haha - The History Channel is showing a show on the history of weed right now. There's one on the history of harder drugs on next.
Never knew weed was actually legal at one point in time. It's a damn interesting documentary.
History of Weed on History Channel right now.
Moderator: Dictators in Training
Yep. The US Army even did a study back in the early 20th century when it found out that some of tis soldiers that were stationed down on the Panama Canal had started using it. Their conclusion? That it was a non-issue, that the potential repercussions of off-duty use were negligible and that Alcohol was a vastly more significant problem.
-Arlos
-Arlos
Well, partly it's the same sort of fundamentalist attitude that brought us Prohibition. Some people can't abide anyone using any substance that makes them in any way happy.
The reasons it was banned in the first place are somewhat complex. Fundamentally, it grew out of 2 factorsL 1) racist anti-mexican attitudes in the early 20th century, when they first started to come across the border and go for farming jobs. 2) The head of the federal agency, a guy named Harry Anslinger, that was in charge of stopping alcohol sales (The Federal Bureau of Narcotics) during prohibition didn't want to lose power when alcohol was legalized. So as the amendment repealing prohibition started underway, he started looking frantically for a new substance to demonize to give a reason for the government to keep his agency around.
Another figure in this is William Randolph Hearst, newspaper baron of the west coast. Hearst controlled most of the aspects of the newspaper empire he ran, including the logging rights and timber areas that were used to create the pulp for the paper used in his newspapers. Hemp paper was both better and cheaper to produce than tree-pulp paper, and as a result was a threat to his profits. Plus, stirring up racial hatred sold more newspapers, and Hearst was well known for his frequent use of "yellow journalism" tactics, where they'd just invent stories out of the blue, that were entirely untrue, then run them as if they were fact.
So, Anslinger got with Hearst, and they jointly worked on a campaign to demonize marijuana and instil the public with fear of the substance, so that they wouldn't object when it got banned. Hearst arranged for his papers to run frequent stories about things like, "Crazed mexican murders family in their beds for money to fund marijuana habit", or "Black man gets high on marijuana, rapes white woman." Now remember, Marijuana was a new term for the drug that had never been used before; it had always been known publicly as cannabis. Indeed, later on, when congress voted to ban marijuana sales, many of the congressmen stated that had they known that marijuana was actually cannabis, they'd never have voted to ban it.
In any case, Harry Anslinger also worked the propaganda angle, and was the sponsor behind the classic anti-pot movie, "Reefer Madness". He also used Hearst's propaganda to lobby Congress for continued funding of the Narcotics Bureau, as OBVIOUSLY they needed to protect the nation against this marijuana scourge. Ultimately, Hearst got one of his tame Congressmen to introduce the bill that would make it illegal to sell marijuana in the US without a federal tax stamp. So, the anti-pot propaganda, combined with several congresspeople not knowing what they were voting against, got it banned. Anslinger stayed the head of the Bureau, and enjoyed increased funding. Hearst got more newspaper readership and secured the profits from his lumber interests.
Pot really is an exceedingly safe drug. You would literally have to smoke an entire dump truck's worth at once to overdose on it, so it is effectively impossible. It is also not in any way physically addictive, as other drugs like alcohol, tobacco, heroin, etc. are. The first documented use of the drug is found in Chinese writings dating to 2700 BC. By 1200 BC, it was listed in one of the Hindu sacred texts, the "Athvarva Veda" as "sacred grass", and was one of the 5 sacred plants of India. It first showed up in the US in the 1840s, used as medicine, and was freely available. Its first documented recreational use in the US was in the Teens, and was spread by the aforementioned Mexican immigrants.
Since then, basically it's been kept illegal largely by inertia. Lots of people seem to follow the specious and highly circular logic chain of: "Pot is illegal, therefore it is bad. Since pot is bad, therefore it should remain illegal." It almost got legalized during Carter's administration, but the hostage crisis derailed that, as everyone focused mostly entirely on that, and domestic issues were put on standby. I do expect it to be legalized again one day, likely in the not-too-distant future. The evidence that it is helpful as medicine AND has far fewer harmful downsides than other legal drugs, like tobacco and alcohol continues to mount, and will ultimately just become overwhelming.
