[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Because some asshole get drugged up and crashes into a schoolbus or OD’s and people react and things snowball.
More drunk people crash into schoolbuses.
We lock up people for that too.
That’s not the point. The war on drugs is about possession and distribution, not crimes committed high.
It is all about crimes committed high and trying to prevent addiction. That is the root of drug bans.[/quote]
No. It’s about money. Read the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Because some asshole get drugged up and crashes into a schoolbus or OD’s and people react and things snowball.
More drunk people crash into schoolbuses.
We lock up people for that too.
That’s not the point. The war on drugs is about possession and distribution, not crimes committed high.
It is all about crimes committed high and trying to prevent addiction. That is the root of drug bans.
No. It’s about money. Read the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act.[/quote]
If it was about money we would be selling and taxing a hell of a lot more drugs.
It is about fear and it always has been. Fear of criminal acts committed by intoxicated people and fear of addiction.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Because some asshole get drugged up and crashes into a schoolbus or OD’s and people react and things snowball.
More drunk people crash into schoolbuses.
We lock up people for that too.
That’s not the point. The war on drugs is about possession and distribution, not crimes committed high.
It is all about crimes committed high and trying to prevent addiction. That is the root of drug bans.
No. It’s about money. Read the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act.
If it was about money we would be selling and taxing a hell of a lot more drugs. [/quote]
Ooh, I see.
And Pfizer, Bayer, Glaxo, Novartis makes candy, right?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Because some asshole get drugged up and crashes into a schoolbus or OD’s and people react and things snowball.
More drunk people crash into schoolbuses.
We lock up people for that too.
That’s not the point. The war on drugs is about possession and distribution, not crimes committed high.
It is all about crimes committed high and trying to prevent addiction. That is the root of drug bans.[/quote]
That depends on how you look at it.
The reasons were financial interests of very influential people.
It was SOLD with the fear of violent crimes (reefer madness, priceless) and of course the Mexicans and Negroes might get uppity.
Even worse, white women, high on weed and seduced by the pounding rhythms of the black mans seductive music might get to know a person of color in the biblical sense.
There was no crime problem to be solved, just the wish to keep the Mexicans out, the black men down and make a shit load of money.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Because some asshole get drugged up and crashes into a schoolbus or OD’s and people react and things snowball.
More drunk people crash into schoolbuses.
We lock up people for that too.
That’s not the point. The war on drugs is about possession and distribution, not crimes committed high.
It is all about crimes committed high and trying to prevent addiction. That is the root of drug bans.
No. It’s about money. Read the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act.
If it was about money we would be selling and taxing a hell of a lot more drugs.
Ooh, I see.
And Pfizer, Bayer, Glaxo, Novartis makes candy, right?[/quote]
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
…
The reasons were financial interests of very influential people.
…
Which people and which interests?[/quote]
Harry Anslinger got some additional help from William Randolf Hearst, owner of a huge chain of newspapers. Hearst had lots of reasons to help. First, he hated Mexicans. Second, he had invested heavily in the timber industry to support his newspaper chain and didn’t want to see the development of hemp paper in competition. Third, he had lost 800,000 acres of timberland to Pancho Villa, so he hated Mexicans. Fourth, telling lurid lies about Mexicans (and the devil marijuana weed causing violence) sold newspapers, making him rich.
…
Hearst and Anslinger were then supported by Dupont chemical company and various pharmaceutical companies in the effort to outlaw cannabis. Dupont had patented nylon, and wanted hemp removed as competition. The pharmaceutical companies could neither identify nor standardize cannabis dosages, and besides, with cannabis, folks could grow their own medicine and not have to purchase it from large companies.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Because some asshole get drugged up and crashes into a schoolbus or OD’s and people react and things snowball.
More drunk people crash into schoolbuses.
We lock up people for that too.
That’s not the point. The war on drugs is about possession and distribution, not crimes committed high.
It is all about crimes committed high and trying to prevent addiction. That is the root of drug bans.
No. It’s about money. Read the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act.
