Talk:Marihuana Tax Act of 1937

message: I removed these questions from the article:
(Does the US have an equivilent to Hannsard that I can link to?)
Perhaps someone more up on US law can explain how Tax Acts become prohibition acts?
----
It seems this article is entirely non-NPOV.  It says starts off with a statement about a hearing that doesn't make any sense to me, then says very little about the tax act itself, and leaves me with nothing other than a very strong feeling that the authors have an axe to grind about marijuana criminalization.  Speaking of "wild, entirely unsupported claims" ... 70.182.4.169 20:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: comment

message: In the second paragraph, it says "...levied a tax equaling roughly one dollar".  That doesn't seem correct.  I heard it was $100/oz, with the intent of making it prohibitively expensive for anyone to grow cannabis.  Perhaps someone can clear this up, and provide a citation? 0xDEADC0DE (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's all of the above. You were required to register and pay an "occupancy tax" to basically do anything with Marihuana as defined in the statute (Leary rested in part on that because he was not registered), but also pay on transfer of such substances by filling out and "order form" and paying a stamp tax (even applying for such an order form amounted to self-incrimination and the IRS was instructed in statue to turn the info over to law enforcement). If you registered and the order form showed you were selling to someone else who was also registered, "the tax is $1 per ounce, while on transfers to persons not so registered the tax is $100 per ounce." Also, yes, the debate around the act made it clear that a primary purchase was to make pot too expensive, but more on the buying and selling; growers could easily obtain a registration with minimal risk. Last1in (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Tax of $1?

message: "The act did not itself criminalize the possession or usage of cannabis, but levied a tax equaling roughly one dollar on anyone who dealt commercially in marijuana."
"this act was found to be unconstitutional . . . since a person seeking the tax stamp would have to incriminate him/herself."
The nature of the taxation & the unconstitutional nature of it should be made clear.  The article indicates all a grower would have to do is pay the tax, not indicating why that would be incriminating.  This article aught mention the stringent body of Regulation 1 enforcement proceedings, the threat to doctors prescribing marijuana to patients, and the severe & abusive machinations of Harry J. Anslinger in harassing growers when the act as passed.
--Rektide 22:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: TERRIBLE TERRIBLE TERRIBLE ARTICLE

message: The entire fourth paragraph seems to conflict with many quotes on the Anslinger wiki and it also attacks pro-marijuana ralliers
ADarkerBreed 22:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anslinger's Statements and Neutrality

message: Would be useful to see some context in terms of US legislation re cannabis cultivation, use etc prior to 1937. Cannabis was already a controlled substance in the UK, under an act dating from 1928, and was probably contolled before then. UK legislation was generally in line with international conventions to which the US was also signatory. The Marijuana Tax Act, however, seems to have gone far beyond anything expected in terms of those conventions, and for reasons which represented the racial prejudice of a powerful US clique. In the UK medical prescription of cannabis was not prohibitted until 1971. Laurel Bush 12:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Legislation pre 1937

message: If the act was called the "Marihuana Tax Act" then this should surely be moved to 1937 Marihuana Tax Act despite the spelling common today.  violet/riga (t) 21:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking exactly the same thing myself.--Lairor 22:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: I've read the entire opinion, and it seems to me that the 5th Circuit actually upheld the conviction, not overturned. If the Marihuana Tax Act was, in fact, found unconstitutional, it was not as a result of this case. --Eric 13:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I try to avoid assuming intent, but agree that -- thirteen years after you wrote that -- the article remains a hot mess. It looks very much like people have ignored the primary source (the ruling itself) and relied on some... oddly chosen secondary sources. Last1in (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Timothy Leary v. US, US Court of Appeals, 1967

message: The whole History portion seems to be pretty radically anti-criminalization.  I'm recommending this for review for probable violations of the Neutral Point of View policy. --69.104.39.89 21:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm as anti-criminalization as anyone, but I recognize that the "history" section of this article had nothing to do with the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act.  Since it was not only POV but also irrelevant, I've simply deleted it, as no amount of cleanup would have made it suitable for inclusion in this article. JoeCatch 23:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV-Check

message: The article had a few POV and factual issues. The statement "It is worth noting that Marijuana has many known links to cancer and other health problems..." seemed to me to present exaggerated view of Marijuana's cancer risks. Also the section on possible racial motives for the act included statements of opinion and fact unsourced to credible sources I removed that I removed. Evidence clearly suggest that various forces used racism to help gain support for the act though the issue of stopping the production of hemp based paper and fiber products in favor of alternatives offered by the Dupont Corporation has also been argued by some as motivations for the law. The claim "The bill itself is also unlikely to be racially motivated." is opinion which I have removed. If some notable source has offered such opinion then it could be added back attributed to to that source. The article should probably flesh out info on what the stated arguments for the act used by it's supporters and the claims of what the true motivations for act really where by pro-Marijuana legalization activists and others. Also, there is usefull info relating to the act that is present in the article on Anslinger that should be included in this article. --Cab88 07:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Former POV and factual  issues

message: Some parts of this article have a J and others use an H.  This article needs to be consistent. William Ortiz (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: No J???

