If Big Tobacco decide they want to sell marijuana

[AlienCraft]

If it's good for "BUSINESS" aka Corporate America, it will be done.

Count on it.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
What's with the desire to legalize pot? Not like it stops the potheads now...

Because hemp/cannabis has other viable uses, particularly medical uses, besides just getting some losers high. Your question should be, why have we outlawed such a valuable resource just because we're afraid some losers might abuse it?

How so? So far as I can tell, all the seemingly good arguments for legalizing are cooked up by potheads. If you know of some good reasons beyond over generalized arguments, please share.

There isn't much stopping it from being used medically - as with many many other drugs, and as far as industrial cannabis, there is a pretty big difference there considering it is a non-psychoactive variety of cannabis.

Oh and in case you didn't notice, this thread is about "Big Tobacco" and marijuana - clearly the argument here is legalize it in order to obtain it and smoke it to get high.

You can come up with any other conspiracy theory you want to make yourself feel better if that's what it takes.

Yep, nothing stopping people from using it medically, except it's a fsckin' felony under federal law.

:roll:

Conspiracy theories cooked up by potheads? Were you born this stupid or did you have to work at it?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
What's with the desire to legalize pot? Not like it stops the potheads now...

Because hemp/cannabis has other viable uses, particularly medical uses, besides just getting some losers high.

Losers such as Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Bill Clinton.

I was being sarcastic. I thought that was pretty obvious. bunnyfubbles seems to obsessed with the idea that some people might use cannabis to get high, oh teh horror! I wonder if he ever drinks alcohol to get high? By god, those drunks! There oughta be a law!

 

[KarmaPolice]

eh the problem is that political process at the moment. There is no doubt that there is a lot of money to be made in it...no one should argue that.

 

[0roo0roo]

The History of Marijuana - Narrated by Woody Harrelson
download
http://www.archive.org/details/The_History_of_Marijuana

streaming
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6134138168753053667
see the government lies

 

[amicold]

Originally posted by: Kanalua
mj (for the smoking and getting high) just does not have the historical backing that alcohol and tobacco do. Would never be widely legalized like alcohol and tobacco (or even peyote).

If I'm not mistaken marijuana has been in use since the dawn of humans, if not shortly after.

 

[amicold]

Originally posted by: eakers

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: eakers
The problem with pot is that it is very easy to grow and process, unlike tobacco. So, if they legalize it, they won't be able to tax it because everyone will have a little garden or basement full.

Alcohol is pretty easy to make as well. I know of several people around these parts who have their own stills. yet people still buy alcohol most of the time.

Getting it high-grade, deseeded, and pre-rolled at the convenience store might be enough for your average smoker.

Yeah, but alcohol is tightly controlled so its difficult for people to get access to make moonshine. Plus if you make alcohol wrong you can poison yourself (or go blind!). With pot, as soon as you buy some you could start growing it and start selling it without paying taxes.

If it were legalized the pot would be sold without seeds, no doubt. So IDK what you're talking about.

 

[Kanalua]

Originally posted by: amicold

Originally posted by: Kanalua
mj (for the smoking and getting high) just does not have the historical backing that alcohol and tobacco do. Would never be widely legalized like alcohol and tobacco (or even peyote).

If I'm not mistaken marijuana has been in use since the dawn of humans, if not shortly after.

Why is the reading comprehension in this thread so bad?

historical backing

Prostitution is a very historical occupation. There is no record of historical backing of prostitution in the US. If Big Tobacco started their own brothels, prostitution would not get the political backing to become legal, just because Big Tobacco sells it.

THis isn't a "mj is bad. no, mj is good" thread, it is a discussion about politics and big tobacco!!!!

It's like talking to reefer addict poly sci freshman in here!!!

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: Kanalua

Originally posted by: amicold

Originally posted by: Kanalua
mj (for the smoking and getting high) just does not have the historical backing that alcohol and tobacco do. Would never be widely legalized like alcohol and tobacco (or even peyote).

If I'm not mistaken marijuana has been in use since the dawn of humans, if not shortly after.

Why is the reading comprehension in this thread so bad?

historical backing

Prostitution is a very historical occupation. There is no record of historical backing of prostitution in the US. If Big Tobacco started their own brothels, prostitution would not get the political backing to become legal, just because Big Tobacco sells it.

