Anybody know Anty506 new news?

imported post

Dreamer wrote:

MSC 45ACP,

I think "Anty506" deserves what he got. He broke the law, and he deserves to be punished.

I believe in changing immoral laws through civil disobedience, legislative activism, and political action. I DO NOT consider participation in street crime activity to be "civil disobedience". You folks are right--this guy broke the law and that cannot be excused, and he should be punished under the law.


Immoral is the fact that the MOST profitable cash crop (according to the DEA and the USDA) in EVERY SINGLE agricultural state in the Union, is ILLEGAL to grow because of racist scare tactics in the guide of "journalism", and fraudulent Congressional testimonies by corporate shysters.

The "War on Drugs", much like "Gun Control Laws", is Statutory Racism, codified into Law. Both movements are Constitutional Travesties, and would have our Founding Fathers shaking their heads ruefully...

Click to expand...

Where is any of that "immoral?" You may feel it is not correct, or an outrage, but where is it "immoral?" :?


Spefically on the "REQUIRED BY LAW" to be cultivated, I find that highly suspect. What do you base that upon? Are you speaking about hemp for rope? Different animal.

Now, specifically to your claim of "MOST profitable cash crop," present your argument. What metric provides for that claim?

Or, is your whole post a simply "cut/paste" of NORML 'talking points' that misstate the reality to further an agenda?




As to moral or immoral, I see nothing in your "immoral" claims that fit the definition.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/immoral
"violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics."

Disagreeing with a law does not make it "immoral."

imported post

Gordie wrote:

Judging from some of hispreviousposts, he was looking for trouble and he eventually found it. I don't think it had as much to do with drugs as it did being an idiot.

Click to expand...

Thank you Gordie for this most proper end to the argument! :celebrateHe was looking for trouble and he FOUND it!

imported post

ODA 226 wrote:

Gordie wrote:

Judging from some of hispreviousposts, he was looking for trouble and he eventually found it. I don't think it had as much to do with drugs as it did being an idiot.

Click to expand...

Thank you Gordie for this most proper end to the argument! :celebrateHe was looking for trouble and he FOUND it!

Click to expand...

In Anty506's own words he was looking for a "good kill" for quite some time.

imported post

wrightme wrote:

Where is any of that "immoral?" You may feel it is not correct, or an outrage, but where is it "immoral?" :?

Click to expand...

Defining "moral" can lead people off into religious grounds, but the most basic universal definition of an "immoral" act is one that harms another who has done you no harm. The only harm done to me when someone abuses an illegal drug, comes from the societal costs created by its illegality, not its use.

Many, myself included, also consider it immoral to violate a solemn oath. For instance, an oath to the Constitution, like that sworn by all public officials. Every politician who passes a law that has no Constitutional basis, every judge who upholds it, every executive or police officer who enforces it, all violate that oath.

From top to bottom, the drug war can only be described as immoral.

imported post

KBCraig wrote:

wrightme wrote:

Where is any of that "immoral?" You may feel it is not correct, or an outrage, but where is it "immoral?" :?

Click to expand...

Every politician who passes a law that has no Constitutional basis, every judge who upholds it, every executive or police officer who enforces it, all violate that oath.

Click to expand...

Don't forget that the citizenry that allowed all of the above to violate the Constitution are equally culpable.

imported post

KBCraig wrote:

wrightme wrote:

Where is any of that "immoral?" You may feel it is not correct, or an outrage, but where is it "immoral?" :?

Click to expand...

Defining "moral" can lead people off into religious grounds, but the most basic universal definition of an "immoral" act is one that harms another who has done you no harm. The only harm done to me when someone abuses an illegal drug, comes from the societal costs created by its illegality, not its use.

Many, myself included, also consider it immoral to violate a solemn oath. For instance, an oath to the Constitution, like that sworn by all public officials. Every politician who passes a law that has no Constitutional basis, every judge who upholds it, every executive or police officer who enforces it, all violate that oath.

From top to bottom, the drug war can only be described as immoral.

Click to expand...

1) No harm to person comes from the law. Harm comes to the person from those who choose to break that law. You are shooting at the hostage instead of at the perp.

2) Where is it stated that all laws must have a Constitutional basis? (Note that neither you nor I made any statement of "unconstitutional," but only addressed specific basis for law).

3) False. Only "true" when you twist "immoral" into "no Constitutional basis" through your mental gymnastic thought experiment.

imported post

wrightme wrote:

Where is any of that "immoral?" You may feel it is not correct, or an outrage, but where is it "immoral?" :?

Click to expand...

Immoral is a set of laws that were based NOT on any sort of health risk, societal effect, or crime trends, but rather were based entirely on the greed and monopolistic corporate strategies of people who lied during sworn Congressional testimony, published racist, falsified, and completely fabricated newspaper articles to sway public opinion. DuPont and Hearst Publishing knew that the only real competitor to their wood pulp paper, synthetic nylon, and petrochemical oils were hemp products, and they saw that the best way to eliminate their competition was to make it illegal.

