With all due respect, I don’t really think so. There are ample original source historical references, plus numerous histories by different authors, online to prove the point factually. I am surprised that someone hasn’t referenced them already in this forum.
It is an interesting story (the History Channel did a four-hour special on it), and certainly one worthy of attention by Cecil – particularly considering that even his most ardent readers don’t seem to know.
Illegal drugs consistently poll in the top ten concerns of the public. There is no serious debate among real scholars, yet there appears to be a great deal of misunderstanding and even mythology still around – even among a crowd of people that I think are probably much brighter and much better educated than the average clods on the street.
The problem with finding factual information on the history of the legality of marijuana smoking, or even arguing for its legal justification would naturally be done by people who, well, use the drug…and well…they like were totally going to the congress hearing thingie, but then like Jarvis had this Nacho that totally looked like elvis and like whoa…
…if you want the good THC it takes some good TLC and experience. I beleive people would buy packs of 20 joints for the same reason countless people don’t buy loose tobacco and roll their own (let alone GROW tobacco). Tax income can be generated in many ways, such as a permit to allow customers to smoke it. I’m sure a more clever person could come up with a million ways to tax it.
I personally am very anti-drug. However, I’m pro-legalization and VERY anti-decriminalization. I’ve seen Alaskan voter polls (somewhere, sorry no cite) and it seems that it is just a matter of losing some of the older generation before it becomes closer to legal up there. Perhaps if that goes well we will see a change of public oppinion.
I fail to understand then why you are employing what appears to be some form of circumventive histrionics in order to make your point. If you wish to graciously explain to us exactly why marijuana is a controlled substance and alcohol and tobacco are not, then why not just simply do so? I really fail to see why you even started a thread. I haven’t been around that long (although I have been reading Cecil’s column for over 20 years), but it seems that SOP these cases is to post a single response to Cecil’s column, citing and linking to the column in question. (Although I will agree that if you are the first person to address the column, then it would of course be necessary to start a new thread—although in Comments on Cecil’s Columns, not in General Questions).
It’s apparent that from the get go, you already had a set attitude about the reasons behind pot’s illegality, despite your posting the question. Care to enlighten us, on some of these references.
I spotted couple of those Anslinger quotations in Whitebread’s paper. So, why is the “darkies” comment suspect?
As for the DuPont thing, what would qualify as evidence? Even Whitebread commented that he had to dig out the Senate/House proceedings from the National Archives. So, if you’re expecting an internal DuPont memo from 1930s, that’s close to impossible. All we have is conjecture.
Seriously, how can you POSSIBLY get accurate figures on that? Find me politicians during prohibiton who publicy came out and said “Well, I know it’s against the law, but I still drink two shots of whiskey before bedtime.”
Smart people who break the law don’t let other people know they are breaking the law.
Bullseye. This past November, the pot legalization ballot was defeated 56-44 with above-60s 70-30 in opposition. Of course, the biggest disparity was along partisan lines, with Dems 56% For and Reps 74% Against. By 2010, the ballot should give a decisive answer.
Ummm, well, if you will check it out, I did just that. Then PriceGuy posted an erroneous guess and moved it to GQ. Then some other people posted erroneous guesses and Samclem decided to move it to Debates.
Personally, I have an answer, but I would like to see Cecil answer it because 1) it was his question originally (and I thought it was a good one) and 2) it would probably have more authority if he said it and 3) it would certainly reach a wider audience if he said it.
I couldn’t find a breakdown of arrests sorted by income, or any other class difference. I only have time to really scim, and i’ll later fully read through that. Perhaps you could help me and pull out some figures that prove the upper class during that time refrained from drinking instead of just publicly claiming to not drink? Until than I stand by my statement.
In a moment. But I would really like to see Cecil’s answer. I already know my own answer.
Anslinger certainly did his share of stupid statements, but every historian that I have talked to agrees that the statement doesn’t appear in any of his writings or speeches that they know of. They all also agree that it doesn’t even sound like him. The best theory for those quotes is either 1) some other nut contemporary with Anslinger or 2) a modern activist doing some creative paraphrasing.
That’s correct. All we have is conjecture – which isn’t proof of a conspiracy. The best evidence is that there is no reason to believe that DuPont would have considered hemp to be any kind of a threat to their empire – which was largely built on explosives, anyway.
There were only about 1,000 acres of hemp in production in the 1930s and the farmers were not doing well with the crop, to say the least. The comparison of hemp rope to nylon is really misplaced, too. Nylon has a number of qualities that hemp does not have. There would be adequate room in the market for a booming business in nylon even if there were a million acres of hemp.
Such an explanation also ignores the previous state laws and the evident testimony for the Marihuana Tax Act.
Lots of them did a lot of drinking and didn’t make much pretense about their drinking. As Whitebread put it, some of them said (figuratively) “We passed prohibition. Let’s have a drink to celebrate.”
My quibble with your statement is about the public statements, not the drinking. I agree that they continued to drink – and in even greater quantities than before prohibition. Some of them put up a public pretense. Others didn’t.
I understand and appreciate your limitations. When I am dressed as Clark Kent, I share some of those same limitations. Perhaps it wasn’t entirely clear from my first post on this thread, but that’s what happened. I started out in a different place, honest.
It was OUT OF CONTROL. Whole neighborhoods went in on common distilleries. Kids were running booze for the bootleggers. Schools had to cancel dances because so many kids showed up drunk. Some supporters of prohibition turned against it because they said prohibition made it easier than ever for their kids to get alcohol. Prohibition was subject to widespread ridicule and open disobedience.
No, not really. The fundamental problem with all such surveys is that they call people up at random and ask them if they have committed some crime in the last thirty days. Rather than a measure of drug use, it may be a better measure of the number of people stupid enough to answer the question. I know what my answer would be, whatever the truth may be.
Could this just be a case of hindsight? Were perceptions of nylon vs. hemp then the same as today?
This doesn’t prove your point. Using it as a crop doesn’t speak to its use as a drug. After all, hemp has pretty low concentrations of THC. And according to Anslinger, there were 100,000 smokers in the 1930s, out of a population of 125 million. Even some congressmen didn’t know what marijuana was. Hardly counts as a social familiarity.
