So 64 just got signed

[Ronin13]

My main reason to back this is the textile and industrial uses for cannabis. It's way better than using wood pulp for paper, and it makes really good rope... As soon as that gets legitimatized we're back to being a leader in exporting.

[Pancho Villa]

Ronin, curious - I've heard that before, and I also heard that the old textile industries were really big behind the push to get marijuana illegalized. Any truth to that?

[Rooskibar03]

Ronin, curious - I've heard that before, and I also heard that the old textile industries were really big behind the push to get marijuana illegalized. Any truth to that?

From the Internet, so it must be true.


A fresh, federally-funded wave of marijuana prohibition began in 1930 with founding of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, headed by Harry J. Anslinger, nephew to Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon. Mellon, one of the richest men in the nation, was an investor in DuPont Chemical. DuPont was then developing and patenting a variety of chemicals, including new gasoline additives threatened by hemp-based materials being pursued by Henry Ford. At the same time, newspaper titan William Randolph Hearst realized hemp paper threatened his own business interests, like a logging company that sold product to DuPont, a huge advertiser in his papers.

[cofi]

this bill doesn't address commercial hemp production

[Ronin13]

Ronin, curious - I've heard that before, and I also heard that the old textile industries were really big behind the push to get marijuana illegalized. Any truth to that?

I've heard that, but not sure on the facts behind it at all. Some pro-MJ conspiracy folk think that's exactly what happened, they claim it was mostly the paper industry that pushed for the prohibition of MJ (something like cannabis is 300% more efficient for producing paper).

[Ronin13]

Oh here is a pretty good video that goes into the truth about our green plant that just got the CO seal of approval:

[bigmyk2k]

Personally, I think giving the police the power to kick in doors because they smell weed is a lot scarier than some potheads moving in next door.

I Definitely don't disagree with that point. However, I still didn't vote for 64. I do think that this needs to be a state issue- along with damn near everything else- and the more push from individual states to legalize, the more pressure it would put on the feds to admit that they shouldn't have that power. However, it would take a caveat making it a felony to provide to minors (either actively or by negligence) to get me to actively support this.
If you are of the age of consent, f yourself however you want. However, let the future generations make that decision when they have the knowledge and experience to do so, and not before.

[gos]

I voted in favor of it to hopefully force a showdown between states and the federal government.

[BushMasterBoy]

Q: How many potheads does it take to change a lightbulb.
A: Screw it, we got lighters

Q. How long does it take before a pound of weed goes bad?
A. I don't know! I've never had it longer than an hour!

Q: How do you hide pot from a hippie?
A: Put it in his work boots.

Q: What do you called a doped-up Pikachu?
A: Tokemon!

Q: What is the difference between politicians and stoners ?
A: Politicians don't inhale...they just suck.

Q. What do you call a stoner that just broke up with his girlfriend?
A. Homeless.

[centrarchidae]

What will this do for law enforcement officers. If someone is trafficking drugs, won't they just say that I have a legal amount and you can't search my vehicle?

Probably not that big a change. Consent to search, and the law about searches where a person did not consent, haven't changed.

About the only change here that I can see is, drug dogs don't distinguish between one drug smell and another when they alert. The alert signal is the same no matter the drug. Which means, if MJ is one of the smells on which the dog is trained, then that dog's alerts suddenly became a lot less admissible.