Another Marijuana Myth Goes Up In Smoke by Paul Armentano
- Thread starter CDB
- Start date
ManBeast
Well-known member
Jayhawkk said:
Yes, a good lawyer can do a lot for you. In most cases the money you pay him/her will be a lot less than the damages assesed over the long term. Especially if someone is trying to hit you with charges that are not right or just.
ManBeast
P.S. Ya'll hit me up when ya roll that fattie
CDB
Registered User
ManBeast said:Yes, a good lawyer can do a lot for you. In most cases the money you pay him/her will be a lot less than the damages assesed over the long term. Especially if someone is trying to hit you with charges that are not right or just.
ManBeast
P.S. Ya'll hit me up when ya roll that fattie
Got to wait for Jay to raid the evidence room. Another reason I could never be a cop. All that stuff, not even the drugs, and it just sits there or gets sold to some putz.
CDB
Registered User
spatch said:
Doesn't surprise me. The best source for drugs when I was growing up was the cop who lived on my street. Best grass and coke I've had to date except for some dusted weed a friend of mine got a hold of once. That had a friend of mine under the kitchen table yelling something about Kurt Loder coming to get him. Then he turned green and barfed on the floor and then passed out. My friend Mike and I rolled a honey L and spent the rest of the night toking and finishing the other guy's share of White Castle.
I swear, when I look back on my life sometimes I think I wasted a lot of it, but then sometimes I think it truly was fun and worth every minute.
Sort of off the topic but one of my friends never got the smelly fingers bit after fingering his girl. He finally got it, and was riding home one night on his motor scooter, and yes I think the dumb prick was stoned, and he was sniffing his fingers inside his helmet and rode straight into the back of a parked GMC pick up. Broke his arm. Still hasn't lived it down.
bioman
Well-known member
One of the very first times I toked was with two good friends who apparently made it a point to get the strongest stuff they could find and get me wasted. Well, they did and we were all standing around outside talking stupid talk when my one friend started bragging about his new fleece (this was a long time ago and fleeces were new and so was Gore Tex).
He was talking up his new North Face parka and fleece liner all proud that he spent $400 bucks on this space suit when he adds "and the guy at the store told me the fleece is like flame proof."
Weeelllllll, guess who was holding the lighter at the time? Yeah, me, and I say "Oh really? Let's check it out." and I hold the flame on his new fleece while we all just stood there and watched me do it for what must have been forever in stoner minutes.
Poof! Fleece bubbles up and a big hole is formed while we stare at it. The victim finally snaps out of his stupor and screams "HEY!" and jumps back.
We die laughing, of course.
He was talking up his new North Face parka and fleece liner all proud that he spent $400 bucks on this space suit when he adds "and the guy at the store told me the fleece is like flame proof."
Weeelllllll, guess who was holding the lighter at the time? Yeah, me, and I say "Oh really? Let's check it out." and I hold the flame on his new fleece while we all just stood there and watched me do it for what must have been forever in stoner minutes.
Poof! Fleece bubbles up and a big hole is formed while we stare at it. The victim finally snaps out of his stupor and screams "HEY!" and jumps back.
We die laughing, of course.
dpfisher
Guest
LOL this thread is 3 years old... been smoking much?
As long as it's back here's my opinion: The government doesn't have the right to tell us what to put in our bodies. Until the 1930s it was considered your right to put whatever you want in your body. The FDA was created and required labeling of products and this was a good thing... but the resulting backlash and ban on morphine set a dangerous precedent that has cost billions of dollars and who knows how many innocent lives. If this were truly the land of the free we wouldn't take away people's freedom to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.
TexasTitan
Well-known member
Legalize ridiculously addictive substances. Great idea. Look how well crack is doing for people. Nevermind the fact that taxpayers will ahve to pay their medical bills because they sure cant, and when they committ crimes to further their habit, again, society will take the brunt of it. Great great great idea.
dpfisher
Guest
Morphine used to be found in like half of OTC medicines and heroin used to be mailorder... people weren't killing each other over it and robbing random people nearly as much as happens today. Perhaps it helps to think of it as unban rather than legalize... it reminds you that it has not always been illegal. Sure it's destructive but the illegality of it only makes it more destructive.
