Did I say they admitted use DURING prohibition? No, but the Upper classes (as well as every class, note, I am not saying the upper classes used booze more, just that they *did *use it).
Here is a scientific study (properly footnoted and all) that shows that alcohol use did not decrease significantly during Prohibition. If you want to tell me that ONLY the upper classes stopped drinking- then **I **want a cite.
"…this implies Prohibition had little impact on the path of alcohol consumption.
The question raised by this result is why consumption did not fall more significantly…"
The fact that Prohibition did little or nothing to stop alcohol use is one of the main reasons cited for repealing it. Here is a quote about WHO were the main dudes behind the repeal: “The actual political campaign for repeal was largely the work of the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment (AAPA), a nonpartisan organization of wealthy and influential citizens in all states who were “wet” in principle and who feared that through Prohibition the federal government might permanently compromise the tradition of individual freedom.” (italics mine)
Alcohol was "un-banned’ because of “wealthy and influential citizens” who were very likely alcohol users before, during and after Prohibition.
There was no one to fight* for* marijauna.
Umm, wolfman97 ? I know you’re knew here, so I’ll just let you know that now we are in Great debates. Thus, when you want to dipsute a post, you really have to come up with something better than “wrong”. We’d like to see some cites, quotes, facts and other good stuff.
From your own cite: “It should first be noted that by 1923, authors were already noting that Prohibition was treated with “widespread disregard”. …If the prohibition law itself was treated with widespread disregard, then it is unlikely that it had any beneficial effect on other crime.” and “That statement is, at best, misleading. In truth, nobody really knows exactly how much alcohol consumption increased or decreased during Prohibition.”
Your cite seems to argue that Prohibition was a failure. Do we all agree on that? That was my point also. All drugs (except Tobacco) were banned. ALL of them. Opiates were banned. Cocaine was banned. Even booze. Booze just happened to have enough fans to get “un banned”. Marijuana did not. Neither did opiates or Cocaine, I might point out.
So again- the question of “why was marijuana banned when alcohol and tobacco weren’t?” is misleading. Alcohol WAS banned.* And so was everything else*. Except tobacco. Now, I came up with a good, educated guess as to “why not tobacco”, but as I said, I am willing to entertain some other reasons.
To Wolfster, I’m not sure that GQ was a good place to post this, even before it got relegated to GD.
GQ is really “General Questions, to the Teeming Millions” and if the millions disagree it gets moved here. I’m not certain I have ever seen Cecil descend into GQ (speaking personally of course), and I wouldn’t imagine that a call-out will entice him to do your bidding.
At heart, you have a beef with a particular column he wrote–where you think he left off some information or that a follow-up should have been created. So, ask him.
There is a place to comment on specific articles and try to prove the great one incorrect–and while Millions will interject themselves–it is still an attack on Cecil’s veracity and not a Debate. Or alternately, there is an e-mail address where you can send fresh questions to be answered. …Though I would suspect that, given as he has answered the question of whether fish fart, this question has been asked many numerous times and he has specifically chosen to sidestep it for some reason. As such, “Comments on Cecil’s Columns” is probably the best place to go if you actually care about getting a response to verify your own research.
Please note that I am not a Mod, and am just giving as much advice as I can from what I have seen in the way the board runs. (Regardless whether or not it is intended to run that way.)
Though, personally, reading the linked page, my impression is that the simple truth is that “It was a weed and a drug–there was no reason not to outlaw it and certainly no conspiracy against (except maybe the moral majority) nor major craving on the part of the masses like with alcohol.” I.e. there really isn’t anything mysterious nor magical about the outlawing, and until several decades later was probably a non-issue.
Ever hear of a woman who was dying to get her hands on some hemp stockings? I think DuPont would have been able to tell the difference in the markets. Besides, explosives was their bread and butter and had been for about a century, and was getting bigger because of world events in the 1930s. A sideline of fabrics would be nice, but it wouldn’t have made the billions that explosives did that quickly.
It was included in about 250 medicines in the pharmacopeia prior to 1937. It just wasn’t widely used as a “recreational” drug.
