You forgot to add "All Drug Cartels Worldwide".

You've hit the nail on the head. Besides the vested interests listed above, the drug cartels want to keep it illegal because of the high profits. While there are risks involved, as with any business, the fines, incarcerations, and, of course, the confiscating of shipments, the very fact that it's a "tax-free" industry makes it highly profitable.

The legal profession also enjoys the current status, aside from the profit motivations mentioned above. Lawyers used in defending drug traffickers and even end users reap a lot of profit as the courts get jammed with more cases. How many other judges are out there that are all too happy to incarcerate that are getting kick-backs from the privatized prison system? There were two juvenile justice judges in Pennsylvania that were sentenced to (minimum security) federal prisons last year for incarcerating young people to the privatized prisons in that state: many of them first time offenders and/or misdemeanors.

War on drugs funding? That money could go to better use. Currently, where I live in Northern Indiana, there are very few mentions of marijuana arrests, other than simple possession. What the local officers are going after are the meth labs. Do they believe that the meth heads will switch to marijuana if it's legalized?

Since Ronald Reagan declared a "War On Drugs" back in the 80's, both the number of privatized prisons and the number of people incarcerated have grown sky high.

During the 1920's and the 1930's, alcohol was banned, and yet the number of people using it that were incarcerated was minimal. Between the gang wars and the substandard products (such as bathtub gin, moonshine, and anything else that could harm the average citizen) for the safety of our country, Prohibition was repealed. For once, Pat Robinson had the right idea of legalizing it, for taxation purposes, although it would also relieve some of the pressures of overcrowded prisons. More money could be used to determine a more successful for of rehabilitation to current inmates, or the drain on society would be alleviated.

Excuse me, but it was NOT Reagan who declared the War On Drugs. Nixon in 1971 or 1972 was the FIRST to declare the War On Drugs. This War has been going on longer than the war in Afghanistan.

actually,it was DuPont who first spoke with congress about getting marijuana out of the way for him to build his business.

Actually it was me. I did it. Sorry guys, it just supposed be a prank.

Your internet privelages are hereby revoked, now go outside and think about what youve done sir! :D

no more pot for you,
Deadheadjason . You go home, now.
d=^))

bastard I thought you looked shady!

BAD!

William Randolph Hearst also was an influence on getting MJ made illegal.

and so was Harry Anslinger

I've not heard of him. Will have to go do some research. I'm sure many people don't realize that at one time, hemp/marijuana was freely grown by American farmers. The whole argument against hemp/mj by the government is so ridiculous as to be uncredible.

twelve presidents have smoked it.
at least three while in office, and all three noted the rejuvenation they felt from recreational use.
Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Abraham Lincoln.
All three enjoyed smoking marijuana in the White House, and in the gardens around the White House.

They never lived in the White House, but so did Washington, Franklin, and most of the founding continental congress. They kept it as a cash crop, and if you inspect their harvest journals, they seperated out seed that was found to have a more potent "yield." This nation was FOUNDED on pot and pot smokers.

Not to mention we would have never been able to cross the seas without it... Canvas (Huh, sounds so familiar to this other word, Cannabis) was made from hemp at the time, so all of the sails, and all of the ropes were made from hemp. Without hemp, Columbus wouldn't have been sailing.

Twelve? I'm aware of BO, GWB, and BC. Who else have you heard/read about?

George Washington has several pages of hand written instructions on the production of sinsemilla. the only writings attributed to Washington in the Smithsonian . historians say the only known purpose is for smoking LOL

Anslinger was America’s first “drug czar,” a tireless anti-pleasure zealot who, following the repeal of Prohibition in 1933 and with the help of newspaper magnate William Randolph Hurst (who, being heavily invested in timber, fear the rise of hemp as a cheaper alternative) began a smear campaign against cannabis. Propaganda pieces strategically placed blamed cannabis for all sorts of social ills, such as white women consorting with black men, uncontrolled violence and outright insanity, to name a few. Anti-cannibis policy and practices has since become a cottage industry upon which many depend in the US, despite so much evidence to the contrary. Hence, as is too often the case, Americans learned shit from the tragically failed policy of prohibition

Anslinger was paid by Hearst to the the job done in 1937

hearst was the main driving force, he had invested in Kimberly clark to make newsprint from tree pulp. He was buying and protecting his supply line. So what if 20 million peasants are arrested, so what if it costs a trillion dollars, hearst wants more so hearst gets more. He enlisted DuPont. He glorified anslinger. Hearst is THE culprit. Well that and the racist congress thirty years before civil rights. How do you people not know this?

I agree. I thought this was common knowledge in the history of Marijuana prohibition.

It's really because of the blatant racism of the time. It targeted mainly minorities, so most people didn't bat an eye at a HUGE corporation lobbying for something seemingly unrelated to their profit margin.

Oh little did they know. That just shows you that the system is made to 'put one over' on people who don't see the whole picture.

We still don't have laws that prevent corporations from lobbying in the interest of themselves over the general public, do we?

Don't forget Anslinger.....the racist.

Hearst... but DuPont was closely behind.

anslinger

DuPont never testified before Congress about marijuana. The full transcripts of the hearings for the Marihuana Tax Act are online at http://druglibrary.org/scha...
And there isn't any real evidence of a DuPont-Anslinger conspiracy, either. The DuPonts made their money from explosives. Synthetic fibers were just a sideline.