If cutting out the American Farmer from the process of providing cloth, paper, rope, varnish, paint, and lubricating oils through a concerted effort of lies, propaganda, and racist perjury is NOT immoral, then I don't know what is...If you consider the Conressional Record, Popular Mechanics, and peer-reviewed scientific journals to be part of some pro-pot NORML conspiracy, then I really feel sorry for you, because you obviously haven't done any real research to form your opinions, and you are simply regurgitating the same lies,propaganda, and racist untruths that the petrochemical industry has been spewing for the last 90 years to justify this travesty.

Spefically on the "REQUIRED BY LAW" to be cultivated, I find that highly suspect. What do you base that upon? Are you speaking about hemp for rope? Different animal.

Click to expand...

Apparently you don't know much about plant biology and agronomy. The plant used to make fiber for hemp rope and cloth is the EXACT same genus and species as the plant used to make marijuana. Look it up. Cannabis Sativa.

http://www.popularmechanics.co.za/content/news/singlepage.asp?key=32

As for the requirements to grow hemp in the US, and it's acceptability as a commodity payment for taxes, here are some sources:Thomas Jefferson wrote extensively about the use of hemp on his personal plantation and in the Colonies at large:If you look down this list, you will even see where Jefferson discusses in a letter with Samuel Huntington in December of 1779 that the Virginia General Assembly established a tax that could be paid with commodities (if the land-owner didnt have enough cash), and among those commodities acceptable as payment was Hemp.

So if you consider the personal diaries and letters of Washington and Jefferson, the official website of the Monticello Archives, and peer-reviewed scholarly research works to be part of the pro-pot, NORML conspiracy, then again, I am really sorry for you, because you apparently are COMPLETELY brainwashed by the media, big Pharma and Big Oil companies, and you have no concept of the ACTUAL history of this Great Nation, as documented in the writings of our Founding Fathers.

I've been researching this topic for over 20 years. I am a historical reenactor, and specialize in Medieval and Colonial printing, so hemp paper, cloth and rope are topics I have done a LOT of research on. I've researched this at the Smithsonian, the Library of Congress, and at the archives of Monticello and George Mason University. (I lived in Northern VA for 15 years).

Unless you've actually looked into the primary source documents on this issue, I suggest you keep your media- and government-sourced opinions to yourself.

Now, specifically to your claim of "MOST profitable cash crop," present your argument. What metric provides for that claim? Or, is your whole post a simply "cut/paste" of NORML 'talking points' that misstate the reality to further an agenda?

Click to expand...

According to current USDA and FDA statistics, California's biggest agricultiral product is milk and cream, which brings in $7.3 Billion/year. The DEA estimates that the Marijuana trade nets over $14 Billion/year in CA.

You do the math...

Of course, if you consider ABC News, CNBC, Time Magazine, and the Register (a respectable UK publication) to be part of the Pro-pot NORML conspiracy, you can just dismiss these articles as pot-smoke BS.

But if you actually get out there and do the research, rather than accepting the spoon-fed propaganda given to you by the corporate-controlled media, you will find that these statements are in fact a horrible, ungly truth, and the "war on drugs" is in fact robbing the American Farmer of a tremendously valuable crop, robbing the American people of an environmentally friendly source of fiber, food, and oil, and is robbing the American Taxpayer of billions of dollars of revenue in lost sales taxes and business taxes because hemp is illegal to grow IN ANY FORM in the USA...

As to moral or immoral, I see nothing in your "immoral" claims that fit the definition. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/immoral "violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics." Disagreeing with a law does not make it "immoral."

Click to expand...

The "War on Drugs", and specifically, the "War on Hemp" is, like gun control, an immoral travesty with it's roots in racism, fed by corporate greed with complete disregard for the environment, the health and welfare of the People, and the prosperity of the Common Man, and was borne from and continues to be perpetuated by the desire to punish non-white people for daring to come to this country.

In 1942, the USDA produces an educational movie entitled "Hemp for Victory", which was distributed to farmers and co-ops all over the country to encourage farmers to grow hemp for the War Effort. Shortly after the war, most of the movies were rounded up and destroyed, and even the Library of Congress denied for DECADES that such a film ever existed. Eventually, someone found a copy stashed in the basement of a midwestern church in the 1980's. The USDA, the DOD, and the Library of Congress were all exposed in their lies, and now this movie is available on VHS and DVD. I suggest you get a copy of it and watch it--it's pretty interesting. But the point is, that three agencies of the US Government lied about the existence of this movie and the "Hemp for Victory" program to the American public for decades. The existence of this program is not taught in schools, and the importance of Hemp as the most valuable, strategic, and environmentally responsible agricultural product in the history of the United States has been summarily deleted from our educational system. If THAT is not immoral, then I don't know what is...

