Rones said:
But would that be any fun at all here? :wink:
Non-financial discussion of Dubyah
- Thread starter Trippyhippy
- Start date
-
- Tags
- discussion dubyah nonfinancial
But would that be any fun at all here? :wink:
deathsvengeance said:
You never have anything nice to say to me.
I love you too.
ok, so now that we've gotten past the discussion of how unfair my poll is to Bush, lets actually talk about the topic of the thread, Gearge W. Bush.
There are many many many things about him that I don't like, but as Rones has pointed out so many times before, it helps when we only talk about 1 thing.
sooo...
Something I don't like about Mr. Bush is the fact that he DOSEN"T support our troops. Or at least not the ones that are sick. He proposed cutting $1.3 billion in veterans’ health care and closing seven veteran’s hospitals. He tried to double the prescription drug costs for veterans and opposed full benefits for part time reservist.
and no, I'm not just pulling "Facts" out of thin air.
here are some news stories for ya.
"On Nov. 12, the Office of Management & Budget opposed restoring $1.3 billion in funding for Veterans Administration hospitals that the House Appropriations Committee had cut. '’It's as if they're not even aware [that] there's a war on terror going on,’ says Steve Thomas, an American Legion spokesman and Navy vet who notes casualties in Iraq could make demand for VA services soar." Stan Crock in Washington, with William C. Symonds in Boston, "Will The Troops Salute Bush In '04?," Business Week, December 8, 2003.
This one actually has some specifivcs of the bill in it.
In 2003, the Bush administration proposed increasing prescription drug costs for veterans, a proposal that would have doubled the cost of prescription drugs. "The Bush plan would have included a new $250 enrollment fee and a co-pay increase from $7 to $15 for veterans earning over $24,000." The House amended the proposal to reject the Bush administration’s fee increases and to recoup the $264 million in costs by reducing administrative funding for the VA. "Panel Rejects Extra Funds for AmeriCorps," Washington Post, July 22, 2003.
and here is one from AP so as not to have a bunch of Biased news sources listed.
In early 2003, the Bush administration announced that it was closing "seven of its 163 veteran’s hospitals in an effort to ‘restructure’ the Department of Veterans Affairs." Suzanne Gamboa, "VA Proposes Overhaul, 13 Facilities Would Close or See Major Changes," Associated Press, August 4, 2003.
So, we are gonna stay the course but when our Soldiers come home wounded, well, fuck them, they can't help.
Who wants to be first to pick apart this arguement?
There are many many many things about him that I don't like, but as Rones has pointed out so many times before, it helps when we only talk about 1 thing.
sooo...
Something I don't like about Mr. Bush is the fact that he DOSEN"T support our troops. Or at least not the ones that are sick. He proposed cutting $1.3 billion in veterans’ health care and closing seven veteran’s hospitals. He tried to double the prescription drug costs for veterans and opposed full benefits for part time reservist.
and no, I'm not just pulling "Facts" out of thin air.
here are some news stories for ya.
"On Nov. 12, the Office of Management & Budget opposed restoring $1.3 billion in funding for Veterans Administration hospitals that the House Appropriations Committee had cut. '’It's as if they're not even aware [that] there's a war on terror going on,’ says Steve Thomas, an American Legion spokesman and Navy vet who notes casualties in Iraq could make demand for VA services soar." Stan Crock in Washington, with William C. Symonds in Boston, "Will The Troops Salute Bush In '04?," Business Week, December 8, 2003.
This one actually has some specifivcs of the bill in it.
In 2003, the Bush administration proposed increasing prescription drug costs for veterans, a proposal that would have doubled the cost of prescription drugs. "The Bush plan would have included a new $250 enrollment fee and a co-pay increase from $7 to $15 for veterans earning over $24,000." The House amended the proposal to reject the Bush administration’s fee increases and to recoup the $264 million in costs by reducing administrative funding for the VA. "Panel Rejects Extra Funds for AmeriCorps," Washington Post, July 22, 2003.
and here is one from AP so as not to have a bunch of Biased news sources listed.
In early 2003, the Bush administration announced that it was closing "seven of its 163 veteran’s hospitals in an effort to ‘restructure’ the Department of Veterans Affairs." Suzanne Gamboa, "VA Proposes Overhaul, 13 Facilities Would Close or See Major Changes," Associated Press, August 4, 2003.
So, we are gonna stay the course but when our Soldiers come home wounded, well, fuck them, they can't help.