-Arlos
The reasons it was banned in the first place are somewhat complex. Fundamentally, it grew out of 2 factorsL 1) racist anti-mexican attitudes in the early 20th century, when they first started to come across the border and go for farming jobs. 2) The head of the federal agency, a guy named Harry Anslinger, that was in charge of stopping alcohol sales (The Federal Bureau of Narcotics) during prohibition didn't want to lose power when alcohol was legalized. So as the amendment repealing prohibition started underway, he started looking frantically for a new substance to demonize to give a reason for the government to keep his agency around.
Another figure in this is William Randolph Hearst, newspaper baron of the west coast. Hearst controlled most of the aspects of the newspaper empire he ran, including the logging rights and timber areas that were used to create the pulp for the paper used in his newspapers. Hemp paper was both better and cheaper to produce than tree-pulp paper, and as a result was a threat to his profits. Plus, stirring up racial hatred sold more newspapers, and Hearst was well known for his frequent use of "yellow journalism" tactics, where they'd just invent stories out of the blue, that were entirely untrue, then run them as if they were fact.
So, Anslinger got with Hearst, and they jointly worked on a campaign to demonize marijuana and instil the public with fear of the substance, so that they wouldn't object when it got banned. Hearst arranged for his papers to run frequent stories about things like, "Crazed mexican murders family in their beds for money to fund marijuana habit", or "Black man gets high on marijuana, rapes white woman." Now remember, Marijuana was a new term for the drug that had never been used before; it had always been known publicly as cannabis. Indeed, later on, when congress voted to ban marijuana sales, many of the congressmen stated that had they known that marijuana was actually cannabis, they'd never have voted to ban it.
In any case, Harry Anslinger also worked the propaganda angle, and was the sponsor behind the classic anti-pot movie, "Reefer Madness". He also used Hearst's propaganda to lobby Congress for continued funding of the Narcotics Bureau, as OBVIOUSLY they needed to protect the nation against this marijuana scourge. Ultimately, Hearst got one of his tame Congressmen to introduce the bill that would make it illegal to sell marijuana in the US without a federal tax stamp. So, the anti-pot propaganda, combined with several congresspeople not knowing what they were voting against, got it banned. Anslinger stayed the head of the Bureau, and enjoyed increased funding. Hearst got more newspaper readership and secured the profits from his lumber interests.
Pot really is an exceedingly safe drug. You would literally have to smoke an entire dump truck's worth at once to overdose on it, so it is effectively impossible. It is also not in any way physically addictive, as other drugs like alcohol, tobacco, heroin, etc. are. The first documented use of the drug is found in Chinese writings dating to 2700 BC. By 1200 BC, it was listed in one of the Hindu sacred texts, the "Athvarva Veda" as "sacred grass", and was one of the 5 sacred plants of India. It first showed up in the US in the 1840s, used as medicine, and was freely available. Its first documented recreational use in the US was in the Teens, and was spread by the aforementioned Mexican immigrants.
Since then, basically it's been kept illegal largely by inertia. Lots of people seem to follow the specious and highly circular logic chain of: "Pot is illegal, therefore it is bad. Since pot is bad, therefore it should remain illegal." It almost got legalized during Carter's administration, but the hostage crisis derailed that, as everyone focused mostly entirely on that, and domestic issues were put on standby. I do expect it to be legalized again one day, likely in the not-too-distant future. The evidence that it is helpful as medicine AND has far fewer harmful downsides than other legal drugs, like tobacco and alcohol continues to mount, and will ultimately just become overwhelming.
-Arlos
arlos wrote:Well, partly it's the same sort of fundamentalist attitude that brought us Prohibition. Some people can't abide anyone using any substance that makes them in any way happy.
