My only thought on this...is....what happens after they make it legal? how many people will drive while smoking it? People drink & drive so no trying to tell me it won't happen.

How long before people begin smoking before going to work or start demanding an area for smoking it during work?

That is one of the questions that they will have to look at when deciding if it should be legal. I know people have shown up to work drunk & stoned. I had to fire someone for smoking pot on the job, so I know it happens. If it's legal it could happen more.

I will agree that medicinal pot is a good idea, at least then the patients can spend 90% of their time stoned. I myself would throw away any prescription for pot as i will not smoke or injest pot in any form. I will deal with my pain as it will still be there after the pot effect wears off.

marijuana is just one intoxicant among many. I can see if a person is against all intoxicant

but if a person supports alcohol and opposes marijuana then they are just trying to impose their own personal preferences

I don't support alcohol either, it isn't even allowed in my house lol

I only got drunk once...ever...to top it off i was underage, i was only 20 (shhh don't tell my mom she'll kill me lol)

As I said i would support pot for medicinal use, but would make it clear in my medical records that i will NOT ever smoke or injest marijuana.

that is your choice and should be respected. I would no more force someone else to smoke/ingest pot than I would allow them to stop me from it

I suppose if one is to find proper accountabilities of charges one would have to search case by case to find pot use to be the culprit. But, truth is that drug driving can and is charged as dui or dwi or simply cds. All of which can be broken down legally in court.

But usually it is not unless an expensive lawyer does it.

I can tell you the few times I was in court or jail due to pot wasn't stated as pot or mariguana or weed.

Without going into detail of anything, I will admit to knowing of very illegal activities of those high on pot. Mnay times over. People robbing others for their pot, while beating them half to death. Tasering others while committing crimes while using pot, because it was funny.

Pot makes you lazy. It makes you over eat. It makes your accountability non exsistant. Your memory is dulled.

How many want:

Stoned teachers teaching your kids?
Stoned cops protecting you?
Stoned Drs doing surgery on you?Stoned dentist working on your mouth?
Stoned soldiers off to war? Look what happened in Viet Nam.
Stoned bankers taking care of your money?Your mortgages?
Stoned childcare givers taking care of your kids?
Stoned driving teachers giving your kids driving lessons?
Stoned pilots flying the plane you are in?Bus drivers etc.etc.
Stoned politicians making important decisions for you? Our country?
Stoned chemist...pharmaceuticals? Pharmacist?

The list can go on and on. Legalize it and what is to stop these things from being true? If it is legal what's to stop it? Like if you legalize it...it will only be done at home on your own time. Bull. People will carry it openly with no fear, and smoke it out in the open. People think they are so cool and alright while high. That is just a lie.

Kat

it reminds me of the old Saturday Night Live sketch

Bill Murray and Jane Curtin were sitting in their living room and rolling a joint when Dan Akroyd as a cop bursts in and shoots them both dead.

and then Dan Akroyd turns to the audience and declares "another drug related death"

"Stoned politicians making important decisions for you? Our country?"


You mean the same ones that are smoking while enforcing laws against it? No. I definitely don't agree with that hypocrisy.


I have smoked with doctors, teachers, lawyers, cops, truck drivers, etc... Funny though....none of them smoked on the job. They only smoked moderately on their own time.


Would they change their smoking patterns if it were legal? Possible....but, highly unlikely.


That's like saying because alcohol is legal...then everyone one of those professions you mentioned will be drunk at work (which clearly isn't the case).

You have done nothing less than I have. I sold it for Christs sake to them. I also know that not to be true. These guys did drugs before and during their jobs. The differences in them and their demeanor was like day and night. People will not tell the truth about their drug usage. The users will deny all that is bad about it til they wake up and see the truth. That takes some time after cleaning up. I will still get a giggle when I rememeber my actions while high in the past then remember how stupid I was and how I put others in jeopardy while stoned.

Also I am sure some of these politicians may be doing drugs, pot included, there is such a stigma to it that it may cause them to be more concerning about it, where as if it was legal they would not.

Kat

disclaimer: not all these people did drugs before their jobs, but many did.

