Why is weed illegal? How long has it been so? What was the reasoning behind outlawing it in the first place? I can understand why cocaine and heroin were outlawed-they’re addictive. But this doesn’t apply to pot.
Let me be the first to say (well, if I post this fast enough that is…) that you are going to get tons of conflicting answers! It was made illegal 50 years ago, and there are theories on pay-offs and public fears and cotton-growers and loggers and whatnot. There are dozens of sites that deal with this, and I think High Times magazine has a few articles posted on their site.
But I would have to say that mainly it is because of human ignorance and politics. Its a class 3 substance which means that it has no medicinal use and is considered addictive. Now under that clear and concise definition, neither alcoholb nor tobacco would be legal. So, it is definitely not illegal because of something logical and universally applicable.
I have so many thoughts going through my head that sometimes it’s hard to finish a
Yeah, basically there was a conservative backlash early in the last century (1920s?). The media and a few politicians whipped up a frenzy about Mexican guys getting hepped up on reefer and coming up to rape American women.
Despite the fact that reviews of these laws have often recommended legalization, (Jimmy Carter’s government did, as did a Canadian Government Royal Commission) it really isn’t a politically viable issue for most politicians. They stand to lose more votes than they would gain. It’s kind of like abortion. No one really wants to touch the issue.
Legalization is, however, part of the New Democrat Party platform in Canada, though the chances of them getting elected federally any time soon are slim. I’ve also heard that the Liberal party (who now runs government for those of you not up to date on Canadian politics) is planning to add it to their platform for the next election, but the American government is really against this (for obvious reasons). I can’t vouch for the validity of this last part.
Anyway, it basically comes down to 2 things:
a) the government does not always operate logically
b) tobacco and alcohol have a much wider social acceptability, so expecting the same legislation for them and for weed, based simply on physical and psychological effects, would be erroneous.
William Randolph Hearst and the Du Ponts. In 1937, a machine was invented which could separate hemp fibers quickly and efficiently. This would have dropped the cost of such hemp products as paper, rope and hemp oil (along with the other products made from hemp such as cloth) to levels comparable to or lower than paper and petroleum products. William Randolph Hearst owned huge tracts of timber to supply his paper companies which supplied his newspapers. Were hemp paper to become competetive, he would lose a fortune in the devaluation of his holdings. The Du Pont company also had paper pulp interests and had spent millions of dollars developing artificial fibers like nylon and rayon to compete with hemp fiber. Cheap hemp fibers would have meant those millions were spent for nothing. So Hearst in the 1920s and 30s printed story after story on the dangers of “marijuana” (a name most Americans hadn’t heard) in his national chain of newspapers. Starting in 1930 Hearst colluded with Harry J. Anslinger, commissioner of the newly-created Federal Bureau of Narcotics to have hemp criminalized. Anslinger was appointed by Andrew Mellon, who was the Secretary of the Treasury and also chairman of Du Pont’s chief financial backer, the Mellon Bank. He was also Anslinger’s uncle by marriage. States started outlawing non-medical uses of marijuana and in 1937 Congress passed the Marijuana Tax Act, which set prohibitively high taxes on the sale of hemp. Overnight the markets for American hemp dried up and farmers stopped growing it. Stopped until World War II, when the loss of foreign hemp sources triggered a reversal of the law for the duration of the war. The preceding information was drawn indirectly from the book The Emperor Has No Clothes by Jack Herer.
Cheese Log, Cheese Log, cylindrical and yellow!
Cut the Cheese Log and I’m a happy fellow!
Short answer, my friend; because big brother hasn’t found a good way to regulate and tax it.
In reading over my response, I realize it could be interpreted as claiming Hearst started his campaign in the 20s in response to the invention of a machine in the 30s. Clumsy writing on my part. Hearst and Du Pont were concerned about competition from hemp prior to the 1937 invention of this machine. Apologies for any confusion.
Cheese Log, Cheese Log, cylindrical and yellow!
Cut the Cheese Log and I’m a happy fellow!
