Should marijuana be legalized?

Should we legalize it?

  • Yes

    Votes: 52 73.2%
  • No

    Votes: 19 26.8%

  • Total voters
    71
Your defense of pot smoking and evident belief in a conspiracy to keep it illegal seems to be bordering on paranoia. Speaking of paranoia:


http://www.rsna.org/rsna/media/pr2005/Marijauna.cfm
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10116853
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4305783.stm

your inability to read and assimilate has become quite apparent ..its no conspiracy and 5th grade student know more about this than you do palerider....... read the book pal then come back you havent got a leg to stand on in this iossue PERIOD......what happened happened its documented and widely written about again smart ass if you know so much go collect the cash....................


oh thats right YOU REALLY DONT KNOW anything you just spout Govt Rhetorics like the sky is falling.....no paranoia PURE FACTS where are YOURS ill address you inconclusive links here also are ANY OF YOU KNOWLEDGABLE on this ? seems that me and 9sublime are the only ones here in posession of the actual truths on this matter?
 
Werbung:
Maybe you should read back through this thread. He most certainly has stated that "forces" are working to keep pot illegal so that other "forces" may gain profit. That is a conspiracy; and who ever mentioned a worldwide conspiracy involving every official in the world. Few conspiracy theorists claim that their conspiracy involves every official in the world.
no sir thats NOT what ive said you dont EVER frigging read things only parts of them then you go on with your patented Bullshat of trying to say people say or support things that they never said they did.here you are once again..same story Now ill go really slow for you ok ?


Back in 1937 there was a group of financiers and corporate giants they IN FACT conspired to make Marijuana and MOSTLY HEMP ILLEGAL the reason? quite simple to eliminate the entire HEMP INDUSTRY

In order to do this they USED its cousin marijuana to Villanize BOTH PLANTS by staging events that didnt happen (sounds like your kinda people) and Writing article that werent true but publishing them anyhow

Anslinger,Hearst,Dupont, these are are a few of the names involved.its all factual thats how Hemp and Marijuana became to be illegal.....PERIOD there is no room for debate NO ROOM FOR PALERIDERS THEORY this is DOCUMENTED FACT...............prove ANY OF IT WRONG and Collect 100,000,00 which you cant do because you simply dont know what the Fock your talking about !!!!

its factual and documented period when are you going to read the book?

your really showing anyone who knows the truth what we are up againts mindless frigging idiots with a complete inability to look at teh documented evidence ......yet somehow feel they are able to speak on the subject!!!!!!
what a joke you really are dudue then when it becomes obvious Im Kicking your asz in the thread you start talking about this in yet ANOTHER thread Dude you suck.you dont KNOW what your talking about PERIOD youve LOST hands down

why are you so bent on embarrassing yourself? you look like a 60 yr old man who dosent know what the fock hes talking abaout?

oh thats right.........you are
 
Palerider, you are a real *****. His defense of pot smoking is called an opinion, and I don't think he's ever ranted about a huge, worldwide conspiracy from every official in the world, but more about the fact that the government is too opinionated to ever change cannabis and so it doesn't give its findings out straight to the people, but twisted them.

Obviously you have memory loss on the word opinions defenition, and that this forum is here for opinions, and memory loss on the tone and point of most of Rokers point. I always hear memory loss is quite a common side effect from cannabis too. Maybe you shouldn't have puffed away in the 60's.

Memory Loss is a "TEMPORARY" side effect of smoking pot
IF you are aregular user that smokes say 6 times a day which is NOT the NORM then POSSIBLY the issue of memery loss can be looked at .........BUT WHEN that smoker puts down the pipe and allows his mind to clear so to does the Memory loss ...............it is NOT a permanent Effect of pot smoking.if it was id never have been able to do my Job as a telecommunications expert.............far too much memory involved to just scrape by without remembering.....but hey you know palerider......he thinks he knows it all
 
The general theme here appears to be "I'm right and you all suck!" which is more befitting of an elementary school fight than a forum where adults go to discuss things.

Rokerijdude, you need to sit yourself down and ask yourself whether or not you're even willing to accept the possibility that you are wrong on this. You seem to be so convinced that you aren't that every time anyone posts anything as evidence to the contrary you go off like Vesuvius. It seems that your attempts to debunk other peoples' arguments come more from an emotional desire to do so than a logical one. You aren't convincing anyone of anything.

Do you think maybe we can try this again? Without any accusations and name-calling this time?
 
The general theme here appears to be "I'm right and you all suck!" which is more befitting of an elementary school fight than a forum where adults go to discuss things.

