How 'Marijuana' Became the Racialized Term for Cannabis in America

The 1930s Campaign That Weaponized Language

Federal Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner Harry Anslinger popularized 'marijuana' in the 1930s specifically to invoke anti-Mexican and anti-Black sentiment during his push for the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Before that campaign, Americans knew the plant as cannabis or hemp—terms rooted in medical and agricultural use. Anslinger's testimony to Congress repeatedly linked 'marijuana' to violence by people of color. That framing persisted through the War on Drugs and beyond.

The shift wasn't subtle. Newspaper editorials and congressional hearings adopted the Spanish-origin term to distance the plant from its established medical applications. By 1937, most lawmakers voting on the Tax Act didn't realize they were criminalizing the same substance physicians had prescribed for decades.

Why Terminology Still Matters in 2026

State regulators and equity advocates now debate whether to use 'cannabis' or 'marijuana' in statutes, with at least nine states formally adopting 'cannabis' in legislation passed since 2020. The choice carries weight. 'Marijuana' remains the term in federal scheduling documents, while equity programs increasingly default to 'cannabis' to signal a break from prohibition-era framing.

Operators in social-equity licensing programs report the distinction matters to community trust, and one Los Angeles dispensary owner told EURweb that using 'cannabis' in storefront signage was a deliberate move to distance the business from the stigma that fueled disproportionate arrests in Black and Latino neighborhoods.

• New York's Office of Cannabis Management uses 'cannabis' exclusively in all official communications
• California's Department of Cannabis Control rebranded from 'marijuana' terminology in 2021
• Federal agencies including DEA still use 'marihuana' in Schedule I listings

The Arrest Data Behind the Language Debate

Between 2001 and 2010, Black Americans were arrested for marijuana possession at 3.7 times the rate of white Americans despite similar usage rates, according to ACLU data—a disparity rooted in the racialized enforcement Anslinger's rhetoric enabled. Even in states with legal markets, that gap persists in unlicensed-sale prosecutions.

Equity applicants in Illinois and Massachusetts cite this history when arguing for automatic record expungement tied to licensing. The terminology shift is one piece of a broader reckoning with how language, law, and enforcement intersected to target communities of color.

What Comes Next for Industry Naming Standards

Trade groups including the National Cannabis Industry Association now recommend 'cannabis' in member communications, while federal reform bills remain split on terminology depending on sponsor politics. The SAFE Banking Act uses 'cannabis.' The Controlled Substances Act still reads 'marihuana.'

For operators navigating compliance, the choice often defaults to state statute language, but branding decisions increasingly lean toward 'cannabis' to align with equity messaging, and one Denver cultivator noted that younger consumers under 30 vastly prefer 'cannabis' in product marketing, viewing 'marijuana' as outdated or loaded.

For full background on racial disparities in enforcement and licensing, see the CannIntel topic hub on Cannabis Racial Justice and Equity.