So I know you were being sarcastic but yes, it is a great idea.
Invalid Link Removed
So I know you were being sarcastic but yes, it is a great idea.
Invalid Link Removed
CDB
Registered User
First thing that ran through my head too.
CDB
Registered User
Yeah, imagine what it will be like when all those people who want to be useless crackheads but haven't been going that route because of the cost and legal risk now have the option. I know I personally have been wanting to mainline heroin every night and live in my own ****, but gods, the legal bills alone will kill you...
Tax payers have voluntarily offerred to pay the medical bills of others. If they don't want to the legislatures are perfectly able of writing that exception into Medicare/Medicaid and any state level programs, or dumping pseudo-socialized medicine altogether so individuals alone bear the cost of the health decisions. In any event, partially nationalizing the health care industry and then complaining about having to pay the costs of people's stupid decisions is like knowingly buying a haunted house and then complaining about the creaky doors and the banging late at night. It comes with the territory. And if you want to use it as an excuse to dictate the health decisions of others then it shall also be used to dictate your health decisions too. So say goodbye to any habit or indulgence you enjoy but which can be shown to have health risks.
And anyway, what would you rather pay, their medical bills, or their food and board once they're in prision, plus the cost of the security system on your house because the neighborhood that was once safe is now overrun with prohibition funded drug gangs, plus the extra costs for cops and courts necessary for enforcement, plus the cost of the ineffective but apparently necessary foreign military interventions and the violence that is spawned over seas and the lives that are destroyed, plus the cost of the massive corruption in law enforcement and justice systrems that's endemic to any attempt to prohibit drugs, plus the extra cost in lost freedoms which in time will eventually come back to bite you in the ass as readily as anyone else?
The idea that society is somehow 'protected' from paying the toll for drug abuse by prohibition is about as naive as it's possible to get. Not only is society paying the toll for drug abuse anyway, it's paying the toll of the ineffective policy as well which is more massive and far reaching than having to pay for the methadone of some poor prick who can't keep his **** together. Not that I'm advocating that. As far as I'm concerned I would end socialized medicine so no one had to pay anyone's health bills, and anyone caught committing a crime under the influence of any drug would be punished as severely if not more so than if they were caught doing it sober.
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
HAHAhahahaha.. oh man... CDB, you just made my freaking day... man... you just don't get off the same subject thread in and thread out. Lets just be glad it is not yourself giving the pass, your "pass" essentially means... and get this... not a damn thing.
Oh man... tears CDB... freaking tears.
Even three years ago you have a sense of humor.
Adams
CDB
Registered User
If you're going to troll do so more skillfully. This is a pretty pathetic attempt.
Gee, wonder if we look at your posts in the politics section from a few years ago if we'll see some of the same points coming up. Or were you a Michael Moore fan back then and only recently reformed?
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
lutherblsstt
Guest
A friend of mine (who I disagree with) was reading this and wants to post but only on this topic,so I let him use my account, he's an MMA guy and goes by "Rightintheface"
Hi,I can't be bothered to set up an account but CDB and his points need to be addressed.
I'm not subservient to the state. I participate in society and hold my responsibilities in higher regard than my rights to do stupid crap. Big difference.
I don't smoke because I don't want to smoke, and I believe that if you want to smoke, you ought to campaign for its legalization. At that point, smoke away (even though I'll still think it's dumb).
This idea that you don't hurt anyone is not as clear-cut as you make it.
Everything has consequences, and maybe your pot smoking (I don't even know if you actually smoke,so this is hypothetical) might not have major consequences, but it also might.
You are part of a society. Societies are built upon social contracts. When certain people break those contracts, that damages society's cohesiveness. The less intelligent among them take things to extremes and then we have truly ridiculous or terrible behavior. I see so many places in this society where people cry like infants about their rights but pay no mind to their responsibilities to society.
I see so much in this society dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. Pot is not the cause of it, but it most certainly plays its part.
And again, doing it in this "civil disobedience" manner is what I care more about. Even if it's legal I think it's stupid, but I think the same thing about boozehounds or my sister's caffeine dependence or my mom's 30 year smoking habit. It's stupid and irresponsible, but at least it's legal.
