-as of [16 JULY 2024]–
.
.
*CANADA*
.
*MEXICO*
.
*THE NETHERLANDS*
.
*TOP 12 “GREEN-LANDS* –>
(“speaking of green…”
*CANADA*
.
*URUGUAY*
*PORTUGAL*
*THE NETHERLANDS*
.
-‘cannabis’ was sold in the ‘1800s’ as a ‘tincture’ (‘alcoholic extract’ (e.g. of ‘leaves’ or other ‘plant material’) or solution of a ‘non-volatile substance’; (e.g. of ‘iodine’ / ‘mercurochrome’)-
.
(in 1937 the “FDR administration” crafted the 1937 “marihuana tax act”, the first ‘US national law’ making ‘cannabis possession’ illegal via an ‘unpayable tax’ on the drug)
“thanks frank!”
.
The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, Pub.L. 75–238, 50 Stat. 551, enacted August 2, 1937, was a United States Act that placed a tax on the sale of cannabis.
The H.R. 6385 act was drafted by ‘Harry Anslinger’
*ENEMIES OF STATE*
*’20 may 1892′ – ’14 november 1975’*
(fucking bastard lived to ‘age 83’)
(born to ‘swiss-german’ family in pennsylvania)
(1st commissioner of ‘federal bureau of narcotics’)
.
and introduced by ‘Rep. Robert L. Doughton’ of North Carolina, on April 14, 1937.
.
.
The Seventy-fifth United States Congress held hearings on April 27, 28, 29th, 30th, and May 4, 1937
.
Upon the congressional hearings confirmation, the H.R. 6385 act was redrafted as H.R. 6906 and introduced with House Report 792.
The Act is now commonly referred to, using the modern spelling, as the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act.
This act was overturned in 1969 in Leary v. United States, and was repealed by Congress the next year
.
Background
Regulations and restrictions on the sale of cannabis sativa as a drug began as early as 1906
(see Legal history of cannabis in the United States).
The head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN), Harry J. Anslinger, alleged, in the 1930s, the FBN had an increase of reports of people using marijuana.[2]
He had also, in 1935, support from president Franklin D. Roosevelt for adoption of the Uniform State Narcotic Act, state laws included regulations of cannabis.[3]
The total production of hemp fiber in the United States in 1933 decreased to around 500 tons per year.
Cultivation of hemp began to increase in 1934 and 1935, but production remained low compared with other fibers.[4][5][6]
Hemp, bast with fibers. The stem, which can become hemp hurds, in the middle.
S Interested parties note the aim of the Act was to reduce the hemp industry through excessive taxation[7][8][9] largely as an effort of businessmen Andrew Mellon, Randolph Hearst, and the Du Pont family.[7][9]
The same parties argue with the invention of the decorticator, hemp was an economical replacement for paper pulp in the newspaper industry.[7][10]
Newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst realized cheap, sustainable, and easily-grown hemp threatened his extensive timber holdings.
Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury and the wealthiest man in the US, invested heavily in the Du Pont family’s new synthetic fiber, nylon, to compete with hemp.
1916, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) chief scientists Jason L. Merrill and Lyster H. Dewey created a paper, USDA Bulletin No. 404 “Hemp Hurds as Paper-Making Material”, in which they concluded this paper from the woody inner portion of the hemp stem broken into pieces, the ‘hemp hurds’, was “favorable in comparison with those used with pulp wood”
Dewey and Merrill believed hemp hurds were a sustainable source for paper production.
The concentration of cellulose in hemp hurds is generally around 35%.[12]
Manufacture of paper — on equipment designed to use wood-pulp — with hemp as a raw material shows hemp lacks the qualities needed to become a major competitor to the traditional paper industry.
in 2003, 95% of the hemp hurds in the EU were used for animal bedding, almost 5% were used as building material.[13]
Spokes-models from DuPont and many industrial titans dispute a link between their government minions promoting petroleum-based nylon over sustainable hemp.
They complain the purpose of developing nylon was to produce a fiber competitive with silk and rayon
The American Medical Association (AMA) opposed the taxation because the tax was imposed on physicians prescribing cannabis, retail pharmacists selling cannabis, and medical cannabis cultivation/manufacturing.