I think it is safe to say that just about nothing Anslinger said on the subject could be counted as accurate. Even he had no way of knowing, anyway. There weren’t any surveys so he made up the numbers to suit whatever he was saying at the moment.
Well, there was great familiarity under the hemp and cannabis label. What they didn’t recognize was the name “marihuana”. If you will read the transcripts of the congressional hearings as well as the conferences they held before and after, you will find that the biggest single question is “What is this stuff?”
There was great familiarity with hemp and most of the things that could be made from it. Indeed, it was a common food. They were not familiar with the grandiose claims about a dangerous drug that could be made from it. That is, they were not familiar the name “marihuana” – deliberately used to create confusion, and they have never heard that the drug was particularly dangerous.
The US National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse found that alcohol use probably rose eleven percent or more during Prohibition. The best evidence seems to indicate that the biggest drops in alcohol consumption came in the years before Prohibition. Consumption (as shown by available indicators) continued to drop for the first two years of Prohibition and rose every year thereafter.
On those italics, I don’t think they say a whole lot, really. All things political go better when they are run by the rich and influential, as opposed to the poor and non-influential.
I agree that there was no one of any significant influence to fight for marijuana. And, if there had been, Anslinger would have vigorously stomped them.
I got a ton of stuff, thanks. But it was Cecil’s question, and my original point was to find out what he would have to say about it.
Absolutely. For me, anyway.
Well, the opiates and cocaine were not banned entirely. They were still allowed for medical use. And there was someone to fight for them – doctors. And doctors did fight for them. In 1925, in the case of Linder v. US, the US Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the Federal narcs had no business interfering in the medical prescription of opiates – even if the doctor was simply maintaining an addict on their drug of choice. In response to losing the decision, the FBN indicted thousands of doctors for narcotics violations but never brought any to trial. They knew they would lose every case in court because of the USSC ruling, but the indictments alone were enough to silence any dissent.
Actually, the original question was more along the lines of why alcohol and tobacco are currently legal, while marijuana is not. It takes a bit of historical explanation.
As stated before, I did so at the request of PriceGuy.
I must have missed the millions who disagree. That is, the millions who disagree who were doing anything but guessing themselves. It isn’t really a matter of debate for anyone who has really read the research.
Well, gee. Here I thought the old guy asked a really good question that deserved an answer and I thought that he – as the Wise Man on the Mountain – would be the best person to answer it. So that’s what I did. Anything wrong with making a suggestion for a really good column?
Uuuuuuuh, that’s what I did – first time around. I got here because all kinds of people like you are telling me that I ought to be some place else – and nobody even seems to agree on where. So make up your minds already. Hmmmph, some group of experts that can’t even colectively decide which is the right forum!
Where did I ever say the Great One was incorrect? Please read what I wrote, not what you imagined.
As already stated - been there, done that – and got here because of a bunch of people like you giving conflicting directions.
That’s OK. Apparently, even the mods can’t agree on which is the correct forum – this being the third.
I would suggest you read it again, because I have never heard anyone come up with that explanation from the available research. Even given the factual limitations of the one link, your note above wouldn’t be a good summation of the facts.
And “Not reason not to outlaw it”??? Do you think laws are made simply because no one can think of a good reason not to outlaw something? They simply walk around looking for things to outlaw and, if no one can come up with a good reason not to, then they make it life in prison? Does that even sound reasonable?
No reason not to outlaw it given that it is a drug and a weed.
They were in the process of outlawing drugs at the time… And as stated by yourself, there was no large ventured interest in it as an industry–so outside of being a drug, it was just a weed.
I make no pretense of knowing anything on the subject, and merrily admit that I stated this possibility based entirely on the idea that in general the most boring answer is generally going to be the right one, and since nothing I have seen (including Cecil’s writings and your own) gives me any reason to think there should be anything more magical.
If there is, I am just as interested in it as I would be of any event in history–so I will enjoy it if something which looks probable comes out (from any side)–but otherwise I can’t admit to caring. I just stopped in to give advice–which was already invalid by the time I posted. So, as said, good luck.
Again, you rather miss the point of why laws are passed in the first place. This is exactly backwards and misses the point that it was a common crop – required by law at one time – and promoted as a crop by the government during WWII.
