• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Will we ever accept weed as a social norm?

I said I was done, but I couldn't help myself.

Was prohibition of Alcohol racist too?

I don't think so.

Regarding Majijuana and Racism: WHY IS MARIJUANA ILLEGAL?

There is a very real social stigma built around weed, and it can sometimes be hard to separate the myth of marijuana from the reality.

There are decades upon decades of economic, political, medical, and even racial views of this drug that need to be peeled away to uncover the truth.

Marijuana, besides being one of the most common drugs, is also one of the oldest. Everyone from practicing Hindus to the Assyrians routinely used cannabis as both a medical treatment and a religious ritual.

Marijuana was even sold openly at medical markets in the U.S. from the 1700s through the late 1800s.

However, the legality of marijuana was heavily influenced by racism and xenophobia in the early 20th century. In 1910, large numbers of immigrants came into the U.S. to flee the Mexican Revolution and brought with them the concept of smoking hash recreationally.

Many Americans, especially the multitude of unemployed at the time, feared and resented the immigrants. By 1931, 29 states had passed anti-cannabis legislation.

The federal government's attitude towards marijuana was also one of racism and suspicion.

Take Harry J. Anslinger, the first director of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, who, in 1937, said, "There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers," he said. "Their satanic music, jazz and swing result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others."

Clearly, a vicious social stigma was being built around marijuana, and it would prove to be long lasting.

This perspective was widely disseminated in the 30s. The Marijuana Act was in 1937.
 
The very nature of partaking in something that is criminal to grow, criminal to buy, criminal to use, is degenerate in nature.
I don't think that's necessarily true. Just because something is illegal does not automatically mean it's degenerate. You give the lawmakers too much credit. If Congress passed a law that bans selling cars on Sunday, then selling cars on Sunday would be criminal, but it would not degenerate because the simple act of selling cars on Sunday (much like adults using marijuana in the privacy of their own home) is inherently innocent, regardless of any law that attempts to define it otherwise.

You can justify it by civil disobediance but that doesn't magically change what it is. People can justify murdering someone too, doesn't mean its any less illegal. People can justify why it was okay to drink and drive, doesn't make it any less illegal or degenerate.
And people can point to our ridiculous marijuana laws as a reason why marijuana use is somehow "degenerate" but that doesn't magically make it so either.
 
I think in another 10 or 20 years yes. I disagree with thos saying "it is". Its NOT as socially accepted in our society like alcohol is, its simply not. You say 1 in 4 adults have tried weed? How many do it on a regular basis? And how do those numbers compare to Alcohol with the same question? I'm going to guess they're not that close. The general view in regards to those that smoke and drink also from all I've ever seen are not equally viewed as acceptable by an equal amount of the population.

No, its NOT as socially acceptable as alcohol right now...though I think it will be in time.

I would say that "socially acceptable" is more than just how many people have tried something or do it on a regular basis. I would say more to the line it's more do people think it's bad, or maybe better is it ok that someone does X. In that line, I think we'd fine that marijuana is more socially acceptable beyond the number of people who partake. I certainly know many people who've done drugs and many who've not. And the vast majority of those people don't have ill feelings towards people that smoke weed. Now that's not absolute proof and doesn't speak to the aggregated statistics. It may very well be that there is still an overall very negative attitude towards weed and its consumption. But maybe not so much as one may think off hand.
 
It was the lumber industry that lobbied to have marijuana criminalized.

I think experimenting with it is a social norm. Our last three Presidents have done drugs in their youth. Michael Phelps did it. Regular use isn't a social norm. If it weren't for the propaganda against it, it would be as acceptable as alcohol.
 
And Dupont as well. There were many players. To build broad support in the population they used a racist argument.

I don't think it was so much that. Black folks were such a minority that their displeasure at the criminalization of their drug of choice was hardly heard. It didn't affect white people so they didn't care. I don't think it was about keeping the black folks down.
 
I don't think it was so much that. Black folks were such a minority that their displeasure at the criminalization of their drug of choice was hardly heard. It didn't affect white people so they didn't care. I don't think it was about keeping the black folks down.

