NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,129495,00.html

And just in case you wanted to see a guy with a joint...
http://www.foxnews.com/images/135382/0_21_081804_joint.jpg

Normally, I'm against legalizing marijuana. But if a state decides to legalize it, it's fine with me. So long as it stays there.


Think they're doing it to increase the population there?

Ah yes, that reminds me of my plans to move to Alaska, which have nothing to do with the legalization of pot. Nope, no connection what so ever. No sir, I'm not doing it for the pot. I am one hundred percent anti-pot. Yup, no tolerance for pot what so ever. What? You don't believe me?

Normally, I'm against legalizing marijuana. But if a state decides to legalize it, it's fine with me. So long as it stays there.


Think they're doing it to increase the population there?

Yes, exactly.. .because we wouldn't want weed in the other 49 states of the good 'ol USA.

Making drugs illegal does NOTHING to curb usage, as is evident by our failed 'War on Drugs'.

Marijuana is a stupid thing to keep illegal anyway. Alcohol is far more harmful.

South Dakota should try it. They are in definate need of a population boost.

sweet, we can export all our welfare eating stoners

Two points to ponder:

First, Marijuana is a "gateway" drug. Young people start out small with the weed, when they have the weed mastered, then they graduate to harder and much more sinister and deadly drugs.

Second, Marijuana has become vastly more potent than it's ever been. There are some strains of marijuana that are so potent, they have become addictive. Scientists have long said that if concentrations of THC (active ingrediant in Marijuana that gives the "high") got high enough, Marijuana could become just as addictive as any other narcotic. Well, it finally has in some strains. Now it's just a matter of time before ALL the weed will be as powerful.

I'm not for legalizing marijuana, because potheads are losers. They have no drive. All they want to do is sit around and get stoned. Sure, there are some who smoke pot and are successful, but for every pothead that's a successful functioning pothead, there are a thousand who are just plain losers.

Isn't it already legal? My friend, who moved to Alaska recently, said it was, but of course, he could be mistaken...

Two points to ponder:

First, Marijuana is a "gateway" drug. Young people start out small with the weed, when they have the weed mastered, then they graduate to harder and much more sinister and deadly drugs.

Second, Marijuana has become vastly more potent than it's ever been. There are some strains of marijuana that are so potent, they have become addictive. Scientists have long said that if concentrations of THC (active ingrediant in Marijuana that gives the "high") got high enough, Marijuana could become just as addictive as any other narcotic. Well, it finally has in some strains. Now it's just a matter of time before ALL the weed will be as powerful.

I'm not for legalizing marijuana, because potheads are losers. They have no drive. All they want to do is sit around and get stoned. Sure, there are some who smoke pot and are successful, but for every pothead that's a successful functioning pothead, there are a thousand who are just plain losers.

The only reason "pot" is a gateway drug is because of the people the kids are buying the pot from. If you're mingling with drug dealers, you're more likely to try the harder stuff.

First, Marijuana is a "gateway" drug. Young people start out small with the weed, when they have the weed mastered, then they graduate to harder and much more sinister and deadly drugs.

So are alcohol and cigarettes...

First, Marijuana is a "gateway" drug. Young people start out small with the weed, when they have the weed mastered, then they graduate to harder and much more sinister and deadly drugs.


That has been proven wrong on so many occasions that it's not even worth arguing against your ignorance.

I'm not for legalizing marijuana, because potheads are losers. They have no drive. All they want to do is sit around and get stoned.

Again ... wrong.

Sure, there are some who smoke pot and are successful, but for every pothead that's a successful functioning pothead, there are a thousand who are just plain losers.

That same thing can be said about humans in general. For every successful human being, there are tens (if not hundreds) of thousands who are just plain losers.

Marijuana is not a gateway drug. All my stoner friends have smoked for 3 years, and never "graduated". They say hard drugs are bad for you.

Two points to ponder:

First, Marijuana is a "gateway" drug. Young people start out small with the weed, when they have the weed mastered, then they graduate to harder and much more sinister and deadly drugs.


I have a hard time buying this argument, as my own personal experience contradicts that. I know about 3 dozen people that when we were in HS and college all smoked pot. About 5 of those still smoke it. None of them went on to 'hard' drugs.


Second, Marijuana has become vastly more potent than it's ever been. There are some strains of marijuana that are so potent, they have become addictive. Scientists have long said that if concentrations of THC (active ingrediant in Marijuana that gives the "high") got high enough, Marijuana could become just as addictive as any other narcotic. Well, it finally has in some strains. Now it's just a matter of time before ALL the weed will be as powerful.

This is actually one of the exact points that I refer to when arguing FOR the legalization of drugs.

*Without* any government regulation on the quality, the growers/dealers can add ANYTHING to the pot to enhance the high -or- addict the user.

Your personal feelings about pot users being 'losers' aside, I have heard no logical reason for keeping drugs illegal.

The ONLY way for the government to have control over drugs is to REGULATE them, not BAN them. It didn't work for alcohol during the prohibition, and it's not working now.

The only reason "pot" is a gateway drug is because of the people the kids are buying the pot from. If you're mingling with drug dealers, you're more likely to try the harder stuff.

That's why you should always grow your own. :) Get some nice sativa beans and become a farmer.

New Hampshire and Alaska...

WHy is it that the states with the most freedoms are also the coldest?!? :(

Isn't smoke from pot less harmful then smoke from ciggerates?

Isn't smoke from pot less harmful then smoke from ciggerates?

No. Smoke from "weed" is more carcinogenic. However, it is smoked less often so, on the whole, it leads to fewer problems.