Hemp is NOT illegal because anyone ever determined it to be medically dangerous. It is not illegal because any credible studies ever showed that it's use causes any more crime than any other intoxicant like Alcohol or Nicotine. It is NOT illegal because it causes any sort of health problems. Hemp was made illegal because DuPont and Hearst Publishing wanted to kill their only viable competitor in the paper industry, and since the Hemp industry in the USA was one of the biggest agricultural sectors, the only way they could do that was to make it ILLEGAL.

If that's not immoral, then I don't know what is...

imported post

Dreamer wrote:

wrightme wrote:

Where is any of that "immoral?" You may feel it is not correct, or an outrage, but where is it "immoral?" :?

Click to expand...

Immoral is a set of laws that were based NOT on any sort of health risk, societal effect, or crime trends, but rather were based entirely on the greed and monopolistic corporate strategies of people who lied during sworn Congressional testimony, published racist, falsified, and completely fabricated newspaper articles to sway public opinion. DuPont and Hearst Publishing knew that the only real competitor to their wood pulp paper, synthetic nylon, and petrochemical oils were hemp products, and they saw that the best way to eliminate their competition was to make it illegal.

If cutting out the American Farmer from the process of providing cloth, paper, rope, varnish, paint, and lubricating oils through a concerted effort of lies, propaganda, and racist perjury is NOT immoral, then I don't know what is...

You are correct there. I see no "immorality." Your position reeks of CT propaganda.

Click to expand...

If you consider the Conressional Record, Popular Mechanics, and peer-reviewed scientific journals to be part of some pro-pot NORML conspiracy, then I really feel sorry for you, because you obviously haven't done any real research to form your opinions, and you are simply regurgitating the same lies,propaganda, and racist untruths that the petrochemical industry has been spewing for the last 90 years to justify this travesty.

Point to the place where I presented some lies, propaganda, and racist untruths...

I challenged you on your position.

Spefically on the "REQUIRED BY LAW" to be cultivated, I find that highly suspect. What do you base that upon? Are you speaking about hemp for rope? Different animal.

Click to expand...

Apparently you don't know much about plant biology and agronomy. The plant used to make fiber for hemp rope and cloth is the EXACT same genus and species as the plant used to make marijuana. Look it up. Cannabis Sativa.

http://www.popularmechanics.co.za/content/news/singlepage.asp?key=32

As for the requirements to grow hemp in the US, and it's acceptability as a commodity payment for taxes, here are some sources:

Click to expand...

Thomas Jefferson wrote extensively about the use of hemp on his personal plantation and in the Colonies at large:

Click to expand...

If you look down this list, you will even see where Jefferson discusses in a letter with Samuel Huntington in December of 1779 that the Virginia General Assembly established a tax that could be paid with commodities (if the land-owner didnt have enough cash), and among those commodities acceptable as payment was Hemp.

So if you consider the personal diaries and letters of Washington and Jefferson, the official website of the Monticello Archives, and peer-reviewed scholarly research works to be part of the pro-pot, NORML conspiracy, then again, I am really sorry for you, because you apparently are COMPLETELY brainwashed by the media, big Pharma and Big Oil companies, and you have no concept of the ACTUAL history of this Great Nation, as documented in the writings of our Founding Fathers.

I've been researching this topic for over 20 years. I am a historical reenactor, and specialize in Medieval and Colonial printing, so hemp paper, cloth and rope are topics I have done a LOT of research on. I've researched this at the Smithsonian, the Library of Congress, and at the archives of Monticello and George Mason University. (I lived in Northern VA for 15 years).

Unless you've actually looked into the primary source documents on this issue, I suggest you keep your media- and government-sourced opinions to yourself.

Once again, you are mistaking my challenge of your claim as a claim of my own.......

So, you are speaking of laws as I suspected that were basically for non-THC products. Such as http://www.grassrootsstore.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=324
Hemp twine. I think I actually have some that was purchased at the local Walmart.

Now, specifically to your claim of "MOST profitable cash crop," present your argument. What metric provides for that claim? Or, is your whole post a simply "cut/paste" of NORML 'talking points' that misstate the reality to further an agenda?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

According to current USDA and FDA statistics, California's biggest agricultiral product is milk and cream, which brings in $7.3 Billion/year. The DEA estimates that the Marijuana trade nets over $14 Billion/year in CA.

Make it legal, and you would see a quick reversal. Also, note that it is an estimate.

You do the math...

Of course, if you consider ABC News, CNBC, Time Magazine, and the Register (a respectable UK publication) to be part of the Pro-pot NORML conspiracy, you can just dismiss these articles as pot-smoke BS.