The AMA proposed cannabis instead be added to the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act
The taxation ‘law’ was passed despite objections of the American Medical Association.
Dr. William Creighton Woodward, legislative counsel for the AMA, objected to the taxation on the grounds the bill was written by Du Pont lawyers without the legally-binding time to prepare their opposition to the bill
He doubted their claims about marijuana addiction, violence, and overdosage;
he further asserted because the word spanish word ‘marijuana’ was largely unknown at the time, the medical profession did not realize they were losing cannabis.
“Marijuana is not the correct term … Yet the burden of this bill is placed heavily on the doctors and pharmacists of this country.”
After hearings with lawyers from Du Pont Chemicals and the Hearst Newspapers Group, the taxation was passed on the grounds of ‘differing’ reports[19] and hearings.[20]
Anslinger also referred to the International Opium Convention from 1928 included cannabis as a drug not a medicine.
Proving the power of ‘influential’ friends, all state legislators approved identical ‘laws’ against improper use of cannabis (for ex. the Uniform State Narcotic Act).
By 1951, however, spokes-models from Du Pont, Hearst et all came up with new improved rationalizations, and the Boggs Act superseded the Marihuana Taxation Act of 1937
In August 1954, the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was enacted, and the Marihuana Taxation Act was included in Subchapter A of Chapter 39 of the 1954 Code
.
Operation of the act
Shortly after the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act went into effect on October 1, 1937, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Denver City police arrested ‘moses baca’ for ‘possession’ and Samuel Caldwell for dealing.
Baca and Caldwell’s arrest made them the first marijuana convictions under U.S. federal law for not paying the marijuana tax.
Judge Foster Symes sentenced Baca to 18 months and Caldwell to four years in Leavenworth Penitentiary for violating the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act.
After the Philippines fell to Japanese forces in 1942, the Department of Agriculture and the US Army urged farmers to grow fiber hemp.
Tax stamps for cultivation of fiber hemp began to be issued to farmers. Without any change in the Marihuana Tax Act, 400,000 acres (1,600 km2) were cultivated with hemp between 1942 and 1945. The last commercial hemp fields were planted in Wisconsin in 1957.[21]
In 1967, President Johnson’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice opined,
“The Act raises an insignificant amount of revenue and exposes an insignificant number of marijuana transactions to public view, since only a handful of people are registered under the Act.
It has become, in effect, solely a criminal law, imposing sanctions upon persons who sell, acquire, or possess marijuana.”
In 1969 in Leary v. United States, part of the Act was ruled to be unconstitutional as a violation of the Fifth Amendment, since a person seeking the tax stamp would have to incriminate him/herself.
In response the Congress passed the “Controlled Substances Act” as “Title II” of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970,[25] which repealed the ‘1937 Act’
.
*etymology*
Although the spelling “marijuana” is common in current use, the spelling used in the Marihuana Taxation Act is “marihuana”.
“Marihuana” was the spelling used in Federal documents at the time.
In addition, the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 legitimized the use of the term “marijuana” as a label for hemp and cannabis plants and products in the US and around the world.
Prior to 1937, “marijuana” was slang;
it was not included in any official dictionaries
The word marijuana is probably of Mexican origin.
Mexico passed prohibition for export to the US in 1925 following the International Opium Convention
In the years leading up to the taxation act, it was in common use in the United States, “smoked like tobacco”, and called “ganjah”, or “ganja”
.
The La Guardia Committee Report
The only authoritative voice that opposed Anslinger’s campaign against cannabis was that of New York Mayor, Fiorello La Guardia, who appointed in 1938 a commission of investigation, and in 1944 strongly objected to Anslinger’s campaign with the La Guardia Committee
.
See also
Legal history of cannabis in the United States
Hemp for Victory (1942)
(a United States Department of Agriculture war-time film encouraging farmers to grow hemp suitable for U.S. Navy hawser requirements)
.
Reefer Madness, propagandistic film of 1936.
La Guardia Committee, the first in depth study into the effects of smoking marijuana.
