If Marijuana had not been illegalized in 1937 would it still be illegal?

[rez]

HAHAHAHHAHAahahahahaha

First off when I drive high I become a better driver. My friends drive all the time high and have never once gotten into a car accident. However, I will play fair and consider that just luck because all drivers tend to get in a accident, no matter what.

"I dont want a "druggie" driving on the roads" AHAHAHAHAHHAHA

The funny thing is you are willing to accpet all the thousands of deaths that alchol brings to the roads, yet you want to make sure no "druggie" adds to that total. In reality the people who consume 10 beers a night at the bar are just as big as druggies as the person shooting heroin up their arm. I guess you are ok with the guy who drinks 10 beers a night because he doesnt act calm and collective, thats right, the guy on 10 beers acts agressive .....that reminds me of another drug that is illegal - Cocaine. Yes alchol has the same effects as fucking cocaine.

There is no argument here because pot is the total opposite of capitalistic America. This country wants fast paced, competitive, agressive humans that dont let hippies get in the way of their own egotisitcal success.

Have you even smoked pot? I bet you havent. I can't imagine what you think one goes through when they are high.

Drink your coffee and beer Mr.Vicchio...your success in America depends on these "social norms."

[Lou Minotti]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio I would say yes, it would be. We have enough problems with drunks on the highways, do you really want stoners out doing 70+ as well?

Don't really care. Stupid people do stupid things. Plant or no plant. Just ask your friends. And of course, one automatically equals the other. No gray area....ever. Newsmax says so....

[Richard 23]

In case some of you hadn't already heard about this, the corporate motives for outlawing reefer....

Dupont stood to make a fortune once hemp (marijuana) was made illegal.
Hemp is the ideal source of fiber for linen, canvas, netting and cordage and the most abundant, cleanest resource of cellulose (fiber) for paper, plastics and even rayon. And Dupont was very much aware of all this.

From the Emperor Wears No Clothes by Jack Herer:

When mechanical hemp fiber stripping machines finally became state of the art, available in the mid 1930s, the enormous timber acreage and buisinesses of the Hearst Paper Manufacturing Division, Kimberly Clark (USA), St. Regis -- and virtually all other timber, paper and large newspaper holding companies -- stood to lose billions of dollars and perhaps go bankrupt. Coincidentally, in 1937 DuPont had just patented processes to make plastics from oil and coal, as well as new sulfate/sulfite processes to make paper from wood pulp which would, according to their own corporate records and historians (1985), account for over 80% of all its railroad carloadings for the next 50 years. If hemp had not been made illegal, 80% of Dupont's business would never have come to be; nor would the great majority of the pollution which has been inflicted on our Northwestern and Southeastern rivers ever occurred. In an open marketplace, hemp would have saved the majority of America's vital family farms and would probably have boosted their numbers, despite the Great depression of the 1930s. Competing against the environmentally sane hemp-paper and natural plastic technology would have jeopardized the lucrative financial schemes of Hearst, DuPont and DuPont's chief financial backer, Andrew Mellon of the Mellon Bank of Pittsburgh. Mellon, in his role as Hoover's Secretary of the Treasury, in 1931 appointed his future nephew in law, Harry J. Anslinger [jerk, liar, traitor], to be head of the newly re-organized Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (FBNDD), a post he held for the next 31 years. These industrial barons and financiers knew that machinery to cut, bale, decorticate and process hemp into paper or plastics was becoming available in the mid-1930s. Cannabis hemp would have to go. In DuPont's 1937 Annual Report to its stockholders, the company strongly urged continued investment in its new, but not readily accepted, petrochemical synthetic products. DuPont was anticipating "radical changes" from "the revenue raising power of government...converted into an instrument for forcing acceptance of sudden new ideas of industrial and social reorganization."

