So why are alcohol and tobacco legal while marijuana is illegal?

Great Debates
61

I suggest you do more than skim. I would also suggest that you revisit the idea that things get to be illegal by default.

If you think that is the only point of the articles, then you definitely didn’t do any reading worth talking about.

Try “none”. And what there was was about five miles the other side of “Ridiculous”. And did you catch any point in there where they directly denied the evidence? I guess not.

From what document did you get that? Or is that just your own phrasing from some admittedly shaky skimming?

No, that description is not valid today. There are a few thousand other references I could give you if that idea is your concern. It would be more accurate to say that marijuana most commonly causes stupidity and dementia in people who have never taken it.

When that subject comes around, remind me to ignore it because it has already been beat to death. I wouldn’t even read Cecil’s take on it.

Everyone’s a critic. Especially, it seems, those who didn’t spend a lot of time there, anyway.

62

Ok, then- what is YOUR answer? You say “the evidence is there”. You tell us that all our reasons and analysis are wrong. So- what’s your answer? Spell it out- tell us why there is a conspiracy and who was in it and why. Don’t says “it’s somewhere is this link” Tell us in your own words or quotes right here. Tell us why marijauna was banned and still is. Quit hinting and alluding and such- and just tell us. :dubious:

Oh, and as for my statement about opiates- which you say is Not true" - note your prior statment of "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. " So- If my statement is "not true’ so is yours. :dubious:

63

Well, that wasn’t the point of my original post but, if you want the five-cent version:

The currently illegal drugs were outlawed as the result of racism, ignorance, and a deliberate and well-documented conspiracy to defraud the public by Federal officials. If you want to know who did it – primarily the people in the DEA and the predecessor organization the FBN.

In addition to a problem of way too much generalization, your original statement that all drugs were banned simply isn’t true. For example, amphetamines and barbiturates were not banned until long after that period – even though amphetamines are very similar to cocaine and barbiiturates have been referred to as “powdered alcohol”. So they didn’t try to ban EVERYTHING as you stated earlier – nor was there a lot of connection between the things they did try to ban.

Some doctors (a small handful) did “fight” but the doctors clearly lost even before the fight got started. They were set up to lose before they even realized there might be a fight. And then they got steamrollered by what could only be described as a criminal conspiracy when they did win.

Did you catch the part about how the FBN falsely indicted thousands of doctors? Did you read that part? If that doesn’t amount to a criminal conspiracy, what else would it take?

Honestly, I get the impression that you haven’t read much of the materials and are still just wandering around in conjecture.

64

It’s a drug. Yes, drugs are illegal by default, unless prescribed by a trained and licensed professional (uness it is alcohol or tobacco.)

No one said I was a bad skimmer, either.

They ignored the evidence that it didn’t cause violence nor create addiction–but that it was still a drug was not and still cannot be denied to this day.

They denied that it was habit forming and didn’t cause violence. Shit happens, still doesn’t mean that they were evil or there was any vested interest in attacking marijuana nor protecting it. It was a drug, some people said it did Really Bad Stuff, others said, “No we checked, and it appears to just make people get sleepy and maybe deteriorate the brain over time”–either way, not a real boon for the populace at large and still a mind-altering drug that should not be pedalled by non-physicians.
That Arlington went further and had it declared a great evil “as proven by Jazz musicians” is just silly–but all that has resulted in it is that possible medicinal uses of canabis haven’t been researched as much as it should.

"The first symptom is usually an exaltation of the mind . . . . The ideas are joyous Sleep follows . . . . When aroused from sleep . . . the mind passes into the same somnolent condition, which lasts for several hours and is followed by a sense of weakness and extreme mental depression. In certain eastern people . . . perhaps because of continued use, the somnolent action is replaced by complete loss of judgment and restraint such as is seen more often from alcohol. An Arab leader, fighting against the crusaders, had a bodyguard who partook of haschisch, and used to rush madly on their enemies, slaying everyone they met. The name of “haschischin” applied to them has survived as “assassin.”

The habitual use of cannabis does not lead to much tolerance, nor do abstinence symptoms follow its withdrawal. It causes, however, a loss of mentality, resembling dementia, which can be recognized even in dogs.62"

^ Is the first one I found going back, but there were several places that gave similar descriptions and where it appeared that at least their results (if not some of the popular legends related) were based on attempts at real research.

I could find a few thousand articles to back that description up just as well, doesn’t mean either of us is correct.
I have seen various articles in modern times which report that persons with extended high-level use of marijuana have higher rates of pschyzophrenia or other mental problems–but that there may be other factors based on life-style (of which marijuana is just a common aspect.) Without being able to break out just that one drug, there’s no way to tell which is causing it–and so: “may lead to dementia and may not–unknown.”

