Talk:Marihuana Tax Act of 1937
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale. | |
 |
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. |
 |
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. |
I removed these questions from the article:
(Does the US have an equivilent to Hannsard that I can link to?)
Perhaps someone more up on US law can explain how Tax Acts become prohibition acts?
It seems this article is entirely non-NPOV. It says starts off with a statement about a hearing that doesn't make any sense to me, then says very little about the tax act itself, and leaves me with nothing other than a very strong feeling that the authors have an axe to grind about marijuana criminalization. Speaking of "wild, entirely unsupported claims" ... 70.182.4.169 20:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Tax of $1?
In the second paragraph, it says "...levied a tax equaling roughly one dollar". That doesn't seem correct. I heard it was $100/oz, with the intent of making it prohibitively expensive for anyone to grow cannabis. Perhaps someone can clear this up, and provide a citation? 0xDEADC0DE (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] TERRIBLE TERRIBLE TERRIBLE ARTICLE
"The act did not itself criminalize the possession or usage of cannabis, but levied a tax equaling roughly one dollar on anyone who dealt commercially in marijuana." "this act was found to be unconstitutional . . . since a person seeking the tax stamp would have to incriminate him/herself." The nature of the taxation & the unconstitutional nature of it should be made clear. The article indicates all a grower would have to do is pay the tax, not indicating why that would be incriminating. This article aught mention the stringent body of Regulation 1 enforcement proceedings, the threat to doctors prescribing marijuana to patients, and the severe & abusive machinations of Harry J. Anslinger in harassing growers when the act as passed. --Rektide 22:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes there is conflicting information here. IN the legal history of Marijuana in the US. It says that the Act did make possession and usage of cannabis illegal under federal law, so which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.191.7 (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Anslinger's Statements and Neutrality
The entire fourth paragraph seems to conflict with many quotes on the Anslinger wiki and it also attacks pro-marijuana ralliers ADarkerBreed 22:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Legislation pre 1937
Would be useful to see some context in terms of US legislation re cannabis cultivation, use etc prior to 1937. Cannabis was already a controlled substance in the UK, under an act dating from 1928, and was probably contolled before then. UK legislation was generally in line with international conventions to which the US was also signatory. The Marijuana Tax Act, however, seems to have gone far beyond anything expected in terms of those conventions, and for reasons which represented the racial prejudice of a powerful US clique. In the UK medical prescription of cannabis was not prohibitted until 1971. Laurel Bush 12:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC).
I'm left with a considerable amount of confusion about this act, and what it actually did.
It was my understanding that the act required licenses for marijuana production and sale, but in order to be issued a license you would have to already have possesion of some marijuana. Basically, you had to break the law in order to comply with it. :)
[edit] Article name
If the act was called the "Marihuana Tax Act" then this should surely be moved to 1937 Marihuana Tax Act despite the spelling common today. violet/riga (t) 21:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- I was thinking exactly the same thing myself.--Lairor 22:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Timothy Leary v. US, US Court of Appeals, 1967
I've read the entire opinion, and it seems to me that the 5th Circuit actually upheld the conviction, not overturned. If the Marihuana Tax Act was, in fact, found unconstitutional, it was not as a result of this case. --Eric 13:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems that this article is full of wild speculation and conspiracy theory against cannibis. It needs to be entirely rewritten with a NPOV or deleted entirely if it is indeed redundant. --Thenormalyears 22:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV-Check
The whole History portion seems to be pretty radically anti-criminalization. I'm recommending this for review for probable violations of the Neutral Point of View policy. --69.104.39.89 21:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm as anti-criminalization as anyone, but I recognize that the "history" section of this article had nothing to do with the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act. Since it was not only POV but also irrelevant, I've simply deleted it, as no amount of cleanup would have made it suitable for inclusion in this article. JoeCatch 23:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Former POV and factual issues
The article had a few POV and factual issues. The statement "It is worth noting that Marijuana has many known links to cancer and other health problems..." seemed to me to present exaggerated view of Marijuana's cancer risks. Also the section on possible racial motives for the act included statements of opinion and fact unsourced to credible sources I removed that I removed. Evidence clearly suggest that various forces used racism to help gain support for the act though the issue of stopping the production of hemp based paper and fiber products in favor of alternatives offered by the Dupont Corporation has also been argued by some as motivations for the law. The claim "The bill itself is also unlikely to be racially motivated." is opinion which I have removed. If some notable source has offered such opinion then it could be added back attributed to to that source. The article should probably flesh out info on what the stated arguments for the act used by it's supporters and the claims of what the true motivations for act really where by pro-Marijuana legalization activists and others. Also, there is usefull info relating to the act that is present in the article on Anslinger that should be included in this article. --Cab88 07:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about any of the factuality issues, but the language use here is really sloppy: e.g. typos/misspellings like "cannbis" and "testemonies", or the misbegotten phrase "bad founded arguments".
[edit] No J???
Some parts of this article have a J and others use an H. This article needs to be consistent. William Ortiz (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
