Marijuana or not to Marijuana?

I was reading a post on the forums earlier today which led me to do a little research on where the term marijuana originated from. Me, just being a rec smoker, never realized some people take heart to the differences.
So below are clippits from an article I was reading that helped me understand the differences.

The term “marijuana” enjoys a secure place in the American lexicon. The recent drive to legalize the drug for medicinal purposes has certainly helped loft the word into the mainstream. Marijuana-legalization movements for recreational use in Colorado and Washington state have played a role, too, as has the nascent legalization and decriminalization campaign sweeping through Latin America, most notably in Uruguay.
But throughout the 19th century, Americans used the word “cannabis” when referring to the plant. Pharmaceutical companies like Bristol-Myers Squib and Eli Lilly used cannabis in medicines — widely sold in U.S. pharmacies — to treat insomnia, migraines and rheumatism. From 1840 to 1900, U.S. scientific journals published hundreds of articles touting the therapeutic benefits of cannabis.

So why does the term “marijuana” dominate the discourse in the United Sates, while most people in Europe and large swaths of Latin America refer to the drug as cannabis, the botanical name for the plant?
The answer, in part, is found in the Mexican Revolution, which began in 1910. After the upheaval of the war, scores of Mexican peasants migrated to U.S. border states, taking with them their popular form of intoxication, what they termed “mariguana.”

Upon arrival, they encountered anti-immigrant fears throughout the Southwest — prejudices that intensified after the Great Depression. Analysts say this bigotry played a key role in instituting the first marijuana laws — aimed at placing social controls on the immigrant population.
In an effort to marginalize the new migrant population, the first anti-cannabis laws were targeted at the term “marijuana,” says Amanda Reiman, a policy manager at the Drug Policy Alliance. Scholars say it’s no coincidence that the first U.S. cities to outlaw pot were in border states. It is widely believed that El Paso, Texas, was the first U.S. city to ban cannabis, when it approved a measure in 1914 prohibiting the sale or possession of the drug.


It goes on some more about a few other things and leads to the mentioning of Harry Anslinger

But nobody played a larger role in cementing the word in the national consciousness than Harry Anslinger, director of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics from 1930 to 1962. An outspoken critic of the drug, he set out in the 1930s to place a federal ban on cannabis, embarking on a series of public appearances across the country.
Anslinger is often referred to as the great racist of the war on drugs, says John Collins, coordinator of the LSE IDEAS International Drug Policy Project in London.

That year,(being 1937) Anslinger testified before Congress in favor of marijuana prohibition.
“Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind,” he said during testimony. “Most marijuana smokers are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage."

Anslinger’s crusade succeeded. In 1937 Congress approved the Marijuana Tax Act, which criminalized pot possession throughout the United States.

U.S. perceptions of marijuana is coming full circle, especially as states increasingly recognize the plant’s medicinal benefits. The U.S. public has played a role too, as polls show that a majority of Americans favor marijuana legalization.
And Americans have helped in that transformation — to make cannabis their own. “Marijuana,” after all, does sound foreign and strange, with its multiple syllables. Instead, many prefer the more colloquial, monosyllabic words “pot,” “weed,” “grass,” “herb,” “smoke” and “dope.”

The rest of the world has followed suit, in apparent defiance of the U.S.-imposed word “marijuana.” Mexicans, for example, have adopted the terms “mota,” “pasto” and “gallo.” In the rest of Latin America, names range from “chala” in Argentina to “tobareto” and “grifa” in Ecuador and “hierba” in Venezuela. In Spain, “Maria” is a popular term, while the French, in an apparent nod to the U.S., often use “Marie Jeanne.”


It really was a good read for me, which leads me to the question of 420 Magazine's view. I notice several areas, including links, they refer to Medical Cannabis, then again as Medical Marijuana. The slogan, or theme here, is Creating Cannabis Awareness after all.
Is there a movement to keep the word Cannabis as the common and shy away from Marijuana?
 
I'm not sure Birdie...my impression was US did not like to use the term based on how it was perceived by laws and views

“Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind,” he said during testimony. “Most marijuana smokers are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage."
 
Mr Anslinger popularized the Mexican name for it to promote the association of the drug with the migrants, which some would argue were his real target. It was then and is still now Cannabis, any else is really just slang. Around here a lot of people, myself included call it bud, but I do use and hear cannabis quite a bit since legalization since the government stores use "Cannabis" in their names generally, it seems to be a bit more common in the media and so on.
 
but I do use and hear cannabis quite a bit since legalization since the government stores use "Cannabis" in their names generally, it seems to be a bit more common in the media and so on.

The script-readers ("newscasters") on my local television station's news ("news"???) programs call it "weed" about 95% of the time. But the very best of them seem to be just about qualified to write for a random, unpaid Internet blog :rolleyes: .
 
Mr Anslinger popularized the Mexican name for it to promote the association of the drug with the migrants, which some would argue were his real target.

When I dug into this years back I learned that Anslinger didn’t give two shits about mj. He even lamented the impossible task of convincing Americans that a plant so widely used should now be illegal and the ridiculousness of enforcement. Argued that it would never work, but took on the job he was tasked with. From my understanding, it was all about getting people to move away from hemp and into synthetic materials developed during WW2. The army for example, had learned that the synthetic ropes and fabrics were more durable then hemp, which was more prone in certain climates to deterioration, damage and needed considerable effort to maintain. When the war ended so did R&D funding. Companies like DuPont, were in a pickle if they couldn’t get the public on board. They had a product that was an improvement on old knowledge, but their ability to sell it was going out the window. Convincing an agriculturally based society that the hemp they had grown and sold for generations should now be given up so that new tech could get to the market was the catalyst for the federal ban.

Using race based fear, was a means to an end. Getting 12 people to agree that a person is guilty or innocent is an incredibly difficult task, getting a nation to go along with outlawing a plant seemed beyond comprehension. Appealing to emotions and fear was is and will forever be an effective tool for shifting public opinion. This is why the Hispanic name usage and pr campaigns for wild eyed Mexicans and other minorities. They needed farmers—which was a huge portion of the population then—on board and in agreement that there was a national emergency.
 
 
Back
Top Bottom