Skip to main content

If it were legal, would YOU use it?

A report out today cites Tennessee second only to California as the nation's top pot-growing state.

Rounding out the top five positions with at least $1 billion worth of marijuana production were Kentucky, Hawaii and Washington.

California annually grows approximately $13.8 billion of cannabis, according to research performed by Jon Gettman, a public policy analyst.

As the former CEO of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, Gettman unsuccessfully lobbied for marijuana's removal as a Class I drug, one that had no medical value.

Basing his figures on numerous government reports spanning from 2002-2005, Gettman estimated the United States produces over 10,000 metric tons of pot annually.

According to his researchrg, the value of U.S. produced marijuana tops $35 billion. worth of marijuana annually, which makes it the nation's most profitable cash crop, more than corn and wheat combined.

Though he didn't confirm the report's figures, the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy's spokesman, Tom Riley said U.S. national consumption of illicit drugs tops $200 billion annually.

Citing a 10-fold increase in marijuana production from 1,000 to 10,000 metric tons from 1981-2006, Gettman said, "The contribution of this market to the nation's gross domestic product is overlooked in the debate over effective control."

Adding that "Marijuana has become a pervasive and ineradicable part of the economy of the United States," he also said that, "The focus of public policy should be how to effectively control this market through regulation and taxation in order to achieve immediate and realistic goals, such as reducing teenage access."

Gettman also said that "Like all profitable agricultural crops marijuana adds resources and value to the economy."

Riley agreed that American marijuana cultivation and sales was a "serious part of the economy," but described marijuana use as an "inherently harmful activity."
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

When I was an LEO in Florida in the early '90s, the DEA told us that Tennessee was THE 'most corrupt state in the Union for law enforcement officers'. This was reportedly directly related to the amount of marijuana grown there. As a former Tennessee LEO, I never 'saw' the corruptness spoken of, but a TBI friend of mine said it does exist in many of the eastern counties.

Having said that, as a Tennessee cop, I encountered MUCH more meth and crack than I did marijuana. My county's Sheriff's department did make (2) rather substantial marijuana busts in the last 5 years: a semi hauling cabbage had an estimated 600 lbs. of marijuana on board, and a 'cultivated plot' was found with an estimated street value of $1,000,000 in marijuana growing on it.
No, I would not use it if it were legal. And I hope it never becomes legal. I have never encountered a meth addict, or a coke addict, or a heroine addict that diddn't start with marijuana. It's a gateway drug...some people can stop with just pot but a lot can't. Legalizing pot just makes it that much easier to create hard drug junkies. It has extremely limited medical value, it is hard to control it's potency level, and the dang stuff just stinks when it's burnt.
I lived near Chattanooga for 10 years 1992-2002 and it seems there were more meth busts than people for growing pot.

I did not read of one single case of pot cultivation in the Shoals area this year. I think that it is so easy to drive it across the border that it has driven the price down and it is just not worth domestic growing. Remember back in the 80's when it would be dropped out of aircraft. Not anymore.

Cool Thank you Mr. President! keep those borders wide open!!
I live in TN. I see on the news and the paper's everyday people getting killed over drugs. The poor children that are in the protective custody because they have been taken out of meth homes. Hotels and Motels are used for meth making. I really believe that the meth problem is worse than the marijuana problem. God Bless the police officer's that have to take these thugs off of the streets.
Marijuana being illegal is absolutely ridiculous. I don't believe alcohol should be illegal, but it is clear to me that alcohol is more of a "gateway" to "harder" drug use than marijuana. I'm sure few people smoke a joint and then decide that they feel like doing a line of cocaine; this is more likely to happen following shots of whiskey. It's easy for someone with little personal experience with marijuana, or other drugs, to view it as a gateway drug. Surely, people willing to experiment with marijuana in the first place are more likely to experiment with other drugs, which would lead one to believe that marijuana opened the door for harder drug use. The real "gateway" is poor decision making skills or a lapse in judgement, and what better way to negatively affect ones judgement than alcohol. I drink alcohol, I know. In the past, I smoked marijuana, and that's all I really wanted to do. I didn't even like to drink then. That was enough *medication* for me. My field of work allows me to have many conversations with drug addicts, and from my experience, those who prefer "uppers" such as meth, crack, cocaine and heroin wouldn't smoke marijuana unless you forced them to, as it doesn't give them the speedy feeling that they are addicted to. They are totally different substances, and far more dangerous. Marijuana should be excluded from the so called War on Drugs. It is an absolute waste of tax payers money.
quote:
Originally posted by alacharger:
No, I would not use it if it were legal. And I hope it never becomes legal. I have never encountered a meth addict, or a coke addict, or a heroine addict that diddn't start with marijuana. It's a gateway drug...some people can stop with just pot but a lot can't. Legalizing pot just makes it that much easier to create hard drug junkies. It has extremely limited medical value, it is hard to control it's potency level, and the dang stuff just stinks when it's burnt.

