|
|
Page 23
The article is badly confused on the pharmacological and botanical identity of marihuana, which have nothing to do with astragulus hornii or rancher’s loco-weed. The claim that the Board dreaded “loco-weed” as much as opium or cocaine is suspect, given that the Board did not mention loco-weed, marijuana, or hashish in its biannual reports or minutes. Nor was the California legislation copied from Mexican “antiloco” laws.96 Insofar as the Board had already been planning a law against Indian hemp for the reasons set forth by Finger and Wright, it seems evident that the new menace was incorporated by simply adding “loco-weed” to the text.
The details of the Board’s deliberations are obscure. Like other narcotics legislation, the 1913 law received no press coverage and only the most cursory mention in pharmacy journals. The only published comment from the Board came from Finger’s colleague C.B. Whilden, who cryptically remarked that legislation was needed "because of the increase in the use of 'hasheesh,' a detrimental preparation of hemp." 97
Significantly, the Board’s proposed anti-cannabis legislation was opposed by the pharmacy profession. In a poll by the California Pharmaceutical Association (CPhA), druggists voted by more than 2 - 1 that the “Poison Law should be left as it is.” 98 Although the CPhA had originally been a close ally of the Board in the fight for “progressive” pharmacy legislation, it had become alienated by the Board’s high-handed maneuvering in a dispute over a bill to tighten licensing requirements for pharmacists.99 The Retail Druggists’ Association of San Francisco put itself formally on record against the Board’s proposed anti-cannabis legislation.100 However, the Board was in firm control of the legislature, which passed it unanimously.
The new law, which took effect on August 10, 1913, had peculiar language. Rather than listing cannabis along with opiates and cocaine in Section 8 of the Poison Law, which governed the sale and possession of narcotics, the law took the curious form of an amendment to Section 8(a), concerning the possession of opium paraphernalia:
Chapter 342 (1913) " Section 8(a). The possession of a pipe or pipes used for smoking opium (commonly known as opium pipes) or the usual
96 Mexico’s federal law prohibiting marijuana was not passed until 1920 ( “Diario Oficial,” March 15, 1920). Prior to that, there were sundry state laws and other control efforts dating back as far as 1855. Montfort, op. cit., p. 186.
97 Pacific Drug Review 25(3):89 (March 1913).
98 The vote was 118 to 45: Drug Clerk's Journal 2(3): 32 (December 1912). There were "a few favoring a change whereby the trade would be allowed to sell carbolic acid full strength if properly registered, and still others favoring the restriction of cannabis indica, contending that its sale should be restricted to the same extent that cocaine and morphine are": Pacific Drug Review 25(1): 8 (Jan. 1913).
99 The Board, led by Finger, scuttled a proposal by the CPhA to require a college degree of pharmacists. Finger’s position is understandable in that he himself had been forced to drop out of the California College of Pharmacy due to financial problems. However, his role in this and other disputes left him highly unpopular with colleagues: Pacific Pharmacist 5:13 (May 1911) and Pacific Drug Review 23(4):9 (April, 1911). In a poll of over 100 pharmacists by the Pacific Pharmacist, no more than two (and possibly none) favored Finger for appointment to the Board; nonetheless, he was re-appointed by Gov. Johnson: “The Pacific Pharmacist’s Referendum Vote on Board Membership Qualifications,” Pacific Pharmacist 6 : 189-90 (December 1912).
100 Pacific Pharmacist 6: 279 (March 1913).
|
|
|