not known in Lat in America prior to the
arrival of Europeans in the 16th century .
In any case, the Ti1nes initia lly drew no con -
nec tion betwee n mar ijuana . th e drug smo ked by
Mexicans, and cannabis . the drug swallowed by
An1erlcan cons umers of Kohler's One -Night Cough
Cure and Dr. H. James ' Cannabis Indica. A 1921 report on "a
th rilling series of ra ids" in New York noted that "the only phase
of the tr affic n ot represe nt ed we re dea lers in cannabis in dica. or
hasheesh, an Oriental phase of dalliance with dre am-bringing
dr ugs th at the police say has been spreadi ng from Turks in New
York to nat ives here."
That "dream -bringing drug" does not sound so bad com pared
to the intoxicant the Times blamed for a killing spree that left
six people dead at aSonoran hospi ta l in 1925 . Except it was the
same dntg . Undertl1e headline "Mexican, Crazed by Marihu ana .
Runs Amuck \Vith Butcher Knife," th e Times reported t hat the
assa ilant later "den ied all knowledge of the affray."
By the ti me the remedy and the intoxicant were identified as
the same plant, medical use of ca nnabis was falling out of favor.
partly because it could not be injected (since cannabi noids are
not wate r-solub le) and partly because of the genera l react ion
against misleadin gly labe led remedies mat were often ineffec-
tive and some times dangerous.
In 1906, Congress approved the Pure Food and Drug Act,
which required disc losureofthe drugs contained in patent med -
icines. inclu ding cannab is as well as alcohol. chlorofonn. clllo-
ral hydrate. cocaine. heroin, morphi ne, and opiu1n. Eight years
later came th e Harrison Narcotics Tax Act. which effectively
banned nonmedical use of opiates and cocaine .That law did not
cover cann abis, but a NewYork City ordinance enacted th e same
year required a prescr ipt ion for "patent medicines containing
narcotics," includ ing "cannabis indica."
44 AVGU $T /SEPTEM8EA ~017
'MARIJUANA SMOKING IS REPORTED SAFE'
THE TIMESFINALLYseeme d to realize that marijuana and
cannabiswe rethesamethinginMay 1925, when a story
about a U.S.-~Iexican am i-drug treaty descr ibed
mar ijuana as "1\1.exicanhashish." But the paper
could not ma ke up its m ind about whe ther the
plan t was harm less or a terr ifying menace to
sanity a nd publ ic safe ty.
"Marijuana Smoking Is Reported Safe,"
the Times announced in November 1926.
summarizing the findings of an adviso ry
panel appo in ted by the governo r of the Pan-
a1na Can al Zone. The con1n1ittee conclu ded
th a t "the influence of the drug when used for
smoking is uncerta in and appears to have been
greatly exaggerated." It found "no evidence"
that marijuana "causes insanity," precipitates
"acts of violence." or "has any a ppr eciable del-
eter ious effect on the individuals using it." The
art icle . like almost a ll of th e paper's 1narijuana
coverage prior to the 1950s, had no byline, but
it was p robab ly written by Crede H. Calhoun, who
lived in Panama and covered Lat in America for the Times
in the 1920s.
The skepticis m did not last long . "Awidow and her four chil -
dre n have bee n driven insa ne by eati ng the J\1arihuana plant ,"
a d ispatch fro1nMexico City declared eight months later. "Doc-
tors ...say thatt here is no hope of savi ng the children 's lives and
rhatt .he motller will be insane for the rest of her life." According
to the story, which appeared on Ju ly 6. 1927, the unfortunate
fami ly ate the 1narijuana acc idental ly. having inadvertently
gathered it with "h erbs a nd vegeta bles growing in the yard."
The idea of marijuana -indu ced insanity was familiar . but the
claim that peop le can di e fro1na marijuana overdose was new-
and is still unverified 90 years later . Also puzzling: the not ion
that fresh marijuana. which is not psychoactive, would have any
noticeable mental effect at all.
But wait . In 1929, the 11mescovered a decision by Panama's
Supreme Court dec laring that mari juana was not prohibited in
th at cou ntry beca use it did not qua lify as a "dangerous d n1g."
The article, presumab ly written by Calhottn, q~1oted th e report
to the governor of the Cana l Zone, along with the conclus ions of
the Indian Hemp Drugs Comm ission. established by t he Indian
govem 1nent in 1893. which found th at "not a single 1nedical
witness could prove clearly that the [cann abis] habit gave rise
to mental aberration ."
