The Great Lie:

The criminalization of cannabis in the United States (and elsewhere) did not happen overnight, nor did it happen strictly on the basis of scientific evidence of harm. Instead, a variety of cultural, political, and economic factors converged—often influenced by misinformation, greed, fear, lack of understanding and prejudiced narratives. Below are some commonly cited false or misleading claims that contributed to the prohibition of cannabis that are still used today:

1. Racially Charged “Reefer Madness” Propaganda

• “Marijuana causes insanity, criminality, and violence.”
  In the early 20th century, sensationalized newspaper articles and propaganda films (most infamously, Reefer Madness, 1936) claimed that smoking “marihuana” led to uncontrollable violence, insanity, and moral decay.

• Association with minority groups.
  Cannabis was widely used by Mexican immigrants and Black jazz musicians in the early 1900s. Propagandists and certain politicians deliberately tied cannabis use to these groups, stoking racist fears and fueling public support for prohibition.

2. Harry Anslinger’s Campaign and Congressional Testimonies

• Exaggerated Testimonies.
  Harry J. Anslinger, the first commissioner of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN), is known for presenting highly anecdotal, often fabricated or unverified accounts of violent crimes supposedly caused by marijuana users. These dramatic stories were used to persuade lawmakers and the public that cannabis was a grave social threat.

• Selective or Misrepresented “Evidence.”
  Anslinger presented selective quotes from doctors or experts—some of whom later claimed their statements were taken out of context or misquoted. He also ignored contrary evidence from professionals who did not see cannabis as particularly dangerous. He also straight up lied about deaths that we attributed to “The Devil Weed” to cause fear in congress and the American public.

3. Claims About “Gateway Drug” Effects

• “Marijuana inevitably leads to harder drug use.”
  The notion that cannabis was a “gateway” to heroin, cocaine, or other drugs was a major talking point. While modern research suggests that most people who use cannabis do not move on to harder drugs, the gateway theory has historically been used to justify prohibition despite lacking strong evidence.

4. Industry Competition Theories (Hemp vs. Other Industries)

• Threat to Paper, Timber, and Petrochemicals.
  Some historians theorize that major players in the timber, paper, and petrochemical industries lobbied to marginalize hemp—which was seen as a cheaper, sustainable competitor for paper, textiles, plastics, and even fuels. While the extent of such lobbying is debated, it’s clear that hemp’s potential threatened certain established industries, and there was little incentive to defend it.

5. Overblown Health Concerns

• Lack of Differentiation Between Hemp and High-THC Cannabis.
  Early anti-marijuana campaigns lumped industrial hemp together with psychoactive cannabis. Even though industrial hemp contains negligible THC (too low to produce a “high”), it was swept up in the same prohibitions.

• “No Accepted Medical Use.”
  Despite long-standing folk and medical use of cannabis (e.g., tinctures, pain relief), prohibition advocates dismissed or minimized these uses, claiming there was “no medical benefit.” Modern research has since found potential therapeutic benefits for conditions like epilepsy, chronic pain, and more.

6. Cultural and Moral Panic

• Moral condemnation and fear of corruption of youth.
  Many prohibition narratives focused on the idea that cannabis posed a unique threat to young people, leading them astray. The portrayal of marijuana as an immediate route to moral and social decline was a powerful motivator for stricter laws.

• Ignorance vs. Scientific Evidence.
  During the height of anti-cannabis legislation, thorough scientific studies were scarce or ignored. Fear-based messaging reached the public more quickly and effectively than measured research could.

The Lasting Legacy

The culmination of these lies and half-truths led to the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act, and eventually the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, where marijuana was classified as a Schedule I substance—one of the strictest categories, denoting “high potential for abuse” and “no accepted medical use.”

While significant strides have been made toward legalization and research in many states (and around the world), the federal classification remains unchanged as of this writing, highlighting the lasting impact of those early propaganda efforts and misrepresentations.