Hurt my eyes, what can I say.

65

If it is well documented- please document it here for us. In other words, please support your statement.

66

No, nothing is illegal by default. God didn’t hand down these laws in the Garden of Eden, and not all psychoactive drugs are illegal. Think it over while you have a beer and a cup of coffee with your friends.

Then I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but . . .

That makes no sense at all. There are lots of things that were “drugs”. If they were all illegal by default then what about aspirin, amphetamines, and barbiturates, just to name a few examples?

You clearly didn’t read much.

Tell you what. Why don’t you actually read something before you offer these ideas. And “Arlington”??? I guess that shows how much you read – you didn’t even get the name right when it has been posted in this thread numerous times.

And there are about 750,000 marijuana arrests in the US each year (among other things) so your statement that all it did was impede medical research is so far off the mark as to be laughable.

Once again, you didn’t read enough. If you read enough you will find that they said whatever suited their purposes at the monent – most times in direct opposition to all the known research at the time. If you care to read enough, you will find numerous examples where they directly contradict even themselves. Like the “gateway” myth, for example.

If you can find a few thousand credible articles that back up that description, let’s see them. (Just to give you a hint, I have seen that assertion more times than I can count. Nobody seems to come up with them, though.)

If you want a smaller piece of homework, just read some of the items I mentioned that would interest conspiracy buffs.

All those people with psychosis also drink milk and water. That makes about as much sense as blaming it on milk or water. That is, unless you have better evidence – and I am pretty confident you don’t.

Not that “may or may not” is a good basis for any kind of decision, anyway.

67

Did you miss the list of references I posted earlier? Do you want me to post it again? Did you catch the parts where I talked about how some of the articles described deliberate and plainly illegal actions by Federal officials?

68

Yes. No allusions. You tell us. Give short quotes out of the articles. Support your position. Tell us which laws and who.

69

uuuh, I do recall that I was directed here because of the knowledgeable people I would find. More than that, I had hoped that there would be people with a genuine thirst for knowledge over sound bites. Oh, well.

See the list of references above – the ones that refer to conspiracy and actions by the FBN. See also my summary of some particular actions by the FBN, Anslinger, and others. “Short quotes” aren’t exactly adequate. Summaries are better, and I gave some of them – with links to where you could read the whole story. If you look, you will find that some of those pieces are not as long as the thread here that you have already waded through.

Did you read the summaries? Did you catch where I mentioned bad actions by various people? Did you check whether my summaries were reasonably correct?

70

That you think marijuana has zero negative effects (perhaps correctly, even) is perfectly fine, and that you think that treating it as definitely having negative effects can only be bad is fine. But, in reading the same fully cited and probably historically acurrate account of what happened, you see a big conspiracy while as I see an account of 100 reasonable people and one idiot. The idiot goes overboard and the other 100 let him get away with it because 1. They don’t care, and 2. The idiot is by some random coincidence probably correct (in their moral view.)
That you don’t agree with those 100 people or the further thousands and millions who adopted the same policy for their countries and enforced it until modern day just means you think that they’re wrong. And indeed, they might be wrong and marijuana may be better off legalised–I am just stating that a loud blowhard is not a conspiracy and that given the moral code of the time, I see no reason why it should be viewed as particularly amazing that all the non-blowhards should have voted the same as the one.
So if you think it’s magical, then hallelujah–but I don’t see it.

71

Where did I say that?

Never said that, either.

I guess you missed the part where those other people were often deliberately ignorant and found that the whole thing was hugely to their advantage. To give you some more modern examples, try toting up the total revenues of the people who provide radar balloons, speed boats, helicopters, prisons, drug-sniffing dogs, drug tests, etc., etc., etc. It is safe to say that the war on drugs is at least a 100 billion dollar annual business.

Not that I have a lot of faith in your interpretation after seeing how you paraphrased me above, anyway.

72

BTW, let’s just grant for the sake of argument that your point of view about what it says is entirely true. Under the law, that still amounts to a criiminal conspiracy (assuming there was anyone actually interested in prosecuting the case). And it would be folly to believe that Anslinger did it all entirely alone. Not to mention the fact that a number of those people are named in the documents, with their own contributions to the effort. For example, Anslinger’s response to the AMA-ABA report is full of them.

73

First, historically:

A. The USA was built on the wealth of the cotton trade & the tobacco trade. Tobacco won’t be banned here anymore than opium will be by the Afghans, & for the same reasons.

B. Liquor was the intoxicant of choice for most people of European descent. And hey, it was illegal for a while. It didn’t stick.

C. Marijuana, on the other hand, was, when the laws were passed, a minor drug primarily used by ethnic Mexicans. It was easier to demonize, being alien to the dominant culture.