Ahhh but we can equally say the same about alcohol and prescription medications. All of which are and have been legal for some time.


"I suppose if one is to find proper accountabilities of charges one would have to search case by case to find pot use to be the culprit."

Okkkkkkkk but there are plenty of statistics that tell of other drug and alcohol related crimes and I am not talking about just driving. So why cant there be a definitive statistic SOMEWHERE of criminal activities with marijuana. After all it is a such a bad drug to many.

I found something. This link shows statistics related to drugs, criminal activity in juveniles.

It's very interesting. If you look at the numbers across the board. You will notice that the marijuana users have lower numbers than the rest of drugs (including alcohol and tobacco).


http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nhsda/2k2nsduh/Sect3peTabs24to29.pdf

Stoned teachers teaching your kids?
Stoned cops protecting you?
Stoned Drs doing surgery on you?Stoned dentist working on your mouth?
Stoned soldiers off to war? Look what happened in Viet Nam.
Stoned bankers taking care of your money?Your mortgages?
Stoned childcare givers taking care of your kids?
Stoned driving teachers giving your kids driving lessons?
Stoned pilots flying the plane you are in?Bus drivers etc.etc.
Stoned politicians making important decisions for you? Our country?
Stoned chemist...pharmaceuticals? Pharmacist?

I hate to tell you but it happeneds everyday and no one even knows!!!! I used to smoke, see no problem with people smoking in the privicy of their own homes. I would rather have someone stoned doing all the jobs above than see someone under the influence of alcohol or prescription drugs......Which happens everyday!!!

what people do in their own homes...not my business as long as it doesn't involve children. but I don't want it in my house. I still think if they make it legal...it should be the same laws as alcohol IMO of course...but we all know I'm always right

I agree....there are most certinly some that do these things without ur knowledge. I have quams about using legal drugs and alcohol the same as pot. Especially alcohol and pot. It is a known fact that potheads most usually use pot right along with alcohol.

Truthfully though...one can pick a pothead out of a crowd eaily. Not to mention the smell.

I found all those same sites as well. I also found where many accidents as well as illegal activities were found to be done by admitted pot users while also intoxicated on alcohol. In conjunction they make for a bad cocktail of menace.
Kat

Weed wasn't illegal until 1937.


Utah actually was the first state to make it illegal in 1915.

The reason it became illegal is actually due to rascism.

7000-8000 B.C.
First woven fabric believed to be from hemp.
1619

Jamestown Colony, Virginia passes law requiring farmers to grow hemp.
1700s

Hemp was the primary crop grown by George Washington at Mount Vernon, and a secondary crop grown by Thomas Jefferson at Monticello.
1884

Maine is the first state to outlaw alcohol.
1906

Pure Food and Drug Act is passed, forming the Food and Drug Administration. First time that drugs have any government oversight.
1913California, apparently, passes the first state marijuana law, though missed by many because it referred to "preparations of hemp, or loco weed."

1914

Harrison Act passed, outlawing opiates and cocaine (taxing scheme)
1915

Utah passes state anti-marijuana law.
1919

18th Amendment to the Constitution (alcohol prohibition) is ratified.
1930

Harry J. Anslinger given control of the new Federal Bureau of Narcotics (he remains in the position until 1962)
1933

21st Amendment to the Constitution is ratified, repealing alcohol prohibition.
1937

Marijuana Tax Act
1938

Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
1951

Boggs Amendment to the Harrison Narcotic Act (mandatory sentences)
1956

Narcotics Control Act adds more severe penalties
1970

Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act. Replaces and updates all previous laws concerning narcotics and other dangerous drugs. Empasis on law enforcement. Includes the Controlled Substances Act, where marijuana is classified a Schedule 1 drug (reserved for the most dangerous drugs that have no recognized medical use).
1972

Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act. Establishes federally funded programs for prevention and treatment
1973

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Changes Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs into the DEA
1974 and 1978

Drug Abuse Treatment and Control Amendments. Extends 1972 act
1988

Anti-Drug Abuse Act. Establishes oversight office: National Office of Drug Control Policy and the Drug Czar
1992

ADAMHA Reorganization. Transfers NIDA, NIMH, and NIAAA to NIH and incorporates ADAMHA's programs into the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)

A brief history of the criminalization of cannabis
by Pete Guither.