The laws are there for a reason. This one isn't there for a necessarily good one, but to pretend that disobeying one law has no effect outside it's immediate context is the dumbest argument I can imagine.
flutiebill
New member
Exactly right! Hemp was posing a threat to the aristocrats and they shut it down! This is what propaganda get you!
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
Hahaha... Dude.. Awesome post. We need to pow wow so i can find out where you came up with this gem.
Adams
CDB
Registered User
The state and society are not the same thing. And, the ideology that holds responisiblities to the state, whatever the hell those are, higher than individual rights is what leads to a police state. Freedom means defense of the right to be free of government manipulation even if you think most people will use that free to do "stupid crap."
And until then run the risk of ridiculously long jail sentences, disenfranchisement, a permanent 'criminal' record. All of which are doing wonders for young black men especially these days.
Actually it doesn't. The act of smoking pot per se hurts no one. As for your point "everything has consequences," so what? Does that mean "everything" is the proper purview of government regulation? Pure nonsense. Just because we don't live in a vacuum and any action taken by anyone can however tangentially and tenuously be said to affect everyone is irrelevant. What demonstrable, provable damages can you show that are caused to you by someone lighting up a joint when they feel like it?
This is bullshit PHI 101 crap. Society is not built on a contract. If it is, show me that contract. If you can not, tell me the substance of that contract. If you can do that, then show me where I or anyone else explicitly agreed to this contract. What's more, once you do all that, please explain why, even though the government has defaulted on its end an estimated sixty trillion times, the contract is still in force? Social contact theory is just so much bullshit and logical contortionism to try and make the state one with society, to justify its authority, and to somehow try and suibstantively differentiate it from any other mob of thieves and bullies.
Do tell, what are their responsibilities?
I'll make sure and tell that to all my former A students who also puffed occasionally.
So if the government made gay bashing legal, it's okay? I mean yeah it involves hurting people who never did a ****ing thing to hurt anyone else mere because of where and when and with who they choose to get their rocks off, but hey, at least it'd be legal. Not like other assaults in any way shape or form because of that...
So you have said, along with a bunch of neo conish social responsibility schtick that Lyusander Spooner disposed of neatly a century or so ago. You have made several claims, provided no evidence or backing for them, or even ellucidation as to what these amorphous 'reponsibilities' are. You have given no copy or content for this social contract you claim exists, nor explained why it seems it's only up to individual citizens to live up to their end while the government can do whatever the **** it wants. Nor have you explained where consent was given for this contract to be binding, apparently assuming implicit agreement based on a geographic accident of where someone was born.
The use of legality as the defining mechanism of whether or not something is acceptable is contemptable in its implications. Those being that the state can do no wrong that isn't worth sufferring; that the individual is always subserviant to the collective however it is defined; and that morals, ethics, and justice are trumped by legislative fiat. Those are the basis for a disgusting world of collectivism and fascism and are completely at odds with the uniquely American ideas of freedom, liberty, and personal responsibility. The latter meaning you bear the natural consequences of your actions, not those made up on a whim by the state.
CDB
Registered User
While it's not the sole reason for prohibition, it is a matter of historical fact that lobbyists for the prohibition of marijuana came from two camps: moralists like Hearst; business interests against hemp for rope and cloth manufacture. They hide information like that in books which likely explains why you are unaware of it.
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
I am aware of the theory. But to think that marijuana/hemp was outlawed because of this is ridiculous. I can understand why marijuana was outlawed, though i do not agree with it. But to think the cotton companies (major player) had the swaying argument is non sense.
Like I said, I believe marijuana should at least become decriminalized. Yet another infringement of the 10th Amendment by all administrations. Some how the Federal Gov. controls the state government, whereas the fed is supposed to cater to the state governments.
Adams
CDB
Registered User
Then you have to explain why hemp was made illegal along with marijuana. They were well aware of the difference between the two plants back then. So, why make both illegal? Christ, the DEA is still to this day stopping loads of granola bars and hackey sacks at the ****ing border because they might contain hemp seeds.
That's what happens when you defer to the government in all issues. Power centralizes and generalizes, always. You either deny the government the power outright, or eventually they will take any power, no matter how specialized the circumstances under which it was granted and how limited the scope of its original intended use, and generalize and centralize it.