Who wants to be first to pick apart this arguement?
With the success of the Tricare program for active and retired military members, the need for having dedicated veteran's hospitals has subsided. As for prescription drugs, there are already programs in place to provide free and low cost options as you can see here.
Bush has really done a lot to increase pay and benefits for service members, especially Reservists and National Guard who tend to get the short end of the stick on benefits. Just check out this report.
That is a common military policy. If after leaving the military you get another full time job, your retiree benefits are greatly cut. This happened to both my parents who each put in 20 years and retired with half pay for both. My mother however continues to work full time, so she gets a cut in her retiree pay. If you are still earning your own way, you do not need the military to fund you yet, or at the very least you can pay a little more. Didn't we just have the opposite of this argument in two other threads? If they have more money, they can afford to pay a little more for their very cheap health care.
And did you hear the reasons for the closures? I couldn't find any info on this specific incident, but being familiar with military procedures, hospital closings are not uncommon. Bases moves, areas of need change, demand fluctuates, centralization reduces need, many things can cause this. However, out of all those possibilities you pick: 'He did it because he hates veterans, is an evil man, and wants to hurt his own people.' Critizing actions without addressing the reasons for it being done is silly.
Bush has really done a lot to increase pay and benefits for service members, especially Reservists and National Guard who tend to get the short end of the stick on benefits. Just check out this report.
Well I suppose after much criticism, he decided to spend some more money on Healthcare for Veterans in 2006, 3 years after he opposed things such as healthcare to part time reservist and their families.
All right then, that's fine; an error isn't a mistake unless you do nothing to fix it.
Moving on then.
Is there anything to anyone can say in defense of his vile hypocrisy of whole heartedly supporting the war on drugs?
How about that time in 1972 when you were arrested with Cocaine?
Or when pressed on the hypocrisy issue, he speaks to hypocritical baby boomer parents everywhere: "If I were you, I wouldn't tell your kids that you smoked pot unless you want 'em to smoke pot. I think it's important for leaders, and parents, not to send mixed signals. I don't want some kid saying, 'Well, Governor Bush tried it.'"
This is one issue I would imagine most people would tend to claim is unimportant because it happened so long ago.
Well let me tell ya, it's important to me because the war on drugs is now, and we have throw Billions of dollars at a "problem" that has no solution.
We spend millions (probably billions, too lazy to look this one up) every year housing non-violent criminals for victimless crimes. I was almost one of those being housed, so this issue is especially prominent in my life.
Time to pick this one apart.
All right then, that's fine; an error isn't a mistake unless you do nothing to fix it.
Moving on then.
Is there anything to anyone can say in defense of his vile hypocrisy of whole heartedly supporting the war on drugs?
How about that time in 1972 when you were arrested with Cocaine?
Or when pressed on the hypocrisy issue, he speaks to hypocritical baby boomer parents everywhere: "If I were you, I wouldn't tell your kids that you smoked pot unless you want 'em to smoke pot. I think it's important for leaders, and parents, not to send mixed signals. I don't want some kid saying, 'Well, Governor Bush tried it.'"
This is one issue I would imagine most people would tend to claim is unimportant because it happened so long ago.
Well let me tell ya, it's important to me because the war on drugs is now, and we have throw Billions of dollars at a "problem" that has no solution.
We spend millions (probably billions, too lazy to look this one up) every year housing non-violent criminals for victimless crimes. I was almost one of those being housed, so this issue is especially prominent in my life.
Time to pick this one apart.
That is a very good question. The man is never on the news.
Ever since his medical problems a while back, Cheney has been less active sadly. 
Anyway, as for the war on drugs...it's just another example of the government protecting people from their own stupidity. While it costs billions to fight drugs, I hate to imagine the medical and welfare costs the government would have to pay if drugs became legal, common, and cheap. Part of the country would be paying for the rest of the nations drug addiction and medical problems that result from it. :?
I wouldn't mind legalization of these drugs too much if they withdraw all rights to welfare and government medical coverage for use of those drugs. Also would need some strict public laws to limit people under the influence of drugs from hurting others (eg: drunk drivers). I don't see the hypocrisy as much of an issue. It was a mistake, I doubt he would deny that much. He is trying to prevent others from making the same mistake. Now where are all the marijuna legalization fan boys? 8)
Anyway, as for the war on drugs...it's just another example of the government protecting people from their own stupidity. While it costs billions to fight drugs, I hate to imagine the medical and welfare costs the government would have to pay if drugs became legal, common, and cheap. Part of the country would be paying for the rest of the nations drug addiction and medical problems that result from it. :?
