After finishing fourth in last night’s Iowa caucus, Newt Gingrich wasted little time traveling to New Hampshire, host of next week’s primary.
New Hampshire’s a far different beast than Iowa: it’s more moderate, less motivated by social issues and legendarily independent. The Live Free or Die State is basically a liberal version of Texas, the equally individualistic Lone Star State.
Despite its slogan, though, New Hampshire is the only Northeast State that has no decriminalization or medical marijuana laws, so it’s no wonder a voter asked Gingrich about his pot policy during a Concord town hall today. And it was a doozy.
“Would Thomas Jefferson or George Washington be arrested for growing marijuana?” the man asked, putting Gingrich in an awkward position: arrest two Founding Fathers or stick to his anti-pot platform.
The candidate replied, “I think Jefferson and George Washington would strongly discourage you from growing marijuana, and their tactics to stop you would be more violent than they would be today.”
Rosie Gray at BuzzFeed points out that “historian” Gingrich is wrong: Jefferson and Washington both grew marijuana on their Virginia farms, hoping to make it big in the then-booming hemp industry. Both, however, failed.
The Straight Dope has this brief history lesson:
Washington used some of what he grew to make hemp clothing worn by his slaves. However, U.S. hemp exported to Britain often was of such poor quality that it couldn’t be sold, and Washington was never able to turn a profit on the crop despite sustained effort. Jefferson also seems to have grown hemp strictly for local consumption, from which we deduce he couldn’t make money at it either. In short, not only were Washington and Jefferson marijuana farmers, they were unsuccessful marijuana farmers.
What’s more, Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence on hemp paper (the final version was put on parchment). Gingrich is either intentionally obscuring history to maintain a hardline against marijuana, which to opponents can only be used for getting hippies high, or she needs to brush up on marijuana’s American history. Either way, the candidate’s response provides an opportunity for a closer examination of his past support for medical marijuana.
As previously noted, Gingrich praised medical marijuana in a letter published in the March 19, 1982, edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association. Though the then-Representative made distinguished between “marijuana’s potential harms” and its “important medical benefits,” Gingrich in no uncertain terms blasts federal law for prohibiting marijuana’s medical use.
Since 1978, 32 states have abandoned the federal prohibition to recognize legislatively marijuana’s important medical properties. Federal law, however, continues to define marijuana as a drug “with no accepted medical use,” and federal agencies continue to prohibit physician-patient access to marijuana. This outdated federal prohibition is corrupting the intent of the state laws and depriving thousands of glaucoma and cancer patients of the medical care promised them by their state legislatures.
On September 16, 1981, Representatives Stewart McKinney and I introduced legislation designed to end bureaucratic interference in the use of marijuana as a medicant.
We believe licensed physicians are competent to employ marijuana, and patients have a right to obtain marijuana legally, under medical supervision, from a regulated source.
This isn’t the same as allowing patients to grow their own, but Gingrich’s philosophy on the matter is certainly more liberal than the one he holds today. He now says patients who use medical marijuana will simply have to deal without the “convenience.”
Gingrich told Yahoo’s Chris Moody in November he changed his mind within a year of introducing the 1981 legislation because of “the number of parents I met with who said they did not want their children to get the signal from the government that [smoking pot] was acceptable behavior.”
That means Gingrich switched positions sometime between Early 1982, when the AMA letter was sent, and September of 1982, one year after he and McKinney introduced the legislation. Pretty fast turnaround there, Gingrich.
But why, one has to wonder, is Gingrich still basing his marijuana policy on opinions from three decades ago when the majority of today’s voters — 77% according to CBS News‘ October poll — believe medical marijuana should be legalized?
Image via Gage Skidmore’s Flickr.





January 04, 2012 at 3:42 pm, Rivethead1000 said:
How is Cecil Adam’s “The Straight Dope” cannabis-centric? Do you know what that column is where what it’s origins are?
January 04, 2012 at 4:32 pm, Anonymous said:
Every year millions of people around the world use alcohol to celebrate in the New Year, and every year many people are killed as a result. Cannabis is far safer than alcohol and many lives will be saved when people are allowed to choose cannabis over alcohol. People like Mr. Gingrich are allowing unnecessary death and suffering to occur due to their irrational opposition to cannabis. Laws should be based on logic, fact and science and NOT on preconceived ideology and unsubstantiated fears! Legalize adult cannabis sales.
January 04, 2012 at 4:40 pm, Global Hemp said:
Want industrial hemp grown in America? Vote for Ron Paul, not Newt Gingrich.
January 04, 2012 at 5:58 pm, MacDude said:
“Hemp is of first necessity to the wealth & protection of the country.” – Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President “Make the most you can of the Indian Hemp seed and sow it everywhere.” – George Washington, U.S. President
January 05, 2012 at 1:46 am, Matt Kramer said:
One reason marijuana is illegal is because in the 30′s cotton growers
lobbied against hemp farmers. They thought that the hemp growing would
just be competition for them.
From: http://www.lightparty.com/Energy/Hemp4.html
. . . the campaign to destroy hemp as a commercial crop began in the early
1930s when DuPont chemists developed their first petrochemical fiber, nylon, and
patented the sulfate and sulfite processes for making paper from wood pulp. About
that time William Randolph Hearst, newspaper giant, was investing widely in lumber
holdings as pulp for newsprint. Since hemp was cheaper and better source for paper
than wood pulp, and hemp’s superior fiber length, strength and low cost competed
with nylon, the two commercial giants connived to destroy the hemp industry. (Cotton
with a fiber length of 1 1/2 inches compared to hemp’s 15 feet plus cotton’s extensive
water and pesticide requirements offered no threat to DuPont.) About this time other
industrial chemists were developing plastics from such biomass products as hemp.
