smoking and usage

bong.toker · #76 (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Montyz

You can grow tomatoes as easily as weed, aren't they taxed?

They tax the seeds if you buy them they litreally control evreything
and with weed they know if pepole find out weeds a healthyer alternitves to alchole
then theyl do that

gonemadwithmary · #77 (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 12:36 PM

hahaha, you DO know that theres about 2-3 of these threads a day, right?

but i have to disagree with you.. in my opinion, thats not why marijuana is illegal in the US.

t.burninator · #78 (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 06:56 PM

^^^ I'd say it has something to do with my last post. The one quoting the speech that I want everyone to read. Maybe I'll have to put the link in my signature or something. Because getting everyone on this site to read the speech seems like it'll be pretty damn difficult.

But if you want the truth from the guy who wrote the 450 page report on the history of marijuana laws in the us back in 1970, you gotta read the speech.

So please read the speech already.

Quote:

Originally Posted by t.burninator

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm

Quote:

Let me pause to tell you this. When Professor Bonnie and I set out to try to track the legal history of marijuana in this country, we were shocked that nobody had ever done that work before. And, secondly, the few people who had even conjectured about it went back to the 1937 Federal Act and said "Well, there's the beginning of it." No. If you go back to 1937, that fails to take account of the fact that, in the period from 1915 to 1937, some 27 states passed criminal laws against the use of marijuana. What Professor Bonnie and I did was, unique to our work, to go back to the legislative records in those states and back to the newspapers in the state capitols at the time these laws were passed to try to find out what motivated these 27 states to enact criminal laws against the use of marijuana. What we found was that the 27 states divided into three groups by explanation.

The first group of states to have marijuana laws in that part of the century were Rocky Mountain and southwestern states. By that, I mean Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Montana. You didn't have to go anywhere but to the legislative records to find out what had motivated those marijuana laws. The only thing you need to know to understand the early marijuana laws in the southwest and Rocky Mountain areas of this country is to know, that in the period just after 1914, into all of those areas was a substantial migration of Mexicans. They had come across the border in search of better economic conditions, they worked heavily as rural laborers, beet field workers, cotton pickers, things of that sort. And with them, they had brought marijuana.

Basically, none of the white people in these states knew anything about marijuana, and I make a distinction between white people and Mexicans to reflect a distinction that any legislator in one of these states at the time would have made. And all you had to do to find out what motivated the marijuana laws in the Rocky mountain and southwestern states was to go to the legislative records themselves. Probably the best single statement was the statement of a proponent of Texas first marijuana law. He said on the floor of the Texas Senate, and I quote, "All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff (referring to marijuana) is what makes them crazy." Or, as the proponent of Montana's first marijuana law said, (and imagine this on the floor of the state legislature) and I quote, "Give one of these Mexican beet field workers a couple of puffs on a marijuana cigarette and he thinks he is in the bullring at Barcelona."

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm

Quote:

Now, in doing this one at the FBI Academy, I didn't tell them this story, but I am going to tell you this story. You want to know how brief the hearings were on the national marijuana prohibition?

When we asked at the Library of Congress for a copy of the [Marihuana Tax Act of 1937] hearings, to the shock of the Library of Congress, none could be found. We went "What?" It took them four months to finally honor our request because -- are you ready for this? -- the hearings were so brief that the volume had slid down inside the side shelf of the bookcase and was so thin it had slid right down to the bottom inside the bookshelf. That's how brief they were. Are you ready for this? They had to break the bookshelf open because it had slid down inside.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm

Quote:

The entire debate on the national marijuana prohibition was as follows -- and, by the way, if you had grown up in Washington, DC as I had you would appreciate this date. Are you ready? The bill was brought on to the floor of the House of Representatives -- there never was any Senate debate on it not one word -- 5:45 Friday afternoon, August 20. Now, in pre-air-conditioning Washington, who was on the floor of the House? Who was on the floor of the House? Not very many people.