In 1931, a d ifferent govern ment-appoin ted commission
heard testi monyt hattookad immerv iew. Richmond P. Hobson,
a former Alabama cong ressman who had become an ant i-drug
crusader. made the case for a ma riju ana ban before the Wicker-
sham Commiss ion on Law En forcement.
''In excess," he said, the drug "motivates
the most atrocious acts ."
Sixn1onths later,Ans lingerannounced
that he was p repar ing a un iforn1 law
to proh ib it t he growing o f marijuan a
plants " for state legislatures to enact.
At that point about 20 states, includi ng
California, New York, and Texas, already
had banned rhe drug . According to the
Times, "There are no Federal laws on the
growth or use of m arijuana , the pla nt
be inggrow n so easily that there is alln ost
no interstate com merce in it."Anslinger,
reflecting the contemporary consens us
about the extent of the federa l power to
regulate interstate comme rce, "said the
government u nder the Constitution can-
not dicta te wh at may be grown within
ind ividual States."
Aslateas Ja nuary 1937. th e Timeswas
st ill saying t he FBN, Anslinge r's agency,
"has admitted that irs hands are tied by
the fact that the marihu ana weed is indig-
e nous to so m any Sta tes th at its distribu-
tion is an int rastate prob le111 ." That was
just half a yea r befo re Congress ban ned
th e plant .
' POISONOUS WEED ... PEDDLED
TO SCHOOL CHILDREN'
DURING THE 1930$, any trace of skepti-
cism about the pu rpor ted haza rds of
marij ua na d isappea red from the pages
of the Times. A 1932 artic le casually
desc ribed it as "a narcotic that gives
the addict n1urderous tende ncies." The
story also cla imed widesp read "mari-
hua na add ict ion a mong the leaders of
jazz orchestras," who "find it necessary
to take it before playing ."
Music critic Gama Gilbert, in a 1938
New York Times Magazine piece about
swing ba nds, observed that "the swing-
ste r will smoke his 'reefers' so long as
he needs it, and he will need it so long
as the demands of his job and its mate-
rial rewards rema in incompatible with
human physical resources." But Gilbert
averred t hat t he "muggier" who believed
marij uana put him "in the groove was
mistaken : "Actually his playing deterio -
rates a nd thedeepersourcesofhis talents
becon1e dissipated . He is. as swi ng lingo
has it , 'beat: ..
Black jazz musicians were not th e only
In 1926, theTimes ones smoking reefers. A 1933 story said
mar ijuana use "constitu tes an ever recur-
reported that there ring problem where there are Mexicans or
was "no evidence" Span ish-America ns of the lower classes."
A 1934 re port from Denver said "the con -
that marijuana sumption of marijuana appea rs to be p ro -
ceed ing virtually u nchec ked in Colorado
"causesinsanity," and other \Vestern Sta tes with a large
Spanis h-American pop ulation ." \Vhile
precipitates "acts "the dr ug is partic ular ly popular with
Latin Americans,'' the pa per reported,
of violence," or "has "its use is ra pidly spread ing to include
any appreciable all classes."
According to "some author it ies," the
deleterious ejfect Times sa id in tha t story, this "poisonous
weed which maddens t.he senses and
on the individuals emaciates the body of the user ...is being
pedd led to school chi ldre n ." It added
using it." But the that "most cr imes of violence in th is sec
tion, especia lly in cou ntry distr icts . are
slcepticismdid laid to users of the d rug." The Times did
not cite a source for that assertion, but it
not last long. ''A so unds like Anslinger. who claimed rhat
widow and herfour ma rijua na-induced violence was con1-
mon and kept a file of grisly cri mes he
children have been att ributed to the drug. such as the 1933
mu rders in which a young Ta1npa man
driven insane by named Victor Licata used an ax to kill
his parents, two brothers, a nd a sister.
eating the Mari- Despite Anslinger's c laim, the psych iat-
ric records compiled after Licata's arrest
huana plant, " a dis- made no mention of mar ijua na.
patch from Mexico By 1934. Anslinger seeme d to be
agita ting for t he federa l ban he had
City declared eight descr ibed as uncons titut ional th ree years
before. "The Federal Government is pow-
months later. erless," the Times reported , citing FBN
officials, "beca use mar ijuana was left
out of th e Harrison Act u nder which the
bureau gets its author ity to stop th e traffic
in op ium and its der ivat ives.''