THis isn't a "mj is bad. no, mj is good" thread, it is a discussion about politics and big tobacco!!!!

It's like talking to reefer addict poly sci freshman in here!!!

What does "historically backing" mean to you and where do you draw the line when something has enough or not enough of it? You mention prostitution as an analogy, but prostitution has nearly always been prohibited. Pot was always legal here until the 20th century, and it has been legally smoked for thousands of years in many parts of the world and was introduced to parts of europe before tobacco. This is a weak argument for the continued prohibition of pot that is often used by drug warriors when someone makes the comparison between pot and alcohol or tobacco. A fair comparison will always result in pot coming out the less dangerous drug so some excuse must be made to justify the hypocrisy, and that excuse is that alcohol/tobacco is part of "tradition" or as you might say they have "historical backing". When the best argument for sending a man to prison is tradition (or lack of), its time to rethink it.

Pot was historically backed here, just by the wrong people. Compared to big tobacco its strange because pot was more diversified. At the time (1930's & earlier) that pot was being targeted there were 5 primary uses; rope/fiber, oil for paints, birdseed, medicine, & recreation. When the mj tax act was being put together the rope/fiber was no longer profitable because the farmers here could not compete with cheaper asian growers so they didn't object to a pot ban. The paint people figured they could use another oil and didn't object. The birdseed people objected and were the only industry exempted from the mj tax act so they could continue using hemp seed for birds. The medical industry objected and said pot was not an addictive dangerous drug, but they were ignored for political reasons; the AMA and the New Deal democrats were enemies. Of course the only people that smoked it only for recreation at the time were mexicans and a few blacks but no one cared what they thought, the whole point was to go after them.

So on "historical backing" its true that pot never had a large base of white americans that smoked it recreationaly early on. But it did have some backing that had to be overcome. Its interesting because the politics and economics of that era had a lot to do with it. If the mj tax act had happened a decade later we probably would have seen a significantly different outcome since WWII cut off hemp supplies from asia and domestic hemp cultivation was needed for the war effort. Or if the AMA wasn't aligned with the republicans at the time perhaps the medical community could have had a fair chance to make their claim why pot should not be banned. I wonder at what point the substantial modern "backing" of recreational pot in our culture will count for anything to people who think its ok to ban it since it never was used traditionally like alcohol.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Never, too many anti-drug morons don't realize that tobacco and marijuana are alike with health problems.

Tobacco is much worse. Nicotine is a POISON. A nicotine solution is actually a great insecticide because it will kill the insects but break down and not pollute your garden. I knew a screwed up kid in high school who made a poison out of soaking tobacco. Smoked mj does hurt your lungs, but none of the carcinogens in pot (they all are created at combustion. MJ used by ingestion or vaporization has no carcinogens at all) are anywhere near as bad for you as nicotine. It is the major cancer causing agent in tobacco and is probably the worst mind altering substance you can buy, legal or otherwise.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: Vic
edit: on topic, Big Tobacco does not, contrary to popular opinion, have the political clout to make cannabis legal.

Yep they are losing more and more clout as smoking declines. In fact theres a chance they will soon be in the same boat as pot. Just look at all the anti-smoking ads lately, combined with the fact that middle/upper class educated people are no longer smokers. Now the predominant group that smokes is composed mostly of minorities and lower class folks.

This is the combination needed for prohibition, us versus them. Here's an excellent speech from the early 90's about this subject by Charles Whitebread, the author of The Forbidden Fruit and the Tree of Knowledge: An Inquiry into the Legal History of American Marijuana Prohibition.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm
Its about pot history mostly but the end talks a little about the future of tobacco. He's a little off with his prediction that tobacco would be banned in Ca by 2005, but with all the public smoking bans I think he was close.

You know the Federal Government has been spending a lot of money since 1968 trying to persuade us not to smoke. And, indeed, the absolute numbers on smoking have declined very little. But, you know who has quit smoking, don't you? In gigantic numbers? The college-educated, that's who. The college-educated, that's who doesn't smoke. Who are they? Tomorrow's what? Movers and kickers, that's who. Tomorrow's movers and kickers don't smoke. Who does smoke? Oh, you know who smokes out of all proportion to their numbers in the society -- it is the people standing in your criminal courtrooms, that's who. Who are they? Tomorrow's moved and kicked, that's who.