in a world where legalised drug dealers are allowed to prescribe addictive drugs that have had limited studies and side effects ranging from suicidal behavior to inability to function ,it doesnt suprise me that the anti pot propaganda has kept many from taking an objective look at its medicinal value. i challenge everyone to research this topic before accepting the propaganda as truth.
quote:
No, I would not use it if it were legal. And I hope it never becomes legal. I have never encountered a meth addict, or a coke addict, or a heroine addict that diddn't start with marijuana. It's a gateway drug...some people can stop with just pot but a lot can't. Legalizing pot just makes it that much easier to create hard drug junkies. It has extremely limited medical value, it is hard to control it's potency level, and the dang stuff just stinks when it's burnt.


The reason it's a gateway drug is because it's illegal. Take away the stepping stone and becoming a meth head or a crack head is a much harder thing to do. Have everyone group pot with meth and crack and say they're equal and you'll have more addicts.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
No, I would not use it if it were legal. And I hope it never becomes legal. I have never encountered a meth addict, or a coke addict, or a heroine addict that diddn't start with marijuana. It's a gateway drug...some people can stop with just pot but a lot can't. Legalizing pot just makes it that much easier to create hard drug junkies. It has extremely limited medical value, it is hard to control it's potency level, and the dang stuff just stinks when it's burnt.


The reason it's a gateway drug is because it's illegal. Take away the stepping stone and becoming a meth head or a crack head is a much harder thing to do. Have everyone group pot with meth and crack and say they're equal and you'll have more addicts.


No, being illegal is immaterial to it being a gateway drug. Beer is usually a gateway to hard liquor. Very few drinkers start right off with Bacardi 151. Usually it's a beer that they start out with, then a mixed drink before they learn to drink hard liquor straight. Marijuana is a gateway drug because it encourages users to experiment with stronger drugs. How does it do this? By lowering the inhibitions of the user. "I tried pot and it did not kill me, cocaine surely won't kill me either".

I'd be the last to group pot with meth or coke...Meth or cocaine are off the scale in addictiveness when compared to pot. But, pot is addictive, and it does have health risks, such as bronchitis, lung cancer and memory loss.
And alcohol is not addictive? Get real,If one is so easily addicted to whatever, rabbit tobacco , smoking grapevines, nothing is going to stop them from going further. If our government were to legalize pot and give it the same restrictions as tobacco,If You knew some of the laws concerning growing tobacco you would have a better understanding of tax laws, allotment laws {that used to be in place for cotton} and just might see that as tobacco use has declined, because of education, the same would be true for pot. A teacher can not teach about the health dangers of pot unless it is regulated by our government. B.T.W. if you were to ask if condon pot smoking, goodness no. Oh yea,alacharger what was we talking about?ha
Last edited by themax
quote:
Originally posted by themax:
And alcohol is not addictive? Get real,If one is so easily addicted to whatever, rabbit tobacco , smoking grapevines, nothing is going to stop them from going further. If our government were to legalize pot and give it the same restrictions as tobacco,If You knew some of the laws concerning growing tobacco you would have a better understanding of tax laws, allotment laws {that used to be in place for cotton} and just might see that as tobacco use has declined, because of education, the same would be true for pot. A teacher can not teach about the health dangers of pot unless it is regulated by our government. B.T.W. if you were to ask if condon pot smoking, goodness no. Oh yea,alacharger what was we talking about?ha


You seem to be having a hard time holding a rational thought process. You post is barely coherent; it jumps from one idea to another without ever completing your point about the first.