Rokerijdude, you need to sit yourself down and ask yourself whether or not you're even willing to accept the possibility that you are wrong on this. You seem to be so convinced that you aren't that every time anyone posts anything as evidence to the contrary you go off like Vesuvius. It seems that your attempts to debunk other peoples' arguments come more from an emotional desire to do so than a logical one. You aren't convincing anyone of anything.

Do you think maybe we can try this again? Without any accusations and name-calling this time?

Im sorry But on the Prohibition of marijuana there is absolutly NO WAY i am WRONG on it period

it is DOCUMENTED FACT that is supported BY EXTENSIVE research concerning it PERIOD there is NO debate IT is what it is period i didnt say he sucked? your just like him i see.......I said he is UN-EDUCATED in the REALITIES of Hemp and Marijuana Prohibition..which he IS again just some FACTS period calling him Un-educated is not calling him a name? it is calling attention to his Education when it comes to this subject...and he is FLATLY wrong
I have debated my position without name calling

I cant help that some of you are simply Not Educated enough to respond in this thread ..you continue to bring proof that is NOT proof its simply conjecture.....MAY .....COULD......SOME......POSSIBLY..... these are not words that wopuld support PROOF of anything......NONE of you anti MJ people so far actually even Knows the TRUTHS behind Prohibition??????


How then can you EVEN begin to speak with any type of Knowledge on the subject? GO READ THE BOOK and then if youd like to debate we can attempt to do so ..so far not one of you has had a valid debateable point

in short on the subject of how hemp and Marijauana became illegal and why they continue to conspire against it...........NO SIR I AM NOT WRONG period

its all in the Book.read it and collect the money if you think you know better?


why bother to debate me? im not offereing 100 grand to prove me wrong? your wasting valuable time and effort on me.........that is Unless of course you arent Educated enough to prove Jack wrong..................or maybe the facts are ..gasp FACTS and your UNABLE to prove them wrong eh
 
I think that although Roker is stubborn and slightly provocative in this issue, Palerider just talks absoloute arse that he has just looked up on some government website in the last five minutes.

Palerider just attacks the way people debate this issue, and doesn't address the fact that Roker is actually defeating him in it at every turn of this discussion.
 
I think that although Roker is stubborn and slightly provocative in this issue, Palerider just talks absoloute arse that he has just looked up on some government website in the last five minutes.

Palerider just attacks the way people debate this issue, and doesn't address the fact that Roker is actually defeating him in it at every turn of this discussion.

Well Said and I concur.
 
marijuana Prohibition

http://jackherer.com/chapter04.html

Go learn WHY and HOW it came to be or continue to lose your shirt in *cough* *Cough* debate


=================================

In the mid-1930s, when the new mechanical hemp fiber stripping machines and machines to conserve hemp's high-cellulose pulp finally became state-of-the-art, available and affordable, the enormous timber acreage and businesses of the Hearst Paper Manufacturing Division, Kimberly Clark (USA), St. Regis - and virtually all other timber, paper and large newspaper holding companies - stood to lose billions of dollars and perhaps go bankrupt.

Coincidentally, in 1937, DuPont had just patented processes for making plastics from oil and coal, as well as a new sulfate/sulfite process for making paper from wood pulp. According to DuPont's own corporate records and historians,* these processes accounted for over 80% of all the company's railroad carloadings over the next 60 years into the 1990s.

*Author's research and communications with DuPont, 1985-1996.

If hemp had not been made illegal, 80% of DuPont's business would never have materialized and the great majority of the pollution which has poisoned our Northwestern and Southeastern rivers would not have occurred.

In an open marketplace, hemp would have saved the majority of America's vital family farms and would probably have boosted their numbers, despite the Great Depression of the 1930s.

But competing against environmentally-sane hemp paper and natural plastic technology would have jeopardized the lucrative financial schemes of Hearst, DuPont and DuPont's chief financial backer, Andrew Mellon of the Mellon Bank of Pittsburgh.


Concern about the effects of hemp smoke had already led to two major governmental studies. The British governor of India released the Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission 1893-1894 on heavy bhang smokers in the subcontinent.

And in 1930, the U.S. government sponsored the Siler Commission study on the effects of off-duty smoking of marijuana by American servicemen in Panama. Both reports concluded that marijuana was not a problem and recommended that no criminal penalties apply to its use.

In early 1937, Assistant U.S. Surgeon General Walter Treadway told the Cannabis Advisory Subcommittee of the League of Nations that, "It may be taken for a relatively long time without social or emotional breakdown. Marihuana is habit-forming. . . in the same sense as. . . sugar or coffee."

