As a result, cannabis was almost globally considered as Public Enemy Number One by the early 20th century, and its use blamed for a multitude of social ills and behaviours. During this period, and even today in places where cannabis remains illegal (e.g. the UK), the public was/are told that cannabis use was/is dangerous, addictive, and has a high risk of abuse. Nothing could have been further from the truth. Furthermore, and while this might seem ridiculous now, it was also claimed that those who used cannabis risked becoming rapists, murderers, and prone to take part in risky and criminal behaviours. Despite the lack of robust scientific evidence to support such claims, these so-called ills of smoking cannabis  were officially stated as being true to achieve the political objectives and hidden agendas of certain individuals at that time. One of these individuals was Harry Anslinger (1892-1975), the first commissioner of the U.S Federal Bureau of Narcotics that was established in 1930 to combat illegal drug use. 

Cannabis: Chosen for ‘Stardom’

Historical documents and memorabilia from Anslinger’s time in power, reveal how he chose cannabis as a means of ensuring the continuation of a bureau that had, in essence, become defunct due to the end of Prohibition. In Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs (2015), author Johann Hari explains that Anslinger did not seem concerned about cannabis used prior to Prohibition ending. However, once alcohol was legalised Anslinger knew that cocaine and heroin use was too small to warrant the future of the bureau and, as such, threatened his own career. He “needed more,” states Hari, “and cannabis became Anslinger’s golden ticket” (7).

Anslinger, who remained commissioner for more than 30 years, deliberately set about demonising cannabis through a campaign that portrayed cannabis in the worst possible terms. Despite its known medicinal value, its recreational use (in both the U.K. and U.S.) was introduced by non-whites at that time and, as a result, became “associated with […] immigrants […] and [so] people began to fear the drug.”(8) In America, for example, cannabis use was associated with Mexican people and cannabis referred to as the ‘Mexican Menace’ in anti-cannabis campaigns. Although the plant was primarily known as ‘cannabis’ at that time in mainstream white America, Anslinger chose to use the term ‘marijuana’ because this associated its use with people that did not have white skin. He also claimed that cannabis use led not only to violence, but that it caused promiscuity in women, who would then form ‘un-natural’ relations with non-whites, and that its use led to insanity. The state-funded public information film, Reefer Madness (1936), is a very good example of anti-cannabis propaganda at this time (see right sidebar).

The DEA (Drug Enforcement Bureau) museum, which remains proud of Anslinger’s work despite what is now known about cannabis, describes Anslinger’s role or position as being “the job of a Drug Czar” on their website. They describe how he helped “to craft drug policies and treaties not only for the United States, but for the entire world,” and that he remained “active on the world stage long after his retirement from the FBN” (9). All well and good, except that Anslinger’s portrayal of cannabis was entirely false and, unfortunately, resulted in cannabis being outlawed almost globally – not forgetting of course the millions of lives destroyed by the harsh, unwarranted legal penalties that included long prison sentences (e.g. A first-offence cannabis possession in the 1950s carried a minimum sentence of 2-10 years in prison with a fine of up to $20,000, and those caught offending more than once faced life in prison). Today, those distributing cannabis in the U.K (even when providing it for medicinal purposes), still face a possible 14-year prison sentence.

The removal of cannabis from the U.S Pharmacopoeia in 1942 was fiercely contested by the medical world, who informed the American government that cannabis was a useful plant in many different medical applications and, in many cases, irreplaceable! Furthermore, any attempts by the medical world to report the medical benefits of cannabis were attacked and discredited by Anslinger (who was a dirty fighter) personally. In 1944, for example, when the New York Academy of Medicine ‘published a report stating that marijuana was only a mild toxicant, Harry Anslinger responded to this report with a solicited article in the American Journal of Psychiatry that attempted to attack and discredit the information they had previously published’ (10). 

Anslinger used his position and office to trumpet up a false association between cannabis use and violence/insanity. “You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill your brother,” he stated on more than one occasion (11). Anslinger’s hypocrisy is well-documented – prior to the end of Prohibition (and his appointment as commissioner), this obvious racist and bigot is on record stating that “cannabis use was no big deal,” even calling the idea that it made people mad or violent as an “absurd fallacy” (12). Within just a few years that had all changed, and the deception began – and the lies that underpinned his campaign resulted in the imprisonment of multitudes of cannabis users, ultimately resulting in destroying the lives of millions around the globe on two counts: By criminalising cannabis users, and by denying people access to a medicine that could cure a multitude of health conditions, including cancer. 

One of the reason’s that Anslinger’s deception worked was due to his position of authority as the commissioner of the department that fought drug crime, which meant that many people (falsely) regarded him as an expert.  American citizens (for the most part), believed him to be knowledgeable, honest, with most people not even considering the possibility of a hidden agenda. And so people believed or accepted that what they were being told was true- not only in the U.S, but across the globe – and so cannabis was demonised. As a result generations of children, including this author, grew up believing cannabis was a lethal narcotic – as bad, if not worse, than heroin!

These lies, which were peddled as absolute truth during the ineffective and damaging global ‘War on Drugs,’ was overwhelmingly successful. They resulted in forming entrenched, steadfast beliefs among the public  that were rigid – with little, if any, room for change – and unfortunately this situation would continue. While the notion of cannabis being as dangerous as heroin was no longer believed in general, most people perceived cannabis as a gateway drug that was dangerous, addictive, and without medical benefits. Anslinger’s campaign, despite being built on lies and deception, had proved to be highly successful.

Both the United Kingdom and the North America associated recreational cannabis use with race – as something foreign to white culture – and, as such, found only among “the coloured seamen of the East End and in clubs frequented by Negro theatrical performers” (13). The issue of recreational cannabis use had therefore remained on the fringes of British society during the first few years of the 20th century. However, as its use began to spread among white nationals, the British government began to listen to the reports coming out of America and, in time, followed their lead.