I wouldn't mind legalization of these drugs too much if they withdraw all rights to welfare and government medical coverage for use of those drugs. Also would need some strict public laws to limit people under the influence of drugs from hurting others (eg: drunk drivers). I don't see the hypocrisy as much of an issue. It was a mistake, I doubt he would deny that much. He is trying to prevent others from making the same mistake. Now where are all the marijuna legalization fan boys? 8)
I'll be a marijuana legalization fan boy. I am of the opinion that it is much less harmful than alcohol.
But there is not really anytthing I can say about this that hasn't already been said here.
Those studies dating from 1894-1996 speak volumes but are never reffered to when the topic of illegal drugs comes up among our government officials.
Ignorance is the reason for the prohibition of Marijuana.
But there is not really anytthing I can say about this that hasn't already been said here.
Those studies dating from 1894-1996 speak volumes but are never reffered to when the topic of illegal drugs comes up among our government officials.
Ignorance is the reason for the prohibition of Marijuana.
Galaika said:
:roll:
Because we sure leave them in the hands of one person.
Oh wait, what was that? The Senate and The House? Pssh!
Supreme Court? More like Supreme Do-nothing! m i rite?
If Bush himself launched our weapons, not only would he break so many international crimes, but he'd be in a boat load of shit here, just from the view point of the way our government is constructed. No amount of political loopholes/party monopilzation will get you around 2/3s of 9+100+the boatload people in the House, to put our major weaponry in the hands of one person.
Hate him because he's not that great at his job, but don't hate him because you think* he controls an arsenal of warheads at his disposal to use any time he sees fit.
*Key word.
Trips, you should've had an option of dislike/dislike, but not slime. I don't think he's doing a great job, nor do I agree with his politics. Someone can do better, but others could do far worse.
Rones said:Ever since his medical problems a while back, Cheney has been less active sadly.
Anyway, as for the war on drugs...it's just another example of the government protecting people from their own stupidity. While it costs billions to fight drugs, I hate to imagine the medical and welfare costs the government would have to pay if drugs became legal, common, and cheap. Part of the country would be paying for the rest of the nations drug addiction and medical problems that result from it. :?
I wouldn't mind legalization of these drugs too much if they withdraw all rights to welfare and government medical coverage for use of those drugs. Also would need some strict public laws to limit people under the influence of drugs from hurting others (eg: drunk drivers). I don't see the hypocrisy as much of an issue. It was a mistake, I doubt he would deny that much. He is trying to prevent others from making the same mistake. Now where are all the marijuna legalization fan boys? 8)
If you did legalize marijuna you could make alot of money taxing it. Its one of the safest drugs known, espeically when you compare it to legal drugs, like ciggarettes and alchohol. And it could be used a medicinal pain management.
Am I a marijuna fan boy? nah.
The statistics below represent Number of American deaths per year that result directly or primarily from the following selected causes nationwide, according to World Almanacs, Life Insurance Actuarial (death) Rates, and the last 20 years of U.S. Surgeon Generals' reports.
TOBACCO
340,000 to 450,000
ALCOHOL (Not including 50% of all highway deaths and 65% of all murders)
150,000+
ASPIRIN (Including deliberate overdose)
180 to 1,000+
CAFFEINE (From stress, ulcers, and triggering irregular heartbeats, etc.)
1,000 to 10,000
"LEGAL" DRUG OVERDOSE (Deliberate or accidental)
14,000 to 27,000
ILLICIT DRUG OVERDOSE (Deliberate or accidental) from all illegal drugs.
3,800 to 5,200
MARIJUANA
0
Alcohol and Cigarettes kill more people in this country than all illegal drug combined x1000.
There has not ever been one instance of death that can be directly attributed to marijuana.
TOBACCO
340,000 to 450,000
ALCOHOL (Not including 50% of all highway deaths and 65% of all murders)
150,000+
ASPIRIN (Including deliberate overdose)
180 to 1,000+
CAFFEINE (From stress, ulcers, and triggering irregular heartbeats, etc.)
1,000 to 10,000
"LEGAL" DRUG OVERDOSE (Deliberate or accidental)
14,000 to 27,000
ILLICIT DRUG OVERDOSE (Deliberate or accidental) from all illegal drugs.
