W.R. Hearst had a lot to do with it. He owned a lot of newspapers & he had a large interest in the timber industry.
The AMA was all for outlawing marijuana, that scourge of the mexicans, until they realized marijuana was hemp. They weren't for outlawing hemp but the AMA's president was put under a lot of pressure to keep his mouth shut. Remember, the AMA wasn't very big in 1937 & it wouldn't help them to be contradicting the powers that be (were).
Marijuana had primarily been known as hemp in the early 20th cent. Calling it marijuana helped to disguie what it was & make it seem like a problem brought up from Mexico. A guy name of Anslinger helped in this regard. He wanted an easy target to declare victory over. Anslinger was the head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. He also had a lot to do with Prohibition, which didn't turn out so good.
Du Pont invented Nylon in 1935. It's biggest use then was as rope. Hemp rope was pretty popular then. If only there was a way to eliminate the competition...
Now, in the 1930's, if one owned a large chain of newspapers, an interest in timber companies which could benefit if it could only supplant hemp as a source of paper, and then a large corporation which also had an interest in seeing hemp outlawed, combined with an over-zealous head of a federal agency who wanted an easy target to claim victory over, well...
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
Medical marijuana and gun rights (again)
Started by
GarandFan
, Sep 29 2011 12:42 PM
46 replies to this topic
#32
-
- Moderator
-
- 7,936 posts Joined: 03-January 07
David Lawson
Posted 24 November 2011 - 02:59 AM
belercous, on 23 November 2011 - 11:54 PM, said:
W.R. Hearst had a lot to do with it. He owned a lot of newspapers & he had a large interest in the timber industry.
The AMA was all for outlawing marijuana, that scourge of the mexicans, until they realized marijuana was hemp. They weren't for outlawing hemp but the AMA's president was put under a lot of pressure to keep his mouth shut. Remember, the AMA wasn't very big in 1937 & it wouldn't help them to be contradicting the powers that be (were).
Marijuana had primarily been known as hemp in the early 20th cent. Calling it marijuana helped to disguie what it was & make it seem like a problem brought up from Mexico. A guy name of Anslinger helped in this regard. He wanted an easy target to declare victory over. Anslinger was the head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. He also had a lot to do with Prohibition, which didn't turn out so good.
Du Pont invented Nylon in 1935. It's biggest use then was as rope. Hemp rope was pretty popular then. If only there was a way to eliminate the competition...
Now, in the 1930's, if one owned a large chain of newspapers, an interest in timber companies which could benefit if it could only supplant hemp as a source of paper, and then a large corporation which also had an interest in seeing hemp outlawed, combined with an over-zealous head of a federal agency who wanted an easy target to claim victory over, well...
The AMA was all for outlawing marijuana, that scourge of the mexicans, until they realized marijuana was hemp. They weren't for outlawing hemp but the AMA's president was put under a lot of pressure to keep his mouth shut. Remember, the AMA wasn't very big in 1937 & it wouldn't help them to be contradicting the powers that be (were).
Marijuana had primarily been known as hemp in the early 20th cent. Calling it marijuana helped to disguie what it was & make it seem like a problem brought up from Mexico. A guy name of Anslinger helped in this regard. He wanted an easy target to declare victory over. Anslinger was the head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. He also had a lot to do with Prohibition, which didn't turn out so good.
Du Pont invented Nylon in 1935. It's biggest use then was as rope. Hemp rope was pretty popular then. If only there was a way to eliminate the competition...
Now, in the 1930's, if one owned a large chain of newspapers, an interest in timber companies which could benefit if it could only supplant hemp as a source of paper, and then a large corporation which also had an interest in seeing hemp outlawed, combined with an over-zealous head of a federal agency who wanted an easy target to claim victory over, well...
Yet another example of greedy corporations working with government regulatory bodies to screw the rest of us over.