If it was about money we would be selling and taxing a hell of a lot more drugs.
Ooh, I see.
And Pfizer, Bayer, Glaxo, Novartis makes candy, right?
And they would be more than happy to sell heroin.[/quote]
But they would hate it if everyone was allowed to grow weed in his/her backyard. The thought must send chills down their collective spines.
Besides there’s no live patent on heroin, now is there?
[quote]orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
…
The reasons were financial interests of very influential people.
…
Which people and which interests?
Harry Anslinger got some additional help from William Randolf Hearst, owner of a huge chain of newspapers. Hearst had lots of reasons to help. First, he hated Mexicans. Second, he had invested heavily in the timber industry to support his newspaper chain and didn’t want to see the development of hemp paper in competition. Third, he had lost 800,000 acres of timberland to Pancho Villa, so he hated Mexicans. Fourth, telling lurid lies about Mexicans (and the devil marijuana weed causing violence) sold newspapers, making him rich.
…
Hearst and Anslinger were then supported by Dupont chemical company and various pharmaceutical companies in the effort to outlaw cannabis. Dupont had patented nylon, and wanted hemp removed as competition. The pharmaceutical companies could neither identify nor standardize cannabis dosages, and besides, with cannabis, folks could grow their own medicine and not have to purchase it from large companies.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Because some asshole get drugged up and crashes into a schoolbus or OD’s and people react and things snowball.
More drunk people crash into schoolbuses.
We lock up people for that too.
That’s not the point. The war on drugs is about possession and distribution, not crimes committed high.
It is all about crimes committed high and trying to prevent addiction. That is the root of drug bans.
No. It’s about money. Read the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act.
If it was about money we would be selling and taxing a hell of a lot more drugs.
Ooh, I see.
And Pfizer, Bayer, Glaxo, Novartis makes candy, right?
And they would be more than happy to sell heroin.
But they would hate it if everyone was allowed to grow weed in his/her backyard. The thought must send chills down their collective spines.
Besides there’s no live patent on heroin, now is there?[/quote]
Nor is there a patent on aspirin and I think Bayer had them both for a while. The drug companies would be more than happy to peddle drugs.
They would love to grow pot and roll it into cigarettes and sell it nice and legal like.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
…
The reasons were financial interests of very influential people.
…
Which people and which interests?
Harry Anslinger got some additional help from William Randolf Hearst, owner of a huge chain of newspapers. Hearst had lots of reasons to help. First, he hated Mexicans. Second, he had invested heavily in the timber industry to support his newspaper chain and didn’t want to see the development of hemp paper in competition. Third, he had lost 800,000 acres of timberland to Pancho Villa, so he hated Mexicans. Fourth, telling lurid lies about Mexicans (and the devil marijuana weed causing violence) sold newspapers, making him rich.
…
Hearst and Anslinger were then supported by Dupont chemical company and various pharmaceutical companies in the effort to outlaw cannabis. Dupont had patented nylon, and wanted hemp removed as competition. The pharmaceutical companies could neither identify nor standardize cannabis dosages, and besides, with cannabis, folks could grow their own medicine and not have to purchase it from large companies.
Was all sold over the counter with far less problems than today.
Ironically, when they were made illegal after their use was already in decline so the laws were passed after people had found out that they did not really want pure cocaine, only “energy drinks” if you want to call them that.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Because some asshole get drugged up and crashes into a schoolbus or OD’s and people react and things snowball.
More drunk people crash into schoolbuses.
We lock up people for that too.
That’s not the point. The war on drugs is about possession and distribution, not crimes committed high.
It is all about crimes committed high and trying to prevent addiction. That is the root of drug bans.
No. It’s about money. Read the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act.
If it was about money we would be selling and taxing a hell of a lot more drugs.
Ooh, I see.
And Pfizer, Bayer, Glaxo, Novartis makes candy, right?
And they would be more than happy to sell heroin.[/quote]
Bayer invented Heroin, is was called the super asprin.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think with out a war on drugs our Police would have nothing to do. It would be hard for them to justify why we need so many[/quote]