Many people assume that marijuana was made illegal through some kind of process involving scientific, medical, and government hearings; that it was to protect the citizens from what was determined to be a dangerous drug.

The actual story shows a much different picture. Those who voted on the legal fate of this plant never had the facts, but were dependent on information supplied by those who had a specific agenda to deceive lawmakers. You'll see below that the very first federal vote to prohibit marijuana was based entirely on a documented lie on the floor of the Senate.

You'll also see that the history of marijuana's criminalization is filled with:

Racism
Fear
Protection of Corporate Profits
Yellow Journalism
Ignorant, Incompetent, and/or Corrupt Legislators
Personal Career Advancement and Greed
These are the actual reasons marijuana is illegal.
Background

For most of human history, marijuana has been completely legal. It's not a recently discovered plant, nor is it a long-standing law. Marijuana has been illegal for less than 1% of the time that it's been in use. Its known uses go back further than 7,000 B.C. and it was legal as recently as when Ronald Reagan was a boy.

The marijuana (hemp) plant, of course, has an incredible number of uses. The earliest known woven fabric was apparently of hemp, and over the centuries the plant was used for food, incense, cloth, rope, and much more. This adds to some of the confusion over its introduction in the United States, as the plant was well known from the early 1600's, but did not reach public awareness as a recreational drug until the early 1900's.

America's first marijuana law was enacted at Jamestown Colony, Virginia in 1619. It was a law "ordering" all farmers to grow Indian hempseed. There were several other "must grow" laws over the next 200 years (you could be jailed for not growing hemp during times of shortage in Virginia between 1763 and 1767), and during most of that time, hemp was legal tender (you could even pay your taxes with hemp -- try that today!) Hemp was such a critical crop for a number of purposes (including essential war requirements - rope, etc.) that the government went out of its way to encourage growth.

The United States Census of 1850 counted 8,327 hemp "plantations" (minimum 2,000-acre farm) growing cannabis hemp for cloth, canvas and even the cordage used for baling cotton.

The Mexican Connection

In the early 1900s, the western states developed significant tensions regarding the influx of Mexican-Americans. The revolution in Mexico in 1910 spilled over the border, with General Pershing's army clashing with bandit Pancho Villa. Later in that decade, bad feelings developed between the small farmer and the large farms that used cheaper Mexican labor. Then, the depression came and increased tensions, as jobs and welfare resources became scarce.

One of the "differences" seized upon during this time was the fact that many Mexicans smoked marijuana and had brought the plant with them, and it was through this that California apparently passed the first state marijuana law, outlawing "preparations of hemp, or loco weed."

However, one of the first state laws outlawing marijuana may have been influenced, not just by Mexicans using the drug, but, oddly enough, because of Mormons using it. Mormons who traveled to Mexico in 1910 came back to Salt Lake City with marijuana. The church's reaction to this may have contributed to the state's marijuana law. (Note: the source for this speculation is from articles by Charles Whitebread, Professor of Law at USC Law School in a paper for the Virginia Law Review, and a speech to the California Judges Association (sourced below). Mormon blogger Ardis Parshall disputes this.)

Other states quickly followed suit with marijuana prohibition laws, including Wyoming (1915), Texas (1919), Iowa (1923), Nevada (1923), Oregon (1923), Washington (1923), Arkansas (1923), and Nebraska (1927). These laws tended to be specifically targeted against the Mexican-American population.

When Montana outlawed marijuana in 1927, the Butte Montana Standard reported a legislator's comment: "When some beet field peon takes a few traces of this stuff... he thinks he has just been elected president of Mexico, so he starts out to execute all his political enemies." In Texas, a senator said on the floor of the Senate: "All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff [marijuana] is what makes them crazy."

