http://www.ivaw.org/
Excerpt: 450,000 tested in Army for use of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other narcotics but only 300 for steroids
Excerpt: 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.
Cult of UHF EP 3 Tell Your Children (1936) aka "Reefer Madness" youtube 1:09 and 49 sec
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ngcxG3-xXs
Illuminati Bloodlines
by Fritz Springmeier
Content.
Introduction.
The Astor Bloodline.
The Bundy Bloodline.
The Collins Bloodline.
The DuPont Bloodline. The Freeman Bloodline.
The Kennedy Bloodline.
The Li Bloodline.
The Onassis Bloodline.
The Rockefeller Bloodline.
The Rothschild Bloodline.
The Russell Bloodline.
The Van Duyn Bloodline.
The Merovingian Bloodline.
The Disney Bloodline.
The Reynolds bloodline.
Cannabis History - Harry J. Anslinger
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJMeTR227h8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger
Excerpt:
He married Martha Kind Denniston (Sept 1886 - Oct 10, 1961) in 1917. In 1930, at age 38, when he was appointed as the first Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, he was renting an apartment at 16th & R Street in Washington, DC for $90 per month, where he lived with his wife Martha and son Joseph L. Anslinger (May 24, 1911 - Nov 1982), who were 44 and 18, respectively. Martha Denniston was the niece[2] of Andrew W. Mellon, the Secretary of the US Treasury who would appoint Anslinger to his 32 year post as Commissioner.
http://www.answers.com/topic/andrew-w-mellon
Excerpt:
http://o.seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013478445_steroids21m.html
Excerpt:
Costly testing limited
Soldiers may be tested for steroids when a commander has probable cause to suspect abuse.
But since 2008, only about 300 soldiers have been tested for steroids, according to Army statistics provided by Chiarelli. In contrast, the Army conducts random testing of more than 450,000 soldiers each year for use of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other narcotics.
Army officials say the steroid analysis is too expensive to be included in the random drug testing. The Army cost for a steroid urinalysis ranges from $240 to $365 per sample, which compares with a cost as low as $8 per sample for marijuana, according to Army statistics.
http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/
Harry J. Anslinger
Anslinger was an extremely ambitious man, and he recognized the Bureau of Narcotics as an amazing career opportunity — a new government agency with the opportunity to define both the problem and the solution. He immediately realized that opiates and cocaine wouldn’t be enough to help build his agency, so he latched on to marijuana and started to work on making it illegal at the federal level.
Anslinger immediately drew upon the themes of racism and violence to draw national attention to the problem he wanted to create. He also promoted and frequently read from “Gore Files” — wild reefer-madness-style exploitation tales of ax murderers on marijuana and sex and… Negroes. Here are some quotes that have been widely attributed to Anslinger and his Gore Files:
“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
http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/
Excerpt:
The Mexican Connection
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, and it was through this that California apparently passed the first state marijuana law, outlawing “preparations of hemp, or loco weed.”
However, one of the first state laws outlawing marijuana may have been influenced, not just by Mexicans using the drug, but, oddly enough, because of Mormons using it. Mormons who traveled to Mexico in 1910 came back to Salt Lake City with marijuana. The church’s reaction to this may have contributed to the state’s marijuana law. (Note: the source for this speculation is from articles by Charles Whitebread, Professor of Law at USC Law School in a paper for the Virginia Law Review, and a speech to the California Judges Association (sourced below). Mormon blogger Ardis Parshall disputes this.)
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.”
Jazz and Assassins
In the eastern states, the “problem” was attributed to a combination of Latin Americans and black jazz musicians. Marijuana and jazz traveled from New Orleans to Chicago, and then to Harlem, where marijuana became an indispensable part of the music scene, even entering the language of the black hits of the time (Louis Armstrong’s “Muggles”, Cab Calloway’s “That Funny Reefer Man”, Fats Waller’s “Viper’s Drag”).
Again, racism was part of the charge against marijuana, as newspapers in 1934 editorialized: “Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men’s shadows and look at a white woman twice.”