References[edit]
^ For repeal, see section 1101(b)(3), Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-513, 84 Stat. 1236, 1292 (Oct. 27, 1970) (repealing the Marihuana Tax Act which had been codified in Subchapter A of Chapter 39 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954).
^ Harry J. Anslinger, U. S. Commissioner of Narcotics and Will Oursler : The Murderers, the story of the narcotic gangs, Pages: 541-554, 1961
^ ROOSEVELT ASKS NARCOTIC WAR AID, 1935
^ David P. West: Fiber Wars: The Extinction of Kentucky Hemp chapter 8
^ STATEMENT OF DR. A. H. WRIGHT, 1938
^ H.T. NUGENT: COMMERCIALIZED HEMP (1934-35 CROP) in the STATE OF MINNESOTA
^ Jump up to: a b c d French, Laurence; Magdaleno Manzanárez (2004). NAFTA & neocolonialism: comparative criminal, human & social justice. University Press of America. p. 129. ISBN 978-0-7618-2890-7.
^ Mitchell Earlywine (2005). Understanding marijuana: a new look at the scientific evidence. Oxford University Press. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-19-518295-8.
^ Jump up to: a b Peet, Preston (2004). Under the influence: the disinformation guide to drugs. The Disinformation Company. p. 55. ISBN 978-1-932857-00-9.
^ Sterling Evans (2007). Bound in twine: the history and ecology of the henequen-wheat complex for Mexico and the American and Canadian Plains, 1880-1950. Texas A&M University Press. p. 27. ISBN 978-1-58544-596-7.
^ Lyster H. Dewey and Jason L. Merrill Hemp Hurds as Paper-Making Material USDA Bulletin No. 404, Washington, D.C., October 14, 1916, p.25
^ “Hayo M.G. van der Werf : Hemp facts and hemp fiction”. Hempfood.com. Archived from the original on 2011-07-11. Retrieved 2011-04-20.
^ “Michael Karus: European Hemp Industry 2002 Cultivation, Processing and Product Lines. Journal of Industrial Hemp Volume 9 Issue 2 2004, Taylor & Francis, London”. Informaworld.com.
^ Prof. L. Trossarelli: -the history of nylon, Prof. L. Trossarelli
^ Wolfe, Audra J. (2008). “Nylon: A Revolution in Textiles”. Chemical Heritage Magazine. 26 (3). Retrieved 20 March 2018.
^ American Chemical Society: THE FIRST NYLON PLANT. 1995
^ “Statement of Dr. William C. Woodward, Legislative Counsel, American Medical Association”. Retrieved 2006-03-25.
^ Jump up to: a b Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate, 75c 2s. HR6906. Library of Congress transcript. July 12, 1937
^ The Marijuana Tax Act, Reports
^ The Marijuana Tax Act
^ David P. West:Hemp and Marijuana:Myths & Realities
^ Balancing the Grass Account
^ Timothy Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 89 S. Ct. 1532 (1969)
^ Kriho, Laura (2013-10-31). “Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 rises from the dead – Boulder Weekly”. Retrieved 2016-09-11.
^ Pub.L. 91–513, 84 Stat. 1236, enacted October 27, 1970
^ Webster’s New International Dictionary, p. 1318, G. & C. Merriam Company (1921).
^ “MEXICO BANS MARIHUANA.; To Stamp Out Drug Plant Which Crazes Its Addicts”. New York Times. New York City. December 29, 1925.
^ The American Agriculturist Family Cyclopaedia, 751 Broadway, New York, copyright:1888, by A. L. Burt
^ Webster’s New International Dictionary, 1921, published by G.& C. Merriam Co., Springfield Massachusetts
^ The La Guardia Committee Report
Further reading[edit]
The Puzzle of the Social Origins of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 John F. Galliher, Allynn Walker Social Problems, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Feb., 1977), pp. 367–376
Samuel R. Caldwell, First Person Jailed for the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.
William B. McAllister, “Harry Anslinger Saves the World: National Security Imperatives and the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act,” The Social History of Alcohol and Drugs 33, no. 1 (Spring 2019): 37-62.
