Why Are So Many Still Against Hemp / Marijuana ?

[Thor]

I've got no problem of legalization of pretty much everything as along as before it is legalized the punishments are put in place that are severe enough so that when you violate the rights/lives/limbs of another citizen you have an eye for an eye or even more punishment.

Ferinstance...if you cause a wreck that causes injury while drunk/stoned/brain dead you get a minimum of 7yrs, no possibility of parole. If you kill someone, then the death penalty with no appeal. I don't care why you thought you needed to be drunk/stoned/brain dead while driving, those excuses are over. If the end result is someone dead and you test positive then game over man.

Now then; once the responsibility is in place we can talk, until then no thank you very much.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Watched the video till I couldn't take it any more, he doesn't quite have his AG facts stright. First off trying to compare gross income of various commodities is just looney, tabbacoo and potatoes are not even grown in the same climate at production levels and neither is grow in what is considered the "corn belt". Second, hemp would not be a replacement for corn/sorghum in a feed ration for cattle. Hemp is high in protein, corn is a carbohydrate, you kinda need both to make a balanced ration.

I'm going to go out on a limb here.

Hemp is not as wonderful as its supporters would have us believe.
Marijauana is not as harmful as its critics would have us believe.
There's nothing real special, other than controversy, about either.

That'd be my guess, anyway.

 

[rambone]

You're making it into a dichotomy when, to most people, it is an issue of it depends, and weighing this versus that, and deciding which underlying value is most important. But you're welcome to make the purity test as binary and as exclusive as you want. I'm not trying to pass.

OK, let me ask you: when people abolish an entire sector of the agriculture industry and imprison any who participate in it, can you say with a straight face that they support free markets?

 

[jamil]

OK, let me ask you: when people abolish an entire sector of the agriculture industry and imprison any who participate in it, can you say with a straight face that they support free markets?

Well now you're adding a bit more context. All I need are a few more facts about this entire ag market you speak of to answer that.

 

[Leo]

.

 

[Leo]

A lot of hemp was grown during the world wars on contract with the US department of the Army for rope production. Father in laws farm was kept from forclosure because of the US Army contracts. I'll bet figures are around for that.

 

[rambone]

Well now you're adding a bit more context. All I need are a few more facts about this entire ag market you speak of to answer that.

What details could possibly affect the answer to the question? We're talking about banning a family of crops that could be otherwise sold to consumers. Is that a free market?

 

[jamil]

What details could possibly affect the answer to the question? We're talking about banning a family of crops that could be otherwise sold to consumers. Is that a free market?

Because of all the potheads spreading all the crazy gun store-like lore, it's hard to piece together what happened to hemp. As far as I can piece it together, it seems that one industry source wanted to squash another, so it lobbied legislators to get hemp banned under the pretense that since it looks so much like marijuana, it thwarts the war on drugs to have it freely available, and thus brings the end of civilization much closer.

If people truly believe that, I can see why they might support saving civilization from its impending end. But that doesn't make them statists. It makes them deceived, perhaps even gullible. You can argue that it makes the politicians who know better but are also wealthier because of it, statists, among other things.

But you didn't say that. You just spoke of innocent plants, generically, as if it doesn't matter which one, as if no potential societal consequences exist if they're all made freely available. Those are arguable points either way, which makes it not a clear case of statism. It depends.

In the case of hemp, I see no reason for the state to make it illegal to grow or sell. Anyone who understands that and still wants to make it illegal, sure, go ahead and call them statists. I'll just call them crony capitalists. But if they don't understand the benefits and harmlessness of hemp, and the senselessness of banning it, that's what we get to do, help them understand it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

It just blows my mind that a friggin plant can do so many things we need / want , it is a renewable resource and can help the environment , so why is it illegal ?

It makes no logical sense to me unless money is changing hands to keep it illegal .

Wasn't W Randolph Hearst the driving force behind it?

 

[mrjarrell]

Wasn't W Randolph Hearst the driving force behind it?

He was a leading force for marijuana prohibition, along with Ainslanger. Hemp was originally exempt from marijuana prohibition, as it was necessary for national defence and the farming economy. Hemp was banned, post WW2, after companies like Dupont came up with artificial fibers for rope (nylon, etc) at a price point the economy could go with. The paper mills did have a lobbyist effect on it's banning, too, as they had been in bed with the government as part of the NRA and the WPA programs to plant fast growing pines throughout the South as part of the recovery, and as a "free" source of non-hemp paper. It put the paper companies in charge of millions of acres of the South and locked out the small hemp farmer. It was just a short hop for them to ban it after that. DOn't know how much Hearst had to do with banning hemp, but he was certainly a force for marijuana prohibition.

 

[rambone]

Because of all the potheads spreading all the crazy gun store-like lore, it's hard to piece together what happened to hemp. As far as I can piece it together, it seems that one industry source wanted to squash another, so it lobbied legislators to get hemp banned under the pretense that since it looks so much like marijuana, it thwarts the war on drugs to have it freely available, and thus brings the end of civilization much closer.

If people truly believe that, I can see why they might support saving civilization from its impending end. But that doesn't make them statists. It makes them deceived, perhaps even gullible. You can argue that it makes the politicians who know better but are also wealthier because of it, statists, among other things.

But you didn't say that. You just spoke of innocent plants, generically, as if it doesn't matter which one, as if no potential societal consequences exist if they're all made freely available. Those are arguable points either way, which makes it not a clear case of statism. It depends.