I didn't say it was to keep the black folks down. I am saying that the accusations that involved the blacks as a reason to make it illegal were racist. The attribution of the black users of marijuana was primarily used on the east coast. Southwest had Mexicans, New England had a replacement for Prohibition.

Harry J. Anslinger, head of the Bureau of Narcotics starting in 1930, who testified before Congress for the Marijuana Act of 1937 - one of 3 people to do so, that's it:
“There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.”

“…the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races.”

“Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death.”

Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.”

“Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing”

“You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill your brother.”

“Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.”

Complete bull****. Between the Lumber industry and William Randolf Hearst ownership interests there, in order to publish his newspapers against marijuana and Dupont wanting nylon and Harry J. Anslinger and anti-Mexican and anti-black movements, we now have marijuana as an illegal substance.
 
Shouldnt that read "ever accept weed AGAIN (like we used to)..."

I think we should. lets face the facts...it REALLY isnt any more harmful than smoking cigarretes healthwise and thats not going to be banned. As an intoxicant it is probably better for us than alcohol and that ban didnt go over so good. People that want it WILL continue to get it and that just creates a black market drug enterprise and jails full of petty criminals. And if it DOES ever happen Im buying stock in doritos!
 
Getting stoned, regardless of the drug, should never be acceptable.

There is a difference between saying something is acceptable and something is a good thing. Drinking isnt my thing (anymore) but as long as people do it responsibly...really...WTF do I care? Same goes with smoking a joint.
 
In public and at work yes but in someone's own private home who cares.

I don't care; just don't call it normal when it ain't. I get stoned (booze) occasionally and If I did it too often I don't expect anyone to tell me that my behavior is normal or socially acceptable.

The problem with weed is that when you smoke you do so to get stoned. That's not the same as booze which simply relaxes you in moderation and only gets you stoned if you drink to excess.
 
Stoned where you aren't able to function definitely isn't pretty, but how 'bout a little buzz?

I enjoy getting a buzz as much as the next person. However last time I got one from pot was two hits off a joint from a $5 bag that I bought from a vendor in Ocho Rois, Jamaica. It got my heart racing so fat I thought I was going to stroke out. :3oops:
 
I enjoy getting a buzz as much as the next person. However last time I got one from pot was two hits off a joint from a $5 bag that I bought from a vendor in Ocho Rois, Jamaica. It got my heart racing so fat I thought I was going to stroke out. :3oops:

Well see...with legalized pot and quality control you get sweet mellow bud, not wicked harsh weed...win win...
 
It wasn't harsh, just natural Jamaican.

I grew up on Jamaican Red and Columbian Gold...it was always pretty efficient smoke but I cant recall ever a time when i felt like I was going to stroke out...
 
I grew up on Jamaican Red and Columbian Gold...it was always pretty efficient smoke but I cant recall ever a time when i felt like I was going to stroke out...

That's nice, but we're getting off point, which is that pot is used to get high, unlike booze that is beneficial in moderation.
 
I hope not as someone who has smoked weed and whose friends do I can say if this is or becomes a social norm then our country is screwed. Though I will invest in what ever company makes cheese puffs and make some nice cash.

Quite frankly for those who still smoke weed grow up your not 15 anymore, drink like a real man or women. :)
 
That's nice, but we're getting off point, which is that pot is used to get high, unlike booze that is beneficial in moderation.

What's the difference? You're just using something else to make you act like a jackass.
 
That's nice, but we're getting off point, which is that pot is used to get high, unlike booze that is beneficial in moderation.
Terms like "beneficial" are entirely relative. I find smoking weed beneficial at mitigating my back and joint pain. So which one of us is right?
 
That's nice, but we're getting off point, which is that pot is used to get high, unlike booze that is beneficial in moderation.

Thats just plain ol silly and you know it...
 
Terms like "beneficial" are entirely relative. I find smoking weed beneficial at mitigating my back and joint pain. So which one of us is right?

That has nothing to do with "social".
 
Back
Top Bottom