Jazz and Assassins

In the eastern states, the "problem" was attributed to a combination of Latin Americans and black jazz musicians. Marijuana and jazz traveled from New Orleans to Chicago, and then to Harlem, where marijuana became an indispensable part of the music scene, even entering the language of the black hits of the time (Louis Armstrong's "Muggles", Cab Calloway's "That Funny Reefer Man", Fats Waller's "Viper's Drag").

Again, racism was part of the charge against marijuana, as newspapers in 1934 editorialized: "Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice."

Two other fear-tactic rumors started to spread: one, that Mexicans, Blacks and other foreigners were snaring white children with marijuana; and two, the story of the "assassins." Early stories of Marco Polo had told of "hasheesh-eaters" or hashashin, from which derived the term "assassin." In the original stories, these professional killers were given large doses of hashish and brought to the ruler's garden (to give them a glimpse of the paradise that awaited them upon successful completion of their mission). Then, after the effects of the drug disappeared, the assassin would fulfill his ruler's wishes with cool, calculating loyalty.

By the 1930s, the story had changed. Dr. A. E. Fossier wrote in the 1931 New Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal: "Under the influence of hashish those fanatics would madly rush at their enemies, and ruthlessly massacre every one within their grasp." Within a very short time, marijuana started being linked to violent behavior.

Alcohol Prohibition and Federal Approaches to Drug Prohibition

During this time, the United States was also dealing with alcohol prohibition, which lasted from 1919 to 1933. Alcohol prohibition was extremely visible and debated at all levels, while drug laws were passed without the general public's knowledge. National alcohol prohibition happened through the mechanism of an amendment to the constitution.

Earlier (1914), the Harrison Act was passed, which provided federal tax penalties for opiates and cocaine.

The federal approach is important. It was considered at the time that the federal government did not have the constitutional power to outlaw alcohol or drugs. It is because of this that alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment.

At that time in our country's history, the judiciary regularly placed the tenth amendment in the path of congressional regulation of "local" affairs, and direct regulation of medical practice was considered beyond congressional power under the commerce clause (since then, both provisions have been weakened so far as to have almost no meaning).

Since drugs could not be outlawed at the federal level, the decision was made to use federal taxes as a way around the restriction. In the Harrison Act, legal uses of opiates and cocaine were taxed (supposedly as a revenue need by the federal government, which is the only way it would hold up in the courts), and those who didn't follow the law found themselves in trouble with the treasury department.

In 1930, a new division in the Treasury Department was established -- the Federal Bureau of Narcotics -- and Harry J. Anslinger was named director. This, if anything, marked the beginning of the all-out war against marijuana.

Harry J. Anslinger

Anslinger was an extremely ambitious man, and he recognized the Bureau of Narcotics as an amazing career opportunity -- a new government agency with the opportunity to define both the problem and the solution. He immediately realized that opiates and cocaine wouldn't be enough to help build his agency, so he latched on to marijuana and started to work on making it illegal at the federal level.

Anslinger immediately drew upon the themes of racism and violence to draw national attention to the problem he wanted to create. He also promoted and frequently read from "Gore Files" -- wild reefer-madness-style exploitation tales of ax murderers on marijuana and sex and... Negroes. Here are some quotes that have been widely attributed to Anslinger and his Gore Files:


"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."

"...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."

"Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."

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

"Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing"

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

"Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."
And he loved to pull out his own version of the "assassin" definition:


"In the year 1090, there was founded in Persia the religious and military order of the Assassins, whose history is one of cruelty, barbarity, and murder, and for good reason: the members were confirmed users of hashish, or marihuana, and it is from the Arabs' 'hashashin' that we have the English word 'assassin.'"
Yellow Journalism

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.

Some samples from the San Francisco Examiner:


"Marihuana makes fiends of boys in thirty days -- Hashish goads users to bloodlust."

"By the tons it is coming into this country -- the deadly, dreadful poison that racks and tears not only the body, but the very heart and soul of every human being who once becomes a slave to it in any of its cruel and devastating forms.... Marihuana is a short cut to the insane asylum. Smoke marihuana cigarettes for a month and what was once your brain will be nothing but a storehouse of horrid specters. Hasheesh makes a murderer who kills for the love of killing out of the mildest mannered man who ever laughed at the idea that any habit could ever get him...."
And other nationwide columns...