3,800 to 5,200
MARIJUANA
0
Alcohol and Cigarettes kill more people in this country than all illegal drug combined x1000.
There has not ever been one instance of death that can be directly attributed to marijuana.
Trippyhippy said:
Proof that all those tax dollars spent keeping that crap outta here are working. 8)
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2004
- Messages
- 4,368
- Age
- 39
- Location
- Winnipeg, MB, Canada
- Nation Banner
- Main Job
- Secondary Job
- Third Job
- Server
- Quetzalcoatl
- Linkshell
- Perseverance
- FFXI
- Marajade
- FFXIV
- Mara Jade
Skaw said:
actualy, aside from Weed, i believe legalization, or at least decriminalization, would result in LOWER usage rates for a number of ilicit drugs, since most of the "buzz" of drugs comes from the fact that you arent suposed to be doing it. why the heck would you stick some diry needle in your arm, when you could just walk on down to the drug store and buy some pot.
I also believe that the only reason Pot isnt legal, is because there isnt some huge mega-corp produceing it. heck, Cigarettes are 100% more deadly, and the're INTENTIONALY chemicly addictive.
So why arent smokes ilegal? because governments make billions of dollers a year from taxing them. much more than its costing them to treat the people getting sick from them.
oh yeah, the reason it was made illegal... utter bullshit.
here is a short book on the matter :shock:
Many people assume that marijuana was made illegal through some kind of process involving scientific, medical, and government hearings; that it was to protect the citizens from what was determined to be a dangerous drug.
The actual story shows a much different picture. Those who voted on the legal fate of this plant never had the facts, but were dependent on information supplied by those who had a specific agenda to deceive lawmakers. You'll see below that the very first federal vote to prohibit marijuana was based entirely on a documented lie on the floor of the Senate.
You'll also see that the history of marijuana's criminalization is filled with:
Racism
Fear
Protection of Corporate Profits
Yellow Journalism
Ignorant, Incompetent, and/or Corrupt Legislators
Personal Career Advancement and Greed
These are the actual reasons marijuana is illegal.
In the early 1900s, the western states developed significant tensions regarding the influx of Mexican-Americans. The revolution in Mexico in 1910 spilled over the border, with General Pershing's army clashing with bandit Pancho Villa. Later in that decade, bad feelings developed between the small farmer and the large farms that used cheaper Mexican labor. Then, the depression came and increased tensions, as jobs and welfare resources became scarce.
One of the "differences" seized upon during this time was the fact that many Mexicans smoked marijuana and had brought the plant with them.
However, the first state law outlawing marijuana did so not because of Mexicans using the drug. Oddly enough, it was because of Mormons using it. Mormons who traveled to Mexico in 1910 came back to Salt Lake City with marijuana. The church was not pleased and ruled against use of the drug. Since the state of Utah automatically enshrined church doctrine into law, the first state marijuana prohibition was established in 1915. (Today, Senator Orrin Hatch serves as the prohibition arm of this heavily church-influenced state.)
Other states quickly followed suit with marijuana prohibition laws, including Wyoming (1915), Texas (1919), Iowa (1923), Nevada (1923), Oregon (1923), Washington (1923), Arkansas (1923), and Nebraska (1927). These laws tended to be specifically targeted against the Mexican-American population.
When Montana outlawed marijuana in 1927, the Butte Montana Standard reported a legislator's comment: "When some beet field peon takes a few traces of this stuff... he thinks he has just been elected president of Mexico, so he starts out to execute all his political enemies." In Texas, a senator said on the floor of the Senate: "All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff [marijuana] is what makes them crazy."
In 1930, a new division in the Treasury Department was established -- the Federal Bureau of Narcotics -- and Harry J. Anslinger was named director. This, if anything, marked the beginning of the all-out war against marijuana.
Anslinger immediately drew upon the themes of racism and violence to draw national attention to the problem he wanted to create. Some of his quotes regarding marijuana...
"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."
"...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."
"Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."
"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."
"Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing"
"You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother."
"Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."
Harry Anslinger got some additional help from William Randolf Hearst, owner of a huge chain of newspapers. Hearst had lots of reasons to help. First, he hated Mexicans. Second, he had invested heavily in the timber industry to support his newspaper chain and didn't want to see the development of hemp paper in competition. Third, he had lost 800,000 acres of timberland to Pancho Villa, so he hated Mexicans. Fourth, telling lurid lies about Mexicans (and the devil marijuana weed causing violence) sold newspapers, making him rich.
Some samples from the San Francisco Examiner:
"Marihuana makes fiends of boys in thirty days -- Hashish goads users to bloodlust."
"By the tons it is coming into this country -- the deadly, dreadful poison that racks and tears not only the body, but the very heart and soul of every human being who once becomes a slave to it in any of its cruel and devastating forms.... Marihuana is a short cut to the insane asylum. Smoke marihuana cigarettes for a month and what was once your brain will be nothing but a storehouse of horrid specters. Hasheesh makes a murderer who kills for the love of killing out of the mildest mannered man who ever laughed at the idea that any habit could ever get him...."
And other nationwide columns...
"Users of marijuana become STIMULATED as they inhale the drug and are LIKELY TO DO ANYTHING. Most crimes of violence in this section, especially in country districts are laid to users of that drug."
"Was it marijuana, the new Mexican drug, that nerved the murderous arm of Clara Phillips when she hammered out her victim's life in Los Angeles?... THREE-FOURTHS OF THE CRIMES of violence in this country today are committed by DOPE SLAVES -- that is a matter of cold record."
Hearst and Anslinger were then supported by Dupont chemical company and various pharmaceutical companies in the effort to outlaw cannabis. Dupont had patented nylon, and wanted hemp removed as competition. The pharmaceutical companies could neither identify nor standardize cannabis dosages, and besides, with cannabis, folks could grow their own medicine and not have to purchase it from large companies.
This all set the stage for The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.
After two years of secret planning, Anslinger brought his plan to Congress -- complete with a scrapbook full of sensational Hearst editorials, stories of ax murderers who had supposedly smoked marijuana, and racial slurs.
It was a remarkably short set of hearings.
The one fly in Anslinger's ointment was the appearance by Dr. William C. Woodward, Legislative Council of the American Medical Association.
Woodward started by slamming Harry Anslinger and the Bureau of Narcotics for distorting earlier AMA statements that had nothing to do with marijuana and making them appear to be AMA endorsement for Anslinger's view.
He also reproached the legislature and the Bureau for using the term marijuana in the legislation and not publicizing it as a bill about cannabis or hemp. At this point, marijuana (or marihuana) was a sensationalist word used to refer to Mexicans smoking a drug and had not been connected in most people's minds to the existing cannabis/hemp plant. Thus, many who had legitimate reasons to oppose the bill weren't even aware of it.
Woodward went on to state that the AMA was opposed to the legislation and further questioned the approach of the hearings, coming close to outright accusation of misconduct by Anslinger and the committee:
"That there is a certain amount of narcotic addiction of an objectionable character no one will deny. The newspapers have called attention to it so prominently that there must be some grounds for [their] statements [even Woodward was partially taken in by Hearst's propaganda]. It has surprised me, however, that the facts on which these statements have been based have not been brought before this committee by competent primary evidence. We are referred to newspaper publications concerning the prevalence of marihuana addiction. We are told that the use of marihuana causes crime.
But yet no one has been produced from the Bureau of Prisons to show the number of prisoners who have been found addicted to the marihuana habit. An informed inquiry shows that the Bureau of Prisons has no evidence on that point.
You have been told that school children are great users of marihuana cigarettes. No one has been summoned from the Children's Bureau to show the nature and extent of the habit, among children.
Inquiry of the Children's Bureau shows that they have had no occasion to investigate it and know nothing particularly of it.
Inquiry of the Office of Education--- and they certainly should know something of the prevalence of the habit among the school children of the country, if there is a prevalent habit--- indicates that they have had no occasion to investigate and know nothing of it.
Moreover, there is in the Treasury Department itself, the Public Health Service, with its Division of Mental Hygiene. The Division of Mental Hygiene was, in the first place, the Division of Narcotics. It was converted into the Division of Mental Hygiene, I think, about 1930. That particular Bureau has control at the present time of the narcotics farms that were created about 1929 or 1930 and came into operation a few years later. No one has been summoned from that Bureau to give evidence on that point.
Informal inquiry by me indicates that they have had no record of any marihuana of Cannabis addicts who have ever been committed to those farms.
The bureau of Public Health Service has also a division of pharmacology. If you desire evidence as to the pharmacology of Cannabis, that obviously is the place where you can get direct and primary evidence, rather than the indirect hearsay evidence."
