Talk:Harrison Narcotics Tax Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve tax-related articles to a feature-quality standard.
Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-priority on the Project's priority scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's comments page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

	This article is part of WikiProject Drug Policy, an attempt to improve Wikipedia's coverage of drug policy. Feel free to participate by editing this article or by visiting the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

[edit] Question about constitutionality

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)

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)

[edit] Need source for 1917

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)