"Users of marijuana become STIMULATED as they inhale the drug and are LIKELY TO DO ANYTHING. Most crimes of violence in this section, especially in country districts are laid to users of that drug."

"Was it marijuana, the new Mexican drug, that nerved the murderous arm of Clara Phillips when she hammered out her victim's life in Los Angeles?... THREE-FOURTHS OF THE CRIMES of violence in this country today are committed by DOPE SLAVES -- that is a matter of cold record."
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.

This all set the stage for...

The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.

After two years of secret planning, Anslinger brought his plan to Congress -- complete with a scrapbook full of sensational Hearst editorials, stories of ax murderers who had supposedly smoked marijuana, and racial slurs.

It was a remarkably short set of hearings.

The one fly in Anslinger's ointment was the appearance by Dr. William C. Woodward, Legislative Council of the American Medical Association.

Woodward started by slamming Harry Anslinger and the Bureau of Narcotics for distorting earlier AMA statements that had nothing to do with marijuana and making them appear to be AMA endorsement for Anslinger's view.

He also reproached the legislature and the Bureau for using the term marijuana in the legislation and not publicizing it as a bill about cannabis or hemp. At this point, marijuana (or marihuana) was a sensationalist word used to refer to Mexicans smoking a drug and had not been connected in most people's minds to the existing cannabis/hemp plant. Thus, many who had legitimate reasons to oppose the bill weren't even aware of it.

Woodward went on to state that the AMA was opposed to the legislation and further questioned the approach of the hearings, coming close to outright accusation of misconduct by Anslinger and the committee:


"That there is a certain amount of narcotic addiction of an objectionable character no one will deny. The newspapers have called attention to it so prominently that there must be some grounds for [their] statements [even Woodward was partially taken in by Hearst's propaganda]. It has surprised me, however, that the facts on which these statements have been based have not been brought before this committee by competent primary evidence. We are referred to newspaper publications concerning the prevalence of marihuana addiction. We are told that the use of marihuana causes crime.

But yet no one has been produced from the Bureau of Prisons to show the number of prisoners who have been found addicted to the marihuana habit. An informed inquiry shows that the Bureau of Prisons has no evidence on that point.

You have been told that school children are great users of marihuana cigarettes. No one has been summoned from the Children's Bureau to show the nature and extent of the habit, among children.

Inquiry of the Children's Bureau shows that they have had no occasion to investigate it and know nothing particularly of it.

Inquiry of the Office of Education--- and they certainly should know something of the prevalence of the habit among the school children of the country, if there is a prevalent habit--- indicates that they have had no occasion to investigate and know nothing of it.

Moreover, there is in the Treasury Department itself, the Public Health Service, with its Division of Mental Hygiene. The Division of Mental Hygiene was, in the first place, the Division of Narcotics. It was converted into the Division of Mental Hygiene, I think, about 1930. That particular Bureau has control at the present time of the narcotics farms that were created about 1929 or 1930 and came into operation a few years later. No one has been summoned from that Bureau to give evidence on that point.

Informal inquiry by me indicates that they have had no record of any marihuana of Cannabis addicts who have ever been committed to those farms.

The bureau of Public Health Service has also a division of pharmacology. If you desire evidence as to the pharmacology of Cannabis, that obviously is the place where you can get direct and primary evidence, rather than the indirect hearsay evidence."
Committee members then proceeded to attack Dr. Woodward, questioning his motives in opposing the legislation. Even the Chairman joined in:


The Chairman: If you want to advise us on legislation, you ought to come here with some constructive proposals, rather than criticism, rather than trying to throw obstacles in the way of something that the Federal Government is trying to do. It has not only an unselfish motive in this, but they have a serious responsibility.

Dr. Woodward: We cannot understand yet, Mr. Chairman, why this bill should have been prepared in secret for 2 years without any intimation, even, to the profession, that it was being prepared.
After some further bantering...