Committee members then proceeded to attack Dr. Woodward, questioning his motives in opposing the legislation. Even the Chairman joined in:
The Chairman: If you want to advise us on legislation, you ought to come here with some constructive proposals, rather than criticism, rather than trying to throw obstacles in the way of something that the Federal Government is trying to do. It has not only an unselfish motive in this, but they have a serious responsibility.
Dr. Woodward: We cannot understand yet, Mr. Chairman, why this bill should have been prepared in secret for 2 years without any intimation, even, to the profession, that it was being prepared.
After some further bantering...
The Chairman: I would like to read a quotation from a recent editorial in the Washington Times:
The marihuana cigarette is one of the most insidious of all forms of dope, largely because of the failure of the public to understand its fatal qualities.
The Nation is almost defenseless against it, having no Federal laws to cope with it and virtually no organized campaign for combating it.
The result is tragic.
School children are the prey of peddlers who infest school neighborhoods.
High school boys and girls buy the destructive weed without knowledge of its capacity of harm, and conscienceless dealers sell it with impunity.
This is a national problem, and it must have national attention.
The fatal marihuana cigarette must be recognized as a deadly drug, and American children must be protected against it.
That is a pretty severe indictment. They say it is a national question and that it requires effective legislation. Of course, in a general way, you have responded to all of these statements; but that indicates very clearly that it is an evil of such magnitude that it is recognized by the press of the country as such.
And that was basically it. Yellow journalism won over medical science.
The committee passed the legislation on. And on the floor of the house, the entire discussion was:
Member from upstate New York: "Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?"
Speaker Rayburn: "I don't know. It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it's a narcotic of some kind."
"Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?"
Member on the committee jumps up and says: "Their Doctor Wentworth[sic] came down here. They support this bill 100 percent."
And on the basis of that lie, on August 2, 1937, marijuana became illegal at the federal level.
The entire coverage in the New York Times: "President Roosevelt signed today a bill to curb traffic in the narcotic, marihuana, through heavy taxes on transactions."
~fin~
here is a short book on the matter :shock:
Many people assume that marijuana was made illegal through some kind of process involving scientific, medical, and government hearings; that it was to protect the citizens from what was determined to be a dangerous drug.
The actual story shows a much different picture. Those who voted on the legal fate of this plant never had the facts, but were dependent on information supplied by those who had a specific agenda to deceive lawmakers. You'll see below that the very first federal vote to prohibit marijuana was based entirely on a documented lie on the floor of the Senate.
You'll also see that the history of marijuana's criminalization is filled with:
Racism
Fear
Protection of Corporate Profits
Yellow Journalism
Ignorant, Incompetent, and/or Corrupt Legislators
Personal Career Advancement and Greed
These are the actual reasons marijuana is illegal.
In the early 1900s, the western states developed significant tensions regarding the influx of Mexican-Americans. The revolution in Mexico in 1910 spilled over the border, with General Pershing's army clashing with bandit Pancho Villa. Later in that decade, bad feelings developed between the small farmer and the large farms that used cheaper Mexican labor. Then, the depression came and increased tensions, as jobs and welfare resources became scarce.
One of the "differences" seized upon during this time was the fact that many Mexicans smoked marijuana and had brought the plant with them.
However, the first state law outlawing marijuana did so not because of Mexicans using the drug. Oddly enough, it was because of Mormons using it. Mormons who traveled to Mexico in 1910 came back to Salt Lake City with marijuana. The church was not pleased and ruled against use of the drug. Since the state of Utah automatically enshrined church doctrine into law, the first state marijuana prohibition was established in 1915. (Today, Senator Orrin Hatch serves as the prohibition arm of this heavily church-influenced state.)
Other states quickly followed suit with marijuana prohibition laws, including Wyoming (1915), Texas (1919), Iowa (1923), Nevada (1923), Oregon (1923), Washington (1923), Arkansas (1923), and Nebraska (1927). These laws tended to be specifically targeted against the Mexican-American population.
When Montana outlawed marijuana in 1927, the Butte Montana Standard reported a legislator's comment: "When some beet field peon takes a few traces of this stuff... he thinks he has just been elected president of Mexico, so he starts out to execute all his political enemies." In Texas, a senator said on the floor of the Senate: "All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff [marijuana] is what makes them crazy."
In 1930, a new division in the Treasury Department was established -- the Federal Bureau of Narcotics -- and Harry J. Anslinger was named director. This, if anything, marked the beginning of the all-out war against marijuana.