Yes, I know that alcohol is addictive to some persons. Yes, I know all about addiction...I smoked cigarettes for the last 26 years. I laid them down and walked away from them cold turkey March 9th of this year. Yes, I have to work at it each day to keep from buying another pack, or bumming one from the many people I encounter each day that smoke around me.

Yes, I know that the US Government has laws about tobacco, and what taxes must be paid on tobacco. No, having never grown tobacco (or pot) I have no idea how much or what the restrictions are. I still don't believe that making pot legal would reduce the number of people smoking it. Actually, I think fear of arrest keeps a lot of people from trying it, as well as other illicit drugs.

And your point about teaching about the dangers of pot in school makes absolutely no sense at all. You mention above that pot should be placed in the same catagory of tobacco, which is most certainly a "regulated" substance (even prohibited from being sold to minors), yet you say the teachers cannot teach about pot's health dangers unless it is regulated. Teachers teach whatever curriculum they are assigned, and some of them are assigned to teach good health habits to school children. Currently, the medical community considers marijuana to be unhealthy, so that's what they must teach. Don't like it, go to school, get a doctor's degree, do a study and present your evidence to the A.M.A. Then get enough of your colleagues to join you in you theory to sway the entire medical community, who will report to the proper legislative body, who will then change the laws just because YOU did something instead of just grousing.

I still stand by my first statement: If pot were legal, I would not smoke it. I don't want it to be legal. It is a gateway drug that leads some (not everybody) to harder, more dangerous drugs. It's medicinal value is extremely questionable, and it causes health problems itself. And it just stinks to high heaven when it's being burned.
quote:
"I tried pot and it did not kill me, cocaine surely won't kill me either".



Pot can't kill you, cocaine can. When anti-drug campaigns group the two drugs together like they do, then you get the scenario you posted. That's why it's a gateway drug. If we would simply be honest and admit that you can't die from smoking pot, it's less harmful than alcohol, and the only reason it's illegal is for political reasons, then maybe our crime rate would go down. Prohibition didn't work and neither is the ban on marijuana.

As for alcohol, beer is not a gateway to alcoholism. Hard liquors mixed with sweet mixes or juices are a lot easier to drink than beer. I started drinking mixed drinks just like everyone else I know when we experimented with alcohol. Fuzzy Navels, Melon Shooters, Mud Slides, and so on are designed for the younger drinkers. They are colorful and almost like candy. Beer tasted bad and took more to feel an effect. I was a lot older before I started drinking beer, I don't drink hard liquor at all now. So the beer as a gateway drug theory doesn't work.
whats the main difference in the "high" the kiddies get when smoking pot versus using meth? You will find the answer to alot of questions just by answering that one question.
But we can scream about the dealers,and the drug issue until we are all blue in the face.The law enforcement approach is only really serious during election years anyway. The REAL demon goes much deeper. Just why is it so many of our youth seek the feelings that drugs offer them? The answer to THAT QUESTION will tell you exactly WHY we have such an enormous drug problem.
There would be no drug problem if there was no demand for the sale of it.We can all look at ourselves,look at the society we have created, the pressures we have allowed to be piled on our youth (peer pressure,competion pressures, achievement presures,social pressures,etc),there is no end in sight for many. They feel helpless in many cases and turn to drugs simply to turn it all off,just for a little while. To feel larger than the overwhelming issues they face daily. For many it is simply to have that great and wonderful fun time that has been over rated to them ,,,by the very society WE have created.
Our law enforcement can lock up one dealer,and you can bet there will be a replacement for his customers before his jail cell is locked. The product demand and customers are still present.
It will never be as simple as arresting,and procecuting the dealers. Those people only supply a product in demand by the masses.
Hemp as a commercial product is unbelievable. It has multiple uses, it is inexpensive and easy to grow. The stigma surrounding it is costing us dearly. And yes, is virtually worthless to smoke. It wouldn't get a fly high. Commercial strains are extremely low in THC. As a renewable crop it is one of the best.