No, they weren’t really in the process of just outlawing all drugs at the time. They didn’t just start out by saying “let’s make all drugs illegal – if no one can come up with a good reason not to.”
All the more reason for me to ask Cecil to answer his own question, it seems to me. And I understand where you are coming from. Yes, I knew immediately that you were just giving some conjecture without actual knowledge. I have actual knowledge, and I am telling you that your conjecture is incorrect. I am also saying that the real story is far more interesting than the guesses, which is all the more reason to hear about it from the Great One.
OK. Understood. (Although I wish the advice givers would get together on their advice). The true story is one of lunacy on a grand scale and, truth be told, is quite funny at times – or would be if it wasn’t the basis of actual government policy today.
No way. It might be cheaper to grow your own vegetables than to buy them, but most people still aren’t going to do it. Most people buy them at the store, even if it costs more, because of the convenience factor. If I buy my lettuce or my marijuana at Wal-Mart, I may pay more for it, but I’ve saved all the time and effort I would’ve spent buying the seeds and learning how to tend them and so forth. You forgot about opportunity cost.
Ahh. That doesn’t really need any historical explanation. It is clear that during the Prohibition era (which continued up to WWII, even though Federal Prohibition did not) all drugs were banned. Even booze. Booze was brought back because “wealthy and influential citizens” wanted it back. Opiates were allowed to Doctors- becuase Doctors fought for them. Hemp was in little use as a drug and not in use amoung the “wealthy and influential citizens”. No one fought for Pot. There was no conspiracy*, just ignorance. “Never attribute to malice which can be explained by ignorance”.
Now- why is it still illegal? Because Politicians are influenced by their voters and the polls. And those voters are scared of drugs- and especially of their kids on drugs. Thus, in most areas a vote to legalize Pot would be policical suicide. Now true- the reason why those voters are scared of Pot might not be rational. But that doesn’t make any difference. In San Francisco- there is poor cell phone reception. Why? Because there are few towers. Why are there few towers? Because the citizens of that city are acually frightened of the “evil microwave radiation” from those towers. Thus, the Politicians bow to the will of their people- even though I am sure the Politicos know full well such towers are harmless.
So- what you have to do is get Joe Sixpack to tell his Congresscritter that he isn’t scared of “the evil marijauna”. Good luck, especially with the Adminstration running their powerful propaganda machine to tell Joe just the opposite. And, in a way- they are right. Pot is a “gateway drug”- to a large extent becuase kids often buy it from the same dudes that sell harder stuff. And the reason why the dealer also sells harder stuff is because it’s all illegal.
It’s kind of a vicous circle ain’t it? Or two.
OK, there WAS Anslinger. But one dude does not a conspiracy make.
No, that isn’t true. Marijuana wasn’t banned nationally until 1937. And they weren’t banned in one fell swoop, or for one particular cause, either. So that explanation is a bit simplistic, even for what truth it might have. And I don’t know of too many other people who refer to 1937 or WWII as the “prohibition era”.
As stated before, I don’t take that as much of an explanation since just about everything happens because of the “wealthy and influential citizens.” That description is so generic as to be meaningless. The Revolutionary War happened because of “wealthy and influential citizens”. Likewise, the Civil War, the Industrial Revolution, and just about everything else but the great flu epidemic of 1917. Not much better than saying “somebody did it.”
No, that’s not true, and shows a misunderstanding of the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act. Actually, Congress had no real idea that the Act would be viewed as a prohibition measure.
While I agree with the last statement, and have said it myself many times – the fact remains that there is clear and convincing evidence for the malice. So the statement should be “Never attribute to malice which can be explained by ignorance – unless you have the evidence”. The evidence is there.
Actually, it does. You have to ask why people are scared of marijuana – and that leads us back to Anslinger and the other reasons.
Tell me. Is there a dedicated, well-funded campaign by the Federal Government to convince people that cell phone towers are a hazard to health? If not, then your analogy fails.
Let’s see. Here you say there is a “powerful propaganda machine” – run by the Federal Government – and below you say there was no conspiracy. Aren’t your own statements contradictory?