Quote
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
#33
-
- Members
-
- 1,137 posts Joined: 28-October 11
Member
Posted 24 November 2011 - 08:46 AM
I have read the constitution end to end word by word.... I can't find the constitutional right to smoke weed anywhere.... can someone point out the right section? I give up trying to find it. 
~If you speak of a gun as a toy, then you see medical waste as playground filler. Yes, it means you're a screwed up individual.~
~"An invasion of mainland America is unwise. Behind every blade of grass a rifle would await us"
-Yamamoto Isoroku
Yes. I'm predicting that Chicago/Cook county will be sold out in order to get "shall issue".
~"An invasion of mainland America is unwise. Behind every blade of grass a rifle would await us"
-Yamamoto Isoroku
Yes. I'm predicting that Chicago/Cook county will be sold out in order to get "shall issue".
#34
-
- Supporting Members Team
-
- 4,085 posts Joined: 07-July 06
Member
Posted 24 November 2011 - 09:34 AM
You won't find the right to breathe or gulp an Aspirin either. Where in the Constitution does it specifically authorize congress to prohibit smoking, breathing or taking medicine.
"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776
Life Member NRA, ISRA, CCRKBA & SAF
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776
Life Member NRA, ISRA, CCRKBA & SAF
#35
-
- Supporting Members Team
-
- 180 posts Joined: 18-April 10
Member
Posted 24 November 2011 - 09:48 AM
TFC, on 24 November 2011 - 08:46 AM, said:
I have read the constitution end to end word by word.... I can't find the constitutional right to smoke weed anywhere.... can someone point out the right section? I give up trying to find it.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, OR TO THE PEOPLE.
#36
-
- Members
-
- 1,137 posts Joined: 28-October 11
Member
Posted 24 November 2011 - 11:26 AM
Blade13, on 24 November 2011 - 09:48 AM, said:
TFC, on 24 November 2011 - 08:46 AM, said:
I have read the constitution end to end word by word.... I can't find the constitutional right to smoke weed anywhere.... can someone point out the right section? I give up trying to find it.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, OR TO THE PEOPLE.
Ok. The state and local drug charges kick in. Thanks.
~If you speak of a gun as a toy, then you see medical waste as playground filler. Yes, it means you're a screwed up individual.~
~"An invasion of mainland America is unwise. Behind every blade of grass a rifle would await us"
-Yamamoto Isoroku
Yes. I'm predicting that Chicago/Cook county will be sold out in order to get "shall issue".
~"An invasion of mainland America is unwise. Behind every blade of grass a rifle would await us"
-Yamamoto Isoroku
Yes. I'm predicting that Chicago/Cook county will be sold out in order to get "shall issue".
#37
-
- Members
-
- 10,676 posts Joined: 06-February 07
Member
Posted 24 November 2011 - 12:42 PM
belercous, on 23 November 2011 - 11:54 PM, said:
Du Pont invented Nylon in 1935. It's biggest use then was as rope. Hemp rope was pretty popular then. If only there was a way to eliminate the competition...
Now, in the 1930's, if one owned a large chain of newspapers, an interest in timber companies which could benefit if it could only supplant hemp as a source of paper, and then a large corporation which also had an interest in seeing hemp outlawed, combined with an over-zealous head of a federal agency who wanted an easy target to claim victory over, well...
Now, in the 1930's, if one owned a large chain of newspapers, an interest in timber companies which could benefit if it could only supplant hemp as a source of paper, and then a large corporation which also had an interest in seeing hemp outlawed, combined with an over-zealous head of a federal agency who wanted an easy target to claim victory over, well...
This general outline of why Cannabis sativa became prohibited jives with what I've understood for years. It had far less to do with psychoactive properties and far more to do with eliminating competition in business.
Prohibition of cannabis, in my opinion, is not merely ineffective. It is costly and destructive social policy.