But other forces were at work. The war fury that led to the Spanish American War in 1898 was ignited by William Randolph Hearst, through his nationwide chain of newspapers, and marked the beginning of "yellow journalism"* as a force in American politics.

* Webster's Dictionary defines "yellow journalism" as the use of cheaply sensational or unscrupulous methods in newspapers and other media to attract or influence the readers.

In the 1920s and '30s, Hearst's newspapers deliberately manufactured a new threat to America and a new yellow journalism campaign to have hemp outlawed. For example, a story of a car accident in which a "marijuana cigarette" was found would dominate the headlines for weeks, while alcohol related car accidents (which outnumbered marijuana connected accidents by more than 10,000 to 1) made only the back pages.

This same theme of marijuana leading to car accidents was burned into the minds of Americans over and over again the in late 1930s by showing marijuana related car accident headlines in movies such as "Reefer Madness" and "Marijuana - Assassin of Youth."



In the secret Treasury Department meetings conducted between 1935 and 1937, prohibitive tax laws were drafted and strategies plotted. "Marijuana" was not banned outright; the law called for an "occupational excise tax upon dealers, and a transfer tax upon dealings in marijuana."

Importers, manufacturers, sellers and distributors were required to register with the Secretary of the Treasury and pay the occupational tax. Transfers were taxed at $1 an ounce; $100 an ounce if the dealer was unregistered. The new tax doubled the price of the legal "raw drug" cannabis which at the time sold for one dollar an ounce.2 The year was 1937. New York State had exactly one narcotics officer.*

* New York currently has a network of thousands of narcotics officers, agents, spies and paid informants - and 20 times the penal capacity it had in 1937, although the state's population has only doubled since then.

After the Supreme Court decision of March 29, 1937, upholding the prohibition of machine guns through taxation, Herman Oliphant made his move. On April 14, 1937 he introduced the bill directly to the House Ways and Means Committee instead of to other appropriate committees such as food and drug, agriculture, textiles, commerce, etc.

His reason may have been that "Ways and Means" is the only committee that can send its bills directly to the House floor without being subject to debate by other committees. Ways and Means Chairman Robert L. Doughton,* a key DuPont ally, quickly rubber-stamped the secret Treasury bill and sent it sailing through Congress to the President.

* Colby Jerry, The DuPont Dynasties, Lyle Stewart, 1984.



As the AMA's Dr. Woodward had asserted, the government's testimony before Congress in 1937 had in fact consisted almost entirely of Hearst's and other sensational and racist newspaper articles read aloud by Harry J. Anslinger,* director of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN). (This agency has since evolved into the Drug Enforcement Administration [DEA]).

*Harry J. Anslinger was director of the new Federal Bureau of Narcotics from its inception in 1931 for the next 31 years, and was only forced into retirement in 1962 by President John F. Kennedy after Anslinger tried to censor the publications and publishers of Professor Alfred Lindsmith (The Addict and the Law, Washington Post, 1961) and to blackmail and harass his employer, Indiana University. Anslinger had come under attack for racist remarks as early as 1934 by a U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, Joseph Guffey, for such things as referring to "ginger-colored ******s" in letters circulated to his department heads on FBN stationery.

Prior to 1931, Anslinger was Assistant U.S. Commissioner for Prohibition. Anslinger, remember, was hand-picked to head the new Federal Bureau of Narcotics by his uncle-in-law, Andrew Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury under President Herbert Hoover. The same Andrew Mellon was also the owner and largest stockholder of the sixth largest bank (in 1937) in the United States, the Mellon Bank in Pittsburgh, one of only two bankers for DuPont* from 1928 to the present.

* DuPont has borrowed money from banks only twice in its entire 190-year history, once to buy control of General Motors in the 1920s. Its banking business is the prestigious plum of the financial world.

In 1937, Anslinger testified before Congress saying, "Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."

This, along with Anslinger's outrageous racist statements and beliefs, was made to the southern dominated congressional committee and is now an embarrassment to read in its entirety.

For instance, Anslinger kept a "Gore File," culled almost entirely from Hearst and other sensational tabloids - e.g., stories of axe murders, where one of the participants reportedly smoked a joint four days before committing the crime.

Anslinger pushed on Congress as a factual statement that about 50% of all violent crimes committed in the U.S. were committed by Spaniards, Mexican-Americans, Latin Americans, Filipinos, African-Americans and Greeks, and these crimes could be traced directly to marijuana.

(From Anslinger's own records given to Pennsylvania State University, ref.; Li Cata Murders, etc.)

