Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

DrugReporter

Debunking the Hemp Conspiracy Theory

By Steven Wishnia, AlterNet. Posted February 21, 2008.


Pot isn't illegal because the paper industry is afraid of competing with hemp -- it's because of racism and the culture wars.
Advertisement

Scratch a pothead and ask them why marijuana is outlawed, and there's a good chance you'll get some version of the "hemp conspiracy" theory. Federal pot prohibition, the story goes, resulted from a plot by the Hearst and DuPont business empires to squelch hemp as a possible competitor to wood-pulp paper and nylon. These allegations can be found anywhere from Wikipedia entries on William Randolph Hearst and the DuPont Company to comments on pot-related articles published here on AlterNet. And these allegations are virtually unchallenged; many people fervently believe in the hemp conspiracy, even though the evidence to back it up vaporizes under even minimal scrutiny.

You could make a stronger case for Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin of John F. Kennedy; Oswald at least left a not-quite-smoking gun at the scene.

Pot activist Jack Herer's book The Emperor Wears No Clothes is the prime source for the hemp-conspiracy theory. It alleges that in the mid-1930s, "when the new mechanical hemp fiber stripping machines to conserve hemp's high-cellulose pulp finally became state of the art, available and affordable," Hearst, with enormous holdings in timber acreage and investments in paper manufacturing, "stood to lose billions of dollars and perhaps go bankrupt." Meanwhile, DuPont in 1937 had just patented nylon and "a new sulfate/sulfite process for making paper from wood pulp" -- so "if hemp had not been made illegal, 80 percent of DuPont's business would never have materialized."

Herer, a somewhat cantankerous former marijuana-pipe salesman, deserves a lot of credit for his cannabis activism. He was a dedicated grass-roots agitator for pot legalization during the late 1980s, perhaps the most herb-hostile time in recent history. Despite a substantial stroke in 2001, he soldiers on; he's currently campaigning to get a cannabis-legalization initiative on the ballot in Santa Barbara, California. The Emperor -- an omnivorous conglomeration of newspaper clippings and historical documents about hemp and marijuana, held together by Herer's cannabis evangelism and fiery screeds against prohibition -- has been a bible for many pot activists. Unearthing a 1916 Department of Agriculture bulletin about hemp paper and a World War II short film that exhorted American farmers to grow "Hemp for Victory," Herer more than anyone else revived the idea that the cannabis plant was useful for purposes besides getting high. Unfortunately, he's completely wrong on this particular issue. The evidence for a "hemp conspiracy" just doesn't stand up. It is far more likely that marijuana was outlawed because of racism and cultural warfare.

How marijuana was prohibited

Twentieth-century cannabis prohibition first reared its head in countries where white minorities ruled black majorities: South Africa, where it's known as dagga, banned it in 1911, and Jamaica, then a British colony, outlawed ganja in 1913. They were followed by Canada, Britain and New Zealand, which added cannabis to their lists of illegal narcotics in the 1920s. Canada's pot law was enacted in 1923, several years before there were any reports of people actually smoking it there. It was largely the brainchild of Emily F. Murphy, a feminist but racist judge who wrote anti-Asian, anti-marijuana rants under the pseudonym "Janey Canuck."

In the United States, marijuana prohibition began partly as a throw-in on laws restricting opiates and cocaine to prescription-only use, and partly in Southern and Western states and cities where blacks and Mexican immigrants were smoking it. Missouri outlawed opium and hashish dens in 1889, but did not actually prohibit cannabis until 1935. Massachusetts began restricting cannabis in its 1911 pharmacy law, and three other New England states followed in the next seven years.

California's 1913 narcotics law banned possession of cannabis preparations -- which California NORML head Dale Gieringer believes was a legal error, that the provision was intended to parallel those affecting opium, morphine and cocaine. The law was amended in 1915 to ban the sale of cannabis without a prescription. "Thus hemp pharmaceuticals remained technically legal to sell, but not possess, on prescription!" Gieringer wrote in The Origins of Cannabis Prohibition in California. "There are no grounds to believe that this prohibition was ever enforced, as hemp drugs continued to be prescribed in California for years to come." In 1928, the state began requiring hemp farmers to notify law enforcement about their crops.