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872
Lewis Carroll, 1872
#38
-
- Moderator
-
- 7,936 posts Joined: 03-January 07
David Lawson
Posted 25 November 2011 - 12:18 AM
Don't forget Amendment IX:
Quote
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Quote
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
#39
-
- Members
-
- 10,676 posts Joined: 06-February 07
Member
Posted 25 November 2011 - 06:52 AM
Federal Farmer, on 25 November 2011 - 12:18 AM, said:
Don't forget Amendment IX:
Quote
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Agreed. "...others retained by the people." What constitute "others", of course, is the million dollar question. It's sad that so often these days, the government's interest is regulating activity is what is assumed, rather than the rights of free people to make personal choices. Part of this trend surely must be the ease these days of people to deny any sense of personal responsibility for their actions.
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872
Lewis Carroll, 1872
#40
-
- Moderator
-
- 7,936 posts Joined: 03-January 07
David Lawson
Posted 26 November 2011 - 01:21 PM
Speaking of Medical marijuana, my sister is decorating one of her plants for Christmas. I can't wait to get the pics.
Quote
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
#41
-
- Members
-
- 594 posts Joined: 15-March 11
Member
Posted 26 November 2011 - 10:39 PM
Going back to the first few posts, what do you think would happen if we (taxpayers) quit wasting money on a drug war that can't be won. Honestly it's like trying to run up a landslide. Instead, take those billions of dollars and develop educational programs for kids and treatment programs for addicts.
This is and always has been a demand issue. It can never be solved by trying to eliminate the supply. I say focus on the demand side. When demand falls, supply will follow.
Thoughts?
DM
This is and always has been a demand issue. It can never be solved by trying to eliminate the supply. I say focus on the demand side. When demand falls, supply will follow.
Thoughts?
DM
Edited by Danielm60660, 26 November 2011 - 10:40 PM.
#42
-
- Moderator
-
- 7,936 posts Joined: 03-January 07
David Lawson
Posted 26 November 2011 - 11:48 PM
Danielm60660, on 26 November 2011 - 10:39 PM, said:
Going back to the first few posts, what do you think would happen if we (taxpayers) quit wasting money on a drug war that can't be won. Honestly it's like trying to run up a landslide. Instead, take those billions of dollars and develop educational programs for kids and treatment programs for addicts.
This is and always has been a demand issue. It can never be solved by trying to eliminate the supply. I say focus on the demand side. When demand falls, supply will follow.
Thoughts?
DM
This is and always has been a demand issue. It can never be solved by trying to eliminate the supply. I say focus on the demand side. When demand falls, supply will follow.
Thoughts?
DM
The drug war has turned into a big cash cow for local governments. I did not know this until this blog article.
Quote
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
#43
-
- Members
-
- 1,473 posts Joined: 17-March 11
Member
Posted 27 November 2011 - 10:54 PM
Daniel; In the war on drugs, well, drugs won. And they always will. We'd save a bundle of $ by not fighting it, but we'd make a bundle by taxing & regulating drugs. The trend is to treat drug use as a medical issue, but I'm not so sure this will work for all drugs. Some drugs are physically destructive, some are not. Marijuana & LSD are not a problem, but cocaine, Heroin, & meth are.
Personally, I've tried Heroin, but didn't care for coming close to death a couple of times. I quit it since it simply wasn't worth it. Pot, well, who hasn't tried it? It should be made as legal as alcohol. Most everyone should try LSD at least once, best drug ever. But anyone who's done it knows it's not something to make a habit of, it's just too wild to do often. It's self-limiting in that regard.
Cocaine; snorting the stuff was a great buzz. For a little while. Then one has the lingering after-effects, which, along with the price, are not worth it. Smoking cocaine, well, I did that once. For about a year & a half. Everyday, all day. It was my God, wife, & life. Best feeling in the world, for about a year, which then turned into a needed medication just to be normal. Banging it was the same as smoking it. That was the only drug that got me, but I haven't been near it for over 16 yrs, I quit it cold-turkey. Then I quit cold-turkey (I'm sick of T-Day leftovers).
I tried meth (crank) once when I worked the oil-patch in 1981, but it only burned my nose & I never did it again. I see it's been making a come-back. It seems to be fairly addictive.
