What socio-political force would be strong enough to turn Americans against something as innocent as a plant—let alone one which everyone had interest in using to improve their own lives?
Earlier, you read how the first federal anti-marijuana laws (1937) came about because of William Randolph Hearst’s lies, yellow journalism and racist newspaper articles and ravings, which from then on were cited in Congressional testimony by Harry Anslinger as facts.
But what started Hearst on the marijuana and racist scare stories? What intelligence or ignorance, for which we will punish fellow Americans to the tune of 12 million years in jail in just the last 50 years (390,000 arrested in 1990 alone for marijuana)—brought this about?
The first step was to introduce the element of fear of the unknown by using a word that no one had ever heard of before: “marijuana.”
The next step was to keep maneuverings hidden from the doctors and hemp industries who would have defended hemp by holding most of the hearings on prohibition in secret.
And, finally, to stir up primal emotions and tap right into an existing pool of hatred that was already poisoning society: racism.
If you’ve ever heard that the word “marijuana” is racist, these are the origins of that idea—in a baseless conspiracy theory. I’m not aware of a shred of evidence to back the claim that this word was used purposely by the Hearst chain, Anslinger, or anyone else to demonize the drug or its users. As we will see here, the word was coming into the American lexicon quite organically by the 1910s. Bonnie and Whitebread merely argued that Hearst papers “were among the most effective proponents” of the Uniform State Narcotics Act. Herer made up the details about the word “marijuana” apparently from whole cloth.
Yet this idea has become embedded in the public consciousness and, it seems, especially in the cannabis industry. For example, NewsBank, a company that touts itself as “a premiere provider of the world's largest repository of reliable information,” has recently launched a “Cannabis NewsHub” to respond to the cannabis industry’s desire for “reliable, comprehensive coverage specific to the industry and the topics most important to them.” There, under “History,” one finds quick links to sub-themes that demonstrate the obvious influence of Herer, especially the sections titled, “Racism Against Mexicans Spurs Cannabis Fears,” and “Hemp Competition with Paper, Nylon Industries.” Click on the “Racism” link, and you’ll find dozens of stories that repeat the major themes from Herer’s conspiracy theory, as in this March 14, 2011 op/ed in the Santa Fe New Mexican:
Hispanics in New Mexico should be up in arms opposing federal marijuana laws because those laws are a constant reminder of the history of prejudice against our people in this country….A major motivator for the federal government's weed laws is prejudice against Hispanics. Almost a century ago, William Hearst, a vehemently anti-Mexican Californian, launched a nationwide campaign through his Hearst newspaper chain to turn the population against Hispanics….As part of his overall campaign to depict Mexicans as a threat to America, California and the Southwest, Hearst agitated nationally for federal marijuana laws. In the early 20th century, most Americans knew nothing about weed, while this cheap intoxicant was commonly used by poor Hispanics and blacks. Hearst, who had lost hundreds of thousands of [acres of] newspaper pulp timberland in Mexico to government confiscation, spent his revenge on poor Mexicans in the U.S. by unleashing his powerful nationwide newspaper chain on a decades-long campaign to slur the Hispanic people in every way possible….How can New Mexico Hispanics sit by passively with this historical scar of racism exposed to us every single day? [7]
in short, the notion that the word “marijuana” was purposely used to smear cannabis in the U.S. has become entrenched in the public discourse, though there is literally no evidence that this was actually the case. Now various states are passing legislation to erase the word “marijuana” from the official record.
Indeed, perhaps the most interesting part of all of this is how much influence these ideas have had on the legislative process in the United States, whether in helping to galvanize support for marijuana law reform (surely a good thing), or in leading state legislatures to strike marijuana from the official record (probably a relatively unimportant thing). Here we see that what actually happened is sometimes less important than what we think happened.
Whatever the case, there is certainly a lot of misinformation out there. Here we’ll do our best to sort fact from fiction, and we’ll try to always be clear about what we know, what we don’t, and everything in between.