The Marijuana Conspiracy - The Real Reason Hemp is Illegal
- Thread starter simba
- Start date
master shake
Active member
I didn't read everything posted here, but if taxes were the reason it's illegal then wouldn't they just legalize and then tax the shit out of the sale?? I know that if they do legalize and tax people wouldn;t necessarily change their growing and dealing habits. And if money itself was the whole issue, they would realize the wasted money on jailing and arrests, from petty misdemeanors to felonies. I'm sure the govt is not completely ignorant of the science, mental and health effects of it.
could it be that the reason it's illegal is because cannabis' mind altering affect that enables humans to see past all the bullshit in society and government would challenge those in charge?
I;m quite intoxicated so i dont know if im making sense or not
could it be that the reason it's illegal is because cannabis' mind altering affect that enables humans to see past all the bullshit in society and government would challenge those in charge?
I;m quite intoxicated so i dont know if im making sense or not
WoW maannnn
Member
it can give the mind time to contemplate issues that may affect/ challenge intellectually thier (meaning OUR) intrests...end the division
Division sucks, sutraction sucks,fission sucks, destruction well you get it...NO DIVISION!
id like:
Indoor "x" grow space by wattage (since it draws on resources of space and power)
PLUS outdoor "y" grow space at a ratio of 2:1 dedicated toward hemp industrial production. The fed gets "a" portion of that yield MED & INDUSTRIAL.
HEMP can function like credit at retailers in exchange for wieght to weight exchange of recreational/ medical use/
we regain lost human and natural resources and save on the ones being used for prohibition to work in MORE PRODUCTIVE WAYS (make 'em farm)
eliminate tree paper
actually use hemp right
stop waging war on private citizens, the constitutiobn, etc
fight fewer wars based on resource acqisition, which strengthens famlies here
provides a conduit of the use of natural resource solutions solar cars & hemp toilet paper
DON"T tread on ME!
Division sucks, sutraction sucks,fission sucks, destruction well you get it...NO DIVISION!
id like:
Indoor "x" grow space by wattage (since it draws on resources of space and power)
PLUS outdoor "y" grow space at a ratio of 2:1 dedicated toward hemp industrial production. The fed gets "a" portion of that yield MED & INDUSTRIAL.
HEMP can function like credit at retailers in exchange for wieght to weight exchange of recreational/ medical use/
we regain lost human and natural resources and save on the ones being used for prohibition to work in MORE PRODUCTIVE WAYS (make 'em farm)
eliminate tree paper
actually use hemp right
stop waging war on private citizens, the constitutiobn, etc
fight fewer wars based on resource acqisition, which strengthens famlies here
provides a conduit of the use of natural resource solutions solar cars & hemp toilet paper
DON"T tread on ME!
gramma watt
Member
Why hemp is illegal, continued....
Why hemp is illegal, continued....
Beginning in the early 1900's, as the Industrial Age gained steam, there emerged a new source of producing wealth from the manufacture of products which bypassed land as its means of production. The Factory.
More and more throughout the 1930s, 40s, and 50s, factories locating in the small towns in the South provided more employment opportunities for people there than did farming. Industrialists were attracted by the steady labor force of youngsters who had been displaced from pursuing a career in farming and who would work at lower wages than the organized laborers in the North. It was a basic choice faced by tens of thousands of young men and women across small town America. If you wanted to continue to live there, to fall in love, raise a family, support them, live and die there, then your best chance for doing so was to become a wage earner at the local factory which was inevitably owned by absentee capitalists who were attracted by the cheap labor, but had no ties to the people themselves.
The proliferation of these factories and their products was in direct competition to the land, its attendant cottage industries and their products. Clothes were no longer being woven, in samll towns, by handloom from locally grown fiber crops. Instead, large machines located in industrial parks outside of town, were being fed synthesised polymers and turning out "new age" plastic and nylon products which were extensively advertised in newspapers, on radio and increasingly on the newest rage, television.
America, its political infrastructure and its commerce were undergoing revolution on an astounding scale and it was not by happenstance. Certain industrialists and their families had amassed huge capital based on this country's "Free-Market" principals and they naturally evolved to obsess on institutionalizing their niche at the top of the food chain. This institutionalization came in the form of corporations whose term of influence would not wane on the physical passing of any of its human parts. These entities allowed the pooling of capital on an unprecedented scale and, more, trust agreements between corporations stifled competition from other markets and gave monopolies to a favored few.