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
I believe the law is severely outdated, and science back then could not prove the mind altering substances were not also present. I think ignorance played more of a part in such a ridiculous law than anything else.
Again, I am against such. I think marijuana should be legal with restriction such as alcohol. I do not extend such generalities to that of cocaine, heroin, or the likes.
Agreed.
lutherblsstt
Guest
Rightintheface here again.
This is the problem I have. People who smoke pot too often get this attitude that rules are just there to oppress them, rather than to keep people safe, or maintain the social order that holds our society together. This is at the crux of most of my disagreement with you, CDB. You seemingly don't give a rip about the rules.
Pot is not aspirin. It is not tobacco. It is pot. It's okay to not treat "everything that grows out of the ground" the same.
The government is the organization that WE THE PEOPLE created to help and protect us. It is a manifestation of the collective will.
To treat it as some separate entity where those involved have no vested interest is absurd, and is the primary flaw in your argument.
You seem to view the government as "doing TO others" when it is precisely in existence to do FOR others.
Why is it inefficient? It's the world's biggest game of "Telephone." It's unavoidable to have some level of detachment between those at the highest echelons and those in the trenches. Doesn't make it right, but it isn't a damnable offense either.
I'm sick of this "stoner mentality" that rules are meant to be broken, that everyone is out to get you or oppress you (that's the paranoia kicking in) or that everything that tries to impose structure or rules is inherently wrong. If everybody followed the rules, things would be BETTER, not worse.
If people were just ethical and moral without legislation, Communism would work! The presence of government is necessary because people have selfish tendencies and differing priorities. It's a necessary evil, and I wish more people would participate in their government rather than whining like little pansies from their armchairs.
CDB
Registered User
One, your generalization about people who smoke pot and their attitudes is irrelevant as to whether or not they should be thrown in prison for smoking pot. Two, quite the contrary. I very much care what the rules are. It is those like you who say follow the rules whatever they may be who don't give a rip about the rules, but are more concerned that the authority they are implied to come from be respected at all times regardless of the ethics, morality, or just/unjust nature of the rules that are issued. It is ridiculous on its face to claim that those who are concerned with the content of rules care less about them than those like yourself who, as you demonstrate below, are merely concerned with compliance regardless of content.
No one is claiming everything that grows out of the ground is the same so this is an irrelvant claim. It is perhaps relevant in context that tobacco and aspirin are responsible for quite a few deaths on their own while according to the AMA no deaths have ever been laid at pot's door. Assuming these rules you love so much are to be rational in nature, forgetting about ethics morals and justice for the moment, and assuming prohibition even has a chance in hell of accomplishing its intended goal which it can't because it is flawed in its assumptions, then analogously that means you're shooting stuffed animals while real lions and bears are killing people.
No, it is not. Or rather it is if you never get past a ninth grade social studies in a state run school analysis of government. Government is at most the will of tax consumers imposed on tax payers. It is responsive to the will of special interests who have the time and resources to lobby for special favors. It isn't even an expression of the majority's will. It is the sum total of the opportunity cost of competing special interests. The free market is the will of the people. It is the allocation of resources dictated from the ground up by highest valued ends and availability. The government is institutionalized force which is why special interests go to it and lobby for it to get by fiat what they can't get voluntarily on the market.
The primary flaw in your argument is it has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with a Ra Ra Patriotism Ain't America the Greatest level of analysis. It is naive and uninformed, has no nuance and lacks any connection to reality. It is an expression of what idealists think a democracy is and has nothing to do with the reality of how government actually operates.
The government can't do FOR others because in order to do so it must first TAKE FROM some. The government doesn't not create wealth, it rearranges it. It can only do FOR some after it has TAKEN FROM others.
It is inefficient because it is detached from any and all market signalling mechanisms.
I personally don't give a ****. I'm sick of this hive mentality of mindlessly following every edict the state issues regardless of how immoral unethical and unjust it is. Our society is fast turning in a group of nonthinking super odebient drones who would happily herd their neighbors onto box cars and into ovens should it come to that without even bothering to ask whether or not it's right, moral, or just. So long as the proper papers are signed.