Marijuana camelate to New YorkCity,
where police were still being trained to
REASON 46
identify the plant in 1936, ni ne yea rs after th e state legislatu re
had banned it. But soon cops were making a show of seizi ng and
destroying it. On August 13, 1936, New York Police Commis -
sione r Lewis Valentine poured gasoline onto a pile of marij uana
collected from t hree boroug hs of the city, lit a newspaper. and
tossed it onto the contraband . Police clailn ed the pile, which
meas ured 10 feet high by 50 feet wide. contained eno ugh mari
jua na to make 12 ,n illion "narcotic cigarettes" worth $3 mi l
lion-a bout$53 million in current dollars. "This isan extremely
dangerous weed,"Valentine said, "and we'll do everything in our
power to stamp it out."
In January 1937. the Times describe d an ant i111 ar ijuana
ca mpaign aimed at teac hing young peop le "the reasons for its
general designation as 'the killer drug." ' That June th e paper
reminded its readers that "public and pr ivate agencies a re cam-
paigningagainstthe narcotic as the mosr pernicious' and one of
the most widely used of drugs." a substance that "may produce
criminal insan ity and causes juven ile deli nqu ency.
Two months later, in a one -sent ence story dated August 2,
1937. the 1'imes noted tha t "President Roosevelt signed today a
bill to curb traffic in the narcotic, marihuana.''Thatwas the/vlar-
ihuana Tax Act, which effectively banned the pla nt by impos-
ing prohibitive registration, record keeping, and transfe r tax
req uire ments, violation of which triggered criminal pena lt ies.
Like the Harr ison Narcot ics Tax Act, the marijua na law was
framed as an exerc ise of th e congressional tax power, th ereby
avoidi ng the problem noted by Anslinger: th at the Comme rce
Clause, as it was th en understood, did not cover intrastate pro-
duct.ion an d distribut io n of marij uana - or of anyt hing e lse,
which was why alcoho l prohibition bad required a constlt u
tiona l ame n dment .
Since every state a lready had its own n1arijua na ban by 1937,
th e federal law was al1nost anti climactic. Ju dging from an
exchange on th e floor of th e House a few days before that cham -
ber approved the Marihuana Tax Act, the legislators who voted
for it did not necessadly know what they were banning. The
Repub lican minority leader, Bertrand SneU of New York, con-
fessed. "I do not know anyt hing abo ut th e bill." The Democratic
major ity leade r, Sam Rayburn of Texas. educated hi m: "It has
someth ing to do with someth ing th at is called marihuana," Ray-
burn said . "! believe it isa narco tic of so me kind."
'MARIJUANA MADNESS ... MADE WRONG THINGS
SEEM RIGHT'
THE TIMESCONTINUEDto blame 111ar
ijua na for violence , espe
cially violence by peop le wit h dark skin. "Police pointed out
t hat many of t he other killings and attacks on women in hotels
and hosp itals have been done by Negroes," said a story about
the rape and murde r of a Chicago nursing student published
a few weeks after Roosevelt signed the Marih uana Tax Act.
"Many youths on the South Side are smoking marijuana, the
police said, and thee/fectSofthe il legal weed have incited chem
to attack wh ite women."
All this talk of marijuana-induced violence see111 s to have
made an impress ion on Ethe l Strouse Sohl , a 20-year -old New
Jersey resident who. together with an 18-year-old accompli ce
named Genevieve Owens, carr ied out a series of armed robber -
ies in the Newark area. On December 21, 1937 , the rwo young
women held up a bus driver, William Barh orst, who tried ro
grab Sohl's sawed-off rifle. The gun went off, killing Barhorst, a
37-yearold fat her of two. Sohl and Owens got away with S2.10
in cha nge.
During the e nsuing murder tr ial, which the Times followed
closely, Sohl, the daughter of a Newark pat.rolman, claimed she
comm itted her crimes unde r the influence of"marijuana mad-
ness," which "made wrong things seem right." Sohl said she
began smoking reefers at 14 and did so before each of the three
robberies . To back up he r claim th at th e marijuan a n1ade her
do it, Sohl's lawyer presented test imony from th e Temple Uni-
versity pharmacologist Ja mes Munch, who th e year before had
testified in favor of th e Marihuana Tax Act.
Judge Daniel Brennan wou ld notletM .uoch cestifyabou r hJs
experime nts with dogs. "He's going to testify about marijuana's
effect on dogs and then say it's the sa me as on hun1ans." the
judge remar ked. "\A/h at kind of testimony is that?" But Brennan
did let .Munch ta lk about the conclus ions he drew from experi-
menting on h imself and stu dying "100 Mexicans in a hospital
in Nevada." Based on that research, Munch claimed t hat "con-
tinued use of the dr ug leads ro menta l degeneracy ." Tha t state -
ment prompted rl1eprosecutor ro ask, "Doctor, are you a mental
dege nerate?" Unfazed . i\1unch opined th at Sohl's criln es were
caused by niar ijuana.
