The Global Pattern Behind Cannabis Prohibition's Rise
Photo by 參角點 via Pexels.
Put India, the Islamic world, colonial Africa, Mexico, and the United States side by side and a strange thing happens: the details change, but the mechanism doesn't. A plant that had been woven into religious ritual, medicine, and farming economies for thousands of years gets recast, almost overnight in historical terms, as a threat to public order the moment it becomes associated with a population someone in power wants to control. The costume changes -- sometimes it's a colonial tax officer, sometimes a newspaper editor, sometimes a delegate at a Geneva conference table -- but the script stays remarkably consistent. Cannabis itself didn't change between 1700 and 1937. What changed was who was using it, and who got to decide that mattered.
This isn't a coincidence you notice once and move past. Trace the paper trail across four continents and roughly four centuries, and the same pattern keeps resurfacing: sacred or utilitarian plant, long tolerated under customary or religious rules, suddenly reclassified as dangerous right around the time it becomes linked to a group the dominant authority wants to discipline. Understanding that pattern explains a lot about why cannabis law today still looks like a patchwork built by people who never quite agreed on what they were regulating -- the plant, or the people.
Sacred, Medicinal, Woven Into Daily Life
Photo by Mohit Sharma via Pexels.
Cannabis shows up in the Atharvaveda, one of the four Vedas of ancient India, as one of five sacred plants, alongside its role in Ayurvedic medicine as a treatment for ailments ranging from insomnia to digestive trouble. This wasn't a fringe or underground use -- it was embedded in religious and medical frameworks that priests and physicians openly practiced and recorded. That lineage never fully broke. Bhang, a drink made from ground cannabis leaves mixed with milk, spices, and sometimes nuts, remains legal in India today and shows up at Holi celebrations and in offerings associated with Shiva, who in some traditions is described as a devotee of the plant himself. Walk through an Indian city during Holi and you'll find bhang sold openly at government-licensed shops in certain states -- not a relic, but a living practice.
A parallel story unfolded across the Islamic world, where hashish filled a social and cultural niche partly because alcohol carried religious prohibition under Islamic law. Hashish use threaded through Persian and Arab literary traditions, surfacing in poetry, in storytelling collections, and in debates among scholars about its permissibility that mirrored debates about wine. It wasn't universally embraced -- some jurists condemned it harshly -- but the regulation that did exist came from religious scholarship and social custom, not from a criminal code built around policing and incarceration.
What's notable across both regions is the regulatory mechanism itself. Use was governed by occasion, context, and religious framing -- who could drink bhang and when, what hashish use signified in a given social setting -- rather than by statute and prison sentence. Meanwhile, hemp's fiber economy ran in parallel for centuries: rope, cordage, and textile production coexisted with psychoactive use without anyone treating the plant as a singular threat requiring suppression. The fiber and the intoxicant were understood as different applications of the same plant, not a reason to ban either.
When Colonial Powers Decided Who Could Use It
Photo by Derek Torsani via Unsplash.
The shift from custom to criminalization tracks almost perfectly with colonial expansion, and the record starts earlier than most people assume. In 1550, Spain's colonial governor in Mexico issued an order restricting cannabis cultivation after observing that Indigenous populations were using the plant for purposes beyond the rope and textile production the Spanish crown had intended when it introduced hemp farming. The concern wasn't agricultural -- it was about control over how colonized people were engaging with a crop the colonizers had brought in for their own economic purposes.
Portugal ran a similar playbook across its African colonies, introducing cannabis prohibitions in territories including Zambia and Angola. Portuguese colonial administrators framed cannabis use explicitly as a vice considered especially dangerous among enslaved populations, language that reveals the actual target wasn't the plant's pharmacology but its role in the social and psychological life of people under forced labor systems. A worker who used cannabis was framed as a worker harder to control, and that was the problem administrators said they were solving.
South Africa's colonial laws in the 19th century sharpened this further, targeting cannabis use specifically among indentured Indian farmworkers brought to Natal to labor on sugar plantations. The framing at the time cast their cannabis use as a threat to civil order -- not a claim backed by evidence of violence or social breakdown, but a rationale that happened to justify tighter control over a labor population colonial authorities already viewed with suspicion. That local targeting eventually scaled up into South Africa's national prohibition in 1922, a ban that stood for nearly a century until the country's Constitutional Court struck it down in 2018.
Line these cases up and the common thread is impossible to miss: the laws didn't target cannabis because of what it did chemically. They targeted it because of who was using it -- colonized, enslaved, or indentured people whose behavior the ruling authority wanted a new lever to govern.
1925: The Year the World Agreed to Disagree With the Plant
Photo by Annie Spratt via Unsplash.
By 1925, the colonial pattern of localized bans had matured into something bigger: an international legal framework. The Second Geneva Opium Convention and the Second Pharmacopoea Convention, both negotiated that year, produced the first direct references to cannabis in international treaty law, setting a precedent that would shape drug policy for the rest of the century.
What surprises a lot of people is who actually drove that push. It wasn't the United States, which hadn't yet escalated cannabis into the national obsession it would become in the following decade. The key voices pressing for restriction at the 1925 negotiations were Egypt, South Africa, and Mussolini's Italy -- each bringing its own domestic anxieties about cannabis use among specific populations into a room where the outcome would bind dozens of other countries that had no comparable domestic concern. Egypt in particular argued that hashish use was causing serious social harm among its population, a claim that carried disproportionate weight in shaping the treaty language given how few other delegations had done independent research on the subject.
