-
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.
CACTUSFLOWER
Member
what he said
CACTUSFLOWER
Member
and why would this thread have so many posts? You might not like to think about it, but yes merchandising, you're always selling something whether you like it or not if you live in a community of other people, Charles Barkley said he didn't want to be a role model, but he is, everyone has their own choice though, and I think thats cool
Nope.....
CACTUSFLOWER
Member
art?
Nope. First letter: "S".....
N
noyd666
SIN
He didn't coin the term. It's Spanish for Mary Jane, commonly used in Mexico. That's the whole point. Anslinger, et. all, used it to fear monger. Xenophobia helped to demonize cannabis. "Xenophobia is the unreasoned fear of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange. It comes from the Greek words ξένος (xenos), meaning "strange", "foreigner", and φόβος (phobos), meaning "fear". Xenophobia can manifest itself in many ways involving the relations and perceptions of an ingroup towards an outgroup, including a fear of losing identity, suspicion of its activities, aggression, and desire to eliminate its presence to secure a presumed purity" (Wiki).
So, by calling it the "M" word, they appealed to the fears or prejudices of xenophobes. Users of Cannabis (not what he said) would go insane, and "Negroes" and Mexicans would be raping/killing white women/people. Since everything coming out of the mouths of Anslinger, Hearst, the Rockefellers, the executives of DuPont, etc., was lies, they weren't about to use the words "hemp" or Cannabis. Hemp was a huge agricultural product before it was banned, used to manufacture so many things, which conflicted with their business interests, ie., oil, wood pulp for making paper, etc., etc.
William Randolph Hearst was perhaps the most evil of the bunch:
"Local and federal policing agencies had grown fat during Prohibition, and a repeal would put many of them flat out of work. At the same time, the tyrannical William Randolph Hearst, the most powerful newspaper owner in America, began printing falsified and exaggerated stories about the "evils of marijuana". A blatant racist who despised Hispanics and Blacks, Hearst used his vast newspaper empire to create hysteria among white parents, alleging that "pushers" - most of them from the lowly ethnic minority class that Hearst despised-- would be dealing marijuana to high school kids, turning them into addicts who would quit school, commit violent crimes like murder and rape as depicted in the laughable film "Reefer Madness", produced in 1936.
In fact, creating public hysteria over smoking marijuana was simply a smokescreen for Hearst and the wealthy DuPont family to prevent the cultivation or importation of hemp products into the United States. The DuPont’s held many lucrative patents on chemicals used in manufacturing plastics, paper, and paints that could become valueless if hemp products and hemp oil derivatives became widely available. But how could they prevent this harmless weed from making their billion dollar patents worthless?
Easy. Outlaw hemp cultivation and importation. But first, the public needed to be convinced that hemp was an "evil". During the 1930’s, the Hearst and DuPont families, in conjunction with corrupt or ignorant government officials,condoned and popularized movies, books pamphlets, and and newspaper articles warning about the evils of smoking marijuana. This tacit conspiracy worked beautifully. By 1930, many states had already criminalized marijuana use and labeled it a "narcotic"! White America had adopted the lunacy of "Reefer Madness" as pure truth.
In 1937, The Anslinger Act - formally known as the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 - was passed by Congress. It imposed a prohibitive tax on the cultivation and importation of hemp and hemp products. In conjunction with existing state laws criminalizing marijuana use, the Anslinger Act effectively criminalized marijuana use at both the state and federal levels. In his testimony before Congress in 1937, Anslinger made several outrageous and unsubstantiated claims about marijuana use, calling it "a national menace", "dangerous to mind and body", and at one point calling it a substance "that releases all inhibitions" in those who use it. It is important to note that many of the supposedly "true" stories about "reefer madness" that he relied on in his testimony before Congress encouraging criminalizing marijuana at the state level involved incidents involving Black Americans, Hispanics, and other ethnic minorities. By tying the "evil weed" to ethnic minorities who were already the subject of bigotry and discrimination, he had little difficulty in convincing WASP American that marijuana was an addictive narcotic!"
