From: howland@clipper.ingr.com (Mike Howland)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Helicopters (was Re: Perot and the War on Drugs)
Date: 23 Jul 92 22:11:37 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA


In article <1992Jul6.193454.1771@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:

>: >howland@clipper.ingr.com (Mike Howland) writes:
>: >: 
>: >: personal pockets.  (Big oil made marijuana illegal for this very reason by 
>: >: the way.)
>: >
>: >Nice conspiracy theory - but it is wrong. It was because an undesired minority
>: >was using the drug - the blacks and chicanos. Just a lever for repression,
>: >plus the fact that Harry Anslinger needed something to keep him employed since
>: >prohibition had been repealed.
>: 
>: uhoh, somebody's been readin about no clothes on our leadership!
>
>Nope.  I just am able to read history.
>

  When I posted this, I broke my cardinal rule of never posting an article 
until it has fermented for 24 hours.  10 minutes after I posted it, I wanted
to remove this line.  In particular, I certainly don't believe that it was
exclusively big oil that made marijuana illegal, although I do suspect that was
a large part of it, and thats the point I wanted to make.  They certainly had
the motive, and most people don't realize it because they don't realize the
potential for fuel from hemp.  (While I personally admit that "The emperor"
put these ideas into my head, it has been the follow up on reference articles
that has convinced me.  Hemp has such an incredibly high economic value that 
only a conspiracy of huge proportions could have prevented it from being used
as a commodity.  Well, that may be too strong a statement; at the time there 
were other cheap alternatives: *plenty* of oil, little air pollution, fertile 
soil.  Now we don't have these things, and people have forgotten that there 
really is an alternative.)

  The apparent "cause" of hemp's illegalization was clearly a highly successful 
dis-information campaign, which convinced the majority of America that hemp
was so potent that it made you wanted to hack up people with chainsaws, even 
though it was one of the most commonly prescribed drugs at the time, and many 
medical books clearly show that it is one of the least harmful of all the 
psycho-active drugs.

  This leaves us to speculate on the real reasons that it was made illegal.
"...undesired minorities..." and dis-information were just the vehicle for 
making it illegal, not the motivation.  Motivations include such things as: 

  1: Personal vendettas such as Anslinger had, 
  2: Other personal political motivations, such as keeping our mind off a 
politicians other real screw ups, (A successful prototype for the current 
full-blown WOD?), 
  3:  Appeasing lobbyists from other industries which had a lot to lose from 
full-scale hemp harvesting which was the direction the country was moving in 
at the time.  This includes the oil, timber, pharmaceutical, and cotton 
industries.  The oil industry is the most notable of this list due to the 
potential loss of profit from paint, plastic, and auto fuel made from hemp.  
The pharmaceutical industry also was no fan, because hemp has legitimate uses,
but is unpatentable being a plant, so you can't corner the market on it.
(Aside: Bush owns a LOT of stock in pharmaceutical companies.)  The timber
industry also had a lot to lose since hemp is clearly a better thing to make
paper out of:  You can make more from it, it makes stronger paper, it isn't
nearly as harsh on the soil, it is an annual, and it doesn't require dioxin to 
break down the lignin in wood pulp.  The cotton industry because hemp makes 
very durable clothing and strong stitching.

  Which of these was the *real* reason?  Hell if I know; who shot Kennedy, 
know what I mean?  (My *guess* is really answer 2 actually)

>: Seriously though, I think the current conspiracy is a little of each.
>: It may have been all predjudice in the begining, but now its also the
>: money part.  I guess the only way to ever validate a "conspiracy theory"
>: is to actually witness/tape the culprits "conspiring".
>
>These days, it is all money. Although, I doubt if it is "big oil" conspiracy.
>I think the bully boys just love all the money they are bringing in through
>civil forfeiture. That, and they can push their weight around all they wish,
>and the foolish populace cheers them on. If you want conspiracy, figure that
>it is a concerted effort by all sections of government, including both major
>political parties, to gain further control over our lives.

  In my opinion, saying "its just the money", is saying "its just the oil".
On average, somewhere in the vicinity of 80% of the cost of *everything* you 
pay money for is the cost of *energy* in producing it.  (MacNeil/Lehrer I 
think, last year some time).

>
>: I don't think you can say Mike's theory is "wrong", just the timeframe
>: is out, as in "Big oil _keeps_ mj....".
>: 

  Yeah, they don't have to anymore, because the people are scared enough,
and still can't believe that the government could have lied to them...

> Bill
Newsgroups: alt.drugs