The Chairman: I would like to read a quotation from a recent editorial in the Washington Times:
The marihuana cigarette is one of the most insidious of all forms of dope, largely because of the failure of the public to understand its fatal qualities.

The Nation is almost defenseless against it, having no Federal laws to cope with it and virtually no organized campaign for combating it.

The result is tragic.

School children are the prey of peddlers who infest school neighborhoods.

High school boys and girls buy the destructive weed without knowledge of its capacity of harm, and conscienceless dealers sell it with impunity.

This is a national problem, and it must have national attention.

The fatal marihuana cigarette must be recognized as a deadly drug, and American children must be protected against it.
That is a pretty severe indictment. They say it is a national question and that it requires effective legislation. Of course, in a general way, you have responded to all of these statements; but that indicates very clearly that it is an evil of such magnitude that it is recognized by the press of the country as such.
And that was basically it. Yellow journalism won over medical science.

The committee passed the legislation on. And on the floor of the house, the entire discussion was:


Member from upstate New York: "Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?"

Speaker Rayburn: "I don't know. It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it's a narcotic of some kind."

"Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?"

Member on the committee jumps up and says: "Their Doctor Wentworth[sic] came down here. They support this bill 100 percent."
And on the basis of that lie, on August 2, 1937, marijuana became illegal at the federal level.

The entire coverage in the New York Times: "President Roosevelt signed today a bill to curb traffic in the narcotic, marihuana, through heavy taxes on transactions."

Anslinger as precursor to the Drug Czars

Anslinger was essentially the first Drug Czar. Even though the term didn't exist until William Bennett's position as director of the White House Office of National Drug Policy, Anslinger acted in a similar fashion. In fact, there are some amazing parallels between Anslinger and the current Drug Czar John Walters. Both had kind of a carte blanche to go around demonizing drugs and drug users. Both had resources and a large public podium for their voice to be heard and to promote their personal agenda. Both lied constantly, often when it was unnecessary. Both were racists. Both had the ear of lawmakers, and both realized that they could persuade legislators and others based on lies, particularly if they could co-opt the media into squelching or downplaying any opposition views.

Anslinger even had the ability to circumvent the First Amendment. He banned the Canadian movie "Drug Addict," a 1946 documentary that realistically depicted the drug addicts and law enforcement efforts. He even tried to get Canada to ban the movie in their own country, or failing that, to prevent U.S. citizens from seeing the movie in Canada. Canada refused. (Today, Drug Czar John Walters is trying to bully Canada into keeping harsh marijuana laws.)

Anslinger had 37 years to solidify the propaganda and stifle opposition. The lies continued the entire time (although the stories would adjust -- the 21 year old Florida boy who killed his family of five got younger each time he told it). In 1961, he looked back at his efforts:


"Much of the most irrational juvenile violence and that has written a new chapter of shame and tragedy is traceable directly to this hemp intoxication. A gang of boys tear the clothes from two school girls and rape the screaming girls, one boy after the other. A sixteen-year-old kills his entire family of five in Florida, a man in Minnesota puts a bullet through the head of a stranger on the road; in Colorado husband tries to shoot his wife, kills her grandmother instead and then kills himself. Every one of these crimes had been proceeded [sic] by the smoking of one or more marijuana "reefers." As the marijuana situation grew worse, I knew action had to be taken to get the proper legislation passed. By 1937 under my direction, the Bureau launched two important steps First, a legislative plan to seek from Congress a new law that would place marijuana and its distribution directly under federal control. Second, on radio and at major forums, such that presented annually by the New York Herald Tribune, I told the story of this evil weed of the fields and river beds and roadsides. I wrote articles for magazines; our agents gave hundreds of lectures to parents, educators, social and civic leaders. In network broadcasts I reported on the growing list of crimes, including murder and rape. I described the nature of marijuana and its close kinship to hashish. I continued to hammer at the facts.