Congress enacted the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Act in opposition to Amerca's economy being hijacked by a small group of capitalists and it was used to break up the larger trusts, including Standard Oil of New York in 1892. Otherwise, Mr. John D. Rockefeller would have ended up owning everything.
America's economy fluctuated wildly through the 1920s and 30s and the Depression took a lot of steam out of America's boast that a freemarket was a Divine Mandate. Talk began in earnest among the big players on a plan to enact a controlled economy in the United States and it was to be sure that they were the ones in control.
The institution of a formally recognizable controlled economy in the United States came in the form of what is known as Roosevelt's New Deal legislation. Until this time, there was a Constitutional seperation between business and government that resembled that of the wall between Church and State. Government could not/should not favor one corporation or business over another and, ideally, all government work should be competively bid. Further, government lacked the authority to regulate the actions of the corporations.
But the New Deal changed all of that and there were three major motives that dictated its implementation, its forms and its functions. These included the necessity of responding to the Depression, preparing for World War II and a desire to usurp America's agrarian economy and replace them with synthetically-derived products from a factory economy. The Synthetic Subversion.
These plans were not discussed with the general population nor put to a popular vote. It was believed, correctly, I assume, that consumer preference could be swayed by advertising campaigns. But I wonder if that is what the Chairman of the E.I DuPont Denemours and Comapny meant in his 1937 shareholder's report when, after discussing his company's extensive investment in synthetic processes, and one of its new product discoveries, nylon, he wrote that the ability to realize a profit from these investments was directly related to how "the revenue raising power of government may be converted into an instrument for forcing acceptance of sudden new ideas of industrial and social reorganization."
If there was ever a smoking gun as evidence of the demise of the United States as a Free Market economy, and as a free country, this statement is it.
In other words, a corporation now saw itself in the position of using the governments power of taxation to force the reorganization of society to insure a profit from it's investments, no matter the impact on the Consitutional guarantees of We, the People.
At first, President Roosevelt and his corporate buddies had some difficulty in getting the Supreme Court to go along by re-interpreting the Constitution to allow such shenanigans. The Court consistently ruled that this new relationship between Government and business was unconstitutional and lots of legislation got log-jammed at the top. It wasn't until Roosevelt threatened to add six new members to the Court that one of the Justices changed his vote, and Congress enacted a torrent of new legislation, on an emergency basis, without the normal legislative debates and outside the spotlight of crucial public examination.
Up until this point in time, The United States Government never had the Constitutional empowerment to outlaw individual behavior beyond that of insuring it's own express powers. Obviously an individual could not coin their own money or declare war. These were specifically given to specific arms of government.
Otherwise, there were few federal criminal laws in existence. The government had no constitutional empowerment to outlaw individual behavior, but the strategy of the New Deal legislation was to tax it into oblivion.
Once the "New Deal" was accepted as Constitutional by the Supreme Court, this new combination of players in business and government moved quickly to define, expand and protect its new found powers.
The first bill to pass Constitutional muster after the supreme court reversed its philosophies was the 1937 Machine Gun Tax. The logic was simple. The government couldn't tell you that you couldn't own a machine gun, but they sure as hell could tax it. And if you didnt alert them that you posessed one by filing taxes on it, then you were a tax evader and they could prosecute you on a criminal basis for it. The 1937 Machine Gun Tax act allowed them to locate and register the automatic weapons of the day held by the public. This was the first step in federal gun control.
The second New Deal peice of legislation to be Okayed by the Court was the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act. Excuse me, was marijuana a big problem back in 1937? Why hell no! Then why did our government decide that this was such an important of legislation, to be passed at the earliest possible time?
Essentially it was this peice of legislation that gave the New Dealers an almost complete control of the country and its means of producing wealth. Here's how it worked.
The 1937 Marijuana Tax act did not outlaw marijuana. it placed a prohibitive tax on it of 200 dollars per ounce and put its cultivation under a taxed permit scheme which stopped its growth because they simply didn't issue any permits.
Why was this act so important to them? because, under this legislation, for the first time, the United States government took unto itself the power to tell its citizens what seeds they could and couldn't plant in Gods green earth.