New York City made cannabis prescription-only in 1914, part to pre-empt users of over-the-counter opium, morphine and cocaine medicines from switching to cannabis preparations, but with allusions to hashish use by Middle Eastern immigrants. In the West and Southwest, anti-Mexican sentiment quickly came into play. California's first marijuana arrests came in a Mexican neighborhood in Los Angeles in 1914, according to Gieringer, and the Los Angeles Times said "sinister legends of murder, suicide and disaster" surrounded the drug. The city of El Paso, Texas, outlawed reefer in 1915, two years after a Mexican thug, "allegedly crazed by habitual marijuana use," killed a cop. By the time Prohibition was repealed in 1933, 30 states had some form of pot law.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: marijuana, hemp

Steven Wishnia is the author of "Exit 25 Utopia," "The Cannabis Companion" and "Invincible Coney Island." He lives in New York.



Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
However did the nation survive the first 150 years of its existence?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 21, 2008 1:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like many other fibrous plant materials, hemp can be used to make cloth and paper. Like any other plant matter, it can be converted to alcohol, and its seeds provide both oil and protein. The cannabis strains used for hemp tend to be relatively low in THC, and are not encouraged to flower, but rather to bolt and produce long, strong stalks. Historically speaking, hemp was a critically important fiber.

Today, hemp paper and cloth made with modern technology is very durable and of high quality. However, once nylon was invented everyone quickly switched from hemp ropes to nylon ropes, which were stronger and longer-lasting.

All told, cannabis has been used for pleasure, medicine, fiber, food, paper, clothing and fuel for thousands of years - quite an impressive resume for a single domesticated plant.

The fact that this simple plant is criminal, when it has such a long record in human history, has to be one of the more bizarre features of modern human society.

The criminalization of drugs in the 20th century can't be ascribed to any single cause - economic cartels, racism, puritanical attitudes, public health crusaders, the prison-industrial complex, or anything else. It arose out of politics and fear, and is now used to keep domestic populations in line by dictatorial governments.

For example, another leading feature in the War on Drugs is the power of fear in politics - politicians can whip up public fears about drugs corrupting the youth and drug-related crime very easily, and use that as a basis for political power. That's a common theme from Anslinger and McCarthy (heroin addict) through Nixon to Bush: "We are Threatened by Great Evils - Commies, Druggies, and Terrists".

Regarding this article, it's unwise to dismiss private economic rationales for government action There are many examples of government decisions made in the 20th century that served private interests.

For example, alcohol prohibition had the added effect of securing the tranportation fuel market for J.D. Rockefeller's petroleum business (before the auto engine came along, the business had been all about selling kerosene for lamps). The original internal combustion engines ran on farm alcohol - 96% pure ethanol produced on farms in small stills. Oddly enough, Rockefeller gave millions to the Women's Christian Temperance Movement. Anti-German sentiment at the outbreak of WWI was used to push Prohibition (there were many German brewers).

This kind of thing was going on all the time in the late 19th and early 20th century. Rockefeller's Standard Oil was using every trick ever invented to undercut and buy out the competition. Likewise, the electricity combines were struggling to gain monopolies everywhere that power lines were being put in, and often owned entire city councils. People worked without breaks or vacations in sweatshop conditions, and attempts at unionizing led to brutal clashes with security guards and soldiers.

In such an environment, it's not implausible that established business interests in the paper and cloth industries would actively support Anslinger's efforts in order to shut out a new competitor, even if his motivations were racism and securing political power.

Oddly enough, there was a brief hiatus in Cannabis Prohibition during WWII, when farmers were urged to grow hemp by the U.S. government. The promotional film made during that time, Hemp for Victory (1942) is available at that link.

Despite all that, Schwarzenegger persists in vetoing The Industrial Hemp Bill every time it comes up.

What's his motivation?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What's his motivation? Posted by: thornwolf
» RE: What's his motivation? Posted by: Lauren
» RE: What's his motivation? Posted by: wishninja
Great informative article
Posted by: georgiaorwell on Feb 21, 2008 1:32 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for this well-written, well-researched article about the demonizing of hemp/marijuana and the usual machinations of history's corporate/political elite doing what they do best - propaganda and manipulation. I am not at all surprised to see DuPont's + Rockefeller's + "The Emperor...", et al's role in this nor am I surprised to see the cultural smears that have so defined our history. For years, I have been amazed that the US can so blatantly fool so many of its citizens about so many things. It just takes lies by the liars that tell them and pretty soon they become urban myths.