The ju ry did not bu y it. Soh l and Owens were con -
victed and sentenced co life a t hard labor. Perhaps the jurors
were swayed by prosecutor WilJiam\Vachenfe ld'swarningdu r-
ing his summation. "Marijuana never had anything to do wilh
this case," \Vachenfeld said. "If you men open the door to a fan
tastic defense of this kind. it will be all right for anyone to com
mit a mu rder if o nly he first smokes marijuana."
The failure of Sohl's defense did not de te r the Times from
conti nu ing to draw a connect ion between cannabis and killing.
In 1939 there was rhe "marijuana -crazed Negro" who "went ber -
serk in a crowded express train." killing an investment banker
with an ax blow to the head. ln 1941 there was the sailor who
smo ked mar ijuana before stabbing a shipmate he tho ught was
"out roger h im."
But there was also a 1939 story that said cannabis ra ids by
Anslinger's men "were carried out without fanfare or violence
because marijuana users rare ly, if ever, resist arrest ." It seems
RE ASON 47
"th e drug usually leaves them in a torpo r," and "th e 'h igher' an
addict is with the drug the less bellicose he becomes." Reviewing
Marihua11a: Ame ri ca's New Drug Problem fort he Times in 1938,
Frederic !, T. Merrill (au thor of Japan and the Opium Menace)
suggested a resolut ion to the apparent contrad ict ion. "Deprav
ity has been and still is th e only motive for l1uarijuana's] habitual
use, and its effects are particularly anti -socia l." he opined. "The
reaso n why ma rihua n a and c rime are so close ly linked is more
u ndersta ndable in view of the unpre dictable react ions to vary-
ing quantities of the drug."
So was marijuana a "killer weed" that triggers mayhem and
1uurde r or a soporific drug that renders its users docile and
indo lent? Yes.
'THE RUINOUS STEP FROM MARIJUANA TO
HEROIN'
IN 1945, Areport commissio ned by New York,'v!ayor Fiorello La
Guard ia concluded that "ma rihu a na is not th e determining
factor in the conunission of major critn es," that "niar ihuana
smoking is not widesprea d among school child ren ." that
"juvenile deli nque ncy is not associated with t he practice of
smoking marihuana," and tha t "the public ity concerning the
catastrophic effects of marihuana sn1oking in New York City
is unfounded." The Times quoted the reass uring findings, but
the headline over the sto ry correc tly predicted that they would
have no impact on policy: "Experts Discount Marijuana as Big
Factor in Crime but Drive on It \I/ill Be Pressed."
The La Guardia Com mittee Report , which was prepared by
the New York Academy of Medicine at the behest of an advisory
conllDittee appointed by the mayor. irked Anslinger, who con1
plai ned that it was unscientific . But havi ng accomplis hed what
h e wanted with his horror stories about crimes caused by ca n
nab is, the FBNhead began to play down that angle. Now th at the
burea u had jur isdic tion over th e drug, hyste rical reports about
ouc-of-control marijuana add icts would not reOect well on it.
Furthermore, as illustrated by Ethel Sohl's murder trial, the idea
of cannabis -ind uced violence did not sit well with prosecutors,
who did not want to see criminals escape responsibility by blam
ing th eir cri1neson n1arijuana.
Byth e 1950s, Anslinger had backed away from his clai m that
marijuana turns people incomur derers . Insread , he began argu-
ing that ic turns them into heroin addicts. The Times, in turn,
began parrot ing the new rationale for marijuana proh ibit ion.
A 1950 sto ry cited "a sharp increase in dope addicts-vie
tims who have 'graduat ed ' from mar ijuana to heroin." It quoted
Anslinger, who d escribed the new he roin addicts as "young
hoodlums" who "all star ted by smok ing ma rijuan a c igarettes ."
As he put it in congressional testimony the following year, "They
took the needle when th e thrill of mariju ana was gone." A 1951
48 A.VGU$T/$EPTE M 8 R ~OJ.7
story descr ibed how "a youth t ries a 'harm less' mar ijuana c iga-
rette at a party" and later "takes the ruinous step from marijuana
to heroin ."
1'larijuana's alleged role as a "gateway" h elped justify
lu mping it toget he r with ot he r drugs in the penal code . ln
1951. the 1'imes reported that "Congress will be called upon
shortly to consider a bill which experts believe will go further
toward stamp ing out th e narcotics evil in this country th an any-
thing since th e Harrison Narcotics Act."The story was referring
to the Boggs Act. wh ich established mandato ry minimum sen -
tences for federa l crimes involving m arijuana and other illegal
subs tances. According to Anslinger, the enha nced pena lties-
precursors to the draconian sentenc ing rules that in recent years
have drawn bipartisa n c riticism-we re necessary to win the
"bartle with the drug traffic."
