WI:Marijuana never got prohibited?

[marl_d]

Do other places have their own reasons for keeping it illegal besides U.S. pressure?

The thread also seems to be focused on smoking, if it's always been legal how popular will eating it be? And what impact could that have?

You can currently get it as a food, though there are only a few (like 3-4) strains that are low/free of THC that can be used. I've had Hemp milk and think it tastes like dirt quite honestly, throw in some vanilla or chocolate or carob it probably wouldn't be as bad. The other benefit is that it's one of the best sources for the lipids that are essential for the body, particularly Omega fatty acids and you can eat as much as you need without worrying about build up of other stuff that isn't good for you like in Flaxseed.

I think to really get hemp popular as a food source you need a earlier health food kick and development of more plant-based meat substitutes

 

[Rex Mundi]

No, hippies did a lot of stuff just to piss off authority.

Never said "lot of stuff"; we're discussing pot.

 

[The Uchronian]

Your dead bang right, & that's why it's never happening: too many drug warriors would be out of work. Worse still, there's too damn much money going into police departments from seizures. Not to mention it's way too easy to get promotions from racking up brain dead easy drug arrests.

I'll wager it ends up more than that. Plus all the street crime associated with the artificially-inflated prices & the need to steal to support a habit. Plus a drastic reduction in violence. (Cigarette smugglers generally don't get in gunfights. Neither do convenience store owners get in turf wars.)

Plus, the taxes it could rake in is pretty hefty (judging by cigarettes).

And that's part of the problem, too.

From what I've seen of U.S. behavior, I'd say just the opposite. With the amount of U.S. economic clout (never mind political), she can more/less get her own way on it. Plus, it's been the U.S. putting the screws to countries to get cocaine & MJ made illegal to begin with, going back decades.

Very true, though the U.S. wasn't the only party, either.

You can currently get it as a food, though there are only a few (like 3-4) strains that are low/free of THC that can be used. I've had Hemp milk and think it tastes like dirt quite honestly, throw in some vanilla or chocolate or carob it probably wouldn't be as bad. The other benefit is that it's one of the best sources for the lipids that are essential for the body, particularly Omega fatty acids and you can eat as much as you need without worrying about build up of other stuff that isn't good for you like in Flaxseed.

I think to really get hemp popular as a food source you need a earlier health food kick and development of more plant-based meat substitutes

And it certainly could be done.

 

[phx1138]

I've had Hemp milk

Treat it like soy milk, for the lactose-intolerant.

to really get hemp popular as a food source you need a earlier health food kick and development of more plant-based meat substitutes

Agreed.

Besides, the industrial uses are easier to sell & arguably more profitable.

 

[marl_d]

Treat it like soy milk, for the lactose-intolerant.

Agreed.

Besides, the industrial uses are easier to sell & arguably more profitable.

For sure, like I said earlier it was thought to be the first $1 Billion Ag crop. Ford did build a car that was completely made out of hemp as well (also ran on ethanol made from hemp) so the indsturial applications for Hemp are there...


few things that could help keep hemp from becoming criminalized, The AMA finds out that marijuana is cannabis far earlier and leads the charge against the criminalization efforts. Either Anslinger or William Randolph Hearst die before criminalization efforts get into full swing. Hemp paper, oil, cloth usages become more prevalent and thus keeps Dupont from pushing the issue.

 

[Pesterfield]

only a few (like 3-4) strains that are low/free of THC that can be used.

Actually I meant eating it for the THC, as an alternative to smoking it.

 

[Cyniclone]

maybe something like this would happen:

Can't for the life of me remember where I read this, but apparently the major cigarette manufacturers have significant marketing plans for marijuana products that would roll out the very minute it becomes legal in the U.S.

 

[SactoMan101]

I think even if consuming cannabis didn't become illegal, you still may have a problem that smoking a "joint," because burning cannabis releases a long list of harmful chemicals just like smoking cigarettes--in short, there would be serious restrictions on smoking "joints" just like we we restrictions on smoking cigarettes in public places now.

