The Marijuana Conspiracy

[fullflavormenthol]

@Dandyone

I think it has been established that hemp in no way would be a competitor to petroleum based plastics. I agree if you want to make sort term biodegradable plastics that hemp is usable, but still needs to overcome a growing market in corn starch based plastics. So DuPont would not have had anything to worry about when it comes to hemp.

Everything else seems to come back to the idea that you hate anti-marijuana laws. I agree, but that is a debate for the politics section. If you want an honest discussion of the temperance movement and its effect on current drug legislation, than there is the History subforum. But so far your conspiracy of Hearst and DuPont is falling short, and you are not even defending it so much as engaging in rants about the prison industrial complex and the U.S. war machine.

 

[Dandyone]

You stand by a conspiracy shown to be non-existent.

Crackpot huh?

As some one else noted the political forum is thata way. This is the conspiracy fourm. We discuss conspiracy here not politics.

Hey Carlitos we're talking to a crackpot. No reason to try logic and reasoning....mocking and ignoring are our best weapons for this duel.

I commend you. Mocking and ignoring are always useful tools in your craft. Thanks for being so up front about that. It gives me some new insights regarding what I am opposing here, and reassures me that I am on the right side of the debate.

 

[dtugg]

Honestly, dandy, I think that you make people in favor of legalization look bad by association and thus making the goal harder to achieve. So, since I am in favor of legalization, please cease all you efforts related to the matter. Thank you.

 

[Dandyone]

Really, there are almost no words for this. Please read below, or go to page 1 and read in context.

Oh! I see. Because your buddy says it, (without ANY proof or evidence, mind you) it is 100% true, and the little essay I cited is total WOO or as one of the lemmings here likes to say, "Woo filth" (sounds dastardly!!). I love that one. Could double secret face palms and mega-stundies be forthcoming? Perhaps some GIANT color pictures and writing. Remember, the tactic here is "Mock and Ignore". Get to it boys!!

 

[sadhatter]

It has been alleged for years that the erradication of hemp from the US was a plot hatched by US robber barrons. I believe there is much credible evidence for this. Here's a nice start. Any comments? Thanks

http://www.tpuc.org/content/marijuana-conspiracy

"They say marijuana is dangerous. pot is not harmful to the human body or mind. marijuana does not pose a threat to the general public. Marijuana is very much a danger to the oil companies, alcohol, tobacco industries and a large number of chemical corporations. Big businesses, with plenty of dollars and influence, have suppressed the truth from the people. The truth is, if marijuana was utilized for its vast array of commercial products, it would create an industrial atomic bomb! The super rich have conspired to spread misinformation about the plant that, if used properly, would ruin their companies.

Where did the word ‘marijuana’ come from? In the mid 1930s, the M-word was created to tarnish the good image and phenomenal history of the hemp plant – as you will read. The facts cited here, with references, are generally verifiable in the Encyclopedia Britannica which was printed on hemp paper for 150 years:

✔ All schoolbooks were made from hemp or flax paper until the 1880s. (Jack Frazier. Hemp Paper Reconsidered. 1974.)


✔ It was legal to pay taxes with hemp in America from 1631 until the early 1800s. (LA Times. Aug. 12, 1981.)

✔ Refusing to grow hemp in America during the 17th and 18th centuries was against the law! You could be jailed in Virginia for refusing to grow hemp from 1763 to 1769 (G. M. Herdon. Hemp in Colonial Virginia).

✔ George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers grew hemp. (Washington and Jefferson Diaries. Jefferson smuggled hemp seeds from China to France then to America.)

✔ Benjamin Franklin owned one of the first paper mills in America, and it processed hemp. Also, the War of 1812 was fought over hemp. Napoleon wanted to cut off Moscow’s export to England. (Jack Herer. Emperor Wears No Clothes.)
✔ For thousands of years, 90% of all ships’ sails and rope were made from hemp. The word ‘canvas’ is Dutch for cannabis. (Webster’s New World Dictionary.)

✔ 80% of all textiles, fabrics, clothes, linen, drapes, bed sheets, etc.,were made from hemp until the 1820s, with the introduction of the cotton gin.

✔ The first Bibles, maps, charts, Betsy Ross’s flag, the first drafts of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were made from hemp. (U.S. Government Archives.)