Henry Ford, at his secret biomass conversion plant, had already built a model automobile
of plastics derived largely from hemp with only the frame of metal. The car’s fuel
was also derived from hemp.
To destroy commercial hemp it was necessary first to criminalize it, and so the
campaign began. First, the name hemp was changed to “marijuana.” DuPont
then began lobbying the chief counsel of the Treasury Department, Herman Oliphant,
to prohibit cannabis (hemp) cultivation, saying DuPont’s synthetics could replace
hemp oil commercially. Simultaneously, Hearst’s papers began a campaign which portrayed
Mexicans as “lazy, degenerate, and violent,” and as marijuana smokers and
job stealers. (Mexico’s hero Pancho Villa, not incidentally, had stolen 800,000 acres
of Hearst’s prime timberland.)
January 05, 2012 at 6:53 am, P.D. Bear said:
A majority of the “founding fathers” also had slaves so what they did or didn’t do is a useless argument.
January 06, 2012 at 9:41 am, Anni Rammacher said:
I’ll repeat one line from our history. Hemp for Victory.
January 05, 2012 at 11:44 pm, Michael Novak said:
and come on i believe that its got to be more than half the country thats in favor of full regulation. at least half the country knows the bull all these prohibitionist spread about marijuana. no its not as healthy or unharmful as eating an apple. but its most like the least harmful recreation drug around. and i heard somewhere that some guy found a possible cure for cancer in pee, so i mean come on pot has shown great promise in being a cure or a BIG step to a cure and they won’t even look into it they’d rather go sifting through pee for a cure for cancer than a promising plant. im voting for ron paul if im not to late for voter registration. first time voting.
January 05, 2012 at 11:49 pm, Michael Novak said:
and P.D. BEAR saying that there were some poor standards in the past means we shouldn’t learn a GOD DAM thing from history is the most ignorant thing I’ve every heard, read, or even processed through my brain. Congratulations your moronic.
January 06, 2012 at 12:32 am, TheHempCloud said:
Newt didn’t seem to be too bad of a guy; but as I hear more and more about him, I am starting to dislike him. I’ve been intrigued by Ron Paul since the start. He really does seem to be this countries chance for some real change that will turn this country around.
With all of the possible hemp products, I am still amazed that it hasn’t gained a real foot-hold in the paper, plastic, textile, and fuel sectors.
January 06, 2012 at 2:33 am, Offthefloor said:
We are witnessing the death throes of prohibition while its advocates make a desperate and frantic last stand, their final frenzy.
January 06, 2012 at 3:01 am, Anonymous said:
“…the number of parents I met with who said they did not want their
children to get the signal from the government that [smoking pot] was
acceptable behavior.”
I’m assuming that the use of oxycontin or morphine is “acceptable.” Well, since the government allows it… along with huge banks stealing money and corporations literally murdering people for small change per individual.
The National Academy of Sciences recently released a report stating that about 100 MILLION americans suffer from some sort of chronic pain. I’d rather see people using something absolutely HARMLESS and “almost free” to treat their pain than using highly addictive drugs that decrease their lifespan as well as quality of life.
I think Noot has been hanging around nosy nazi grandmas too much… he’s been acting, talking and even looking like them. Give the guy a perm and call him Nana.
January 06, 2012 at 3:57 am, Roger said:
I’ve read that Nawt Gingrich smoked pot – http://www.veryimportantpotheads.com/gingrich.html – hypocrite
January 06, 2012 at 10:01 am, Anonymous said:
Newt is just another example of someone who has used himself but would have others locked up for doing it. If marijuana law was based on it’s true danger to society and to the individual, it would never have been made illegal. I’ve been using it for 40 years and am still perfectly healthy! If I had been locked up for it I’m pretty sure my health would not be nearly as good.
Why can’t we base our laws on right and wrong instead of what is profitable? Money is the only reason marijuana is illegal. It keeps the DEA in business, law enforcement across the country profit from it, big pharma doesn’t want the competition, owners of private prisons really like their peaceful guests… On and on…
It is clear to anyone who has done even basic homework on the subject that the prohibition of marijuana does a great deal more harm to society and the individual than the marijuana itself ever could.
I believe Newt is just plain dumb and ignorant about the subject. However, I think Obama is a lot smarter but has chosen to play politics instead of doing what I’m sure he knows is right! It’s hard to choose between the two… Ron Paul will get my vote for sure!
April 02, 2012 at 9:24 pm, Mark Jones said:
this pisses me off. why am I just now reading this? RP 2012!
April 11, 2012 at 4:30 pm, History of marijuana prohibition: policing pot & weed laws – Death and Taxes - Clinical Cannabis Today said:
[...] about one hundred years. In fact, colonists were actually required to grow hemp, and we know the Founding Fathers were all about it, and weed was quite fashionable among rich people in the mid-19th century. The [...]
April 12, 2012 at 1:42 am, History of Marijuana Prohibition: Policing Pot & Weed Laws | Death and Taxes said:
[...] about one hundred years. In fact, colonists were actually required to grow hemp, and we know the Founding Fathers were all about it, and weed was quite fashionable among rich people in the mid-19th century. The [...]