(In short, in the OTL, once we legalize the recreational use of cannabis, expect a huge boost in vaporizer sales.)

 

[Marc Pasquin]

Can't for the life of me remember where I read this, but apparently the major cigarette manufacturers have significant marketing plans for marijuana products that would roll out the very minute it becomes legal in the U.S.

The image was mostly meant as a joke but it does beg the quesiton as to whether you would actually get both products released by the same company.

Though they would use similar production chains, you couldn't really use the same equipment to avoid contamination so either companies would have dedicated factories to each production (meaning much larger expenses) or else different companies would handle each.

 

[Cyniclone]

The image was mostly meant as a joke but it does beg the quesiton as to whether you would actually get both products released by the same company.

Though they would use similar production chains, you couldn't really use the same equipment to avoid contamination so either companies would have dedicated factories to each production (meaning much larger expenses) or else different companies would handle each.

I think you'll see most of the cigarette makers take a swing at it -- RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris or Altria or whatever it's called would definitely go in. They'd have a huge advantage over the rest of the pack on distribution infrastructure -- they have working relationships with everyone from WalMart to Ma's Rural Crossroads General Store.

They probably can't switch a production line from tobacco to marijuana immediately, but I suspect they'd have a read on the situation enough that they'll have a good bit of head time before they have to go online, enough that they should be ready to roll once it goes legal.

I'm guessing RJR and PM have contingency plans to close and retool a few of their factory lines to produce marijuana products. Even though it'll be legal, a lot of potential customers will probably be pretty wary about actually toking, so after the initial rush of customers, the demand may not be so high that their current production lines wouldn't be able to handle it. Worse comes to worse, they punt a couple of their low-performing cig brands.

 

[The Uchronian]

For sure, like I said earlier it was thought to be the first $1 Billion Ag crop. Ford did build a car that was completely made out of hemp as well (also ran on ethanol made from hemp) so the indsturial applications for Hemp are there...


few things that could help keep hemp from becoming criminalized, The AMA finds out that marijuana is cannabis far earlier and leads the charge against the criminalization efforts. Either Anslinger or William Randolph Hearst die before criminalization efforts get into full swing. Hemp paper, oil, cloth usages become more prevalent and thus keeps Dupont from pushing the issue.

All of these would work, I think.

Can't for the life of me remember where I read this, but apparently the major cigarette manufacturers have significant marketing plans for marijuana products that would roll out the very minute it becomes legal in the U.S.

Some of them actually did commission research for just that in the 1970s but it doesn't appear to have been anything to be considered seriously back in those days, at least.

I think even if consuming cannabis didn't become illegal, you still may have a problem that smoking a "joint," because burning cannabis releases a long list of harmful chemicals just like smoking cigarettes--in short, there would be serious restrictions on smoking "joints" just like we we restrictions on smoking cigarettes in public places now.

(In short, in the OTL, once we legalize the recreational use of cannabis, expect a huge boost in vaporizer sales.)

Erm....only if marijuana cigs were to be packaged as tobacco is today. Otherwise, not even close, especially if kept as pure as possible.

I think you'll see most of the cigarette makers take a swing at it -- RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris or Altria or whatever it's called would definitely go in. They'd have a huge advantage over the rest of the pack on distribution infrastructure -- they have working relationships with everyone from WalMart to Ma's Rural Crossroads General Store.

They probably can't switch a production line from tobacco to marijuana immediately, but I suspect they'd have a read on the situation enough that they'll have a good bit of head time before they have to go online, enough that they should be ready to roll once it goes legal.

I'm guessing RJR and PM have contingency plans to close and retool a few of their factory lines to produce marijuana products. Even though it'll be legal, a lot of potential customers will probably be pretty wary about actually toking, so after the initial rush of customers, the demand may not be so high that their current production lines wouldn't be able to handle it. Worse comes to worse, they punt a couple of their low-performing cig brands.