Fifteen years late r, the Times was st ill citing the purported
link between ma rijuana and heroin as a reason to kee p pot ille
gal. A 1966 editorial rejected psychedelic guru Timo thy Leary's
"specious" claim, following h is 1965 a rrest for marijuan a pos -
sessio n. that freedom of conscience inclu des the freedom to
alter your conscio usness. ''Experience has trag ica lly demon -
strated th at mar ijuana is not 'ha rmless,'" the Times declared.
"For a considerable number of young people who try it, it is the
first ste p down the fatefu l road to heroin."
That clahu was echoed several days later under the front
page headl ine "Drugs a Growing Can1pus Proble111." Reporter
John Corry allowed th at "stude nt pot parties. th ose wild aban -
do ned o rgies in which no ma n's daugh ter is safe, seem to exist
more in fancy than in fact." Still, "a significant number of mar i-
juana smokers will goon to heroin," he warned, c iting t he FBN.
"'Potsvil le.' the narcotics agents say, 'leads to the mainline."'
Half a centu ry later, in its editoria l endo rsing legaliza tion, the
Times would say "claims that marijuana is a gateway to more
dange rous drugs are as fanc iful as th e 'Reefer Madness' images
of murder, rape and suicide."
'THE DANGERS APPEAR TO BE LESS THAN
PREVIOUSLY ASSUMED'
Lady was not ready to let Learyoffthe hook
ALTHOUGHTHEGRAY
in 1966, she was beginning to soften her stance. Th ree years
later the Times urged Congress to "lig hte n the penalty for mere
possession" of marijuana, which at the time carried a manda -
tory minimum sentence of two years . "The pena lties for those
who prey on the inno cent by peddlh1g d rugs can ha rd ly be too
severe," another 1969edito rial sa id, but it u rged "a d istinctio n
between soft and hard drugs."
By 1970, the year th e Cont rolled Substa nces Act put
marijuana in Sched ule I. the law's most res trictive category,
the Times was wondering whether the governmenc should
"cont inue to treat it in th e same 1nanner as he ro in." It haste ned
to add, "Th is is not to say that ma rijuana shou ld be legalized'' -
a policy th at was su ppotte d by only 12 pe rcent of Americans ,
according to a Gallup poll taken rhe previous year. Marijuan a
"is a dange rous dru g," the paper expl aine d in 1971. but not so
da ngerous th at sin1ple possess ion merits a prison se ntence.
In 1972, reacti ng to t he refo rm ist conclus ions of th e Nixon-
appo inted National Commiss ion on Marihua naa nd Drug Abuse,
a Times ed itoria l conceded "the dangers inhere nt in smoking
marijuana appear to be less than previously assumed." It agreed
with the comm ission that c rimina l pena lt ies for possession
a nd use sh ould be e liminated . As for "outr ight lega lization,"
the Times said. "th e accumulati on of furth e r med ical evide nce
might justify such a ste p late r on." In 197 8, the Timessaid mar i-
juana "shows grea t, th ough nor fully prove n, potential as a the ra-
pe utic agent." But legalizing marijuana for med ical use "would
be prematu re," it said; more research was neede d .
In 1996, respond ing to rhe passage of n1edica l niar ijuana
initiat ives in Californ ia and Arizona , the Times was still ca lling
for more research. In the mean time, it said , th e Clint on ad mi n
istration's "aggressive campai gn to combat th e state initia tives ...
makes sense."
By then, th e paper's pos it ion was at odds with public opinion .
A large majo rity of Aniericans - 69 percent, accordi ng to a 1997
ABC News poU-thought doctors should be able to prescr ibe
marijuan a for patientsw hoco uld benefit from it. Th e crackdow n
t he Times endo rsed included an attempt to stop doctors from
recom mendi ng mar ijuana by threaten ing to take away th eir
p resc ribing pr ivileges, a sanction th at was ultimare ly rejecte d
by a federa l appeals court on First Amend ment grounds .
In 200 1, a fter a Republican replaced Clinto n in the \Vhite
House , d1e 1'imes ch anged its tu ne. It condem ned the new
ad mini stration's "benight ed efforts to p reve nt the use of mar i
Jua na to relieve th e symp to ms of pa in, nausea or loss of a ppetit e
in despe ra te ly ill patients ." After Barack Obama took over from
George \V. Bu sh in 2009, the Times praised his p romise to leave
state -legal suppliers of medica l marijua na alone - a pledge that
was soo n broken by a crackdown more intense th an Bush's .
