Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Gregory · Feb 5, 2005, 11:52 pm

I came across this page about the history and illegalization of marijuana. It was particularly intriguing because of the reasons behind the banning and the stories involved, especially the parts about racism and the political agendas of those pushing the bill for the banning.

Quote:

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."

Quote:

"You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother."

Quote:

"Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."

Quote:

"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."

It's obvious that this banning was made on faulty grounds back in the 30's, in my opinion. So basically my questions is: If they hadn't made it illegal then for those reasons, would it still be illegal today?

The Dunedan · Feb 6, 2005, 12:38 am

Probably. The racist propaganda was to cover up the true reason: the protection of William Randolph Hearst's paper-mill fortune.

Scribbler1 · Feb 6, 2005, 01:08 am

Not to mention the liquor lobby. I believe Joseph Seagram has been reported as one of the biggest campaign contributors to the most rabid anti-drug legislators. (from an old news story but it is probably still true)
As long as legal pot is any threat to the profits of any entity it will remain illegal.

I love that quote lumping entartainers in with blacks and hispanics. I'm getting a mental movie with millions of the entertainer race leaving their homeland of showbizania and flooding our coastal and mountain resorts.
As Yakov said, "what a country!"

MerlinsByte · Feb 6, 2005, 03:17 am

Quote:

"Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind." (from a 30s propaganda feed")

Merlin writes....(_insert drug name here_) is the most violence-causing drug in the.........) One could substitute any "controlled" in the blank. The crime should be making it illegal and not blaming crime on the real reason!

mb

Mr.Vicchio · Feb 6, 2005, 06:49 am

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?

Gregory · Feb 6, 2005, 09:37 am

Quote:

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?

Not particularly, but I'll go out on a limb and say that those driving high have as much or more capacity to drive than those driving drunk.

Scribbler1 · Feb 6, 2005, 10:39 am

Quote:

Quote by: Gregory

Not particularly, but I'll go out on a limb and say that those driving high have as much or more capacity to drive than those driving drunk.

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.

Scribbler1 · Feb 6, 2005, 10:39 am

Quote:

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?

Do you actually KNOW any that drive thaty fast?

Mr.Vicchio · Feb 6, 2005, 10:41 am

I know a kid in a wheelchair cause he got high at his cousins house then drove off the road at 95 into a tree. he hadn't been drinking...

That's enough evidence for me :)

Scribbler1 · Feb 6, 2005, 11:03 am

There may be a lot of angles to that I don't know about too. It may not have been his fault. He may have been a lousy driver to begin with and it might have been something other than pot he was using, or a combo of drugs. I'm not advocating any other drug like speed or a hallucinogen. Bad weather, blown tire and a number of other things may have been factors. If we weren't there we will probably never know the real situation that caused it.
But the bottom line is that is ONE unfortunate case and there are a lot more pot smokers out there. By your logic alcohol (in ANY form) should be totally banned as well as it causes accidents too. I don't think you are advocating that.

Mr.Vicchio · Feb 6, 2005, 11:26 am

No, I am just saying that weed and driving aren't a good idea. Teh one actual no kidding case I persoanlly am aware resulted in a 19 year old living his life paralyzed from the middle of his shoulders down. Not a good start.

There are TOO many drunks out there, I don't want druggies added into the mix.

MerlinsByte · Feb 6, 2005, 07:20 pm

Quote:

By Mr Vicchio......There are TOO many drunks out there, I don't want druggies added into the mix.

I am sorry to be the one to break this to you Mr Vicchio, they are already in the mix (drug users).
The ideal solution to this world wide problem is to determine why we as humans need something extra? Then a better fix may be found.

It may just be a basic human need (for psychoactive chemicals).Until we find a cure for sinful self indulgence, do a lobotomy on the "lock em up and throw away the key mind set." Give treatment to those who ask for it. Legalize the least harmful substances. Herbals are good for you!

mb

Milton Bradley · Feb 6, 2005, 07:35 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio

I know a kid in a wheelchair cause he got high at his cousins house then drove off the road at 95 into a tree. he hadn't been drinking...

That's enough evidence for me :)

Great! If one example is enough to convince you of this, than we should all give up on any form of government, because my government is hurting, and killing people. Then we will have to give up guns, because guns kill, and maim. Windows would be next, because people can be pushed out of windows. Finally, I think we should all give up our jobs, because people can be hurt, or even killed on the job.

Yeah, that would make the world so much nicer to live in.

Osborn F Enready · Feb 7, 2005, 07:27 pm

Milton, nice irrefutable logic there! LOL

I couldn't agree more.

Mr Vic doesn't acknowledge the fact that there are drug users out there now, and drugs are ILLEGAL already.

Case in point, illegalization doesn't work, without gestapho technique of enforcement.

