isaacdelongchamp
Registered Member
What are the actual reasons given by the government for marijuana being a scheduled drug? And what are the logical arguments against making it legal?
Why is marijuana illegal in the US?
- Thread starter isaacdelongchamp
- Start date
I'll give some better explanation at some point, but the answer, essentially, is "nylon". The Marihuana Tax Stamp Act of 1937 was passed under Congress' power to regulate commerce, and over the objections of the American Medical Association. Harry Anslinger mischaracterized marijuana as being as dangerous as opium, but without any of the benefits opium could bring. He compared it to a cornered snake. There are details that seem conspiratorial, but the primary thing to note is that marijuana was also hemp, and that made rope, which was nylon's first big market. DuPont introduced nylon in 1936.
A worthwhile site full of history and politics is DrugLibrary.org, the Drug Reform Coordination Network Online Library. There's not much or a narrative, though, unless you let some of the documents speak for themselves. The portion I'm most familiar with is the Schaffer Library.
A worthwhile site full of history and politics is DrugLibrary.org, the Drug Reform Coordination Network Online Library. There's not much or a narrative, though, unless you let some of the documents speak for themselves. The portion I'm most familiar with is the Schaffer Library.
isaacdelongchamp
Registered Member
Thanks, thats an interesting site. why is marijuanna still illegal today? Since 662,886 people arrested in 2003 for posession of marijuana (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/crime.htm), I'm wondering if there are some facts or logical arguments for why possession of weed should be a crime.
Also because with Americans, like with every other right, one can not forsee them using it responsibly.
It is just a myth that marijuana became a class A drug during the 60's to put down hippies and curb their social influence? I thought I heard that somewhere.
Although I have little knowledge about the context of soft-drugs in the US, I can tell you why it is legal in the Netherlands: pragmatism.
Law enforcers here have neither the will nor the ability to sufficiently curb soft drugs usage, so there seemed little credibility in proclaiming soft drugs illegal. However, to keep the whole thing managable and not to encourage a dramatic increase in drug traffic, limits were put on the amount a person could carry at any one time and no-one was allowed to sell it other at the designated places.
The same principle for prostitution. If the sin is minor, the damage to society minimal, and you really can not stop it from happening, why bother to attempt an useless expensive fight to begin with?
Law enforcers here have neither the will nor the ability to sufficiently curb soft drugs usage, so there seemed little credibility in proclaiming soft drugs illegal. However, to keep the whole thing managable and not to encourage a dramatic increase in drug traffic, limits were put on the amount a person could carry at any one time and no-one was allowed to sell it other at the designated places.
The same principle for prostitution. If the sin is minor, the damage to society minimal, and you really can not stop it from happening, why bother to attempt an useless expensive fight to begin with?
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
You're looking for logic in the American legal system?
Marijuana is illegal because people do not know how to ask for a lawyer. Because people waive ther right to a jury trial. Do you really think that if everyone who was arrested -in the US- for marijuana insisted on a jury trial that the government could AFFORD to keep it illegal? No. It would be legal tommorow.
It has changed over time. Basically, they claim that it is a highly addictive substance akin to heroin that causes violence and crime.isaacdelongchamp said:
And yet TV is still legal...
There are none. I recently attended the assembly hearing in the Nevada Legislature, where for the first time in any state legislature, they discussed the legalization issue. Around 10 cops testified against it, all upper echelon brass, the house speaker (who wasn't even on the judiciary comitee) who happens to be an ex-cop, former DA, and current deputy, and the D.A. in Las Vegas. No one outside of the law enforcement community testified against it. The house assembly speaker gave the average response and it went something like this, "When I was a cop, I saw a lot of bad things happen with marijuana. When I was a cop in Henderson (suburb of Vegas), there was a kid who was stealing aluminum off the bottom of lightposts to sell it and pay for his heroin habit. When we got to him and talked to him he said it all started with marijuana. Another instance was when a young man was brought out to the las vegas wash by a couple of buddies and they slit his throat. He was on methamphetamines at the time and it probably saved his life. He struggled back to town, and we talked to him and guess what? It started with marijuana."
While hearing them out, and listening to what they have to say, I drew the conclusion that they can't possibly believe what they are saying. Anyone who has had any experience with marijuana knows for a fact that marijuana is less of a gateway drug than alcohol, does not cause violence, and is not the cause of crime. There has to be another motive. So I started hitting the books and am currently doing some research on the matter. What it comes down to is money. There are millions of dollars in federal grants up for grabs to fight marijuana. There are grants for drug courts, grants for mandatory court ordered substance abuse counseling, grants for equipment, personel, task forces. And of course, the money to be made from the jail system and fines imposed upon people and most of all the property seized from drug offenders (something that can't happen with any other sort of crime.) And the best part? Most of the money does not have to be accounted for, especially in the instance of equipment and they can do whatever they want with the property seized.
The main reason is money and I'll probably post here again when all the facts and figures are in. Start asking the local cops how much money they make off the drug war and I guarantee you'll hit a nerve.
See above.
