Talk:Harrison Narcotics Tax Act

message: Although technically illegal for purposes of distribution and use, the distribution, sale and use of cocaine was still legal for registered companies and individuals.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp0 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a contest? =) I'd think an "individual" or "unregestered" is the missing word. -LlywelynII (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where would you put those words? Nearly 14 years later, this sentence still doesn't make sense. Kismetjim (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: fix this sentence

message: It'd be nice to see a discussion of how the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act managed to get around states' rights and issues of personal space. Does anybody know the answer(s) to these questions? Much thanks... --chodges 06:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw a show on the history channel that claimed, much to my suprise, the Harrison Act was racially motivated.  I guess right before it was passed, Southern States demanded that it be added because "the drug caused African Americans to become violent and rape white women."  I was appaulled!  If this information is true, why hasn't the NAACP challenged it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.104.244 (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about constitutionality

message: The article says: The act appears to be concerned about the marketing of opiates. However a clause applying to doctors allowed distribution "in the course of his professional practice only." This clause was interpreted after 1917 to mean that a doctor could not prescribe opiates to an addict, since addiction was not considered a disease. I am looking for a source that names 1917 for the change in interpretation. I cannot find it in Spillane, Musto, or in the Supreme Court record. The US v. Jin Fuey Moy ruling of 1916 was in favor of the defendant, and it seems not until US v. Webb and US v. Doremus in 1919 that the Supreme Court changed its perspective. I have no reason to doubt the article's assertion that the change occurred in 1917, since it is consistent with other information available to me; in fact that is why I am interested in finding the source. A5 (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Need source for 1917

message: How is it possible that William Jennings Bryan was the chief proponent of the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act but this person is not mentioned in this article?
--A2323545 (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Jennings Bryan 

message: Substituted at 17:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Harrison Narcotics Tax Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705050104/http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3042936.html to http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3042936.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified