A brief history of Marijuana Prohibition in honor of 4/20

[Logic]

Just now, bbb said:

 

I'd rather be dead than live a lifetime of psychosis.  

However, the study doesn't prove causality, cautions Dr. Diana Martinez, a psychiatrist and addiction researcher at Columbia University. "You can't say that cannabis causes psychosis," she says. "It's simply not supported by the data," she says.

The above is from the article you posted.

[RaoulDuke79]

4 hours ago, DC Tom said:

The belief that pot is harmless is belied by the general dopiness of the people who promote it.

It's just like anything else. Food, drink, etc...moderation is key.

Edited April 20, 2019 by RaoulDuke79

[KD in CA]

3 hours ago, row_33 said:

 

The count is a dozen i went to school with who started with it in the mid-70s, at the age of 10 or so, and they died before 50, and the misery they inflicted on their loved ones was incalculable

 

 

 

When did they start drinking?

[DC Tom]

27 minutes ago, Logic said:

The fact that you are stating that a person is still so impaired 5-14 days after consumption that he can't carry on a reasonable conversation shows your lack of understanding of the effects of cannabis. < Insert snarky Tom joke here. >

 

The fact that you dismiss the biochemistry so cavalierly illustrates my previous point: the belief that pot is harmless is belied by the stoners holding that belief.

20 minutes ago, bbb said:

If you don't think pot causes psychosis, then you have your head in the sand. 

 

Or in a cloud of marijuana smoke.

[RochesterRob]

57 minutes ago, BillsFan4 said:

 

The DuPont petrochemical company also played a large role in making cannabis/hemp illegal (due to their involvement in the fossil fuel industry, and how well they were connected in government circles).

 

Hemp was a HUGE threat to petroleum based products (like synthetic fibers, gasoline additives and even gasoline) and people can grow it themselves. You can get 3 crops per year in southern climates. 

 

 

 

 

If you haven’t already read it, Jack Herer’s book “The emperor wears no clothes” is a great read on this subject, and the usefulness of hemp (believe it or not I actually had to read it in a class in college many years ago). 

 

 

Interesting side note - they also offer a $100,000 prize to anyone who can disprove the claims made within. 

 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor_Wears_No_Clothes

 

 

  Dupont during the period you are citing would have had an interest in minimizing cotton production but did not.  They were not even at the point of having a commercial interest in promoting cotton production in terms of seed or herbicides.  

 

  i would bet that alcohol at the time period cited would have been a greater threat to gasoline.  Many Great Depression era engines were distillate run which meant they used alcohol straight or in a mix (ethanol being the colloquial term today).  Corn, cabbage, potatoes, and other crops could be grown over a wider number of acres than cannabis to be made into alcohol.  May be able to get 3 crops a year in the South but how fast would that deplete the soil?  Remember that one of the cornerstones for causes of the Civil War was admission of western states such as Missouri as slave states because the original South was becoming soil depleted.  So much so that George Washington Carver's work was all the more instrumental in reviving the agricultural South going into the 20th Century.

 

  I may have not delivered the knockout punch to get the 100,000 dollars but certainly poked some serious holes in Herer's book.  Maybe pay me 75,000 dollars plus 5,000 dollars for political correctness for throwing GWC into the discussion.

[Logic]

25 minutes ago, bbb said:

 

I'd rather be dead than live a lifetime of psychosis.  

 

If you don't think pot causes psychosis, then you have your head in the sand. 

1.) Feel free to provide proof of your claim at any time.

2.) I suppose you believe alcohol should be illegal, too? Alcohol, of course, is VASTLY more likely to cause psychosis than cannabis. 

5 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

The fact that you dismiss the biochemistry so cavalierly illustrates my previous point: the belief that pot is harmless is belied by the stoners holding that belief.

 

Or in a cloud of marijuana smoke.

The fact that you're doubling down on your claim that a person 10 days removed from consuming cannabis is still so impaired that they can't discuss a topic on an internet message board illustrates my previous point: You're out of your depth on this issue.

[K-9]

11 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  Dupont during the period you are citing would have had an interest in minimizing cotton production but did not.  They were not even at the point of having a commercial interest in promoting cotton production in terms of seed or herbicides.  