He may, and I believe does, agree with that, and thinks in "this case" it is acceptable. I notice his stance on guns however, is 180 degrees out of alignment on this position. I find it amusing that he feels righteous to defend his government to use un-constitutional tactics to catch drug users, sellers, importers and cartels because of the laws against drugs, that I CONTEND as well as many others, were put in place by unconstitutional provisions that have been allowed, advocated and enforced by government, police and military powers. Yet if the same government took it upon themselves (as they did with the drug laws) to illegalize gun ownership, he, the proud mighty defender of the nation, would turn on the nation he so vehemently defended, with arms to defend his rights that are provided in the constitution. Funny how the rights he values, are more important than the rights I value in the same text, and its ok for him to break the law to defend his rights, but it is not ok for me to break the law to defend mine. The funniest thing is, that we both "have to break the law" to defend our "rights" that are not to be questioned, or infringed under any circumstance under a CONSTITUTIONAL system, that we claim to have, but don't.

More people are waking up everyday to the importance and relevance of the Constitution, and the reason our current system is no longer representative of it, or the people. Long live liberty, let freedom ring!

Livemike · Feb 8, 2005, 09:47 am

Quote:

Quote by: MerlinsByte

Merlin writes....(_insert drug name here_) is the most violence-causing drug in the.........) One could substitute any "controlled" in the blank. The crime should be making it illegal and not blaming crime on the real reason!

mb

No you couldn't put any drug in that sentence and be telling the truth, except alcohol. You do up to any cop with a black eye, a loose tooth or bloody nose and ask what drug their assailant was on. One gets you ten it's alcohol. The same thing with assault and murder victims all over the world (except maybe some Islamic states).

Livemike · Feb 8, 2005, 09:49 am

Quote:

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio

I know a kid in a wheelchair cause he got high at his cousins house then drove off the road at 95 into a tree. he hadn't been drinking...

That's enough evidence for me :)

One case is enough evidence for you? In that case there are plenty of people who died driving clean and sober.

**Chris the Chees** · Feb 8, 2005, 10:14 am

Drugs (of any kind, be it alcohol, marijuana or even asprin) and driving are rarley a clever mix.

A mix I personally avoid.

Ningning · Feb 8, 2005, 01:28 pm

I know someone who got in a car accident due to lack of sleep...should we enforce mandatory bed time for everyone now? ;P

As to the original argument that pot was illegalized for racist reasons, that's probably quite true. the only bad thing i can say about pot is that it makes people rather lazy, and stoners are notorious for being slow witted...but i hardely feel that a lazy, slow witted person is a hazard to society.

tinybear · Feb 8, 2005, 01:42 pm

During the latter half of the Ching Dynasty, opium was imported into China by the British through the trading ports and, because it was addictive, it spread very quickly until a large part of the working force of China became lazy, weak and slow-witted. During the reign of the Emperor Tao Kuang, efforts were made to stop this trade. Opium was banned by Royal decree and when British traders ignored the decreee, a large consignment of opium belonging to British interests was burnt. Britain used this as an excuse to invade China in what was to be known as "The Opium Wars". China lost (not surprisingly since by then much of its male population consisted of weak, lazy and slow-witted opium smokers) and Britain obtained huge war reparations and land concessions, part of which included what is now Hong Kong. So, Ningning, if you feel that a lazy, slow-witted population is hardly something to worry about, I would urge you to reconsider.

Ningning · Feb 8, 2005, 01:48 pm

Opium is a totally different story. pot is not addictive, and it is not being forced on to a unknowing population by an imperialist country. what i meant when saying that stoners are not a hazard to society is that I would not be afraid of being approached by someone who is high, but i would be afraid of being approached by a raving drunk, or a crack addict etc.

Feb 6, 2005, 06:49 am	#5 (permalink) (top)
Mr.Vicchio Navy Veteran Location: Texas Posts: 6,031	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? Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is still being challenged to this day, but by consensus Global Warming is a fact... that's REAL science at work, why didn't Albert just go that route?

Feb 6, 2005, 10:41 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
Mr.Vicchio Navy Veteran Location: Texas Posts: 6,031	I know a kid in a wheelchair cause he got high at his cousins house then drove off the road at 95 into a tree. he hadn't been drinking... That's enough evidence for me :) Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is still being challenged to this day, but by consensus Global Warming is a fact... that's REAL science at work, why didn't Albert just go that route?

Feb 6, 2005, 11:26 am	#11 (permalink) (top)
Mr.Vicchio Navy Veteran Location: Texas Posts: 6,031	No, I am just saying that weed and driving aren't a good idea. Teh one actual no kidding case I persoanlly am aware resulted in a 19 year old living his life paralyzed from the middle of his shoulders down. Not a good start. There are TOO many drunks out there, I don't want druggies added into the mix. Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is still being challenged to this day, but by consensus Global Warming is a fact... that's REAL science at work, why didn't Albert just go that route?

Feb 7, 2005, 07:27 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
Osborn F Enready Principled Observer Location: Toledo, Ohio Posts: 13,873	Milton, nice irrefutable logic there! LOL I couldn't agree more. Mr Vic doesn't acknowledge the fact that there are drug users out there now, and drugs are ILLEGAL already. Case in point, illegalization doesn't work, without gestapho technique of enforcement. He may, and I believe does, agree with that, and thinks in "this case" it is acceptable. I notice his stance on guns however, is 180 degrees out of alignment on this position. I find it amusing that he feels righteous to defend his government to use un-constitutional tactics to catch drug users, sellers, importers and cartels because of the laws against drugs, that I CONTEND as well as many others, were put in place by unconstitutional provisions that have been allowed, advocated and enforced by government, police and military powers. Yet if the same government took it upon themselves (as they did with the drug laws) to illegalize gun ownership, he, the proud mighty defender of the nation, would turn on the nation he so vehemently defended, with arms to defend his rights that are provided in the constitution. Funny how the rights he values, are more important than the rights I value in the same text, and its ok for him to break the law to defend his rights, but it is not ok for me to break the law to defend mine. The funniest thing is, that we both "have to break the law" to defend our "rights" that are not to be questioned, or infringed under any circumstance under a CONSTITUTIONAL system, that we claim to have, but don't. More people are waking up everyday to the importance and relevance of the Constitution, and the reason our current system is no longer representative of it, or the people. Long live liberty, let freedom ring! Petition of Redress of Grievances: http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm Canadian Lawsuit Against Their National Banks: http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/ Osborn F. Enready

Feb 8, 2005, 10:14 am	#17 (permalink) (top)
Chris the Chees Moderator Location: Wales Posts: 2,203	Drugs (of any kind, be it alcohol, marijuana or even asprin) and driving are rarley a clever mix. A mix I personally avoid. Society may be formed so as to exist without crime, without poverty, […] no obstacle whatsoever intervenes at this moment except ignorance to prevent such a state of society. Robert Owen

Feb 6, 2005, 12:38 am	#2 (permalink) (top)
The Dunedan Hot Lava Posts: 917	Probably. The racist propaganda was to cover up the true reason: the protection of William Randolph Hearst's paper-mill fortune.

Feb 6, 2005, 01:08 am	#3 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	Not to mention the liquor lobby. I believe Joseph Seagram has been reported as one of the biggest campaign contributors to the most rabid anti-drug legislators. (from an old news story but it is probably still true) As long as legal pot is any threat to the profits of any entity it will remain illegal. I love that quote lumping entartainers in with blacks and hispanics. I'm getting a mental movie with millions of the entertainer race leaving their homeland of showbizania and flooding our coastal and mountain resorts. As Yakov said, "what a country!"

Feb 6, 2005, 11:03 am	#10 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	There may be a lot of angles to that I don't know about too. It may not have been his fault. He may have been a lousy driver to begin with and it might have been something other than pot he was using, or a combo of drugs. I'm not advocating any other drug like speed or a hallucinogen. Bad weather, blown tire and a number of other things may have been factors. If we weren't there we will probably never know the real situation that caused it. But the bottom line is that is ONE unfortunate case and there are a lot more pot smokers out there. By your logic alcohol (in ANY form) should be totally banned as well as it causes accidents too. I don't think you are advocating that.

Feb 8, 2005, 01:28 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
Ningning Molten Ash Posts: 35	I know someone who got in a car accident due to lack of sleep...should we enforce mandatory bed time for everyone now? ;P As to the original argument that pot was illegalized for racist reasons, that's probably quite true. the only bad thing i can say about pot is that it makes people rather lazy, and stoners are notorious for being slow witted...but i hardely feel that a lazy, slow witted person is a hazard to society.

Feb 8, 2005, 01:42 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,008	During the latter half of the Ching Dynasty, opium was imported into China by the British through the trading ports and, because it was addictive, it spread very quickly until a large part of the working force of China became lazy, weak and slow-witted. During the reign of the Emperor Tao Kuang, efforts were made to stop this trade. Opium was banned by Royal decree and when British traders ignored the decreee, a large consignment of opium belonging to British interests was burnt. Britain used this as an excuse to invade China in what was to be known as "The Opium Wars". China lost (not surprisingly since by then much of its male population consisted of weak, lazy and slow-witted opium smokers) and Britain obtained huge war reparations and land concessions, part of which included what is now Hong Kong. So, Ningning, if you feel that a lazy, slow-witted population is hardly something to worry about, I would urge you to reconsider.

Feb 8, 2005, 01:48 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
Ningning Molten Ash Posts: 35	Opium is a totally different story. pot is not addictive, and it is not being forced on to a unknowing population by an imperialist country. what i meant when saying that stoners are not a hazard to society is that I would not be afraid of being approached by someone who is high, but i would be afraid of being approached by a raving drunk, or a crack addict etc.