1916 thru 1937 Hearst newspapers printed lots of anti-marijuana scare stories
1936 thru 1938 films such as "Reefer Madness" and "Marijuana -- Assassin of Youth"

In the secret Treasury Department meetings conducted between 1935 and 1937 prohibitive tax laws were drafted and strategies plotted. 'Marijuana' was not banned outright; the law called for an "Occupational excise tax upon dealers, and a transfer tax upon dealings in marijuana." Importers, manufacturers, sellers and distributors had to register with the Secretary of the Treasury and pay the occupational tax. Transfers were taxed at $1 an ounce; $100 an ounce if the dealer was unregistered. Sales to an unregistered taxpayer were prohibitively taxed. At the time, "raw drug" cannabis, sold for one dollar an ounce. The year was 1937. New York State had exactly one narcotics officer. (By 1990 it had a network of thousands of officers, agents, spies and paid informants and 20 times the penal capacity.)

In 1937, Anslinger testified before Congress saying, "Marijuana is the most violence causing drug in the history of mankind."

Hope that's enough to help provide some idea of the DuPont connection. Synthetic petrochemical plastics, synthetic fibers, a dirty high chemical wood fiber paper production process (all patented by DuPont).
Legal hemp would have made all those things worthless and would have deprived DuPont of all the years thereafter of incredible profits.

Cannabis, marihuana, and marijuana had been demonized for years as violence-inducing, that black men were seducing white women under its influence, refer madness ... Marijuana was taxed to discourage use of the "dangerous" drug foreign sounding (marihuana) drug, and along with it, a superior renewable source of natural fiber, hemp.
All for inferior and toxic petrochemical and pollution inducing wood paper products.

Thanks DuPont. Better living through lies and corruption.

[Richard 23]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio I would say yes, it would be. We have enough problems with drunks on the highways, do you really want stoners out doing 70+ as well?

So you've driven stoned a lot, and know all about it, right? So you know this stuff already and can contrast it with your experiences driving after everclear or whatever you used to drink.

Your baked driver might think he's driving 70+, but he's actually going about 25 and looking around a lot. He's being overly cautious, overloaded by the visual stimulii, watching everything. Saying, wow, cool, trippin, etc. "Bogus," if flashing lights come up from behind because he's driving 20 below the posted limit. Maybe he's lost.

You may have to drive around a couple adventurous stoners, but they're totally baked, the cops will pick them out real easy. People generally don't want to go driving when they get stoned. It's a real bring down. Probably within a half an hour or an hour without toking, they're fine to drive.

Drunk drivers are your only real concern. How often have these indestructibles affected you?

Don't drive under the influence, folks. It's dangerous for everyone. Thanks.

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Do you actually KNOW any that drive thaty fast?

I usually maintain at least 70 sober and not. Sometimes, if I am in a hurry or if I am cold (my heater works shitty), I'll got 85. My F250 can't really go much faster safely.

[Lone Gunman]

Yeah that's right - Pot is illegal due to some kinda "Industrialist Conspiracy"!

Why do all the pot heads always cry and bemoan the fact that while alcohol and smoking are both legal, their personal penchant isn't? I'll tell you why. Because we're all a bunch of selfish greedy and slovenly wasters. 'straights' hate pot heads because they see them as 'wasters'. pot heads hate 'straights' because they're always trying to 'kill the party'.

Drinking and driving is just stupid. Smoking pot and driving is almost as stupid, BUT because you feel more in control of your faculties and senses when stoned you take the risk. Admittedly you will be driving like a grandma and the likelyhood of having an accident isn't as high as for a drunk - but you're still being selfish and not considering that you're sharing the road with 10 drunks, 3 guys without a license, 6 without insurance, 2 learner drivers, 8 Joy riders and 20 highly trained Police speed-freaks just waiting for their next high-speed chase! So when it comes down to a safety issue I think pot on the road is probably the least of our worries.

------------------------------------------------------------
Only users lose drugs

[Richard 23]

Quote by: Lone Gunman Yeah that's right - Pot is illegal due to some kinda "Industrialist Conspiracy"!

Bravo! You've really internalized the establishment line.
Always reinforce the supremacy of coincidence theory.
Actually it's very fitting considering your handle.

Quote by: Lone Gunman Why do all the pot heads always cry and bemoan the fact that while alcohol and smoking are both legal, their personal penchant isn't? I'll tell you why.

Hypocrisy, perhaps? Alcohol and cigarettes are irrelevant. One is not a substitute for the other, nor are they incompatible with decriminalized marijuana. The reason for the metaphorical tears should be obvious. Where there is injustice, there are tears. People deprived of liberty are not concerned with substitutes; they want liberty.