Frankly, it does not matter why people choose to strip freedoms away. Their motivations aren't a factor in this status. Whether they were duped or not, the fact is, they ARE stripping freedoms away. Freedom of choice; property rights; economic freedom, and more.

Question: Does a gun-banner's fears and motivations make him anything other than a statist?

Prohibition supporters share a few things in common, by virtue of the fact that they support government prohibition. First, is an opinion that the state is a viable means of reordering society. Second, is an opinion that other people's liberty can be scuttled to give a feeling of safety/order/wellness. They come up with all kinds of creative excuses, but ultimately there is no denying either of these points. These are characteristics of statists.

The fact that a person can accept political propaganda that a consumer good is ending civilation, and the belief that more government is the cure, are both characteristics of statists.

Milton Friedman said, "One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results." The lesson is that we will know statists by the fruits they bear.

I'll answer my question from earlier: if a person wants to ban an agricultural crop, he don't care about free markets. Words have meanings. A free market cannot exist when product producers are put in cages.

 

[jamil]

Frankly, it does not matter why people choose to strip freedoms away. Their motivations aren't a factor in this status. Whether they were duped or not, the fact is, they ARE stripping freedoms away. Freedom of choice; property rights; economic freedom, and more.

Question: Does a gun-banner's fears and motivations make him anything other than a statist?

Prohibition supporters share a few things in common, by virtue of the fact that they support government prohibition. First, is an opinion that the state is a viable means of reordering society. Second, is an opinion that other people's liberty can be scuttled to give a feeling of safety/order/wellness. They come up with all kinds of creative excuses, but ultimately there is no denying either of these points. These are characteristics of statists.

The fact that a person can accept political propaganda that a consumer good is ending civilation, and the belief that more government is the cure, are both characteristics of statists.

Milton Friedman said, "One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results." The lesson is that we will know statists by the fruits they bear.

I'll answer my question from earlier: if a person wants to ban an agricultural crop, he don't care about free markets. Words have meanings. A free market cannot exist when product producers are put in cages.

Let's make sure our definitions are consistent. I define statism as a belief that the state's concern is more important than individual rights. There may be some circumstances, where people who would ordinarily be opposed to that idea, might believe that some freedoms impose dire consequences on the rest of society, and approve of limited impositions on individual liberty. That's why we have laws against many drugs, or at least the pretense of why we have those laws.

I think 95% of the time (I'm rounding), I'll side with individual liberty. Am I a statist because of the 5%? The way you've stated it, essentially that any imposition on personal liberty is statist, then the only non-statists that can exist are anarchists. But all sovereign states, even the freest, impose some rules that limit individual liberty.

The criterion I use for whether or not a law limiting freedom is needed is not as singular and simple as IoF. But even you guys have that to determine when government can restrict personal liberty.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

OP, good news, dope prohibition is on the way out.

As to why the original prohibition? Well, it's part racism, part joy of control of others, and part inertia.

I don't like dope. I don't like drugs and especially drugs that make people do icky things like take off their shoes or vote for Ron Paul. However, laws against marijuana are a proven failure and hurt more than they help.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

OP, good news, dope prohibition is on the way out.

As to why the original prohibition? Well, it's part racism, part joy of control of others, and part inertia.

I don't like dope. I don't like drugs and especially drugs that make people do icky things like take off their shoes or vote for Ron Paul. However, laws against marijuana are a proven failure and hurt more than they help.

Wow. This is the first time I've seen you say this (although I might have missed it before). Bravo!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Wow. This is the first time I've seen you say this (although I might have missed it before). Bravo!

Well . . . I've been saying it a long time.

I'm not a doper. Closest that I've been to it was Deep Purple Perfect Strangers Tour at Market Square Arena in '85.

General Assembly certainly has the authority to make it illegal, but re-legalization is something we need to look into.

 

[Mgderf]

Well . . . I've been saying it a long time.

I'm not a doper. Closest that I've been to it was Deep Purple Perfect Strangers Tour at Market Square Arena in '85.

General Assembly certainly has the authority to make it illegal, but re-legalization is something we need to look into.

House of Blue Lights was a better tour. It was in 1987..
OUTSTANDING show, also at MSA.

 

[wagyu52]

A lot of hemp was grown during the world wars on contract with the US department of the Army for rope production. Father in laws farm was kept from forclosure because of the US Army contracts. I'll bet figures are around for that.

Meh, not really a lot, about 100,000 acres a year during the war years.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Wow. This is the first time I've seen you say this (although I might have missed it before). Bravo!

As icky as it tastes to vindicate Kirk in anything *shudder* he's said it before at least as far back as 2011:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ussion/148182-should-marijuana-legalized.html

Yes, I searched. It'd have been more fun if I could have found Kirk saying "ITS THE DEVILS WEED!!!" but, unfortunately, facts support him on this one. I'm going to go scub my tongue with bleach now.

 

[Cerberus]

Meh, not really a lot, about 100,000 acres a year during the war years.

Until it's banning, hemp was the chief crop in Kentucky. The much healthier tobacco took it's place shortly following WW2.

 

[wagyu52]

Until it's banning, hemp was the chief crop in Kentucky. The much healthier tobacco took it's place shortly following WW2.

I don't think so, hemp was outlawed in 1938, KY hemp production peaked in the 1850's and declined drastically during and after the Civil War.