Two other fear-tactic rumors started to spread: one, that Mexicans, Blacks and other foreigners were snaring white children with marijuana; and two, the story of the “assassins.” Early stories of Marco Polo had told of “hasheesh-eaters” or hashashin, from which derived the term “assassin.” In the original stories, these professional killers were given large doses of hashish and brought to the ruler’s garden (to give them a glimpse of the paradise that awaited them upon successful completion of their mission). Then, after the effects of the drug disappeared, the assassin would fulfill his ruler’s wishes with cool, calculating loyalty.
By the 1930s, the story had changed. Dr. A. E. Fossier wrote in the 1931 New Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal: “Under the influence of hashish those fanatics would madly rush at their enemies, and ruthlessly massacre every one within their grasp.” Within a very short time, marijuana started being linked to violent behavior.
Alcohol Prohibition and Federal Approaches to Drug Prohibition
During this time, the United States was also dealing with alcohol prohibition, which lasted from 1919 to 1933. Alcohol prohibition was extremely visible and debated at all levels, while drug laws were passed without the general public’s knowledge. National alcohol prohibition happened through the mechanism of an amendment to the constitution.
Earlier (1914), the Harrison Act was passed, which provided federal tax penalties for opiates and cocaine.
The federal approach is important. It was considered at the time that the federal government did not have the constitutional power to outlaw alcohol or drugs. It is because of this that alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment.
At that time in our country’s history, the judiciary regularly placed the tenth amendment in the path of congressional regulation of “local” affairs, and direct regulation of medical practice was considered beyond congressional power under the commerce clause (since then, both provisions have been weakened so far as to have almost no meaning).
Since drugs could not be outlawed at the federal level, the decision was made to use federal taxes as a way around the restriction. In the Harrison Act, legal uses of opiates and cocaine were taxed (supposedly as a revenue need by the federal government, which is the only way it would hold up in the courts), and those who didn’t follow the law found themselves in trouble with the treasury department.
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.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/general/bruin.htm
Excerpt:
Marijuana is not a narcotic. Although California law calls it a narcotic, it is pharmacologically distinct from the family of opium derivatives and synthetic narcotics. (Wolstenholme, 1965; Watt, 1965; Garattini, 1965; 1 Crim 5351 Calif. District Court of Appeal, 1st Appel. Dist.)
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/drugpolicy/tp/Why-is-Marijuana-Illegal.htm
From a prohibition-based perspective, marijuana is illegal in the United States primarily for these seven reasons.
1. It is perceived as addictive.
Under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, marijuana is classified as a Schedule I drug on the basis that is has "a high potential for abuse." What does this mean?It means that the perception is that people get on marijuana, they get hooked and become "potheads," and it begins to dominate their lives. This unquestionably happens in some cases. But it also happens in the case of alcohol--and alcohol is perfectly legal.
In order to fight this argument for prohibition, legalization advocates need to make the argument that marijuana is not as addictive as government sources claim.
2. It has "no accepted medical use."
Marijuana seems to yield considerable medical benefits for many Americans with ailments ranging from glaucoma to cancer, but these benefits have not been accepted well enough, on a national level. Medical use of marijuana remains a serious national controversy.
In order to fight the argument that marijuana has no medical use, legalization advocates need to highlight the effects it has had on the lives of people who have used the drug for medical reasons.
In order to fight the argument that marijuana has no medical use, legalization advocates need to highlight the effects it has had on the lives of people who have used the drug for medical reasons.
3. It has been historically linked with narcotics, such as heroin.
Early antidrug laws were written to regulate narcotics--opium and its derivatives, such as heroin and morphine. Marijuana, though not a narcotic, was described as such--along with cocaine.The association stuck, and there is now a vast gulf in the American consciousness between "normal" recreational drugs, such as alcohol, caffeine, and nicotine, and "abnormal" recreational drugs, such as heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine. Marijuana is generally associated with the latter category, which is why it can be convincingly portrayed as a "gateway drug."
