Why was marijuana outlawed to begin with?

I’d agree. Anslinger fueled the (racist) fire that got the government going, but the money came from Hearst (paper), Mellon (banks) and the Du Ponts (nylon). The underlying motivation and funding was from very wealthy businessmen who needed to crush potential competition (hemp fiber). The racist stuff Hearst printed in his papers just helped convince Ansligner/Congress to buy into his propaganda.

2 Likes

The linked article doesn’t go into it, but it’s long been my understanding that one of the primary reasons that marijuana was made illegal was because the end of prohibition meant the end of a regulatory and policing industry. Making a new substance illegal kept the boys at work.

Racism and fear mongering were the ways which this was leveraged into law and into the moral code, but the reason, shockingly, was economic in nature.

3 Likes

I’m all for hemp, but also for solid defenses of it, not things the opposition can declare “common librul hippy myths.” I can’t find solid info, but I hear this is an urban myth, and that while early drafts were written on hemp paper, the final draft (drafts?) used parchment.

1 Like

It’s not the government who makes the money. It’s private sector the power brokers who bought and paid for votes who make the money.

Even if legalization does benefit the government by way of taxes, those taxes do not benefit the congress critters who actually make the laws. They need their pockets lined and a bunch of well meaning people don’t have the kind of cash the rich and powerful have. No, they take the payoff money and pass whatever laws they are paid to pass.

1 Like

Hemp clear has many benefits (besides drug-fueled teen parties and mix-race sexual encounters). But ass, grass, and large scale paper production, nobody rides for free. Besides the '4-5 times as much paper per acre (than wood)", I am interested in how much water, pesticides, fuel to harvest, milling and processing, waist products, and ease of recycling that hemp paper requires compared to wood. As legalization spreads and hemp proves to be a low-impact source of fiber, it will be a wonder new America. Rope not dope kids! Ok, a little dope…

1 Like

Wait, I think you’re right. I remember something about this too. That’s what I get for having several discussions in several forums at the same time. :wink:

Let me do a quick check…

Interesting. It seems like the final version (written by Franklins assistant) was written on parchment. The other versions were written on hemp paper, which should be no surprise, since half of the people involved grew hemp and Franklin owned a mill producing hemp paper.

But aside from the bad example the argument still stands, when it comes to old chinese documents, the gutenberg bible and other old hemp-based documents that stood the test of time way better than wood paper.

P.S.: @Bozeman_Bill: Your thoughts are right: Hemp really needs more resources and more work than trees, but you can still get far more material out of it. As far as I know the jury is still out on trying to find out which of the two is more harmfull for the environment. But one often missed point here is that hemp can be used for FAR more different things than wood, so you also have to take building materials, fibers, medicine, oils and more into consideration.

2 Likes

True, and thanks for the further research. I still think it’s bad strategy (and you may well agree) that defenders of hemp so claim “even the Declaration of Independence is on hemp paper!” I suppose it’s technically accurate to say it was written on it, but saying so would still lead many to think we’re saying the former instead of the latter.

Okay, done with splitting hairs.

1 Like

I really hope the lack of sarcasm tags was just an oversight.
On the other hand if you’re serious and your daughter takes this route, I would suggest that the problem doesn’t lie with pot being illegal but with the way you raised her.

1 Like

I think Alan Swann is beneath us right now!

For a taste of the irony behind the propaganda of Cannabis prohibition, contrast the following two statements

“This marijuana causes…”

against,

“This Cannabis causes…”.

The difference in word choice is crucial in the historical context of cannabis prohibition.

At the beginning of Canna-Prohibition, Cannabis was a very well known, popular, well understood medicine of huge importance to doctors and patients (see also uses as industrial feedstock and for clothing, food, fuel, fibre etc.). It was also a crop and weed which grew almost everywhere. Everyone knew of the name Cannabis or Hemp.

“Marijuana” was a relatively new name for a “new drug” heavily associated with Mexican migrant workers, and also apparently with wayward “white women, Negroes, entertainers and any others”.

A foreign sounding word - marijuana. A new dangerous sounding name for an old drug, which been in widespread common use for centuries of European History and Thousands of years of Asian History. Used primarily as a medicine for health, Spiritual Inspiration and also a source of strong fibre for rope and clothing.

Had Harry Anslinger stood up and said,

“This Cannabis causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others.”

He would have been laughed down and derided for making such a ridiculous statement, at that time.

Everybody would instantly known to which plant/drug/medicine he was referring. Whether or not a listener would have agreed or disagreed with his statement, they would have know what he was referring to.

However, this dangerous, new, scary aphrodisiac “Marijuana” substance, wasn’t widely known to be the relatively harmless cannabis medicine of everyday availability and common use.

Imagine for example that Christianity was Prohibited by a Government but that they did so but giving it a new, scary sounding, foreign name which confused people as to the nature and genuine intent of the prohibition legislation. That is similar as to what happened to cannabis.

Personally, I use Cannabis for psychiatric medical reasons, spiritual fulfilment, pain relief, artistic inspiration, relaxation, contemplation and recreation.

Cannabis turned me from being a dangerously violent teenage alcoholic, into scientifically minded, artistic, philosophical, spiritual, pacifist musician who is close to harmless.