But if you actually get out there and do the research, rather than accepting the spoon-fed propaganda given to you by the corporate-controlled media, you will find that these statements are in fact a horrible, ungly truth, and the "war on drugs" is in fact robbing the American Farmer of a tremendously valuable crop, robbing the American people of an environmentally friendly source of fiber, food, and oil, and is robbing the American Taxpayer of billions of dollars of revenue in lost sales taxes and business taxes because hemp is illegal to grow IN ANY FORM in the USA...

As to moral or immoral, I see nothing in your "immoral" claims that fit the definition. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/immoral "violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics." Disagreeing with a law does not make it "immoral."

Click to expand...

The "War on Drugs", and specifically, the "War on Hemp" is, like gun control, an immoral travesty with it's roots in racism, fed by corporate greed with complete disregard for the environment, the health and welfare of the People, and the prosperity of the Common Man, and was borne from and continues to be perpetuated by the desire to punish non-white people for daring to come to this country.

In 1942, the USDA produces an educational movie entitled "Hemp for Victory", which was distributed to farmers and co-ops all over the country to encourage farmers to grow hemp for the War Effort. Shortly after the war, most of the movies were rounded up and destroyed, and even the Library of Congress denied for DECADES that such a film ever existed. Eventually, someone found a copy stashed in the basement of a midwestern church in the 1980's. The USDA, the DOD, and the Library of Congress were all exposed in their lies, and now this movie is available on VHS and DVD. I suggest you get a copy of it and watch it--it's pretty interesting. But the point is, that three agencies of the US Government lied about the existence of this movie and the "Hemp for Victory" program to the American public for decades. The existence of this program is not taught in schools, and the importance of Hemp as the most valuable, strategic, and environmentally responsible agricultural product in the history of the United States has been summarily deleted from our educational system. If THAT is not immoral, then I don't know what is...

Hemp is NOT illegal because anyone ever determined it to be medically dangerous. It is not illegal because any credible studies ever showed that it's use causes any more crime than any other intoxicant like Alcohol or Nicotine. It is NOT illegal because it causes any sort of health problems. Hemp was made illegal because DuPont and Hearst Publishing wanted to kill their only viable competitor in the paper industry, and since the Hemp industry in the USA was one of the biggest agricultural sectors, the only way they could do that was to make it ILLEGAL.

If that's not immoral, then I don't know what is...

Click to expand...

As for the "illegal to grow hemp," and "same same," are you sure?

http://www.industrialhemp.net/

imported post

wrightme wrote:

KBCraig wrote:

wrightme wrote:

Where is any of that "immoral?" You may feel it is not correct, or an outrage, but where is it "immoral?" :?

Click to expand...

Defining "moral" can lead people off into religious grounds, but the most basic universal definition of an "immoral" act is one that harms another who has done you no harm. The only harm done to me when someone abuses an illegal drug, comes from the societal costs created by its illegality, not its use.

Many, myself included, also consider it immoral to violate a solemn oath. For instance, an oath to the Constitution, like that sworn by all public officials. Every politician who passes a law that has no Constitutional basis, every judge who upholds it, every executive or police officer who enforces it, all violate that oath.

From top to bottom, the drug war can only be described as immoral.

Click to expand...

1) No harm to person comes from the law. Harm comes to the person from those who choose to break that law. You are shooting at the hostage instead of at the perp.

Click to expand...

Oh, you started that so well, then went terribly wrong.

"No harm to person comes from the law"; true enough, laws are words on papers. The harm comes from those who enforce the law. Sometimes harm comes from fear of punishment (cancer patients more afraid of jail than of the horrible side effects of cancer treatment).

Write all the words on paper that you wish, but when you put a gun to my head and throw me in a cage because I don't know or care what you wrote, then you and your words are immoral.

2) Where is it stated that all laws must have a Constitutional basis?

Click to expand...

In the Constitution itself, which declares the specific powers of the federal government, and reserves all other rights and authorities to the several states, or to the People.

3) False. Only "true" when you twist "immoral" into "no Constitutional basis" through your mental gymnastic thought experiment.

Click to expand...

These are not gymnastics, these are simple steps: 1. Does the Constitution authorize the government to regulate drugs? 2. No. 3. Those laws are then unconstitutional.

If you don't agree that violating one's solemn oath to uphold the Constitution, but then violating it, is immoral, then my ability to persuade is inadequate to convince you otherwise.

imported post

If you don't see the immorality of making something illegal through lies, racist propaganda, "yellow journalism" and perjurous testimony to Congress, then I don't know what else to say...

If you cant see how it is immoral to replace an eco-friendly plant that produces strong fiber, excellent paper, protein-rich seeds (more protein by weight than soy), and high-quality oil for lubrication and paint manufacture with patented, synthetic, environmentally dangerous, highly toxic petrochemicals that have less strength, less versatility, and are significantly more toxic to produce, use, and dispose of, ALL in the name of profit, then I don't know what to say...