So, there was a definite racist component to prohibition, which is why I refer to the "M" word as it's slave name.
http://washington-drug-defense.com/REEFER_MADNESS
This is "Reefer Madness" 101.
Nope. Sorry! 3 letter word that starts with "S".
If I give you any more hints, I might as well spell it out.
hello Retro,
maybe he did not coin the term, however, Marijuana is not really Mary Jane in Spanish, Mary Jane is Maria Juana, and we simply have no sources to confirm that in Mexico people used to call Cannabis as Maria Juana... in fact, what we do know is that a certain tribe, when peyote was scarce, would use Cannabis instead and call it Maria Rosa (Mary Rose) in relation to a Virgin deity in the new Syncretic beliefs after the introduction of Christianity as well as Afro-religions into the Americas. Cannabis also entered the picture at the same time as the Europeans... (this is as per Schultes in Plants of the Gods btw)
Also, in Spanish (I'm a native speaker btw) there's no known contraction of the name Maria Juana into Marijuana. All the theories about the term coming from Mexico are pure unfounded speculations; the more obvious and reasonable thing to assume is that it is a word made-up by English speaking people, as it follows the same characteristics of how English speaking people adapt Spanish words into their English lexicons.
I may just have to bother my buddies at the Philology department to see what they think...
peace
@ Bombaldi-someone else posted between our posts, hence the edit.
Well, you could see how "Maria Juana" to a non Spanish speaking person could sound like, and be contracted to "marijuana" (I hate to even type it out
). Especially to a southerner with a drawl, those most likely to be exposed to Spanish as spoken by Mexicans. It's slang, no doubt. But also note, it was also called "marihuana", as pictured above. To a non Spanish speaking person, Spanish sometimes sounds very fast, and the words come tumbling out "jumbled together". I speak Portuguese, so I understand most Spanish, however, it depends where the speaker is from. If it's Castillano, it's slower and more "precise" or easier to understand for me. If the speaker is from Argentina, for example, I can understand them much better than I can a Cuban, who speak rapidly, with the words seemingly running together. Mexicans don't speak as rapidly, for the most part, to my ears, yet still can be difficult to understand. It's the same with Portuguese. In some areas of Brazil, the people speak so fast, I can't understand a thing they are saying. A lot of this has to do with education level too. More educated people tend to speak (and write) more clearly. I think that may be universal in many languages. When you add slang to the mix, understanding every word can become even more difficult.
I believe there's no doubt about one thing, though: xenophobia and racism were a large part of the equation, with Hearst being a prime example.
Well, you could see how "Maria Juana" to a non Spanish speaking person could sound like, and be contracted to "marijuana" (I hate to even type it out
). Especially to a southerner with a drawl, those most likely to be exposed to Spanish as spoken by Mexicans. It's slang, no doubt. But also note, it was also called "marihuana", as pictured above. To a non Spanish speaking person, Spanish sometimes sounds very fast, and the words come tumbling out "jumbled together". I speak Portuguese, so I understand most Spanish, however, it depends where the speaker is from. If it's Castillano, it's slower and more "precise" or easier to understand for me. If the speaker is from Argentina, for example, I can understand them much better than I can a Cuban, who speak rapidly, with the words seemingly running together. Mexicans don't speak as rapidly, for the most part, to my ears, yet still can be difficult to understand. It's the same with Portuguese. In some areas of Brazil, the people speak so fast, I can't understand a thing they are saying. A lot of this has to do with education level too. More educated people tend to speak (and write) more clearly. I think that may be universal in many languages. When you add slang to the mix, understanding every word can become even more difficult.I believe there's no doubt about one thing, though: xenophobia and racism were a large part of the equation, with Hearst being a prime example.
Hello Retro,
I agree with you on xenophobia and racism being driving factors in the appeal of anti-cannabis propaganda.
but getting back to the origin of the word Marijuana, I'd like to point out three things:
1. in Spanish, the H is always silent, unless it is part of the letter Ch... So that means that for a Spanish speaking person, the spelling MariHuana makes no sense and it is even further away phonetically than Marijuana is to Maria Juana.
