How The Damaging Social Stigma Of Cannabis Formed In The First Place

Nesta

Well-Known Member
I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but we should not ignore how cannabis became illegal in the 1930's. That is - hysteria, fear & racism; without any logic or one bit of scientific evidence.

It's puzzling & disturbing to look back at the way MJ prohibition began. It's amazing, really, that people believed the lies but they were naive (ignorant!) & more trusting of their leaders. But the propaganda those leaders unleashed was so powerful that nearly 100 years later their lies are still taken as unquestioned truth by many. And it's the folks that fear MJ that need to hear how it was banned in the first place.

http://greenflowermedia.com/blogpos...stigma-of-cannabis-formed-in-the-first-place/

Here are some excerpts:

-Interestingly, Harry Anslinger – destined to become the father of the nation’s long drug war – did not initially envision cannabis within the scope of the FBN.

As Johann Hari outlines in his recent book, Chasing the Scream: the First and Last Days of the War on Drugs: “Harry had long dismissed cannabis as a nuisance that would only distract him from the drugs he really wanted to fight. He insisted it was not addictive, and stated ‘there is probably no more absurd fallacy’ than the claim that [cannabis] caused violent crime.”

However, much more dangerous substances like heroin and cocaine were not problematic enough to warrant attention and funding for the FBN from the higher-ups. So Anslinger, in a bid for increased revenue during the Great Depression, launched an attack against 'marihuana'.

-Anslinger didn’t stop there. As Sullum writes, he “warned that ‘marihuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes’ and estimated that half the violent crimes in areas occupied by ‘Mexicans, Greeks, Turks, Filipinos, Spaniards, Latin Americans, and Negroes may be traced to the use of marihuana'."

A lot of the myths surrounding the herb have proven to be unsubstantiated, but they are laughable compared to this contemptible racist genesis of the movement leading to federal cannabis prohibition.
 

ginolicious

Well-Known Member
It was due to racism. Major contributor.

In my 4th year law class before I received my degree I wrote a 25 page paper on why weed is really illegal. The shit I learned blew my mind. Wrote the damn thigh high and even used high time from 2009 as one of my sources. Prof knew I was a stoner. I recently had the paper bound with a spindle and cover pages out on. My finest work.
 

Adobewan

Well-Known Member
I beleive there's a bit of blame to lay in the lap of DuPont and Heart's war against hemp. The polluting plastics and textiles they've imposed on our society are the direct result.
Cannabis was guilty merely by association.
 

Nesta

Well-Known Member
I beleive there's a bit of blame to lay in the lap of DuPont and Heart's war against hemp. The polluting plastics and textiles they've imposed on our society are the direct result.
Cannabis was guilty merely by association.
I don't know about this side of the story, though I can surmise…Did the DuPont company go after hemp because it threatened their profits making synthetic fibers (nylon, etc)?

When did this happen, in the 1920's? 1930's? And what was their argument against hemp?

And who is 'Heart's"? (Or was the company called DuPont & Heart's at the time?)
 

Adobewan

Well-Known Member
Sorry for the confusion @Nesta, I meant to type "Hearst".
There's quite a bit online about this. Take a look:
https://www.google.com/search?q=hearst+dupont+war+on+cannabis&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari

I don't know about this side of the story, though I can surmise…Did the DuPont company go after hemp because it threatened their profits making synthetic fibers (nylon, etc)?

When did this happen, in the 1920's? 1930's? And what was their argument against hemp?

And who is 'Heart's"? (Or was the company called DuPont & Heart's at the time?)
 

grokit

well-worn member
I don't know about this side of the story, though I can surmise…Did the DuPont company go after hemp because it threatened their profits making synthetic fibers (nylon, etc)?

When did this happen, in the 1920's? 1930's? And what was their argument against hemp?

And who is 'Heart's"? (Or was the company called DuPont & Heart's at the time?)
Hearst, as in william randolf, hearst castle, citizen kane etc. supplied the yellow journalism that swayed public opinion. He also had bought up huge tracts of forest for his newsprint and didn't want to compete with anything sustainable. One of the bush grandpas (prescott?) sponsored the legislation against cannabis.

edit:
Here's another recent article on the subject of this op:
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/02/the_real_reason_marijuana_is_illegal_in_the_united_states_partner/

A widow and her four children have been driven insane by eating the Marihuana plant, according to doctors, who say that there is no hope of saving the children’s lives and that the mother will be insane for the rest of her life,” read a New York Times story from 1927. It was clear the newspapers and tabloids were building a campaign against the plant, and much of it has been said to be based on racist ideologies against Mexican immigrants. “Reefer Madness,” the anti-marijuana propaganda film, came out in 1936. By 1937, 46 of the 48 states passed laws banning marijuana use. That same year, the Marijuana Tax Act was passed...

Reagan’s escalation of the drug war led the U.S. to go from 150 people in prison per 100,000 to where it stands now, just over 700 per 100,000. The motivations were originally aimed at the Mexican population, but now people of all ethnicities have suffered from harsh drug laws.

:evil:
 
Last edited:

Nesta

Well-Known Member
Sorry for the confusion @Nesta, I meant to type "Hearst".
There's quite a bit online about this. Take a look:
https://www.google.com/search?q=hearst+dupont+war+on+cannabis&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari
I'm still working my way thru the articles in the google search, but interestingly, the 1st one listed, "Debunking the Hemp Conspiracy Theory -Pot isn't illegal because the paper industry is afraid of competing with hemp -- it's because of racism and the culture wars" [ http://www.alternet.org/story/77339/debunking_the_hemp_conspiracy_theory ] does a thorough job of arguing against the DuPont & Hearst hemp conspiracy theory.