The reasons it was banned in the first place are somewhat complex. Fundamentally, it grew out of 2 factorsL 1) racist anti-mexican attitudes in the early 20th century, when they first started to come across the border and go for farming jobs. 2) The head of the federal agency, a guy named Harry Anslinger, that was in charge of stopping alcohol sales (The Federal Bureau of Narcotics) during prohibition didn't want to lose power when alcohol was legalized. So as the amendment repealing prohibition started underway, he started looking frantically for a new substance to demonize to give a reason for the government to keep his agency around.
Another figure in this is William Randolph Hearst, newspaper baron of the west coast. Hearst controlled most of the aspects of the newspaper empire he ran, including the logging rights and timber areas that were used to create the pulp for the paper used in his newspapers. Hemp paper was both better and cheaper to produce than tree-pulp paper, and as a result was a threat to his profits. Plus, stirring up racial hatred sold more newspapers, and Hearst was well known for his frequent use of "yellow journalism" tactics, where they'd just invent stories out of the blue, that were entirely untrue, then run them as if they were fact.
So, Anslinger got with Hearst, and they jointly worked on a campaign to demonize marijuana and instil the public with fear of the substance, so that they wouldn't object when it got banned. Hearst arranged for his papers to run frequent stories about things like, "Crazed mexican murders family in their beds for money to fund marijuana habit", or "Black man gets high on marijuana, rapes white woman." Now remember, Marijuana was a new term for the drug that had never been used before; it had always been known publicly as cannabis. Indeed, later on, when congress voted to ban marijuana sales, many of the congressmen stated that had they known that marijuana was actually cannabis, they'd never have voted to ban it.
In any case, Harry Anslinger also worked the propaganda angle, and was the sponsor behind the classic anti-pot movie, "Reefer Madness". He also used Hearst's propaganda to lobby Congress for continued funding of the Narcotics Bureau, as OBVIOUSLY they needed to protect the nation against this marijuana scourge. Ultimately, Hearst got one of his tame Congressmen to introduce the bill that would make it illegal to sell marijuana in the US without a federal tax stamp. So, the anti-pot propaganda, combined with several congresspeople not knowing what they were voting against, got it banned. Anslinger stayed the head of the Bureau, and enjoyed increased funding. Hearst got more newspaper readership and secured the profits from his lumber interests.
Pot really is an exceedingly safe drug. You would literally have to smoke an entire dump truck's worth at once to overdose on it, so it is effectively impossible. It is also not in any way physically addictive, as other drugs like alcohol, tobacco, heroin, etc. are. The first documented use of the drug is found in Chinese writings dating to 2700 BC. By 1200 BC, it was listed in one of the Hindu sacred texts, the "Athvarva Veda" as "sacred grass", and was one of the 5 sacred plants of India. It first showed up in the US in the 1840s, used as medicine, and was freely available. Its first documented recreational use in the US was in the Teens, and was spread by the aforementioned Mexican immigrants.
Since then, basically it's been kept illegal largely by inertia. Lots of people seem to follow the specious and highly circular logic chain of: "Pot is illegal, therefore it is bad. Since pot is bad, therefore it should remain illegal." It almost got legalized during Carter's administration, but the hostage crisis derailed that, as everyone focused mostly entirely on that, and domestic issues were put on standby. I do expect it to be legalized again one day, likely in the not-too-distant future. The evidence that it is helpful as medicine AND has far fewer harmful downsides than other legal drugs, like tobacco and alcohol continues to mount, and will ultimately just become overwhelming.
-Arlos
Comparing marijuana to other drugs and/or alcohol is not relevant. It's not good for you, period. Yes, it may have a very few medicinal purposes for a few isolated medical conditions, but that's not the issue either. 99% of the marijuana smokers smoke it to get high. What THC does to the body is very bad. That is the issue.