Speaker Sam Rayburn called for the bill to be passed on "tellers". Does everyone know "tellers"? Did you know that for the vast bulk of legislation in this country, there is not a recorded vote. It is simply, more people walk past this point than walk past that point and it passes -- it's called "tellers". They were getting ready to pass this thing on tellers without discussion and without a recorded vote when one of the few Republicans left in Congress, a guy from upstate New York, stood up and asked two questions, which constituted the entire debate on the national marijuana prohibition.

"Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?"

To which Speaker Rayburn replied, "I don't know. It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it's a narcotic of some kind."

Undaunted, the guy from Upstate New York asked a second question, which was as important to the Republicans as it was unimportant to the Democrats. "Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?"

In one of the most remarkable things I have ever found in any research, a guy who was on the committee, and who later went on to become a Supreme Court Justice, stood up and -- do you remember? The AMA guy was named William C. Woodward -- a member of the committee who had supported the bill leaped to his feet and he said, "Their Doctor Wentworth came down here. They support this bill 100 percent." It wasn't true, but it was good enough for the Republicans. They sat down and the bill passed on tellers, without a recorded vote.

In the Senate there never was any debate or a recorded vote, and the bill went to President Roosevelt's desk and he signed it and we had the national marijuana prohibition.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm

Quote:

"Dear Agent so-and-so,

Glad to hear you are working hard to give effect to my directive of October 24, 1947. We will (and he always underlined the word 'will') have a great national round-up arrest of musicians in violation of the marijuana laws all on a single day. Don't worry, I will let you know what day."

This went on -- and, of course, you know that some jazz musicians were, in fact, arrested in the late 40's -- this all went on until it ended just the way it began -- with something that Anslinger said. I don't see anybody in here really old enough to appreciate this point, but Commissioner Anslinger was testifying before a Senate Committee in 1948. He was saying, "I need more agents." And, of course, the Senators asked him why.

"Because there are people out there violating the marijuana laws."

Well, you know what the Senators asked -- "Who?"

And in a moment that every Government employee should avoid like the plague, Anslinger first said, "Musicians." But then he looked up at that Senate committee and he gave them a little piece of his heart and said the single line which provoked the most response in this country's history about the non-medical use of drugs. Anslinger said, "And I don't mean good musicians, I mean jazz musicians."

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm

Quote:

You know what the women testified? In Newark they testified, and I quote, "After two puffs on a marijuana cigarette my incisor teeth grew six inches long and dripped with blood."

This was the craziest business you ever saw. Every one of these so-called marijuana insanity defenses were successful.

The one in New York was just outlandish. Two police officers were shot and killed in cold blood. The defendant puts on the marijuana insanity defense and, in that case, there was never even any testimony that the defendant had even used marijuana. The testimony in the New York case was that, from the time the bag of marijuana came into his room it gave off "homicidal vibrations", so he started killing dogs, cats, and ultimately two police officers.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm

gameova23 · #79 (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gonemadwithmary

hahaha, you DO know that theres about 2-3 of these threads a day, right?

but i have to disagree with you.. in my opinion, thats not why marijuana is illegal in the US.

Yeah there is plenty but most of them arent very active if you ask me.

s w i s h e r · #80 (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 07:24 PM

dude needs to chill on the "smart front"

gameova23 · #81 (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t.burninator

^^^ I'd say it has something to do with my last post. The one quoting the speech that I want everyone to read. Maybe I'll have to put the link in my signature or something. Because getting everyone on this site to read the speech seems like it'll be pretty damn difficult.

But if you want the truth from the guy who wrote the 450 page report on the history of marijuana laws in the us back in 1970, you gotta read the speech.

So please read the speech already.

Well i took the time to read many links from the websites you gave me i guess i see now white its illegal, but people in office actually believe that shit.