Let’s just be clear about this. That is the ONLY “gateway” connection. That is, we have a “gateway drug policy”, not a “gateway drug”. There is no drug that, when taken, will give you a craving for completely different drugs you have never had. And, BTW, that gateway myth arose in 1951 – directly from the lips of Harry Anslinger – when he was deliberately lying to feather his own bureaucratic nest. When he spoke it, he contradicted all the known research, as well as his own testimony of 14 years earlier.
Only if you are a bit short of the actual facts.
Actually, one would, in this case. But that’s not to say that he didn’t have help. It was just that he was the chief architect who deliberately started the campaign of lies because he knew the marijuana laws were unenforceable. A lot of other people found it to their advantage, but Anslinger led the parade.
Once again, your original question was quite on-topic for Comments on Cecil’s Columns. Then you asked followup questions, and those were in my opinion better suited for General Questions, so I suggested you bring them there. Then, you opened a GQ thread containing the original question, and you say that I moved it there. I cannot move threads and wouldn’t have moved that thread if I could.
Moving on. If you wish to be paid any kind of attention here, you’ll have to do better than simply claim without evidence that the posts of other people are “erroneous” or “completely wrong”. Also, to ask a question that you already have a pre-set answer to and be unwilling to listen to other answers is considered very rude. If you believe you know the answer, why ask the question? If you “have actual knowledge”, then tell us what it is and where you got it from. Otherwise, this is a pointless and uninteresting exercise.
If you’re not going to disseminate your knowledge until Cecil shows up, tell us now so we can stop reading the thread. He very rarely posts here.
OK, you suggested it be moved. And you did that after your own explanation which was (to be kind) flippant (if not derisive) when it was clear to me that you didn’t know the facts. That’s how we got started.
As to the follow-up questions, they were really just an expansion of the original question. As in: “If you wanted to answer the original question, what should you know?”
You didn’t know any of the history so you didn’t get the connection.
Well, you know, I had hopes about Cecil writing an interesting column. The story has all kinds of opportunities for his special kind of wit. I was really just trying to inspire an artist. Then you came along . . .
As opposed to your same routine right off the bat, I suppose? “Next question”??? I could have replied “This guy is just guessing. Next guess.” Would you have considered that polite? (even though it would have been true)
And frankly, I didn’t think your answer was anything close to the caliber of answer I was seeking. Certainly not up to what I might expect from the web home of the Wise Man on the Mountain. I can get that kind of stuff in any low-rent forum, thanks. I was hoping to step up a notch. Oh, well.
Uuuuuuuuuuh, let’s see. Did you catch where I listed the reasons that I thought Cecil would be a good person to answer the question? You know 1) It is his question 2) He is the Great Oz and 3) It will reach many people if he does.
I forgot to mention that I enjoy his sense of humor and would be interested to see his special take on it – whether he agrees with me or not.
And, if he happened to disagree with me, I might actually learn something. Believe it or not, I come to places like this because I find that learning is actually enjoyable. So there are about five good reasons. OK?
Well, I happen to be the world’s largest publisher of the major research on the subject, for one. Do you remember I mentioned that the History Channel did a four-hour special? That was me on there. (Among other things.)
Well, once again, all I was doing was making a suggestion for what I thought would be a good column – until you came along and made a rather dismissive statement that immediately struck me as being somewhat near the category of “impolite”. You didn’t quite include the word “dummy”, but, no matter. I thought it was an interesting question (and apparently so did Cecil) even if you didn’t. And you apparently didn’t understand the import of the question, so perhaps a little explanation was in order.
So I started over in GQ and then got moved to GD because of what I take to be another misunderstanding. That brings us up to here.
So, since I apparently won’t just be able to make a suggestion to Cecil without running into such responses, and we are still out to lunch as to where this thread should be, let me give you the references.
Full text of the congressional hearings for the Marihuana Tax of 1937, plus the conferences before and after, a report on the hemp crop of 1934, and various other items at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/taxact.htm
Also included on this page is the best research done to date on the DuPont-Hearst connection. It has a lot of interesting stuff, but I have to agree with Cecil that the evidence for it just isn’t there – and there are good reasons to believe it wouldn’t be true.