Two points to ponder:

First, Marijuana is a "gateway" drug. Young people start out small with the weed, when they have the weed mastered, then they graduate to harder and much more sinister and deadly drugs.

That's a myth to keep people from trying it. In reality, it is a "gateway" drug only for those people who have addictive personalities and want to try harder drugs. And those people would graduate just as surely if they started with alcohol or tobacco.

Second, Marijuana has become vastly more potent than it's ever been. There are some strains of marijuana that are so potent, they have become addictive. Scientists have long said that if concentrations of THC (active ingrediant in Marijuana that gives the "high") got high enough, Marijuana could become just as addictive as any other narcotic. Well, it finally has in some strains. Now it's just a matter of time before ALL the weed will be as powerful.

The studies about THC being highly addictive and dangerous came from scientists injecting huge amounts of THC directly into the brain of monkeys. - Seems pretty different from smoking a joint to me.

I'm not for legalizing marijuana, because potheads are losers. They have no drive. All they want to do is sit around and get stoned. Sure, there are some who smoke pot and are successful, but for every pothead that's a successful functioning pothead, there are a thousand who are just plain losers.

All but one or two of the potheads I have known are ambitious, highly intelligent people who were either full-time students, had full-time jobs, or both. The difference is that you don't know who the successful pot smokers are because they don't show it in their everyday lives. Thus, most people only see the stoner-type and assume that all people who smoke weed are like that. Yet another myth.

That has been proven wrong on so many occasions that it's not even worth arguing against your ignorance.



Again ... wrong.



That same thing can be said about humans in general. For every successful human being, there are tens (if not hundreds) of thousands who are just plain losers.

No, please, correct me with your vast knowledge and expertise if I'm wrong about Marijuana being a gateway drug. Don't just say it's wrong and that I'm ignorant just becuase you may be a dope smoking pathetic loser too. Prove what you say with facts, or just shut up.

You can reply to ANYTHING, "Wrong! That's just wrong!", but it means diddly-squat unless you can back it up. Put your money where your mouth, er... fingers, is.

Isn't smoke from pot less harmful then smoke from ciggerates?

Much less harmful ... and even the AMA and the DEA know that cigarettes are as addictive as heroine, while marijuana is less addictive than caffeine.

South Dakota should try it. They are in definate need of a population boost.


:D

It's funny that most likely any and all of the people here saying, "You're wrong! Marijuana's not addictive... you're ignorant... you know nothing!", are all a bunch of brain-mushed dopers themselves. Kind of like the whores and pimps fighting to legalize prostitution. The ones who stand to gain the most from it are most likely to ignore the truth, say the experts are wrong, and try to persuade you by saying, "I had 7 friends who smoke marijuana, and of those 7, only 2 or 3 were losers... and of those 4 left, 3 never went on to harder drugs... blah blah blah"

If you're all so much smarter than the experts and the ones who REALLY know how harmful marijuana is to young people, why is it illegal anywhere at all?

Two points to ponder:

First, Marijuana is a "gateway" drug. Young people start out small with the weed, when they have the weed mastered, then they graduate to harder and much more sinister and deadly drugs.

Second, Marijuana has become vastly more potent than it's ever been. There are some strains of marijuana that are so potent, they have become addictive. Scientists have long said that if concentrations of THC (active ingrediant in Marijuana that gives the "high") got high enough, Marijuana could become just as addictive as any other narcotic. Well, it finally has in some strains. Now it's just a matter of time before ALL the weed will be as powerful.

I'm not for legalizing marijuana, because potheads are losers. They have no drive. All they want to do is sit around and get stoned. Sure, there are some who smoke pot and are successful, but for every pothead that's a successful functioning pothead, there are a thousand who are just plain losers.

gateway drug: only because you can't buy it in a store and have to go to criminals to get it.

growing concentrations of THC: It's still nothing in the US i say. A friend told me about his cousin's town in the US. everbody smokes it pure and smokes large amounts of it. Here in belgium in my town smoking it pure is considered wasting it and even hardened smokers tend to smoke small amounts (smaller than the ones mentioned above). The weed over here in belgium and holland is just heavy. I myself don't smoke it, but on occasion i might eat a cake and i have to say that a couple of weeks ago i invested one lousy euro into a cake from a coffeshop in holland and i have to say that it was still too much for me. I was pretty wasted for the entire evening and i could still feel it the next day.

Back up "marijuana is a gateway drug"

Go ahead, prove it.

No, please, correct me with your vast knowledge and expertise if I'm wrong about Marijuana being a gateway drug. Don't just say it's wrong and that I'm ignorant just becuase you may be a dope smoking pathetic loser too. Prove what you say with facts, or just shut up.


All you have to do is walk into a room full of people who have been regular or semi-regular marijuana smokers and ask those in the room who have shot up heroine to raise their hands. You may be surprised.

Your knowledge comes from nothing but anti-drug propoganda spit out by DARE and those who sponsor the "War on Drugs". You cannot back up your "gateway" claims with any supportive articles in the medical journals nor have there been any such studies put up for peer review.

You make the claim that it's a "gateway" drug, now back up your claim using hard scientific and clinical data. Preponderance of evidence is yours, until then it's just your opinion and I say your opinion is wrong.

First, Marijuana is a "gateway" drug. Young people start out small with the weed, when they have the weed mastered, then they graduate to harder and much more sinister and deadly drugs.

