You should check out what he had to say about hemp.
"Bobby Bouche', That stuff is the Devil!"
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Bill To Legalise Pot To Be Introduced In House Tomorrow
- Thread starter mrjarrell
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ron paul war on drugs
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
"Bobby Bouche', That stuff is the Devil!"
Marijuana is as much a "gateway" drug as Alcohol is (and back in my badge wearing days I had a heck of a lot less problems out of people who were "stoned" versus people who were drunk).
I wonder if anyone knows or remembers one of the tactics they used in trying to get marijuana criminalized?
In addition to "gateway" claims which came later after the following tactics (which I will describe) were no longer socially acceptable, it began in the 20s, they used to falsely report that marijuana was making "blacks and mexicans" go into "murderous rampages" and rape white women.
Back then two of the biggest supporters of criminalizing marijuana was Hearst and Anslinger.
Here are some of the things that were put out to the public to try and spread the fear:
“There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and 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.”
“…the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races.”
“Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death.”
“Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.”
“Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing”
“You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill your brother.”
“Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.”
Marihuana makes fiends of boys in thirty days — Hashish goads users to bloodlust.”
“By the tons it is coming into this country — the deadly, dreadful poison that racks and tears not only the body, but the very heart and soul of every human being who once becomes a slave to it in any of its cruel and devastating forms…. Marihuana is a short cut to the insane asylum. Smoke marihuana cigarettes for a month and what was once your brain will be nothing but a storehouse of horrid specters. Hasheesh makes a murderer who kills for the love of killing out of the mildest mannered man who ever laughed at the idea that any habit could ever get him….”
And other nationwide columns…
“Users of marijuana become STIMULATED as they inhale the drug and are LIKELY TO DO ANYTHING. Most crimes of violence in this section, especially in country districts are laid to users of that drug.”
“Was it marijuana, the new Mexican drug, that nerved the murderous arm of Clara Phillips when she hammered out her victim’s life in Los Angeles?… THREE-FOURTHS OF THE CRIMES of violence in this country today are committed by DOPE SLAVES — that is a matter of cold record.”
Those are just a fraction of the propaganda used. It is really quite ridiculous.
I wonder if anyone knows or remembers one of the tactics they used in trying to get marijuana criminalized?
In addition to "gateway" claims which came later after the following tactics (which I will describe) were no longer socially acceptable, it began in the 20s, they used to falsely report that marijuana was making "blacks and mexicans" go into "murderous rampages" and rape white women.
Back then two of the biggest supporters of criminalizing marijuana was Hearst and Anslinger.
Here are some of the things that were put out to the public to try and spread the fear:
“There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and 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.”
“…the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races.”
“Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death.”
“Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.”
“Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing”
“You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill your brother.”
“Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.”
Marihuana makes fiends of boys in thirty days — Hashish goads users to bloodlust.”
“By the tons it is coming into this country — the deadly, dreadful poison that racks and tears not only the body, but the very heart and soul of every human being who once becomes a slave to it in any of its cruel and devastating forms…. Marihuana is a short cut to the insane asylum. Smoke marihuana cigarettes for a month and what was once your brain will be nothing but a storehouse of horrid specters. Hasheesh makes a murderer who kills for the love of killing out of the mildest mannered man who ever laughed at the idea that any habit could ever get him….”
And other nationwide columns…
“Users of marijuana become STIMULATED as they inhale the drug and are LIKELY TO DO ANYTHING. Most crimes of violence in this section, especially in country districts are laid to users of that drug.”
“Was it marijuana, the new Mexican drug, that nerved the murderous arm of Clara Phillips when she hammered out her victim’s life in Los Angeles?… THREE-FOURTHS OF THE CRIMES of violence in this country today are committed by DOPE SLAVES — that is a matter of cold record.”
Those are just a fraction of the propaganda used. It is really quite ridiculous.
Last edited:
Bunnykid68
Grandmaster
thebishop is absolutely correct +1
Religious reasons, okay. You should accept the fact that other people have different religious views. There's the Rastafari faith, and multiple others which don't forbid it.
Far as I recall only Islam and Buddhism frown on intoxicants; which are you?
Christianity also forbids drunkenness specifically and substances that cause you to act foolishly and/or harm you generally. Thus you have three choices.
snapping turtle
Grandmaster
Everybody take a deep breath
Huh, okay. It's been a while since I went through a bible, couldn't remember anything relevant except Genesis 1:29.
You would have the state force those not of your faith to adhere to your faith's beliefs?
Got it.
This is why this particular topic is forbidden here. The things I would say in response to that would likely get me banned.
People acting with "drunkeness" act completely different than someone acting "stonedness". I've never read or heard of anything in the bible referering to MJ as a bad thing. But as was said earlier, one religious belief cannot keep the american people from having the freedom to do what they'd like. So there must be a different reason why they can not legalize it
level.eleven
Shooter
- May 12, 2009
- 4,673
- 48
Cannabis is most certainly mentioned in every version of the bible. Most of the time, it is on the first page.
But is it refered to as some sort of sin? I honestly don't know
Not specifically, no. There are general prohibitions against causing harm to the body which most take to include permitting addiction to a substance, which many drugs have as a side effect...