 

  i would bet that alcohol at the time period cited would have been a greater threat to gasoline.  Many Great Depression era engines were distillate run which meant they used alcohol straight or in a mix (ethanol being the colloquial term today).  Corn, cabbage, potatoes, and other crops could be grown over a wider number of acres than cannabis to be made into alcohol.  May be able to get 3 crops a year in the South but how fast would that deplete the soil?  Remember that one of the cornerstones for causes of the Civil War was admission of western states such as Missouri as slave states because the original South was becoming soil depleted.  So much so that George Washington Carver's work was all the more instrumental in reviving the agricultural South going into the 20th Century.

 

  I may have not delivered the knockout punch to get the 100,000 dollars but certainly poked some serious holes in Herer's book.  Maybe pay me 75,000 dollars plus 5,000 dollars for political correctness for throwing GWC into the discussion.

I won't digress from the thread topic any further, but I'm glad to see this reference. In all my years of studying the Civil War, the topic of soil exhaustion in the South was one of the most fascinating. Newly admitted western states had to be slave states or entire agricultural industries of the South would have died. It's just an interesting and rarely mentioned cause for secession and the ensuing conflict. 

[RochesterRob]

12 minutes ago, K-9 said:

I won't digress from the thread topic any further, but I'm glad to see this reference. In all my years of studying the Civil War, the topic of soil exhaustion in the South was one of the most fascinating. Newly admitted western states had to be slave states or entire agricultural industries of the South would have died. It's just an interesting and rarely mentioned cause for secession and the ensuing conflict. 

  It's why the Southerners were so adamant in their stance.  From their point of view their backs were against the wall.

[section122]

@Logic I've ventured into this conversation here before.  It never goes well.  There are many older posters here that have bought the propaganda hook line and sinker.

 

In their mind it is all or nothing.  If you have tried pot you are a burnout incapable of conversation.

 

If you bring up the documented medicinal benefits they bring up a study that says otherwise even if that study says it can't be proved pot is the cause.

 

Oh wait both have already happened. 

 

The older generation was told their entire lives that it was and is evil.  Without knowing i would wager the 3 biggest critics in this thread are over 50.  That isn't changed easily.  Times are changing though as polling continually shows.  

 

5-14 days later and it still effects you? For the smartest guy in the room schtick this is one of the worst takes I have seen on this board!

[The Senator]

2 hours ago, RochesterRob said:

  And we are surveying them out of how many other Americans to identify a statistical trend?  Do the dozens of guys in the same school class as each of the people that you cite that smoked pot count as part of the survey even though they had ordinary lives at best?  Set  aside Lincoln for a minute as he is not a part of contemporary America does 3 persons out of over 170 Americans (55 percent of adults are thought to be pot smokers based on surveys) identify a statistical trend?  Should we mandate pot consumption for the likely hood of academic success?

  From what I have seen as of late the statement "sober as a judge" is not reassuring.

 

OK, forget about Lincoln.  George Washington  and Thomas Jefferson too, even though they were both hemp farmers.  I should have included Obama and Bill Clinton instead.

 

I believe your questions to be largely rhetorical.  Many people with “ordinary lives” are brilliant, IMO, and stupid people are as likely to smoke pot as brilliant people are - so pot has nothing to do with academic success or failure.

 

As for judges, they are as likely as doctors, lawyers, priests, ministers, and every other walk of life to have alcohol and/or drug problems.  In fact, in 1987 President Reagan nominated Douglas Ginsburg to the Supreme Court, but the nomination soon came under fire over Ginsburg’s use of marijuana not only as a student, but as a professor at Harvard, and he withdrew from the confirmation process.

.

Edited April 20, 2019 by The Senator

[RochesterRob]

17 minutes ago, section122 said:

@Logic I've ventured into this conversation here before.  It never goes well.  There are many older posters here that have bought the propaganda hook line and sinker.

 

In their mind it is all or nothing.  If you have tried pot you are a burnout incapable of conversation.

 

If you bring up the documented medicinal benefits they bring up a study that says otherwise even if that study says it can't be proved pot is the cause.

 

Oh wait both have already happened. 

 

The older generation was told their entire lives that it was and is evil.  Without knowing i would wager the 3 biggest critics in this thread are over 50.  That isn't changed easily.  Times are changing though as polling continually shows.  

 

5-14 days later and it still effects you? For the smartest guy in the room schtick this is one of the worst takes I have seen on this board!

  I don't buy the old versus young argument.  I saw a lot of experimentation in college during the 1980's.  And these are the same people that are in high office or the board room today.  The old person back in 1975 shouting about Reefer Madness is long out of the picture.  Could be just like alcohol for every person that can manage their consumption there are a dozen others whose consumption sends their lives into a tailspin.  Pot may not be physically addictive but appears to be mentally addictive to quite a few.  There may be external factors involved in this such as personal stress but the outcome is still the same.  