From this point on, the corporate money changers in the governments temples, the synthetic industrialists, had control of Americas land even though they didnt own it. They could tax their competition, the farmers, into oblivion by utilizing "the revenue-raising power of government" as an instrument "for forcing acceptance of sudden new ideas of industrial and social reorganization.
And each of Americas succeeding generations lost the basic moral compasses you have instilled when you grow up amid The Natural Cycle. Lessons learned like, If you dont work, you dont eat. You reap what you sow. There is a time and season for all things, including death. You know, the basic stuff everybody should know by the sixth grade. and how's a kid ever going to learn it without ever having to hoe a garden?
Reprinted with permission from the author... from the book..The Last Free Man in America meets the Synthetic Subversion.
Why hemp is illegal, continued....
Beginning in the early 1900's, as the Industrial Age gained steam, there emerged a new source of producing wealth from the manufacture of products which bypassed land as its means of production. The Factory.
More and more throughout the 1930s, 40s, and 50s, factories locating in the small towns in the South provided more employment opportunities for people there than did farming. Industrialists were attracted by the steady labor force of youngsters who had been displaced from pursuing a career in farming and who would work at lower wages than the organized laborers in the North. It was a basic choice faced by tens of thousands of young men and women across small town America. If you wanted to continue to live there, to fall in love, raise a family, support them, live and die there, then your best chance for doing so was to become a wage earner at the local factory which was inevitably owned by absentee capitalists who were attracted by the cheap labor, but had no ties to the people themselves.
The proliferation of these factories and their products was in direct competition to the land, its attendant cottage industries and their products. Clothes were no longer being woven, in samll towns, by handloom from locally grown fiber crops. Instead, large machines located in industrial parks outside of town, were being fed synthesised polymers and turning out "new age" plastic and nylon products which were extensively advertised in newspapers, on radio and increasingly on the newest rage, television.
America, its political infrastructure and its commerce were undergoing revolution on an astounding scale and it was not by happenstance. Certain industrialists and their families had amassed huge capital based on this country's "Free-Market" principals and they naturally evolved to obsess on institutionalizing their niche at the top of the food chain. This institutionalization came in the form of corporations whose term of influence would not wane on the physical passing of any of its human parts. These entities allowed the pooling of capital on an unprecedented scale and, more, trust agreements between corporations stifled competition from other markets and gave monopolies to a favored few.
Congress enacted the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Act in opposition to Amerca's economy being hijacked by a small group of capitalists and it was used to break up the larger trusts, including Standard Oil of New York in 1892. Otherwise, Mr. John D. Rockefeller would have ended up owning everything.
America's economy fluctuated wildly through the 1920s and 30s and the Depression took a lot of steam out of America's boast that a freemarket was a Divine Mandate. Talk began in earnest among the big players on a plan to enact a controlled economy in the United States and it was to be sure that they were the ones in control.
The institution of a formally recognizable controlled economy in the United States came in the form of what is known as Roosevelt's New Deal legislation. Until this time, there was a Constitutional seperation between business and government that resembled that of the wall between Church and State. Government could not/should not favor one corporation or business over another and, ideally, all government work should be competively bid. Further, government lacked the authority to regulate the actions of the corporations.
But the New Deal changed all of that and there were three major motives that dictated its implementation, its forms and its functions. These included the necessity of responding to the Depression, preparing for World War II and a desire to usurp America's agrarian economy and replace them with synthetically-derived products from a factory economy. The Synthetic Subversion.
These plans were not discussed with the general population nor put to a popular vote. It was believed, correctly, I assume, that consumer preference could be swayed by advertising campaigns. But I wonder if that is what the Chairman of the E.I DuPont Denemours and Comapny meant in his 1937 shareholder's report when, after discussing his company's extensive investment in synthetic processes, and one of its new product discoveries, nylon, he wrote that the ability to realize a profit from these investments was directly related to how "the revenue raising power of government may be converted into an instrument for forcing acceptance of sudden new ideas of industrial and social reorganization."
If there was ever a smoking gun as evidence of the demise of the United States as a Free Market economy, and as a free country, this statement is it.
In other words, a corporation now saw itself in the position of using the governments power of taxation to force the reorganization of society to insure a profit from it's investments, no matter the impact on the Consitutional guarantees of We, the People.