I'm too old now to do things I once did, but drugs never caused me any problems with the world (I never stole or lost a job, etc.)(well, I did start getting a few "B's" in college), but I see how such could happen to others. I view drug use as a personal matter, so long as one is not harming others. In my view, neglecting one's children is an actionable cause (a crime). Same goes for driving under the influence, stealing to support a habit, or endangering society by one's actions.
Ideally, I'd allow marijauna to be sold the same as alcohol (taxed & regulated), but I'd legalize & regulate opium (LSD, cocaine, Heroin, etc.) dens where those who chose to partake may do so in a controlled environment without the risk of endangering society while under the influence. This would entail one not leaving in their own means of transport until the effects have worn off (cab rides to one's own home would be permitted). The drugs would be legal, regulated, & taxed. Personal liberty would be maximized.
Or, we could just keep doing what we've been doing. Paying $ to solve a problem we never can solve instead of regulating it & making $ from it. Generating revenue from drugs could be used to lower income tax rates for all. Sin taxes are popular for this reason, as only the users pay them.
Personally, I've tried Heroin, but didn't care for coming close to death a couple of times. I quit it since it simply wasn't worth it. Pot, well, who hasn't tried it? It should be made as legal as alcohol. Most everyone should try LSD at least once, best drug ever. But anyone who's done it knows it's not something to make a habit of, it's just too wild to do often. It's self-limiting in that regard.
Cocaine; snorting the stuff was a great buzz. For a little while. Then one has the lingering after-effects, which, along with the price, are not worth it. Smoking cocaine, well, I did that once. For about a year & a half. Everyday, all day. It was my God, wife, & life. Best feeling in the world, for about a year, which then turned into a needed medication just to be normal. Banging it was the same as smoking it. That was the only drug that got me, but I haven't been near it for over 16 yrs, I quit it cold-turkey. Then I quit cold-turkey (I'm sick of T-Day leftovers).
I tried meth (crank) once when I worked the oil-patch in 1981, but it only burned my nose & I never did it again. I see it's been making a come-back. It seems to be fairly addictive.
I'm too old now to do things I once did, but drugs never caused me any problems with the world (I never stole or lost a job, etc.)(well, I did start getting a few "B's" in college), but I see how such could happen to others. I view drug use as a personal matter, so long as one is not harming others. In my view, neglecting one's children is an actionable cause (a crime). Same goes for driving under the influence, stealing to support a habit, or endangering society by one's actions.
Ideally, I'd allow marijauna to be sold the same as alcohol (taxed & regulated), but I'd legalize & regulate opium (LSD, cocaine, Heroin, etc.) dens where those who chose to partake may do so in a controlled environment without the risk of endangering society while under the influence. This would entail one not leaving in their own means of transport until the effects have worn off (cab rides to one's own home would be permitted). The drugs would be legal, regulated, & taxed. Personal liberty would be maximized.
Or, we could just keep doing what we've been doing. Paying $ to solve a problem we never can solve instead of regulating it & making $ from it. Generating revenue from drugs could be used to lower income tax rates for all. Sin taxes are popular for this reason, as only the users pay them.
#44
-
- Members
-
- 1,473 posts Joined: 17-March 11
Member
Posted 30 November 2011 - 12:10 AM
Oh yeah, I forgot Salvia. Never tried it, but from what I've heard, don't. Several of my buds from the old days, who I used to trip with full-tilt maximum (we'd each eat 3 tabs to begin with, then go on from there) have all said that it was like an acid trip x1000. Not x10 or x100, but like x1000. I've seen one guy do it in person. It doesn't last for very long, but apparently it hits one like a freight train. only one person I know will try it again. I saw enough to know it wasn't for me. Check YouTube.
I might be crazy as hell, but I'm not stupid. Or, I'm just getting too old. I prefer to believe that I'm not too old. Stupid & crazy I can deal with.
I might be crazy as hell, but I'm not stupid. Or, I'm just getting too old. I prefer to believe that I'm not too old. Stupid & crazy I can deal with.