I believe we did a thorough job, for the public was alerted and the laws to protect them were passed, both nationally and at the state level. We also brought under control the wild growing marijuana in this country. Working with local authorities, we cleaned up hundreds of acres of marijuana and we uprooted plants sprouting along the roadsides."
After Anslinger

On a break from college in the 70s, I was visiting a church in rural Illinois. There in the literature racks in the back of the church was a lurid pamphlet about the evils of marijuana -- all the old reefer madness propaganda about how it caused insanity and murder. I approached the minister and said "You can't have this in your church. It's all lies, and the church shouldn't be about promoting lies." Fortunately, my dad believed me, and he had the material removed. He didn't even know how it got there. But without me speaking up, neither he nor the other members of the church had any reason NOT to believe what the pamphlet said. The propaganda machine had been that effective.

The narrative since then has been a continual litany of:

Politicians wanting to appear tough on crime and passing tougher penalties
Constant increases in spending on law enforcement and prisons
Racist application of drug laws
Taxpayer funded propaganda
Stifling of opposition speech
Political contributions from corporations that profit from marijuana being illegal (pharmaceuticals, alcohol, etc.)
... but that's another whole story.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7O4Sa8sGXk&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs%2Esalon%2Ecom%2F0002762%2Fstories%2F2003%2F12%2F22%2FwhyIsMarijuanaIllegal%2Ehtml&feature=player_embedded


This account only scratches the surface of the story. If you want to know more about the history of marijuana, Harry Anslinger, and the saga of criminalization in the United States and elsewhere, visit some of the excellent links below. (All data and quotes for this piece came from these sources as well).

The History of the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in the United States by Charles Whitebread, Professor of Law, USC Law School. A Speech to the California Judges Association 1995 annual conference.

THE FORBIDDEN FRUIT AND THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE: AN INQUIRY INTO THE LEGAL HISTORY OF AMERICAN MARIJUANA PROHIBITION by Richard J. Bonnie & Charles H. Whitebread, II. VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW. VOLUME 56 OCTOBER 1970 NUMBER 6

The Consumers Union Report - Licit and Illicit Drugs by Edward M. Brecher and the Editors of Consumer Reports Magazine

The History of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 By David F. Musto, M.D., New Haven, Conn. Originally published in Arch. Gen. Psychiat. Volume 26, February, 1972

The Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse I. Control of Marihuana, Alcohol and Tobacco. History of Marihuana Legislation

The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. The history of how the Marihuana Tax Act came to be the law of the land.

Marijuana - The First Twelve Thousand Years by Ernest L. Abel, 1980

For all the views on Marijuana, use, and legalization....

I find it particularly interesting that No One can offer links of actual statistics on Criminal Behavior linked to being under the influence of Marijuana.

So why is that? Think about it. Saying you heard from a friend or know from personal experience are great references but again...where are the statistics. In this day and age where there is statistics on EVERYTHING! Are marijuana smokers so cunning that they have avoided being put on record in statistics of criminal activity?

Hmmmmm? So, we see alcohol and prescription drugs to be abused with high criminal activity. But we don't want to legalize marijuana. A drug that has so many benefits. How does this make sense?

The majority of criminal activity you can find in regarding marijuana is owning, distributing, using. If you make it legal, just like alcohol you eliminate most of these and the cost to the tax payers due to enforcement

I don't care one way or the other since i will never smoke the stuff myself, yes that includes prescribed as i would tear the prescription up in front of the doctor, I just hope there won't be serious repercussions for it.

I can only speak from what happened to my mother when her boyfriend got stoned.......she'll be in a wheelchair for the rest of her life.

Bump~

Interested to see some more views on this topic. And AGAIN Actual Statistics of crimes committed WHILE being intoxicated by it. Excluding selling or transporting.

The internet being what it is today and all the stupid studies and statistics they have out there. You would think that something so terribly bad would have statistics on this. I have looked myself and cant find a thing.

It’s good that the statistics seem to be steadily reducing, could it be that drug laws and education are at least somewhat effective?
Does it matter? Because hundreds of thousands of violent crimes associated with a particular drug tell me that the drug does not need to be legitimized.


