[HN Gopher] How the DEA scrubbed Thomas jefferson's poppy garden...
___________________________________________________________________
How the DEA scrubbed Thomas jefferson's poppy garden from public
memory
Author : pera
Score : 127 points
Date : 2023-06-09 15:04 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.alternet.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.alternet.org)
| Trouble_007 wrote:
| Up in a Puff of Smoke!
|
| > _Employees even gathered the store 's souvenir T-shirts with
| silkscreened photos of Monticello poppies on the chest -- and
| burned them._
| sp332 wrote:
| Now do eggplants.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| When I lived in Morocco, the field behind our house was an opium
| field.
|
| It wasn't just orange poppies. They were a bunch of colors.
| Looked great.
|
| My mother grew them in our back yard. My brother and I used to
| chase each other with dried seed pods. They rattled, and, when
| you smacked someone, the seeds would explode, getting into
| everything.
| zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
| Growing poppies isn't illegal
| mrelectric wrote:
| Yeah, but you won't find opium poppies seeds anywhere online
| anymore, even if you just want them for decoration/tea.
| eindiran wrote:
| This is completely untrue. Every major garden supplier will
| sell them, and there are a number of places where you can
| find cultivars bred for their alkaloid content. The latter
| type is perhaps grey-area legal, but definitely still
| available on the internet.
| [deleted]
| jdefr89 wrote:
| Google poppy seed tea. You will find plenty of poppy seed
| vendors lols
| meesles wrote:
| No one said that, read the article.
|
| > Jefferson had planted opium poppies in his medicinal garden,
| and opium poppies are now deemed illegal
|
| Growing with the intent to produce opium is illegal. By
| continuing his tradition in the museum, it was deemed a
| continuation of production for drugs and so probably came under
| scrutiny. I'm sure they could regrow a garden for decorative
| purposes if they actually did that and were clear about it.
| pera wrote:
| I really don't know anything about this topic but according
| to the DEA it is "technically" illegal:
|
| https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/ROA-
| Times/issues/1991/rt9...
| meesles wrote:
| That's a cool source that contradicts the article posted
| originally. In yours they say they won't prosecute, but in
| the article it claims they were low-key threatened into
| getting rid of the garden. Odd.
| pera wrote:
| Yeah found it after posting the article, although I
| wouldn't say it contradicts the story (except for the
| title), this is my interpretation: random DEA agent sees
| something [1] that looks probably illegal during a visit
| and notifies Monticello, Monticello then attempts to
| confirm this with DEA through more official channels, who
| then clarifies that it is technically illegal but they
| wont persecute, even then Monticello decides to remove
| the plants and seeds [2].
|
| 1- `A DEA man noticed the store was selling packets of
| "Thomas Jefferson's Monticello Poppies."`
|
| 2- `Nobody told them to do this, but, under the
| circumstances, no one dared risk the threat`
| odensc wrote:
| The article did say that:
|
| > The seeds had to go, too. While poppy seeds might be legal,
| it is never legal to plant them. Not for any reason.
| tssva wrote:
| This is not an accurate story. Monticello had for a while been
| concerned about the legality of growing the plant and selling the
| seeds. They first contacted the Department of Agriculture and the
| Virginia Attorney General regarding this question. They didn't
| receive clear guidance, so they then reached out to the DEA
| regarding the legality. The DEA told them it was illegal but also
| released a public statement that no enforcement action would take
| place if they grew them solely for decorative purposes on the
| estate. Monticello made the decision to go ahead and remove the
| plants anyways on their own.
| cwkoss wrote:
| The DEA is not a good source of legal advice. It is legal to
| grow Papaver somniferum in the United States for garden and
| seed production purposes.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| Not only is the DEA not a source of legal advice in any
| capacity, they can lie to you if directed to.
|
| Monticello stopped growing poppies because they asked their
| legal counsel and they said "yeah that's a fast track to
| jail"
| tssva wrote:
| Monticello contacted, I'm sure through their legal counsel,
| the Department of Agriculture which indicated growing the
| poppies in question was legal and the Attorney General of
| Virginia's office who indicated that the law was
| contridictary and unclear. This when they then contacted
| the DEA for an opinion.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Do you have evidence/sources for that? I did some searching
| and couldn't find any primary sources that said growing
| Papaver somniferum in the United States is legal. On the
| contrary, nearly every primary source I found said that it is
| _illegal_.
|
| The Wikipedia article on the topic says this:
|
| > Though "opium poppy and poppy straw" are listed in Schedule
| II of the United States' Controlled Substances Act, P.