✔ The first crop grown in many states was hemp. 1850 was a peak year for Kentucky producing 40,000 tons.Hemp was the largest cash crop until the 20th century. (State Archives.)"

And More Imporatantly:


THE CONSPIRACY
William Randolph Hearst (Citizen Kane) and the Hearst Paper Manufacturing Division of Kimberly Clark owned vast acreage of timberlands. The Hearst Company supplied most paper products. Patty Hearst’s grandfather, a destroyer of nature for his own personal profit, stood to lose billions because of hemp.

In 1937, DuPont patented the processes to make plastics from oil and coal. DuPont’s Annual Report urged stockholders to invest in its new petrochemical division. Synthetics such as plastics, cellophane, celluloid, methanol, nylon, rayon, Dacron, etc., could now be made from oil.Natural hemp industrialization would have ruined over 80% of DuPont’s business.

Andrew Mellon became Hoover’s Secretary of the Treasury and DuPont’s primary investor. He appointed his future nephew-in-law,Harry J.Anslinger, to head the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.

Secret meetings were held by these financial tycoons. Hemp was declared dangerous and a threat to their billion dollar enterprises. For their dynasties to remain intact, hemp had to go. These men took an obscure Mexican slang word: ‘marijuana’ and pushed it into the consciousness of America.

MEDIA MANIPULATION
A media blitz of ‘yellow journalism’ raged in the late 1920s and 1930s. Hearst’s newspapers ran stories emphasizing the horrors of marijuana. The menace of marijuana made headlines. Readers learned that it was responsible for everything from car accidents to loose morality.

Films like Reefer Madness (1936), Marijuana: Assassin of Youth (1935) and Marijuana: The Devil’s Weed (1936) were propaganda designed by these industrialists to create an enemy. Their purpose was to gain public support so that anti-marijuana laws could be passed.

Examine the following quotes from The Burning Question, aka Reefer Madness:

The type of sentiment expressed in this post is the reason i hate to mention that i smoke to anyone that i would consider intelligent.

Yes, pot is less harmful than many things that are legal, yes people are not legalizing it because of financial factors And yes there was a time when propaganda was rampant against it, and persuasive.

But the paranoid, victimized , petty way it is put just cheapens the entire cause. And makes everyone associate those who want legalization, with the "hey man" school of pot smokers.

If you want it legalized, do yourself a giant favor, leave it to people like myself. Who realize that pot rallies , weed leaf t-shirts, graffitti, and paranoid documentaries are not going to do a thing.

Politicians will realize that public demand will give them the ability to tax, and popularity. And this is what will get it legalized. Not because a bunch of people decide to wear their trailer park boys shirts and march in downtown toronto smoking dope.

And all this being said though. I have to express my esteem for the team of genius' that made a spring pipe. I picked one up yesterday, and yes it is functional, but the fact that the stem is a spring is something that, from an engineering standpoint entrances me, ( or maybe i was just baked, but sober right now i sitll say its cool. )

 

[Dandyone]

Honestly, dandy, I think that you make people in favor of legalization look bad by association and thus making the goal harder to achieve. So, since I am in favor of legalization, please cease all you efforts related to the matter. Thank you.

dtugg, face it, whatever goes on in these silly threads will have absolutely no effect on what gets done regarding legalization of hemp or weed, or anything else for that matter. My beliefs are well founded and I'm quite comfortable with them. But thanks for at least being friendly. That is noted and sincerely appreciated.

 

[carlitos]

Oh! I see. Because your buddy says it, (without ANY proof or evidence, mind you) it is 100% true, and the little essay I cited is total WOO or as one of the lemmings here likes to say, "Woo filth" (sounds dastardly!!). I love that one. Could double secret face palms and mega-stundies be forthcoming? Perhaps some GIANT color pictures and writing. Remember, the tactic here is "Mock and Ignore". Get to it boys!!

I'm going to just go with "ignore" given the above. You could earn a lot of points with me by just being civil and acting somewhat mature, but do what you like. I almost hate to mention it, but given your original post, and your failure to understand the rebuttals, are you aware of the potential side-effects of marijuana use?

 

[Dandyone]

The type of sentiment expressed in this post is the reason i hate to mention that i smoke to anyone that i would consider intelligent.