“The more I study science the more I believe in God.” -- Albert Einstein
-
Gargamellow
- Nappy Headed Ho
- Posts: 8683
- Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 5:39 am
- Location: Nunyafuggin Bidness
- Contact:
Narrock wrote:Comparing marijuana to other drugs and/or alcohol is not relevant. It's not good for you, period. Yes, it may have a very few medicinal purposes for a few isolated medical conditions, but that's not the issue either. 99% of the marijuana smokers smoke it to get high. What THC does to the body is very bad. That is the issue.
did you even read arlos's post?
yes, MJ has a negative effect on the human body. yes, it is used recreationally. so what?
what about alcohol? fact: any jackass with ten bucks can buy enough alcohol to kill himself in less than three hours. chronic alcohol use destroys your liver, kills off brain cells, and creates a physiological dependancy-- not to mention the extreme impact it can have on your family and friends. aside from religious ceremonies, ALL alcohol consumption is recreational. alcoholics can lose jobs, friends, health, family, and even their own lives without ever breaking the law. how many thousands of people die each year in drunk driving accidents? how many bright futures snuffed out from alcohol poisoning?
MJ is bad. no one's arguing that. it makes you a hungry dumbass. like alcohol, it can cause you to lose jobs, friends, health, and family. when its use is left unchecked, it can be every bit as devastating as alcohol.
given that the same potential for grave personal and social consequences of abuse exists regarding both substances, and (for the sake of argument) health risks are comparable, what possible justification can there be for keeping it illegal? "drugs are bad, m'kay"? please.
legalize it, require a license to grow/sell it, bring in the FDA to enforce quality and production practices (it will be MUCH safer if regulated), triple the current penalties on unlicensed growth/sale, and levy a huge tax on it. most of the people that don't do it now won't start, and the people that currently do it will be putting their grubby dollars into federal tax coffers instead of dealers' pockets-- or they will quit because the mystique will be gone. take all the extra revenue and dump it right back into the DEA and other similar agencies so they can hunt illegal MJ producers and "hard" drug traffickers with renewed ferocity. everybody wins!
compost the rich
Gargamellow wrote:weed is illegal because the government makes fat cash off it it that way:P
Imagine the money the government could make if it were both legal and taxed.
Frankly I can't think of any realistic argument for keeping it controlled substance, that could not be applied to tobacco and alcohol, and when applied there not be an infinitely stronger argument. If you support the legality of tobacco and alcohol, yet oppose the legality of marijuana I don’t see any way that it is not hypocritical.
The people that like to verbally berate Spazz(not to single him out, but it’s been the most recent), not for the content of his posts, or the possible influence marijuana use has on them, but on just the use of the drug alone would do well to think about this next time you are considering doing so.
Raymond S. Kraft wrote:The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
The Kizzy wrote:Not trying to start a fight here, but if it is harmless, then why is it illegal?
Penn & Teller did an episode of Bullshit about this. I'd just go watch that, it makes a lot more sense than "we know better now"
It's basically because when they tried to ban alcohol it didn't work at all so they shifted their attention to something that wasn't as widespread (in america) and it was easier to demonize. The same thing is happening as when they tried to make alcohol illegal... everyone is just making it illegally and the gov't is just wasting a bunch of money trying to fix it. Especially since the amount of pot being grown/used today is astronomically higher than it ever was, despite what any anti-drug rep will tell you. Just watch that episode of Bullshit. It covers every aspect.
They even get the head of the medical department at Stanford or some school like that to explain its medical uses, which are a lot. He used it to treat his son's convulsions from Lukemia while he was going through chemo... they found out if you smoke weed before your daily fit of agony due to chemo, they completely go away. He did that for his son until he died and he never had another session. They also talk a lot about the gov't medical marijuana plans. Originally there was like 20-some people on the plan and the government sends them coffee cans full of joints that look like probably an 1/8 a piece once a week for the rest of their lives. Only a couple of those people are still alive, but they got one of the guys who had some medical issue with his bones for an interview and it was a trip... he said it's the only thing that can help his condition and he smokes like 3 when he wakes up, some on the way to work, a few during break, etc... it was insane, but he was completely rational and they were also able to legally film him smoking a joint in front of the White House, haha
There's a lot of uses for weed and all in all it's infinitely more harmless than tobacco or alcohol. All you have to do is look at the death counts from each drug to see that, really... yunno, since no one in documented history has ever died from smoking weed.