No, that's reality kicking in. You see, while you may not be aware of it, when you make something illegal you are saying that the law will be enforced with fines, imprisonment, and ultimately for anyone who actively resists to the ultimate degree, death. The law isn't a suggestion or a guideline, it is the legal authority for an officer of the law to kill if he deems it necessary to maintain compliance with the law. Your very droll reference to paranoia is in fact a statement of ignorance as to just what making something illegal implies for people who violate that law. Even for something as minor as a jaywalking ticket, should you resist its enforcement upon you enough, you will be killed. Your dismissal of these consequences as if they are irrelevant somehow further exposes your disregard for the rules, because you obviously haven't given a single thought as to the possible consequences for noncompliance.
That is your most ridiculous and uneducated statement so far. Even assuming universal compliance with 'the rules' (as you put it, laws with a consequence of death for noncompliance as others know them), any possible outcime would depend on the content of those rules, not mere universal compliance with them. Your reduction of society from a group of interacting individuals each unique in their wants and desires to some borg hive like thing of which only obedience is required is disgusting. If that's the kind of society you want, I suggest a quick review of and move to any one of the remaining fascist/theocratic states out there.
No, it wouldn't. You see there's a little problem of the impossibility of allocating resources efficiently geographically and temporally without a price system. As I've been trying to tell and as you keep missing, not everything is a matter of mere obedience. Certain systems and policies don't work because of inherrent flaws in their application.
If your naive ninth grade level view of what the government is were true it might be worth participating in. Government is indeed there because people have selfish tendencies and differring priorities. What your naive view of the world has missed entirely is that the government serves those interests and tendencies. The government is the institutionalized force people engage to get what they want when it is not delivered to them voluntarily. It is not the moderator of those selfish tendencies and differring priorities, it is their enabler.
The people who smoke pot and those who don't may mix or not mix, associate and disassociate themselves to whatever degree they are comfortable with. It is only those who insist on enforcing their views of the subject on others who need to engage the government. It is only those for whom making their own decision on the matter one way or another is not enough; for them everyone must abide by their standards, and the government is the tool by which they force others into compliance.
lutherblsstt
Guest
Rightintheface again
I'll get to rest later but this needs attention now.
you wrote "And until then run the risk of ridiculously long jail sentences, disenfranchisement, a permanent 'criminal' record. All of which are doing wonders for young black men especially these days"
You are full of crap here CDB, the reason why Black males do not prosper in American Society is becouse they do not have the proper male role models CDB. Black American males love pot so much, that they are willing to give up on their families for it. It is up to the more socially adjusted Black males to set an example.
Legalizing pot will change little in the Black culture, the problem is much deeper then that
I'll get to rest later but this needs attention now.
you wrote "And until then run the risk of ridiculously long jail sentences, disenfranchisement, a permanent 'criminal' record. All of which are doing wonders for young black men especially these days"
You are full of crap here CDB, the reason why Black males do not prosper in American Society is becouse they do not have the proper male role models CDB. Black American males love pot so much, that they are willing to give up on their families for it. It is up to the more socially adjusted Black males to set an example.
Legalizing pot will change little in the Black culture, the problem is much deeper then that
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
Oh lord... what is the world coming to when I can agree with both Luther AND CDB?
Adams
Adams
CDB
Registered User
Yeah, they don't have a daddy or Mister Roger's to look up to, that's the sole reason why they're in prison at ridiculously high rates and failing in school...
As I addressed in my post to Jayhawk on this issue, you can't prohibit a substance and then expect the black market profits will not attract people, especially people in dire straits who see little other opportunity to make their way out of poverty. A black market in drugs adversly affects the poor who in the US are disproportionately blacks. It affects them because they are much more likely to be enticed by the profits, and they have fewer resources to defend themselves in court should they be caught. There's a reason why young black males serve jail time for offenses that would land a senator's son in rehab at the most, and it has little to nothing to do with a father figure being present. Father figures would help, they would not reverse or appreciably mediate the tendency of all human beings to respond to incentives.
Yup, all them po niggas just can't keep their hand offa da weed. Or maybe the policy itself is racist in nature. Funny, I find it odd that the drugs mostly associated with abuse by whites, cigarettes and alcohol and prescription meds, are legal and their abuse is considered a health problem, their sale requires a license and their use accepted, but the drugs associated with minorities, cocaine, marijuana, and opiates associated with blacks, mexicans, and asians respectively, are illegal, and their mere use and abuse and manufacture and sale requires not treatment or licenses but fines and jail time.