More information about statistics (again Kat proves she know what she’s talking about)



True, this includes users of other drugs as well, but very often the problem with drugs is that those arrested will often have several drugs, including alcohol and marijuana in their system. Now you can say–but you can’t blame marijuana alone—but I can use a VERY LITTLE bit of logic to see that legalizing even ONE of those drugs would not take it out of this equation. Duh!

Another problem researcher face is that statistics are tied to many other factors, including psychological state of mind. How can researchers determine if a particular crime or behavior would have occurred without the use of the drug? So even the statistic stated above, although they support my position, I have to admit that we cannot account for psychological state of any person under the influence of drugs – before the introduction of the drug. I state this to show that both sides of the legalization argument have a major issue with these statistics. But on the side of those against legalizing is the same logic I used before - if the drug can have that great of a negative affect on that many people - what does it matter what the 'economic' benefits seem to be? (critical thinking folks)



Regarding "Marijuana and Crime" this study agrees with what I have already suggested




And so it will be, even though we already know enough by looking at the history of tobacco in our own country. Note the new study to begin below.



Interesting-the new study above may be one to watch – you can go the web site and sign up to receive a free DPRC newsletter.

But of course we do know there are major economic costs to marijuana use and use of the drug by adolescents should be considered high in our priorities. How many kids begin smoking tobacco by the time they are 15? You can look it up, I have a pretty good idea and I don't imagine legalizing marijuana would deter adolescents in its use any more than it did for tobacco. This leads to such information as:



In the “Marijuana Use and Policy: What We Know and Have Yet To Learn” that I cited above, it was also stated that adolescents to young adult usage was greatly affect by two factors, cost and perception of harm.

It must be remembered that legalizing marijuana may not be the incredible money making machine that some people are drumming up. FIRST OF ALL, where do the majority of all you people (who want this drug legalized) shop???? How much do you pay for clothes? How much are you willing to pay for your food? I would guess, not much, so you demand better prices. Well – made in America does not generate ‘better pricing’. In fact America makes more money sending it’s sheep fleece out of country and it cotton out of country only to have it come back in a sellable Wal-mart package. Don’t hurt your brain figuring this out, it has to do with our unsustainable practices and our current monetary leverage over the rest of the world and why we now have so many organizations fighting for the human rights of those who make our clothes out of country in sweat shops.

Anyway, the point is – farmers would have to sell high because the cost of PROTECTING their crops from vandals would be likewise high. Secondly, not everyone will jump on the “let’s sell marijuana bandwagon” because there simply is not a major market to make it a viable product.(thank-goodness) So now we have just pushed the price way up. Finally, marketing would be costly relative to the smaller consumer figures. And let's not forget that processing marijuana would be quite costly as with any drug it will need to undergo stringent regulations in order to maintain the 'quality & integrity' of the products potency and chemical make-up. Now, how many of you would pay triple what you pay now for a legal product?

With new studies coming out on the health related ‘economics’ of this new product line we have to consider just how much MORE we can pay in taxes to subsidize yet another ‘bad habit’. The Government (US) have paid billions in this area, as related to tobacco. Do we really want to do that all over again?

LOGIC – and where one places their priorities can be easily seen when looking at the two sides of this debate. I would like to think that the majority of people on the ‘let’s make it legal’ side simply have the wrong facts, or not all the facts, or perhaps they are simply following what others have said or looking at a very small picture. That is why I have posted this, in the hopes that some may reconsider their stance or at the least put it on the agnostic pile while you continue to do research on ALL sides of the debate.

some other comments - although hemp is generally an easy crop to grow, it is still a crop that requires water. The world is already experiencing water crisis and yet so many people are willing to expend more on a crop in which the majority of its use is for shear pleasure.

Once again, hemp is fairly resistant to disease and bugs BUT not completely. Farmers will not settle for loosing some of this expensive crop to disease and bugs - they will use yet more chemicals to keep maximum crop yield. How do you feel about adding more chemicals into the marijuana chemical coctail (about 400 chemicals)you want to smoke? Oh, without knowing the concequences? And don't forget how many children will be toking up on this mixture.

I think it's time some people devoted more or their (high) time to better causes.