It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Cannabis Conspiracy

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 01:54 AM
I very seldom post but this thread caught my interest. There has been some very good points brought up about the various products that hemp can be used for, but there is more. Let me preface by saying that I have been making handmade toiletries, soaps, creams, lotions, etc. for some time and one oil that I use extensively is hemp seed oil. I have done quite a bit of research into its properties and benefits to skin care, which let to my discovering the health benefits of hemp seed as a food product. It is high in Omega 3 fatty acids, and contains a little over 30 % protein. I can't help but feel that these health benefits in conjuction with all the other products mentioned, contributes to the outlawing of hemp. Do I think there is a conspiracy to keep hemp from being legalized, you bet, and it has very little to do with mind altering properties.

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 04:28 AM
I have to go along with someone others point of view of the reason it is still illegle is because it cannot be taxed and regulated by the govt. Too many people posses the knowledge to grow their own, thus skipping all the red tape with the govt. Now there are many products that can be derived from the plant ie. oil, fiber, etc. It should be decrimalized on many different arguemenitve grounds but I doubt I'll see it in my lifetime. Should it be legalized before I die.

MOD EDIT: Removing the drug usage talk.

[edit on 11/14/2005 by cmdrkeenkid]

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 06:45 PM
There are some great posts here, but can someone clear this up for me. I thought the plant that grew maijuana was different from the type of plant that they made hemp based products out of. I thought they were in the same family but no exactly the same, am I misinformed here?

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 07:27 PM
the difference you're referring to is the male and female plants, which (as a little FYI) is unique in the entire world of plants in that they can visibly be distinguished from one another. male plants do not produce the THC filled buds that a female plant does. btw, all plants do have male and female, they just can't be discerned from one another without DNA sampling.

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 08:21 PM

Originally posted by el duderino

There are some great posts here, but can someone clear this up for me. I thought the plant that grew maijuana was different from the type of plant that they made hemp based products out of. I thought they were in the same family but no exactly the same, am I misinformed here?

No your quite right about that.

Hemp does not have but just a minute amount of THC , to little to be of any potential recreational value.

Although the difference between the two stops there, the plants look basically the same.


I have heard it suggested that the reason to keep the Hemp crop from being legally produced here in America is because people who want to grow the real stuff might disguise it in the Hemp Crops.


[edit on 14-11-2005 by lost_shaman]

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 01:29 AM
you're absolutely right about people growing pot hidden in hempfields, you would have to look very closesly to spot any difference. which is why they should grow it anyways, because the supposed risk they attribute to recreational use are minimal when weighed against the ecological benefit. the government needs to stay out of our head, hearts, and bedrooms anyways. this is just a respectable sidestep around saying "we were wrong to criminalize it in the first place".

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 04:20 AM
El duderino, the major difference from the male and the female plants arre that the females are prized for their buds which produce a nice and rich/sweet smell and intoxicating effects. On the other hand, the males grow taller and are not as bushey as to their female counterparts. The are really only used to fertilize the females. They produce fewer buds along with leaves and are loaded with seeds vs. the females. If taken care of properly, they can be harvested but their leaf production is pretty well stunted and anyone who is serouis about growing this will tell you to get rid of the males after they get their 4-5 set of leaves.
Both the males and females produce a fine quality of fiber that can be used in ropes, clothes and it's oil actually can be used to run a car. The oil of the females is especially prized and is rather expensive due to its duel use of fuel and its ability to be put into many types of things that are to be smoked.

[edit on 15-11-2005 by FLYIN HIGH]

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 07:49 AM

Originally posted by FLYIN HIGH
I have to go along with someone others point of view of the reason it is still illegle is because it cannot be taxed and regulated by the govt. Too many people posses the knowledge to grow their own, thus skipping all the red tape with the govt. Now there are many products that can be derived from the plant ie. oil, fiber, etc. It should be decrimalized on many different arguemenitve grounds but I doubt I'll see it in my lifetime. Should it be legalized before I die.