And, there it is friends, once it divides between the movers and kickers and the moved and kicked it is all over and it will be all over very shortly.

It starts with "You know, they shouldn't smoke, they are killing themselves." Then it turns, as it has -- you see the ads out here -- "They shouldn't smoke, they are killing us." And pretty soon, that class division will happen, we will have the legislatures full of tomorrow's movers and kickers and they are going to say just what they are going to say any time now. "You know, this has just gotta stop, and we got an answer for it." We are going to have a criminal statute that forbids the manufacture, sale, or possession of tobacco cigarettes, or tobacco products period.

You know that the cigarette companies are expecting it. What have they been doing? They have been shifting all of their operations out of the United States and diversifying like crazy. Where are they going to sell their cigarettes? In China, that's where. And they are already moving, because they see it and I see it.

 

[Kanalua]

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: Kanalua

Originally posted by: amicold

Originally posted by: Kanalua
mj (for the smoking and getting high) just does not have the historical backing that alcohol and tobacco do. Would never be widely legalized like alcohol and tobacco (or even peyote).

If I'm not mistaken marijuana has been in use since the dawn of humans, if not shortly after.

Why is the reading comprehension in this thread so bad?

historical backing

Prostitution is a very historical occupation. There is no record of historical backing of prostitution in the US. If Big Tobacco started their own brothels, prostitution would not get the political backing to become legal, just because Big Tobacco sells it.

THis isn't a "mj is bad. no, mj is good" thread, it is a discussion about politics and big tobacco!!!!

It's like talking to reefer addict poly sci freshman in here!!!

What does "historically backing" mean to you and where do you draw the line when something has enough or not enough of it? You mention prostitution as an analogy, but prostitution has nearly always been prohibited. Pot was always legal here until the 20th century, and it has been legally smoked for thousands of years in many parts of the world and was introduced to parts of europe before tobacco. This is a weak argument for the continued prohibition of pot that is often used by drug warriors when someone makes the comparison between pot and alcohol or tobacco. A fair comparison will always result in pot coming out the less dangerous drug so some excuse must be made to justify the hypocrisy, and that excuse is that alcohol/tobacco is part of "tradition" or as you might say they have "historical backing". When the best argument for sending a man to prison is tradition (or lack of), its time to rethink it.

Pot was historically backed here, just by the wrong people. Compared to big tobacco its strange because pot was more diversified. At the time (1930's & earlier) that pot was being targeted there were 5 primary uses; rope/fiber, oil for paints, birdseed, medicine, & recreation. When the mj tax act was being put together the rope/fiber was no longer profitable because the farmers here could not compete with cheaper asian growers so they didn't object to a pot ban. The paint people figured they could use another oil and didn't object. The birdseed people objected and were the only industry exempted from the mj tax act so they could continue using hemp seed for birds. The medical industry objected and said pot was not an addictive dangerous drug, but they were ignored for political reasons; the AMA and the New Deal democrats were enemies. Of course the only people that smoked it only for recreation at the time were mexicans and a few blacks but no one cared what they thought, the whole point was to go after them.

So on "historical backing" its true that pot never had a large base of white americans that smoked it recreationaly early on. But it did have some backing that had to be overcome. Its interesting because the politics and economics of that era had a lot to do with it. If the mj tax act had happened a decade later we probably would have seen a significantly different outcome since WWII cut off hemp supplies from asia and domestic hemp cultivation was needed for the war effort. Or if the AMA wasn't aligned with the republicans at the time perhaps the medical community could have had a fair chance to make their claim why pot should not be banned. I wonder at what point the substantial modern "backing" of recreational pot in our culture will count for anything to people who think its ok to ban it since it never was used traditionally like alcohol.

I think you get my point, but may be blinded by other things in this thread. Tobacco has never been outlawed. Hemp, mj, etc. has and it has stuck. Tobacco has a...never been broadly outlawed in the US. The history of tobacco is much deeper and longer than the history of hemp/mj. I believe that many want to create some political mystery or controversy surrounding its current legal status... but when it comes down to it, hemp/mj just does not have the long running geo-political history that tobacco has.

