Why is pot illegal?

[ThatRobGuy]

I decided I'd put it up for a vote...

Personally, when I used to smoke pot, the effect did not differ much from the effect that alcohol had on me.

For the record, I vote for "The government hasn't found a practical taxation plan for it yet"

 

[DaveS]

I voted for negative mental effects although I think it is probably a mixture of the top 3.

 

[RealityCheck]

Actually, pot is illegal because tobacco companies do not want a competing product legally on the market that has fewer health risks and provides a better buzz than nicotine.

 

[JesusWalks78]

Actually, pot is illegal because tobacco companies do not want a competing product legally on the market that has fewer health risks and provides a better buzz than nicotine.

Proof?

 

[RealityCheck]

Oh that's just my assertion, really. I never said there was proof of it.

However, it IS based on what many, many other industries do to keep competing products from the market.

My friend, as I've posted elsewhere, used to work for Chevron for many years. Chevron had no qualms about buying patent rights to any technology that used alternate fuel sources. They then just buried those patents in their vaults. Kinda like the Ark in "Raiders of the Lost Ark." Why? It was the surest way to make sure that technology never got developed.

 

[RealityCheck]

Oh, but it HAS been shown that marijuana doesn't cause lung cancer like cigarettes do (though it COULD over a very long time, cigarettes are much more efficient carcinogens), that natural THC is not nearly as addictive as nicotine, etc.

And it does provide a better buzz, for sure.

 

[JesusWalks78]

Oh that's just my assertion, really. I never said there was proof of it.

So its a guess basically.

However, it IS based on what many, many other industries do to keep competing products from the market.

Business cultures vary from industry to industry....so you cannot say that what applies for a car manufacturere can apply for a ciggarette company.

Of course that is very broad, but again I ask you what industries and what proof?

My friend, as I've posted elsewhere, used to work for Chevron for many years. Chevron had no qualms about buying patent rights to any technology that used alternate fuel sources. They then just buried those patents in their vaults. Kinda like the Ark in "Raiders of the Lost Ark." Why? It was the surest way to make sure that technology never got developed.

Proof that Chevron does it? Proof that you were employed there?

 

[Lord_Marx]

I picked the first choice; the Government has yet to find a way to benefit from legalizing it. It does not matter much to me what it's legal state is, having asthma, I'm not going to be smoking it anyway and have no real desire to do any drugs to begin with.

I don’t think it’s a good thing by any means, but I have never seen any substantial negative effects on the people I know who have used it. But you never know, they could kick in when this generation is all in their 50’s…

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So its a guess basically.

It seems like a reasonable guess in my book.

Business cultures vary from industry to industry....so you cannot say that what applies for a car manufacturere can apply for a ciggarette company.

Cultures may vary from industry to industry, but big business is still big business. For every monopoly preventing law written, there are dozens of high-level business analysts working 40 hours a week finding loop holes. Microsoft is a perfect example...not that I have anything against Microsoft, if it weren't for them, I wouldn't have a VB.net job. They didn't allow Apple make it to the business forefront because they knew Apple made a better product (in most cases), then when Apple Company's value dropped low enough, Microsoft bought a big enough amount of shares to have some control over the company and use it for profit.....Now, surprise surprise, you see Apple commercials on TV all of the time, and Apple going mainstream again.

From what I've seen in my experience working in sales, insurance, and IT.....the basic philosophy of modern business is "Beat 'em until you can buy 'em"

Proof that Chevron does it? Proof that you were employed there?

Let's not have the proof game being played in my thread. We can all do that until we're blue in the face, it solves nothing. For an exciting debate to occur, one has to spend more time bringing up good points of their own than they do questioning the validity of others.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I picked the first choice; the Government has yet to find a way to benefit from legalizing it. It does not matter much to me what it's legal state is, having asthma, I'm not going to be smoking it anyway and have no real desire to do any drugs to begin with.