The paper's react ion to th e 2012 initi atives that made Colo
rado and Washingto n the first states to legalize marijuana for
recreational use was less host ile th an its initial response to med -
ica l mar ijua na in California . Tn late 2013 , th e Times noted t he
poss ibility that marijuana lega lizat ion cou ld reduce traff ic
fatalit ies if it leads to less drinking. "Tha t could be good news,"
it admitted. In January 2014, it 1narked the beg inning oflega l
rec rea tional 1narijuana sales in Colorado with a noncomm itta l
edit or ia l suggesting "what to watch for in th e ear ly stages ofd iis
exper iment .'' It finally em braced legalization in July of tha t year.
In short, while the Ti mes first pub licly toyed with t he idea of
marijuana legalization in 1972, it did notger around toendors-
50 AUG U$ TI SPT M 8E R ':20 17
ing tha t policy un til 42 yea rs later. \Vhat happ ened in between?
Jimmy Carter, a pres ide nt who advocated decr imina lization
of ma rijuana possession. was rep laced in 1981 by Ronald Rea-
gan, a pres ident who ramped up the war on d rugs des pite hls lip
service to limit ed govenm 1en t. That crusa de h ad the support of
parents alar med by record rates ofadolescent pot smoking in the
late 1970s. Gallup's numb ers ind icate th at suppo rt for legalizing
marijuana, afte r rising from 12 percent in 1969to 28 percen t in
1978, d ipped dur ing the Reagan ad mi nistration. hitt ing a low
of23 percent in 1985.
'A MORE SENSIBLE ALTERNATIVE'
A STORYPUBLISHED in 1986 gives you an idea of how th e T imes
covered ma rijua na dur ing t his perio d . The federa l govern me nt
had begun to cite the rising potency of ma riju ana as a reason
parents wbosmoked pot in their youth with no ill effects should
never theless be a larmed by t he possibil ity that their kids m ight
try it . Citing "paren t groups a nd d rug counse lors," reporter
Peter Kerr wrote th at "a teen -ager's first brus h with [ma rijuana !
today may be a far more powerfu l experience tha n it was a gen -
e ration ago .''
To back up that cla im, Kerr repo rted that t he level of THC in
samples seized by the govern ment rose "fro111an average ofO.S
percent in 1974 to 3. 5 percent in 1985 and 1986." But can n abis
with a THC potency of less than 1 pe rcent, con1n1onlyknown as
"ditchwee cl," is not considered psychoactive, so either pot smo k-
ers in the '60s and '70s o nly tho ught they were getti ng h igh, or
there was somethi ng wrong with the governme nt's samp les
from that p eriod . Perha ps they degraded in storage before they
were tested, or perha ps they were never represen ta tive of wha t
peop le were actual ly smoking.
In othe r respects, howeve r, Kerr's story was ad mirably bal
anced , espec ially com pared to earlier coverage. Based on an
inte rview with a spokesma n for the Na tional Organizat ion for
the Reform of Marijuana Laws, he sha red the argu ment that
higher potency means less sn1oking, reduci ng the risk of resp i-
ratory da mage. Kerr also reported that "recent studies ...point
to growing evide nce that marijuan a use may have serious long
term heal th effects" buta clcle d that "advocates of decr iminaliza
tion o f ma rijuana point to th e lack of conclusive evidence th a t
ma rijuana is more harmfu l tha n tobacco or a lcohol."
That was an unde rstatement, since there was (and is) strong
evidence that both of those substances are more dangero us than
marijuana, but it was still a welcome cavea t. Kerr a lso noted th at
marijuana use by teenagers had decli ned since 1980 an d that
"debate con tinues abo ut how ha rmful th e d rug is-a nd how
vigorously laws aga inst it should be enforce d ."
Legalization got a couple of posit ive mentions on the 1Vew
York Times editor ial page duxlng the 1980s . A 1982 essay actu -
ally advoca ted "regulation and taxa-
tion'' as ''a more sensiblealternative*'to
decriminalization , argui ng that "a pro
hlbition so u nenfo rceable and so widely
flouted must give way to reality."But that
piece was attribut ed only to editor ial
writer Peter Passel!, so it d id not repre
sen t the paper's official position.
Four years lacer, an editor ial that was
rnalnly about drug testing asked, "'1/hy
not sha rpen pr iorities by legalizing or at
least decr imin alizing marijuan a?" Good
quest ion. Let's th ink about it for a few
more decad es.