Now THAT is powerful medicine indeed.

TooLong/Didn’tRead -> Cannabis good.

6 Likes

“Rationale”? We used to have that… its called “freedom” now.

1 Like

To any who haven’t watched it, I strongly recommend watching “The Union: The Business Behing Getting High” for a broad overview of cannabis prohibition. It’s on Netflix.

1 Like

wait…entertainers? the other forms of prejudice i was familiar with, but this was a new one to me.

Wasn’t hemp made illegal because of its potential competition with the NY Time’s paper mills? They grafted their interests in wood pulp paper production on the anti-drug side of a national debate over the use of euphoric drugs. What year was that? Who was the publisher?

So a quick Google search turned up zilch on the effects of hemp on soil quality, but as for the others…

Wood paper generally comes from logging. It doesn’t make sense to farm trees because they grow too slowly (that should be your first tip-off that we need a replacement of some sort), so already you’re going to have more pesticides, etc. because hemp is a plant you can farm.

The advantage and disadvantage of farms is that they don’t periodically roll in and destroy habitats. The disadvantage part is that new farms permanently roll in and destroy habitats.

Processing is pretty much exactly the same, so no change there. Trees have to have their bark removed, but I think they can keep the leaves, so hemp is probably pretty good on that front. If they have to strip the leaves, there’s more waste in hemp, but mulched leaves can also be sold off provided the systems are in place. Bark is also used and not disposed of. I’m guessing that there’s overall very little waste in both processes.

I… think that’s everything? Probably less expenditure of fuel to harvest because of the predictable location and ease of harvest with combines, as well as the higher yield.

My guess is “entertainers” is code for that oldest of boogeymen, The Jew. Dun-dun-dah.

If anyone had been reading my annoyed rants on the subject for the last several years they would know that.

@dacree Sorry man, no. The pharma and alcohol companies do have strong lobbyists and they contribute money to any group that will oppose legalisation or decriminalisation, but it’s got nothing to do with keeping “natural drugs” off the market - as evidenced by the fact that medical use is permitted in far more places than recreational use. Also since hemp is a superior product, what benefit would the government have in stopping an industry that would provide them with better tax revenues? The prison point is just silly. Yes, privatised prisons have an interest in getting more prisoners but why would the government want that? The government is paying the bill.

@Bozeman_Bill That book needs updating. May I suggest this: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=auatLlqO_AIC&printsec=frontcover&vq=driving&redir_esc=y
The Marijuana Tax Act was implemented in 1937 meaning that all marijuana was banned (even Ruderalis - the type used for hemp production). This was changed during WWII, as you stated, but the reintroduction of the ban had nothing to do with the cotton industry and everything to do with the government simply stopping issuing marijuana tax stamps at the end of WWII. This wiki page talks about a war propaganda documentary encouraging US farmers to grow hemp, and a picture of the tax stamps issued. In answer to your second question, my understanding is that hemp has less impact on the environment to produce in every way. Also: Ruderalis (fibre hemp) doesn’t get you high.

@bid re: sperm count, I know that was a joke, but I’m just gonna pour some water on that myth: http://norml.org/library/health-reports/item/norml-s-marijuana-health-mythology#13
Check out how well the declaration of independence survived the years. It is written on hemp paper.
Nope… parchment (i.e. animal skin)

@wi_ngo Competitors to hemp products obviously had a financial interest in killing it, but my understanding is that it was primarily racially driven because Mexicans had traditionally smoked it after work and brought the practice to North America when they emigrated legally. The southern states wanted to get rid of the Mexicans who were “stealing all the jobs” (sound familiar?). Anslinger was tasked with making marijuana illegal which he did a great job of, despite his own personal belief that marijuana wasn’t really a problem.

@felixtannenbaum I don’t believe that to be true, considering there was a 4 year gap between the end of prohibition and the introduction of the Marijuana Tax Act.

@milliefink http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence#History_of_the_documents :stuck_out_tongue:

2 Likes

Nah - pine trees are farmed here in NZ extensively. They only take 20 years to grow to maturity, and with a large enough area - or an area you’re prepared to let lay for two decades - you can set up quite effective block rotations. See for example the patchwork of pine trees at various ages in the Kaiangaroa Forest here:

Its monotony is as ugly as sin, of course, at pretty much any stage of the growth cycle, and it poisons the soil for pretty much anything else, but it does provide a shedload of wood for paper and building. And, by and large, it makes productive economic use of what would otherwise be waste land (… or another national park).

Jon

2 Likes

“…there was a 4 year gap between the end of prohibition and the introduction of the Marijuana Tax Act.”

not to be a stickler, as I agree with your assertion that it was mostly about being skeeved out by the Mexicans, but there was the Uniform State Narcotic act, which was brought into being in 1925.

It’s all a filthy sham, whatever the case, and it’s good that it is changing.

2 Likes

I am Aussie. When Colorado introduced legal bud this year a few of my friends were all “w00t”, but I’m still angry that the US fucked the whole world by exporting idiotic drug policy in the first place. I agree that change is for the good but what about all the people around the world whose lives have been or continue to be fucked because of those stupid laws? Not much consolation for them. It all really boils my blood - and I’ve been in no way affected by it, besides being baked all the time and also having to pay too much for it.

1 Like