MOD EDIT: Removing the drug usage talk.

[edit on 11/14/2005 by cmdrkeenkid]

That is a myth that it cannot be taxed. The government thinks they can tax anything so they do tax anything. Start naming the products people buy that have not been taxed at one point or another before it reaches the shelf. And even afterwards there is still a sales tax.

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Frosty

That is a myth that it cannot be taxed. The government thinks they can tax anything so they do tax anything. Start naming the products people buy that have not been taxed at one point or another before it reaches the shelf. And even afterwards there is still a sales tax.

Thats exactly how it first became illegal in the U.S.

The 1937 Marijuana Tax Act.

This Law was a Tax , but in order to Pay the Tax you would need to bring in the "Product" you are paying tax on. By bringing the product in to pay the Tax, you are in possession of untaxed product punishable by 5 years imprisonment.

The Law was found unconstitutional in 1969 Leary vs. U.S. where the Supreme court upheld that the law violated the constitution because by paying the tax you were incriminating yourself.

The Controlled Substance Act of 1970 was passed in Congress in response to the Supreme Court decision.


From David Solomon

The popular and therapeutic uses of hemp preparations are not categorically prohibited by the provisions of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. The apparent purpose of the Act is to levy a token tax of approximately one dollar on all buyers, sellers, importers, growers, physicians, veterinarians, and any other persons who deal in marijuana commercially, prescribe it professionally, or possess it.

The deceptive nature of that apparent purpose begins to come into focus when the reader reaches the penalty provisions of the Act: five years' imprisonment, a $2,000 fine, or both seem rather excessive for evading a sum (provided for by the purchase of a Treasury Department tax stamp) that, even if collected, would produce only a minute amount of government revenue. (Fines and jail sentences were f urther increased to the point of the cruel and unusual in subsequent federal drug legislation that incorporated the Marijuana Tax Act. It is now possible under the later version of the Act to draw a life sentence for selling just one marihuana cigarette to a minor.) One might wonder, too, why a small clause, amounting to an open-ended catchall provision, was inserted into the Act, authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to grant the Commissioner (then Harry Anslinger) and agents of the Treasury Department's Bureau of Narcotics absolute administrative regulatory, and police powers in the enforcement of the law. The message becomes entirely clear when, having finished the short text of the Act itself, one proceeds to the sixty-odd pages of administrative and enforcement procedures established by the infamous Regulations No. 1. That regulation, not fully reproduced here, calls for a maze of affidavits, depositions, sworn statements, and constant Treasury Department police inspection in every instance that marijuana is bought, sold, used, raised, distributed, given away, and so on. Physicians who wish to purchase the one-dollar tax stamp so that they might prescribe it for their patients are forced to report such use to the Federal Bureau of Narcotics in sworn and attested detail, revealing the name and address of the patient, the nature of his ailment, the dates and amounts prescribed, and so on. If a physician for any reason fails to do so immediately, both he and his patient are liable to imprisonment-and a heavy fine. Obviously, the details of that regulation make it far too risky for anyone to have anything to do with marijuana in any way whatsoever.

Regulations No. 1 was more than an invasion of the traditional right of privacy between patient and physician; it was a hopelessly involved set of rules that were obviously designed not merely to discourage but to prohibit the medical and popular use of marijuana. In addition to the Marihuana Tax Act and Regulations No. 1, the Bureau of Narcotics prepared a standard bill for marihuana that more than forty state legislatures enacted. This bill made possession and use of marihuana illegal per se, and so reinforced the federal act.

The AMA (American Medical Association) was not even aware of the Bill ( 1937 Marihuana Tax Act) until two days before they were called to give evidence of Medical benefits before Congress.

Doctors had been prescribing Marijuana to patients for 100 years prior to the passage of the 1937 M.T.A.