Not one of Anslinger's marijuana "Gore Files" of the 1930s is believed to be true by scholars who have painstakingly checked the facts.4


The late 1920s and 1930s saw continuing consolidation of power into the hands of a few large steel, oil and chemical (munitions) companies. The U.S. federal government placed much of the textile production for the domestic economy in the hands of its chief munitions maker, DuPont.

The processing of nitrating cellulose into explosives is very similar to the process for nitrating cellulose into synthetic fibers and plastics. Rayon, the first synthetic fiber, is simply stabilized guncotton, or nitrated cloth, the basic explosive of the 19th Century.

"Synthetic plastics find application in fabricating a wide variety of articles, many of which in the past were made from natural products,"* beamed Lammot DuPont (Popular Mechanics, June 1939, pg. 805).

"Consider our natural resources," the president of DuPont continued, "The chemist has aided in conserving natural resources by developing synthetic products to supplement or wholly replace natural products."

DuPont's scientists were the world's leading researchers into the processes of nitrating cellulose and were in fact the largest processor of cellulose in the nation in this era.

The February 1938 Popular Mechanics article stated "Thousands of tons of hemp hurds are used every year by one large powder company for the manufacture of dynamite and TNT." History shows that DuPont had largely cornered the market in explosives by buying up and consolidating the smaller blasting companies in the late 1800s. By 1902 it controlled about two-thirds of industry output.
 
The late 1920s and 1930s saw continuing consolidation of power into the hands of a few large steel, oil and chemical (munitions) companies. The U.S. federal government placed much of the textile production for the domestic economy in the hands of its chief munitions maker, DuPont.

The processing of nitrating cellulose into explosives is very similar to the process for nitrating cellulose into synthetic fibers and plastics. Rayon, the first synthetic fiber, is simply stabilized guncotton, or nitrated cloth, the basic explosive of the 19th Century.

"Synthetic plastics find application in fabricating a wide variety of articles, many of which in the past were made from natural products,"* beamed Lammot DuPont (Popular Mechanics, June 1939, pg. 805).

"Consider our natural resources," the president of DuPont continued, "The chemist has aided in conserving natural resources by developing synthetic products to supplement or wholly replace natural products."

DuPont's scientists were the world's leading researchers into the processes of nitrating cellulose and were in fact the largest processor of cellulose in the nation in this era.

The February 1938 Popular Mechanics article stated "Thousands of tons of hemp hurds are used every year by one large powder company for the manufacture of dynamite and TNT." History shows that DuPont had largely cornered the market in explosives by buying up and consolidating the smaller blasting companies in the late 1800s. By 1902 it controlled about two-thirds of industry output.

They were the largest powder company, supplying 40% of the munitions for the allies in WWI. As cellulose and fiber researchers, DuPont's chemists knew hemp's true value better than anyone else. The value of hemp goes far beyond linen fibers; although recognized for linen, canvas, netting and cordage, these long fibers are only 20% of the hempstalk's weight. Eighty percent of the hemp is in the 77% cellulose hurd, and this was the most abundant, cleanest resource of cellulose (fiber) for paper, plastics and even rayon.

The empirical evidence in this book shows that the federal government - through the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act - allowed this munitions maker to supply synthetic fibers for the domestic economy without competition. The proof of a successful conspiracy among these corporate and governing interests is simply this: in 1997 DuPont was still the largest producer of man-made fibers, while no American citizen has legally harvested a single acre of textile grade hemp in over 60 years (except during the period of WWII).

An almost unlimited tonnage of natural fiber and cellulose would have become available to the American farmer in 1937, the year DuPont patented nylon and the polluting wood-pulp paper sulfide process. All of hemp's potential value was lost.

Simple plastics of the early 1900s were made of nitrated cellulose, directly related to DuPont's munitions-making process. Celluloid, acetate and rayon were the simple plastics of that era, and hemp was well known to cellulose researchers as the premier resource for this new industry to use. Worldwide, the raw material of simple plastics, rayon and paper could be best supplied by hemp hurds.

Nylon fibers were developed between 1926-1937 by the noted Harvard chemist Wallace Carothers, working from German patents. These polyamides are long fibers based on observed natural products. Carothers, supplied with an open-ended research grant from DuPont, made a comprehensive study of natural cellulose fibers. He duplicated natural fibers in his labs and polyamides - long fibers of a specific chemical process - were developed. (Curiously, Wallace Carothers committed suicide one week after the House Ways and Means Committee, in April of 1937, had the hearings on cannabis and created the bill that would eventually outlaw hemp.)