2. in Spanish, when the word Marijuana is pronounced, the correct Phonetic spelling must be done with a G and never with a J, once again indicating the origin of the word Marijuana to English speaking people. This is even more evident when we consider that in Spanish, words are spelled in perfect coherence with the specific phonetics of each word, unlike in English. So if the origin were Spanish, it'd be spelled Mariguana.
3. The Spanish phonetics of Maria Juana are unrelated to the phonetics of the word Mariguana (actual phonetic spelling in Spanish), since in English, the Spanish J does not exist phonetically. Jota, Jojoto, Juana, Jose, etc... are all mis-pronounced by English speaking people and they convert the actual J into a Y (as in Yosemite). again, contradicting the assumption the term had its origin in Mexico.
much peace man
I agree with you on xenophobia and racism being driving factors in the appeal of anti-cannabis propaganda.
but getting back to the origin of the word Marijuana, I'd like to point out three things:
1. in Spanish, the H is always silent, unless it is part of the letter Ch... So that means that for a Spanish speaking person, the spelling MariHuana makes no sense and it is even further away phonetically than Marijuana is to Maria Juana.
2. in Spanish, when the word Marijuana is pronounced, the correct Phonetic spelling must be done with a G and never with a J, once again indicating the origin of the word Marijuana to English speaking people. This is even more evident when we consider that in Spanish, words are spelled in perfect coherence with the specific phonetics of each word, unlike in English. So if the origin were Spanish, it'd be spelled Mariguana.
3. The Spanish phonetics of Maria Juana are unrelated to the phonetics of the word Mariguana (actual phonetic spelling in Spanish), since in English, the Spanish J does not exist phonetically. Jota, Jojoto, Juana, Jose, etc... are all mis-pronounced by English speaking people and they convert the actual J into a Y (as in Yosemite). again, contradicting the assumption the term had its origin in Mexico.
much peace man
@ Bombaldi:
Well, problem is, we don't spell words phonetically.
Anyway, here is the lowdown on the word origin from Wiki:
"Marijuana", or "marihuana", etc., is a name for the cannabis plant and a drug preparation made from it. The form "marihuana" is first attested in Mexican Spanish; it then spread to other varieties of Spanish and to English, French, and other languages.
Etymology
The term, originally spelled variously as "marihuana", "mariguana", etc., originated in Mexican Spanish. The ultimate derivation is unknown. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it may come from the Nahuatl mallihuan, meaning "prisoner". Author Martin Booth notes that this etymology was popularized by Harry J. Anslinger in the 1930s, during his campaigns against the drug. However, linguist Jason D. Haugen finds no semantic basis for a connection to "mallihuan", suggesting that the phonetic similarity may be "a case of accidental homophony".
Additionally, traditional association with the personal name María Juana ("Mary Jane") is probably a folk etymology. The original Mexican Spanish used forms with the letter 'h' (marihuana). Forms using the letter 'j' (marijuana) seem to be an innovation of English, though they later appeared in French and in Spanish, probably due to English influence.
The word entered English usage in the late 19th century. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first known appearance of a form of the word in English is in Hubert Howe Bancroft's 1873 The Native Races of the Pacific States of North America. Other early variants include "marihuma" first recorded in 1905, "marihuano" in 1912, and "marahuana" in 1914. Through the early 20th century, however, both the drug and the plant were more commonly known as "cannabis" or "hemp". "Marihuana"'s currency in American English increased dramatically in the 1930s, when it was preferred as an exotic-sounding alternative name during the debates of the drug's use. It has been suggested that it was promoted by opponents of the drug, who wanted to stigmatize it with a "foreign-sounding name".
Some references prefer the term "cannabis", for instance in the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. Laws in the United States, such as the Controlled Substances Act, often use the term "marihuana" or "marijuana," and many cannabis reform organizations in the U.S., such as the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws and the Marijuana Policy Project, also use this term. However, some supporters of legalization eschew "marijuana" in favor of the more scientific word "cannabis", as they consider the word "marijuana" to be pejorative.
