Editorial Standards — How We Evaluate Claims

Primary-Source Methodology

Every factual claim on this site is traced to a specific primary source: a congressional hearing transcript, a court decision, a scientific paper, an archival collection, a presidential recording, or a government document. When we state that something happened, we identify the document that records it.

We distinguish between primary sources (documents created at the time of the events they describe) and secondary sources (scholarship that interprets those documents). Both are valuable. But when a secondary source's interpretation conflicts with the primary record, we follow the documents.

Treatment of Secondary Scholarship

This site draws on a substantial body of academic scholarship. The foundational works include:

• Bonnie and Whitebread, The Marihuana Conviction (1974)
• Musto, The American Disease (1973; 1999)
• McWilliams, The Protectors (1990)
• Campos, Home Grown (2012)
• Fisher, "Racial Myths of the Cannabis War" (2021)
• Duvall, The African Roots of Marijuana (2019)

When we rely on these scholars' interpretations, we name them and distinguish their analysis from the underlying primary documents. Where scholars disagree with one another, we present the disagreement rather than choosing a side without explanation.

Treatment of Jack Herer

Jack Herer's The Emperor Wears No Clothes (1985) is the most influential book in cannabis advocacy history. It is also a source with significant factual errors. We treat Herer as useful but fallible:

• Where Herer is right, we credit him. His identification of hemp as a suppressed industrial crop has been vindicated by the market.
• Where Herer is wrong, we correct him with primary sources. The Declaration of Independence is on parchment, not hemp paper. Ford's "hemp car" was primarily a soybean car.
• Where Herer is partially right, we distinguish what the evidence supports from what it does not. The Hearst-DuPont-Mellon conspiracy has real components and fatal chronological problems.

Herer released his book to the public domain. He offered a $100,000 challenge to disprove his claims. We take his claims seriously enough to evaluate them individually rather than accepting or rejecting the book wholesale.

Myth Identification

This site explicitly identifies claims that are commonly repeated but unsupported by primary evidence. We use the term "myth" to describe a claim that has become widely believed but cannot be verified in the documentary record. Examples include:

• Emperor Shennong prescribing cannabis in 2737 BCE (the text dates to the 1st-2nd century CE)
• The Declaration of Independence written on hemp paper (it is on parchment)
• Queen Victoria prescribed cannabis for menstrual cramps (no primary source has been identified)
• The founding fathers smoked marijuana (they grew hemp for fiber; no evidence of psychoactive use)

We distinguish between myths (claims that are demonstrably false) and unverified claims (claims that may be true but lack primary-source support). When a widely cited quotation cannot be traced to a verifiable primary source, we flag it as unverified rather than presenting it as fact.

What "Apocryphal" Means

We use the term "apocryphal" for claims that are widely attributed but cannot be traced to a reliable primary source. An apocryphal claim is not necessarily false — it may be true but undocumented. The distinction matters because cannabis history is full of quotations and anecdotes that "everyone knows" but no one can source.

When we describe a claim as apocryphal, we mean: "This is widely repeated, but we cannot verify it in the primary record. It may be true. Treat it with appropriate caution."

Corrections Policy

If a factual error is identified on this site, we correct it. If a primary source contradicts something we have published, we follow the source. Corrections are made directly in the text — we do not maintain a separate corrections log, but significant corrections are noted inline.

We welcome source suggestions, corrections, and challenges from readers. Contact information is available on our contact page.

What We Are Not

• Not advocates. We do not argue for or against cannabis legalization.
• Not medical advisers. We do not provide medical advice or recommend cannabis use.
• Not sellers. We sell no products and accept no advertising.
• Not funded by the industry. We have no financial relationships with cannabis companies, advocacy organizations, or government agencies.

We have an opinion about whether you should know the actual history of cannabis policy. We do not have an opinion about what the policy should be.