Anslinger immediately drew upon the themes of racism and violence to draw national attention to the problem he wanted to create. Some of his quotes regarding marijuana...
"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."
"...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."
"Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."
"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."
"Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing"
"You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother."
"Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."
Harry Anslinger got some additional help from William Randolf Hearst, owner of a huge chain of newspapers. Hearst had lots of reasons to help. First, he hated Mexicans. Second, he had invested heavily in the timber industry to support his newspaper chain and didn't want to see the development of hemp paper in competition. Third, he had lost 800,000 acres of timberland to Pancho Villa, so he hated Mexicans. Fourth, telling lurid lies about Mexicans (and the devil marijuana weed causing violence) sold newspapers, making him rich.
Some samples from the San Francisco Examiner:
"Marihuana makes fiends of boys in thirty days -- Hashish goads users to bloodlust."
"By the tons it is coming into this country -- the deadly, dreadful poison that racks and tears not only the body, but the very heart and soul of every human being who once becomes a slave to it in any of its cruel and devastating forms.... Marihuana is a short cut to the insane asylum. Smoke marihuana cigarettes for a month and what was once your brain will be nothing but a storehouse of horrid specters. Hasheesh makes a murderer who kills for the love of killing out of the mildest mannered man who ever laughed at the idea that any habit could ever get him...."
And other nationwide columns...
"Users of marijuana become STIMULATED as they inhale the drug and are LIKELY TO DO ANYTHING. Most crimes of violence in this section, especially in country districts are laid to users of that drug."
"Was it marijuana, the new Mexican drug, that nerved the murderous arm of Clara Phillips when she hammered out her victim's life in Los Angeles?... THREE-FOURTHS OF THE CRIMES of violence in this country today are committed by DOPE SLAVES -- that is a matter of cold record."
Hearst and Anslinger were then supported by Dupont chemical company and various pharmaceutical companies in the effort to outlaw cannabis. Dupont had patented nylon, and wanted hemp removed as competition. The pharmaceutical companies could neither identify nor standardize cannabis dosages, and besides, with cannabis, folks could grow their own medicine and not have to purchase it from large companies.
This all set the stage for The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.
After two years of secret planning, Anslinger brought his plan to Congress -- complete with a scrapbook full of sensational Hearst editorials, stories of ax murderers who had supposedly smoked marijuana, and racial slurs.
It was a remarkably short set of hearings.
The one fly in Anslinger's ointment was the appearance by Dr. William C. Woodward, Legislative Council of the American Medical Association.
Woodward started by slamming Harry Anslinger and the Bureau of Narcotics for distorting earlier AMA statements that had nothing to do with marijuana and making them appear to be AMA endorsement for Anslinger's view.
He also reproached the legislature and the Bureau for using the term marijuana in the legislation and not publicizing it as a bill about cannabis or hemp. At this point, marijuana (or marihuana) was a sensationalist word used to refer to Mexicans smoking a drug and had not been connected in most people's minds to the existing cannabis/hemp plant. Thus, many who had legitimate reasons to oppose the bill weren't even aware of it.
Woodward went on to state that the AMA was opposed to the legislation and further questioned the approach of the hearings, coming close to outright accusation of misconduct by Anslinger and the committee:
"That there is a certain amount of narcotic addiction of an objectionable character no one will deny. The newspapers have called attention to it so prominently that there must be some grounds for [their] statements [even Woodward was partially taken in by Hearst's propaganda]. It has surprised me, however, that the facts on which these statements have been based have not been brought before this committee by competent primary evidence. We are referred to newspaper publications concerning the prevalence of marihuana addiction. We are told that the use of marihuana causes crime.
But yet no one has been produced from the Bureau of Prisons to show the number of prisoners who have been found addicted to the marihuana habit. An informed inquiry shows that the Bureau of Prisons has no evidence on that point.
You have been told that school children are great users of marihuana cigarettes. No one has been summoned from the Children's Bureau to show the nature and extent of the habit, among children.
Inquiry of the Children's Bureau shows that they have had no occasion to investigate it and know nothing particularly of it.
Inquiry of the Office of Education--- and they certainly should know something of the prevalence of the habit among the school children of the country, if there is a prevalent habit--- indicates that they have had no occasion to investigate and know nothing of it.