That might be doable in today's climate, with the right moves taken. But there is yet another problem: what if they adulterate the product so much that people who smoked "pure" weed won't even touch the stuff? That presents a huge problem, especially with OTL's cannabis culture.

 

[Cyniclone]

All of these would work, I think.



Some of them actually did commission research for just that in the 1970s but it doesn't appear to have been anything to be considered seriously back in those days, at least.



Erm....only if marijuana cigs were to be packaged as tobacco is today. Otherwise, not even close, especially if kept as pure as possible.

I think you'll see most of the cigarette makers take a swing at it -- RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris or Altria or whatever it's called would definitely go in. They'd have a huge advantage over the rest of the pack on distribution infrastructure -- they have working relationships with everyone from WalMart to Ma's Rural Crossroads General Store.

They probably can't switch a production line from tobacco to marijuana immediately, but I suspect they'd have a read on the situation enough that they'll have a good bit of head time before they have to go online, enough that they should be ready to roll once it goes legal.



That might be doable in today's climate, with the right moves taken. But there is yet another problem: what if they adulterate the product so much that people who smoked "pure" weed won't even touch the stuff? That presents a huge problem, especially with OTL's cannabis culture.

That was something I thought of, but more from the perception perspective. The cigarette manufacturers have massive PR headaches for obvious reasons, and that's going to make them an exceptionally hard sell to current users -- many of whom I'm willing to wager veer to the left and are not huge fans of their tactics. Most current users would probably stay with what they know, either growing it themselves or getting it from their go-to dealer.

RJR and PM would have to cultivate new users -- people who might be willing to try it but don't want to break the law, or don't trust the product as it's peddled now, or who are just flat curious. They'll have to market and market hard, but that's never been their problem.

The only way they can get a share of the current users is if they can get the price down to the point where users are willing to sacrifice purity/morality issues for a cheaper high.

 

[Marc Pasquin]

They'll have to market and market hard, but that's never been their problem.

Just make it appear that the product from smaller operators are somehow dangerous, but not their's:

"With British American Brand cannabis, you'll fly high but not off a balcony".

I actualy think in any case that if pot never got prohibited, supply would be no different then alcohol or tobacco. Technicaly, anyone could make is own for his personal consumption but apart from the odd hobbyist, who do you know that do it ? People are lazy by nature and would rather fork out a few bucks to get a pack right away at the convenience store then do all the work and have to wait for the final result.

 

[marl_d]

Actually I meant eating it for the THC, as an alternative to smoking it.

gotcha, well seeing as it takes some work to get it out (from what friends that do it tell me it's a huge pain in the ass and stinky/sticky) On a large scale...I can see it to some extent, oils, butters but for the average person....don't see it any different than current levels.

On top of that, idk if we'd see the high levels of THC that we currently have in same hybrids because the demand probably wont be there...though I could be wrong.

 

[Pesterfield]

Some of them actually did commission research for just that in the 1970s but it doesn't appear to have been anything to be considered seriously back in those days, at least.

If they were planning for it why didn't they throw their lobbying power behind legalization? Still thought of it as competition?

With all the stuff about tobacco that'd come out it would have been logical to consider diversifying.

 

[marl_d]

If they were planning for it why didn't they throw their lobbying power behind legalization? Still thought of it as competition?

With all the stuff about tobacco that'd come out it would have been logical to consider diversifying.

probably because there wasn't the political support for it at the time, it wasn't till the last 20 years that it's started to shift to the point it's 51% in support of.

 

[The Uchronian]

Just make it appear that the product from smaller operators are somehow dangerous, but not their's:

"With British American Brand cannabis, you'll fly high but not off a balcony".

I actualy think in any case that if pot never got prohibited, supply would be no different then alcohol or tobacco. Technicaly, anyone could make is own for his personal consumption but apart from the odd hobbyist, who do you know that do it ? People are lazy by nature and would rather fork out a few bucks to get a pack right away at the convenience store then do all the work and have to wait for the final result.