External links[edit]
Full Text of the Marihuana Tax Act as passed in 1937
Marijuana Tax Stamps: History of the Marihuana Tax Act with photos of government issued tax stamps
Full transcripts of the congressional hearings for the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937
en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937
Marihuana Tax Act of 1937
Contributors to Wikimedia projects12-15 minutes 6/5/2002
Marijuana Tax Act of 1937
Great Seal of the United States
Other short titles
1937 Marijuana Tax Act
Taxation of Marijuana
Long title An Act to impose an occupational excise tax upon certain dealers in marijuana, to impose a transfer tax upon certain dealings in marijuana, and to safeguard the revenue there from by registry and recording.
Acronyms (colloquial) MTA
Enacted by the 75th United States Congress
Effective October 1, 1937
Citations
Public law 75-238
Statutes at Large 50 Stat. 551
Legislative history
Introduced in the House as H.R. 6906 by Robert L. Doughton (D–NC) on May 11, 1937
Committee consideration by House Ways and Means Committee, Senate Committee on Finance
Signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on August 2, 1937
United States Supreme Court cases
Struck down by U.S. Supreme Court in Leary v. United States on May 19, 1969
.
(the term ‘marijuana’ is now well-known in ‘english’ largely due to the efforts of ‘american drug prohibitionists’ during the ‘1920s’ and ‘1930s’)
“roaring 20s, my ass!”
(the ‘prohibitionists’ deliberately used a mexican name for ‘cannabis’ in order to turn the ‘populace’ against the idea that it should be legal by playing to ‘negative attitudes’ towards that ‘nationality’)
(while more than a dozen US states have decriminalized ‘possession’ or ‘personal use’ of ‘cannabis’, it is illegal under the ‘federal controlled substances act’ of ‘1970’)
(in this act it is classified as a ‘schedule I drug’, implying that it has a ‘high potential’ for ‘abuse’)
(as such, it prohibits the ‘possession’, ‘usage’, ‘purchase’, ‘sale’, and/or ‘cultivation’ of ‘marijuana’)
(this conflict between state and federal law has led to Drug Enforcement Administration raids of California medical marijuana dispensaries
28.349 grams (one ounce)
.
.
.
.
“war on drugs”
(justification: american “war on drugs” deprived him of easy access to dope)
jealous types have waged this “war” on drugs since the middle ages
the united states started this war in 1875…because they were jealous of the chinese…so they banned opium dens…
“cannabis criminals”
from 1906 different states in the united states started to implement regulations for sales of cannabis indica. in 1925 a change of the international opium convention banned exportation of indian hemp to countries that have prohibited its use. importing countries were required to issue certificates approving the importation and stating that the shipment was to be used “exclusively for medical or scientific purposes…”
i believe from an economic + moralistic standpoint that all drugs should be legalized without any stipulations or prescription requirements. and so do many others. so what’s taking so long? what’s holding us collectively up? who among us is hung up? and why did we elect them to hold the keys to our involuntary sobriety?
i prefer a ‘door-in-the-face’ rhetorical tactic in order to convince the masses of drug legalization. i’ve observed that you tell the average square that we must legalize all drugs and his/her typical response is to assure you that they wouldn’t fight marijuana legalization (just to not appear hopeless in their squaredom). guess we gotta take baby steps.
do you want to be on the wrong side of history? those rallying against gay marriage + drug legalization (and there don’t seem to be very many anymore) are unquestionably in the wrong. they’d be the same arguing for prohibition in the 1920s and against civil rights for blacks in the 1960s. and they all look suspiciously like bill o’riley and sean hannity. the drug legalization crusade is just as crucial for the civil rights of all human beings. do you have any idea how many of your brothers and sisters are locked away on nonviolent drug charges? and yet we allow ourselves to fall for the hypocritical vilification of drug dealers + users by pill-popping pillars of the community.
humans don’t trust their own bodies…so they’ve appointed overlords to tell them what’s “good for them”…and they call these overlords “doctors”…and these doctors have become tollbooths to psychoactive drugs…specifically cannabis…
(if it weren’t for drug laws, i’d get along with police officers)
or maybe not…
(they make our publically-funded roads so nerve-wracking to navigate!)