It was Reagan who started, "Just Say No." You are correct about Nixon though. It's funny because I don't think Reagan ever finished the sentence. I think, mostly because his wife Nancy Reagan was addicted to painkillers and needed treatment, that he supported her "Just say No" campaign. I think the sentence was supposed to be "Just say no to thinking" Because anyone who has done drugs knows that no one exaggerates their effect on society more than the government.

Drugs are used for a number of things. We don't need a Nanny State to tell us what to do. If we could grow poppies, cancer patients wouldn't need to buy expensive painkillers. If we could grow marijuana, numerous people could use it medically.

In my opinion, you don't have to have a medical reason to use drugs. You only have to have a want to do them. Anyone considered an adult should be able to make their own decisions about using drugs that provide a pleasant experience.

It was the Reagans, both Nancy and Ronnie who put the War on Drugs on steriods. Of course the Clinton administration did it's part to capitalize, taking the "Just Say No" mantra and turning it into the "Get Tough on Crime" propaganda. From there the Bushs morphed it into an all out attack on our civil liberties. Obama campaigned on restoring Civil Liberties but has done nothing but carry on the Bush legacy.

Reagan intensified the Drug war with lies and brutal prison sentences more than Nixon Imagined. Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" program was responsible for imprisoning one million pot smokers, ruining their lives and the lives of their families.

And a complete failure like everything else our government gets involved with

True True. Regean did make it a key issue and hammered on it most of his presidency tho, its important to note that. The initial platform WAS initiated by Old Tricky Dick (big surprise huh) and thats VERY important, like you said to identify the length of this failed policy, but if for nothing else but to keep the facts straight also. Good call

Reagan bought a major part of his own demise with his sheer stubbornness to keep the monopoly of steel, petroleum, and lumber free of competition. You see, when the processed marijuana is joined with smoking small amounts, it actually improves memory in Alzheimer patients.

Nixon, Reagan... same thing...

Actually Reagan's take on the War on Drugs look made Nixon look like a hippy burnout. Nixon actually had plans laid out to give addicts treatment and care. Reagan is the one who militarized it.

The Marijuana Stamp Act passed in 1937. The first entity to declare war on new world reactive plants was the Catholic Church sometime around 1590.

when they figured out it stimulates the frontal lobe LOL
and there was no way they could control it ..

They have a lobby group?

yea there called senators

*they're

I agree with you, but you'd make us [pot legalization advocates] all look like less of a moronic group if you'd use proper grammar. =D

you got the meaning, no need for judgement

I think you missed Grammarnazi's point.

Regardless of whether any of these things are words or not, the fact remains that a bunch of stoners that don't even know how to use proper grammar when making arguments supporting the cause makes us all be cast as uneducated pot heads that can be cast aside without decent consideration. I echo exactly what Grammar said: If you used proper grammar you would make all of us look less moronic.
We're going up against Ivy League educated politicians. They spot that error just like I do and it makes me look down on you regardless of how intelligent your message may be. If you cannot spell, you cannot possibly have enough sense to be educated and have a valid argument. That judgement automatically gets cast upon the entire movement due to the highly stereotypical society. Nothing personal, just understand the point.

I am an English major and I smoke weed.

I am a weed major and I speak English.

I believe matthew but you're a liar, every "weed major" speaks fluent Spanish but very little English. :^D

All the research shows that proportionally the majority of drug users in the US are White.

What research? Reveal your sources.

Here's is but one study commissioned by the NIH. If you take the time to actually read about the issue you'll find that numerous studies over decades indicate that while, proportionally, the majority of drug abusers are White (especially with cocaine, marijuana and meth) but that non-Whites are way over represented in drug convictions proportionally.

"According to the 2003 NSDUH, 38.2% of White young adults 18 to 25 years of age in the U.S. reported any illicit drug use in the past year, followed by African-American (30.6%) and Hispanic (27.5%) young adults (SAMHSA, 2004a). The same race/ethnicity patterns were observed for the past-year prevalence of marijuana use and marijuana use disorders among individuals 18 to 29 years of age according to data from the 2001–2002 National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC; Compton et al., 2004). Further, the past-year prevalence of DSM-IV marijuana use disorders increased significantly between 1991–1992 and 2001–2002, with the greatest increases observed among Hispanic and African-American young adults. In contrast, the prevalence of DSM-IV marijuana use disorders for White young adults did not change significantly over this same time period (Compton et al., 2004)." Race/Ethnicity and Gender Differences in Drug Use and Abuse Among College Students

I've noticed that you believe that things are true simply because you open that hole in that thing you call a face and sounds come out, while everyone else is "required to cite their sources." learn to google it for yourselfyoustupidracistfuckandgetoveryourself

If you're challenging my statement, just show some credible evidence that refutes it. This 'credibility" thing works both ways.

Yes but there are more white people in America than blacks and hispanics. So proportionally speaking, a larger portion of the black and hispanic populations use drugs compared to the number of drug users that are in the white populations. JUS SAYIN. And you assuming the other user was racist is just stupid. Worry about the problems in the black community (income, crime, gangs), before tackling racism

Whatamaroon, as bugs would say.

Rates of drug use are roughly comparable across race lines, with cocaine use actually higher among Whites, but incarceration for drug use much higher among Blacks and Hispanics, there's no reason to be concerned that systemic racism is at work here or that anyone who pretends that racism isn't involved is a racist prick. Jus Sayin

I just want to see how skinny we can make this comment thread.