I don’t think it’s a good thing by any means, but I have never seen any substantial negative effects on the people I know who have used it. But you never know, they could kick in when this generation is all in their 50’s…

I agree with you on most of this...

But on this one "you never know, they could kick in when this generation is all in their 50’s…"....most of the original hippies are in their 50's now...and there has been nothing negatively noteworthy.

 

[JesusWalks78]

It seems like a reasonable guess in my book.



Cultures may vary from industry to industry, but big business is still big business. For every monopoly preventing law written, there are dozens of high-level business analysts working 40 hours a week finding loop holes. Microsoft is a perfect example...not that I have anything against Microsoft, if it weren't for them, I wouldn't have a VB.net job. They didn't allow Apple make it to the business forefront because they knew Apple made a better product (in most cases), then when Apple Company's value dropped low enough, Microsoft bought a big enough amount of shares to have some control over the company and use it for profit.....Now, surprise surprise, you see Apple commercials on TV all of the time, and Apple going mainstream again.

From what I've seen in my experience working in sales, insurance, and IT.....the basic philosophy of modern business is "Beat 'em until you can buy 'em"



Let's not have the proof game being played in my thread. We can all do that until we're blue in the face, it solves nothing. For an exciting debate to occur, one has to spend more time bringing up good points of their own than they do questioning the validity of others.

So you want people to make assertions without evidence to back it up...I have heard many people say this about corporations...and have yet to see evidence?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So you want people to make assertions without evidence to back it up...I have heard many people say this about corporations...and have yet to see evidence?

If someone had to back up every little thing they posted with resources.....there would be a 9 word post, followed by 5 pages of links and various documents. The automobile companies are close business associates with the oil companies. The moment Chevy released prototypes for the FlexFuel and E85 vehicles....BP announced it's plans for E85 mass distribution within 2 months.....amazingly convenient coincidence??

 

[JesusWalks78]

If someone had to back up every little thing they posted with resources.....there would be a 9 word post, followed by 5 pages of links and various documents. The automobile companies are close business associates with the oil companies. The moment Chevy released prototypes for the FlexFuel and E85 vehicles....BP announced it's plans for E85 mass distribution within 2 months.....amazingly convenient coincidence??

Without evidenec to state otherwise...it may well be.

 

[ebia]

I'm confused. Is the question "why IS pot illegal?" or "why should pot be illegal?"

The former is largely for historical reasons that may or may not still be valid.

 

[jayem]

Marijuana is illegal largely because of racism.

Though cannabis had been smoked in this country for a long time, by the early 20th century it's use by middle class white society was rare. But at the same time, began the first influx of Mexican immigrants into the southwest and west. Mexicans were looked upon as crazy, violent, unproductive, and shiftless, and marijuana was thought to contribute to this. The first US state to criminalize marijuana was Utah (also influenced by the moralistic LDS church.) In the east, marijuana was associated with urban blacks, jazz musicians, and others looked down upon by respectable society. The Marihuana Tax Act was passed in 1937, which didn't exactly criminalize pot on the federal level, but made it's sale and distribution taxable. Criminalization was mainly by state laws until the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. Mainly by tradition, marijuana was put in Schedule I, alongside heroin, LSD, psilocybin, etc. Drugs considered to have high abuse potential and no medical use (which status is being reconsidered now for marijuana.)

This link is a long, but very instructive lecture on the history of U. S. marijuana laws. The inescapable conclusion is that marijuana is illegal fundamentally because it was associated with ethnic minorities and lifestyles disparaged by middle class white society.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm

 

[Silent Bob]

I voted for option 1 although it still in a great part have to do with society's views regarding pot. Alcohol is much worse than pot by far (for proof try to start a fight at your local bar and repeat the experiment in a student flat) but the truth of the matter is that historically western culture has been using alcohol much more than pot. Any platform that runs with legalization in the agenda is sure to lose the conservative vote and that is too many votes to lose. In Europe (except for the Netherlands) the tendency is however to slacken the laws to the point that legalization will not be such a shock.