(but i don’t blame them for enforcing drug laws…)
…i blame legislators)
(…so i actually blame voters)
(…so i actually blame my fellow civic-minded citizens)
(…as well as the lazy stoners who don’t bother to vote!)
(…though there seems to be a significant # of police officers who are overzealous in enforcing these draconian “laws”)
“War For Drugs”
Purpose of drug laws: reduce drug consumption by reducing supply and demand.
DEMAND REDUCTION:
The reasoning of the lawmaker…
Citizens allegedly “respect the law”, so consequently illegal drugs will not be consumed.
(Yet motorists still exceed the speed limits, moguls still avoid taxes at all costs, homos still fuck, and alcoholics still buy their booze on Sundays. So the assumption that laws will substantially decrease demand is problematic)
Negative Nancy: “But won’t the penalties associated with drug possession function as a strong deterrent to would-be drug users?”
No, penalties for drug possession are frequently mild. There are many annual arrests for drug possession, but studies have indicated that there are many more people taking illegal drugs than there are arrests for possession.
So the impact of the laws on consumption are not substantial. At their most effective, drug prohibition generates a modest reduction in demand for illegal drugs.
And the goal of the drug laws will never be achieved –> drug consumption will never be eliminated in this society
SUPPLY REDUCTION:
The reasoning of the lawmaker…
An underground drug market incurs additional costs for hiding their activities and transporting drugs in secret, bribing officials, and compensating employees for risk of injury/death/incarceration.
But…
An underground market also has financial benefits compared to a legal market. An underground market avoids income and excise taxation, environmental and OSHA regulation, and child labor / minimum wage laws. Drug traffickers are extremely intelligent creatures who become experts at successfully evading law enforcement. They make excess profits from this business by avoiding government taxation. So the violation of drug laws is a profitable enterprise.
–> supply reduction is also questionable
COSTS OF DRUG LAWS:
Billions of taxpayer dollars for law enforcement
Millions of American citizens arrested
Hundreds of thousands of American citizens incarcerated
BENEFITS OF DRUG LAWS:
Reduction of drug consumption
Is this really a benefit? If a seemingly rational population knowingly assumes the risks of drug consumption (addiction, negative health effects), then they must be deriving some benefit from consumption.
From this perspective, reduction of drug consumption can be viewed as a cost and a benefit of drug laws. The guiding principle that a reduction of drug consumption will benefit society is very dangerous:
OTHER ITEMS/ACTIVITIES THAT COULD PLAUSIBLY BE BANNED UNDER THIS GUIDING PRINCIPLE:
Alcohol
Cigarettes
Ice Cream
Cars
Downhill Skiing
Negative Nancy: “But ALL drug users are irrational and consume drugs despite their own best interests”
So now it is the government’s responsibility to determine what is in an individual’s “best interests”? How shall they go about doing this?
Shall the majority preferences determine “best interests”? With this approach, alcohol would be deemed less harmful than marijuana simply because more people drink alcohol than smoke marijuana. This is a very dangerous line of reasoning. In the past, this type of reasoning has caused the government to ban books that did not reflect a mainstream outlook and dismiss fringe religions as “irrational” while hailing the majority religion (Christianity) as “rational”. Objective concerns, not majority prefrences, should determine “best interests”. But, as stated earlier, the government is not a parent and should not be determining what is best for an individual…
The harmful/addictive effects of drugs are grossly exaggerated in our Puritan society. Furthermore, when certain drugs are prohibited, some citizens will simply increase consumption of “substitute drugs” (such as alcohol) which are often just as harmful as the illegal drugs.
There are undoubtedly serious consequences of drug consumption:
Pregnant drug addicts
Traffic/industrial accidents
Added costs to publicly funded health care
Again, the prevalence of these crises are grossly exaggerated in our Puritan society.
LEGAL SUBSTANCES/POLICIES THAT ALSO GENERATE NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES
Alcohol
Tobacco
Saturated Fat
Income Tax
Shall these be prohibited as well?