Legalizing pot will change one very key issue in black culture and culture in general; people will not run the risk of fines, jail time, permanent criminal records, and disenfranchisement for manufacture, sale, or use anymore. That you don't realize these are consequences of prohibition is really just an illustration of your incredible ignorance about the subject in general.
lutherblsstt
Guest
Rightintheface again,
You do have Meth and heroin which I am pretty sure are considered to be mostly white people drugs which hold the same penalties as cocaine.
In the states that I worked in Meth had even stiffer penalties than cocaine. The state was being run rampant with meth abuse and guess what the majority of the prison population in that state is white.
I have never been one to be "politically correct" and no i am not a racist, but do see every day what drugs have done to the Black population and it continues, they do lack male role models.
and the elites are like parasitesi on the less fortunate, this includes the pastors of their churches, I know I deal with them, and I am involved with Boys & Girls Clubs & formerly the PAL, so I know what goes on. Some try to help, there are a few that scrafice to help, but most of the ones with money hord it to themselves, this is fact.
Several prominent black men, including fairly recent comments by Bill Cosby and Obama himself (on Father's day last year, I believe) have said the same.
You do have Meth and heroin which I am pretty sure are considered to be mostly white people drugs which hold the same penalties as cocaine.
In the states that I worked in Meth had even stiffer penalties than cocaine. The state was being run rampant with meth abuse and guess what the majority of the prison population in that state is white.
I have never been one to be "politically correct" and no i am not a racist, but do see every day what drugs have done to the Black population and it continues, they do lack male role models.
and the elites are like parasitesi on the less fortunate, this includes the pastors of their churches, I know I deal with them, and I am involved with Boys & Girls Clubs & formerly the PAL, so I know what goes on. Some try to help, there are a few that scrafice to help, but most of the ones with money hord it to themselves, this is fact.
Several prominent black men, including fairly recent comments by Bill Cosby and Obama himself (on Father's day last year, I believe) have said the same.
CDB
Registered User
Heroin is an opiate. Meth is fairly new and mostly see as a white/black trash drug, same as crack but with the survivalist crowd included.
Grant this is correct because I haven't looked at the stats surrounding meth specifically, perhaps you could explain exactly what good the prohibition of the substance has done since by your own admition it is illegal and abuse still 'runs rampant'. Sounds like making it illegal has done diddly **** but enrich dealers, create a profit incentive for hill billies to turn their trailers into chemical bombs, and make me show ID before I can buy some ****ing cold medicine.
Very good. Now you just have to explain why such problems didn't exist, and by and large still don't, among most users when prohibition was not in effect.
I could care less. The idea that a lack of father figures is solely responsible for what's happening to young black youths is still ridiculous. Lacking role models is merely one aspect of the problems there. The drug war was and still is by default a targetted, racist policy. It was when it was enacted, it still is because of momentum and general ignorance. It is also an ineffective policy that does nothing but exacerbate the problems its proponents claim to want to solve. Little can be done about the demand for drugs, it is largely inelastic. And as long as the demand exists all prohibition does is increase the profit incentive for meeting that demand, ensure manufacturers and dealers are outside the purveiw of criminal and civil law covering fraud and quality, ensure that those who engage in the manufacture and sale are of increasingly viscious criminal nature over time, and it ensures that the poor - those with the fewest resources at their disposal - will at once be the most attracted to the trade and the most vulnerable to prosecution and stiff penalties for doing so as well as engaging in the use of the substances. It is a policy doomed to failure because every small success in restricting supply is momentary, and all it does is increase the profit available for those who can meet the demand, and increase the likelihood that such a person/organization will have to use more viscious, outright violent tactics to do so.
lutherblsstt
Guest
Rightintheface again
As for the "racist drug policy", go to Iowa, where there are hardly any black people, and you'll find white people in jail/prison just the same as black people.
And you'll find that it's white people (and the occasional black person, we do have a few) of low education and SES. It is most definitely not an issue of racism.