If providing primary-source documentation for the historical significance of Hemp in the USA doesn't prove to you that it's true, then I won't try to further "confuse you with the facts".

As to the illegality of growing hemp, technically it is not "illegal" to grow the "industrial OR the marijuana versions of Cannibis Sativa L. in the USA. You CAN grow either IF you get a special Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) permit.

The Federal Government has NOT issued an "industrial Hemp Cultivation Permit" to a private individual since WWII.

In fact, there are more "medicinal" hemp farms currently being legally grown in the US than "industrial" hemp farms. The FDA has several facilities where they grow "medicinal" hemp (marijuana) so that they can maintain seed stocks for their own research purposes.

However, the DEA still refuses to issue "medicinal" hemp cultivation permits to accredited medical research organizations (universities or pharmaceutical companies), so valid, credible research on the medicinal, health, and psychological effects of "marijuana" are nearly impossible to perform.

The DOD maintains one "industrial" hemp farm, to keep seed stocks up, in case they need to re-establish a civilian hemp cultivation program like they did during WWII.

Industrial hemp is currently being grown in Canada in an experimental program, but the farmers must have licenses and are strictly monitored. Industrial hemp is grown in China, Romania, Hungary, Holland, and much of southeastern Asia on large scale farms.

If you purchases ANY hemp-fiber products in a store in the USA (shirts, pants, bags, rope, twine, sail cloth, canvas, etc) it was probably made in either China, Romania or Holland, because they are the biggest exporters to the US.

I made a set of historically-accurate tent lines for a friend's new pavilion last summer, and they were made from VERY high-quality Dutch hemp rope. It was NOT cheap. But it will last for decades, is naturally resistant to rot, mold, and sun damage, and is nearly twice as strong as any other natural fiber (sisal, Manilla, etc).

So just because you bought some hemp twine here in the US doesn't mean it was MADE here. In fact, if you bought it in WalMart, it is almost a 100% guarantee that it was actually grown, processed, and packaged in China.

How's it feel to be supporting the economy of a nation that murders political dissenters, censors the Internet, forces sterilization upon it's subjects, and produces cheap products for you to buy through the state-sanctioned use of slave labor and child abuse?

But THAT sort of thing probably isn't "immoral" either in your worldview...

I'll buy ANYONE on this forum dinner at the restaurant of their choice if they can produce an example of a single Hemp product that was completely manufactured (from seed to shelf) here in the USA, that was made in the last 50 years, from legally-produced USA-grown hemp, and is NOT a product of or for the Federal Government...

It's OK for the DOD to grow hemp for parachute cord, uniforms, and ship rigging, but it is NOT legal (without a permit, which they don't issue) for civilians to grow their own hemp to put clothes on their backs, food in their mouths, or paint on their homes.

We have 2 legal systems in this country, and you and I are in the half of the system that is NOT weighed to our benefit--ecomonically, environmentally, or ethically...

imported post

Having been a sailor for most of my life, hemp products are good for making things more historical, but not necessarily stronger or longer lasting. It rots faster and isn't nearly as strong as synthetic fibers. They nowmake some new synthetic fibers that LOOK like "old sailing ship rigging" like hemp, but last much longer, resist rotand have more strength.

Interesting historical notes on the history of hemp. I've read some of it before in researching the early American period.

imported post

KBCraig wrote:

wrightme wrote:

KBCraig wrote:

wrightme wrote:

Where is any of that "immoral?" You may feel it is not correct, or an outrage, but where is it "immoral?" :?

Click to expand...

Defining "moral" can lead people off into religious grounds, but the most basic universal definition of an "immoral" act is one that harms another who has done you no harm. The only harm done to me when someone abuses an illegal drug, comes from the societal costs created by its illegality, not its use.

Many, myself included, also consider it immoral to violate a solemn oath. For instance, an oath to the Constitution, like that sworn by all public officials. Every politician who passes a law that has no Constitutional basis, every judge who upholds it, every executive or police officer who enforces it, all violate that oath.

From top to bottom, the drug war can only be described as immoral.

Click to expand...

1) No harm to person comes from the law. Harm comes to the person from those who choose to break that law. You are shooting at the hostage instead of at the perp.

Click to expand...

Oh, you started that so well, then went terribly wrong.

"No harm to person comes from the law"; true enough, laws are words on papers. The harm comes from those who enforce the law. Sometimes harm comes from fear of punishment (cancer patients more afraid of jail than of the horrible side effects of cancer treatment).

Write all the words on paper that you wish, but when you put a gun to my head and throw me in a cage because I don't know or care what you wrote, then you and your words are immoral.

No, you misapprehend my words. Likely on purpose.
The specific law does no harm. Those harmed are the victims of the crime of those who choose to break the law. Others have agreed that the topic person was not justified in his actions to break the law, and his actions cause grave harm to another. The law did not harm the other, anty harmed the other.