P.S.: "pejorative" means derogatory. I'm sticking with "Cannabis"....
Peace to you....
Well, problem is, we don't spell words phonetically.
Anyway, here is the lowdown on the word origin from Wiki:
"Marijuana", or "marihuana", etc., is a name for the cannabis plant and a drug preparation made from it. The form "marihuana" is first attested in Mexican Spanish; it then spread to other varieties of Spanish and to English, French, and other languages.
Etymology
The term, originally spelled variously as "marihuana", "mariguana", etc., originated in Mexican Spanish. The ultimate derivation is unknown. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it may come from the Nahuatl mallihuan, meaning "prisoner". Author Martin Booth notes that this etymology was popularized by Harry J. Anslinger in the 1930s, during his campaigns against the drug. However, linguist Jason D. Haugen finds no semantic basis for a connection to "mallihuan", suggesting that the phonetic similarity may be "a case of accidental homophony".
Additionally, traditional association with the personal name María Juana ("Mary Jane") is probably a folk etymology. The original Mexican Spanish used forms with the letter 'h' (marihuana). Forms using the letter 'j' (marijuana) seem to be an innovation of English, though they later appeared in French and in Spanish, probably due to English influence.
The word entered English usage in the late 19th century. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first known appearance of a form of the word in English is in Hubert Howe Bancroft's 1873 The Native Races of the Pacific States of North America. Other early variants include "marihuma" first recorded in 1905, "marihuano" in 1912, and "marahuana" in 1914. Through the early 20th century, however, both the drug and the plant were more commonly known as "cannabis" or "hemp". "Marihuana"'s currency in American English increased dramatically in the 1930s, when it was preferred as an exotic-sounding alternative name during the debates of the drug's use. It has been suggested that it was promoted by opponents of the drug, who wanted to stigmatize it with a "foreign-sounding name".
Some references prefer the term "cannabis", for instance in the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. Laws in the United States, such as the Controlled Substances Act, often use the term "marihuana" or "marijuana," and many cannabis reform organizations in the U.S., such as the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws and the Marijuana Policy Project, also use this term. However, some supporters of legalization eschew "marijuana" in favor of the more scientific word "cannabis", as they consider the word "marijuana" to be pejorative.
P.S.: "pejorative" means derogatory. I'm sticking with "Cannabis"....
Peace to you....
Well, if I tell you any more, I might as well set the table for you.
Or, we could play a set of tennis.
Or, we could break out the chess set.
I had set my heart on someone figuring this out.
Maybe we should just set sail for Polynesia.
Or, we could set the wheels in motion.
That would set us apart.
I'm dead set against prohibition.
Wait until first flowers have set.
Did you ever see the sun set?
Did your girl set her hair?
Did you have that broken arm set?
Let's play some music, but don't set the volume too high.
Don't forget to set the alarm.
Did you set a date for the wedding?
Set me up with your sister.
Well, there are over 450 more, but you get the picture.
Words with the most meanings in English:
"Set" has 464 definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary. "Run" runs a distant second, with 396. Rounding out the top ten are "go" with 368, "take" with 343, "stand" with 334, "get" with 289, "turn" with 288, "put" with 268, "fall" with 264, and "strike" with 250.
I'm SETtleing on SUCKS.
One little point in your treatise often glossed over, is not just Hearst's hate and powerful influences, but his economic reasons for doing what he did. He owned thousands of acres of trees that produced the paper that his newspapers were printed on. An acre of hemp can produce 10x as much paper an acre of trees given any time period chosen at all. If hemp were cultivated he stood to lose millions.
One little point in your treatise often glossed over, is not just Hearst's hate and powerful influences, but his economic reasons for doing what he did. He owned thousands of acres of trees that produced the paper that his newspapers were printed on. An acre of hemp can produce 10x as much paper an acre of trees given any time period chosen at all. If hemp were cultivated he stood to lose millions.