You have exposed the underbelly of the beast, and for that we should all be grateful. I keep hoping in my lifetime that the egregious and disingenious deeds done by a previous generation of greedy liars will be reversed but I'm not holding my breath. Our Congress and elected officials have too much money invested in "the drug war" to separate out hemp, which would be a fantastic energy source, not to mention all its other beneficial uses. I would also rather be around someone smoking pot any day of the week rather than an alcoholic. There's also no comparison between pot and the other harder drugs. Outstanding article!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Neither did I... Posted by: buffeliscious
I would like to add...
Posted by: georgiaorwell on Feb 21, 2008 1:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Governor of CA is a political animal so he won't back the Industrial Hemp resolution. Here's the problem:

The minute any politician backs legalizing hemp or marijuana, the right-wing ratbastards in media would report that the politician is "a commie," "pinko," basically trying to destroy the swell values of pure America. Can't you just hear O'Reilly and Limbaugh blasting that politician big-time. It is actually fear of the media's reporting that almost paralyzes people from acting their consciences. By now we know how repressed our society is and how this leads to horrific consequences, but nothing is ever done with our holier-than-thou evangelical folks, the neoconservatives, and the media monitoring so-called morals. America = the Puritanical atmosphere of the 17th century!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Feb 21, 2008 2:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Plant your seeds.


Direct Primaries!

Direct Elections!

Direct Democracy!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Feb 21, 2008 2:49 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Plant your seeds.


Direct Primaries!

Direct Elections!

Direct Democracy!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Terrorist Posted by: donl51
» RE: Terrorist Posted by: sasquuatch55
» RE: Terrorist Posted by: fsuthai
» RE: Terrorist Posted by: fsuthai
Cute Lil Bunny
Posted by: HeKnew on Feb 21, 2008 3:12 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Woops, heh heh...one too many.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Cute Lil Bunny Posted by: Lauren
Not buying it
Posted by: drblack on Feb 21, 2008 3:21 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have read some articles from chemical companies , from the 1920s that state the threat from hemp to the synthetic chemical indutry.
I have been researching the insanity of the drug war since I was nine and I find many reasons for Drug Prohibition.
One thing is true. All Drugs must be freely available as they were for all but the last 100 years or so of human history.
Drug Prohibition causes 99% of the societal problems with drugs and 90% of the individual problems.
Drugs are as available as ever but they are expensive. If drug Prohibition ends drugs will be just as available but they will be cheap.
$5000 gets $58,000,000 with illegal opiates. That is why the War On Some Drugs will NEVER work and wastes money and time and punishes people for brain chemistry.
Hearst, Mellon, DuPont had a BIG part to play in making Hemp illegal.
Nice try though.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not buying it Posted by: donl51
Dope is Not Progressive
Posted by: Urstrly on Feb 21, 2008 4:26 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I'm against Draconian drug laws because they destroy people's lives, I think the bubble that a little grass is good for everyone should be popped.

One reason people of color use drugs is that the reality of living in this culture is too painful, but the idea that taking drugs is a show of solidarity is a bunch of romanticism.

"Pot Studies" seem a waste of time when our economy is tottering on bankruptcy and fear is wielded as a weapon against our Constitutional rights. If all those potheads who light up and tune out would engage with the forces that oppress us all, the progressive movement would be a lot stronger.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Dope is Not Progressive Posted by: marilee
» Please reread... Posted by: buffeliscious
» don't tell people to shut up please. Posted by: radiomorning
» Thank you... Posted by: buffeliscious
» RE: Dope is Not Progressive Posted by: TheLimit
We Need An Expert-To-Expert Debate on 9/11Truth
Posted by: JoAnne on Feb 21, 2008 4:29 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article didn't miss a beat, throwing 9/11truth into the myth mix. Would FEMA/NIST debate AEtruth.org. people; or better yet would a rush of courageous architects/engineers come out of the closet and resolve this?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» actually Posted by:
» RE: jimidee .. Enjoy this video Posted by: sasquuatch55
» Thank you.... Posted by: CatDad
You could make a stronger case for Lee Harvey Oswald...
Posted by: No.mad on Feb 21, 2008 4:33 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You could make a stronger case for Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin of John F. Kennedy; Oswald at least left a not-quite-smoking gun at the scene.