2) Where is it stated that all laws must have a Constitutional basis?

Click to expand...

In the Constitution itself, which declares the specific powers of the federal government, and reserves all other rights and authorities to the several states, or to the People.

And there is nothing in this that fails a Constitutional basis.

3) False. Only "true" when you twist "immoral" into "no Constitutional basis" through your mental gymnastic thought experiment.

Click to expand...

These are not gymnastics, these are simple steps: 1. Does the Constitution authorize the government to regulate drugs? 2. No. 3. Those laws are then unconstitutional.

If you don't agree that violating one's solemn oath to uphold the Constitution, but then violating it, is immoral, then my ability to persuade is inadequate to convince you otherwise.

Click to expand...

If that were the case, then we would already be seeing SCOTUS rule such laws unconstitutional.
The law is not immoral.
Your opinion is that it is.

imported post

wrightme wrote:

The specific law does no harm. Those harmed are the victims of the crime of those who choose to break the law. Others have agreed that the topic person was not justified in his actions to break the law, and his actions cause grave harm to another. The law did not harm the other, anty harmed the other.

Click to expand...

Actually, the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 DID harm a LOT of people. With the stoke of a pen, it made tens of thousands of people in the USA criminals--farmers, paper manufacturers, textile mills, cordage manufacturers, paint and lacquer companies, plastics researchers--ALL these people were cultivating, processing, and using hemp in their industrial processes and in their products.

It caused massive unemployment and property loss among small farmers, caused many industries to shift their processes to use highly toxic, dangerous, and expensive petrochemicals, and increased our nation's dependence on foreign oil by several orders of magnitude.

To say that the Marijuana Tax Act caused no harm is like saying that prohibition caused no harm. It's simply naïve, denies history, and turns a blind eye to the historic fact that one of the most prolific agricultural products of our nation was made illegal by the stroke of a pen--a pen which was dipped in lies, perjury, racism, and unchecked corporate greed and monopolies.

If THAT does not make a law immoral, then I don't know what does.

Have you even read any of my posts? Have you even looked at any of the links I've provided?

Or are you so brainwashed by the Nancy Reagan "just say no" propaganda that you are mentally blind to the reality of the horrendous lie that has been perpetrated on the American public?

Hemp is the most important agricultural crop in the history of the USA. It was upon hemp paper that Thomas Paine printed his famous pamphlets. It was on hemp paper that Benjamin Franklin published his newspapers, inflaming the American People to Revolution. It was under hemp sails and riggins that our Navy fought off the English in TWO wars. It was upon hemp paper that our Constitution was printed for distribution to the People once it was ratified. It was under a hempen flag that Francis Scott Key wrote our National Anthem.

It was hempseed oil that lubricated the controls of American fighter planes in WWII. It was hemp lines, uniforms, and lacings that allowed American Airmen and Sailors to beat back the Nazi's and the Japanese in that same war.

It was hemp-derived fuel and hemp-cellulose plastic panels that made Henry Ford's prototype Model T. It was hempen paper that Gold and Silver Certificates (our only REAL paper currency--back when it was actually BACKED by something tangible) were printed.

If robbing this tremendous legacy from the farmers, manufacturers, and consumers of the United States, and erasing this legacy from our history books is NOT immoral, then I don't know what is...


I'm not disputing the fact that "Anty" broke the law. What he did was wrong. (It was also stupid.)

Well, if we want to get REALLY technical about it, he didn't really break the law. Technically, he is guilty of Attempted Tax Evasion, and attempting to not complying with FDA/DEA procedural restrictions. Technically, it is NOT against the law to possess or sell or buy marijuana. It IS, however, illegal to engage in those activities without a DEA permit, and it is ALSO illegal to do without FIRST procuring the proper Federal Marijuana Tax Stamp from the IRS. I doubt that "Anty" did either of those things, so yes, in the end, he will probably be judged as breaking the law.

And shooting someone--even in self defense--when you are engaged in illegal activity, is not protected under the "self defense" statutes, so he broke several laws.

However, since no money or marijuana actually changed hands in the transaction, and since the intent of the "seller" was NOT to sell him weed, but rather to rob and assault him, a competent defense lawyer may be able to get him off. Technically, he is only guilty of ATTEMPTING to procure a controlled substance...

He deserves to have his day in court.

The law is not immoral.
Your opinion is that it is.

Click to expand...

It is not an opinion. It is a fact. The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 is immoral.

