AlienCraft
Lifer
- Nov 23, 2002
- 10,539
- 0
- 0
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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!!!
Originally posted by: Eeezee
Never, too many anti-drug morons don't realize that tobacco and marijuana are alike with health problems.
Originally posted by: Vic
edit: on topic, Big Tobacco does not, contrary to popular opinion, have the political clout to make cannabis legal.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.