#45
-
- Members
-
- 10,676 posts Joined: 06-February 07
Member
Posted 30 November 2011 - 05:59 AM
I just want to clarify that it's not my advocacy of drug use that motivates my opposition to prohibition. It is in part the cost of prohibition in terms of black market stimulation, increased crime, increased corruption, and that fact that it needlessly makes criminals out of users and addicts. It is also in part that I view drug use as an individual freedom of choice issue (much like I view one's decisions to engage in other potentially risky behavior such as smoking, eating fast food, drinking alcohol, or entering into sex-for-pay contracts with consenting adults).
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872
Lewis Carroll, 1872
#46
-
- Members
-
- 9,179 posts Joined: 18-May 04
Resident Old Guy
Posted 30 November 2011 - 06:52 AM
belercous, on 27 November 2011 - 10:54 PM, said:
Daniel; In the war on drugs, well, drugs won. And they always will. We'd save a bundle of $ by not fighting it, but we'd make a bundle by taxing & regulating drugs. The trend is to treat drug use as a medical issue, but I'm not so sure this will work for all drugs. Some drugs are physically destructive, some are not. Marijuana & LSD are not a problem, but cocaine, Heroin, & meth are.
Personally, I've tried Heroin, but didn't care for coming close to death a couple of times. I quit it since it simply wasn't worth it. Pot, well, who hasn't tried it? It should be made as legal as alcohol. Most everyone should try LSD at least once, best drug ever. But anyone who's done it knows it's not something to make a habit of, it's just too wild to do often. It's self-limiting in that regard.
Cocaine; snorting the stuff was a great buzz. For a little while. Then one has the lingering after-effects, which, along with the price, are not worth it. Smoking cocaine, well, I did that once. For about a year & a half. Everyday, all day. It was my God, wife, & life. Best feeling in the world, for about a year, which then turned into a needed medication just to be normal. Banging it was the same as smoking it. That was the only drug that got me, but I haven't been near it for over 16 yrs, I quit it cold-turkey. Then I quit cold-turkey (I'm sick of T-Day leftovers).
I tried meth (crank) once when I worked the oil-patch in 1981, but it only burned my nose & I never did it again. I see it's been making a come-back. It seems to be fairly addictive.
I'm too old now to do things I once did, but drugs never caused me any problems with the world (I never stole or lost a job, etc.)(well, I did start getting a few "B's" in college), but I see how such could happen to others. I view drug use as a personal matter, so long as one is not harming others. In my view, neglecting one's children is an actionable cause (a crime). Same goes for driving under the influence, stealing to support a habit, or endangering society by one's actions.
Ideally, I'd allow marijauna to be sold the same as alcohol (taxed & regulated), but I'd legalize & regulate opium (LSD, cocaine, Heroin, etc.) dens where those who chose to partake may do so in a controlled environment without the risk of endangering society while under the influence. This would entail one not leaving in their own means of transport until the effects have worn off (cab rides to one's own home would be permitted). The drugs would be legal, regulated, & taxed. Personal liberty would be maximized.
Or, we could just keep doing what we've been doing. Paying $ to solve a problem we never can solve instead of regulating it & making $ from it. Generating revenue from drugs could be used to lower income tax rates for all. Sin taxes are popular for this reason, as only the users pay them.
Personally, I've tried Heroin, but didn't care for coming close to death a couple of times. I quit it since it simply wasn't worth it. Pot, well, who hasn't tried it? It should be made as legal as alcohol. Most everyone should try LSD at least once, best drug ever. But anyone who's done it knows it's not something to make a habit of, it's just too wild to do often. It's self-limiting in that regard.
Cocaine; snorting the stuff was a great buzz. For a little while. Then one has the lingering after-effects, which, along with the price, are not worth it. Smoking cocaine, well, I did that once. For about a year & a half. Everyday, all day. It was my God, wife, & life. Best feeling in the world, for about a year, which then turned into a needed medication just to be normal. Banging it was the same as smoking it. That was the only drug that got me, but I haven't been near it for over 16 yrs, I quit it cold-turkey. Then I quit cold-turkey (I'm sick of T-Day leftovers).