[Augie]

It’s worth mentioning here that the pot of today is nothing like the pot of several decades ago......and it’s still not my place to tell any of you how to behave (or feel) on this issue. Just pointing out how it’s evolved. 

[Logic]

40 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  I don't buy the old versus young argument.  I saw a lot of experimentation in college during the 1980's.  And these are the same people that are in high office or the board room today.  The old person back in 1975 shouting about Reefer Madness is long out of the picture.  Could be just like alcohol for every person that can manage their consumption there are a dozen others whose consumption sends their lives into a tailspin.  Pot may not be physically addictive but appears to be mentally addictive to quite a few.  There may be external factors involved in this such as personal stress but the outcome is still the same.  

I will agree with this. While it is not physically addictive, it absolutely can be mentally/emotionally addictive. To be fair, though, so can television and social media. Everything in moderation.

[4merper4mer]

4 hours ago, Logic said:

I don't even know what this means.

Try reading it sober.

[Logic]

6 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Try reading it sober.

I take it you've never tried cannabis?

Edited April 20, 2019 by Logic

[bbb]

2 hours ago, Logic said:

1.) Feel free to provide proof of your claim at any time.

2.) I suppose you believe alcohol should be illegal, too? Alcohol, of course, is VASTLY more likely to cause psychosis than cannabis. 

 

 

I've never said that pot should be illegal.  Where are you getting that?.................My beef is always with people like you claiming it's harmless.  

[The Senator]

1 hour ago, Augie said:

It’s worth mentioning here that the pot of today is nothing like the pot of several decades ago......and it’s still not my place to tell any of you how to behave (or feel) on this issue. Just pointing out how it’s evolved. 

 

This is true. Today’s varieties are much MUCH stronger (and considerably more expensive).

 

But I think that, because of that, most people smoke far less of it to achieve the desired effect.  Also, there are more attractive methods of ingestion, such as edibles, and vaping.

 

I also think that most intelligent people would agree that alcohol has a far more deleterious effect on the liver and the brain.  I’ve never heard of anyone who got the shakes until they smoked their first joint of the day.

 

At the least, I think everyone capable of rational thought would agree that cigarettes are far more harmful to the human body, as in addition to nicotine (which is used as a pesticide), tar, and carbon monoxide, the tobacco companie’s kill us with such additives as

• Acetone—found in nail polish remover
• Acetic acid—an ingredient in hair dye
• Ammonia—a common household cleaner
• Arsenic—used in rat poison
• Benzene—found in rubber cement and gasoline
• Butane—used in lighter fluid
• Cadmium—active component in battery acid
• Formaldehyde—embalming fluid
• Hexamine—found in barbecue lighter fluid
• Lead—used in batteries
• Naphthalene—an ingredient in mothballs
• Methanol—a main component in rocket fuel
• Toluene—used to manufacture paint

 

Next time you light up a Marlboro, think about that.

.

[section122]

1 hour ago, RochesterRob said:

  I don't buy the old versus young argument.  I saw a lot of experimentation in college during the 1980's.  And these are the same people that are in high office or the board room today.  The old person back in 1975 shouting about Reefer Madness is long out of the picture.  Could be just like alcohol for every person that can manage their consumption there are a dozen others whose consumption sends their lives into a tailspin.  Pot may not be physically addictive but appears to be mentally addictive to quite a few.  There may be external factors involved in this such as personal stress but the outcome is still the same.  

 

I agree that a few bad apples ruin the bunch.  I'm for legalization but with restrictions like alcohol.  21+ and i see no reason why it shouldn't be legal.  When used responsibly marijuana is much less damaging than alcohol imo.  

 

Everything has the ability to be abused.  The irresponsibility of a few shouldn't be justification to punish everyone.

[RaoulDuke79]

I just spent the last 8 hours painting trim and weeding flower beds after waking up with back pain that I haven't experienced in years. I may need to self medicate while watching playoffs.....all in all it turned it to a  beautiful day. 

Edited April 20, 2019 by RaoulDuke79

[Kirby Jackson]

I’m not a huge pot guy. I drink alcohol way more often than I smoke pot. With that being said, I’m more than comfortable admitting that alcohol and tobacco (I used to smoke too) are WAY worse for you. Pot being on schedule 1 is a joke but it’s a joke that’s coming to an end soon.

Edited April 20, 2019 by Kirby Jackson