It was born from immoral ideas (racism, lies, unchecked greed), has led to immoral acts on the part of our government (imprisoning people for using a plant that has been part of the Human Legacy of agriculture and medicine for MILLIONS of years, destroying an entire industry, contributing to the Great Depression, exposing millions of industrial workers and consumers to toxic, dangerous, life-threatening chemicals which were used in hemp's place, and increasing our dependence on foreign oil), and it has led to our government, museums, and schools establishing a systematic program of historical revisionism, whereby they have erased from our academic history the most significant agricultural industry in the history of our nation, and demonized this plant as some sort of evil weed.

If that is not immoral, then I don't know what is.

Know your history. Don't buy into the lies.

The demonization of Hemp by or government, the petrochemical and pharmaceutical industries, and "crime prevention" groups is perhaps the largest collusion of brainwashing and historical fraud perpetrated upon the American public in the history of our nation.

It rivals the "Brady Campaign" in the depth of it's lies, the nonsensical twisting of statistics and facts, and the insidious brainwashing ans social engineering that is uses.

The "war on drugs", just like "gun control" is NOT about keeping people safe. It is about CONTROL, greed, racism, and keeping the "common man" under the thumb of Corporate Monopolies and self-appointed "elites".

Don't buy the lies. Do the research. Go to the Library of Congress and look it up, while you still can, before they flush this tremendous legacy completely down the "memory hole"...

imported post

Dreamer wrote:

wrightme wrote:

The specific law does no harm. Those harmed are the victims of the crime of those who choose to break the law. Others have agreed that the topic person was not justified in his actions to break the law, and his actions cause grave harm to another. The law did not harm the other, anty harmed the other.

Click to expand...

A

The law is not immoral.
Your opinion is that it is.

Click to expand...

It is not an opinion. It is a fact. The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 is immoral.

...

Click to expand...

No. I will stipulate that motives may have been immoral. But, immoral motives do not automatically equate to immoral law.

Now if the basis was racist, and the law only applied to certain races, THEN I could see a solid claim for "immoral."

imprisoning people for using a plant that has been part of the Human Legacy of agriculture and medicine for MILLIONS of years

Click to expand...

millions? Go ahead, try to make a case for that statement....

imported post

wrightme wrote:

Dreamer wrote:

imprisoning people for using a plant that has been part of the Human Legacy of agriculture and medicine for MILLIONS of years

Click to expand...

millions? Go ahead, try to make a case for that statement....

Click to expand...

OK, you got me on that one...

Hemp has only been cultivated by humans for tens of thousands of years...

Hemp cloth has been found in China by archaeologists that is approximately 10,000 years old. Hemp seeds and fibers from other Chinese archaeological sites (that are not woven into cloth, but are nevertheless Hemp) have been carbon dated to approximately 12,000BCE...

Hemp seeds, fibers, and cloth have been found in English Peat Bog finds from the Bronze Age. They have been found in Dynastic Egyptian finds. One of the first documented examples of a smoking pipe comes from an ancient Egyptian archaeological find that had cannabis residue.

OK, I'll give you the "millions of years" thing. I sort of overstepped it a little.

But I maintain (and am backed up by archaeological evidence) that Hemp was one of the first crops cultivated and domesticated by early man, and it's documented use dates back at least 14,000 years, so it's not much of a stretch to say that it was probably used extensively by hunter/gatherer cultured for thousands of years before domestication.

Hemp seeds have more protein, B-vitamins, and amino acids per weight, than any other plant source. More than Soy, more than peanuts, more than ANY other plant-based protein source. ou can make porridge, bread, and beer from hemp seeds. You can press VERY useful oil from them--it is a fantastic lubricant, an astoundingly versatile cooking oil, and has a variety of health benefits such as being very high in Omega-3 fatty acids.

Hemp cloth is naturally soft, white, and strong. It takes and holds dyes better than any plant-based fiber, and displays these dye colors more vibrantly than any other natural fiber (with the exception of Silk). It is more resistant to rot, abrasion, wear, and shear stress than any other plant-based fiber.

It makes a lot of sense that early man would cultivate Hemp long before other plants--it's a food, a fiber source, and an intoxicant all in one plant. Plus it is VERY easy to grow, is simple to breed selectively (because it is a "sexed" plant" having distinctively seperate male and female plants), and it actually makes the soil MORE fertile when you grow it, by replacing nitrogens, phosphates, and organic matter.

So you caught me on the "millions" part. I guess we'll just have to settle on tens of thousands of years...

Yep, that shoots the whole argument, I guess. You're right. Laws that were based on racism, lies, false journalism, and perjury might not be immoral after all... [/sarcasm]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

Now if the basis was racist, and the law only applied to certain races, THEN I could see a solid claim for "immoral.

Click to expand...

I'd like to see cites to the law only applying to certain races as well... :?

imported post

I think it's funny that people who claim to be so pro-freedom would go so far as to say the government telling people what they can or can't put into their own bodies does not create a less free society. The left is not right......the right is not right.....there is no left or right.....there is only free or not free. And the government putting people in jail for consuming a naturally growing substance does not make us more free. This is the bottom line on this debate people.....