That 1925 framework didn't stay the strictest version for long. It was superseded by the far more restrictive 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which placed cannabis in its most tightly controlled schedules alongside drugs with no recognized medical use -- a classification that would take decades and dozens of countries to begin unwinding.
2025 marked the centenary of the 1925 conventions, and it didn't pass unnoticed. Activist groups including the Cannabis Embassy organized commemorations, and academic conferences examining the anniversary were held in Toronto and Paris, with a UNESCO-affiliated event convening in Barcelona to reassess the treaty's legacy. The throughline these gatherings kept returning to is the one worth sitting with: 1925 established a template where diplomatic consensus became the vehicle for exporting one bloc's domestic anxieties onto the entire world's drug policy, regardless of whether other nations' cannabis traditions looked anything like Egypt's, South Africa's, or Italy's.
America's Version of the Same Story
Photo by HONG SON via Pexels.
The American version of this story runs on a parallel track with its own cast of characters, but the mechanism is identical. In the early 20th century, U.S. newspapers and government officials began deliberately attaching the word marijuana -- a term borrowed from Mexican Spanish -- to cannabis, deliberately severing the linguistic connection to the hemp that had already been grown in American agriculture for generations. The relabeling wasn't neutral. It tied the plant specifically to Mexican immigrants and, increasingly, to Black jazz musicians, two populations that were already facing intense social and political hostility in that era.
Sensational press coverage did the rest of the work. Newspapers ran stories attributing insanity, violence, and moral collapse to cannabis use, often citing no clinical evidence at all -- just anecdote dressed up as reporting, repeated until it hardened into received wisdom among lawmakers who had never read a pharmacological study on the subject. Harry Anslinger, the first commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, became the loudest amplifier of this narrative, but he was working with raw material the press had already built for him.
That campaign produced concrete law. The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 didn't outlaw cannabis outright -- instead it imposed licensing requirements and taxes so prohibitive and administratively punishing that compliance became practically impossible, achieving criminalization through the back door of the tax code. It would hold for over three decades until the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 placed cannabis in Schedule I, the most restrictive category in American drug law, reserved for substances deemed to have no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse -- a classification that ignored the plant's own millennia-long medical record in India and elsewhere.
Set next to Mexico's 1550 order, Portugal's African colonial statutes, and South Africa's targeting of indentured workers, the American pattern isn't a separate phenomenon. It's the same mechanism, running domestically, with different communities standing in as the designated threat.
The Pattern Isn't Finished Playing Out
Photo by KATRIN BOLOVTSOVA via Pexels.
The arc that started with South Africa's 1922 ban finally closed in May 2024, when the country's Cannabis for Private Purposes Bill was signed into law, formally establishing a framework for adult-use legalization more than a century after colonial-era statutes first targeted Indian farmworkers' cannabis use specifically. It's a rare case where a full policy loop -- from targeted colonial prohibition to constitutional challenge to legislative legalization -- can be traced start to finish in the historical record.
The United States, by contrast, remains stuck mid-loop. The Department of Justice's rule in April 2026 moved FDA-approved and state-licensed medical cannabis to Schedule III, a meaningful shift after more than fifty years in the most restrictive category, but adult-use cannabis stayed classified as Schedule I at the federal level, leaving a split system where a product's legal status depends on which door it walked through. The broader DEA rescheduling hearing process, meanwhile, was paused as of September 29, 2026, leaving the underlying federal framework contested and incomplete rather than resolved.
That contrast is worth sitting with. The international consensus that built prohibition -- the 1925 conventions, reinforced by the sweeping 1961 Single Convention -- came together with a kind of diplomatic efficiency that today's reform efforts can't match. Tearing down a restrictive framework, it turns out, takes far longer and far more political negotiation than building one did, even when the evidence base for reform is considerably stronger than the evidence base that justified the original bans.
And underneath all of today's halting, jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction changes sits the same question that occupied the delegates at Geneva in 1925: whose use of this plant counts as legitimate, and whose gets treated as a problem to be managed. The specific legal mechanics differ by country and by year, but that question hasn't gone anywhere.
None of this is ancient history with no bearing on the present. When U.S. regulators draw a line between FDA-approved medical cannabis and adult-use cannabis, when South Africa's legislature spends years working out the details of its private-use law, when UN bodies revisit scheduling decisions built on a 1961 framework that itself grew out of 1925 diplomatic horse-trading -- all of it is still implicitly answering the same question those Geneva delegates were arguing over a century ago. Whose consumption counts as legitimate, worthy of medical sanction or cultural respect, and whose gets treated as a social problem requiring a licensing fee, a criminal statute, or a treaty schedule?
The answer has never actually been about the plant's chemistry, and the historical record makes that hard to dispute. Bhang has been legal and socially unremarkable in India for millennia. Hashish shaped Persian poetry. Hemp rope and psychoactive use coexisted peacefully for centuries before anyone thought to separate them by law. What changed the plant's legal status, again and again, was a shift in who was holding it -- and that's the thread connecting a 1550 Spanish colonial order in Mexico to a paused DEA hearing in 2026. The mechanism is old. The question it keeps raising is still open.