4. It is associated with unfashionable lifestyles.
Marijuana is often thought of as a drug for hippies and losers. Since it's hard to feel enthusiastic about the prospects of enabling people to become hippies and losers, imposing criminal sanctions for marijuana possession functions as a form of communal "tough love."5. It was once associated with oppressed ethnic groups.
The intense anti-marijuana movement of the 1930s dovetailed nicely with the intense anti-Chicano movement of the 1930s. Marijuana was associated with Mexican Americans, and a ban on marijuana was seen as a way of discouraging Mexican-American subcultures from developing.Today, thanks in large part to the very public popularity of marijuana among whites during the 1960s and 1970s, marijuana is no longer seen as what one might call an ethnic drug--but the groundwork for the anti-marijuana movement was laid down at a time when marijuana was seen as an encroachment on the U.S. majority-white culture.
6. Inertia is a powerful force in public policy.
If something has been banned for only a short period of time, then the ban is seen as unstable. If something has been banned for a long time, however, then the ban--no matter how ill-conceived it might be--tends to go unenforced long before it is actually taken off the books.Take the ban on sodomy, for example. It hasn't really been enforced in any serious way since the 18th century, but most states technically banned same-sex sexual intercourse until the Supreme Court ruled such bans unconstitutional in Lawrence v. Texas (2003).
People tend to be comfortable with the status quo--and the status quo, for nearly a century, has been a literal or de facto federal ban on marijuana.
7. Advocates for marijuana legalization rarely present an appealing case.
To hear some advocates of marijuana legalization say it, the drug cures diseases while it promotes creativity, open-mindedness, moral progression, and a closer relationship with God and/or the cosmos. That sounds incredibly foolish, particularly when the public image of a marijuana user is, again, that of a loser who risks arrest and imprisonment so that he or she can artificially invoke an endorphin release.A much better argument for marijuana legalization, from my vantage point, would go more like this: "It makes some people happy, and it doesn't seem to be any more dangerous than alcohol. Do we really want to go around putting people in prison and destroying their lives over this?"
http://k2sideeffects.net/why-is-the-word-narcotic-misused-in-law-enforcement/
Question by heatishellinflorida: Why is the word narcotic, misused in Law Enforcement?
In U.S.legal context, narcotic refers to opium, opium derivatives, and their semi-synthetic or fully synthetic substitutes “as well as cocaine and coca leaves,” which although classified as “narcotics” in the U.S. Controlled Substances Act (CSA), are chemically not narcotics. Contrary to popular belief, marijuana is not a narcotic. Neither are LSD and other psychedelic drugs.[4]
Many law enforcement officials in the United States inaccurately use the word “narcotic” to refer to any illegal drug or any unlawfully possessed drug.
http://thinkingpot.com/community-news/306-marijuana-vs-narcotics.html
Marijuana vs Narcotics
Since many narcotics or controlled substances are legal for medical use by prescription, there is no valid reason that marijuana should not also be legalized when used under a doctor's care. Marijuana not only reduces pain and induces relaxation but also helps increase appetite. Poor appetite is frequently an important issue with seriously ill patients.
Several studies indicate that marijuana use poses no worse risks than the resultant side effects of other medications. Smoking the substance creates the greatest potential risk, but the active ingredient in marijuana can be used in pill form.
Also, with other substances legal for purely recreational use, such as alcohol and tobacco, there is a sense of hypocrisy in keeping marijuana from people who need it for medicinal purposes. There is also no excuse for federal raids on patients using marijuana on their doctor's advice in states that have legalized medical marijuana.
Controlling or forbidding drug use is not within the federal government's enumerated powers listed in the Constitution, and should therefore be a state's rights issue per the Tenth Amendment. Each state should be able to determine its own laws on the matter, without interference from federal agencies. This is true no matter what purpose is given for decriminalizing marijuana, but especially in regard to medical use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reefer_Madness
No comments:
Post a Comment