All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Feb. 11, 2014 - Skeptoid
17:12
Skeptoid #401: Hemp, Hearst, and Prohibition

A popular urban legend claims that William Randolph Hearst conspired to make cannabis illegal in the United States. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
The Hemp Conspiracy Myth 00:07:08
As marijuana gradually becomes legalized across the United States, one old urban legend we hear more and more often is the idea that William Randolph Hearst was part of a conspiracy that got marijuana declared illegal to protect various corporate interests.
Today we're going to look at the origin and specific claims of the conspiracy theory and compare them to the true history of this popular drug.
Hemp, Hearst, and Prohibition is today on Skeptoid.
A quick reminder for everyone, you're listening to Skeptoid, revealing the true science and true history behind urban legends every week since 2006.
With over a thousand episodes, we're celebrating 20 years of keeping it focused and keeping it brief.
And we couldn't have done it without your curiosity leading the way.
And now we're even offering a little bit more.
If you become a premium member, supporting the show with a monthly micropayment of as little as $5, you get more Skeptoid.
The premium version of the show is not only ad-free, it has extended content.
These episodes are a few minutes longer.
We get rid of the ads and we'll replace them with more Skeptoid.
The Extended Premium Show available now.
Come to Skeptoid.com and click Go Premium.
You're listening to Skeptoid.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
Hemp, Hearst, and Prohibition.
One of the most popular urban legends in American counterculture is that of the hemp conspiracy.
It's a complex tangle of facts and fiction surrounding the long history of how and why marijuana became illegal in the United States.
It's a tale of economics, robber barons, racism, and backroom conspiracies.
What string of events could have led to this most versatile of materials, and among the safest of psychoactives, being vilified by the law and nearly non-existent from industry?
Hemp, cannabis, and marijuana are all the same thing.
Just as there are different types of roses or tomatoes, there are different types of cannabis.
All varieties produce tough hemp fiber that has myriad industrial uses, notably in paper, fabric, rope, even construction bricks.
Some strains produce more or less hemp seed, which can be used in foods.
But most notably, some strains produce a lot of THC, tetrahydrocannabinol, a psychoactive that triggers relaxation and produces changes in the senses.
As an analgesic, THC has long been available by prescription in synthetic form, but with all the different strains available, many habitual users prefer different varieties.
But we all know that basic stuff already.
But what we don't all know is how exactly it came to be illegal.
The usual claim, most often repeated, is that four conspirators cooperated to kill the hemp industry with something called the Marijuana Tax Act, spelled with an H, of 1937.
These conspirators are identified as newspaperman William Randolph Hearst, whom the legend describes as being heavily invested in the timber industry to support his papers.
The DuPont family, whose chemical company had just invented nylon and was allegedly afraid of competition from hemp fiber.
Andrew Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury and the nation's richest man, who had significant investments in DuPont.
And Harry Anslinger, commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, who drafted the legislation.
To protect their industrial interests, these parties are said to have conspired to make hemp illegal.
This conspiracy theory was always around, but it reached prominence beginning in 1985 with an outrageously popular self-published pamphlet called The Emperor Wears No Clothes by pro-marijuana activist Jack Herrer.
Harrer continued revising his book until his death in 2010, and it's available online at jackharrer.com.
Except that he generally exaggerates the medicinal value of cannabis and industrial uses of hemp, his book is a fairly true history of cannabis in the United States.
The biggest hole in the story Herrer tells is that he largely glosses over the fact that hemp was virtually non-existent in the country before his conspirators got around to conspiring against it, largely due to racism combined with the same evangelical forces that were behind the prohibition of alcohol.
The word marijuana was popularized by the forces who were out to ban it, well represented by Anslinger, a career crusader against the drug and alcohol trades.
Before Anslinger took the helm of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics in 1930, marijuana was called Indian hemp or cannabis India.
In a political spin move, Anslinger pointed to immigrant Mexicans and blacks as the prime users of illicit cannabis, and he began publicly referring to it as marijuana, the Mexican name, as a weasel word to associate it with low-status or criminal immigrants.
The conspiracy of Hearst, DuPont, and the others, as described by Herrer, was greatly exaggerated.
For one thing, by the time of the Marijuana Tax Act, hemp planting had managed to grow to an all-time high of only 14,000 total acres in the United States.
