Check out my stubborn Steuben memories!

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2004/07/stubborn_memori.html

I'm with you, man. But no one else understands.

I don't really care much about the marijuana issue, but I do have to disagree with this posting. Equating the use of hemp for sails, paper, and other such items is not really the same as using it as a drug. Hemp is a remarkably useful material, especially during the time before the introduction of modern materials and fabrication techniques. Equating the use of hemp for manufacturing with it's use as a drug makes little sense.

Having said that, the conservative party is quite large enough to house all sorts of different beliefs. It's a big tent... and frankly, I don't care if it's made of canvas or hemp.

Mike,

You are aware that the word canvas is a derivative of cannabis?

You are also aware that the prohibition on cannabis prevents the production of hemp goods in the USA?

You are also aware that cannabis was often prescribed to wean people off morphine and alcohol as a safer more benign alternative?

You are aware that cannabis extract was in the pharmacopoeia until 1937?

You are aware that the psychoactive properties of cannabis were known for at least 2,500 years? Longer if you count written references.

You are aware that the demonizing of the weed is a rather recent invention designed to be used to harass Mexicans during the Great Depression?

Well maybe you are not aware.

M. Simon
In order:

Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Qualified Yes (I knew that the demonization was recent, but not the specifics.)

And now I will reiterate: "I don't really care much about the marijuana issue" and "It's a big tent... and frankly, I don't care". I was taking issue with the way the argument was phrased, not with the message that it's foolish and short-sighted to argue about "true conservatism" especially now when it is vital to put aside such petty squabbling and focus on the bigger issue... regaining control of the government.

I wonder if the complainer also knows that early drafts of the US Constitution were written on hemp paper and the US Frigate The Constitution also known as Old Ironsides had hemp sails. Or that George Washington grew a lot of hemp. In fact George said "Make the most of the hemp seed. Sow it everywhere."

I recall reading a few years ago about some Islamic supremacist figure in Britain who claimed William Shakespeare was actually a closet Muslim. Predictably, no one among Britain's cultural elite ever called him on it, but the Shakespeare-as-Muslim meme never caught on, much less inspired great masses of Britons to convert to Islam as this guy had hoped - his claim just reeked too much of historical revisionism to be believed by the average person.

That's the trouble with this line of argument. Whether or not all those bits about hemp usage during the formative years of our Republic are actually true, the average person, on account of having more important things to do, isn't likely to do much homework to confirm or refute those claims - (s)he's much more likely to simply dismiss them out of hand as so much crazy talk meant to promote an agenda, and move on.

Joshua,

What you are not getting is this: whether the people know about these things or not is currently irrelevant.

About 70% to 80% of the population is unhappy with the criminalization of medical marijuana and something like 50% to 60% is unhappy with putting people in jail for marijuana offenses.

The stalwarts of the criminalization of marijuana are dying out. Unfortunately that albatross is firmly tied around the neck of the Republican Party. Despite the efforts of Lynn Nofziger and Dana Rohrabacher.

Republicans need to decide if they are going to continue down the road of being The Party Of God or if they want to return to their roots of Goldwater/Reagan and be the Leave Us Alone Party.

In the short term (4 to 8 years) I'm not hopeful that "Leave Us Alone" will be the central message. In the long term it is the only way forward.

M. Simon: What you are not getting is this: whether the people know about these things or not is currently irrelevant.

Then why bring up the historical angle at all in your post (and your response to MikeTheLibrarian)? If you're right that most Americans are already fed up with the drug war as it is, then the historical line of argument against the drug war is preaching to the choir. If I'm right that our nation hasn't turned that corner yet, and that historical ignorance hinders us from doing so, then, as I said above, the historical line of argument is counterproductive. In other words, it seems to me to have little if any upside and a ton of downside.

Joshua,

Why did I bring it up? Well because I know it and write what I like. And Mike learned a little bit. Glad to be of service.

Besides it is wise to know how we got here to determine if it was based on some rational calculation or something sinister. Like bigotry.

And the USA has definitely turned the corner. Look at the numbers I have above. And if they don't do the trick the war in Northern Mexico should help. Especially as it crosses the border.

The hemp grown for textiles is pretty lousy smoking--very little THC. Plants grown for pot have been selectively bred.

I'd do marijuana the same as beer--OK to make a little at home for your own use, too much regulation and taxation on commercial production. Seems fair and reasonable. Which is why it will never happen.

I don't think you really get the point I'm trying to make here.

Let's say its during the prohibition. You and I both agree that it was a bad idea from the start. That it was a blatant attempt at social engineering. I go to the middle of town and post a bill criticizing prohibition. I talk about the history of alcohol. That it's been known for millennia, dating back before Ancient Egypt where they mixed dung into their drinks for extra kick. That it has been used for medicinal purposes for almost as long. I mention that during the Revolutionary War it was used to sterilize wounds on the battle fields and that it was the most commonly used pain killer in the West during America's expansion into that territory. I point out that the great Lord Horatio Nelson was shipped home in a cask of brandy to preserve his body for his funeral. I mention that rubbing alcohol is still used as a common disinfectant to this day. I list the manifold uses of alcohol and alcohol-based products in manufacturing both in the past and into the present day.

You post a bill underneath it saying, "Yes, that's all true information, and very interesting, but what has it got to do with repealing the modern prohibition against drinking alcohol?" You point out to me that I'm making a logical fallacy. That listing the use of the stuff in history and that it is still used for manufacturing in no way argues for the legalization of drinking it. And you would be right.

That is all I'm trying to do here. Point out to you that your argument is flawed. Not because I disagree with your conclusion, but because I find your argument specious.

For the record:
I think so-called "soft drugs" like marijuana should be treated like alcohol. Legal, but with restrictions. It should not be sold to minors and there should be punishments for certain aspects of its abuse. As with driving while drunk, driving while stoned should be illegal, but getting drunk or high in the privacy of your own home, at a private party, or a bar should be perfectly legal. If an employee of mine shows up to work stoned, I will fire them. Not because of the demon weed, but because they are stoned. I would do the same if they showed up to work drunk. I personally rarely drink and have never gotten drunk or high. It is personal preference. What others do to themselves is their own look-out.

The "war on drugs" was an ill-conceived, badly carried-out mistake. In it's attempts at reducing drug usage and the power of the drug cartels it failed miserably. But that's ok, since that was never really the idea. As a grab for power and a sop to the "morally constipated", as Ben Franklin called them, however, it was a tremendous success.

You are also aware that cannabis was often prescribed to wean people off morphine and alcohol as a safer more benign alternative?

So was cocaine. Though that didn't work out so well...

You are aware that cannabis extract was in the pharmacopoeia until 1937?

The USP is issued every 6 years, the last one to include cannabis was actually dated 1936. Cannabis was dropped in the 1942 revision.

Calomel (mercury salts) was (along with many other things long since removed) also included in the USP at one time.

Thomas,

But at this time marijuana is still medicine and mercury salts are not. You might want to look at some of the abstracts collected here:

http://www.pacifier.com/~alive/index_se_cmu.htm