Second, pragmatically:

A. It’s a conservative (by which I do not mean right-wing) reluctance to change things for fear of making them somehow worse. Legalization of cannabis might lead to an explosion in cannabis use, cannabis DUI’s, etc.

B-1. Tobacco is horribly addictive, but not intoxicating as such. You can still smoke & drive functionally, say. Secondhand smoke might, if encountered repeatedly in an enclosed environment over a long period of time, give you health problems, but in the immediate term, it’s just annoying.

B-2. Alcohol is horribly intoxicating, but in order to be intoxicated by breathing alcohol fumes, you’d have to be standing over a vat of it.

B-3. Marijuana is addictive, highly intoxicating, & inhaled. Someone smoking in your vicinity might, in theory, intoxicate you though you aren’t smoking–even against your will.
B-3a. So some people will drive with the windows rolled up while their friends smoke, insisting that they’re okay, while they get less & less alert. Of course, this already happens.
B-3b. Considering the self-righteous, self-destructive, & generally dopey attitudes of some Americans & many addicts, if they had a legal right to smoke it, asking them to stop for reasons of manners, health, or safety would have no effect.

So, that’s why.

74

Yes.

75

What else I am supposed to believe after being scalded for stating as benign a list of the effects of marijuana as “Sleepy and generally stupid behaviour (while high.) Extended use may or may not cause damage to the brain. Does not appear to cause addiction nor beligerence.”?

That you came to the conclusion that there is anything impressive in the documentation seems to indicate otherwise.

And they knew this when they outlawed it? Anslinger, according to the referrence material in the Whitebread article knew nothing of the drug he was fighting against and the statement he read was written by a third party, who was equally ignorant.
That a lot of money has been spent on restricting marijuana is certainly true–but you would be hard-pressed to prove any sort of specific machinization was involved to create a fictional drug just for the sake of embezzling funds into hundreds of corporations throughout the world, with all the police and governments throughout the world all in on it and keeping it secret.

You haven’t said anything yet except that we are wrong. In the absence of evidence except which statements seem to piss you off the most–I can only make my best guess as to what your beliefs are. If those are incorrect–well sorry, but I can only treat you the way you present yourself.

76

Got any comparison figures on the numbers who would want nylon versus hemp in that time period?

77

One of the leading experts on prohibition would disagree with you on tobacco being prohibited. You can find his discussion of the topic at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm at the very end.

He figures tobacco will be banned because of the Iron Law of Prohibition. That is: prohibitions are enacted by US to control THEM. Tobacco will become the drug of choice of THEM and thus be banned. That’s his theory, anyway.

I agree with the first sentence. People tend to resist change. There is no evidence for the second, though people might fear that.

Actually, the Native Americans smoked it to the point of real intoxication.

Someone is currently selling a device where people can inhale alcohol to get loaded.

Some scientists did some tests once to see how well marijuana produces a “contact high”. They found that, in order for the person to be exposed to enough marijuana that it would register on a drug test, the person had to be placed in a booth with so much smoke that they had to wear goggles.

In truth, probably all they are doing is making the car smell worse when the cop stops them.

I aqree with a lot of what you say, but I don’t think that is exactly the whole story.

78

You are supposed to believe that you should be more careful and accurate about how you paraphrase.

Well, you would have to really read it to know, wouldn’t you?

There is a good example of where you read something that apparently wasn’t there. Here is the entire Whitebread quote on Anslinger’s testimony:

**Commissioner Anslinger gave the Government testimony and I will quote him directly. By the way, he was not working from a text that he had written. He was working from a text that had been written for him by a District Attorney in New Orleans, a guy named Stanley. Reading directly from Mr. Stanley’s work, Commissioner Anslinger told the Congressmen at the hearings, and I quote, “Marihuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death.” That was the Government testimony to support the marijuana prohibition from the Commissioner. **

Where in there does it say that Anslinger “knew nothing of the drug”? Just FYI, Anslinger had included a section on marijuana in every annual report of the FBN since he took over in 1930 (even though it wasn’t a Federal crime at the time) – and Whitebread knows that, I am sure.

I think you missed something major. They didn’t keep it secret. Anslinger for one openly admitted that he was doing the Big Lie. And the evidence available – even assuming no secrets - would legally establish a conspiracy.

Try reading the whole thing again. It is apparent from the above that you are still reading what you want to read, rather than what is actually there.

79

Yes, but I get the impression that you wouldn’t read them.

80

Just FYI, I have had a standing offer to post anything on my web site that is anything close to relevant research that expresses any point of view on the subject. I have had it for yours. You know, my personal commitment to openness and learning. That’s how I got all that research that people sent me. I read just about every bit of it before I posted it, too.

And just how much of that research did you read?