Compared to hundreds of millions of acres of timber and about 10 million acres of cotton, hemp's market share and consequent threat it posed to wooden cotton was completely insignificant.
And it was only going to continue to get worse anyway.
Many laws had been passed making cannabis illegal decades before the alleged conspiracy between Hearst, DuPont, and the others.
California had banned non-prescription cannabis in 1913 as part of a campaign against drugs that was largely anti-Chinese.
New York City in 1914.
Texas in 1915.
Enforcement was almost entirely against Mexican and black communities.
The basic argument against Hearst's motivation to conspire against a cheaper alternative to paper is that, as newspaper baron, he was a buyer of paper, not a manufacturer of it.
Typically, buyers are delighted to have a cheaper alternative, or at a minimum, enjoy the reduced prices resulting from a competition-driven price war.
If Hearst had been a savvy businessman, he would have been more likely to play both sides against the other in order to secure the best deal for himself.
Reduced supplier competition would have created a seller's market, in which a buyer like Hearst would have suffered.
Why Hearst Didn't Conspire 00:08:19
Increased supplier competition would have created a buyer's market, in which major purchasers like Hearst would thrive.
However, the hemp conspiracy also has an answer for this.
Hearst, it's said, also owned vast timber holdings and paper mills to fuel his insatiable appetite for more paper.
Hemp paper would have threatened his timber empire.
So, where exactly was this timber empire so popularly described?
Although the internet alludes over and over again to Hearst's, quote, vast timber holdings and his, quote, vast acreage and the, quote, Hearst Paper Manufacturing Division of Kimberly Clark, no such empire existed.
In a world that can feel overwhelming, spreading thoughtful, evidence-based content is one of the best ways to make a positive impact.
Ask your local public radio station to air the Skeptoid Files, a 30-minute radio-friendly version of Skeptoid that pairs two related episodes promoting real science, true history, and critical thinking.
And in these challenging times for public media, we're offering these broadcasts for free to radio stations, available on the PRX Exchange or directly from Skeptoid Media.
It's an easy ask.
Just send a quick message to your station's programming director.
By helping to bring the Skeptoid files to the airwaves, you'll help promote the essential skills we all need to tell fact from fiction.
Just go to your local station's website, find the programming director's email address, or just their general email address.
You can even use the telephone.
I know that might sound crazy.
It's an old legacy device that allows real-time voice communication.
I know that's weird, but hey, it's an option.
The world can feel chaotic, but you're not powerless.
When you promote critical thinking, you can help your community tell fact from fiction.
And that's how we shape a better future.
In uncertain times, spreading good ideas can make you feel helpful, not helpless.
Let's stand up for reason, truth, and understanding.
Together, get them to air the Skeptoid files from Skeptoid Media, available on the PRX Exchange, and they'll know what that is.
Hearst did own one significant paper-related business.
In 1920, he purchased the Dexter Sulfite Pulp and Paper Company in New York State, which was a processing mill that bought wood from timber companies.
There was no vast acreage owned.
Hearst's idea was to produce paper for his newspapers, but it turned out not to be a good fit for the mill, so the company reverted to producing wrapping paper and wood fiber.
He later sold the affair to lumbering giant Kimberly Clark.
Surely Hearst must have owned timberland somewhere.
Hearst inherited two major pieces of land, the 270,000-acre San Simeon in California, later the site of his famous Hearst Castle, and the 900,000-acre Babacora Ranch in Mexico.
Later, he purchased the lease that was inherited by one of his cousins on the 50,000-acre Wheeler Ranch in Northern California.
San Simeon and Wheeler Ranch were both retreats that were never commercially lumbered in Hearst's lifetime, although his trustees began lumbering on Wheeler Ranch after his death.
Babacora, which Hearst later expanded to about 1.5 million acres, was a cattle and horse ranch.
William Randolph Hearst as a timber baron appears to be entirely fictional.
Though paper suppliers are absolutely among the many industries in which he owns securities, Hearst was a buyer of paper, not a seller.
It would have made no sense for him to shun a more profitable option or to encourage the paper manufacturers in which he held interests not to expand.
This popular myth about Hearst is also debunked by one of today's leading cannabis proponents, Dr. Dale Gehringer, head of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, in his paper, The Origins of Cannabis Prohibition in California.