I tried meth (crank) once when I worked the oil-patch in 1981, but it only burned my nose & I never did it again. I see it's been making a come-back. It seems to be fairly addictive.
I'm too old now to do things I once did, but drugs never caused me any problems with the world (I never stole or lost a job, etc.)(well, I did start getting a few "B's" in college), but I see how such could happen to others. I view drug use as a personal matter, so long as one is not harming others. In my view, neglecting one's children is an actionable cause (a crime). Same goes for driving under the influence, stealing to support a habit, or endangering society by one's actions.
Ideally, I'd allow marijauna to be sold the same as alcohol (taxed & regulated), but I'd legalize & regulate opium (LSD, cocaine, Heroin, etc.) dens where those who chose to partake may do so in a controlled environment without the risk of endangering society while under the influence. This would entail one not leaving in their own means of transport until the effects have worn off (cab rides to one's own home would be permitted). The drugs would be legal, regulated, & taxed. Personal liberty would be maximized.
Or, we could just keep doing what we've been doing. Paying $ to solve a problem we never can solve instead of regulating it & making $ from it. Generating revenue from drugs could be used to lower income tax rates for all. Sin taxes are popular for this reason, as only the users pay them.
This post explains a lot.
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -George Orwell
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."-- Benjamin Franklin
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."-- Benjamin Franklin
#47
-
- Members
-
- 1,473 posts Joined: 17-March 11
Member
Posted 01 December 2011 - 10:24 PM
It sure does, Lou. It shows that some people can use drugs & not have problem. In fact, most drug users are responsible, functioning, productive members of society. The biggest problem drugs ever caused me was to get a few "B's" in college. And that was while I was a serious 24 hr/day crackhead. Yet, I still graduated magna cum laude (just missed summa cum laude) & won an award for having the highest g.p.a. of a graduating senior in political science. [See what drugs will do to ya, kids?]
I'm not advocating that a person under the influence ought to be permitted to be in control of a firearm outside of his/her home. But the mere fact that somebody uses drugs (in this case "pot"), but who's not under the influence 24/7, does not mean they should have their civil rights restricted while they are not under the influence. This is especially so with marijuana (one of the more begnign drugs), the users of which are not known to become aggressive. We don't restrict drug users right to vote or limit their freedom of speech.
I have no problem with people being restricted from being in possession of a firearm (outside of their home) while they are under the influence, in fact I favor such. It's just that restricting one from posessing firearms at all times seems to be an overreach. As the possession of firearms is now a civil right, the restrictions on such ought to be narrowly tailored to meet society's legitimate interest in keeping firearms out of the hands of those who're not clear-headed. I believe the policy of the BATFE is overly broad & ought to be challenged in court.
I also have political reasons for legalizing drugs as I'm a (civil) Libertarian, but those arguments are beyond the scope of this thread.
I'm not advocating that a person under the influence ought to be permitted to be in control of a firearm outside of his/her home. But the mere fact that somebody uses drugs (in this case "pot"), but who's not under the influence 24/7, does not mean they should have their civil rights restricted while they are not under the influence. This is especially so with marijuana (one of the more begnign drugs), the users of which are not known to become aggressive. We don't restrict drug users right to vote or limit their freedom of speech.
I have no problem with people being restricted from being in possession of a firearm (outside of their home) while they are under the influence, in fact I favor such. It's just that restricting one from posessing firearms at all times seems to be an overreach. As the possession of firearms is now a civil right, the restrictions on such ought to be narrowly tailored to meet society's legitimate interest in keeping firearms out of the hands of those who're not clear-headed. I believe the policy of the BATFE is overly broad & ought to be challenged in court.
I also have political reasons for legalizing drugs as I'm a (civil) Libertarian, but those arguments are beyond the scope of this thread.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
