Actually, it was a couple of existing industries that were most responsible for marijuana's bad rep. The cotton industry was labor intensive, and hemp was a much easier-to-produce source of fiber for the manufacture of fabric (which was more durable, and didn't shrink like cotton).

The biggest foe though, was the huge newspaper industry of William Randolph Hearst. He not only owned most of the major papers, he also owned most of the pulp-producing forests. Hemp makes paper that is just as good, or better, and it can be grown anywhere, and is much less labor-intensive to harvest. It had the potential of knocking the bottom out of the paper industry, so Hearst started and financed a huge propaganda campaign. It also helped that he had a son-in-law in congress, who was able to introduce federal legislation at the height of the frenzy.

If only Fritos and cheese curls would have been around back then, it might have been possible to launch a counter-offensive.

 

I agree.That's not a lot of money for the environment those guys have to work in.I don't think I'd work for there for that kind of money!

 

Thank you very much!

 

I just don't understand how we as a society can let the goverment tell us that illegal drugs such as pot or coke is any worse than cigarettes or drinking. Why can those legal drugs be alright, even deemed acceptable in moderation, but smoke a joint to mellow out and all of the sudden Chief Wiggam is out to throw me in jail. I'm not saying I smoke pot these days, for I grew up hypnotised by al the hype that if you smoke a joint, or do a line, you're gonna get inot this downward spiral, and eventually go mad and kill yourself. Well, in college I decided to see what all the hype is about. I smoked pot for a few years, tried cocaiina, and even experimented with various other drugs, but am I crazy? No, I started my own business. I don't not smoke because it hurt my business or personal life, I just grew out of it, found different things I'd rather do. But the drug war has really gotten us nowhere. Yes, there are some drugs that are very harmful. These should be srutinized more. But if the goverment got it's head out of you know where, it would realize it's only hurting itself. Look at just where the prohibition got them, nowhere. Now they legalized drinking, and turned it into profit for them. Why can we do the same thing with other drugs. Put a legal age on it. Unfortuantely there is still going to be pushers that target younger people, but not nearly as much. They should continue drug education, that will stop some kids from trying it. But be truthful, or it won't do a damn thing. Also, legalizing certain drugs takes the rebeluousness off of it, which is another reason kids try things. There wouldn't be an overabundance in prisons, where there is no reason someone should be put in for smoking a joint. Or taking a drug/medication that helps a person's ailments.

 

Wow, Cartright, sounds as if being anti-drug has made you an advocate of totalitarian one world rule, with murder and mayhem to all who disobay or get in the way. Like anti-reefer madness has got a hold o' your brain or something, change 'kurds' to 'prohibited diet users' and who ever you think should run this doper annilation to ' Sadam", and you got history repeating itself. God would be so proud, correcting His stupid mistake about the herbs and such being for man's use.

 

Maybe we could invade Australia and send our dopers there. We could be like Hitler, and march around home to home and search for the illegal substances and get all of them out of the country (along with the person or family in possession of). Then after that we could just start killing people that have it. A bullet is far cheaper than treatment and doesen't take as long to solve the problem.

Sorry that is just about stupid to me. If it ever does become legal, I want to see 100% of the money made off of it to go towards education.

 

We should stop asking silly questions and simply be grateful that we're being saved from ourselves.

 

