What's new
  • As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.

New New York Times Article, Race and Pot Prohibition

Firebrand

Active member
The article is titled as.

The Federal Marijuana Ban Is Rooted in Myth and Xenophobia


The federal law that makes possession of marijuana a crime has its origins in legislation that was passed in an atmosphere of hysteria during the 1930s and that was firmly rooted in prejudices against Mexican immigrants and African-Americans, who were associated with marijuana use at the time.
Please read the entire article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/o...290BFB3DAFA686EBA1C&gwt=pay&assetType=opinion
 

Sforza

Member
Veteran
I guess if the New York Times says it, it must be true. No need for any references or proof, after all, "everyone knows its true".

Since more men are arrested than women for pot, the law also has its origins in a deep seated sexism against men.

"World Ends: Women and Minorities Hardest Hit” (NY Times headline joke)
 

Firebrand

Active member
I thought the article was hogwash too. I would be more inclined to think that any excuse to outlaw hemp and cannabis would be good for the textile industries. Hemp clothing last 10x as long as cotton, and during the early part of the last century cotton was real big, and it still is to this day.

Can you imagine having to replace trousers every ten years instead of every year? Hemp and cannabis fibers are equally strong and durable.

It wasn't that the farmers couldn't grow hemp, it's just that the demand would diminish due to the strength and durability of hemp, many garment maker jobs would also be lost. I maybe all wrong about this, maybe it was the moral majority that lobbied for the prohibition of hemp and cannabis, or maybe it was someone or something else, but the textile story always made the most sense to me.
 

armedoldhippy

Well-known member
Veteran
according to all of the history of the prohibition of cannabis that I have read, the answer is - D-all of the above. southern LEO needed something to persecute lazy wetbacks & uppity nigras (as the term was then) with & the paper/textile/oil industries were glad to see a competitor eliminated. two birds with one stone, & it has worked for over 60 years...
 
Top