The "deal with it" attitude is tiresome and typical: it is always used to justify injustice. This country's history has shown that injust laws can be overcome by resistance but it often requires a lot of time. Unfortunately innocent people are marginalized and punished for their beliefs during that time, especially those who are vocal. I wish there was a better way.

But you wanted to answer your own question, so go ahead, tell us why the "pot heads" cry....

Quote by: Lone Gunman Because we're all a bunch of selfish greedy and slovenly wasters. 'straights' hate pot heads because they see them as 'wasters'. pot heads hate 'straights' because they're always trying to 'kill the party'.

Why do you come across as really, really angry?
You're being awfully hard on the collective "we."
Things you hate about yourself can be changed.
Ask for help if you need it.

I can't speak for pot heads, but in general that type tends to be laid back to begin with, more so if they qualify as "pot heads." They have no energy or time for hate. They're laid back, not uptight. They might fear "straights" if they tow the zero-tolerance establishment line, because interaction with that type of folk puts them at risk. The thought of being thrown in jail, being deprived of liberty for a harmless difference of opinion is very disturbing to those that advocate a sane approach, a more reasonable drug policy.

Most straights probably don't care one way or the other. Then there are those virulent anti-drug folk who preach zero-tolerance and think it's great to deprive others of their freedom. Just because they dare to disobey, to make up their own minds. A marijuana user is doing nobody any harm in their minor act of civil disobedience. The law is wrong; it's imposition and enforcement has a negative impact on society. Criminalizing otherwise law-abiding citizens is a shame and encourages further disrespect for law.

I don't know who the haters you're refering to are.


Synthetic petrochemical plastics and fibers as well as inefficent chemical processes for processing wood into paper products are major sources of pollution and have been for decades. Legal hemp, a natural, renewable resource, would render much of the petrochemical based synthetics obsolete. Hemp could easily provide most of the pulp paper products currently in use such as paper bags, cardboard, sheet paper, newspaper, etc. The amount of chemicals required to process hemp is far less than for wood.

This was known to be true before 1937 and it remains true today. Most people are at least dimly aware of hemp's use for cordage, rope, netting, etc, in WW II. During that war, George H. W. Bush bailed out of a damaged plane before it crashed and was saved by his parachute, a parachute containing hemp fiber.

The only reason that hemp is not in wide industrial use today is because of an unwarrented fear of the medicinal properties of marijuana. Hemp, cannabis, marijuana.
Anti-drug hysteria prevents the benefits of hemp from getting serious consideration, even the medicinal benefits are strongly resisted.

You made a good point. Greed has a lot to do with it.

There is nothing new about corporations defending their bottom line against all competition using whatever methods are available. DuPont's newly patented petrochemical based synthetic [poison] would have a hard time competing with a cheap natural alternative. Established timber based paper industry would either have to compete or convert to the saner alternative. But DuPont probably had the most at stake.

I don't recall calling it a conspiracy, but I suppose that would be the correct word if DuPont was actively involved with spreading anti-marijuana propaganda with the hope that it would take hemp off the market and out of the way. The certainly wouldn't have benefited from the competition.

Let's just suppose they weren't involved and just got lucky and have remained lucky for almost eighty years now. It doesn't change the fact that industrial use of hemp is smarter, cheaper, more efficient and less polluting. There's no rational reason not to reconsider hemp. Except for those few that profit from it's continued suppression. The vast majority of us do not profit from this, we actually pay for it.

Quote by: Lone Gunman Drinking and driving is just stupid. Smoking pot and driving is almost as stupid....

Let's just make it real simple.
Driving under an impaired state is a stupid.
An unnecessary risk to yourself and others.
Please, don't do it.

Quote by: Lone Gunman ------------------------------------------------------------ Only users lose drugs

Hospitals are full of losers, so are bars, so are the majority of Americans, who consume an ever increasing tonnage of phamaceuticals and over the counter medicines daily.

When you toss insults you don't pussyfoot around.
You really cast a wide net.

If I wasn't more careful, I'd counter with something like,
"only fools make gross generalizations about...."
But then I'd be calling myself a fool. I leave that to you.