Yes, pot is less harmful than many things that are legal, yes people are not legalizing it because of financial factors And yes there was a time when propaganda was rampant against it, and persuasive.

But the paranoid, victimized , petty way it is put just cheapens the entire cause. And makes everyone associate those who want legalization, with the "hey man" school of pot smokers.

If you want it legalized, do yourself a giant favor, leave it to people like myself. Who realize that pot rallies , weed leaf t-shirts, graffitti, and paranoid documentaries are not going to do a thing.

Politicians will realize that public demand will give them the ability to tax, and popularity. And this is what will get it legalized. Not because a bunch of people decide to wear their trailer park boys shirts and march in downtown toronto smoking dope.

And all this being said though. I have to express my esteem for the team of genius' that made a spring pipe. I picked one up yesterday, and yes it is functional, but the fact that the stem is a spring is something that, from an engineering standpoint entrances me, ( or maybe i was just baked, but sober right now i sitll say its cool. )

For the record, I don't own any weed leaf t-shirts, (never even wore one) don't attend pot rallys, or engage in any type of graffitti, or paranoid documentries.

I am also NOT in favor of giving the government the right to tax in any way what I can grow in my spare bedroom or back yard or regulate my ability to sell it give it away or smoke it. (Just what they need, more regulations and revenue agents sneaking around) If that's the work you talking about, I certainly don't approve of it. I only smoke a couple times a week if that. I am in favor of FREEDOM.

 

[PhantomWolf]

pot is not harmful to the human body or mind.

And yet the scientific community seems to be in support of the fact that Canabis use is associated with psychosis including an increased risk of schizophrenia of up to 10%. There is still debate about whether this risk is for all users or merely those that have a predisposition to a psychosis anyway, but the link between the two is well established in the literature.

 

[dtugg]

For the record, I don't own any weed leaf t-shirts, (never even wore one) don't attend pot rallys, or engage in any type of graffitti, or paranoid documentries.

I am also NOT in favor of giving the government the right to tax in any way what I can grow in my spare bedroom or back yard or regulate my ability to sell it give it away or smoke it. (Just what they need, more regulations and revenue agents sneaking around) If that's the work you talking about, I certainly don't approve of it. I only smoke a couple times a week if that. I am in favor of FREEDOM.

I don't oppose a reasonable tax on marijuana being sold much the same as alcohol. I would oppose a tax on people growing it for their own use, though. It would be stupid and impossible to enforce.

 

[carlitos]

I would appose a tax on people growing it for their own use, though. It would be stupid and impossible to enforce.

Tell that to Justice Scalia, who found that growing something in your back yard in California was regulated under the Interstate Commerce Clause. Insane.

But there we go talking politics in the conspiracy theory section!

 

[dtugg]

And yet the scientific community seems to be in support of the fact that Canabis use is associated with psychosis including an increased risk of schizophrenia of up to 10%. There is still debate about whether this risk is for all users or merely those that have a predisposition to a psychosis anyway, but the link between the two is well established in the literature.

Do you mind linking to a study that shows this?

Anyway, I think that any reasonably person would conclude that marijuana is significantly less harmful than alcohol.

 

[PhantomWolf]

marijuana does not pose a threat to the general public

Not true.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4498419.stm

Heavy cannabis users are 10 times more likely to be injured, or to injure others, in car accidents, researchers have found.

.....

The New Zealand team surveyed 571 drivers of cars involved in crashes in which at least one occupant was hospitalised or killed and a control group of 588 drivers randomly selected from cars driving in Auckland.

They were asked if they had taken cannabis in the three hours prior to the crash or survey and were also asked about their use of cannabis over the previous 12 months.

It was found that habitual cannabis users were 9.5 times more likely to be involved in crashes, with 5.6% of people who crashed having taken the drug compared to 0.5% of the control group.

Their risk of an accident was increased whether or not they had used cannabis immediately before the accident.

Bernard Laumon, Blandine Gadegbeku, Jean-Louis Martin, and Marie-Berthe Biecheler found similar results in their paper Cannabis intoxication and fatal road crashes in France: population based case-control study and the French National Institute for Transport and Safety Research found not only that driving after smoking even a small amount of marijuana almost doubles the risk of a fatal highway accident but that least 2.5 percent of the 10,748 fatal crashes studied were directly caused by the use of marijuana. That's over 200 deaths directly attributable to the use of marijuana!