And no that is not valid reason for a government prohibition. Constitutionally or Scripturally, there is no command to keep their citizens from doing things that could potentially be harmful to themselves.
No matter the religion, the government is not supposed to make any law respecting one religion over another. That would include having laws based on one specific religion.
IMO separation of church and state means just that (not that you can't be religious - you just can't make laws that promote or favor one over the other).
For those that quote Adams. I personally am suspect of his motivations. He and Jefferson were known to disagree about some pretty fundamental principles. For example Adams was all for increasing the power of the federal government whereas Jefferson was concerned about it becoming too powerful. The whole point of the constitution being to "shackle" the government (numerous quotes to this effect are available).
People seem to keep forgetting this, much like people seem to keep forgetting that we are NOT a democracy (had a debate about this with someone earlier this year... insisted we were a democracy because "3 presidents said we were"). We are a REPUBLIC, a democracy being something our founding fathers did NOT want.
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” - Jefferson.
But back to Adams.
After being made president Adams also had a pretty big power trip. Wanting people to refer to him as "your highness" - in fact he spearheaded a debate in congress about it. Hamilton (reportedly) felt the same and the the president should be treated like a king.
But I digress.
In the bible numerous "key" figures (christ included) indulged in alcohol, I believe the point is that anything in excess is bad. Moderation being the important thing however it is not the job of the government to "moderate" people or legislate morality. Their "job" is to get involved if and when a person's actions cross over and begin to interfere with the equal rights of those around them.
On a side note multiple wives also was not frowned upon in the bible. There is no commandment or scripture that forbids it, in fact the only person that "suggested" (and I say suggested because this was after Christ passed), which applies only to religious leaders was Timothy.
Back on topic:
In the case of Marijuana there is no basis for it's criminalization. Religious or otherwise.
It is strongly thought that the whole reason was Hearst's financial stake in having marijuana banned and his finding of a strong ally in Anslinger who pretty much made his career on it and technically was the first Drug Czar (though that title wasn't used back then).
Recently the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that they could enforce the ban of medical marijuana use under interstate trade (2005) which is ridiculous.
The simple fact is that neither the federal government nor state government have the authority (under the constitution) to make it illegal at all (medical or otherwise). Their only authority is their "bully" power. Since they control the police and they have made your only recourse to try and fight them in court you are pretty much on the losing end right off the bat. They can pass any law, unconstitutional or not and if you do not have the money to fight them the law stays the law. Jefferson and probably several other of our founding fathers are probably rolling over in their graves. In fact they have probably been spinning like tops for years now.
People need to remember that the government is composed of 3 parts and not just 2, which seems to have been conveniently forgotten by those in power. It is the Federal - State - People.
Per the 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
If you notice the wording "DELGATED" to the US by the "CONSTITUION". nor "PROHIBITED to the States". These show restrictions of power, the "chains" that some of our founding fathers spoke off to keep the government in check (both federal and state).
Jefferson defined "rightful liberty as unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
Now maybe it seems I have gone off topic a bit however it is my opinion that laws like the marijuana laws are symptoms of a larger problem and as such are all connected.
There is an old Iroquois story about a meeting between an Iroquois chief (red jacket) and Ellicot (a rep from the Holland Land company).
The two are supposed to have been sitting on a log.
"Move over, Joe," Red Jacket is said to have remarked in the midst of their conversation. Ellicott obligingly complied.
This incident was repeated several times until Ellicott finally protested, "If I move over any more, I'll be entirely off the end of the log."
"Just so white man with Indian and his land," retorted Red Jacket.
While he was speaking about a different situation the strategy is the same and is quite effective.
They create fences around us with laws that restrict our liberties and grant more and more power to the government (both state and federal - though both want more power and will also fight amongst themselves for it but that is a different topic).
Little by little they bring in the "fence". Knowing that it is only the few who will fight they do it little by little so the majority doesn't care and become used to the smaller space. Soon the majority becomes "trained" to the new fence size, and so then they bring in the fence a little more, tightening their control. Much like one must herd and control their "flock" - after all, we are merely the "food source" for those with power. It is we who staff their armies, pay the taxes which put money into their pockets. We are no more than a resource to be used and resources must be controlled.
The funny thing is that most of the "herd" doesn't believe they are being controlled or, in most cases, are willing to give up their liberty for false "security" that is being offered in exchange.
IMO separation of church and state means just that (not that you can't be religious - you just can't make laws that promote or favor one over the other).
For those that quote Adams. I personally am suspect of his motivations. He and Jefferson were known to disagree about some pretty fundamental principles. For example Adams was all for increasing the power of the federal government whereas Jefferson was concerned about it becoming too powerful. The whole point of the constitution being to "shackle" the government (numerous quotes to this effect are available).
People seem to keep forgetting this, much like people seem to keep forgetting that we are NOT a democracy (had a debate about this with someone earlier this year... insisted we were a democracy because "3 presidents said we were"). We are a REPUBLIC, a democracy being something our founding fathers did NOT want.
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” - Jefferson.