Google it and see.
I agree, Smurph. Of course law enforcement should continue to arrest drug dealers/users, but that is not the cause or the root of the drug problem in our country.

While we're on the subject of drugs, I think taxes on cigs are ridiculous. It's making money off the suffering of others. You don't hurt the cig addict with this stupid law; you hurt low income families that do without so Dad or Mom can spend a small fortune on their addiction.

Regarding marijuana being legalized, I'm thinking that is not a good message for kids. I see all of your points, but aren't we condoning the use of drugs if we legalize it?

I think doctors should be allowed to prescribe marijuana (for example, to give a cancer patient relief from nausua), but legalizing it across the board? I don't like it.
quote:
While we're on the subject of drugs, I think taxes on cigs are ridiculous. It's making money off the suffering of others. You don't hurt the cig addict with this stupid law; you hurt low income families that do without so Dad or Mom can spend a small fortune on their addiction.


So why don't they just quit smoking? No one is forcing them to smoke. I know it's a hard thing to do, I've quit smoking myself. I crave cigarettes every day, but I don't let myself smoke anymore. If the price of cigarettes is too expensive, then simply quit. It's not the government hurting low income families by taxing cigarettes, it's the smokers themselves.

As for legalizing pot, it's not sending a message that drugs are ok to kids. It would be separating a non-lethal drug from the lethal ones. You do a lot more damage to kids by convincing them that pot is the same as meth. When they try pot and realize how weak it is, they make the mistake of assuming meth and other hard drugs are also weak. That's how the addiction starts.
While we're on the subject of drugs, I think taxes on cigs are ridiculous. It's making money off the suffering of others. You don't hurt the cig addict with this stupid law; you hurt low income families that do without so Dad or Mom can spend a small fortune on their addiction.

Quote from Joy.



Supposedly the income tax collected from tobacco is going to pay for healthcare it takes when these low-income smokers are diagnosed with cancer, heart disease, COPD, and other related illnesses. Trust me, it isn’t cheap treating people with tobacco related illnesses. I had rather let them pay high taxes on something they don’t need to help cover the cost of treating them in the future.

I just hope that our TRUSTED government officials are making sure that money is going to do just that. I remember about 10 years ago after the tobacco companies had been rapped by the states that Tennessee took the fortune it received and used it to balance it’s budget. That is not what the money was supposed to go for.
Nash, the addiction hurts the smoker. The tax on the addiction hurts the smoker's pocketbook, yes, but it also hurts the smoker's family. Most smokers are not going to quit smoking simply because the price went up. I just have a problem with excessive, and it is excessive, tax on cigarettes.

This will help explain where I'm coming from. Someone brought a petition to church a while back to get taxes on cigarettes increased. I refused to sign & this person told me that addiction was a bad thing and this would somehow convince smokers to quit. I just didn't buy that at all. No, what they wanted was the city (or whoever - don't actually know where these taxes are appropriated) to benefit at the smoker's expense; it had little to do with concern for the smoker & that's what I told her. Benefitting from the addiction of others is kind of sick, don't you think? I just can't agree with that. And yes, I am strongly considering the smoker's family because I've been the family of a smoker.

Regarding marijuana, I have to say your argument is good. I agree, on the condition that it is proven conclusively that marijuana is not addictive. The info on this seems to vary depending on who you listen to.
I don't have a problem with taxing cigarettes as long as there is a reason. Taxes on food and medicine hurt low income families more than taxes on cigarettes. You can quit smoking, but you can't quit eating. I would rather see taxes increased on cigarettes and no sales tax on food. Smoking is simply a choice. The smoker hurts his/her family by smoking when they can't afford it, not the government for taxing the cigarettes. If you mismanage your money, it's no one's fault but your own. If roads are improved or community centers are built because of a tax increase on cigarettes, I think it's worth it.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
I don't have a problem with taxing cigarettes as long as there is a reason. Taxes on food and medicine hurt low income families more than taxes on cigarettes. You can quit smoking, but you can't quit eating. I would rather see taxes increased on cigarettes and no sales tax on food. Smoking is simply a choice. The smoker hurts his/her family by smoking when they can't afford it, not the government for taxing the cigarettes. If you mismanage your money, it's no one's fault but your own. If roads are improved or community centers are built because of a tax increase on cigarettes, I think it's worth it.