People who still believe that marijuana is a gateway drug are among those who believe the goverment inspired ignorance and prejudice and warn people not to smoke or they "might overdose". If marijuana doesn't fill you with a desire to use hard drugs, which it certainly doesn't, then how could you blame it for increased hard drug use? People who are willing and enthusiastic about trying hard drugs will try them, if they don't have weed to start out with while they're still bashful it can be alcohol or ciggies or a number of other things.
Check yourself before you wreck yourself.


"...This is totally untrue. In fact, researchers are looking into using marijuana to help crack addicts to quit. There are 40 million people in this country (U.S.) who have smoked marijuana for a period of their lives -- why aren't there tens of millions of heroin users, then? In Amsterdam, both marijuana use and heroin use went *down* after marijuana was decriminalized -- even though there was a short rise in cannabis use right after decriminalization. Unlike addictive drugs, marijuana causes almost no tolerance. Some people even report a reverse tolerance. That is, the longer they have used the less marijuana they need to get `high.' So users of marijuana do not usually get bored and `look for something more powerful'. If anything, marijuana keeps people from doing harder drugs.
The idea that using marijuana will lead you to use heroin or speed is called the `gateway theory' or the `stepping stone hypothesis.' It has been a favorite trick of the anti-drug propaganda artists, because it casts marijuana as something insidious with hidden dangers and pitfalls. There have never been any real statistics to back this idea up, but somehow it was the single biggest thing which the newspapers yelled about during Reefer Madness II. (Perhaps this was because the CIA was looking for someone to blame for the increase in heroin use after Viet Nam.)

The gateway theory of drug use is no longer generally accepted by the medical community. Prohibitionists used to point at numbers which showed that a large percentage of the hard drug users `started with marijuana.' They had it backwards -- many hard drug users also use marijuana. There are two reasons for this. One is that marijuana can be used to `take the edge off' the effects of some hard drugs. The other is a recently discovered fact of adolescent psychology -- there is a personality type which uses drugs, basically because drugs are exciting and dangerous, a thrill.

On sociological grounds, another sort of gateway theory has been argued which claims that marijuana is the source of the drug subculture and leads to other drugs through that culture. By the same token this is untrue -- marijuana does not create the drug subculture, the drug subculture uses marijuana. There are many marijuana users who are not a part of the subculture.

This brings up another example of how marijuana legalization could actually reduce the use of illicit drugs. Even though there is no magical `stepping stone' effect, people who choose to buy marijuana often buy from dealers who deal in many different illegal drugs. This means that they have access to illegal drugs, and might decide to try them out. In this case it is the laws which lead to hard drug use. If marijuana were legal, the drug markets would be separated, and less people would start using the illegal drugs. Maybe this is why emergency room admissions for hard drugs have gone down in the states that decriminalized marijuana during the 70's."

check out http://www.hippy.com/php/article-25.html .



Second, Marijuana has become vastly more potent than it's ever been. There are some strains of marijuana that are so potent, they have become addictive. Scientists have long said that if concentrations of THC (active ingrediant in Marijuana that gives the "high") got high enough, Marijuana could become just as addictive as any other narcotic. Well, it finally has in some strains. Now it's just a matter of time before ALL the weed will be as powerful.

All I want to do is share the scientific facts with you.


"Essentially all drugs are used in "an addictive fashion" by some people. However, for any drug to be identified as highly addictive, there should be evidence that substantial numbers of users repeatedly fail in their attempts to discontinue use and develop use-patterns that interfere with other life activities.

National epidemiological surveys show that the large majority of people who have had experience with marijuana do not become regular users.

In 1993, among Americans age 12 and over, about 34% had used marijuana sometime in their life, but only 9% had used it in the past year, 4.3% in the past month, and 2.8% in the past week. 59
A longitudinal study of young adults who had first been surveyed in high school also found a high "discontinuation rate" for marijuana. While 77% had used the drug, 74% of those had not used in the past year and 84% had not used in the past month. 60

Of course, even people who continue using marijuana for several years or more are not necessarily "addicted" to it. Many regular users - including many daily users - consume marijuana in a way that does not interfere with other life activities, and may in some cases enhance them. "

"This myth is the result of bad data. The researchers who made the claim of increased potency used as their baseline the THC content of marijuana seized by police in the early 1970s. Poor storage of this marijuana in un-air conditioned evidence rooms caused it to deteriorate and decline in potency before any chemical assay was performed. Contemporaneous, independent assays of unseized "street" marijuana from the early 1970s showed a potency equivalent to that of modern "street" marijuana. Actually, the most potent form of this drug that was generally available was sold legally in the 1920s and 1930s by the pharmaceutical company Smith-Klein under the name, "American Cannabis". "

I'm not for legalizing marijuana, because potheads are losers.

Wouldn't these same people exist even if pot did not? Or do you think smoking cannabis did this to them? There are losers out there who smoke pot, sure, but that's like saying that muslims are terrorists because some blow themselves up. If a lot of people who eat doritos are fat lazy people does that mean doritos make you that way? If that's not enough for you, I can only say two words. Bob Marley.

They have no drive. All they want to do is sit around and get stoned. Sure, there are some who smoke pot and are successful, but for every pothead that's a successful functioning pothead, there are a thousand who are just plain losers.

"MARIJUANA PRODUCES AN AMOTIVATIONAL SYNDROME

Marijuana is said to have a deleterious effect on society by making users passive, apathetic, unproductive, and unable or unwilling to fulfill their responsibilities.

THE FACTS

The concept of an amotivational syndrome first appeared in the late 1960s, 68 as marijuana use was increasing among American youth. In the years since, despite the absence of an agreed-upon definition of the concept, numerous researchers have attempted to verify its occurrence.