Sadly, no, it's not a myth. The war on marijuana is in actuality a war on a (counter)culture. In '67 it was raised to a class A drug which shares classification with PCP and Heroin. Shrooms are also unjustly in this category. Look up Harry J. Anslinger if you want to know the reasons...grazzhoppa said:
As for the jury nullification theory, I'm pretty sure it can't be applied to drug laws through the use of some loop hole - but I could (hope I am) be wrong.
We must have two different understandings of jury nullification.
To me it means the jury says this law is unjust B.S., the issue is not “are the charges true?”, it is “should any person be punished for breaking this unjust law?”. The jury nullifies the law, by declaring the accused “innocent of wrong doing”, regardless of the law.
Jury nullification can be applied to any unjust laws.
It is the ultimate civil disobedience.
Random Info (I've done alot of research on this topic)
Before the twentieth century, marijuana was widely grown in the U.S. for industrial purposes. After 1910, revolution in Mexico triggered a surge of Mexican immigration into the U.S. With them these Mexicans brought their pastime of marijuana smoking, and with Americans’ unease toward these immigrants, the first fears of marijuana were born. Soon the federal government had enacted new laws banning the plant, citing outrageous lies that spawned the movement known as ‘reefer madness.’ Marijuana became linked with homicides, sex crimes, insanity, and extreme addiction. Many of these false claims have retained their hold in American society, and, today, the government still cites similar claims. Vice-chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight subcommittee on national security Mark Souder, writing in support of the government’s current war on marijuana, brazenly endorses several of these claims in an article in Insight, quoting a journalist from 1938: “Marijuana, while no more habit-forming than ordinary cigarette smoking, offers a shorter cut to complete madness than any other drug.”
Today, it is estimated that taxpayers spend between 7.5 and 10 billions dollars annually arresting and prosecuting individuals for marijuana violations. (Norml)
The report, entitled "1998 Marijuana Crop Report: An Evaluation of Marijuana Production, Value, and Eradication Efforts in the United States," estimates that farmers harvested 8.7 million marijuana plants in 1997 worth $15.1 billion dollars to growers and $25.2 billion on the retail market.
Before the twentieth century, marijuana was widely grown in the U.S. for industrial purposes. After 1910, revolution in Mexico triggered a surge of Mexican immigration into the U.S. With them these Mexicans brought their pastime of marijuana smoking, and with Americans’ unease toward these immigrants, the first fears of marijuana were born. Soon the federal government had enacted new laws banning the plant, citing outrageous lies that spawned the movement known as ‘reefer madness.’ Marijuana became linked with homicides, sex crimes, insanity, and extreme addiction. Many of these false claims have retained their hold in American society, and, today, the government still cites similar claims. Vice-chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight subcommittee on national security Mark Souder, writing in support of the government’s current war on marijuana, brazenly endorses several of these claims in an article in Insight, quoting a journalist from 1938: “Marijuana, while no more habit-forming than ordinary cigarette smoking, offers a shorter cut to complete madness than any other drug.”
Today, it is estimated that taxpayers spend between 7.5 and 10 billions dollars annually arresting and prosecuting individuals for marijuana violations. (Norml)
The report, entitled "1998 Marijuana Crop Report: An Evaluation of Marijuana Production, Value, and Eradication Efforts in the United States," estimates that farmers harvested 8.7 million marijuana plants in 1997 worth $15.1 billion dollars to growers and $25.2 billion on the retail market.
Yeah i agree i think that we should legalize pot i mean every one can get it any way it is kind of like the noble experiment int the 20's when we outlawed alcohal well that didn't last long so do you know the amount of money we would gain
"cristian"? Unless you misspelled your user title on purpose ... mm, well. 
Pot should stay illegal. End of story.
Q: But what about alcohol and tobacco? They're worse. SEE? PH34R MY HUMONGOUS UNBEATABLE ARGUMENT.
A: Not to me. I advocate illegalization of all alcohol and tobacco.
Q: ...
A: "..." yourself.
Q: But that's unreasonable.
A: It's just me. It's just my little opinion. You're free to ignore it if you want.
Q: THAT'S RIGHT I WILL. NOW SHUT UP.
A: Okey doke.
Q: (five seconds later) BUT ...
And the merry-go-round continues.
Pot should stay illegal. End of story.
Q: But what about alcohol and tobacco? They're worse. SEE? PH34R MY HUMONGOUS UNBEATABLE ARGUMENT.
A: Not to me. I advocate illegalization of all alcohol and tobacco.
Q: ...
A: "..." yourself.
Q: But that's unreasonable.
A: It's just me. It's just my little opinion. You're free to ignore it if you want.
Q: THAT'S RIGHT I WILL. NOW SHUT UP.
A: Okey doke.
Q: (five seconds later) BUT ...
And the merry-go-round continues.
Naomi said:
If nothing else, your post proves that there are no logical arguments to keep marijuana illegal, only childish rhetoric.
BeHereNow said:
I don't know much about jury nullification, but it seems like something that should already have been done if it was possible. Even if an entire jury agreed to nullify the law, would the person get off, or a re-trial? Would it even invalidate the law?