instead, for their own selfinterests.Anyways, Anslinger next concentrated his efforts on convincing the TreasuryDepartment, which had control of the Bureau of Narcotics, to prepare arguments for theillegalization of marijuana. As his part in the campaign, Anslinger was advised to collect as manyghastly marijuana-related crimes as he could gather for presentation to Congress. So-calledexperts were called in to back the Treasury Department’s case. The House Committee heardseveral days’ testimony about the dangers of the drug to American society as a whole andespecially to school children (nice touch). Most of this testimony, however, was taken fromnewspapers and magazines, which in many cases had relied on the Bureau of Narcotics for itsinformation to begin with! After hearing all of the evidence against marijuana, and obviouslyhaving no defense against its illegalization, the committee recommended that the House pass alaw outlawing the drug, even though most members of Congress did not even have a clue of whatmarijuana was. When Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn was asked what Congress was beingasked to outlaw, Rayburn replied, “I believe it is a narcotic of some kind.” Nevertheless, theHouse passed the bill and after a few minor changes, so did the Senate. President Rooseveltsigned it without much notice being taken, and in 1937 marijuana became a nationally outlawedsubstance in the United States. Clearly, the well-being of American society was not entirely oreven mostly the main concern being presented to Congress, but instead, it was that of a federaldepartment’s budget. With all this obvious evidence of the government not carrying out its dutiesproperly, why don’t we just have a judicial hearing to overturn the ruling and legalize marijuana?Overturning an already firmly instilled law against drugs would cause far too much controversyand is much more difficult than passing that law.The principal meth...