Large-scale studies of high school students have generally found no difference in grade-point averages between marijuana users and non-users. 69 One study found lower grades among students reported to be daily users of marijuana, but the authors failed to identify a causal relationship and concluded that both phenomena were part of a complex of inter-related social and emotional problems. 70
In one longitudinal study of college students, after controlling for other factors, marijuana users were found to have higher grades than non-users 7l and to be equally as likely to successfully complete their educations. 72 Another study found that marijuana users in college scored higher than non-users on standardized "achievement values" scales. 73

Field studies conducted in Jamaica, Costa Rica and Greece also found no evidence of an amotivational syndrome marijuana-using populations.
In these samples of working-class males, the educational and employment records of marijuana users were, for the most part, similar to those of non-users. In fact, in Jamaica, marijuana was often smoked during working hours as an aid to productivity.
The results of laboratory studies have been nearly as consistent.
In one study lasting 94 days, marijuana had no significant impact on learning, performance or motivation. 74
In another 31-day study, subjects given marijuana worked more hours than controls and turned in an equal number of tokens for cash at the study's completion. 75

However, in a Canadian study that required subjects in the marijuana group to consume unusually high doses, some reduction in work efficiency was noted in the days following intoxication. 76

Undoubtedly, when marijuana is used in a way that produces near-constant intoxication, other activities are 1ikely to be neglected.
However, the weight of scientific evidence suggests that there is nothing in the pharmacological properties of cannabis that alter people's attitudes, values, or abilities regarding work. "

You might know a lot of potheads, and maybe 90 - 100% of them are losers. You don't live everywhere though, remember.

It's funny that most likely any and all of the people here saying, "You're wrong! Marijuana's not addictive... you're ignorant... you know nothing!", are all a bunch of brain-mushed dopers themselves.

Ummm ... I don't smoke marijuana and still say you're wrong. You cannot prove your claims in any reasonable way. You are the loser, not the pot heads.

I once smoked pot before I had a quiz my Sophmore year, I got a 100 on it. I kept giggling during it though.

Ummm ... I don't smoke marijuana and still say you're wrong. You cannot prove your claims in any reasonable way. You are the loser, not the pot heads.

Marijuana is not a gateway drug. That is the experience of mine, and millions of other highschool students across America.

I for one can say every single person I know except for one who has smoked marajuana has ended up on something harder ... I happen to know quite a few people who have. I'd like to think the one person who hasnt done so does it because they know how I feel about it.

Smoking pot might eat into your lungs and wallet, but I don't see how it can be any worse for you than living in an authoritarian capitalist, sexually repressive society like the US.

Even if marijuana is a gateway drug. Harder drugs would still be illegal if pot were legalized. It's not like having pot illegal stops anyone from smoking it, it just clogs up the prison system.

The ones who stand to gain the most from it are most likely to ignore the truth, say the experts are wrong, and try to persuade you

You're thinking exactly right. But marijuana illegalization allows many drug, tobacco, and paper industries who are major financial goverment supporters to gain from "ignoring the truth". The truth that marijuana is a drug with recorded medicinal usage as early as 400 b.c. and has proven medicinal value, even if it has no proven theraputic value. Ya know who stands to gain the most from illegal cannabis? Drug dealers. Dealers that will sell to customers of any age and make it easy for anyone with the cash to get some weed. Do you know that hemp ruderalis plants incapable of getting you high are illegal in the states?

If you're all so much smarter than the experts and the ones who REALLY know how harmful marijuana is to young people, why is it illegal anywhere at all?

"There are NO places left where it is legal to smoke, thanks to AmeriKKKa's insane Drug War and International laws and condemnations. It is even illegal in Holland, but tolerated there.

That's the key, where is it tolerated (where you won't get busted)? The answer is many places! There are places in Australia, India, Nepal, Afghanistan, Morocco, etc. In the U.S. I understand California is very laid back about it, especially SF, and places north (the Emerald Triangle, where they grow most of America's best sinsemilla). I'm told Humbolt county is the "phrendliest" place to smokers. The cops there look the other way because without the green economy, the area would be in a bad depression. So there's lots of places where smoking is tolerated, sounds like you're livin' in the wrong neck of the woods!

By the way if you can make it to Amsterdam, it will be the "high" point of your life!

As far as friendly people goes, they seem to be everywhere except big cities. But I've always found that the poorest people are usually friendliest cause as Janis sang "When you ain't got nothing, you ain't got nothing to lose." I guess most hippies qualify.

Of the places I've traveled, I'd have to say that the New Zealanders and Balinese are the most friendly people I've met. They go way out of their way for strangers.

-The Old Hippy "

Yes, exactly.. .because we wouldn't want weed in the other 49 states of the good 'ol USA.

Making drugs illegal does NOTHING to curb usage, as is evident by our failed 'War on Drugs'.
really? have you recorded the results from the time we stopped this war?

Oh wait, there ARE no facts to prove yourself.

Even if marijuana is a gateway drug. Harder drugs would still be illegal if pot were legalized. It's not like having pot illegal stops anyone from smoking it, it just clogs up the prison system.

No, but then you have all those people in prison anyways, as they move on to the harder, illegal drugs.

It's a thrill thing for many people, and the thrill for a lot of them is doing something illegal that feels good too. It's the same thing as vandalizing stuff, except I'm not sure if that could be said to feel good.

really? have you recorded the results from the time we stopped this war?

Oh wait, there ARE no facts to prove yourself.