[edit on 15-11-2005 by lost_shaman]

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 03:36 PM
I think some of it has to do with big businesses being scared of it so they push the politicians to keep it illegal where it can't pose any serious threat to them like other have said. I also think part of it is that there is no real financial benefit to the government to make it legal except for maybe a smaller burden on the justice system? I think tax plays a big part of it like others have also said and more specifically the govt has no effective way to tax it which means there is no incentive to legalize it. I also wonder how much money is made in fines, and cannabis related seizures? I would think that cost burden of keeping people locked up would far out weigh any gains made from fines or seizures but maybe not.

I also wonder if people are afraid that recreational use of it can help free people's mind to some degree which might create problems. They don't want the sheeple getting out of line or asking too many questions.

What I find very interesting is how certain states like OR and AK haven't legalized it, but they have basically decriminalized possession in small amounts for what they consider personal use. Even some municipalities like Denver, CO

I really don't see how using it is any worse than alcohol or cigarettes?

That reminds me of this funny quote "Drunk people run over people, stoners just miss their exit."

[edit on 15-11-2005 by warpboost]

posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 03:56 PM
Great topic. The linked article is somewhat long but well worth reading and interesting on many levels. It actually connects the topics of this thread to those of many other threads you'll find on this board.

The Philosopher's Stone

Of particular interest to this discussion was the following:

There is no mystery why so few references to cannabis can be found in Medieval European literature; while embracing wine as a sacrament, the Inquisition outlawed cannabis ingestion in Spain in the twelfth century and France in the thirteenth.  Anyone using hemp spiritually, medicinally, or otherwise was labeled “witch.” 

Saint Joan of Arc, for example, was accused in 1430-31 of using a variety of herbal “witch” drugs, including cannabis, to hear voices. — J. Herer, The Emperor Wears No Clothes

In keeping with the medieval church’s war on all things Arabic, including bathing, Pope Innocent VIII issued a papal fiat in 1484 condemning the use of cannabis in the “satanic mass.” — A. De Passquale, “Farmacognosia della Canape Indiana”

So after cannabis prohibitions of the fifth, twelfth and thirteenth centuries, hemp was re-condemned this time as an unholy sacrament of the second and third types of satanic mass.  This religious prohibition lasted more than 150 years.

I bring this up to show that while there is certainly modern economic and political factors involved in marijuana prohibition that the stigmatization of the plant and its effects is an old one.

posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 05:10 PM
Ever wondered how Jesus carried out his healings??

Jesus was almost certainly a cannabis user and an early proponent of the medicinal properties of the drug, according to a study of scriptural texts published this month. The study suggests that Jesus and his disciples used the drug to carry out miraculous healings.


I think that this may be true. So all my mates were right...Jesus was a toker! Cool

posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 09:18 PM
Don't believe I've seen this link mentioned, but in this discussion I believe it's very valuable.

Book: The Emperor Wears No Clothes

posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 02:52 AM
Man i see these new "above the influence" commercials that are all over the place now...and every time i see one i wanna punch clear through my tv. the bottom line is, the reason pot still illegal is because the USA uses it to keep minorities down, and money flowing. Nowadays, minorities make up the largest percent in prison population with many being young inner city kids in there on simple drug possession. In countries where pot is legal, you don't hear about ppl getting to high and killin other people like drunk drivers......if it's legal to use in another country, and that country doesnt have strung out pot head junkies maining the streets, what makes them think that if pot was taxed and regulated, our society in the usa would crumble? Hopefully those idiots in gov. see fit to legalize it one day because with all the good and honest benefits, it's a real crime that people face jail time over something so stupid as a harmless plant.

[edit on 25-11-2005 by Spawwwn]

[edit on 25-11-2005 by Spawwwn]

posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 11:48 PM
I would like to bring up a point that some of you may have overlooked...

smoking ANYTHING is bad. Burning THC is a bad thing since it becomes charred... ideally, you would like to heat up the THC to produce the most desired medicinal effect (medicinal doses are also quite small). People back in the days would ingest the bud orally as opposed to smoking it.