I'm not so sure about that, TBH; in fact, I'd suspect that it'd be the other way around(at least in the Americas, anyway); you could get the cheap-ass mass produced store bought stuff(that's probably full of chemicals and had all the good stuff taken out of it!), but unless you're on a real tight budget, why bother with that crap when you could get a better organic product, or even grow and roll the stuff yourself for just a little bit more, and without any real risk of lung cancer down the line(while enjoying an actual high, too)?

If they were planning for it why didn't they throw their lobbying power behind legalization? Still thought of it as competition?

With all the stuff about tobacco that'd come out it would have been logical to consider diversifying.

Very true, though cannabis certainly would have been seen as major competition; though, whether or not a company diversifies is really gonna be a matter of who runs it: don't expect a hardcore traditionalist reactionary to be too happy about people getting high on a drug that used to be largely only smoked by hippies and Latinos(and a few Blacks, too); but OTOH, a liberal or even a moderate, especially with any good business sense, likely wouldn't have too many issues(especially if they're a civil libertarian. ).

 

[katchen]

Amazing. It seems like most or all of our drug prohibition ideas came from overseas. Marijuana prohibition, because the PrI government wanted it banned in Mexico and remonstrrated with the Roosevelt Administration (which may have had as much to do with banning it as Du Pont's protection of Nylon--Roosevelt saw eye to eye with the PRI on a lot of issues).
Similarly and earlier, the Taft Administration first banned opiates because the Chi'ing Government asked it to in 1907, according to Musto in "An American Disease". The US Government's fallback position on drug prohibition always seems to be " we have to do it because we are bound to by international treaty. And indeed there are nations far more committed to continued prohibition than the United States. Such as China.

 

[The Uchronian]

Amazing. It seems like most or all of our drug prohibition ideas came from overseas. Marijuana prohibition, because the PrI government wanted it banned in Mexico and remonstrrated with the Roosevelt Administration (which may have had as much to do with banning it as Du Pont's protection of Nylon--Roosevelt saw eye to eye with the PRI on a lot of issues).

While it does seem to be true that Mexico did ban marijuana in 1920, the ultimate origins of American cannabis prohibition, at least in the way of total illegalization, do in fact, from all lay in the West & South, and it mostly sprung the racism against Chicanos and Blacks that motivated many of the first laws(though, as has been acknowledged here, concerns about regulating the drug are considerably older than the demands for outright prohibition, and most of the original cries substitution up North do not appear to have been motivated by bigotry as far as it can be seen, but rather, due to misconceptions that marijuana consumption had similar risks compared to opium.).

Similarly and earlier, the Taft Administration first banned opiates because the Chi'ing Government asked it to in 1907, according to Musto in "An American Disease". The US Government's fallback position on drug prohibition always seems to be " we have to do it because we are bound to by international treaty. And indeed there are nations far more committed to continued prohibition than the United States. Such as China.

Yes, that is true: the Opium Wars did do quite a bit of damage to Chinese society.

 

[DCC]

You could have hemp without marijuana, and vice versa. Cannibis breeds suitable for hemp have high fiber counts and low THC counts; cannibis plants suitable for marijuana have low fiber counts and high THC counts. Hemp and marijuana are the same species--but different cultivars, so not quite the same plants. (Just like cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, kale, and Brussels sprouts, among others, are different cultivars of the same species.)

Legal marijuana would probably have similar restrictions against public smoking as legal tobacco. Marijuana is not the cancer risk that tobacco is--but second-hand marijuana smoke is intoxicating in a way that tobacco is not (ie, contact highs). And a few other reasons--smoke isn't real good for computer servers, burning objects aren't real safe around gas pumps--apply just as much to both. Also, though marijuana doesn't interfere with driving or operating heavy machinery as much as alcohol does, it doesn't help either (while tobacco makes no real difference); so marijuana usage would be restricted under DUI laws, though less strictly than alcohol.