Lies About Pot Continue

Over the last few decades I've been advocating the re-legalization of cannabis, hemp, aka marijuana, pot, weed, reefer, etc. The two most common comments I've gotten are "you don't see a person come home and beat their wife, kids or family dog after a night of smoking pot like you do sometimes when they've been out drinking," or "in spite of my objections my kids indulge in intoxicating substances; I'd rather they just smoke pot."

To counter these and other pro-pot sentiments our government comes out with lie after lie intended to induce fear. One lie is that the pot available today is far more potent than it was in the '60s and '70s. Hogwash. Suppressed government studies show this is just not the case, yet the lies continue.

Lies are nothing new when it comes to marijuana. In 1968, I was busted for pot and my poor ol' Southern Baptist "lips that touch mine will never touch wine" grandma was beside herself with grief. She was sure I was going to end up in the nut house or worse.

Then one morning she opened up her newspaper and there was a picture of a marijuana plant. Her first words were, "They lied to me! They put my grandson in prison just for smoking silly ol' rabbit weed." She was so relieved to find out that evil marijuana was not jimson weed (aka loco weed) like government and Hearst newspaper propaganda had convinced her it was.

During the infamous 1937 marijuana tax hearings, pot was never referred to as cannabis or hemp but just as marijuana. Included were such racist quotes as "Big-lipped n------ will entice white women to listen to jazz music and smoke marijuana so they can have sex with them." The mere thought of a black man having sex with a white woman was totally unacceptable, so of course the tax act passed with flying colors.

So nothing really has changed. Fact is in 1917 it was Chinese men luring white women into opium dens to have sex with them. That got the Harrison Tax Act passed.

You'd think that after 20,000 years of humankind using pot, if there was something wrong or harmful with its use it would have manifested itself by now.

So why the lies? To protect the profitability of Big Oil, Pharma, etc. After all, unfortunately, we've become a nation by the corporation/money, of the corporation/money, and for the corporation/money. It's all about money, not justice. That's so sad!


NewsHawk: Ganjarden: 420 MAGAZINE
Source: trib.com
Author: JOE DePAUL
Contact: trib.com
Copyright: 2010 trib.com
Website: Lies about pot continue

* Thanks to MedicalNeed for submitting this article
 
[So why the lies? To protect the profitability of Big Oil, Pharma, etc. After all, unfortunately, we've become a nation by the corporation/money, of the corporation/money, and for the corporation/money. It's all about money, not justice. That's so sad!
/QUOTE]

You have nailed it. This is THE reason it remains illegal. Thanks for posting.

:bravo:
 
great post Ganjarden..

I thought the potency now, at least for indoor dank bud, was higher than that schwag they had in the 60's and 70's.. it would make sense anyways,, not that the higher potency is bad,, :hookah:
 
great post Ganjarden..

I thought the potency now, at least for indoor dank bud, was higher than that schwag they had in the 60's and 70's.. it would make sense anyways,, not that the higher potency is bad,, :hookah:

The MJ grown in 1960's was probably very potent right off the plant. It was the processing, handling, and shipping (if imported) that effected the overall potency. We have learned alot over the years about potency, ripeness, curing, and storage.
 
Surprises me with the economy in shambles any of you would advocate the legalization of marijuana.
Think of all the cops, DEA agents, prison guards and snitches that would be out of work. Plus the companies that do UAs, probation officers, parole officers and drug treatment centers. How about all the lobbyists for pharmaceutical and chemical companies? The doctors and the various drug store workers? The economy would come to a crashing halt.
Do you have no pity?

Plus, all the black men would be plying our womenfolk with pot and jazz music, and then they would have their evil ways with them, ruining our poor white women.
 
Surprises me with the economy in shambles any of you would advocate the legalization of marijuana.
Think of all the cops, DEA agents, prison guards and snitches that would be out of work. Plus the companies that do UAs, probation officers, parole officers and drug treatment centers. How about all the lobbyists for pharmaceutical and chemical companies? The doctors and the various drug store workers? The economy would come to a crashing halt.
Do you have no pity?

Plus, all the black men would be plying our womenfolk with pot and jazz music, and then they would have their evil ways with them, ruining our poor white women.

lol,, good stuff,,

now for the out of work dea, leo, snitches etc... we will still need

janitors, trimmers, extractors (you know,, make them play with the butane), ductwork cleaners, crawlspace navigators , rodent removal, mold testers you know the fun stuff :)
 
Gotta agree. I think RAND failed, through lack of knowledge about the pot growing process, to consider the creation of jobs that legalization would bring.
If I lived in CA, I would set up a HVAC/R business catering strictly to indoor growers, specializing in grow rooms made from walk-in coolers, mini-grow rooms made from reach in drink coolers, auxiliary HVAC systems for grow rooms, and the like.
Using data from around here, I could set up a walk-in cooler with a residential/light commercial AC system, a 200 amp main and associated electrical supplies, for less than 10k. That would be for a 20' x 20' box.
 
The MJ grown in 1960's was probably very potent right off the plant. It was the processing, handling, and shipping (if imported) that effected the overall potency. We have learned alot over the years about potency, ripeness, curing, and storage.

HA! I remember when I was a kid we were told that full fat seeds and red hairs were the signs of prime herb.

The 1st time I paid for and received some dank I thought I got ripped off. In a way I did, but it goes to show how information flows now compared to then.
 
Back
Top Bottom