But back to Adams.
After being made president Adams also had a pretty big power trip. Wanting people to refer to him as "your highness" - in fact he spearheaded a debate in congress about it. Hamilton (reportedly) felt the same and the the president should be treated like a king.
But I digress.
In the bible numerous "key" figures (christ included) indulged in alcohol, I believe the point is that anything in excess is bad. Moderation being the important thing however it is not the job of the government to "moderate" people or legislate morality. Their "job" is to get involved if and when a person's actions cross over and begin to interfere with the equal rights of those around them.
On a side note multiple wives also was not frowned upon in the bible. There is no commandment or scripture that forbids it, in fact the only person that "suggested" (and I say suggested because this was after Christ passed), which applies only to religious leaders was Timothy.
Back on topic:
In the case of Marijuana there is no basis for it's criminalization. Religious or otherwise.
It is strongly thought that the whole reason was Hearst's financial stake in having marijuana banned and his finding of a strong ally in Anslinger who pretty much made his career on it and technically was the first Drug Czar (though that title wasn't used back then).
Recently the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that they could enforce the ban of medical marijuana use under interstate trade (2005) which is ridiculous.
The simple fact is that neither the federal government nor state government have the authority (under the constitution) to make it illegal at all (medical or otherwise). Their only authority is their "bully" power. Since they control the police and they have made your only recourse to try and fight them in court you are pretty much on the losing end right off the bat. They can pass any law, unconstitutional or not and if you do not have the money to fight them the law stays the law. Jefferson and probably several other of our founding fathers are probably rolling over in their graves. In fact they have probably been spinning like tops for years now.
People need to remember that the government is composed of 3 parts and not just 2, which seems to have been conveniently forgotten by those in power. It is the Federal - State - People.
Per the 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
If you notice the wording "DELGATED" to the US by the "CONSTITUION". nor "PROHIBITED to the States". These show restrictions of power, the "chains" that some of our founding fathers spoke off to keep the government in check (both federal and state).
Jefferson defined "rightful liberty as unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
Now maybe it seems I have gone off topic a bit however it is my opinion that laws like the marijuana laws are symptoms of a larger problem and as such are all connected.
There is an old Iroquois story about a meeting between an Iroquois chief (red jacket) and Ellicot (a rep from the Holland Land company).
The two are supposed to have been sitting on a log.
"Move over, Joe," Red Jacket is said to have remarked in the midst of their conversation. Ellicott obligingly complied.
This incident was repeated several times until Ellicott finally protested, "If I move over any more, I'll be entirely off the end of the log."
"Just so white man with Indian and his land," retorted Red Jacket.
While he was speaking about a different situation the strategy is the same and is quite effective.
They create fences around us with laws that restrict our liberties and grant more and more power to the government (both state and federal - though both want more power and will also fight amongst themselves for it but that is a different topic).
Little by little they bring in the "fence". Knowing that it is only the few who will fight they do it little by little so the majority doesn't care and become used to the smaller space. Soon the majority becomes "trained" to the new fence size, and so then they bring in the fence a little more, tightening their control. Much like one must herd and control their "flock" - after all, we are merely the "food source" for those with power. It is we who staff their armies, pay the taxes which put money into their pockets. We are no more than a resource to be used and resources must be controlled.
The funny thing is that most of the "herd" doesn't believe they are being controlled or, in most cases, are willing to give up their liberty for false "security" that is being offered in exchange.
Last edited:
When that day comes, you won't need a ltc.
The Bubba Effect
Grandmaster
(Tears shirt and pleads heavenward)
BUT, WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!?!?!?!?
BUT, WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!?!?!?!?
femurphy77
Grandmaster
FYI: Cocaine is Schedule II only because it has a legitimate medical use: It's used to shrink blood vessels and promote clotting for, among other things, nosebleed patients. Heroin is still Schedule I.
FTR, I don't agree with government regulation of what substances free citizens choose to put in their bodies. What they do WHILE those substances are in their bodies, such as robbery, operating while under the influence, etc., may be subject to regulation.
Blessings,
Bill
Of course you're right about Heroin, my mistake, I was thinking broadly when I was refering to opiates.
Thanks for setting the record straight, Bill.
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
GodFearinGunTotinSuper Moderator
Members online
- target64
- joshuamckee
- DoggyDaddy
- SEIndSAM
- jspy5
- radar8756
- baldmax
- bub74
- Dean C.
- fender
- NAVISTAR275GM
- cmamath13
- boogieman
- drm-hp
- Brad69
- duanewade
- brizzad
- Catlady
- SnoopLoggyDog
- 55fairlane
- yetti462
- GodFearinGunTotin
- mike4sigs
- efd1295
- slims2002
- JamesV
- Gabriel
- smclear
- ranger04
- snapping turtle
- MRP2003
- WabashMX5
- steif
- W3s
- MDpolo
- Dr.Midnight
- papa6x
- shootersix
- Mgderf
- Jacob271
- INPatriot
- jbm1521
- Singlestack
- blueskies
- patience0830
- dboz
- Indye41
- drgnrobo
- boosteds13cc
- Hayden F