[Lone Gunman]

I think the only anger I have is for pot smokers who constantly bemoan the illegal status of their penchant, yet do nothing to organise lobbying or form groups or organisations.

Quote by: Richard 23 "injust laws can be overcome by resistance but it often requires a lot of time. Unfortunately innocent people are marginalized and punished for their beliefs during that time, especially those who are vocal"

Quote by: Richard 23 "People deprived of liberty are not concerned with substitutes; they want liberty."

Just moaning on chatboards won't change anything and if they can't be bothered to fight for a right they believe they should have, then why do they think they deserve to have that right? If that interprets into a "deal with it attitude" then I guess you got me pegged. I believe we should be the first people to help ourselves and if we personally want something changed we must be prepared to be the one who changes it, not moan until someone else does it for us.

I entirely agree with Richard 23 that hemp should be used for all its industrial benefits, not least because of its lower level of pollutants, but hemp is the male plant and the pot we smoke comes from the female, so I don't see why there isn't a clear demarcation between legal male weed and illegal THC loaded female weed? Wouldn't that solve the problem?

The problem with downgrading or legalising pot IMO is that rather than being a stepping-stone drug (to more dangerous ones like heroine) it is most commonly used on the 'come down' from those drugs. So although it isn't clearly proven to be a stepping-stone drug, it is still a drug and it is still used by addicts of other drugs. I would be the first to sign-up on the dotted line to any policy that could prove to me that by legalising pot we could convince users of harder drugs to switch.

(What's up with that comment about the light hearted quip to end my post? If you actually read it without your own internal bias you will find it to be a statement of fact. Only people who use drugs would have any drugs on them to lose, y'see? And saying "Hospitals are full of losers, so are bars" smacks to me not just of a generalization but of a slanderous remark, in fact I'd go as far to say that calling doctors, nurses, surgeons, and radiotherapists, bar managers, waiters/esses and relaxing members of the public 'losers' is rather excessive! But then we can all see what we want to see between the lines can't we.)

[bugsbunny04]

Look, I drink, I smoke weed, and I dip tobbaco.

A dip in my mouth makes me far wors and a much more aggressive driver than a few drinks at a bar, though Im still physically able, Im in no mind to not beat the shit out of someone who tialgates or cuts me off. As a drunk Im just not coordinated. And smoking weed doesnt reduce my physical ability to drive, however Im much less likely to honk my horn at people, flip people off, or go on one of my cussing sprees that have earned me the rugby name "terrets". Im also liable to stop at EVERY drive thru and order "alright, listen, I want a dollar menu, actually, i mean, make it a double".

[bugsbunny04]

Look, I drink, I smoke weed, and I dip tobbaco.

A dip in my mouth makes me far wors and a much more aggressive driver than a few drinks at a bar, though Im still physically able, Im in no mind to not beat the shit out of someone who tialgates or cuts me off. As a drunk Im just not coordinated. And smoking weed doesnt reduce my physical ability to drive, however Im much less likely to honk my horn at people, flip people off, or go on one of my cussing sprees that have earned me the rugby name "terrets". Im also liable to stop at EVERY drive thru and order "alright, listen, I want a dollar menu, actually, i mean, make it a double".

[Richard 23]

Quote by: Lone Gunman Just moaning on chatboards won't change anything and if they can't be bothered to fight for a right they believe they should have, then why do they think they deserve to have that right?

The point is, I do have the right. The federal government has overstepped its authority. The authors of the Constitution never intended a centralized authority wielding power over the states (the road to tyranny). And the idea of moral or religious edicts would've been unacceptable.

"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." -Tacitus

http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/shul...rohibition.htm

Actually I believe that the Federal Controlled Substances Act law is unconstitutional. The tenth amendment of the Constitution reads as follows: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." And there is no mention of drugs in the Constitution. The first Federal Drug laws dealt with taxation. But they quickly evolved into laws of prohibition.

I've signed and circulated ballot initiatives, gone to a few rallies, but not much more. A lot of people have made noise about it. There's even an industrial hemp lobby. Yet even in California, where medical marijuana was approved by the voters, the federal government still busts medical marijuana users. The thuggish behavior to deprive "the persuit of happiness" or perhaps "the general welfare" (heh) discourages people from being vocal.

