answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

The government outlawed hemp back in the early days. Not because it was considered a drug. But because hemp is a cheaper and better way to produce paper, rope, and multiple other things. Hemp would have made the paper industry go out of business. So with that being the case, hemp was outlawed. The American Flag made by Betsy Ross was actually made with hemp materials.

==========

Unfortunately nearly all of the above answer (aside from the statement that "the government outlawed hemp back in the early days) is often repeated urban folklore. I left it intact to avoid claims of censorship.

Marijuana was declared illegal fairly recently. If you go back further it was regulated as a drug. Hemp was, of course, mostly grown for the fibers for rope and fabric early on. The first regulation of cannabis (marijuana) was for its use in medicines. Those laws first started appearing on in the USA around the mid 1800's. Note that at that time a large fraction of the paper being produced was made from hemp and other fibrous plants rather than wood pulp. Nearly all paper was made from recycled fibers from used textiles, i.e. rags, which were mostly linen, hemp, and cotton. The paper was rougher but more durable than most of the paper we use now. Production of paper shifted from recycled fibers (including hemp) to wood pulp in the early 1900's because with newly developed industrial processes it was cheaper to process trees for pulp than to collect and recycle rags and trees were more plentiful - it was NOT a matter of hemp hurting the use of wood for paper; paper from wood pulp beat hemp based paper in the economic competition well before marijuana was made illegal. Even after a working version of a decorticator for hemp reduced the labor costs of producing fiber from hemp, it still couldn't compete financially with wood pulp for paper.

Yellow journalism in the late 1800s in the papers published by Randolph Hearst cemented the idea of marijuana as a "demon weed" linked to violence in the minds of much of the public. Even then it was regulated as a drug. It first became essentially illegal in in the USA in 1937 when the "Marihuana Tax Act of 1937" (yeah - that's the way they spelled it) was passed. The act made it illegal except for medical and industrial uses and set a hefty tax on those uses. In the USA the Boggs Act of 1953 stepped up the penalties. It was made flat out illegal in the USA except for research when it was placed on the list of "Schedule I Controlled Substances" by the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. Other countries followed a similar progression of regulation to making it illegal with roughly the same timeline and the same rationale.

User Avatar

Wiki User

7y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: Who decided marijuana was illegal?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Continue Learning about American Government

What category does fall under?

Marijuana falls under the following categories: Drugs and illegal drugs


Why was marijuana made illegal in the US?

Because the government, with the consent of the people, believing it is dangerous passed a law forbidding its use.


What is an example of trying to give control over certain issues from the federal government back to state and local government?

Federalism is the act of returning control to state and local governments. This is a popular trend in conservative politics and allows the individual state to have more control over meeting the needs of its population.


What is a decided case?

a decided case is when the people decid if you go to jail or you have to pay a fine this is decided by a jury


To what extent is that truism exemplified in the shared perspectives (on states rights and federal power) of the marijuana entrepreneur in Oakland and gun-rights activist in Montana?

The shared perspectives of the marijuana entrepreneur in Oakland and gun-rights activist in Montana on states rights and federal power could vary widely depending on the specifics of their respective positions. The marijuana entrepreneur in Oakland likely views states rights as a means to protect their business’s ability to remain in operation, as marijuana is still illegal on the federal level. This entrepreneur may be in favor of states having the right to make their own laws regarding marijuana, as it would help their business remain viable. Meanwhile, the gun-rights activist in Montana may view states rights as a way to protect their Second Amendment rights from federal encroachment. This perspective would likely be rooted in a desire to keep the federal government from passing laws that could impede the ability of individuals to own and use firearms. In terms of federal power, the marijuana entrepreneur in Oakland may be wary of too much federal power, as it could lead to new laws that might make their business illegal. On the other hand, the gun-rights activist in Montana may support an increased role of the federal government in protecting their Second Amendment rights, as they could view it as a means of ensuring that their rights are not infringed upon. Overall, the shared perspectives of the marijuana entrepreneur in Oakland and gun-rights activist in Montana on states rights and federal power could vary greatly depending on their respective positions and the specifics of the issue at hand.