(Income tax has a SUBSTANTIAL negative effect on the US economy)
Puritan principle:
Drug use is “immoral” and drug prohibition is an effective moral statement
But the effects of drug prohibition are more “immoral” than drug use…
COSTS OF DRUG LAWS:
Over the last 20 years, drug prices have fallen and enforcement has risen
This indicates the ineffectiveness of drug law enforcement in recent years
(drug prohibition should theoretically increase drug prices / decrease in supply should theoretically outweigh the accompanying decrease in demand)
Drug prohibition seemingly reduces drug consumption by raising drug prices (making them more difficult to obtain). But the costs associated with the price increase simply generates a host of negative externalities. Income-generating crimes (theft and robbery) increase as drug users take desperate measures to ensure that they can afford to buy drugs at inflated prices. And law enforcement must shift resources to combat these income-generating crimes because of their responsibility to enforce drug laws.
Negative Nancy: “But the psychopharmacological effects of drug use renders an individual more violent”
This is not the case. The violence in the drug trade is a result of prohibition / an underground market cannot use courts and lawyers to resolve disputes. When alcohol, gambling, and prostitution were banned, the respective underground markets also became hotbeds of violent crime (does sex with a prostitute render an individual more violent?) The more stringently the prohibition laws are enforced, the more violent the underground market.
(The effects of the banned substance have no impact on increased violence associated with the market)
Drug prohibition also increases the amount of contaminated drugs sold to consumers. When a person receives a contaminated drug from a dealer, he cannot sue the manufacturer. He cannot take out a full-page ad in the New York Times to disparage the manufacturer’s credibility. He cannot go to a government agency to report the incident. He has no recourse / he is at the mercy of the supplier. And since drug dealers cannot advertise the quality of their products to attract more customers, why the hell should they put in the effort to produce a high-quality product? Furthermore, purer (= more lethal) forms of drugs are easier to smuggle, leaving consumers at a higher risk for overdoses/accidental poisonings per unit of drug consumption.
Since the underground drug dealers cannot interact with politicians/law enforcement through legal procedures (campaign contributions / lobbying), they influence these figures through bribery and coercion.
(–> Drug prohibition breeds corruption)
Drug sales are consensual crimes, so law enforcement must use search-and-seizure methods to enforce the drug laws. This severely restricts the civil liberties of American citizens. Law enforcement has also been known to utilize racial profiliing methods in their search-and-seizure stings, worsening race relations in the nation.
With inflated drug prices and a government restriction on clean needles, there are added incentives to share drugs/needles. This has facilitated the spread of HIV and other blood-borne diseases, as more children are born to pregnant drug users.
There are many foreign countries whose chief exports are “illegal” drugs. With drug prohibition, smugglers invade our borders (forcing the government to devote more resources to immigration border control). With drug decriminalization, the trade of drugs would be a legal procedure between the United States and several South American countries.
OTHER EFFECTS OF PROHIBITION:
Reduction of respect for the law –>
A substantial component of the population believes that drug laws have a negative impact on society. Therefore, lawmakers will be discredited in the eyes of these citizens. Legitimate laws made by these lawmakers will subsequently be questioned.
Undermining of personal accountability –>
The individual must regulate his/her own drug intake (the government has no responsibility to protect an individual from his drug cravings)
Violation of the rights of drug users –>
(so far, we have only considered the effects of the laws on their welfare)
BENEFITS OF DRUG USE:
Self-medication (marijuana / opiates)
More fashionable image
Effects of intoxication
BENEFITS OF DRUG DE-CRIMINALIZATION:
Collection of tax revenue on legal sale of drugs (like all legal good on the market)
Ensure quality control
Conclusion –>
The government must decriminalize all drugs.