Quote by: Lone Gunman I entirely agree with Richard 23 that hemp should be used for all its industrial benefits, not least because of its lower level of pollutants, but hemp is the male plant and the pot we smoke comes from the female, so I don't see why there isn't a clear demarcation between legal male weed and illegal THC loaded female weed?

Zero tolerance. Stupidity. The male plant still has THC. Strains grown for fiber rather than potency have very low THC levels. DEA views it as reefer, roots, dirt and all. At least two synthetics have been developed and tested, but so far have been inferior (and more expensive) to the natural variety. Zero tolerance, zero compassion.

As to the stepping stone, people who are open to the idea experiment with drugs. Pot is the most common and easily available drug. It's also popularly thought of as a "soft drug." It's not too surprising that it would often be the first. That such a person might try other drugs as well doesn't indicate a connection. I'll bet that before pot, you'll find milk use or even despicable aspirin. Examining a narrow range of data and declaring a pattern is about as good as the anti-drug studies get. Marijuana, LSD, and MDMA "studies" by NIDA are known to be suspect. To be fair, they lie. I've elaborated elsewhere.

Vioxx was withdrawn after it was linked to heart attacks, including fatalities. But the FDA advisory board has recommended it back on the market, risks and all. But, marijuana, is just too dangerous. What assholes. They invite universal contempt for law.

Quote by: Lone Gunman (What's up with that comment about the light hearted quip to end my post?)

I'm dyslexic.

Quote by: Lone Gunman Only users lose drugs

The reversal screwed with my brain. I read and responded to, "Only losers use drugs."

It's weird how it works and hard to explain. But I've misread certain words for years. Swapped letters, an added or missing letter; something minor but consistent. I understood the meaning yet misread (and internally mispronounced) it. At some point I visualize it correctly and associate it with the previous distortion. A strange minor epiphany. The correction persists. It never happens again. One time this happened with an unfamiliar word. It wasn't in the dictionary. A second look and it hit me, it morphed. I'd seen it wrong. Very weird.

How I knew the meaning of a nonsense dyslexic word I don't really know, maybe I initially inferred it from context. The effect is pretty minor; I hardly notice it. It hasn't been a problem. Well, not until now.

Sorry. I didn't mean to come across as a demented wacko. At least I got 2 out of 4 words right! And you're right: I remember getting really baked and losing my stash.

Only quitters stop smoking.

[Richard 23]

My dyslexia post didn't contain any specific examples because I don't experience it very often. It happened again today. I just noticed a blog I've visited for months is called "Orcinus" and not "Ornicus." Obnoxious.

[Hazzard]

The entire situation with marijiuana is simple. Marijiuna makes a peaceful person, and for country that knows it has many wars to fight, the last thing it needs is enlightened, peacful citizens. it needs irrational, ignorant close-minded citizens that will lash out at whoever there leaders tells them is to blame for there anguish.


Oh and btw George Washington LOVED the stuff. He praised hemp until the day he died.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Scribbler1 If they're driving al all! Anyone who has smoked the stuff would know you get a lot more mellow under its influence than alcohol. You don't see a lot of potheads jumping into their cars and driving to a place AWAY from their home and getting loaded while getting pissed off at an opponenet in pool and screaming at the TV when their team is on. Some snacks and something good on TV or the stereo and that's all you usually need. Who wants to bother GOING anywhere. A lot of pot smokers don't like to drive when high anyway and theres no reason to.

My first roomies in college used to love to go out driving on the stuff. I didn't choose them, BTW. the college chose them for me. I remember an incident where they got a kick out of driving around the local police station yelling out , "Pig!" Which all goes to prove little about pot except stupid people who get high on anything will do very stupid things. I was REALLY glad when I finally got away from them.

Yes, it would be illegal. We needed a scapegoat and found it. Pot was, and may still be, the most convenient. Many of the rationales they use now are also irrational. The only rational one I've ever heard is that we already have too much to get high on that's legal, why add another. Even that's a little weak, at best.

Personally, I don't care for it. It takes my head places I'd rather not go, kind of like someone shut off the manual controls on my creativity engine. But I find others would be far better off if they had pot as an option instead of booze.