How about the fact I could go out and buy an ounce of marijuana right now if I wanted to? The war against drugs has proved itself to be a failure, and has done little more than to inflate the price of cannabis and create a subculture of otherwise upstanding citizens with fear and contempt of the police and goverment.

How about the fact I could go out and buy an ounce of marijuana right now if I wanted to? The war against drugs has proved itself to be a failure, and has done little more than to inflate the price of cannabis and create a subculture of otherwise upstanding citizens with fear and contempt of the police and goverment.
Still no comparison to the non-existant "peace with drugs"


Stopping the war would be an even bigger failure, telling our youth that they can get away with anything they want to, so long as they annoy people enough.

How about the fact I could go out and buy an ounce of marijuana right now if I wanted to? The war against drugs has proved itself to be a failure, and has done little more than to inflate the price of cannabis and create a subculture of otherwise upstanding citizens with fear and contempt of the police and goverment.

You are the one contributing the that atomosphere of discontent. If people weren't pressing so hard to get drugs, the government wouldn't have to push so hard back. Governments by nature are reactionary forces.

Stopping the war would be an even bigger failure, telling our youth that they can get away with anything they want to, so long as they annoy people enough.

I say that the government should swallow its pride and accept that it has failed to stop pot.

There are a few details in the FOX News Article that are inaccurate. First of all, Alaskana can not possess a small amount of marijuana as the article claims. That used to be the law, but the feds said that unless the state repealed that law, the federal highway funds would be pulled. So the state gave in. Second, this hasn't even been reported in the local newspaper or the local stations yet. I live in Anchorage, so there's no way anything like this is released w/o local media picking up on it first.

The Juneau stations (the state capitol) also haven't reported anything relating to the FOX article, so at this point, I'd take it w/ a grain of salt and nothing else.

Some history....

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.

1914
Harrison Act passed, outlawing opiates and cocaine (taxing scheme)

1915
Utah passes first 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 1967)

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)

Warning: Long Post!

Posted from here (http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html)



First of all, it's important to realize that there is no legitimate reason why marijuana is illegal. Both in the establishment of penalties for marijuana and the continuance of them, there has never been a single true compelling government interest for making marijuana illegal.
Most of the history of marijuana's criminalization has been based on lies. The actual reasons why marijuana is illegal are:


Racism
Fear
Protection of Corporate Profits
Yellow Journalism
Ignorant, Incompetent, and/or Corrupt Legislators
Personal Career Advancement and Greed
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.

However, the first state law outlawing marijuana did so not because of Mexicans using the drug. Oddly enough, it was because of Mormons using it. Mormons who traveled to Mexico in 1910 came back to Salt Lake City with marijuana. The church was not pleased and ruled against use of the drug. Since the state of Utah automatically enshrined church doctrine into law, the first state marijuana prohibition was established in 1915. (Today, Senator Orrin Hatch serves as the prohibition arm of this heavily church-influenced state.)

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. Some of his quotes regarding marijuana...


"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 there 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 story 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.)

quote-
I say that the government should swallow its pride and accept that it has failed to stop pot.

LOOOOOOOOL the US govt. swallow its pride. Like theres any chance of that!
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Smoking pot might eat into your lungs and wallet, but I don't see how it can be any worse for you than living in an authoritarian capitalist, sexually repressive society like the US.

You know, it's not ALL about communism....

*looks at movies, television, videos, video games, pornography, Cosmopolitan magazine and its articles this month about: Your Secret Sex Cycle, 100 Sex Tips from Guys, and Have More Fun in Bed.....*

VERY sexually repressed, the US is....

Another thing I had heard, which I admittedly cannot source, is that marijuana was made illegal because tobacco growers were alarmed at how much of their market would be taken by smoking hemp.

Personally, I think it should become legal. If it is legalized, then the government can oversee the quality so it's not "boosted" with more harmful drugs like angel dust. They can also tax it, and therefore make some money, possibly to put into education, or feeding the hungry, etc?

It's not something I've experienced myself, though I have known people -- pretty together people -- who smoke marijuana. It's not something I am likely to do myself -- one, because it is illegal (and I could lose my job over it) and two, I don't smoke tobacco or drink either. The only thing I could forsee though -- simply as a matter of safety -- is that DUI laws would have to be rewritten to cover acceptable levels of intoxication before driving, using heavy equipment, whatever. As with alcohol, it is an intoxicant, and it can impair one's judgment -- so I'd have stiff penalties for someone who created a hazardous situation because s/he harmed someone while under the influence, purposefully or not.

Let 'em make it legal in Alaska -- there's more men than women up there, there are few people per mile up there, and they have six months of darkness in the northern part of the state. Sounds like they could use some diversion! ;)

Still no comparison to the non-existant "peace with drugs"
In all honesty I don't really understand what you mean.

Stopping the war would be an even bigger failure, telling our youth that they can get away with anything they want to, so long as they annoy people enough.

If you are thinking that legalization would be making ganja smoking more popular and free, you're reasonable to come to this conclusion. However, legality would mean quality control, complete honesty about the pros and cons of grass smoking/eating as something for adults 18+ to all kids who could be more easily regulated. Remember, honesty is on the side of legality. There has been more distortion from the aggresive anti-drug end of things than the pro-decriminalzation advocates. The anti-drug movement tries to convince youth that the biggest danger of marijuana is something other than the goverment penalties for possesing it - as if it is illegal because it isn't safe. Ciggies and vodka and ready whip cans are all dangerous and all as legal as peeing.

ahhh all this debate makes my loserish head spin *skins up a joint*

All that aside, "Reefer Madness" is still a classic. Definately a must for everyone's DVD collection.