STEPS TO COUNTERACT THE NEGATIVE IMPACT OF INCREASED DRUG CONSUMPTION ASSOCIATED WITH DECRIMINALIZATION:
Subsidize treatment for drug abusers
Initiate harm reduction policies
Place “sin taxes” on drugs
Generate public health campaigns
Place age restrictions on the purchase of drugs
STEPS IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION:
Legalize drugs for medicinal purposes
Legalize specific drugs (marijuana)
STEPS IN THE WRONG DIRECTION:
Prohibition of…
Alcohol
Tobacco
Coffee
Junk food
Prostitution
Gambling
Dress codes
It’s going to take an alleged non-drug user (like Penn of Penn & Teller fame) to convince the masses that drugs should be legalized (otherwise, the spokesman’s motives seem self-serving).
George Soros is an advocate for medical marijuana
And it’s going to take a comedian + a singer + a guitarist (and probably a couple dozen rappers and a trio of blondie porn stars).
It’s going to take an elder distinguished gentleman (like Hugh Hefner) and some underage jailbait for the perv in all of us (Miley Cyrus come home!).
A world-class athlete (come here Phelps!) and a couple of wannabes (come hither Hilton sisters!)
“Marijuana Forest”
Brian Wilson had Loren Schwartz / I had Magic Dan.
Soon Mad Cow hopped on the bandwagon /
*he found me (a) “billy goat”*
(cried me a brook…)
in canada, medical marijuana is legal.
in the netherlands, the possession/purchase of cannabis is tolerated in small amounts. one can purchase cannabis in special shops (called “coffeeshops”) if one is age eighteen and over. sale and purchase of cannabis anywhere else is illegal. cultivation and wholesale of cannabis is likewise “tolerated” in small amounts (guidelines here are no more than five plants at home or the possession of 5 grams per adult max.). The tolerance guidelines appear in appendix of the Opium Act. The Opium Act states very clearly that every part of the hemp plant is banned except for the seeds – this is in accordance with many of the international treaties which the Netherlands have signed. It is for this reason Cannabis cannot be legalized in the netherlands. thus, it remains illegal but it is “tolerated”. a recent court decision allowed a medical cannabis user to avoid legal prosecution for possession of a small number of cannabis plants; however, the state is appealing the decision.
as a high school student, i was all for the criminalization of drugs. i remember arguing effectively ‘gainst a hot hippie chick in our health class for marijuana criminalization. i feel really guilty about that now. not because of my hypocritical ideological reversal, but because i probably could’ve fucked her if i at least pretended to agree with her. also remember my generic asian friend coming to my defense with some convoluted reference to the brits forcing opium upon his fellow chinamen in order to placate them.
but back then, i was hopelessly naive.
when i came across ‘crank’ on a health test, i thought that it was an accidental misspelling of ‘crack’.
i’m still not quite sure what ‘crank’ refers to. powdered amphetamines perhaps?
seems nasty. or maybe i’m still vulnerable to anti-drug propaganda.
maybe all the secrets of the universe lie in crystal meth.
then again, i don’t want to go down like tim buckley and take whatever is offered to me just to prove how fearless i am.
as joseph ingrained in me from the earliest age, most everyone else wants to see me fail.
probably because i’d be so ruthlessly tyrannical if successful
.
Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2013 (H.R. 499) is a federal marijuana decriminalization law that was introduced into the United States House of Representatives during the 113th United States Congress
The bill would do three main things.
First, it would remove marijuana from the list of federally controlled substances
Second, the bill would rename the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana, Firearms and Explosives, granting the renamed agency the authority to regulate marijuana in a similar manner to alcohol
(and removing marijuana regulation authority from the Drug Enforcement Administration)
Third, the proposed law would require people and companies producing or selling marijuana to purchase permits from the government in order to do so;
the purchase price of the permit would help cover the costs of federal regulation of marijuana.
.
*the bill is structured in such a way that ‘individual states’ could make their own decisions about legalizing ‘marijuana’ on a ‘state level’*
.
.
*’WORLDWIDE LEGALITY OF CANNABIS”
*WIKI-LINK*
.
.
.
.
💕💝💖💓🖤💙🖤💙🖤💙🖤❤️💚💛🧡❣️💞💔💘❣️🧡💛💚❤️🖤💜🖤💙🖤💙🖤💗💖💝💘
.
.
*🌈✨ *TABLE OF CONTENTS* ✨🌷*
.
.
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥*we won the war* 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