The executive edito r of the Times at
this point, A.M. (Abe) Rosentha l, was
a passionate prohibit.ionise who scarred
writing a twice-weekly column for the
pape r in 1987. Alth ough it was ofti
cially called "On My Mind," ltis det rac
tors rename d it "Out of MyMind" because
of its vitr iolic, hype rbolic cone.
Rosenthal, who liked coargue that the
war on drugs could not be said to have
failed because it had never rea lly been
waged, deemed the idea of legalization
"morally d isgusting." In a 1989 colu mn.
he called opponents of d rug prohib ition
"the new anti -abolit ionists," a "scattered
but influent ial collection of intellectuals"
who were "intensely engaged in n1aking
the case for slavery." He railed against
th e legaliza tion of medical marijuana ,
a "fraud" that he feared would "quickly
make a mockery of the national consen -
sus against dr ugs."
After the 1996 elections, Rosenthal
castigated Bill Clinton for failing to "lead
the fight against the near -legalizati on
in California o f 1narijuana. the proven
gateway dr ug to hard dr ugs and mean
d eaths." He blamed the financial suppo rt
of George Soros "and other folk whose
own children are not likely to wind up in
gutt ers. brains crippled by drugs."
In retro spect, Rosentha l's fulmi
nations agains t d rug policy reformers
marked the beginni ng of the end for
marij uana prohibition, wh ich became
stead ily less popular during th e next two
decades . According to Gallup, support for
legalization rose from 25 percent in 1995 ,
che year befo re Californians app roved
medical u se, to 58 perce nt in 20 13.
"\1/e have been careful and cau tious
on this subject ," Rosenth al's son Andrew,
then the paper's ed itorial page edit or.
told MSNBCafter the Times finally cook
a stand against proh ibit ion in 2014 . The
younger Rosent h al said the new position
was not controvers ial within the edito
rial board and that when he raised the
While the Times subject with the pub lisher, Arthur Sulz
berger, "He said, 'Fine.' !t hink he'd prob -
first publicly toyed ably been there before I was. I think I was
chere before we did it."
with the idea of Rosenthal tells me h e "never really
ending pot prohi- did" disc uss marijuana policy with his
father, who died in 200 6, because there
bition in 1972, it "didn'tsee m much point to it. and we had
lots of other th ings to d isagree about."
did not get around He adds that "his views were informed
by misinformat ion that pervaded society
to endorsing that for a gene rat ion , and he tended to lump
marijuana in with all kinds of actua lly
policy until 2014. da ngerous drugs."
"Why not sharpen It took more than a century for The
New York Times co go from credulo usly
priorities by legal- accepting anti-ma rijuana propaganda
co contempt uously rejecting it, along
izing or at least with the ban built on that foundation of
lies. Which raises an obvious q uestion: If
decriminalizing the Times could be so wrong for so long
about marijuana . how many other mis-
marijuana?" asked takes has it made in covering and com-
me nting on drug policy?
a 1986 editorial. Tbe short answe r is plenty. The paper
Good question . has exaggerated the hazards posed by
pretty 1nuch every substa nce that has
ever been a subject o f public conce rn
while conflating the effects of drug use
with the effects of prohibition . The cor-
rections may cake a while. m
Senior Editor JACOB SUl LUM isa nationally
syndicated columnist and the author of SiJying
Yes: In Defenseof Drug Use {Tarcher/ Penguin).
!\E ASO N 61
INFOGRAPHIC DARING
DRUG
MEXICAN FAMILY GO IN SANE. EXPOSE

A TIMELINE OF MARIJUANA IN MARIJU

AN
A.SliOKING
ISREPORTEDSAFE (! ~
ll ~
. i ~ H' ~ ..,._ Ten T l- t c---,-.
._1 C...W T 11 HC'W T- .- 'n N .. .

THE NEW YORK TIMES Hemp l ea ves , Classed in Some KEXlCO CITY , .July 5.-A widow
.n4 ber tour cbUdren. have bee n
JACOB $ ULLUM St at &s Wit h On.1
gs , Test ed dt"lv en. 1~ by u.Unc tho Mar t
hun.a. pl!Ult, acc o rding t o docton .
by Canal Zone Committee. who aay tllat tber-e ta 12.0 hope of

1857 1876 1901 1906 1911 1925 1926 1927 1931

A letter to the A New York Times The Timesfirst Congress approves Massachusetts The Harr ison " Mexican, Crazed The Timescovers the New York state bans " Hobson Tells of New "Useof Marijuana " Marij uana and its use
New-YorkDaily story describes ment io"s '' the the PureFood and becomesthQ Narc ot ics Ac t barts by Marlhuana . Runs PanamaCanal Zone mar ij uana . " Mexican Menace.. Spread ing in West " have been sptead i ng
Timesrecommends cannabisas a Marlhua na," a Drug Act. New first state to ban the nonme dica l use of AmuckWith Butcher study : " Marij uana Famll y Go Insane " rap l dly .''