He writes, Harrow has never produced an iota of evidence to substantiate this theory.
To the contrary, according to Hearst's biographer W.A. Swanberg, Hearst's newspaper empire was heavily dependent on imports of Canadian newsprint, rising prices of which left him seriously strapped for cash by 1939.
It therefore seems that it would have actually been in Hearst's interest to promote cheap hemp paper substitutes, had that been a viable alternative.
Hearst's newspapers absolutely did sensationalize and exaggerate marijuana crimes and the dangers of the drug, but so did virtually all publications of the day.
Anslinger's Federal Bureau of Narcotics pumped a constant stream of hysterical press releases to satiate the media, blaming murders on single reefer doses of the drug and all sorts of crazy amplifications.
A 1936 church film called Tell Your Children was massively promoted nationwide and remade by Hollywood as the 1938 Reefer Madness, a cautionary tale designed to show the horrific results of marijuana.
By the time the Marijuana Tax Act was passed, the United States population was well primed to view cannabis as the deadly symbol of the criminal immigrant class.
But as we now know, the government's public opposition to hemp was short-lived.
Only a few years after the Tax Act, we were embroiled in World War II, and resources of every type quickly became precious.
In 1989, a videotape was rediscovered showing a 1942 war propaganda film called Hemp for Victory.
The war effort called upon farmers to produce hemp as much as possible to address the need for ropes and fabric that even our gargantuan cotton industry couldn't keep up with.
There's a popular urban legend that says when George H.W. Bush was a young pilot who was shot down in the Pacific, his parachute was made of hemp fabric.
His parachute lines were of hemp rope.
His engine was lubricated with hemp oil.
And when he was picked up by a ship, its ropes and fire hoses were all of hemp.
This is nearly all unverified and highly improbable.
There remained an almost total lack of cultivation in the United States, and most industrial hemp products of the day were made with hemp fiber imported from overseas.
The war with Japan severely hampered those imports, so cotton had to do double duty, and the call for renewed domestic hemp production was simply too little too late.
Products made from hemp oil and hemp fiber continued in industry after the war, though it was nearly all imported from Canada and other countries.
Why didn't it take off?
Two reasons.
First, the anti-cannabis sentiment has continued.
Second, industrial hemp is a fine product, but it's simply not the miracle solution to every manufacturing need that many marijuana proponents, such as Herrer, have made it out to be.
It's good for coarse fiber, but not for fine fiber, and it has so far never fulfilled its initial promise to successfully replace wood fiber in paper production.
Hemp products do exist in industry, and they exist at a level pretty well established by supply and demand.
No compelling reason exists to suppress hemp, but industry has also not found much reason to replace wood and cotton with it.
Cannabis hardly needed a conspiracy of Hearst and DuPont to put it out of business by the 1930s.
It had already been doomed to extinction by racism, class warfare, and a complicit government and media to feed them.
Though we often tend to look toward the rich and powerful to point the blame for society's missteps, oftentimes the true root of the problem is uncomfortably in our own backyards.
Skeptoid Premium Membership 00:01:41
Sustainability is always an important theme in science.
I work full-time bringing you Skeptoid every week on schedule, but it's not quite sustainable.
I need your support.
If you enjoy the show, please come to Skeptoid.com and click on Support Skeptoid and see how easy it is to make your monthly micropayments, keep Skeptoid viable for years to come.
You're listening to Skeptoid.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
Hello, everyone.
This is Adrienne Hill from Skookum Studios in Calgary, Canada, the land of maple syrup and mousse.
And I'm here to ask you to consider becoming a premium member of Skeptoid for as little as $5 per month.
And that's only the cost of a couple of Tim Horton's double doubles.
And that's Canadian for coffee with double cream and sugar.
Why support Skeptoid?
If you are like me and don't like ads, but like extended versions of each episode, Premium is for you.
If you want to support a worthwhile nonprofit that combats pseudoscience, promotes critical thinking, and provides free access to teachers to use the podcast in the classroom via the Teacher's Toolkit, then sign up today.
Remember that skepticism is the best medicine.
Next to giggling, of course.
Until next time, this is Adrienne Hill.
From PRX.
Export Selection