Yes, I agree with that.

And Letila, let's just get something straight. USA all the way. We defeated the fucking British. California, Hawaii, Vegas, NYC, etc etc etc....where do you live exactly? *moving the nuclear bomb silo around with remote control*

Two points to ponder:

First, Marijuana is a "gateway" drug. Young people start out small with the weed, when they have the weed mastered, then they graduate to harder and much more sinister and deadly drugs.

Second, Marijuana has become vastly more potent than it's ever been. There are some strains of marijuana that are so potent, they have become addictive. Scientists have long said that if concentrations of THC (active ingrediant in Marijuana that gives the "high") got high enough, Marijuana could become just as addictive as any other narcotic. Well, it finally has in some strains. Now it's just a matter of time before ALL the weed will be as powerful.

I'm not for legalizing marijuana, because potheads are losers. They have no drive. All they want to do is sit around and get stoned. Sure, there are some who smoke pot and are successful, but for every pothead that's a successful functioning pothead, there are a thousand who are just plain losers.


Point: You are a dumbass who has never smoked weed. I don't know anyone who got "bored" or "mastered" weed and said "HEY, let's try crack now!" There are probably millions of kids who smoke weed and only weed.

Point: I guess I just happen to be that "one in a thousand" functional pot-head who is getting an undergraduate degree in History and then is going to law school. Again, you are just spouting things that OTHER dumbasses say about pot.

Point: I have never, EVER met anyone who was addicted to pot. I live on the beach, and we have more pot-heads per square mile than the Democratic Convention (sorry for the cheap shot). I literally know HUNDREDS of people who smoke pot. And we have some damn nice high-grade stuff here too. No one has ever gotten addicted.

Smoking highgrade is much better for the brain than smoking shwag, no?

You know, it's not ALL about communism....

*looks at movies, television, videos, video games, pornography, Cosmopolitan magazine and its articles this month about: Your Secret Sex Cycle, 100 Sex Tips from Guys, and Have More Fun in Bed.....*

VERY sexually repressed, the US is....

Compared to Europe or even Japan, the US is extremely sexually repressed. Haven't you heard of hentai and nude beaches?

Compared to Europe or even Japan, the US is extremely sexually repressed. Haven't you heard of hentai and nude beaches?

First of all, what do you mean by sexually repressed? Are you mistaking it for insecure rich guys who are obsessed with and feel measured by the sex and beauty of their bitches I mean wives? And since when has the USA been responsible for hentai, that is a stern insult.

And since when has the USA been responsible for hentai, that is a stern insult.

I said that it wasn't responsible. There are no nude beaches or hentai in the US.

I said that it wasn't responsible. There are no nude beaches or hentai in the US.

But there are plenty of nude beaches and hentai in the US. :fluffle:

But there are plenty of nude beaches and hentai in the US.

There are no nude beaches in the US unless I have been seriously misinformed. As for hentai, it can be smuggled through the internet, but for many forms of it, you would be lucky if the worst you got for possessing it was psychiatric treatment.

Compared to Europe or even Japan, the US is extremely sexually repressed. Haven't you heard of hentai and nude beaches?

Of course. And there are both in the US. I can go to Suncoast Video or any number of shops around here and pick up Hentai right now if it appealed to me (demons and tentacles don't really do much for me), and there are nude beaches as well. Where the heck do YOU live?

Of course. And there are both in the US. I can go to Suncoast Video or any number of shops around here and pick up Hentai right now if it appealed to me (demons and tentacles don't really do much for me),

Last time I checked, they were illegal under child pornography laws. Maybe you're thinking of anime with erotic themes, which contrary to popular believe, is not the same thing as hentai, which literally means perverted.

and there are nude beaches as well. Where the heck do YOU live?

Missouri, but I've never heard of any nude beach in the US and have in fact heard several times that there were none.

Last time I checked, they were illegal under child pornography laws. Maybe you're thinking of anime with erotic themes, which contrary to popular believe, is not the same thing as hentai, which literally means perverted.

http://www.animenation.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-141957.html <-- Hentai is not illegal -- most stores don't carry it because they are afraid parents won't read the warning and will buy it for little Johnny or Susie, then go raise hell because it's a cartoon.

Missouri, but I've never heard of any nude beach in the US and have in fact heard several times that there were none.

http://www.beachesbeaches.com/nude.html <-- All you need to do is Google it.

I always find the "gateway drug" arguments amusing. The only one that made sense was a few pages back pointing that the only reason why a pothead might start using something harder, is because they hang out with drug dealers who sell the harder stuff. If marijuana was legal, this wouldn't happen, and marijuana would be only as 'gateway' as alcohol currently is.

Alaska rules.

I think I remember reading an anthropological essay that pointed out that cold weather areas do, in fact, tend to be more liberal (in the sense of allowing more freedoms) and egalitarian. I guess if we have another ice age there will, at last, be legalized pot.

http://www.animenation.net/forums/a...p/t-141957.html <-- Hentai is not illegal -- most stores don't carry it because they are afraid parents won't read the warning and will buy it for little Johnny or Susie, then go raise hell because it's a cartoon.

Remember that there is a difference between erotic anime and genuine hentai. One is simply vanilla sex and appears even in anime that doesn't have specifically erotic themes (such as Gundam SEED Japanese version, not the English version which the FCC censored into oblivion.) The other has things like underage girls being raped by tentacled demons. See the distinction?