Smoking it in paper with glue (harmful) was something that was popularized by 'them'. Use glass if you must smoke it.

I do not believe that anyone has the right/power to claim that any natural substance in its natural form found on this Earth is illegal/banned/taboo.

People need to be responsible. People need to stop being greedy. People need to realize that there are alternatives.

Hemp is a fantastic resource and is very underrated.

What would you consider worse? Using a plant to help ease pain or using a synthetic, man-made alternative that probably hasn't even undergone proper testing and that has a 3 paragraph warning label?

posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 12:30 AM
I just wanted to mention what I have noticed lately as a new trend in the media here in Denmark. Denmark of all places, what´s got into them all of a sudden? Recently a rising number of young people have died in Denmark unfortunately. They died as the media says : "from mixing ecstacy, speed, coke and cannabis"! This is witch-hunting and twisting reality...
I should also mention that the use of hard drugs are on the rise in Denmark at the moment. [sarcasm] - Gee, I wonder why? - [/sarcasm]

[edit on 2005/11/28 by Hellmutt]

posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 12:35 AM
Helmutt... there is actually a forest near my house where Sun Bear had made a medicine circle with colored stones.
I noticed your sig. and thought you may care.
I thought it was interesting that you're using his quote and live in Denmark!

[edit on 28-11-2005 by fattyp]

[edit on 28-11-2005 by fattyp]

posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 12:46 AM
Okay, I don't smoke pot, nor do I promote it, but, pot will never be legal.

The reason? The government is making way too much money by seizing cars, boats, & houses from the potheads, & turning around & selling them.

Back in the 80's, there was a show called "Narcs" I think. It was right at prime time, in the 8pm slot on Friday night, & it hit the top TV shows from the get go. Well, about 1/2 way thru the season, it mysteriously got pulled off the air.

Can you guess why? Because on the show, they had to pull the Police budget, in Nevada no less, from seizing cars & drug money because a corrupt Chief of Police taking payoffs from the Mafia cut their budget. Now, you might ask what this has to do with the first part of My post, & I'm about to tell you.

The reason they yanked the show off the air, is to not advertise what they were in the process of doing to the American populace around the country.
You may laugh at this, but I'm not. You've all seen the ads in the newspaper, for seized cars, trucks, boats, & houses. If you haven't, you've had your head buried in the sand.

Another reason they don't want pot legalized? Because it would crush the backdoor deal they had with Dupont in the early days of war, when they started making ropes, parachutes, & other synthetics to make those particular items. The reasoning for this? Because you can make rope cheaper with hemp, than you can with synthetic plastics, you can make canvas cheaper than plastic with hemp.

Did you know, the US Constitution was written on hemp paper? Bet you didn't, because they didn't tell you, & never will. They don't want to show that the Founding Fathers may actually have been human, they want them seen as demi-gods, people who made little to no mistakes.

I don't smoke pot, don't sell it, never tried it, & never have a desire to do so either, but I can see the lies that our government tell us. Open your eyes & look around you. What else are they hiding from the mass public. They're opinion of you & your people, is that you're John Q Stupid, & you won't call them on their bull#.

So, pick up a phone, & start dialing.

[edit on 28-11-2005 by SpartanLeonidas]

posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 12:50 AM

Originally posted by fattyp
there is actually a forest near my house where Sun Bear had made a medicine circle with colored stones.

That´s cool. I like that quote.

