Posted on 02/26/2006 7:55:05 AM PST by Wolfie
Support for marijuana legalization is at 41% in a recent poll.
Is that a CBS poll? Or maybe a libertarian poll? LOL.
I have no idea what their intentions are, so how am I supposed to know that?
I do, however, know yours.
Here's the truth from robertpaulsen on this 2003 poll:
QUESTION: "Some people say the government should treat marijuana more or less the same way it treats alcohol: it should regulate marijuana, control it, tax it, and only make it illegal for children."
Strongly agree with legalization -- 23.5%.
Somewhat agree with legalization -- 17.4%.
Somewhat disagree with legalization -- 11.4%.
Strongly disagree with legalization -- 45.3%.
Nearly half the public strongly opposes legalization, and less than a quarter strongly supports it. There's the real, and complete, truth.
In the early days of our nation, the hemp plant proved a valuable resource for hundreds of years, instrumental in the making of fabric, paper and other necessities. This changed during the Industrial Revolution, which rendered tree-pulp papermaking and synthetic fibers more cost-effective through the rise of assembly line manufacturing methods. A more efficient way of utilizing hemp was a bit slower in coming. It was not until the early 1930's that a new technique for using hemp pulp for papermaking was developed by the Department of Agriculture, in conjunction with the patenting of the hemp decorticator (a machine that revolutionized the harvesting of hemp). These innovations promised to reduce the cost of producing hemp-pulp paper to less than half the cost of tree-pulp paper. Since hemp is an annually renewable source, which requires minimal chemical treatment to process, the advent of hemp pulp paper would allegedly have been better for the environment than the sulfuric acid wood-pulping process. Hemp had many champions, who predicted that its abundance and versatility would soon revitalize the American economy.
William Randolph Hearst, media mogul, billionaire, had different ideas. His aggressive efforts to demonize cannabis were so effective; they continue to color popular opinion today. In the early 1930's, Hearst owned a good deal of timber acreage; one might say that he had the monopoly on this market. The threatened advent of mass hemp production proved a considerable threat to his massive paper-mill holdings -- he stood to lose many, many millions of dollars to the lowly hemp plant. Hearst cleverly utilized his immense national network of newspapers and magazines to spread wildly inaccurate and sensational stories of the evils of cannabis or "marihuana," a phrase brought into the common parlance, in part due to frequent mentions in his publications.
The sheer number of newspapers, tabloids, magazines, and film reels that Hearst controlled enabled him to quickly and to effectively inundate American media with this propaganda. Hearst preyed on existing prejudices by associating cannabis with Mexican workers who threatened to steal American jobs and African-Americans who had long been the subject of white American venom (see accompanying articles). An ironic side-note: much of this racism had already been perpetrated by the propaganda of Hearst, an unabashed racist. The American people had already developed irrational hatred for these racial groups, and so readily accepted the ridiculous stories of their crazed crimes incited by marijuana use.
Hearst was not alone in his scheme to destroy hemp production. The new techniques also made hemp a viable option for fabric and plastics, two areas of manufacturing which together with paper seriously threatened DuPont chemicals, which at this time specialized in the chemical manufacturing of synthetic fiber and plastics, and the process of pulping paper. In fact, Hearst and Lammont DuPont had a multi-million dollar deal in the works for joint papermaking. So these two moguls, together with DuPont's banker, Andrew Mellon, bravely joined forces to stave off the bitter onrush of bankruptcy. They combined Hearst's yellow journalism campaign (so called because the paper developed through his and DuPont's methods aged prematurely) and the appointment of Mellon's nephew-in-law, Harry J. Anslinger, to Commissioner of the newly created Federal Bureau of Narcotics in order to successfully stamp out the threat of hemp
Rep. Robert L. Doughton of North Carolina introduced the Act in Congress on April 14, 1937 to criminalize the recreational use of marijuana through prohibitive taxation. The bill was the brainchild of Commissioner Anslinger who later testified before Congress in support of the bill.
Congress held only two hearings, totaling one hour of testimony, to debate the merits of marijuana prohibition. Federal witness Harry Anslinger testified before the House Ways and Means Committee that "this drug is entirely the monster-Hyde, the harmful effect of which cannot be measured." He was joined by Assistant General Counsel for the Department of the Treasury, Clinton Hester, who affirmed that the drug's eventual effect on the user "is deadly." These statements summarized the federal government's official position and served as the initial justification for criminalizing marijuana smoking.
The American Medical Association (AMA) represented the lone voice against marijuana prohibition before Congress. AMA Legislative Counsel Dr. William C. Woodward testified, "There is no evidence" that marijuana is a dangerous drug. Woodward challenged the propriety of passing legislation based only on newspaper accounts and questioned why no data from the Bureau of Prisons or the Children's Bureau supported the FBN's position. He further argued that the legislation would severely compromise a physician's ability to utilize marijuana's therapeutic potential. Surprisingly, the committee took little interest in Woodward's testimony and told the physician, "If you want to advise us on legislation, you ought to come here with some constructive proposals ... rather than trying to throw obstacles in the way of something that the federal government is trying to do."
After just one hearing, the Ways and Means Committee approved the "Marihuana Tax Act." The House of Representatives followed suit on August 20 after engaging in only 90 seconds of debate. During this abbreviated floor "discussion," only two questions were asked. First, a member of Congress from upstate New York asked Speaker Sam Rayburn to summarize the purpose of the bill. Rayburn replied, "I don't know. It has something to do with a thing called marijuana. I think it is a narcotic of some kind." The same representative then asked, "Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support the bill?" Falsely, a member of the Ways and Means Committee replied, "Their Doctor Wharton (sic) gave this measure his full support ... [as well as] the approval [of] the American Medical Association." Following this brief exchange of inaccurate information, the House approved the federal prohibition of marijuana without a recorded vote.
Doughton's bill sailed though the Senate with the same ease. The Senate held one brief hearing on the bill before overwhelmingly approving the measure. President Franklin Roosevelt promptly signed the legislation into law on August 2, 1937. The "Marihuana Tax Act" took effect on October 1, 1937.
I don't know. It's off topic.
I do know that those who propose legalizing marijuana under one set of criteria with the full intention of changing those criteria later are guilty of dishonesty, deceit, and incrementalism.
Why would anything you posted discomfit me?
I don't know. It's off topic.
I do know that those who propose legalizing marijuana under one set of criteria with the full intention of changing those criteria later are guilty of dishonesty, deceit, and incrementalism.
It's clearly on-topic; your blatant evasion is duly noted.
A misleading number. See my post #246. Almost half the people strongly oppose legalization -- and that's with regulation and taxation.
Once the federal government figures out a politically correct way to squash the state medical marijuana laws, which we both know are a scam, I think we'll see the use subside again to where it was for 10 years.
I don't expect you to be discomfited, MrLeRoy -- I expect you to die.
FDR did more than any other president to take this country down the road to socialism. "The New Deal", for example.
He wanted us to go commie. He sure got that going, didn't he?
Great post by you. Keep up the good work.
And they say a History/Political Science degree is worthless. And wasn't it a beautiful day, here in W. PA today.
Not worthless. Priceless.
You from my neck of the woods (or, am I from your neck of the woods)?
You ever been in Monessen?
Yeah I'm unfortunately in Murtha's home base. LOL
Of course I have. When I moved to PA 7 yrs ago I pretty much soaked up every book I could about Carnegie, Frick and everything about the steel industry I could. I really don't know how I was able to do all that reading; considering pot made me stupid, lazy and illiterate. LMAO
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.