As for nude beaches, I conceed that point.

To Letila: Hentai is essentially anime porn and doesn't denote any specific theme; you're thinking of shotacon/lolicon. And yeah, America is pretty sexually repressed. There was a thread on this just a while ago.

To everyone else: I've never smoked pot. I encourage all my friends to *stop* smoking pot. I refuse to be around people who are smoking pot. Nevertheless, I am staunchly pro-legalization. I can't remember who said it, but one of my favorite quotes is "I may hate waht you are doing, but I'll defend to the death your right to do it."

Normally, I'm against legalizing marijuana. But if a state decides to legalize it, it's fine with me. So long as it stays there.


Think they're doing it to increase the population there?
They are looking for more "tourism" :p

Marijuana is not a gateway drug. All my stoner friends have smoked for 3 years, and never "graduated". They say hard drugs are bad for you.
Well, I am sure your friends are very educated, and I am sure that anything they say can be taken seriously, because they smoke reefer.

Two points to ponder:

First, Marijuana is a "gateway" drug. Young people start out small with the weed, when they have the weed mastered, then they graduate to harder and much more sinister and deadly drugs.

Second, Marijuana has become vastly more potent than it's ever been. There are some strains of marijuana that are so potent, they have become addictive. Scientists have long said that if concentrations of THC (active ingrediant in Marijuana that gives the "high") got high enough, Marijuana could become just as addictive as any other narcotic. Well, it finally has in some strains. Now it's just a matter of time before ALL the weed will be as powerful.

I'm not for legalizing marijuana, because potheads are losers. They have no drive. All they want to do is sit around and get stoned. Sure, there are some who smoke pot and are successful, but for every pothead that's a successful functioning pothead, there are a thousand who are just plain losers.

Exceot for the fact that over 90% of Americans have smoked weed (That likely includes your parents). It IS NOT addictive, nor is there any evidence to say it is.

Exceot for the fact that over 90% of Americans have smoked weed (That likely includes your parents). It IS NOT addictive, nor is there any evidence to say it is.
Holy shit, I dont believe that number! Please tell me where you got it from.

Cobwebland, props on your position. I think it was Vauldere or somebody with that name spelled slightly differently who said, "I may not agree with what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I also like Martin Luther King's "it is one's moral obligation to disobey unjust laws".


Maybe you're thinking of anime with erotic themes, which contrary to popular believe, is not the same thing as hentai, which literally means perverted.

Most normal girls will usually hate hentai and most normal guys will have a vague appreciation of it and ability to be thouroughly entertained by its wacky antics. Hentai can be very funny.

Well, I am sure your friends are very educated, and I am sure that anything they say can be taken seriously, because they smoke reefer.

Thinking that because someone smokes pot they are stupid is like thinking because someone is black they're gonna steal from you.

Why would they be wrong about hard drugs being bad?

Remember that there is a difference between erotic anime and genuine hentai. One is simply vanilla sex and appears even in anime that doesn't have specifically erotic themes (such as Gundam SEED Japanese version, not the English version which the FCC censored into oblivion.) The other has things like underage girls being raped by tentacled demons. See the distinction?

As for nude beaches, I conceed that point.


For some reason, halfway through reading this I got very turned on.

EDIT:

Do you conceed to post some examples of this socaleld "vanilla" and/or chocolate sex as attachments? I don't understand what you are refering to so I would need to check those out.

Well, I am sure your friends are very educated, and I am sure that anything they say can be taken seriously, because they smoke reefer.

So you're implying people who smoke reefer are uneducated, and that they can never be taken seriously?

Well, it goes to show.

You don't need to smoke dope to be stupid.

_Susa_ isn't stupid! She is soft and sensual!

Yeah, and not all pot smokers are giggling idiots either.

_Susa_ isn't stupid! She is soft and sensual!
She????!!????? WTF dude, I am NOT a she!

So you're implying people who smoke reefer are uneducated, and that they can never be taken seriously?

Well, it goes to show.

You don't need to smoke dope to be stupid.
I am inferring smoking weed makes you stupid. And also that you have to posses a certain amount of stupidity to start smoking in the first place.

To Letila: Hentai is essentially anime porn and doesn't denote any specific theme; you're thinking of shotacon/lolicon. And yeah, America is pretty sexually repressed. There was a thread on this just a while ago.

I disagree. I am pretty sure that there is a difference between hentai (which is sexually deviant) and anime with sexual themes (known as ecchi).

Most normal girls will usually hate hentai and most normal guys will have a vague appreciation of it and ability to be thouroughly entertained by its wacky antics. Hentai can be very funny.

And it makes a powerful weapon against the sexually repressed.

Exceot for the fact that over 90% of Americans have smoked weed (That likely includes your parents).

its not 90%. in surveys we can get about 50% to admit trying it at least once - i would guess that taking into account the number of people who wouldn't admit it the actual number is more like 60%. so probably at least one of your parents.

I disagree. I am pretty sure that there is a difference between hentai (which is sexually deviant) and anime with sexual themes (known as ecchi).



And it makes a powerful weapon against the sexually repressed.
So, how did this thread go from Reefer to Japanese Animated Pr0n?

Originally Posted by Frwolm
_Susa_ isn't stupid! She is soft and sensual!


She????!!????? WTF dude, I am NOT a she!

I am inferring smoking weed makes you stupid. And also that you have to posses a certain amount of stupidity to start smoking in the first place.

Susa, I had no idea you were post-op!

