RE: Legal Pot or Jim Crow
December 3, 2013 at 6:10 pm
(This post was last modified: December 3, 2013 at 6:13 pm by Rev. Rye.)
(December 2, 2013 at 5:56 pm)Drich Wrote: If you truly think that whites needed the law behind them to harass Blacks or mexicans in 1937, your... at best an idealist. Fore you see they had this little thing called the KKK back then, and from what i have come to understand it was quite popular, and what's more this 'social club' operated apart from the law. Meaning it did not matter what the law said, they did what they thought to be 'moral.'
So, basically, the fact that the Klan existed outside of the government means that there were no legal means for the government to harrass minorities? Do I really have to explain what's wrong with this picture?
Quote:In truth the country was undergoing a purity reform this was not limited to just pot, the temperance movement was big in the fist 1/3 of the 20th century. Pot was orginally made illegal as earily as 1917 in some states as well as alcohol.I notice one little thing you neglected to mention about prohibition, namely that the consequences of making it illegal were actually worse than letting it around unchecked.
Quote:Alcohol was bann in '27 nation wide,1920. Get it right.
Quote:and pot wasn't acutally bann in 1937. It was made subject to a goverment tax/stamp like cigeretts. It's just the Goverment would not issue those stamps/tax certificates, which subsequently made possession and distrubution of pot illegal.Yeah, that's basically what the Anslinger act was. Just how that conflicts with my statement that marijuana was banned in 1937, I don't know. I guess that, in theory, it was legal, except for the stamps that the government wasn't allowed to make. But, in practice, it was made illegal.
Comparing the Universal Oneness of All Life to Yo Mama since 2010.
I was born with the gift of laughter and a sense the world is mad.
I was born with the gift of laughter and a sense the world is mad.