It the article Steven Wishnia of AlterNet, while praising Jack Herer's cannabis activism, says that Herer's book The Emperor Wears No Clothes was the origin of the DuPont & Hearst conspiracy theory. However, Wishnia thinks that Herer was off base:
"Herer more than anyone else revived the idea that the cannabis plant was useful for purposes besides getting high. Unfortunately, he's completely wrong on this particular issue. The evidence for a "hemp conspiracy" just doesn't stand up. It is far more likely that marijuana was outlawed because of racism and cultural warfare."

Wishnia continues with a detailed & rational explanation. He covers the MJ beat for AlterNet, is the author of "The Cannabis Companion" - and seems to be objective on this subject.
 

grokit

well-worn member
@Nesta I saw that, and I beg to differ. Just because "marijuana" (not a real word) was outlawed via inflammatory racial politics doesn't mean that hearst and dupont didn't make a buck off it. I would venture that these two goals were not mutually exclusive; more like killing two birds with a single stone.
 

zor

Well-Known Member
I always figured the stigma was formed by activity from lobbies (such as they were back then, and are now):
Logging
Paper
Fabric
Tobacco
Big Pharma (more contemporary)
and I suppose the righteous fucks who think they have the moral high ground.
 
zor,
  • Like
Reactions: Kief

RUDE BOY

Space is the Place
It the article Steven Wishnia of AlterNet, while praising Jack Herer's cannabis activism, says that Herer's book The Emperor Wears No Clothes was the origin of the DuPont & Hearst conspiracy theory. However, Wishnia thinks that Herer was off base:

I remember conversation about DuPont/Hearst playing a large part in the anti-hemp movement long before 1985 when Herer published his book.

... But Actually I never even heard of Jack Herer until he died, to be honest.
 

Nesta

Well-Known Member
@Nesta I saw that, and I beg to differ. Just because "marijuana" (not a real word) was outlawed via inflammatory racial politics doesn't mean that hearst and dupont didn't make a buck off it. I would venture that these two goals were not mutually exclusive; more like killing two birds with a single stone.
You say 'marijuana' was not, at the time it was banned, a real word. This is a key point.

In my reading (suggested by @Adobewan) I found that Harry Anslinger, the head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and the father of the modern war on drugs, used the term 'marihuana' instead of 'Cannabis' or 'hemp' to associate it with foreigners (Mexicans) & help sway popular opinion through racism. The doctors & patients who were using MJ at the time, legally, knew it as Cannabis.

In fact, as the Marihuana Tax Act was being pushed through Congress, the American Medical Association didn't discover until two days before the vote that the Cannabis their member doctors had been prescribing successfully for years was the same terrible "killer weed" that Anslinger had been raving about. In their minds MJ was a benign, useful substance. It had never crossed their minds that it was the same deadly narcotic that Anslinger portrayed as the Assassin of Youth. They were outwitted & didn't have enough time to mount a defense. So began the federal prohibition of marijuana.

--"However, even within his controlled Committee hearings, many expert witnesses spoke out against the passage of these unusual tax laws.

Dr. William C. Woodward, for instance, who was both a physician and an attorney for the American Medical Association, testified on behalf of the AMA.

He said, in effect, the entire fabric of federal testimony was tabloid sensationalism! No real testimony had been heard! This law, passed in ignorance, could possibly deny the world a potential medicine, especially now that the medical world was just beginning to find which ingredients in cannabis were active.

Woodward told the committee that the only reason the AMA hadn’t come out against the marijuana tax law sooner was that marijuana had been described in the press for 20 years as “killer weed from Mexico.”

The AMA doctors had just realized “two days before” these spring 1937 hearings, that the plant Congress intended to outlaw was known medically as cannabis, the benign substance used in America with perfect safety in scores of illnesses for over one hundred years.

“We cannot understand yet, Mr. Chairman,” Woodward protested, “why this bill should have been prepared in secret for two years without any intimation, even to the profession, that it was being prepared.”

(from The Emperor Wears No Clothes by Jack Herer)
 

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
The Need for Marijuana Lounges
  • by Keith Stroup, NORML Legal CounselMarch 9, 2015

    An issue which continues to arise in each new state that legalizes or depenalizes marijuana is where those who wish to gather with others who enjoy smoking marijuana are legally permitted to do so.

    This seems like an easy problem to solve — we’ve done it before. At the end of alcohol prohibition, the majority of states legalized and licensed bars and lounges where any adult could legally go to meet friends and enjoy their choice of legal alcohol drinks, and to spend some time with others who enjoy drinking.

    This model of allowing bars and lounges where drinkers can socialize is so universal today that it is somewhat surprising it has not been permitted by any of the first few legalization states. Apparently the social stigma surrounding marijuana smoking had become so significant as a result of the decades of “reefer madness” propaganda, that even those proponents of ending marijuana prohibition have feared a political backlash were they to permit marijuana salons. To me it feels like they are saying “it’s OK to smoke, as long as you stay in the closet”!
- See more at: http://blog.norml.org/2015/03/09/the-need-for-marijuana-lounges/#.dpuf

They need to vaporize not smoke. The only place you can use cannabis is in your own homes or at a friends. Most hotels don't allow cannabis, that causes a problem here in WA for tourists. I've used cannabis in quite a few hotels, no smoking just vaporizing. Nobody was the wiser - never an issue.
;)
CK
 
Last edited:

grokit

well-worn member
Harry Anslinger
From what I read, even anslinger wasn't originally against cannabis, he just wanted to go after the "harder" drugs. But then he saw how few people actually (ab)used the latter, and how his out-of-thin-air budget could be ballooned to an absurd degree by demonizing the former. Thus in a town (dc) where money = power, our dea was born under false pretenses and was never anything more than a (taxpayer's) cash grab.
 
Top Bottom