Again, it isn't "black American males." It's "American males of low education and low socioeconomic status." It is NOT a problem of racism.
lutherblsstt
Guest
Oh lord... what is the world coming to when I can agree with both Luther AND CDB?
Adams
LOL!
lutherblsstt
Guest
RITF again,
I would like to add that of course pot wont cause death or property damage, but the impact on individuals is often profound.
I would like to add that of course pot wont cause death or property damage, but the impact on individuals is often profound.
CDB
Registered User
And go to Russia and you'll find Russians. The policy is still very much aimed at the poor in general and blacks in particular. What's more you're trying to change the subject from an argument about prohibition in general and pot in particular which I guess is one you know you can't win, to one about racism and law, where stats can be thrown around a bit. Stick to the topic at hand. These are the facts: prohibition of these drugs was largely based on race lines when enacted; prohibition still largely affects minorities more negatively than whites, even if it is only a reflection of ultimate economic status; prohibition does not work and never has worked and never will work.
BodyWizard
Registered User
Hearst's "moralist" pose was just that: a pose.
The circulation of Hearst's papers were in danger of outstripping then-existing paper production (based on hemp fibers), and Hearst invested heavily in an industrial process intended to make paper from softwood pulp - even buying huge swaths of woodlands to provide raw materials. The process was poisonous and had a devastating effect on vegetation & livestock in the region containing the plants, but it would be cheaper for Hearst, and Hearst money drove the process forward.
Then some bright boy invented a machine for processing hemp stalks into fiber. The effect was electric, as the new device promised to do to hemp what the cotton gin had done to cotton: take the lid off production, by eliminating tedious and time-consuming manual stages that drove up prices & limited availability. Hearst's new paper scheme was about to get more expensive.
IIRC, the paper-making process Hearst bought into was a DuPont process, so these developments endangered The Dupont profits as well, and a minor capo in the chemical family - one Harry J. Anslinger, married I believe to one of the Dupont kids - was given the job of getting rid of hemp. He did this at first by making up stories about respectable white women being 'insulted' by lazy, thieving Mexicans high on "marihuana", and getting them placed in Hearst papers around the country, and writing anger letters to editors of other papers; the propaganda campaign expanded to include 'hopped-up' Negroes, and eventually led to the infamous "Reefer Madness", a film so over-the-top that it's now considered a comedy classic. The stern warnings that bookend the film were not the stagey ploy we see now: this film was intended to be taken seriously by the white, property-owning public. And it was.
Anslinger was eventually named head of the Bureau on Narcotics, or something like that, and cannabis was initially taxed at the rate of IIRC $100 per ounce, and arrests for cannabis were for tax evasion.... An interesting sidenote is that at the hearing over whether to ban it outright, the AMA put up a stiff argument that the herb was widely useful, and as safe as *any other* herb & that there was no merit in the idea of banning it on account of the public health.
Still, with the weight of Hearst's fortune and influence - and that of Dupont as well - cannabis was eventually banned altogether & remains so. The technological innovation that would have dramatically shifted the availability & uses of hemp and hemp fiber, and the economics thereof, languished for lack of any hemp to work on, pulp paper production took over, Hearst got richer, Dupont got richer, paper got cheaper - in price and in quality: Hemp paper more than 100 years old is cleaner, whiter, more legible and less brittle than pulp paper only a dozen years old (think of all those old, *yellowed* papers, paperback books, magazines, comics...).
As for the touchy-feely, environmental aspects: when I was a kid in the 50s or early 60s, I remember being on a drive with my family, and this drive took us through or near Copper Hill, Tennessee. The Southeast US is typically lush, and was moreso in the lower population densities of the time; thus I noticed when the land turned bare and brown outside the windows, just as I noticed the stink that came in despite the rolled-up windows. The creeks looked like sewers, filled with scum & bubbles, the banks stained colors I'd never seen around a creek.
I asked my dad what had happened. He told me there was a paper mill nearby, and that what we were seeing was typical around paper mills.
Hemp always made better paper, better in every way. Still does. "Course, it's not legal to make it....