Coal tar and petroleum-based chemicals were employed, and different devices, spinnerets and processes were patented. This new type of textile, nylon, was to be controlled from the raw material stage, as coal, to the completed product: a patented chemical product. The chemical company centralized the production and profits of the new "miracle" fiber. The introduction of nylon, the introduction of high-volume machinery to separate hemp's long fiber from the cellulose hurd, and the outlawing of hemp as "marijuana" all occurred simultaneously.

The new man-made fibers (MMFs) can best be described as war material. The fiber-making process has become one based on big factories, smokestacks, coolants and hazardous chemicals, rather than one of stripping out the abundant, naturally available fibers.

Coming from a history of making explosives and munitions, the old "chemical dye plants" now produce hosiery, mock linens, mock canvas, latex paint and synthetic carpets. Their polluting factories make imitation leather, upholstery and wood surfaces, while an important part of the natural cycle stands outlawed.

The standard fiber of world history, America's traditional crop, hemp, could provide our textiles and paper and be the premier source for cellulose. The war industries - DuPont, Allied Chemical, Monsanto, etc., - are protected from competition by the marijuana laws. They make war on the natural cycle and the common farmer.

- Shan Clark
 
your inability to read and assimilate has become quite apparent ..its no conspiracy and 5th grade student know more about this than you do palerider....... read the book pal then come back you havent got a leg to stand on in this iossue PERIOD......what happened happened its documented and widely written about again smart ass if you know so much go collect the cash....................

"the book" is written by an uneducated doper. Of what possible value do you believe it is?
 
I think that although Roker is stubborn and slightly provocative in this issue, Palerider just talks absoloute arse that he has just looked up on some government website in the last five minutes.

Palerider just attacks the way people debate this issue, and doesn't address the fact that Roker is actually defeating him in it at every turn of this discussion.


I have provided plenty of credible science that strongly suggests that pot smoking can cause a host of health problems. He, on the other hand, incessantly refers to "the book" which was written by an uneducated doper. Pardon me, but I will accept legitimate research over the published rantings of a doper.
 
I have provided plenty of credible science that strongly suggests that pot smoking can cause a host of health problems. He, on the other hand, incessantly refers to "the book" which was written by an uneducated doper. Pardon me, but I will accept legitimate research over the published rantings of a doper.


Like the Islam topic, this CANNOT go any further until you realise that you are turning down any evidence on pro-legalisation if it is written by someone who has smoked the stuff.
 
I have provided plenty of credible science that strongly suggests that pot smoking can cause a host of health problems. He, on the other hand, incessantly refers to "the book" which was written by an uneducated doper. Pardon me, but I will accept legitimate research over the published rantings of a doper.

No you have NOT
what you have provided are websites that contain alot of assumptions and words like "Could" "May" "might" "possibly" in some cases..no proof nothing of defenitive nature at all

I have on the other hand Provided you with Documented proof of my position and all you have been able to do with it is call the author and myself names because your UN-able to Debate the issue ....why? because your limited education in this topic area does not allow you to debate the issue.I am sorry that your Agent Orange riddled brain keeps you from actually reading and debating the issue? maybe you should have that looked at?

wait wait.......I dont need to do this .i dont need to stoop to your level I RETRACT that statement I dont need it i have OWNED you since the opening post of this thread
all you have been able to do is insult and ridicule the halmarks of an un-educated debater

your really could learn something here but your too smug to do so you lose pal sorry

your un-able to effect any type of argument outside of name calling

come back when you have a clue or if youd like to continue to embarras yourself
 
I use Jacks Book as its the easiest way to support my position it has all been convieniently located in one area and has all of the associated reference points to support it

I have no need to "rely" on it as you purport I have smoked daily for some 30 years..................I Live the life I know the life I know all of this information and have Intensively investigated it before beginning to use it to support my theories


you on the other hand REFUSE to even look at it .......why? one can only speculate it is because it will destroy your position and it scares the hell out of you that you are actually wrong about something


and thats what we have here you are simply Wrong about this .and refuse to even look at why that is...because it is far easier to call Jack and Myself Dopers than it is to actually learn the truth

what a small box you must live in
 
Werbung:
To Roker: I apologize. I should mention that I largely agree with you on this issue. I said that the theme had become "I'm right and you suck," not that you'd actually said those particular words. You've presented a wealth of information and actually, regardless of any potentially harmful characteristics of marijuana I was always in favor of its legalization.

To palerider: I'd have to say that he's got you beaten on this one. All the other people to have chimed in seem to think so too. Unless you want to put that science of yours back on the table (yes, repeat yourself) than its time to concede the debate. If you don't, then please, lets see your evidence again.
 
Back
Top