People are still uneducated about pot they consider it a "gateway drug" which is laughable. The long term negative mental effects arising from consistent pot abuse are documented but they are by far much lighter than most legal drugs. Addictiveness is not an issue due to the fact that THC is stored on fat cells and then gradually released once the user quits. It has documented positive effects on glaucoma, chemotherapy symptom relief, medium strength pain relief without becoming a vegetable. I even read of a study that argued that it might help prevent heart disease by elevating heart rate to the levels of aerobic exercise.

The only types of persons that can be "destroyed" through pot are basically those who suffer from addictive personalities and/or self-destructive tendencies. Nothing however stops those same people from self-destructing through gambling, alcohol, debts and a myriad of vices both legal and not.

Although the cultural issue is a big factor the main reason is that governments simply cannot think of a way to make money off pot. Legalization would mean the development of hydroponic farms in and out of urban centers, the drop of income through alcohol taxation and possibly even cigarette taxation (anecdote: during my first year in uni a friend realized that he had the same packet of cigarettes for more than a month, the reason was that he constantly smoked dope instead of cigs) and the vote issue combined with the strong tobacco/alcohol lobbies make legalization impossible for the US any time soon.

Progressive countries are beginning to be more open to pot, conservative countries in Europe are to become more progressive in the long run but I have no idea about what is going on in Asia. Overall if there is a strong legalization movement it starts from Europe, maybe Germany and the UK will open the dance shortly it would spread throughout. Maybe Howard Mark’s dream will come true in our lifetime. But then again no doubt that is what most of the hippies believed in the 60s but we all know what happened when the smoke died down, they now work as prosecutors getting more and more kids in jail over an ounce of pot.

 

[kopilo]

Political reasons, amount of people who think it should be illegal vs amount of people who think it should be legal.

No there isn't evidence to back this up, either then in democracy, politics is a numbers game.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Tobacco is grown domestically, where marijuana is imported- I think this probably played into the current political situation, as well as the social factors that jayem mentions.

 

[rambot]

This EXACT topic was done a few months ago. I will repost what I had posted there.

Pot is illegal cause of it's imposed "colourful" history.

Go back to the 1920s if you would; a time, way back when, when Mexican immigrants were seen as detriments to American society . They habitually smoked "marijuana" (the derrisive Spanish word).

There was a time when hemp fiber was an incredibly common fibre. The potential of having hemp in our day to day life (from fuel, to fabric, to virtually any kind of material you could imagine) is astounding but is and has always been blocked.
Back in the 20s Dupont had just developed polyester; the "fabric of the future". Hemp was seen as a dangerous competitor and Dupont took VERY offensive action against the (fairly extensive) hemp and hemp farming industry. They had a public smear campaign.
+++++++
Do you know William Randolf Hearst? Now there is a fine upstanding citizen...nooot!
He single handedly managed to put hemp into the full nelson. See, ol' willie hearst, a huge newspaper mogul, owned a rather extensive patch of land. The trees on his land were very valuable as material for paper with (you guessed it) hemp being it's competitor. Hearst viewed hemp as being the single greatest hurdle between him and his (even greater) fortunes. So, in his newspaper, he ALSO began a public smear campaign and ALSO aligned important politicians and FBI heads to his cause.
If one were to read the transcripts of the presentation of the bill, one would laugh...and cry.

Since that time, hemp's influence in our daily lives has been fairly limited.
>I apologize as I see jayem has already given some very good info.>...but if I may continue....

There have, since the 30s been some oustoundingly ridiculous tests to prove the dangers of MJ smoke.
One instance, in fact, where monkey were gas masked for 20 minutes with high grade colombian MJ smoke.


As I see it, there is no LOGICAL, intillgent, or meaningful reason why marijuana is illegal.