An excellent short history of the drug laws in general can be found in the Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm This is probably the best single overall review of the subject ever written. If you only read one book on the subject, this is the one to read.
Another excellent history can be found at http://www.druglibrary.org/special/king/dhu/dhumenu.htm – People who are interested in the conspiracy aspect should read this one. It lists a lot of things that have been done by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics over the years. You can read about what Anslinger did when the American Medical Association and the American Bar Association dared disagree with him at http://www.druglibrary.org/special/king/dhu/dhu18.htm
Included on that page are links to the original AMA-ABA report and the phony report that Anslinger published to deliberately mislead people. Both are the original historical documents, BTW.
All of the following are from President Nixon’s US National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, 1972 – the largest such study ever done by the US Government
THE NARCOTICS BUREAU AND THE HARRISON ACT: JAILING THE HEALERS AND THE SICK - http://www.druglibrary.org/special/king/king1.htm Another excellent historical work for those interested in conspiracies. Let me give you the ten-cent summary. The US Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the Federal narcotics agents had no business interfering in the medical prescription of narcotics, even if those prescriptions were solely for the purpose of maintaining an addict on their drug of choice.
In response, the FBN sent deliberately wrong fliers to doctors about USSC decisions and indicted thousands of doctors. They never brought any of the doctors to trial because they knew they would lose every case. But the indictments alone were enough to silence dissent among doctors. As for the “conspiracy” – clearly there were multiple people in government acting together to break and abuse the law – to the great detriment of the medical profession and the American public.
Themes in Chemical Prohibition- http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/ticp.html - A discussion of the themes used by prohibitionists to justify prohibition over the years, and a good illustration of how they think.
When you get done with that let me know and I will give you a few more.
Of course, I would be most entertained if Cecil would apply his special touch to the subject – and maybe find something I didn’t. That was my original point before you came along.
And maybe he will, but we have no influence on him.
I will happily read all your links when the time and inclination shows up, but until then, could you summarize your position? The usual way of debating is to explain your position and then provide links to support it, not provide links and make others figure out what your position is.
Your position appears to be that Anslinger and friends conspired to make and keep drugs illegal. Is that correct? If so, how is this linked to the laws in other countries, as you said in the original thread (“The reason the laws are the virtually the same in most developed countries has a lot to do with the reasons for it being illegal in the US”)?
While only skimming, it seems to lead itself to, “It was a drug and a weed, why wouldn’t they outlaw it?”
The only thing I see that is particularly inflamatory–and which seems to be the only point in the articles–is to show that the decision was based on very little empirical evidence. But even the research that is quoted still gets the main point: “Non-habit-forming drug that makes people get sleepy and act stupid. May lead to dementia.” And that description is still valid even today–so even though the evidence was not empirically collected and probably largely irrelevant to the more moralistic law-creators, I can’t see that I see anything particularly worthy of note. One could maybe do some GW Bush parallels on his treatment of the WMD evidence–but I would hope for more than that from Cecil.
And if you are connected to that site, you might want to recommend to them to not put black text on a grey background.
Did I ask you to go knock on his door? I just figured that – you know – since this is his official web site it was probably a better place to post the suggestion than tacking it on the telephone poles around town. If I was wrong, well, so be it.
Well, to go back to the beginning and remind you of the point I made before, I wasn’t really looking for others to figure out my position. I was looking for Cecil to be inspired to state his position. Remember?
For a one-sentence summary, that is fair enough.
If you will read the Drug Hang-Up by Rufus King at http://www.druglibrary.org/special/king/dhu/dhumenu.htm – the chapter titled “Proselytizing the World” you will find what Anslinger did. In short, he wrote a bunch of grandiose lies which he then sent to Congress. Then he went overseas and falsely represented his own words as the policy of the US Government. Then he gave speeches in Europe and came back to the US and represented those speeches as the policy of the European governments. In other words, he did a con-game to convince both sets of governments to adopt his policies. It discusses other things he did too – all of which come under the basic heading of outright fraud to feather his own nest.
If you will read the histories provided, you will find that doesn’t really provide much explanation for the events, even if you assume it is true. The lack of familiarity was due at least in part to deliberate fraud.