There was not so much involvement by the makers of cloth or rope, as there were no alternates to hemp trying to shoulder their way into those markets - although alternatives such as sisal and jute had to be pressed into service once hemp fiber was gone (for rope only). No serious replacement for canvas was ever found TMK - cotton ended up taking all the slack, for good or ill, until synthetics came into the mix (hello again, Mr. Dupont!).
BodyWizard
Registered User
???
There's one plant, and three strains based on growth-habit.
These strains are cultivated for either industrial or medicinal purposes
'HEMP' refers to cannabis cultivated for industrial uses: long fibers perfect for strong, durable cloth and rope, and short fibers perfect for paper; also the oil pressed from the seed has nutritional value, is highly-prized in paint manufature, and as a high-grade industrial lubricant. Also, the seeds are pized as songbird feed.
Therefore, 'hempseed', 'hemp oil', 'hemp paper', etc.
'MARIJUANA' refers to cannabis cultivated for medicinal purposes: the dried flowering tops of the hemp / cannabis plant, when it has been cultivated for the production of said tops.
'Sativa' grows tall, and thus is most cultivated industrially for fibers and seeds; 'indica' grows squat, and is thus most cultivated medicinally; 'ruderalis' is typically not cultivated, as its growth-habit does not respond well to cultivation.
ONE plant. Not two.
CDB
Registered User
So be it. My point was though that it's easy to tell hemp from weed, know what I mean? If you don't seperate the males and females and, as you say, cultivate for the buds themselves, you're going to end up with a shitload of seeds and some plants that might make a decent rope.
Edit: Plus you can't smell 'hemp' three miles away. 'Weed' is pungent as hell. When I grew it, it damn near stunk up the whole block.
Zero V
Well-known member
I have read this....Adding in my moral and faith based beliefs, even I think marijuana should be legal. It does no damage when you compare it to cigarettes or alcohol. It does some, but in comparison....wow. If it is not abused I could see even being used therapeutically.
Same principles should be followed with alcohol though. Not allowed to drive under influence, not allowed to show up at work under influence. The only reason they wont legalize it for tax purposes is it would spin off too much business. As well as its soo easy to grow on your own, no one would by store brand(if I smoked it, I wouldnt. I mean, damn).
Same principles should be followed with alcohol though. Not allowed to drive under influence, not allowed to show up at work under influence. The only reason they wont legalize it for tax purposes is it would spin off too much business. As well as its soo easy to grow on your own, no one would by store brand(if I smoked it, I wouldnt. I mean, damn).
BodyWizard
Registered User
l0ck
New member
I agree.
When compared to other legal (us) recreational drugs marijuana is definitely much safer and non-toxic.
The reason it's illegal isn't because of this though, obviously.
I will offer my opinion over the reason why, as I have heard of the taxtile company thing, as well as the tax issue in the past, but the reason I think marijuana is illegal is due to it's thought provoking abilities. Not to mention, if it was legal, much more of the population would be prone to using it more often, and for longer periods of time. I am a firm believer that marijuana can lead to rebellion, and that 'stoner' mentality that has already been discussed in this thread. It just opens your eyes to new paradigms and gestalts which our gov't has worked so hard to condition us with. As governments are expressions of cohesive energies, or neg-entropy, anything that promotes individualism/entropy is ultimately the antagonist, and they exist solely to suppress that.
I think it would be interesting if it was legal, I would open up a bakery, 'Baked', and include large doses of THC within my flax/protein baked concoctions.
When compared to other legal (us) recreational drugs marijuana is definitely much safer and non-toxic.
The reason it's illegal isn't because of this though, obviously.
I will offer my opinion over the reason why, as I have heard of the taxtile company thing, as well as the tax issue in the past, but the reason I think marijuana is illegal is due to it's thought provoking abilities. Not to mention, if it was legal, much more of the population would be prone to using it more often, and for longer periods of time. I am a firm believer that marijuana can lead to rebellion, and that 'stoner' mentality that has already been discussed in this thread. It just opens your eyes to new paradigms and gestalts which our gov't has worked so hard to condition us with. As governments are expressions of cohesive energies, or neg-entropy, anything that promotes individualism/entropy is ultimately the antagonist, and they exist solely to suppress that.
I think it would be interesting if it was legal, I would open up a bakery, 'Baked', and include large doses of THC within my flax/protein baked concoctions.