I agree that the smoker's choice to smoke hurts his family (if they're a low income family), but should we also benefit from this choice? That feels wrong. I don't want to be a part of that in any way. It is also not his kids' fault that he or she is making poor choices and they have no choice in the matter.
quote:
Originally posted by Yo Brotha from anotha Motha:
Supposedly the income tax collected from tobacco is going to pay for healthcare it takes when these low-income smokers are diagnosed with cancer, heart disease, COPD, and other related illnesses. Trust me, it isn’t cheap treating people with tobacco related illnesses. I had rather let them pay high taxes on something they don’t need to help cover the cost of treating them in the future.

I just hope that our TRUSTED government officials are making sure that money is going to do just that. I remember about 10 years ago after the tobacco companies had been rapped by the states that Tennessee took the fortune it received and used it to balance it’s budget. That is not what the money was supposed to go for.


If it could be law that all tax dollars on cigs go directly to funding treatment that taxpayers are forced to pay anyway, I MIGHT agree to it. It still feels like a "contributing to the delinquency" move though. I'm exaggerating, but you get the point. However, since this will probably never happen, I think the taxes should be fair, not excessive.
quote:
I agree that the smoker's choice to smoke hurts his family (if they're a low income family), but should we also benefit from this choice? That feels wrong. I don't want to be a part of that in any way. It is also not his kids' fault that he or she is making poor choices and they have no choice in the matter.


If a low income family decides to buy a 36 inch LCD HD TV, is it Sony's fault for making it? Is it the government's fault for having a sales tax on it? Is it the store's fault for carrying it? No, it's the family's fault for buying it instead of new clothes for the kids. It's the same for cigarettes. If a family decides to buy a carton of cigarettes every week instead of new shoes for the kids, is it the government's fault for taxing them or the parent's fault for buying the cigarettes? If those tax dollars went to schools, providing those same kids with a good education and a chance to go to college, or maybe a community center that kept them off the street and provided positive role models, then the tax would be worth it.
quote:
Originally posted by alacharger:
No, I would not use it if it were legal. And I hope it never becomes legal. I have never encountered a meth addict, or a coke addict, or a heroine addict that diddn't start with marijuana. It's a gateway drug...some people can stop with just pot but a lot can't. Legalizing pot just makes it that much easier to create hard drug junkies. It has extremely limited medical value, it is hard to control it's potency level, and the dang stuff just stinks when it's burnt.


I totally agree!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Yo Brotha from anotha Motha:
While we're on the subject of drugs, I think taxes on cigs are ridiculous. It's making money off the suffering of others. You don't hurt the cig addict with this stupid law; you hurt low income families that do without so Dad or Mom can spend a small fortune on their addiction.

Quote from Joy.



Supposedly the income tax collected from tobacco is going to pay for healthcare it takes when these low-income smokers are diagnosed with cancer, heart disease, COPD, and other related illnesses. Trust me, it isn’t cheap treating people with tobacco related illnesses. I had rather let them pay high taxes on something they don’t need to help cover the cost of treating them in the future.

I just hope that our TRUSTED government officials are making sure that money is going to do just that. I remember about 10 years ago after the tobacco companies had been rapped by the states that Tennessee took the fortune it received and used it to balance it’s budget. That is not what the money was supposed to go for.


TRUSTED GOV'T???? The SAME one who wasn't supposed to touch Social Security? Yeah RIGHT!!! That tax will never make it to where it is SUPPOSED to go, not in our lifetime Roll Eyes
quote:
The "family" didn't buy the cigarettes; one of the parents did. I doubt they asked the kids to choose between Daddy's cigarettes and clothes on their back. It's an excessive tax on a product that is addictive. That alone puts it in a category unto itself. I can't believe it ever got to the point it is now.


