Marijuana Tax Act

Marijuana had not been included under the Harrison Act. The Marijuana Tax Act brought the plant under federal regulation, also using the form of a tax law. The essential feature was that a tax was imposed on the manufacture and distribution of marijuana. Because a growing number of states had already made possession of marijuana illegal, a dealer or user faced a Catch-22 either pay the ta.x and thereby furnish evidence of intent to violate the state law, or not pay the tax and be subject to being charged with a federal tax offense. 

This decision established a firm constitutional basis for federal requirements being imposed on the distribution of drugs and upheld the Harrison Narcotic Act of 1914, which would be the main instrument for federal control of dangerous drugs until the passage of the Controlled Substances Act in 1970. (Congress would also use its taxation power to control drugs in the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.)... 

The United States brought an action against defendant Sanchez for recovery of taxes due under the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. This law imposed a tax ranging from 1 to 24 per ounce on sales or transfers of marijuana. If this tax was not paid and the proper paperwork filed, then an additional levy of 100 per ounce tax came into effect. The district court dismissed the government s claim for the tax. The court of appeals, however, reversed that decision, and Sanchez appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Sanchez argued that the 100 levy in the Marijuana Tax Act was really a penalty, not a tax. He argued that the law s purpose was not primarily to raise revenue but rather to regulate the sale of marijuana. 

LSD guru Dr. Timothy Leary and his daughter were denied entry into Mexico and were driving back into Texas when their car was stopped and searched by U.S. Customs officials. They found some marijuana in the car and on the daughter s person. Leary was indicted under the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act. 

Leary argued that the Marijuana Tax Act violated the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution because it compelled individuals to incriminate themselves. That is, complying with the tax law by paying the higher tax for an unregistered transfer would also provide evidence of illegal possession of marijuana. 

This decision limited the ability to use the Marijuana Tax Act or the presumption of knowledge of importation to convict people for possession of marijuana. However, possession of marijuana is illegal under other federal and state laws. 

The federal Marijuana Tax Act is passed. Ostensibly a tax, in reality the law forces dealers to choose between not paying the tax and revealing their illegal activity. 

Himmelstein, Jerome L. The Strange Career of Marijuana Politics and Ideology and Drug Control in America. Westport, Conn. Greenwood Press, 1983. Drawing on both popular culture and official reports, the author provides an intriguing history of how law and policy about marijuana were shaped since the passage of the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. 

Marijuana Tax Act effectively criminalized its use and possession, even for medical reasons. 

The legal history of marijuana laws is unusual. The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 established the federal prohibition of marijuana. The drug was placed in Schedule I, which defines a substance as having a high potential for abuse, a lack of accepted safety for use under supervision, and no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Doctors are banned from writing prescriptions for marijuana. Opiate-based medications, which are stronger than marijuana, are in Schedule II and were never banned.,—... 

The Federal Marijuana Tax Act came into effect in which year a 1906... 

Well into the 1930s, cannabis was an ingredient in a variety of over-the-counter medicines, such as remedies for stomach pain and discomfort, restlessness, and coughs (Iverson, 2000). One company marketed cannabis cigarettes for the treatment of asthma. These medicinal uses of cannabis rapidly began to decline, however, for two reasons. The first was the advances made in medicine and specific knowledge about various diseases and their treatments. The second factor was the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. This legislation markedly decreased prescribed medicinal uses of marijuana. 

The use of atrocity stories to legitimate forms of control is, of course, a technique well known to moral entrepreneurs. Becker quotes a story of an entire family being murdered by an addict which was used by the Federal Narcotics Bureau in campaigning for the Marijuana Tax Act (op. dt. p. 142). Advocates of LSD control similarly use stories of trippers walking in front of cars or stepping out of twenty-storey windows. See Mandel, op. cit., for a well-documented account of the mythical nature of one such story. 

---