The illegal pharmaceutical industry is so robust and flexible that the only way to stop it is to dry up demand, and the only way to dry up PUBLIC demand for chemicals that the PUBLIC (upper case for emphasis here) consumes by the ton is to offer a mix of legal alternatives. (Booze being a depressant is insufficient BTW.)
All the Tom Clancyesque dreams in the world can't work because the US has never in history had the military power to deal with such a huge variety of inidentifiable, dispersed, movable, instantly replaceable, inexpensive to reproduce targets inside and outside the country.
If we could do that every Al Qaeda member would already be sitting anesthetised on the White House lawn for a GWoT photo op.
Synthetics can replace organics, conventional pharmaceuticals can be diverted, and millions of starving Third World farmers will be very hard to talk out of growing drug plants when there is not and never will be an economically viable alternative for them.
I argue that drugs directly destroy an acceptable number of people. We accept thousands of other deaths portioned out per popular activity and merely regulate the activity instead of frothing and substituting jail (which is more costly to us than even the simple death of the user).
Where drugs impose a vast social penalty is the socially toxic behaviors that are currently required to get the drugs!
Anti-drug enforcement actually perpetuates the economic model that makes selling drugs profitable enough to set up an untaxed, unregulated, multi-billion dollar underground economy. It merely serves to remove competition by jailing a small portion of suppliers while the eager public duly compensates the rest.
As (BTW a non-user), I would be far happier if drugs were available but BEHAVIOR were regulated, since BEHAVIOR is the issue. We already do this with alcohol.
Recreational users of lightweight drugs are mostly harmless (I grew up in the 1970s prior to all the current hysteria and saw this firsthand) while true derelicts will destroy themselves with or without laws.
Everyone really has the opportunity to go too far with drugs if they desire, but the lower classes are always the most self-destructive.
Since they are mostly parasites, I favor letting them stay high and apolitical over the expensive alternatives that don't work like jail or education.
If my fellow right-wingers out there really want to disempower the groups they hate, letting those groups self-actualise by self-destructing is far less expensive than jailing them.

 

My original post:
I am a hardline conservative, but Ill be the first one to say that you cant arrest your way out of a drug problem. Unfortunately our govt. has never really tried to stop the flow of drugs coming into the country. We could easily inflict such damage on the cartels, labs, and smuggelers that it would greatly reduce the amount of drugs coming in, and make the ones we didnt kill think twice before they tried to send their product our way. Thus far our govt has not been willing to do what it takes. I also believe that the vast sums of money confiscated by fed, state, and local law enforcement has alot to do with it. Arresting drug offenders, siezing their assets, and fining them generates tons of revenue. I think as long as Americans want drugs they will be able to get them.


__________________



When did I say I was anti-drug?? I just pointed out the only effective way to stop drugs from coming into our country. The question was ,does prohibition work? I said no, but pointed out what would work. I also said you cant arrest your way out of a drug problem.(meaning crimminalizing users is useless) Personally, I dont have a problem with recreational drug use. I know better than to believe all the govt hype about how bad drugs are. If drugs were legal the only people that would use them are the ones who choose to now. I know some people can handle it and some cant. I know because in my younger days I was one of those who could party hard and still function. I think what you do in your own home is your business and as long as you arent hurting anybody else have at it. I think users who commit drug related crimes should be punished severely. If you allow recreational use to become habitual use, its your own fault and you should accept the consaquinces of your choice. And for those who are worried about their kids getting ahold of drugs the solution is simple, be a responsible parent and teach them not to take drugs and dont let them get in a position where they can get drugs. Keep them off the streets and stop trying to be your kids "friend", be a parent!

 

Monckywrench - nice post, extremely good and valid points (IMO).

Cartwright - I'm with you on this also, sort of a libertarian stance on the never ending "War on Drugs". Notice I said "sort of" don't want to offend anyone either way.

I'm from the south, now I'm approaching the big 4-0, been in Miami area since teens. People I know that still smoke that chit assure me the only stuff they'll use is HOMEGROWN. As in, 3 to 5 thousand dollars a pound weed, bud, chronic, whatever you call it I don't smoke anymore. I just wanted to say economic status may have a lot to do with it, but even if the U.S. built a wall they'd still be toking.

I'd just like to offer the opinion that illegal drugs will ALWAYS be available to those that seek them, and to those who don't, I'm sorry they're NEVER going to be eliminated.

So we see the wisdom of Zonkola, who so profoundly announced:

"We should stop asking silly questions and simply be grateful that we're being saved from ourselves."
Your like so right man. Now please shut up, I'm trying to watch the "Real World" on MTV, okay?

 

Se habla sarcasm?

 

simple truth- if you take something that a large amount of people want, and make it illegal, than another large amount of people will mak alot of money by selling it...ie drugs, alcohol, guns no one can stop it. it starts with the kids( i of all people do not mean to sound like a cliche) disipline and respect. in my opinion this means a little more than a" time out".