Btw, this trend with the rising drugproblems in Denmark started with their crusade against cannabis and after they closed down Christiania. The harddrugs-pushers in Copenhagen cheered when their market suddenly got flooded with new customers.

posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 02:00 AM
I think some of the proponents on here are a little disconnected from reality. #1 reason why pot use will not be legalized any time soon? The abuse by users. No streets full of stoners? Where do you live? Up until 3 months ago, I lived in a small city (approx. 750,000) and worked in the local mall. During the week, at least 40% of mall shoppers I came into contact were OBVIOUSLY stoned. This includes children as young as 12, and adults of all ages. Come weekend, at least 75% of shoppers would be. Go out at night? Right. The only people who aren't high got drunk before the pot was passed around. I lived in that city for a year. I met 2 people in that entire time who were not at least semi-frequent pot users. That was in the northeast. Now I live in the south, and while I haven't had that much time to meet as large a portion of the populace as I did in the northeast, the streets are still full of stoners. Usage amongst non-minority adults is much, much lower here, but the only minorities I've met who aren't into pot are either alcoholics of have moved onto harder drugs. You say there would be no problem with abuse if it was legalized? There already IS a problem. The difference is that to users, other users are allies, and so they don't notice the amount of abuse.
Also, to all of those who say pot doesn't have negative effects on people: I have lost many, many friends to pot usage. They lose their motivation, their desire to succeed, or to accomplish anything but going home to the next hit. For a good number of them, their usage eventually lost them their jobs, as well. Not because of discrimination, like they complained about. How is it discrimination to fire someone for coming to work under the influence of drugs? I've fired plenty for that myself, and every time I thought, hey, there's another life ruined (and yes, I blame the user, not the drug, but then, as I am saying, the user is the problem here.) But then, users don't usually agree, because what they want in life is their bud.
I do understand as well that there are different "grades" of users, and some users don't fall that far, which is true. But more I have known have fallen that far, than those that haven't.
You want to talk conspiracy? Legalize it. Then the whites who get accused of trying to oppress the minorities just have another tool. Is pedro going to come take your job? Is Jamal going to be the next president? Forget that. He'll be in the hood, fighting for another hit, stealing from his mother so he can go score some more bud. The easiest way to oppress a people is give them a tool and let them do it to themselves. There are already plently of laws that do it (affirmative action, welfare, etc.) Give them legal fatties, and they will blissfully smoke themselves into oblivion.
Now, as for hemp products, I do think they could be of great value to society. But you say hemp to any non-user, and all that comes to mind is the shambling, vacant stoner that they see at some point in their daily lives. And that is the number one stumbling block against legalization. 99% of the non-users are strongly against it because of the abuse of the users.
Now, you might say, 'its no worse than alcohol.' Indeed, I can agree, to a point. Alcohol, while in use by a person, has a much more severe effect on a person, and can lead to some very destructive results. However, this actually tends to encourage most use to be in a select environment, and during time that is basically plotted out as "drunk" time. By the next day, the only effect the sufferer might still have is a hangover, and their normal daily functions are not affected in the immediate, though they may suffer from eventual decreases in brain function and organ damage over time. On the other hand, the effects of THC take much longer to leave the system. For many users, they aren't really ever "clean," and it shows to the outside observer. Secondly, because it does not drastically impair function on the scale of alcohol, it is often used at any opportune moment, which can lead to damaging results, such as loss of employment, for an example. You see, people can accept the usuage of alcohol because they know it will be used at, and its effects will be contained to, "known" locations, such as bars, parties, home, etc, with little "anytime, anywhere" usage. Therefore, it can be avoided if one so desires, and one person's attitude and actions involving alcohol rarely affect those on the "outside." The primary exception to this, drunk driving, has been and continues to be fought against with strong penalties, lower allowable BA levels, and awareness campaigns. Why? Because it affects even those who choose to not have alcohol in their life. The only way to do so with pot is to outlaw it entirely. So is it starting to make sense? You don't need a big conspiracy, not anymore, though I will admit it might have started that way. Now, all you need to do is take another hit, then make a munchies run to the corner store. Don't blame THEM. Blame yourselves.

[edit on 28-11-2005 by saturnine_sweet]

[edit on 28-11-2005 by saturnine_sweet]

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in