Why they outlawed marijuana in US
Jul. 26th, 2006 06:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ars_longa"Harry J. Anslinger, a former railroad cop and Prohibition agent, is almost singlehandedly responsible for outlawing marijuana...
When he was named America's first drug czar in 1930 Anslinger initially tried to keep the Bureau of Narcotics clear of the marijuana issue because he knew eradication would be impossible. The stuff grows, he said, "like dandelions." But in the budget squeeze of Great Depression he decided to create a little excitement by transforming marijuana from a low grade nuisance into an evil "as hellish as heroin". To add a little spice he played the race card.
"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men... the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races... most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."
Most Americans had never heard of the weed. Clearly Congress hadn't either. The transcript of the 1937 Congressional Hearings on the Taxation of Marijuana are "near comic examples of dereliction of legislative responsibility,", according to one legal observer. The principal witness was Commisioneer Anslinger and his evidence consisted of newpaper clippings. The solitary nedical expert, Dr. William Woodward of the AMA, undermined Anslinger's testimony by pointing out that the facts in these newspaper clippings had originated with the Commissioner himself.
But the hour ws late and it was time to move on. In a vote they didn't bother to record, on a maatter of little interest, a handful of Congressmen forwared a bill that would one day fill the nation's prisons to the roof beams."
(source: "Reason", v.38#4, 09/2006), see also www.commonsensedrugpolicy.org
Original article.
Via![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
ivan_ghandhi
No comments needed, of course.
When he was named America's first drug czar in 1930 Anslinger initially tried to keep the Bureau of Narcotics clear of the marijuana issue because he knew eradication would be impossible. The stuff grows, he said, "like dandelions." But in the budget squeeze of Great Depression he decided to create a little excitement by transforming marijuana from a low grade nuisance into an evil "as hellish as heroin". To add a little spice he played the race card.
"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men... the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races... most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."
Most Americans had never heard of the weed. Clearly Congress hadn't either. The transcript of the 1937 Congressional Hearings on the Taxation of Marijuana are "near comic examples of dereliction of legislative responsibility,", according to one legal observer. The principal witness was Commisioneer Anslinger and his evidence consisted of newpaper clippings. The solitary nedical expert, Dr. William Woodward of the AMA, undermined Anslinger's testimony by pointing out that the facts in these newspaper clippings had originated with the Commissioner himself.
But the hour ws late and it was time to move on. In a vote they didn't bother to record, on a maatter of little interest, a handful of Congressmen forwared a bill that would one day fill the nation's prisons to the roof beams."
(source: "Reason", v.38#4, 09/2006), see also www.commonsensedrugpolicy.org
Original article.
Via
ivan_ghandhiNo comments needed, of course.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-27 02:44 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-27 02:55 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-27 02:59 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-27 03:09 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-27 03:26 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-27 03:34 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-27 03:42 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-27 03:54 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-27 03:57 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-27 03:43 am (UTC)А заодно и запретить всем мужчинам ходить без вот такого приспособления - оно, совершенно очевидно, почти стопроцентно уменьшает риск того, что мужчина кого-нибудь изнасилует. А чтобы не увиливали, поручить полиции проверять на наличие, а тех, кто без - сажать в тюрьму и штрафовать.
Это просто продолжение той же логики, что нужно наказывать за не-предотвращение возможного преступления. Даже если никто никому ничего плохого не сделал.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-27 04:04 am (UTC)уровнень аргументации просто поражает. Всех благ.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-27 04:07 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-27 04:20 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-27 04:33 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-27 05:01 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-27 05:05 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-27 06:09 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-27 06:13 am (UTC)Что-то я тебя, получается, азбучным вещам учу...
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-27 06:36 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-27 05:54 am (UTC)Извините, но Вы просто использовали стандартный демагогический приём - эмоциональную оценку (см. пункт 3a в Демагогия: опыт классификации).
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-27 05:55 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-27 06:00 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-27 06:06 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-27 06:06 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-27 06:53 am (UTC)Ложность утверждения можно доказать, продемонстрировав, что из него, путём продолжения логических выводов, выводится очевидная ерунда.
В данном случае необходимой (хоть и явно Вами невысказанной) предпосылкой к запрещению DUI является утверждение о том, что применение карательных мер к человеку, который с какой-то небольшой вероятностью может причинить другим вред (но ещё не причинил, да и не имеет такого намерения) вполне морально допустимо и желательно.
Если это утверждение верно, то из этого следует, что в случае если вред - это изнасилование, то к потенциальным насильникам можно (и нужно!) заранее применять средства как описано выше.
Ещё мельче разжевать?