Illegal pot replaced illegal booze and profited Hearst's paper and the lumber industry even though hemp was replaceable in weeks not years like trees.
Ad hominem Fallacy!
NOTE: I can't claim to be a political activist investing my time and treasure towards the re-legalization of marijuana, cocaine, etc., but I, too, am convinced that the "War on Some Drugs" is morally wrong, impractical, fiscally irresponsible, and counter-productive (just as Prohibition was in the 1920s and 30s), and also support that position with my legal right to vote.
I don't think that that can be equated with "advancing the drug culture," if that's what you're implying.
A line has been drawn.
What does that mean? Who drew a line, and why?
Why can't alcohol be enough?
Why can't Kool-Aid be enough? Why can't 45 mph / 35 horsepower be enough? Why can't 256 kilobyte RAM be enough? Who needs more than one brand of margarine? Why can't two t.v. channels be enough? Let the individual decide!
In his diary for August 7, 1765, George Washington writes, "Began to separate the Male from the Female hemp … rather too late."
FACT: Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were (rather unsuccessful) hemp (i.e., marijuana) growers and dealers.
This is about what kind of society you want your children to grow up in.
It's precisely because I don't want my children growing up in such a sick, repressive society governed by an all-powerful Nanny State that I favor re-legalization.
Regards,
Illegal pot replaced illegal booze and profited Hearst's paper and the lumber industry even though hemp was replaceable in weeks not years like trees.
“I don’t think that that can be equated with “advancing the drug culture,” if that’s what you’re implying.”
Of course it can’t. Drug cultures usually exist at the fringes of society, but what popularizes them is the prohibition of drugs. Can you think of one example where outlawing a drug actually reduced its usage in the long-run?