"Cannabis lndica, th e med icine tha t "has ..harmle sslook ing York City requires marijuana. op iates andcoca ine. Kni fe" Smoking Is Repo r ted after eating marijuana
East Indian hemp , been used ...with plant" that "sends a presc ription for Safe" pl ants, accor di ng to
k nown most wide l y as great success in cases its v ic tims running canna bis. the Times.
Hesheesh," as ..a $Ure of dro psy," amutk ."
WEIRD ORGIES
counteractive to tho WILD PARTIES
po i son of rabies ." UNLEASHED
PASSIONS

1937 1938 1939 194S 19Sl 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1977 1978
" Ma rihuann Spreads EstherSohl Subway m1.1rde r by a " Expe rts Discount 1
" Norma l ' Children Gallup finds 12 Tho Controlled Pre siden t Richard The Nationa l Oregon beco mes President Jimmy The T,messays
Its Web in America ." unsuccessfully ....
mar ij uana -c razed Marij uana as Big Yield to Narcotic-s " percent of Ame ricans Subs{ances Act puts Nixon decla res drug Comm ission on the first state to Carter says mar ij uana ..shows
Congress approves a mounts a "marlhuan a Negro " re ported by Factor In Crime , but after smoking th ink ma rijuana marijuanaIn Schedule abuse "Ameri ca's Marihua na and Drug decrimlnallze po ssessing a small great , though
federal ban . madness .. defense in the rimes. Drive on It Will Be marijuana.says the should be legal. A I, the most restrictive p1.1blic enemy No. l, "' Abuse recommends ma rij ua na possess ion. amount ot marijuana not fu ll y proven ,
her murder trial. Pressed" Times.The BoggsAct Times ed ito rial says category . The Times decrimina lizing should not be a poten ti al as a
ORAZED
KAN PIJ'IS presc ribes a two-year fed eral marijuana wonde rs whet he r the possessio n of crimina l o ffense . therapout ic agent. "
INUPRO
SUBWAY AR mandatory minimum pena lties are too law shoul d " con ti nue cannab is in small Gallup finds most
kt 1..,,. W'llh..M e
&,'ob, priso n term for severe. to treat i l in the same amounts. The Times Americans agree wit h
llrow h c.,. et IP"tll"I
I, ", T .,.,_ A'"- Tteln simp le possession of manner as heroin.'' agrees. him. although only 28
mar ijuana . pe rcen t suppo r t fu ll
l"AastM'.l!ltS &ulOU( Hilf
legaltzatl on.
w-. 11,*"-,0llw"Sc,,_
.. Merlji 1ll 11a Mllilllt b.
n-..--.1. a., 11:
11111
Q.ACKET
a ..... C:.
1982 198S 1996 1999 2001 2009 2011 2012 2013 2014
Pre side nt Ronald Support for Califo rnia becomes A Nat iona l Acade m y Suppo r t for Support for Gallup finds that 50 Colorado and Support for The Timessays '"the
Reagan decla res "war le-galizat ion fa ll s to the first state to of Sciences repor t legalizat ion rises lega li zati on ri ses to percent of America ns Washington become lega li zation in th e fe-deral government
on drugs ," 23 percent. all ow med ica l use says marijuanahas to 3d percent. The d4 percent . The Times support legalization. the first states to Galluppoll hits <hould repeat the ban
or marijuana.The medica l ut ility and Times c:.ondemns the praisesthe Obama legalize mar ij uana tor S8p erce nl. on mar ijuana .''
Timessays the Clinton finds litt le evi dence of Bush adm inistr at ions administrat ion for recreationa l use.
admin istr at io n " has serio us side effec ts or "ben ighted ettorts " prom ising to leave
little-cho ice" but to a "gateway effect." to stop legal medical med ical m arij uana
con tinue enforcing
the fede ral ban the re.
use by "desperately ill
patients ."
supp liers alone ,n
states wher e it's legal .
Repea l
Prohibitio11,
Again
81 rll L UIIITOIUAL 80 .-\RD

0 rook 13)-"Mr""" t rutffl ;{;!-,~ toromr m IUM'IIM!fld r ,AI

t)rub.lliltwllil.1, ... 11, la hd 1""'1*' lu,,ilf dft~ i..-
ldWl'Ydt1t
~111 & f'ifir,tw;bt-Nlfflltaim11111b-1md rnm, m,1'11'111".,_, ml

REASON 53