| somniferum can be grown legally in the United States as a
| seed crop or ornamental flower.
|
| But the source reference to that sentence points to this
| article, https://web.archive.org/web/20210421041214/http://ag
| syst.wsu... , which states:
|
| > It is legal to grow Papaver somniferum in the United States
| for garden and seed production purposes; it is illegal to
| manufacture opium from the poppies.
|
| However, that article doesn't seem to back that up with any
| source material. On the contrary, it directly _contradicts_
| one of its own listed sources, https://web.archive.org/web/20
| 210421145024/http://www.hort.p... , which states "As the
| peony flowered poppy, the opium poppy is widely grown as an
| ornamental, even here in the US, where it is illegal to
| grow."
|
| That is, as best as I could find, growing Papaver somniferum
| is still _technically_ illegal in the US, but basically all
| enforcement agencies have said they 're OK with ornamental
| use. Would love to see any contradictory evidence if someone
| has it.
| tssva wrote:
| This link from the North Carolina State University
| agricultural extension indicates it is illegal at least in
| North Carolina.
|
| https://plants.ces.ncsu.edu/plants/papaver-somniferum/
| jtode wrote:
| Weed grower for about ten years here. If you've paid any
| attention at all to the legal industry, you'll see that
| there's an endless supply of new "genetics" coming out (99%
| hype bullshit) and some famous names like "Kush," "Diesel,"
| etc.
|
| These are called cultivars, the same species but much like
| dog breeds, you can select for attributes like potency,
| flavor, etc.
|
| I've never seriously tried to grow opium, but I have had
| poppies in the garden and I've attempted to slice and get a
| bit of latex from them, and basically the seeds they sell
| for gardens are a weak cultivar that is not suitable for
| opium production. If you look at the Wikipedia page it's
| got a picture of what appears to be an Afghan farmer
| collecting latex, and you can tell from the photo that this
| is a heavy latex-producing breed, very different from what
| we can grow legitimately here.
|
| I'm sure seeds for that cultivar can be acquired fairly
| easily, but I wouldn't know how.
| TigeriusKirk wrote:
| Interestingly, the wikipedia article for papaver somniferum
| includes the op version of the story, linking to op as a
| source.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papaver_somniferum#History
| celtoid wrote:
| I was living in Charlottesville at the time and I remember
| this. Charlottesville had just made national news because of a
| huge drug bust at UVa (Operation Equinox). Monticello was
| covering its bases.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| You mean some raving diatribe on the Internet is actually total
| bullshit? Shocking!
|
| In all seriousness, thanks very much for your post, it's the
| kind of informative content that I really appreciate about HN.
|
| At the same time, this blog post gets to everything I hate
| about the Internet and online discourse these days: nobody even
| _attempts_ to argue in good faith anymore. US drug policy over
| the past century is rife with plenty enough problems that you
| don 't need to blatantly make shit up to get your point across,
| as this author did.
| garbagecoder wrote:
| Thank you.
|
| Also, the headline is self-contradictory. How could it be
| scrubbed from public memory and then there's an article. Maybe
| they _tried_? But apparently that 's not really true either.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| The alternative facts news-sphere ALWAYS plays the "HERES
| WHAT _THEY_ DON 'T WANT _YOU_ TO KNOW but for some reason a
| random dude on the internet totally uncovered this top secret
| situation but he doesn 't even work for the air national
| guard or use discord"
| garbagecoder wrote:
| as a former (army) nasty girl I sincerely appreciate your
| mildly pejorative use of the air national guard. (;
| mrguyorama wrote:
| I meant it as a reference to the kid leaking intelligence
| secrets for discord clout
| garbagecoder wrote:
| oh, right. well I still appreciate it (;
| BeetleB wrote:
| Ah, Alternet. I didn't realize they still existed. When I was a
| news junkie it was one of my sources of information - until I
| started digging deep and learned how inaccurate it often was.
| meesles wrote:
| Sharing a source linked below that confirms this comment and
| seems to disprove the article posted -
| https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/ROA-Times/issues/1991/rt9...
| zanethomas wrote:
| strange that a constitutional amendment was required to ban
| alcohol, but none was required for other drugs
| pfannkuchen wrote:
| Everyone reading this who isn't familiar with Wickard v.