Maybe drugs are harmful....maybe they aren't. That is irrelevant. The relevant point is that copious amounts of our tax dollars are spent to imprison people who are guilty of nothing more than putting what they want into their own body without asking permission of the almighty state.....and that's the real travesty here.

I sense a real disconnect from many members of this forum on the fact that "the law" does not always equal "the right thing"......sad that so many that would say they fight for rights and freedom would then so willingly hand over their freedom to an overarching state that says they "Know Best" when it comes to the subject of what substances are safe or not.....yes, because the government has such a great track record when it comes to certifying things as being safe or not. And again....the real problem is that if something is not safe, it should still be my right to decide to take said thing anyways. If I die, then it's nobody's fault but my own.

imported post

My neighbor has an annoying habit. I don't like it, and I think he should stop. I can't persuade him to stop, so I'm going to get someone to force him to stop (and if he doesn't, I'll get them to tie him up, take him away, and lock him in a cage).

I don't have enough money to pay for all that, so I'll send you a bill for it. If you refuse to pay, I'll send the same toughs over to take your money at gunpoint. And if you refuse to pay, they'll tie you up, take you away, and lock you in a cage, probably next to my neighbor.

How in the hell is that not immoral?

Before you answer, please assume that the rest of the neighbors and I took a vote. You lost.

imported post

Lets play devils advocate..

I solicit a prostitute, when I get in the room she pulls a gun and demands money... I manage to shoot her and I get away..

I get charged with murder because I was committing a crime?

Just because you're committing a crime does NOT throw self defense out the window.

imported post

Although I doubt that ANY amount of racist quotations from Senators, Congressmen, State representatives, the press, or "scientific experts" will convince you that the origins of the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 were based entirely in anti-Mexican and anti-Black sentiments, I will provide you with a few of the more choice examples I found...

When Montana outlawed marijuana in 1927, the Butte Montana Standard reported a legislator’s comment: “When some beet field peon takes a few traces of this stuff… he thinks he has just been elected president of Mexico, so he starts out to execute all his political enemies.”

In Texas, a senator said on the floor of the Senate: “All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff [marijuana] is what makes them crazy.”

East coast newspapers also joined in the fray, and in 1934 editorialized: “Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men’s shadows and look at a white woman twice.”

Two other fear-tactic rumors started to spread: one, that Mexicans, Blacks and other foreigners were snaring white children with marijuana; and two, the story of the “assassins.” Early stories of Marco Polo had told of “hasheesh-eaters” or hashashin, from which derived the term “assassin.” In the original stories, these professional killers were given large doses of hashish and brought to the ruler’s garden (to give them a glimpse of the paradise that awaited them upon successful completion of their mission). Then, after the effects of the drug disappeared, the assassin would fulfill his ruler’s wishes with cool, calculating loyalty.

By the 1930s, the story had changed. Dr. A. E. Fossier wrote in the 1931 New Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal:
Harry J. Anslinger (the head of the newly-created Bureau of Narcotics) immediately drew upon the themes of racism and violence to draw national attention to the problem he wanted to create. He also promoted and frequently read from “Gore Files” — wild reefer-madness-style exploitation tales of ax murderers on marijuana and sex and… Negroes. Here are some quotes that have been widely attributed to Anslinger and his Gore Files:Anslinger was helped by William Randolph Hearst's newspapers. Some samples from the San Francisco Examiner: And other nationwide columns…from the Washington Times: If you want to read the entire transcripts of the Congressional hearings which led up to the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, and attempt to follow the lies, convoluted logic, blatant racism, and outright scientific fraud which they actually had teh audacity to submit into the Congressional Record, please see this link:I know you probably won't be swayed by silly little things like the documented historical record, quotes from the archives of newspapers, and the sworn (but perjurous) testimony of scientists and sworn elected officials, but I just thought I'd give you a few examples of the process that led up to this law being passed.
Deny it if you will.

But if you do deny that the law initiating the prohibition of marijuana (hemp) was based on anything other than racism, corporate greed, and outright lies, even AFTER you've had pages of historical, documented information supporting this truth put before you, then you are, simply put, in denial...

Please don't buy the lies your government and the media have been feeding you for 70 years.

Do the research. Look into the history. Until you can back up anything you say with a single fact (which you have NOT, and I HAVE, to the tune of about 3 pages of text on this thread) then I will continue to dismiss your opinion as to the immorallity of this particular law as ill-informed, brainwashed, zombie-talk.
Anyone who thinks that hemp is illegal for any other reasons than racism, corporate greed, and tyrannical control of the People is no better than a Bradyite, because their logic is EXACTLY the same--based in denial, falsehoods, and delusion...

The gradual chipping away of your freedoms is NOT a new phenomenon.

This has been going on for a LONG time.

Wake up, people...