At first, President Roosevelt and his corporate buddies had some difficulty in getting the Supreme Court to go along by re-interpreting the Constitution to allow such shenanigans. The Court consistently ruled that this new relationship between Government and business was unconstitutional and lots of legislation got log-jammed at the top. It wasn't until Roosevelt threatened to add six new members to the Court that one of the Justices changed his vote, and Congress enacted a torrent of new legislation, on an emergency basis, without the normal legislative debates and outside the spotlight of crucial public examination.
Up until this point in time, The United States Government never had the Constitutional empowerment to outlaw individual behavior beyond that of insuring it's own express powers. Obviously an individual could not coin their own money or declare war. These were specifically given to specific arms of government.
Otherwise, there were few federal criminal laws in existence. The government had no constitutional empowerment to outlaw individual behavior, but the strategy of the New Deal legislation was to tax it into oblivion.
Once the "New Deal" was accepted as Constitutional by the Supreme Court, this new combination of players in business and government moved quickly to define, expand and protect its new found powers.
The first bill to pass Constitutional muster after the supreme court reversed its philosophies was the 1937 Machine Gun Tax. The logic was simple. The government couldn't tell you that you couldn't own a machine gun, but they sure as hell could tax it. And if you didnt alert them that you posessed one by filing taxes on it, then you were a tax evader and they could prosecute you on a criminal basis for it. The 1937 Machine Gun Tax act allowed them to locate and register the automatic weapons of the day held by the public. This was the first step in federal gun control.
The second New Deal peice of legislation to be Okayed by the Court was the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act. Excuse me, was marijuana a big problem back in 1937? Why hell no! Then why did our government decide that this was such an important of legislation, to be passed at the earliest possible time?
Essentially it was this peice of legislation that gave the New Dealers an almost complete control of the country and its means of producing wealth. Here's how it worked.
The 1937 Marijuana Tax act did not outlaw marijuana. it placed a prohibitive tax on it of 200 dollars per ounce and put its cultivation under a taxed permit scheme which stopped its growth because they simply didn't issue any permits.
Why was this act so important to them? because, under this legislation, for the first time, the United States government took unto itself the power to tell its citizens what seeds they could and couldn't plant in Gods green earth.
From this point on, the corporate money changers in the governments temples, the synthetic industrialists, had control of Americas land even though they didnt own it. They could tax their competition, the farmers, into oblivion by utilizing "the revenue-raising power of government" as an instrument "for forcing acceptance of sudden new ideas of industrial and social reorganization.
And each of Americas succeeding generations lost the basic moral compasses you have instilled when you grow up amid The Natural Cycle. Lessons learned like, If you dont work, you dont eat. You reap what you sow. There is a time and season for all things, including death. You know, the basic stuff everybody should know by the sixth grade. and how's a kid ever going to learn it without ever having to hoe a garden?
Reprinted with permission from the author... from the book..The Last Free Man in America meets the Synthetic Subversion.
NugBurninBizzle
New member
EVERYONE SHOULD READ THIS!
T
texsativa
simba said:
I think cannabis does do harm. And I think it does some good too.
This is interesting:
Department of Physiology and Trinity College Institute of Neuroscience, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Title A comparison of the apoptotic effect of Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol in the neonatal and adult rat cerebral cortex.
Source Brain Research. 1175:39-47, 2007 Oct 17.
Abstract The maternal use of cannabis during pregnancy results in a number of cognitive deficits in the offspring that persist into adulthood. The endocannabinoid system has a role to play in neurodevelopmental processes such as neurogenesis, migration and synaptogenesis. However, exposure to phytocannabinoids, such as Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol, during gestation may interfere with these events to cause abnormal patterns of neuronal wiring and subsequent cognitive impairments. Aberrant cell death evoked by Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol may also contribute to cognitive deficits and in cultured neurones Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol induces apoptosis via the CB(1) cannabinoid receptor. In this study we report that Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (5-50 microM) activates the stress-activated protein kinase, c-jun N-terminal kinase, and the pro-apoptotic protease, caspase-3, in in vitro cerebral cortical slices obtained from the neonatal rat brain. The proclivity of Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol to impact on these pro-apoptotic signalling molecules was not observed in in vitro cortical slices obtained from the adult rat brain. In vivo, subcutaneous administration of Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (1-30 mg/kg) activated c-jun N-terminal kinase, caspase-3 and cathepsin-D, and induced DNA fragmentation in the cerebral cortex of neonatal rats. In contrast, in vivo administration of Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol to adult rats was not associated with the apoptotic pathway in the cerebral cortex. The data provide evidence which supports the hypothesis that the neonatal rat brain is more vulnerable to the neurotoxic influence of Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol, suggesting that the cognitive deficits that are observed in humans exposed to marijuana during gestation may be due, in part, to abnormal engagement of the apoptotic cascade during brain development.