| Filburn please look it up on Wikipedia. Greater awareness of it
| would be really helpful. It is a blatantly insane
| interpretation and a huge amount of power at the federal level
| is built on top of it.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Even if you don't enjoy that interpretation of
|
| "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the
| several states, and with the Indian tribes;"
|
| You cannot deny that "among the several states" can be
| interpreted to mean congress can regulate commerce in the
| states.
| pfannkuchen wrote:
| I'm not sure what you mean? I think that pretty clearly
| refers to commerce _between_ states. How are you
| interpreting it differently? They just really casually and
| implicitly gave the feds the power to regulate all
| interpersonal transactions within each state? I think they
| would have said that explicitly if they meant it, no?
| mrguyorama wrote:
| "Among the several states" does not conclusively disallow
| congress from regulating intrastate commerce in my
| opinion. How does "among" restrict the regulation only to
| things going _between_ the states? What definition of
| "among" limits the rest of the clause to only certain
| interactions involving commerce flowing through multiple
| of the states?
|
| If I regulate commerce specifically in the state of
| Virginia, which is a member of the set of states, IMO I
| am regulating commerce among the states. The rest of that
| section of the constitution is all about how the
| Government's laws should be equal across all states, ie
| there is no favoritism, so that also leads me to believe
| this could be about keeping the government fair, rather
| than limited.
|
| Keep in mind a huge point of the Constitution superseding
| the articles of confederation was that interstate
| activities were a pain in the ass and trade treaties were
| a dumpster fire. Giving congress final say over trade in
| the Union is absolutely compatible with that. It was not
| a document about keeping the Feds out of the business of
| the states. It was entirely about giving the federal
| government MORE power over the affairs of the states
| because the previous federal government was basically
| useless and at the whims of powerful state governors who
| absolutely did not want to stop being the kings of their
| little fiefdoms.
| vanattab wrote:
| It was not and is not required! Many states and locations
| locally banned alcohol before and after prohibition. What did
| take a constitutional amendment was ending prohibition but only
| because it was implemented through a constitutional amedment.
| pfannkuchen wrote:
| It took a constitutional amendment to do it at the federal
| level. Congress would not have been able to pass such a law
| constitutionally prior to Wickard v. Filburn.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| It wouldn't require an amendment today. Sadly the courts have
| supported a huge increase in the federal government's police
| power over the years.
| [deleted]
| pc86 wrote:
| It didn't _require_ an amendment in the past either.
| mcbits wrote:
| The Supreme Court could have chosen not to interpret the
| Commerce Clause so broadly to say that _not_ engaging in
| interstate commerce affects interstate commerce and
| therefore counts as interstate commerce (IIRC that started
| with wheat, not drugs), in which case most federal drug
| laws would not apply unless the activity actually involved
| interstate commerce. Then an amendment would be needed.
| pc86 wrote:
| Yes, had things been different they would have been
| different. I'm not sure what the point of that statement
| is, honestly.
| xeromal wrote:
| The amendment was a goal by prohibitionists to ensure the law
| wouldn't be easily repealed. To their chagrin, they didn't
| realize the will of the people in banning their ridiculous
| amendment.
| rayiner wrote:
| Prohibition obviously reflected the will of the people--it's
| impossible to amend the constitution without supermajority
| support. The Volstead Act was approved by overwhelming
| majorities of both houses, and then ratified by 46 of 48
| states.
|
| It wasn't "ridiculous." It was one of the first things women
| did with the vote. It probably would've worked if it hadn't
| been for Irish and Italian immigrants.
| throwway120385 wrote:
| I think there's more to it than "immigrants love their
| alcohol so much they started whole criminal enterprises."
| It's probably coincidental that the biggest names in
| illicit alcohol during that era happened to be Italian
| crime family names.
|
| In the south there were so many bootleggers that they used
| to race each other around tracks to see who had the fastest
| car. This would eventually become Nascar.
|
| I think it's more accurate to say that there was
| overwhelming support for Volstead from people in power who
| were swayed by the narrative that alcohol was draining
| families of resources and dis-inhibiting otherwise good men
| from hitting their wives and children. But there were also
| a lot of people who didn't let alcohol ruin their marriages
| and family relationships, and those people would eventually
| get the act repealed.
| xeromal wrote:
| Speaking of Appalachian bootleggers, my great grandpa was
| one. There are ruins far in the woods outside my
| childhood home when you can see the old infrastructure
| and a pile of rusty cans that used to be 10 ft high. It's
| mostly disintegrated now. My great grandpa retired from
| it when he was visited by some rival Italians who wanted
| to have exclusive access to him. He was offered the
| choice to retire or serve them exclusively so he gave up
| the business and went back to farming.