Ahhh sorry for giving you guys a hard time about this.
Thats what manyyy people always told me and they were all serious about it.
Thanks you guys really big help.

t.burninator · #82 (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 07:59 PM

glad to see you got your answer. and yeah, the level of persistent ignorance makes me sad too. but for the time being, there's only two things I want everybody to know, the first one is that speech. the second one?

JURY NULLIFICATION

just about any less-than-conservative jury should acquit any defendant who is even obviously guilty of a minor cannabis offense with the knowledge of those two things. it's too bad there's some ugly ugly legal precedent that gets in the way of informing a jury of their right to judge the law itself as well as the people who break it.

oh well. maybe you [anyone who's reading this] can make things change.

MzKush · #83 (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gameova23

I agree with yah on that one man.

Legalization would make so many peoples lives better.
No DT's to worry about. No jobs to worry about. Nothing. For once in your life you take a walk in the park. Smoking a phatty and have public 420's everyone.

I have to one thing though. If weed were legalized, the first thing i would do is take a fucking lung-buster and blow that bitch right into a cops face

. That's when my life is fufilled.

LoL! id do the same thing!

gameova23 · #84 (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t.burninator

glad to see you got your answer. and yeah, the level of persistent ignorance makes me sad too. but for the time being, there's only two things I want everybody to know, the first one is that speech. the second one?

JURY NULLIFICATION

just about any less-than-conservative jury should acquit any defendant who is even obviously guilty of a minor cannabis offense with the knowledge of those two things. it's too bad there's some ugly ugly legal precedent that gets in the way of informing a jury of their right to judge the law itself as well as the people who break it.

oh well. maybe you [anyone who's reading this] can make things change.

Yes, deffinetly agree with you. If only we had people from only GC to be jury. That would be fucking nice

Haha but yeah deffinetly, cops can't find anything better in there lives to do besides busting some guy for a fucking dime bad or even a gram. Then they go to fucking jail and they're treated like the biggest criminal in the world.
*sigh*

gameova23 · #85 (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MzKush

LoL! id do the same thing!

Yeahhh dudee!
Hell yeah that would honestly be the fuckin day man.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
cannibus grow bible	SmittyDaDude	Advanced Growing Techniques	14	Yesterday 08:12 PM
waking life takes a while to read	crusher101	Spirituality And Philosophy	13	05-01-2008 12:13 AM
why marijuana is illegal (article)	CanibasConsumer	Recreational Marijuana Use	9	03-29-2008 11:52 PM
ABC Transcript: War On Drugs, A War On Ourselves	superjoint	General Marijuana News from around the World	8	07-19-2007 01:47 AM
only reason weed is illegal	XxxXxxX	General	11	06-05-2002 02:55 AM

smoking and usage

chill out zone

marijuana growing

marijuana news and discussions

web site feedback

Site links

FAQ

Important

Extra

#77 (permalink) 07-09-2008, 12:36 PM
gonemadwithmary CANDY BARRRS! Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: the 314 Posts: 1,113	hahaha, you DO know that theres about 2-3 of these threads a day, right? but i have to disagree with you.. in my opinion, thats not why marijuana is illegal in the US. __________________

#80 (permalink) 07-09-2008, 07:24 PM
s w i s h e r s w i s h e r s w e e t Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: CLICK CLACK CITY CALIFORNIA USA Posts: 532	dude needs to chill on the "smart front"

#82 (permalink) 07-09-2008, 07:59 PM
t.burninator Registered User Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 10	glad to see you got your answer. and yeah, the level of persistent ignorance makes me sad too. but for the time being, there's only two things I want everybody to know, the first one is that speech. the second one? JURY NULLIFICATION just about any less-than-conservative jury should acquit any defendant who is even obviously guilty of a minor cannabis offense with the knowledge of those two things. it's too bad there's some ugly ugly legal precedent that gets in the way of informing a jury of their right to judge the law itself as well as the people who break it. oh well. maybe you [anyone who's reading this] can make things change. __________________ http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)