This comment shows how much faith one can put in the rest of the article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Interesting for a change
Posted by: PJT on Feb 21, 2008 4:38 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for an article that isn't into whining about not being allowed to smoke dope and how unfair it is to be busted when you do. The key is in the phrase "he financial self-interest of the prison-industrial complex has been a more recent development." In my view that is the biggest impediment to any mass movement toward relaxing the laws now. There is too much money in the prison business. As to why there is prejudice against dope now, I should think you would need to try it to make up your own mind for yourself. I may have smoked shoe boxes full of the stuff myself, but I stopped in 1972. I certainly don't qualify to have an opinion about this now, based on my own experience. I can tell you that pure sobriety: no dope, no alcohol, no drugs except caffeine far surpasses any other form of consciousness I have experienced.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Interesting for a change Posted by: left_libertarian
» RE: Interesting for a change Posted by: fsuthai
» RE: Interesting for a change Posted by: TheLimit
» RE: Interesting for a change Posted by: outsideagitator
» RE: Interesting for a change Posted by: neogaia
a hookah smokin catapilla
Posted by: siamdave on Feb 21, 2008 4:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
- the writer must have been smoking something here, or else just trying to blow smoke up well you know. The ONLY reason for the whole 'war on drugs' is to provide a huge amount of more-or-less unaccountable cash for organised crime, both without and within organised governments (which in these days is just another branch of organised crime itself). Sorry, I guess there's at least one secondary reason, to justify a huge cops-courts-jail system to help control people who are likely to be thinking outside the box. It's part of a deep rabbit hole - you can read more here - They're Building a Box - and You're In It - http://www.rudemacedon.ca/dlp/box/box-intro.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Conspiracy alone?
Posted by: Rprice on Feb 21, 2008 5:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good article. It touches on lots and lots but it never marries the conspiracy with the existing racism of the late nineteenth early twentieth centuries. They are not separate issues. The conspiracy theory, an interesting urban legend, can't stand on its own unless the racist propaganda of Hearst publications prop it up. Racism, sexism, homophobia, they are always in the ready to be exploited, hemps history is not so unique…Hearst and others understood a good opportunity and Herer wrote a good story, the truth is most likely in the middle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

it needs a new name
Posted by: schnoggi on Feb 21, 2008 5:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but what catchy phrase can incorporate "The War on Privacy and Right to Your Own Consciousness"? or, huh? If we ever make it that far, one day we'll look back on this chapter as one of the most ignorant things humanity has ever forced on itself, perpetuated by shitty little people who can only say no, scrunching up their sphincters to squeeze power out of society, at the cost of a million incarcerated stoners and weed dealers. It's always so much easier to outlaw the symptom than address anything like the underlying causes for chemical escape. If we do not have the right to determine our own interior state then ALL other freedoms are meaningless; it is the ONLY right that nature truly grants us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Reefer Madnes is a fine name Posted by: xxdr_zombiexx
» RE: it needs a new name Posted by: Lauren
Distortion of Facts
Posted by: tpwebb on Feb 21, 2008 6:06 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I suggest the author talk to those in recovery. That alone should justify dismissing the absurdities he perspetuates here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Recovery for what? Posted by: jimidee
» RE: ecovery for what? Posted by: donl51
» RE: Distortion of Facts Posted by: Knot_Rich
» RE: Distortion of Facts Posted by: Lauren
» Hi Lauren... Posted by: fsuthai
» RE: Distortion of Deadheads Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Distortion of Deadheads Posted by: Lauren
an excellent article!
Posted by: zooeyhall on Feb 21, 2008 6:46 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
not only well researched and clear conclusions, but what this article shows is that the Left can be as guilty as the Right when it comes to inane "conspiracy theories" i.e Hearst and Hemp, the WTC was bombed by the CIA, etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: an excellent article! Posted by: motamanx
medicinal use
Posted by: labwitch on Feb 21, 2008 6:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
what about the fact that native people have been using some form of cannabis for various illnesses for hundreds of years? and it works! i have a disease that immuno-suppressants have NO proven track record for but the docs want me to have them. medicinal marijuana has shown some pretty dramatic improvement in symptoms but i'm not allowed it, i'm in Texas and will likely NEVER be allowed to have the one drug that takes the pain away.

hell my disease didn't even have a name until about 15 years ago and it is terminal, but before it kills me it will deform my face hands and feet, while at the same time destroying my lungs, esophagus and gut. that and the hand deformation has already begun. wow, what a fun few years i have to look forward to!

someone at kos said it best "only a cruel and tyrannical government would deny you the medication you need for your pain because it so fears demon weed". for me that said it all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: medicinal use Posted by: donl51
» RE: medicinal use Posted by: Lauren
Prohibition had a similar history
Posted by: brunowe on Feb 21, 2008 6:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The same groups (Whiggish, Puritan-descended) that pushed for prohibition in the antebellum period often supported the Know-Nothing movement, associating drink with Catholic immigrants (mainly Irish). I remember seeing a rather nasty editorial cartoon of the period depicted a stereotypical set of Irish parents smiling as their baby crawled toward a jug of whisky.