-
Gargamellow
- Nappy Headed Ho
- Posts: 8683
- Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 5:39 am
- Location: Nunyafuggin Bidness
- Contact:
Gargamellow wrote:But if they do it legally the price will drop...because it will be legal...
Yes but right now the government is collecting zero percent in taxes.
X percent of taxable sales > 0 percent of illegal sales.
Raymond S. Kraft wrote:The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
-
Jimmy Durante
- NT Veteran
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 5:42 pm
- Location: Otisburg
You know mindia why is it your or anyone elses biz what i do in the privacy of my own home. You dont support me fucking up my health but you would get behind putting a man in jail and paying for it ? Arent you one of those people that thinks the stars and bars means freedom for everyone? Think about all the people in jail just related to marijauna and ask yourself how free you really are and how long till its something you like to do that they come after .
WHITE TRASH METAL SLUMMER
Why Immortal technique?
Perhaps its because I am afraid and he gives me courage.
Why Immortal technique?
Perhaps its because I am afraid and he gives me courage.
brinstar wrote:Narrock wrote:Comparing marijuana to other drugs and/or alcohol is not relevant. It's not good for you, period. Yes, it may have a very few medicinal purposes for a few isolated medical conditions, but that's not the issue either. 99% of the marijuana smokers smoke it to get high. What THC does to the body is very bad. That is the issue.
did you even read arlos's post?
yes, MJ has a negative effect on the human body. yes, it is used recreationally. so what?
what about alcohol? fact: any jackass with ten bucks can buy enough alcohol to kill himself in less than three hours. chronic alcohol use destroys your liver, kills off brain cells, and creates a physiological dependancy-- not to mention the extreme impact it can have on your family and friends. aside from religious ceremonies, ALL alcohol consumption is recreational. alcoholics can lose jobs, friends, health, family, and even their own lives without ever breaking the law. how many thousands of people die each year in drunk driving accidents? how many bright futures snuffed out from alcohol poisoning?
MJ is bad. no one's arguing that. it makes you a hungry dumbass. like alcohol, it can cause you to lose jobs, friends, health, and family. when its use is left unchecked, it can be every bit as devastating as alcohol.
given that the same potential for grave personal and social consequences of abuse exists regarding both substances, and (for the sake of argument) health risks are comparable, what possible justification can there be for keeping it illegal? "drugs are bad, m'kay"? please.
legalize it, require a license to grow/sell it, bring in the FDA to enforce quality and production practices (it will be MUCH safer if regulated), triple the current penalties on unlicensed growth/sale, and levy a huge tax on it. most of the people that don't do it now won't start, and the people that currently do it will be putting their grubby dollars into federal tax coffers instead of dealers' pockets-- or they will quit because the mystique will be gone. take all the extra revenue and dump it right back into the DEA and other similar agencies so they can hunt illegal MJ producers and "hard" drug traffickers with renewed ferocity. everybody wins!
Yes, I read his post. What I keep seeing is the comparison of marijuana to alcohol, and that is totally retarded. I also don't think it should be legalized. If the Senate makes it legal, then there's not much I can do about it. But if it comes down to the people voting for it, it will never be legalized.
“The more I study science the more I believe in God.” -- Albert Einstein
spazz wrote:You know mindia why is it your or anyone elses biz what i do in the privacy of my own home. You dont support me fucking up my health but you would get behind putting a man in jail and paying for it ? Arent you one of those people that thinks the stars and bars means freedom for everyone? Think about all the people in jail just related to marijauna and ask yourself how free you really are and how long till its something you like to do that they come after .
Do what you want in your own home. I'm just saying for the gazillionth freaking time... THC has harmful effects on the body, is addictive, gives a powerful "high," and smells like shit. I will vote to keep it illegal if it came down to that.
“The more I study science the more I believe in God.” -- Albert Einstein