| rayiner wrote:
| Prohibition wasn't repealed because we determined
| "alcohol isn't so bad." To this day, alcohol remains
| tremendously damaging to women. 70% of sexual assaults
| involve alcohol use by the perpetrator. 55% of domestic
| violence incidents involve alcohol use prior to the
| incident. Obviously that doesn't exculpate the
| perpetrators. But those bad people will exist no matter
| what--alcohol pours fuel on the fire.
|
| We repealed prohibition because it proved unenforceable.
| And Irish and Italian immigrants had a tremendous amount
| to do with that, both because of their participation in
| organized crime and because of their cultural acceptance
| of alcohol. (To this day, the divide between people who
| supported temperance and those who got it repealed lives
| on in who serves grape juice at communion and who serves
| wine. Even a century of integration later, there's a
| marked difference between evangelical Protestants and
| Catholics in terms of regular alcohol use.)
|
| After all, it's not like banning alcohol is impossible.
| Alcohol use is extremely restricted in many countries
| around the world.
| pfannkuchen wrote:
| Is German or English beer culture new? They may be
| culturally less prone to skirting the law than Irish or
| Italians (want to stress the word _culturally_ here), but
| I don't really see how we can attribute it to a cultural
| difference in the acceptance of alcohol.
| rayiner wrote:
| Temperance was an outgrowth of religious movements that
| occurred within American Protestantism in the late 1700s
| and through the 1800s:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperance_movement. The
| seeds of this were sown back in Europe (John Wellesley
| for example) but those groups like Baptists, Methodists,
| and Quakers who opposed alcohol (and still do) had a lot
| more influence in America than they did back in Europe.
| And since the country was new they had a greater ability
| to reshape the culture.
|
| So the relevant cultural difference is between these
| American Protestants, who had been diverging from Europe
| for 100+ years, and immigrants from continental Europe,
| who hadn't experienced that cultural change.
| jk_i_am_a_robot wrote:
| It wasn't required. It was a moonshot that worked.
| burkaman wrote:
| I don't think an amendment was required. Alcohol could have
| been banned at the time through legislation, it just would have
| been easier to reverse and maybe less universal.
| pfannkuchen wrote:
| That's not correct as far as I understand it. Prior to
| Wickard v. Filburn the federal government did not have the
| power to ban substances (since it isn't explicitly specified
| in the constitution). If congress had passed a law doing so,
| that law would have been considered unconstitutional. Wickard
| v. Filburn is obviously ridiculous and should be overturned,
| but it never will be.
| burkaman wrote:
| The way I interpret a decision like that is the court
| saying "yes the government does have the power to do this
| and it always has, it is specified in the constitution and
| if you thought otherwise you've been reading it wrong."
| It's sort of a pointless philosophical distinction, but I
| wouldn't say the government didn't have that power before
| the decision, I'd say they did but they never tried to use
| it (unless the court was overturning a previous decision).
|
| I'm aware that the Supreme Court sometimes completely
| changes its mind in a matter of decades, so it's possible a
| legislative prohibition would have been struck down 20
| years before Wickard v. Filburn, but it's also possible the
| court would have come to the same unanimous decision. I
| don't know anything about legal history so if there's some
| obvious reason the 1918 court would have ruled differently
| then I apologize.
| beerpls wrote:
| Alcohol was used by more people. The governmental play that had
| to be carried out to make the people tolerate the tyranny was
| minimal.
|
| Remember it's not about what a piece of paper says the rules
| are - it's what you can get away with in power.
| willcipriano wrote:
| We used to be a republic, now we are a democracy.
| masfuerte wrote:
| They weren't bans originally. They were huge taxes that nobody
| could afford to pay. The bans came later after the supremes
| gave carte blanche to the feds.
| celtoid wrote:
| Great book as referenced in link.
|
| "Opium For The Masses" by Jim Hogshire, 1994 [0]
|
| [0]
| https://ia800802.us.archive.org/9/items/armchaircommando/Opi...
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| And the poppy is the California state flower! Can't use it; can't
| plant it; and in California you can't eradicate it! A lovely
| world we're in.
| jk_i_am_a_robot wrote:
| "Opium" poppies are still grown at George Washington's estate,
| Mt. Vernon (https://www.mountvernon.org/the-estate-
| gardens/gardens-lands...). Since it's also in Virginia I assume
| it's governed by the same state and federal laws as Monticello.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-09 23:02 UTC)