There's no sign in front of a drug dealer's door that says "you must be this stupid to enter". I know quite a few very bright Princeton University students who continually smoke marijuana as a mood enhancer and creativity producer. The extra-good sounding music and munchies are nice too! It's just a dried herb! An unprocessed flower! Get over your allegence to your parents or school or friends to say how stupid marijuana is. Marijuana just isn't for everyone.

So, how did this thread go from Reefer to Japanese Animated Pr0n?

I don't know. It just did. My point is that you can legally possess ecchi, but not hentai in the US.

I disagree. I am pretty sure that there is a difference between hentai (which is sexually deviant) and anime with sexual themes (known as ecchi).



And it makes a powerful weapon against the sexually repressed.

Oh yeah, you're the girl? I think I mistook you for Lula who acts like a woman anyway. Hentai just isn't as arousing for Americans brought up on Playboy and maybe Penthouse as it is for japanese perverts and those crazy American japanese perverts-enthusiasts. It's like this, tentacles aren't made for the poonanni. That just doesn't work for me. :(

I don't know. It just did. My point is that you can legally possess ecchi, but not hentai in the US.
Yeah, thats fine, I am not blaiming you for this semi-hijacking, its jsut I didnt read through all the pages.

Oh yeah, you're the girl?

No, I'm male.

Hentai just isn't as arousing for Americans brought up on Playboy and maybe Penthouse as it is for japanese perverts and those crazy American japanese perverts-enthusiasts. It's like this, tentacles aren't made for the poonanni. That just doesn't work for me.

I know. It's as alien as it is effective to the conservative foe.

Your name is very girlymon. If you make a name that's impossible to pronounce you can bypass that risk.

I found the hijacking perp, look at this evidence
Katganistan
semi-advanced spammer


Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,001

You know, it's not ALL about communism....

*looks at movies, television, videos, video games, pornography, Cosmopolitan magazine and its articles this month about: Your Secret Sex Cycle, 100 Sex Tips from Guys, and Have More Fun in Bed.....*

Hi there. My 2 cents (twice my thoughts ...)
I live in Alaska, and for all of y'all concerned with this issue ....
The idea and legalization of pot comes up EVERY f*cking year. It's been on the ballot at least once in the last 30 years and there's always a big group of people trying to bring it up again. So this isn't news to us locals.
Second, as "liberal" goes, i have to congratulate the frequenters of this thread by not turning into petty political whiners trying to paint the state as a "liberal" state. It's a BIG oil state, almost no industry anymore, mostly repubs and conservatives and more than a few independants and people who generally want to secede from the union in one fashion or another and fend for themselves, to basically blend into the landscape (that is mostly owned by the feds anyway).
Finally, i did a little research on all the hubbub and thought a few years back that the synthetics corporations, most notably DuPont had a significant input regarding the illegal status of pot, since if you ask any actually politically-oriented pot affecionado about the good side o'reefer they tend to tell you about its use as a paper and clothing and varying forms of synthetic capability. It might be worth looking up.
Ta!

Two points to ponder:

First, Marijuana is a "gateway" drug. Young people start out small with the weed, when they have the weed mastered, then they graduate to harder and much more sinister and deadly drugs.

You might want to try doing a little research before you make such a claim. Try reading this http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/mjgate.htm then move on to this http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/media/schaffer1.htm Once you have opened your mind to the possibility that actual, scientific research on this claim has been undertaken, try reading this http://www.rand.org/news/press.02/gateway.html, and finally, once you realize that real research refutes your general hypothesis and claim, read this http://www.ukcia.org/research/ReassessingGatewayEffect.pdf that explains what is really going on (which is a whole host of things).

Remember, it is better to keep quite and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Second, Marijuana has become vastly more potent than it's ever been. There are some strains of marijuana that are so potent, they have become addictive. Scientists have long said that if concentrations of THC (active ingrediant in Marijuana that gives the "high") got high enough, Marijuana could become just as addictive as any other narcotic. Well, it finally has in some strains. Now it's just a matter of time before ALL the weed will be as powerful.

I'll agree that the concentrations of THC and other psychoactive components of marijuana have increased due to selective breeding of the plant. but, please, tell me what scientists have said the other things you claim, citations to authority and scientific studies please.


I'm not for legalizing marijuana, because potheads are losers. They have no drive. All they want to do is sit around and get stoned. Sure, there are some who smoke pot and are successful, but for every pothead that's a successful functioning pothead, there are a thousand who are just plain losers.

Again, evidence of your claims? citations to authority? What about the functioning vs. the loser alcoholics? Dude, you have a lot to learn.

Note, I do not smoke pot (I have in the past, but is was over 15 years ago that I had my last joint), I also don't reccomend that anyone do it. But the war on drugs and the focus on marijuana as the root of all evil is just plain stupid. Marijuana, in general, is no more harmful than alcohol/tobacco. It should be legal and regulated like those two items. I side with the theory that to the extent it can be called a "gateway" drug, it is most probably due to the fact that you have to associate with those who sell drugs of all kinds to get marijuana. You go to your dealer and he says "sorry man, I'm outta grass, but here, try this, its just as good if not better." so you take some acid, or a quaalude, snort some cocaine, whatever. You went looking for a buzz from marijuana, none was available, so you took what you could get. If marijuana was legal, you'd just go the headshop and buy a doobie or two.

Now, go have a martini, smoke a cigar and relax. You're wrong, get used to it.

Weed and hentai go together.

Weed and hentai go together.

PCP and hentai, especially tentacle hentia, don't

I think it was Vauldere or somebody with that name spelled slightly differently


Voltaire?