DBWI: Cannabis became legal again 60 years ago today.

Well, folks, it's been 60 years since the end of the Federal Cannabis ban, and
many Hemp Day celebrations are under way all across the country....and
personally, I myself have been stoned all day and enjoying it, too.

One thing got me thinking, though. As some of us may already know, the
regulation, and even restriction, of drug consumption, wasn't exactly a new
thing in the 20th Century. (Indeed, some concerns go back to the mid-19th;
in fact, the first known law regarding drug consumption was signed in Calif.
in 1875, to stop the proliferation of opium dens in San Francisco.)

However, though, it wasn't until the turn of the century that some real
discussion began of actually outright banning some drugs.....and cannabis,
perhaps the most benign of all the plant drugs, was to become a primary target.

Just after WWI, a huge fearmongering campaign had begun to surface, from the
dark recesses of the twisted minds of men like W.R. Hearst, and certain others;
They told tales of "Reefer Madness", where teenagers engaged in wild partying,
or Mexican farm workers butchered their fellows over trivial incidents, or even,
*gasp*, black men having intercourse with white women!

They also warned of
"corruption of the youth", and "chaos in the streets", unless the "menace" of
marijuana was brought under control, and even went as far as to condemn those
who disagreed with them as "traitors to society", and "Agents of Perdition".

And this was all supported, and even encouraged, by some of the more crooked
individuals in the chemical, pharmaceutical, and timber industries, as well
as several wealthy tobacco barons, most of whom claimed that cannabis was making
serious cuts into their profits(which actually was true
to a degree, TBH), and was endangering their business. (One notable exception,
however, was Philip Morris, whose company actually sold cannabis cigarettes
alongside tobacco for a little while; surprisingly, they actually made a small
profit off of these, particularly selling to customers in New England and out
West.).

It's interesting to note that before 1914, no state had actually banned
cannabis entirely; Georgia and Texas were the first to do so, in that very year
(Mass. had passed a regulatory law in 1911 but it offered no criminal penalties
and was repealed in 1915. Calif. almost passed a law in 1913, but it was tabled at the last minute.). But unfortunately, the tipping point had passed;
Ohio followed in 1915, then Miss. and Alabama in 1916,
Virginia in 1917, S. Carolina in 1919, N. Carolina in 1920, Indiana in 1921,
Nebraska, Wyoming, and Wisconsin in 1922, Kentucky in 1924, Maryland, Pa.,
Idaho, Mo., Ill., and Oklahoma in 1926, Kansas and Colorado in 1928, and
Mass., N.H. and Conn. in 1929.

And then in September, the Federal Narcotics Control Act 1929, co-written
by Miss. Senator Ted Bilbo, and New York Congressman Francis B. Harrison,
and sponsored by James K. Vardaman(D-MS), amongst others, was forced
right thru Congress with little warning and almost no review.

For the next 24 years, even thru World War II, we had to deal with organized
crime, the likes of which we'd never seen before; you thought guys like Al
Capone and John Dillinger were rough during the days of booze prohibition in
some states? Well, once the F.N.C. Act got passed, their profits went sky-high,
while countless people were having their lives ruined, not just in a few states
like with the banning of booze, but all over the nation. ALL OVER.

Only when Henry A. Wallace started his term in 1953, did nationwide cannabis prohibition finally come to an end, though it does remain totally banned in
9 states:

Idaho
Utah
Wyoming
S. Carolina
Georgia
Alabama
Mississippi
Arkansas
Ohio

And county-by-county, and other individual bans do still exist in the following
states:

Tennessee
Texas
Louisiana
N. Carolina
Virginia
Kentucky
Missouri
Indiana
Pennsylvania
Nebraska
Florida
Kansas
Oklahoma
New Hampshire

And here's the states in which cannabis IS totally legal, regardless of
possession:

Vermont
Delaware
Alaska
Hawaii
Minnesota
Iowa
N. Dakota
S. Dakota
Montana
Washington
Oregon
New Mexico
Colorado
West Virginia
Nevada


Now, after the windy introduction, here's the question I'd like to ask: What if,
instead of, or perhaps along with, cannabis, alcohol had been banned in such a
manner
as well? Yes, I know, it may seem strange, as the Temperance movement never
really got around to supporting that kind of thing(in fact, many Progressives,
including a good number of those who had been fervent Temperists,
had instead begun to devote their resources to fighting the banning of cannabis,
which by the mid '20s, they had come to see not only as a tool of oppression but
also a rather crooked attempt by the elites of certain industries to pool their
wealth at others' expense), but what if they had been more successful? Would
cannabis still have been banned? Or would it have remained legal on a federal
level?

OOC: POD's in 1912. I haven't decided if Wilson still wins, though.
 

Meerkat92

Banned
*leans forward in rocking chair*

Well, it may have been 60 years ago, but I stand by my guns: I still say we've got to ban that devil-weed, dadgummit! It's bringin' ruination to our great democracy, all them young-uns smokin' that skunky crap by the roadside, day in and day out! Ban it all, dadgummit! :mad::mad::mad:

OOC: Practicing my "crotchety old man" voice.
 
OOC: LOL.

IC: Anyway, I'd sure hate to be living in Saudi Arabia right now; ABC News just reported yet another crackdown on marijuana smokers down there(and notice how they're almost all minorities, by the way). :(
 
It's been the fall of American civilization, and we all know it.