You're right, and it's that parent's fault for mismanaging their money with kids to take care of, not the government's fault for taxing a product that is not a necessity of life. Taxing food and medicine is wrong and excessive, I see nothing wrong with taxing cigarettes and luxury items.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
The "family" didn't buy the cigarettes; one of the parents did. I doubt they asked the kids to choose between Daddy's cigarettes and clothes on their back. It's an excessive tax on a product that is addictive. That alone puts it in a category unto itself. I can't believe it ever got to the point it is now.


You're right, and it's that parent's fault for mismanaging their money with kids to take care of, not the government's fault for taxing a product that is not a necessity of life. Taxing food and medicine is wrong and excessive, I see nothing wrong with taxing cigarettes and luxury items.


The smoker is solely responsible for mismanaging their funds. The government is solely responsible for the tax. I disagree that it is okay to tax an addictive substance. I understand what you are saying, but I just feel differently than you do about it.
Our nation's degeneration into a never-ending and vicious cycle of wasteful use of law enforcement resources and tax dollars, vis a vis Richard Nixon's War on Drugs began with the Harrison Tax Act.

Interestingly enough, the 63rd Congress enacted Public Law No. 223, and approved on December 17, 1914 as "The Harrison Narcotics Act", also popularly known as "The Harrison Tax Act," was based primarily on racism.

In our nation's history, "cocaine-crazed Negroes" were a popular newspaper headline, and though in 1914 cocaine became subject to tax and seizure laws which was a thin veneer stretched over our Constitution, it was actually morphine use which was introduced into San Francisco by emigrant Chinese whom used it in mixed with tobacco.

The hatred of Chinese emigrants was evidenced by passage of laws forbidding their traditional braided hair locks on men, the "pointy" hats which were an integral part of their culture, and many other equally ridiculous claims. But most important to them all, were the ongoing claims that "white women would be taken advantage of by opium-crazed Chinese men."

Never mind that Chinese men's use of opium tended to make them less socially interactive, or that statistically, middle-class white women were actually the greatest users of morphine. The promulgation of irrational fear provided the impetus and locomotion for the passage of a very poorly written law, which today, continues to cost us untold billions of dollars that could otherwise be put to better use.

The validation of the extreme differences in punishments for violation of possession and/or distribution laws remains evidenced by the disparity in punishments for powder cocaine versus crack cocaine.

Crack cocaine historically was found to be used predominately by Blacks, while powdered cocaine was most used by Whites. However, Republican-dominated Congress established much more severe penalties for crack than for powder.

Today, we continue to see the promulgation of irrational fear against an ethnic group. This time, it's Middle Easterners and Muslims.

Historically, when truth in labeling and content laws were enacted, addictions lowered significantly. When people knew the truth about what would happen to their physical bodies, they refrained from use/abuse and consequently, addiction. And equally interesting, is that historically, once those drugs were then so managed to be legally available by physicians, they were the ones whom accounted for creating much of the "legal" addictions.

Equally fascinating is that shortly after the Harrison Tax Act was passed, enforcement responsibility was naturally given to the Treasury Department.

Fast forward nearly 100 years... 93 (in a very few days) to be exact.

What have we accomplished?

What have we won?

What enduring quality have we promoted?

From a long-term perspective, we have lost, and it will be absolutely impossible to stop the consumption of any substance that any government in any way makes illegal.

For where there is a demand, there WILL be a supply.

And from the perspective of a "free marketer" and "Austrian economics" when, on a large scale, the ability to reap 17, 000% profit through contract and trade is hindered, there will be war.

Thus, the prevention of war is found in a free market economy that regulates and taxes, which of course, is contrary to Austrian economics. And THAT, my friends, (world peace through a "free market" economy) is true liberalism!
Beyond all the rhetoric (AKA hot air), the facts tell the story.

Here's an excellent article on the matter from a highly reliable source.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3042936.html

Hoover Digest 2004 No. 2
2004 No. 2

THE DRUG WAR:
The American Junkie

Joseph McNamara

Why the drug war has amounted to one long and costly mistake.

By Hoover fellow Joseph D. McNamara.