That’s a widely held theory among the “Hemp will save the world” crowd. But there is no actual evidence of a conspiracy. Here’s Cecil’s take on it.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/970131.html
and the follow-up:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/970321.html
I don’t have my book on the history of pot laws in front of me, but I’ll provide some sources if I get challenged here. The deal is this. Marijuana was legal up until the end of prohibition. At that time, chief federal vice cop, a guy named Anslinger, (Luciano called him Asslicker) feared, with good reason, that he was about to be out of a good paying job. At that time, pot was considered to be a relatively harmless vice used mostly by blacks and musicians. But without alcohol as a scourge of the land, Anslinger began a campaign to demonize weed and classify it as a narcotic, subject to federal laws. He did his job well and did to pot what the original prohibtion laws did for alcohol. Not get rid of it, but make more profitable and glamorous than ever before. I’ll be back with more specifics.
Interesting aside: As a student I toured the Phillip Morris plant here in Richmond for an economic development course. At the end of the tour we were given the chance to ask some VP questions about plant operations, value to local economy, etc. I asked if PM was prepared to start marketing pot if it were legalized. The answer, a “no comment” and a smile. If it were legalized, I imagine PM would have the packaging, ad campaigns, etc. finalized within the week.
In the current social climate, marijuana is not going to be legalized. Some (tobacco smokers) would argue that the reverse is happening, but this is not the place to entertain that debate.
What’s important to note here is that few folks out there besides potsmokers truly believe that marijuana has uses beyond the purely recreational, and few politicians have had the courage to admit that Americans love recreational drug abuse.
Quick side question here.
What about the studies that say pot does horrible things to the brain. Dangerous effects and what not?( I know tobacco and alcohol do damaging things as well…)
Could this be part of the reason its not legalized? Also the sort of effects it has… forgetfulness, mood swings, as well as being high in itself.
I mean… aren’t these factors as well??
(crap fire drill…)
The Urge
Few folk? You mean, like doctors, cancer patients, AIDS patients, glaucoma patients, and diabetes patients? Yeah, their opinions don’t matter. :rolleyes:
OTTO: and others, all those “conspiacy” theories have been mostly debunked by Cecil, in the columns Manhatten was so kind to post above.
Smoking Hemp IS bad for you, but as many have pointed out, no worse than booze or tobacco. However, a fairly large majority then did smoke & drink, and few used hemp (for smoking), so it was easy to ban.
I personally do not use hemp, but I’d have no problem legalizing it, just another “sin” tax I don’t have to pay 
read: The History of Marijuana.
Oh, also, what becomes illegal depends on who gets it first. If the people found it first, then its going to be illegal. If drug comp’s find it first, it’lll be legal.
Hey, don’t get me wrong, phouka. It’s just that every time marijuana is held up as an alternative to a medicine, a fiber, or an industrial lubricant, someone else points to something that already exists, is comparable in cost, and doesn’t contain one of the world’s most popular intoxicants. Hell, I’d love to see the stuff legal again. I wouldn’t have the shades drawn right now if it were.
If it doesn become legal, how much do you suppose a pack of marijuana cigs would cost? Regular cancer sticks cost, what, $3.50 a pack now (I don’t have a clue)? Wouldn’t MJ Cigs be at least three or four times that much? Still too expensive for your pack-a-day habbit, and legal enough to put plantations out of business.
Even if it does become legal, I would hope that employers keep up the drug testing, to help make sure it stays purely recreational.
You don’t have to be Amish to look Amish!
The problem with legailizing it is that if you did, PEOPLE WOULD SMOKE IT.
opus adds;
“Even if it does become legal, I would hope that employers keep up the drug testing, to help make sure it stays purely recreational.”
Impairment testing for cause, opus, and I’m with you on this.
Piss testing does nothing to assure safety.
Peace,
mangeorge
I used to care, but
Things have changed.
Bob Dylan
Teach your kids to bungee jump.
One them might have to cross a bridge someday.
Proof that you don’t need pot to blow smoke out your ass.
Do you have an example of a recreational drug that was discovered by a drug company and is therefore legal, handy? Also: alcohol and tobacco were not “discovered by drug companies” and they are legal.
Gypsy: Tom, I don’t get you.
Tom Servo: Nobody does. I’m the wind, baby.
Incidentally I remember attending a NORML meeting where the national president mentioned that there was work on a saliva test that could accurately establish a time of use. He considered that the last main hurdle between illegal and legal was the fact that there is no way to accurately test if someone actually stoned while driving or on the job.
Unfortunately, that was in 1990. I’ve heard nothing since.