A Republican supporter of Blaine's Presidential campaign in 1884 characterized the Democrats as the party of "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion", suggeting that such a tie continued, at least among some people, after the Civil War.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Trying to Simplify a Complex Issue
Posted by: LeeAnnG on Feb 21, 2008 6:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although the author of this article has some very good points, it seems that attributing the entire War on Drugs to racism is a bit simplistic. There are a number of reasons marijuana is illegal, but hemp is not marijuana. Racism, classism, religiosity, and ignorance are some of the factors in making marijuana into a demon-producing substance. Power, economics, and control are undoubtedly others.

However, unless one maintains that growing hemp is prohibited along with the more THC infused marijuana just because they may be confused with each other or that people might try to grow pot in with the hemp plants, there is no reason not to allow people to cultivate hemp. It is a highly renewable resource and can be used for clothing, plastic substitutes, rope (even if nylon is more durable, it's made from petroleum!) and other products.

This is far too complex to pin it down to one factor, racism, and ignore all the other possible reasons for keeping illegal not only growing, using or possessing pot, but also growing hemp (which is not illegal in clothing, rope, or other products).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pot is Illegal Because Individual Liberty is NOT a Widely Held Value
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on Feb 21, 2008 6:58 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Individuals should be able to do whatever they want with their body and property as long as they don't physically harm anyone else's body or property without their consent.


How many people do you know favor legalizing Crystal Meth? Crack? Heroin? Prostitution? Physician Assisted Suicide?

How many people do you know favor making strip clubs illegal? Alcohol? Tobacco Smoking and Tobacco Products? Abortion?

Why? Because these people think these things are bad for people to engage in, just like a majority of people think pot is bad.

The only difference between the former group and the latter group is that a majority of people favor banning the former where a minority of people favor banning the latter.


These people seek to legislate their tastes and make those choices for the rest of us.

They don't value individual liberty, until that changes, if it ever changes, there will always be consensual crime laws.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I never heard of the "hemp conspiracy"
Posted by: sausage on Feb 21, 2008 7:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Roadside ditches in my state are full of fiber quality "hemp" plants. Why? Because Midwestern farmers were encouraged to grow "hemp" for fiber in both world wars.

Why does marijuana continue to be illegal?

Too many people making too much money off it remaining illegal, period.

To the list of organizations, police narcotic squads, drug rehab counselors etc., making money from the continued illegitimacy of pot let add another: young, white, libertarian-leaning professionals.

A friend told me that during the course of a conversation with a thirty-somethingish couple awhile back the topic of marijuana legalization came up. The young couple, my friend said, were vehemently opposed to legalization because dealing pot to their friends is a highly profitable, and most importantly, non-taxable source of income. Legalization would fuck-up their sweet deal, they told my friend.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How Long?
Posted by: magistre on Feb 21, 2008 7:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the article (among other things) shows how long fascism has been creeping into government. It may have started with a Bush, but not George W. Bush,his Grandfather, Prescott bush was the U.S. banker for Nazi Germany. He funneled money and instructions to the Feurer on behalf of some of the "moneyed interests" in this country (Some of them mentioned in the above article) And I think that BOTH arguments may hold some truth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Reefer Madness and American Fascism Posted by: xxdr_zombiexx
CANNABIS
Posted by: pfm on Feb 21, 2008 7:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is the cannabis reality…? From the study I have done, it appears to me a foundational tenet for decisions to “outlaw” the use of cannabis in any form is closely tied to the need for those in power to find ways to make damn sure John Q Public is not in any fashion able to “think” for themselves. Using the rising power of the medical profession (AMA) coupled with the rising economic clout of the emerging pharmaceutical industry, American “power-brokers” were, in my opinion, fearful the use of cannabis would negatively impact the significance of AMA doctors as well as potentially undermine the need for the newly emerging corporate for-profit “miracle-drugs.” And as they say, the rest is history.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: CANNABIS: & the AMA Posted by: SamFox
I'm not so sure.....
Posted by: xxdr_zombiexx on Feb 21, 2008 7:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excellent article,and I greatly appreciate it. I'll recommend it to others.

