![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Although technically illegal for purposes of distribution and use, the distribution, sale and use of cocaine was still legal for registered companies and individuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp0 ( talk • contribs) 13:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
It'd be nice to see a discussion of how the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act managed to get around states' rights and issues of personal space. Does anybody know the answer(s) to these questions? Much thanks... -- chodges 06:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The article says: The act appears to be concerned about the marketing of opiates. However a clause applying to doctors allowed distribution "in the course of his professional practice only." This clause was interpreted after 1917 to mean that a doctor could not prescribe opiates to an addict, since addiction was not considered a disease. I am looking for a source that names 1917 for the change in interpretation. I cannot find it in Spillane, Musto, or in the Supreme Court record. The US v. Jin Fuey Moy ruling of 1916 was in favor of the defendant, and it seems not until US v. Webb and US v. Doremus in 1919 that the Supreme Court changed its perspective. I have no reason to doubt the article's assertion that the change occurred in 1917, since it is consistent with other information available to me; in fact that is why I am interested in finding the source. A5 ( talk) 20:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
"Addicts of opium were very frequent. It has been estimated that one US. citizen of 400 was an addict of opium in 1914, much more frequent than today, and the number had increased fast for a number of years". Wrong Wrong Wrong. 0.25% is not even close to as large as the REAL percent of the population addicted to an opiate today. The percentage is also much higher now than it was in 1914. A source is needed for this entire quote, because the one listed can not be verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brantunger ( talk • contribs) 01:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
While the evidence used may have been entirely spurious, it is highly doubtful he would've made this claim on no basis whatsoever as claimed, particularly as the article already lists numerous (albeit biased and objectionable) sources he might have cited in his argument. The actual evidence used (preferably with its debunking) is needful. - LlywelynII ( talk) 15:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
How is it possible that William Jennings Bryan was the chief proponent of the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act but this person is not mentioned in this article? -- A2323545 ( talk) 17:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC) William Jennings Bryan was NOT a legislative proponent of the Harrison Act as he was Secretary of State and not in Congress at the time. Bryan was a prominent advocate of alcohol prohibition, however. Dgieringer ( talk) 22:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Harrison Narcotics Tax Act/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
==WP Tax Class==
Start class because needs to be more referenced and needs to explain whether the law is still in effect. EECavazos 19:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC) ==WP Tax Priority== Low priority because the articles does not say whether the law still applies today, if the law still applies today then the article's priority should be mid. EECavazos 19:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 19:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 17:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Harrison Narcotics Tax Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Although technically illegal for purposes of distribution and use, the distribution, sale and use of cocaine was still legal for registered companies and individuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp0 ( talk • contribs) 13:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
It'd be nice to see a discussion of how the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act managed to get around states' rights and issues of personal space. Does anybody know the answer(s) to these questions? Much thanks... -- chodges 06:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The article says: The act appears to be concerned about the marketing of opiates. However a clause applying to doctors allowed distribution "in the course of his professional practice only." This clause was interpreted after 1917 to mean that a doctor could not prescribe opiates to an addict, since addiction was not considered a disease. I am looking for a source that names 1917 for the change in interpretation. I cannot find it in Spillane, Musto, or in the Supreme Court record. The US v. Jin Fuey Moy ruling of 1916 was in favor of the defendant, and it seems not until US v. Webb and US v. Doremus in 1919 that the Supreme Court changed its perspective. I have no reason to doubt the article's assertion that the change occurred in 1917, since it is consistent with other information available to me; in fact that is why I am interested in finding the source. A5 ( talk) 20:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
"Addicts of opium were very frequent. It has been estimated that one US. citizen of 400 was an addict of opium in 1914, much more frequent than today, and the number had increased fast for a number of years". Wrong Wrong Wrong. 0.25% is not even close to as large as the REAL percent of the population addicted to an opiate today. The percentage is also much higher now than it was in 1914. A source is needed for this entire quote, because the one listed can not be verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brantunger ( talk • contribs) 01:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
While the evidence used may have been entirely spurious, it is highly doubtful he would've made this claim on no basis whatsoever as claimed, particularly as the article already lists numerous (albeit biased and objectionable) sources he might have cited in his argument. The actual evidence used (preferably with its debunking) is needful. - LlywelynII ( talk) 15:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
How is it possible that William Jennings Bryan was the chief proponent of the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act but this person is not mentioned in this article? -- A2323545 ( talk) 17:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC) William Jennings Bryan was NOT a legislative proponent of the Harrison Act as he was Secretary of State and not in Congress at the time. Bryan was a prominent advocate of alcohol prohibition, however. Dgieringer ( talk) 22:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Harrison Narcotics Tax Act/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
==WP Tax Class==
Start class because needs to be more referenced and needs to explain whether the law is still in effect. EECavazos 19:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC) ==WP Tax Priority== Low priority because the articles does not say whether the law still applies today, if the law still applies today then the article's priority should be mid. EECavazos 19:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 19:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 17:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Harrison Narcotics Tax Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)