Because it was associated with the non-white underclass in the 1930s and deemed “corrupting” on the white majority.
Most societies accept one or more mood-and-mind-altering drugs. The Western European roots of this society basically limited that selection solely to alcohol. When a number of drug related problems were deemed to be social problems, (and marijuana had threatened to become acceptable to a large plurality of citizens (1967 - 1983), even being decriminalized in some locations), it was lumped in with all the other non-alcoholic drugs that Western Europe had never embraced and again placed out of reach, by law.
(Americans in the upper social climes did dally with other non-alcoholic drugs in the late nineteenth and early 20th centuries–notably opium–but the actual addictive nature of opiates got all those drugs criminalized, as well.)
This is not to say that marijuana is some “safe” product with no side effects or long-term effects or consequences. However the reason that marijuana is banned and alcohol is not is simply an expression that our culture has chosen to limit is acceptance of harmful substances to alcohol.
The biggest problem would be trying to bring under control all the growers. If the gov’t gets involved, the rogue farmer is not going make nearly as much money under regulations as he would growing it illegally and paying nothing to Uncle Sam.
Another reason: At the end of prohibition, the government had lots of federal cops just waiting for someone to harass, and the federal government doesn’t have a history of laying people off once their jobs are done. So, what to do? Find another task to keep your task forces busy. The fact that pot was generally smoked by non-whites certainly helped the decision.
Btw, with 6000+ posts under your belt, you should know this isn’t GQ material.
Tomndebb was not the thread starter, “heptapod,” with a couple of posts, was. There’s some glitch in the software and it’s not always showing first posts in a thread.
Secondly, why isn’t this GQ material? Please enlighten me. It seems to be a valid question with valid answers. While we do hold questions involving illegal substances to somewhat of a standard, this is not in any way a stupid question or a trolling thread.
You may be under the mistaken belief that I am the OP. If you back out of the thread, for a second, and read the Forum page, you will note that heptapod is the OP. I am not sure how heptapod was able to create a thread with no initial post, but that is what has happened.* I responded because I think that the question (in this case limited to the title) is a legitimate question with a factual answer. I have no desire to debate the pros and cons of marijuana use, but the reason that marijuana is illegal while alcohol is not does have a factual answer, regardless whether any specific substance should be legal, illegal, or ignored.
Question for Admins: does the new release of vB simply ignore an “empty” post without requiring text? Or was there an effort by a Mod or Administrator to modify this thread that resulted in a title with no visible OP?
“The biggest problem would be trying to bring under control all the growers.”
I would think that if pot were legal, high tech growing techniques and mass production would raise the supply and lower the price of readily available, high quality weed and lower the demand for relatively crappy home grown product, thus limiting significant production to high profile companies, like tobacco companies. In that case it wouldn’t be too hard to regulate and tax the industry.
Going right along with this one. It is perfectly legal to make your own beer and wine. Why would it not be the same? With beer and wine legal and cheap, most people get it at the store. Some people make their own, mainly for the fun of doing it. This certainly does not create a black market problem.
What determines whether a ‘drug’ is legal or not, in my opinion, depends on who gets it first, the public or the drug companies. In the case of marijuana, the public got it, first so it’s illegal.
“What determines whether a ‘drug’ is legal or not, in my opinion, depends on who gets it first, the public or the drug companies. In the case of marijuana, the public got it, first so it’s illegal.”
How would that explain the legality of alcohol and tobacco? Or the illegality of heroin (first marketed in the US by Bayer I believe)?
I heard that it had a lot to do with the fact that hemp was very useful for making paper and whatnot, and the guys who made wood pulp and whatnot lobbied to get rid of the competition.
It’s funny…with our huge cultural bias against cannabis, most of the younger people on this board probably don’t even realize how different the national attitude towards marijuana was just some 25 years ago. In today’s climate, it would be political suicide for a national political figure to even suggest softening our marijuana laws. Yet in the mid-1970s, the U.S. appeared to be headed toward total decriminalization.
In today’s world could anyone imagine our President taking a stand against our marijuana prohibition policy? Yet six months after taking office, President Jimmy Carter became the first American President to advocate the decriminalization of marijuana. In August of 1977 President Carter delivered a speech to Congress in which he said:
**
That same year (1977):[ul][li]The National Governors Conference published a study of the 11 states that had decriminalized marijuana that found “substantial savings of tax dollars with no increase in marijuana use”.[/li][li]Bob DuPont (a Nixon appointee), the head of the National Institute on Drug Abuse came out in favor of decriminalization. He even spoke out publicly in favor of legalizing home cultivation of marijuana![/li][li]And a new U.S. Representative named Dan Quayle was quoted saying: "Congress should definitely consider decriminalizing possession of marijuana…We should concentrate on prosecuting the rapists and burglars who are a menace in society. [/ul][/li]25 years and 4 conservative Presidents later, it’s hard to believe how much we’ve regressed. The “War on Drugs” has succeeded in closing the debate. Back in the 70’s everyone was familiar with the concept of “Hard Drugs” and “Soft Drugs”. When was the last time you heard the term “Soft Drugs”? A major part of the anti-drug strategy has been to blur the distinction between marijuana and other drugs–like heroin & cocaine. A drug is a drug is a drug. And with Bush’s appointment of John Walters as Drug Czar, things don’t look like they’ll change anytime soon.
Sorry. I forgot I had posted in this thread, which is why is has taken so long to respond. I don’t have a link or anything, but that is what I’ve been told by my AP United States History teacher.