The word about marijuana curing cancer is floating around this board, but the exact mechanisms for the majority I don't think are completely understood. Cancer cells are still human cells, even though they aren't "normal". So as you can see marijuana has an effect on the body killing cells. This just happens to be good in this case. For the above research article, they found that THC interrupted normal development in a rat brain.
But, smoking cigarettes and alcohol certainly negatively impact a baby's development, and they are legal, but restricted.
I think cannabis should also be legal, but restricted.
The body is an amazing thing, and science is way far from knowing all the complexities. There is so much we don't know. The brain, learning, memory, so must is based on theory. And of course THC interacts with the brain in ways we don't completely understand.
So I don't think it is correct to say cannabis does no wrong. But I don't think it is correct to say is does no right.
texsativa said:
Right and wrong are moral concepts. As such, moral concepts are human concepts. Cannabis is a plant and therefore it is not moral. It can do neither right nor wrong, unless humans put it to use. I think that cannabis should be completely deregulated and decriminalized. Its use should be guided by morality, rather than being restricted by criminal legislation.
T
texsativa
entropical said:
Maybe right and wrong are incorrect terms.
Pharmacodynamic: effects caused by drugs (drugs - substance that causes an effect = nicotine, caffeine, morphine, cannabis, alcohol, etc)
wrong = affects the body deleteriously
right = affects the body beneficially
Eudaimonia67
Member
It just makes me so mad and frustrated that this is how things have come to be. The almighty dollar and greed have prevented the world from being a much better place. I wish i won the lottery and could spend millions on informing the public of the misinformation they've been spoon fed and readily accepted. Reminds me of the quote,
"Only after the last tree has been cut down. Only after the last fish has been caught. Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten" - Cree Prophecy
"Only after the last tree has been cut down. Only after the last fish has been caught. Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten" - Cree Prophecy
wicked gh0st
Member
The reason why its Illegal is becuzz theirs to munch money to be made in it ,
just imagane if the usa would legalize it people would probley question the quality of it ,and then just GROW their own like pplz are doing now ,then the gov wouldnt be able 2 taxx them ppls that is growing their own another words they would be lossing money becuzz pplz would be growing their own shit lol
just imagane if the usa would legalize it people would probley question the quality of it ,and then just GROW their own like pplz are doing now ,then the gov wouldnt be able 2 taxx them ppls that is growing their own another words they would be lossing money becuzz pplz would be growing their own shit lol
Sorry in advance. But I really don't think there is merit in taking comfort in conspiracy theories and these vague statements, such as
Surely, you could employ that line of thinking for almost anything you're suspicious of, picking out obscure connections between events and policies that may or may not even exist.
Instead, you could take a practical approach and define an actual problem, so there may be an actual solution. If the reason why weed is illegal is really because of the money, what exactly can we do about it? Nothing! That's surrendering your power to act by blaming an omnimous, abstract, or conceptual entity that cannot be defeated.
To me, this is like the phrase: "war against terrorism". Assigning an invisible enemy... It would be much more practical to say:
-It's illegal because there are negative health implications.
-It's illegal because it causes crime.
-It's illegal because it's morally wrong to get high.
-It's illegal because it causes environmental damage.
Then, set out to prove it wrong.
Of course, this is just a suggestion and my opinion, so no offense...
Surely, you could employ that line of thinking for almost anything you're suspicious of, picking out obscure connections between events and policies that may or may not even exist.
Instead, you could take a practical approach and define an actual problem, so there may be an actual solution. If the reason why weed is illegal is really because of the money, what exactly can we do about it? Nothing! That's surrendering your power to act by blaming an omnimous, abstract, or conceptual entity that cannot be defeated.
To me, this is like the phrase: "war against terrorism". Assigning an invisible enemy... It would be much more practical to say:
-It's illegal because there are negative health implications.
-It's illegal because it causes crime.
-It's illegal because it's morally wrong to get high.
-It's illegal because it causes environmental damage.
Then, set out to prove it wrong.
Of course, this is just a suggestion and my opinion, so no offense...
