Mainstream marijunna and minorities.

[Sir Pinkleton]

Okay, so one source here (and you can find the same copy and pasted argument on wikianswers) shows the conservative view, I guess. As far as why it was banned originally (I heard of a conspiracy of the paper making companies afraid of the abilities of Hemp, and lobbied for its ban) I don't know. Seems like Mac is looking that up though.

Oddly enough, it basically is a "HAHA, FUCK YOU HIPPIES" now (or the image of them), though it used to be a racial-profiling kind of deal. Also, fears of its link to hard narcotics (and hence also addiction) and apathy for change are proposed to be the biggest reasons.

[Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope]

This is relevant.

According to the website, Hearst, along side others sensationalized the ill affects and blamed of course minorities.

And here is some quotes from Hearst's wiki page partially validating my claim about running out Hemp as a viable rival to wood pulp, although there are those who disagree with it.

Hearst sympathized with Harry J. Anslinger in his war against marijuana. Jack Herer and others argue that Hearst's paper empire (he owned hundreds of acres of timber forests and a vast number of paper mills designed to manufacture paper from wood pulp) in the early 1930s was threatened by hemp, which: 1) like wood pulp, could also be used to manufacture paper[10] and 2) also had an advantage over wood pulp, because it could be regrown yearly as well.[10] Between 1936 and 1937, Hearst associated marijuana with hemp in his newspapers and published many of the stories that Anslinger fabricated.[11] Hearst played a major part in aiding the anti-marijuana movement, leading to its prohibition in the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937,[12] a law which also effectively outlawed hemp.

Other commentators have subsequently pointed out that the Hearst chain was one of the biggest buyers of newsprint in the U.S.[13] As buyers of newsprint, the Hearst chain had a strong interest in a low price for newsprint. If anyone could produce large amounts of cheap newsprint from a new crop it would lower Hearst's purchasing cost for newsprint. These commentators conclude that Hearst had no relevant financial interest in a ban on hemp cultivation

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Hearst was a crazy ass mofo who would just bring whatever came into his head. He invented the Spanish-American war cause he wanted to sell more papers. Basing laws off him is a tad ridiculous!

[Mirai Gen]

I'm pretty sure it was because he thought it would harm his profits, but don't quote me there.

[Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope]

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

Hearst was a crazy ass mofo who would just bring whatever came into his head. He invented the Spanish-American war cause he wanted to sell more papers. Basing laws off him is a tad ridiculous!

Hearst had enough clout, he co much do pretty much anything. Because he owned so many papers, if he wanted to spread the lies and slander about someone, he could quite easily kill a man's reputation. So it is not much of a stretch that he lied about pot (blaming the minorities and Jazz Musicians) that could get what he wants.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Originally Posted by Mirai Gen

I'm pretty sure it was because he thought it would harm his profits, but don't quote me there.

Well yeah. Hearst wasn't the type to do detailed economic projections and things. He just be like "Hemp? No ways dog! I can smash that shit!" and did so with his giant ogre-like hands (his hands being newspapers).

[Fifthfiend]

Inasmuch as HBO's Deadwood can be taken as an accurate depiction of history* this is pretty much how the whole Hearst family rolled.

*it probably can't, but what the hell.

[The Wandering God]

Okay, doing some catching up in this topic.

Originally Posted by Bells

That would be a big, quite biased, rant... but the phrase itself is quite stupid, at least it sounds so to me.

I mean, if he wants to support legalization of a recreational drug for personal use, then do so. Come out and say that he wants this becase he believes he has the right and is willing to accept the negative effects of the use of such drug and that he ALSO believes that legalizing it won't warm in any shape or form the rights and freedoms of the people who don't want to use, don't care for it...

But c'mon, don't come out with this bullshit saying that the world is so cold and mean and we need a magical herb that will make everyone fart rainbows and be bestest friends evar...

You see, my main problem with this whole issue is that both sides aren't honest. And both sides of the argument are more than willing to sent flying bullshit torwards the other...