And I can take some time to really consider if I have been guilty of falling for what this author is labeling "a conspiracy".

"Conspiracy" has become a major slam in this post 9/11 world. The mere mention of a person being a "conspiracy theorist" can obliterate any useful thing they might have to say, not that we aren't inundated with ridiculous CT. It can be sort of irresponsible to toss that word around.

I can also be responsible to accept that I am pretty much tilted against corporate power. see corporations as able to exist way above enforceable laws and in "cahoots" with the GOP and our lovable Blue Dog Dems. Gotta have the appearance of "bipartisan cooperation".

We know that Big Corp and the GOP are nearly Siamese twins. The revolving door between the 2 entities certainly isn't a theory. It's real. And its a problem.

The GOP has cannabis prohibition as a central feature of their political religion. Your local GOP folks may talk like Ron Paul about pot, but if they are going to rise above state-level and aspire to the Federal Big-Time, they will spout reefer madness. How Ron Paul has existed as a repub for all these years without them getting rid of him is hard to grasp.

Until you bring up racism. The GOP is the party of racism. It's bleached-white. The racist angle is doubtlessly at the core of the GOP's valuing of this prohibition.

Then there's the prison industry, also GOP-connected that is thriving off this being illegal. Private Prisons are big business. Privte prisons run by racists who are ok with incarcerating so many non-white men for no good reason.

It is true that racism has a huge and central role in this ridiculous and stupid state of affairs but the utter usefulness of hemp, historically, the way it can just be grown by anybody with the room to do so, the way it can be had for free - cannot be overlooked or discounted.

All of this is anathema to Capitalism. There will be NOTHING FREE unless you already have more money than God.

I am, in the end, unsure of what is to be gained from trying to minimize the role of corporations in the evolution of Reefer Madness, but there can be no denying that Big Pharma and Big Oil have huge stakes in keeping it illegal, even though I think it is irrational.

It didn't start out this way, perhaps, but it's this way now.

But I totally agree it is ridiculous to posit that relegalized cannabis is going "shut down" any particular corporation. That's stupid too. Won't happen.

If you have a monopoly on this and that comes along and can be used as an altenative, this just became less valuable because of increased supply. The same basic free market stuff spewed endlessly by the Right.

Corporations exist to maximize profit by any means available. Sharing that wealth isn't part of the the plan.

Cannabis prohibition is built on lies and racism and other Puritan bullshit and it has never had the first remotely defensible reason for existence.

So why is it still illegal?

The Democratic party has to be the party to take this on, if for no other reason than to hurt the GOP by taking away this central part of their political muscle. Rightwingers who think the GOP is going to help them relegalize need to be pitied.

Dems will do this by talking about cannabis and relegalization like sane adults (asking a lot, I know) but all they have to do is talk.

When we can talk about this like sane adults, free of propaganda bullshit, we'll "Move America Forward". (heh)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Taking the Dems to task Posted by: meetmeineleusis
» RE: I'm not so sure.....The Dems are Posted by: radiomorning
» Dems are different from GOP Posted by: xxdr_zombiexx
Pot story
Posted by: trees&water on Feb 21, 2008 7:36 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You, as progressives, may want to talk about "safety" of hemp products. But you need to check out Daniel Amen's work at BrainPlace.com. Pot use affects the brain permanently just as alcohol does. Do you want teenagers to know that when they can do something about it? Or do you want teenagers to use pot throughout high school and young adulthood only to find out later they have destroyed irretrievable brain cells.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Reefer Madness. Posted by: xxdr_zombiexx
» RE: Reefer Madness. Posted by: peacemama
» RE: eefer Madness. Posted by: outsideagitator
» Safety, America's Highest Moral Posted by: meetmeineleusis
» Just Checked his website Posted by: meetmeineleusis
» RE: Pot story Posted by: thealltheone
» RE: Pot story Posted by: Lauren
» Destroying brain cells Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Pot story Posted by: TheLimit
» RE: (crazy) Pot story Posted by: Itsthewater
Callejero
Posted by: callejero on Feb 21, 2008 7:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The writer should have stated that he was against drug use! For to tie pot use with racism and culture wars is to perpetuate the dogma. Those who are racist will continue to accept the laws "because that way we can keep them in check;" all the while, continuing their own use of illegal drugs because: "the police wont target us."

If you are against stupid drug laws, as I am, you should have left it as "Hearst's fault," instead of arming the novice bigots and racists .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Need to dig deeper