 

[PhantomWolf]

Do you mind linking to a study that shows this?

Anyway, I think that any reasonably person would conclude that marijuana is significantly less harmful than alcohol.

Put "cannabis and psychosis" into Google Scholar

 

[sadhatter]

I am also NOT in favor of giving the government the right to tax in any way what I can grow in my spare bedroom or back yard or regulate my ability to sell it give it away or smoke it. (Just what they need, more regulations and revenue agents sneaking around) If that's the work you talking about, I certainly don't approve of it. I only smoke a couple times a week if that. I am in favor of FREEDOM.

And if that is what your after your not going to get it. Pot would severely hamper alcohol, possibly tobbacco, and the government would not be getting any income from the fines, etc that us users may be required to pay if we get caught.

If your expecting the government to give up all of that revenue, and let you simply grow the product in your backyard, you are ignorant of how government works. The only way this is ever going to happen, is when the hey man school of pot smokers learns that change in most cases is from within the system, especially in situations like this. If your asking the government to give up a big piece of their pie and not give them anything in return that is politically naive.

 

[GreyArea]

I am also NOT in favor of giving the government the right to tax in any way what I can grow in my spare bedroom or back yard or regulate my ability to sell it give it away or smoke it. (Just what they need, more regulations and revenue agents sneaking around) If that's the work you talking about, I certainly don't approve of it. I only smoke a couple times a week if that. I am in favor of FREEDOM.

What age restrictions would you favor? (Especially considering what PhantomWolf wrote in post #69) How about laws against using that drug while operating an automobile or other heavy equipment? How about prohibitions on smoking it inside public buildings? Limits on how close to an entrance one can smoke it? Health and safety regulations for commercial growers? Location restrictions and licensing requirements for retail stores?

You know, practical considerations.

I'm also in favor of freedom, including my freedom to breathe the clean fresh air that I need, and to avoid noxious fumes that smell like something prohibited by the JREF rules.

This would include extremely limited federal incursion into private affairs, mainly local rule, and few if any entaglemnts into foreign politics and wars.

I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that the first drug laws in the U.S. were state laws. This includes laws about "Indian hemp".

This fact also is inconvenient to your conspiracist explanation of things.

 

[sadhatter]

Not true.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4498419.stm



Bernard Laumon, Blandine Gadegbeku, Jean-Louis Martin, and Marie-Berthe Biecheler found similar results in their paper Cannabis intoxication and fatal road crashes in France: population based case-control study and the French National Institute for Transport and Safety Research found not only that driving after smoking even a small amount of marijuana almost doubles the risk of a fatal highway accident but that least 2.5 percent of the 10,748 fatal crashes studied were directly caused by the use of marijuana. That's over 200 deaths directly attributable to the use of marijuana!

The People who smoke pot and drive are the same type of people who would drink and drive. Inconsiderate dolts, and pot can no more be held accountable for their actions that alcohol can be held accountable for the actions of those who do stupid things under its influence.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Anyway, I think that any reasonably person would conclude that marijuana is significantly less harmful than alcohol.

I'm not arguing that it's not less harmful that Alcohol, but the OP was arguing that it's not harmful at all.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The People who smoke pot and drive are the same type of people who would drink and drive. Inconsiderate dolts, and pot can no more be held accountable for their actions that alcohol can be held accountable for the actions of those who do stupid things under its influence.

Again, I'm not arguing that it is worse than alcohol, or that people are not stupid. I'm pointing out that the OP's statment that "marijuana is not a danger to the general population" is incorrect, exactly as if he had said that "alcohol is not a danger to the general population".

ETA: By the way, note this part of the article I quoted.

Their risk of an accident was increased whether or not they had used cannabis immediately before the accident.

Thus it shows that they don't actually have to be under the influence of it to still be a greater risk to the motoring public when they are behind the wheel.

 

[dtugg]

Put "cannabis and psychosis" into Google Scholar

OK, I will do that.

I'm not arguing that it's not less harmful that Alcohol, but the OP was arguing that it's not harmful at all.

Fair enough.

I would like to add weed smoking causes, or a least facilitates laziness in a lot of people.