For me, you can do anything your want with your life and body, but if your habits and desires cause any sort of effect to other people... than it's no longer a "i can do because i can" deal, now we have to sit down and talk, and one of the sides needs to accept the idea that they might not get what the want and deal with it. Walk it off.

But with this subject, neither side is willing to do so. In a case like this, i feel better leaving things as they are than to risk a change fueled by personal interests of a minority (in both sides) that inflate and manipulate a larger mass to try and become a majority (in both sides).

First off, that's not the only quote by Sagan about it. It's merely one I liked because I thought it captured the absurdity of it's illegality. Second, he said it helps. It doesn't do anything on its own. But the mindset needed to accept it is what the world needs. More acceptance, less discrimination. Third, you ALWAYS have an effect on other people. That's the nature of life. We don't live in bubbles, nor should we. It isn't just personal interest that makes people want to legalize it. It's the greater benefits of taxation and decreased criminal prosecution that would result.

Originally Posted by Funka Genocide

I kind of agree with Bells, not because I think it's some sort of indicator of a slippery slope towards pot fueled apocalypse, just because that statement is completely retarded.

I am reminded of a quote by Hunter S. Thompson in regards to the whole psychedelic movement of the 60's.

"We are all wired into a survival trip now. No more of the speed that fueled the 60's. That was the fatal flaw in Tim Leary's trip. He crashed around America selling "consciousness expansion" without ever giving a thought to the grim meat-hook realities that were lying in wait for all the people who took him seriously... All those pathetically eager acid freaks who thought they could buy Peace and Understanding for three bucks a hit. But their loss and failure is ours too. What Leary took down with him was the central illusion of a whole life-style that he helped create... a generation of permanent cripples, failed seekers, who never understood the essential old-mystic fallacy of the Acid Culture: the desperate assumption that somebody... or at least some force - is tending the light at the end of the tunnel. "

Drugs are drugs, they're not pathways to universal truth or a gateway to enlightenment. They just work the sense in interesting ways, nothing more substantial than a delicious confection of empty calories.

I should say I posted the quote more for the first and last part. I wasn't trying to say that the drug would magically make things better, but that it was ridiculous to be illegal and we need all serenity, fellowship, etc right now because humanity could tear itself apart. I should point out that Sagan thought our odds of destroying ourselves were pretty high. Whether you agree with any of that or not is, of course, your choice.

Now, why is it illegal? Well, racism and political grandstanding mostly. It had absolutely nothing to do with health concerns. (Mayor of New York Fiorello H. La Guardia even had a team of doctors study the effects. They released a report saying it wasn't that big a deal, and even had some positive aspects.)

Hearst lost 800,000 acres of timberland to a raid by Pancho Villa. After this, he started targeting Mexicans as lazy, pot smoking layabouts. Harry Anslinger, who initially didn't even want to fight against marijuana, decided it would be good for his political career to get a crusade under his belt. This, in spite of the fact that doctors were trying to tell him that it wasn't nearly as destructive as other drugs, it was still classified in the same category as cocaine.

I highly recommend watching the History Channel's Hooked: Illegal Drugs and How They Got That Way: Marijuana. You can find the rest of the series on Youtube right now.

[Doc T]

It's still illegal because our (baring the Dutch) governments:

a) will not admit they were wrong.

b) cannot be arsed sorting out the rules and regulations required for effective
legalisation

c) don't want the aggro from people who were imprisoned for breaking the marijuana wars before legalisation.

d) don't have enough people in them who are willing to seriously raise the issue. The PR Forces of Darkness would be unleahsed upon them, because

e) our governments are populated by old bastards.

I am deadly serious about the last one.

[The Wandering God]

Originally Posted by The Wandering God

Hooked: Illegal rad-killing unicorn motorcycles and How They Got That Way: Marijuana

This has now become my favorite hyperlink that I've ever posted.