message: "In the russia, the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act ... was a significant bill".
In the 'russia'?  What does that mean, and why does it link to the article for the Russian Federation?
--Brendan D (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: in the 'russia'?

message: A widespread legend is that hemp could become a major competitor of pulp from trees. That this is a legend can be easily demonstrated by looking at developments in other countries than the USA, where hemp cultivation was permitted even after the 1937. Hemp remained in these countries a very marginal raw material to produce paper. From the end of 1920s onwards, came successively better and better technologies to make pulp from wood, for example the recovery boiler that enabled recycling of chemicals in a pulp plant. What DuPoint was doing was to replace  silk, a very expensive luxury that was largely imported from Japan before World War II,  with nylon.Dala11a (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Silk not Hemp

message: * That nylon was out-competed by hemp.  No known primary sources ! Have someone heard of nylon stockings?
* That pulp from hemp was a threat to pulp from well managed forest. No known primary sources ! 
Dala11a (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Pure bullshit

message: Anybody know what the vote in favor was? Or where I can find a number?  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  23:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 420-15?

message: I mentioned in my edit summary how the previous word, "became," was bad usage. As to a replacemnt, one might say that tax stamps "were" issued. This does not connote development, so I replaced it with "began to be," which suits the sentence better. The essential actor remains somewhat unclear, though, so this passage could still be written better, but it is now at least correct grammar.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsnow75 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The semantics the last edit on 1942 Marijuana Stamps 

message: In business is it true that size can be important.  A big company can take a loss in one product and move on, for a small company can that become the end for the company.  The DuPont Group in 1930-1937 was very big and profitable. It is therefore very unlikely the company was dependent of a success for the nylon-project.
Jack Herer and  his followers has claimed that Dupont Group or its owners felt fear for hemp. How, Why, When and Whom??? Where are the sources from the 1930s??? There are no known documents  from the DuPont Group or its owners about that hemp was a threat. The new law about marijuana came on the agenda at a time when nylon still was a very small project compared with the total DuPont Group. Less than 1 % of the more than 40 000 employed in the Dupont Group worked with the nylon-project. Several major technological problems with mass production of nylon were not yet solved in the beginning of 1937, these solutions came later. And the patent was not approved until 1938. With nylon it was possible to produce many products that was in practice not possible with hemp as raw material. It was obvious that hemp and nylon could coexist on the market.  
A few users in Wikipedia have deleted text about how big DuPont Group was in the 1930. As I see it is some words about DuPont's size relevant in this article if Jack Herer's claims shall be a part of the text. Dala11a (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Dupont 's size relevant here 

message: Link for Reference [12] in the Background section doesn't exist anymore.  404 error.  Please fix thanks.
:This was fixed by Huon. Altamel (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit requested on June 27, 2016 

message: The text here is misleading as the threat from hemp was not from domestic sources, as they were quite small, but from international sources such as Egypt, India and China. Nylon rope competed directly against hemp. Hemp rope does not rot and lasts much longer than nylon rope. It is a superior product. Also it is neglected to note that hemp competed directly with cotton as well for clothes. The original Levi's jeans were made from hemp. Canvas was also a major competition to both cotton and nylon and other synthetics. Tarpaulins and tents were exclusively made from hemp canvas as it was very long lasting and could be made waterproof. Also the backing for most rugs was hemp and this was in competition again with nylon and other synthetics. After the 1970 start of the War on Drugs it became almost impossible to buy Canvas tents and rugs started having urethane foam backs. Nylon tents are now the only option and there is no way to get hemp rope, so valued by sailors. Sailing ship's sails used to be made from canvas, but now they are made from synthetics. All of this information should be included as the case for lobbyists being the primary movers to impose a ban on hemp is extremely strong as they have now made billions of dollars off of the ban.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.124.206 (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reducing the Hemp Industry 

message: As noted in some comments above, this article repeats an urban legend that DuPont and Hearst were responsible for criminalizing marijuana. No evidence of this is cited. I removed a false statement about the testimony of the AMA counsel, Woodward, after I reviewed his testimony. I suspect the rest of the references to DuPont and Hearst are also false or unsubstantiated. This article could be improved substantially. Barstav (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article repeats unsubstantiated conspiracy theory