Moreover, there is in the Treasury Department itself, the Public Health Service, with its Division of Mental Hygiene. The Division of Mental Hygiene was, in the first place, the Division of Narcotics. It was converted into the Division of Mental Hygiene, I think, about 1930. That particular Bureau has control at the present time of the narcotics farms that were created about 1929 or 1930 and came into operation a few years later. No one has been summoned from that Bureau to give evidence on that point.
Informal inquiry by me indicates that they have had no record of any marihuana of Cannabis addicts who have ever been committed to those farms.
The bureau of Public Health Service has also a division of pharmacology. If you desire evidence as to the pharmacology of Cannabis, that obviously is the place where you can get direct and primary evidence, rather than the indirect hearsay evidence."
Committee members then proceeded to attack Dr. Woodward, questioning his motives in opposing the legislation. Even the Chairman joined in:
The Chairman: If you want to advise us on legislation, you ought to come here with some constructive proposals, rather than criticism, rather than trying to throw obstacles in the way of something that the Federal Government is trying to do. It has not only an unselfish motive in this, but they have a serious responsibility.
Dr. Woodward: We cannot understand yet, Mr. Chairman, why this bill should have been prepared in secret for 2 years without any intimation, even, to the profession, that it was being prepared.
After some further bantering...
The Chairman: I would like to read a quotation from a recent editorial in the Washington Times:
The marihuana cigarette is one of the most insidious of all forms of dope, largely because of the failure of the public to understand its fatal qualities.
The Nation is almost defenseless against it, having no Federal laws to cope with it and virtually no organized campaign for combating it.
The result is tragic.
School children are the prey of peddlers who infest school neighborhoods.
High school boys and girls buy the destructive weed without knowledge of its capacity of harm, and conscienceless dealers sell it with impunity.
This is a national problem, and it must have national attention.
The fatal marihuana cigarette must be recognized as a deadly drug, and American children must be protected against it.
That is a pretty severe indictment. They say it is a national question and that it requires effective legislation. Of course, in a general way, you have responded to all of these statements; but that indicates very clearly that it is an evil of such magnitude that it is recognized by the press of the country as such.
And that was basically it. Yellow journalism won over medical science.
The committee passed the legislation on. And on the floor of the house, the entire discussion was:
Member from upstate New York: "Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?"
Speaker Rayburn: "I don't know. It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it's a narcotic of some kind."
"Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?"
Member on the committee jumps up and says: "Their Doctor Wentworth[sic] came down here. They support this bill 100 percent."
And on the basis of that lie, on August 2, 1937, marijuana became illegal at the federal level.
The entire coverage in the New York Times: "President Roosevelt signed today a bill to curb traffic in the narcotic, marihuana, through heavy taxes on transactions."
~fin~
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2005
- Messages
- 10,286
- Main Job
- Secondary Job
- Third Job
- Server
- Quetzalcoatl
- Linkshell
- TheNameless
- FFXI
- Elemmire
Marajade said:
I think pot wasn't legal because so many years ago the plantoon owners had the government ban pot because they didn't want competition.. and being rich white men they had that power to persuade the government into banning and its stuck since.. atleast.. I think that's a reason why
Skaw said:
The drug war all but pays for itself thru property siezures (like my computer and $5000 cash they took from my house).
What our tax dollars pay for is cable tv, 3 square meals a day, housing and clothing of non-violent offenders that could be productive members of society.
I am a firm believer in prisoner slave labor.
If your a prisoner you work till your time is up. Thats my opinion, thats the debt they owe society, when they get out they can really say they paid us back in full.
If your a prisoner you work till your time is up. Thats my opinion, thats the debt they owe society, when they get out they can really say they paid us back in full.
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2005
- Messages
- 10,286
- Main Job
- Secondary Job
- Third Job
- Server
- Quetzalcoatl
- Linkshell
- TheNameless
- FFXI
- Elemmire
I say it depends on the prisoner's crime >.> some deserve public torture, in my opinion. Like.. serious torture.. Berserk-esque torture. Anyways.. I'd like to see if the government banned alcohol and cigarettes if Skaw would be right.. hmmm
I guess noone has anything else to say about this particular topic.
That's good. So I guess we can all agree that the prohibition laws should be repealed.
So how bout some of you people that like Mr. Bush and hiw politics present an arguement for some of his decisions.
If noone feels like it, I guess we can just drop the issue.
That's good. So I guess we can all agree that the prohibition laws should be repealed.
So how bout some of you people that like Mr. Bush and hiw politics present an arguement for some of his decisions.
If noone feels like it, I guess we can just drop the issue.