And I think it over simplistic to infer that Big tobacco would have the clout (money/position/power) to get it legalized simply because it wanted to sell mj.

and why would they, big tobacco makes enough money off what it does best...killing Americans one cigarette at a time.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: Kanalua
I think you get my point, but may be blinded by other things in this thread. Tobacco has never been outlawed. Hemp, mj, etc. has and it has stuck. Tobacco has a...never been broadly outlawed in the US. The history of tobacco is much deeper and longer than the history of hemp/mj. I believe that many want to create some political mystery or controversy surrounding its current legal status... but when it comes down to it, hemp/mj just does not have the long running geo-political history that tobacco has.

Blinded? No. I was elaborating on how the lack of any tradition of smoking pot amongst the majority of people was only one of the reasons why the lies used to initiate pot prohibition were not refuted despite its strong tradition for other uses dating back to before the founding fathers time. There were only a few groups capable of refuting the drug misinformation but they were marginalized at the time.

The reason pot is still illegal has little to do with its historical status anymore since there is now a strong tradition of pot smoking in our culture and we (well the reasonable amongst us...) now know that there really was no valid reason to justify pot prohibition in the first place. Theres no mystery, its just plain old politics and money.

 

[LtPage1]

If there was serious money behind a public/Congressional education/lobbying campaign, to explain the absurdity of drug policy in this country, pot would be legal inside 3 years, easy.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: LtPage1
If there was serious money behind a public/Congressional education/lobbying campaign, to explain the absurdity of drug policy in this country, pot would be legal inside 3 years, easy.

Only if the current serious amount of money behind the lobbying campaign that continues spreading lies and exaggerations about pot was stopped. Even then there will still be large numbers of people who think its all 'cooked up' BS by potheads/reefer addicts that just want to get high legally.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: Vic
edit: on topic, Big Tobacco does not, contrary to popular opinion, have the political clout to make cannabis legal.

Yep they are losing more and more clout as smoking declines. In fact theres a chance they will soon be in the same boat as pot. Just look at all the anti-smoking ads lately, combined with the fact that middle/upper class educated people are no longer smokers. Now the predominant group that smokes is composed mostly of minorities and lower class folks.

This is the combination needed for prohibition, us versus them. Here's an excellent speech from the early 90's about this subject by Charles Whitebread, the author of The Forbidden Fruit and the Tree of Knowledge: An Inquiry into the Legal History of American Marijuana Prohibition.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm
Its about pot history mostly but the end talks a little about the future of tobacco. He's a little off with his prediction that tobacco would be banned in Ca by 2005, but with all the public smoking bans I think he was close.

You know the Federal Government has been spending a lot of money since 1968 trying to persuade us not to smoke. And, indeed, the absolute numbers on smoking have declined very little. But, you know who has quit smoking, don't you? In gigantic numbers? The college-educated, that's who. The college-educated, that's who doesn't smoke. Who are they? Tomorrow's what? Movers and kickers, that's who. Tomorrow's movers and kickers don't smoke. Who does smoke? Oh, you know who smokes out of all proportion to their numbers in the society -- it is the people standing in your criminal courtrooms, that's who. Who are they? Tomorrow's moved and kicked, that's who.

And, there it is friends, once it divides between the movers and kickers and the moved and kicked it is all over and it will be all over very shortly.

It starts with "You know, they shouldn't smoke, they are killing themselves." Then it turns, as it has -- you see the ads out here -- "They shouldn't smoke, they are killing us." And pretty soon, that class division will happen, we will have the legislatures full of tomorrow's movers and kickers and they are going to say just what they are going to say any time now. "You know, this has just gotta stop, and we got an answer for it." We are going to have a criminal statute that forbids the manufacture, sale, or possession of tobacco cigarettes, or tobacco products period.

You know that the cigarette companies are expecting it. What have they been doing? They have been shifting all of their operations out of the United States and diversifying like crazy. Where are they going to sell their cigarettes? In China, that's where. And they are already moving, because they see it and I see it.

It's always nice to see that there are others out there who understand this. And it's not just smoking either. Look at the recent "fat tax" thread.