The average white American’s image of drug users is that of dangerous young people of color—males who will rob them to obtain money to buy drugs or youthful black female prostitutes spreading disease and delivering crack babies as a result of enslavement to drugs. These cherished misconceptions are the enduring and erroneous foundations of the ill-conceived “war on drugs.”

Actually, the overwhelming majority of American drug users have historically been Caucasians. The fact that minorities are arrested and incarcerated at vastly disproportionate rates for drug offenses contributes to false stereotypes and permits the continuation of one of the most irrational public policies in the history of the United States. Blacks make up approximately 15 percent of America’s drug users, but more than one-third of adults arrested for drug violations are black. Similar distortions in drug arrests and incarcerations apply to Hispanics.

Relatively few of America’s estimated 90 million illegal drug users go on to commit non-drug crimes. In fact, the majority of police I hired during my 18 years as police chief in two of the largest cities in America admitted prior use of illegal drugs. They did not commit other crimes and grew out of their early drug use. As one candidate put it to me, “Of course, I smoked pot. I was in the Army. I went to college.”

And I can remember, some 40 years ago, as a young policeman in Harlem, gathering with my colleagues in a tavern after work, listening to them complain vigorously about the junkies who made our work so difficult. During our discussions, we drank prodigious amounts of beer without the slightest awareness that we were consuming a drug that could be as lethal as heroin. Indeed, far more of my fellow police died in driving accidents after these drinking sessions than were slain in the line of duty.

Even today, 90 years after the federal government first outlawed narcotics with the Harrison Narcotic Act, December 17, 1914, public and police attitudes toward the dangerousness of drugs are shaped by ignorance of their impact and by mistaken prejudices regarding their users. Stereotypes created more than a century ago by nativist American elites targeting blacks, immigrant Irish, German, Italian, and Jewish populations and their “strange” religions, languages, and cultures led to anti-drug legislation.

President Theodore Roosevelt, who held many of the same racial, ethnic, and class biases, greatly encouraged the anti-drug groups. Roosevelt, who was not an alcohol prohibitionist, was motivated by an anti-opium attitude, as well as by a desire to develop America into one of the great world powers. He hoped that stopping England, France, Holland, and Spain from compelling the unwilling China to accept highly profitable (for the exporting nations) opium shipments would win Chinese goodwill and allow Americans to compete with the colonial trading nations in opening the vast China market to other goods.

Despite revelations from Rush Limbaugh, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Newt Gingrich, and George W. Bush (when questioned about prior drug use he didn’t deny it, simply said that he did young and foolish things), our government continues to paint users of certain chemicals as evil and immoral, when in fact they often are successful people from across the political spectrum. Luckily for most of them, they didn’t get busted under today’s draconian laws and were able to mature into careers that most of us can admire.

The impetus for the passage of the Harrison Narcotic Act of 1914 came from the lobbying efforts of American missionary societies in China. These groups enlisted the aid of other alcohol temperance organizations and religious groups in the United States to get their version of sin written into the penal code. The anti-drug arguments advocating the Harrison Act were replete with statements claiming that it was the duty of whites to save the inferior races. Those moving to criminalize drugs made references to Negroes under the influence of drugs murdering whites, degenerate Mexicans smoking marijuana, and “Chinamen” seducing white women with drugs. This racist nonsense would be laughed at today, but it was quite influential in the passage of anti-drug legislation.

It is one of the ironies of history that national black political leadership today paradoxically seems to accept the racist implications of white southern politicians in 1914: that Negroes were especially susceptible to the negative impact of drug use. With the notable exception of Kurt Schmoke, former mayor of Baltimore, who called for the medicalization of drug use, many African-American politicians describe decriminalization of drugs as racial genocide, thus subliminally reinforcing fears that people of color are more susceptible to drug use and the harm it can cause.


--TRUNCATED--
quote:
Originally posted by Yo Brotha from anotha Motha:
Shoals Lover, the info you wrote about reads like a History Channel program on dope that I have watched.

I must admit having sex after smoking a good joint is quite stimulating and very enjoyable.


There's not much better than that. Put on the Allman Bros. Live at Filmore East afterwards and you've got one of life's simple pleasures that I miss the most. Frowner

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×