Look at our youth! All caught up in writing poetry, arguing with their teachers and boycotting desserts and sodas! And did you see that group of punks on the news, turning their family's car into a big radio-control toy, with their pot-addled parents pleased as punch about it!? I tell you, the kids may not be high, but they sure as hell want to be.


I mean, before you know it, they'll all get back into sticking chewing gum under furniture! Despicable.
 
It's been the fall of American civilization, and we all know it.

Look at our youth! All caught up in writing poetry, arguing with their teachers and boycotting desserts and sodas! And did you see that group of punks on the news, turning their family's car into a big radio-control toy, with their pot-addled parents pleased as punch about it!? I tell you, the kids may not be high, but they sure as hell want to be.


I mean, before you know it, they'll all get back into sticking chewing gum under furniture! Despicable.

OOC: Lulz, man, good one.

IC: What's really cool is that young adult(18-25) crime rates have been about at their lowest ever since 1969, on average. Of course, it does help that pretty much anyone over 18(or 21!) can smoke whatever they want in states where it's legal to do so; the exponential increase in the number of people playing video games also seems to have been a factor, as well as the decrease in punitive parenting, better counseling, etc.
 
Again, to reiterate my question: What if, instead of marijuana, that alcohol underwent a national Prohibition? Would urban organized crime, including Mexican cartels and the Canadian syndicates(particularly the Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary outfits), as well as the Mob(especially the Italian outfits in Detroit, Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles, and the Irishmen in Boston and Baltimore) still have flourished as it did in the Twenties and Thirties IOTL?

Would the Dixie Mafia have even existed(formed at the end of WWII and were particularly active in the '60s and '70s, especially in Mississippi and South Carolina; ironic, given that both of these states had some of the harshest anti-drug laws in the books.)? They were one of the biggest supporters of segregationist politicos in the South right up until Jim Crow was made illegal in 1962(though Mississippi fought integration 'till the bitter end, which came in 1969), and supported the remaining racist wingnuts for a long while afterwards(North Carolina's Jesse Helms, in particular, was practically made by drug money, all while advocating life sentences for small-time drug dealers.), keeping many of them, like James O. Eastland and Strom Thurmond, in office longer than they would have been otherwise.
(It's also been suggested that Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination in Wichita Falls, Texas, in 1972 may have been carried out by this group as well; not only was he one of the primary Civil Rights people, but for national marijuana legalization as well.).

And is it possible that the Progressives, as a whole, or even a majority, might somehow be convinced to get behind alcohol prohibition? While it is true that this is the same group whom, for the most part, insisted that marijuana stay legal, some of these very same people also argued that alcohol was the drug that needed to be restricted, due to the actual harm that it's abuse could have, particularly towards those around the addict, while cannabis never did any real damage and actually had medicinal properties; this view, however, was by no means universal, and a few actually did advocate anti-marijuana laws, mostly in place of anti-alcohol ones(these were primarily Southerners, by the way). Could these people perhaps be united by some force, some person, or some major event, such as a riot or mass murder?
 
Modern alcohol prohibition? If Progressives were still a cogent force, perhaps. The social progress momentum made in the late 20th century has, by now, spent itself; we have civil unions across the board for heterosexuals and LBGT people, we have women's rights and civil rights, and marijuana is (mostly) legalized. Most hardline "cultural progressives" went out West into the Transcendentalist communes- only New Mexico has a culturally Progressive political scene. The rest, of course, folded into the Republican coalition after moderating themselves quite a bit. It doesn't help that stoned youth who would normally be on the Left have become even more apathetic than purported by their elders.

Welfare progressives, meanwhile, have a more populist streak- this would be a thoroughly elitist move (and nothing is so unpopular as restrictions based in the spurious realm of "public health and safety"). Although their brand has been damaged, the overall "Populist coalition" in the Democratic Party has survived, largely thanks to the Southern strategy after the utter failure of Henry Wallace. Sure, some of their oldest members were a bunch of racists, but they have been cleaned out of the party.

As for Conservatives- the Christian Coalition aborted in the mid-1980s and more moderate and libertarian forces have seized the Republican brandname (as led by the excellent 4 term president Richard Nixon). With the full fall of the Soviet Union in 2002 (although its empire fell in 1993, and it reformed largely by 1998), and the inauguration of the Eurasian Union, military spending has gone down along with domestic expenditures. I don't see the Republicans restricting alcohol either.

Banning or restricting alcohol or tobacco seems ridiculous- they had and have massive, powerful industries behind them, especially in the reactionary South where opposition to liquor could be strong. Urban progressives in the early 20th century also enjoyed alcohol, too much to truly argue for its banning. The Temperance Union lost most power in the 20s- and was dead by WWII. Alcohol prohibition would have fueled more smuggling and more crime- marijuana only really flourished in the backwoods of the South and on the Mexican border, along with innumerable local growers. The other groups you mentioned were barely significant, despite the inflation of their reputations by anti-marijuana groups.

It is truly unthinkable in modern times (hell, even prostitution is legal in some states).

OOC; Because someone has to corrupt the Progressive wankery. Seriously, this belongs in ASB. You would not have a mirror of Prohibition with weed in the 1930s and 1940s. Sure, there are striking parallels between prohibition and the later War on Drugs, but this is wish fulfillment. Hence my own total destruction of a Progressive political paradise.
 
Last edited:
OOC: Just a quick edit you forgot Maine in the list of states with bans and such. Honestly my first DBWI post and not really sure what to do here. Hahaha.
 
Modern alcohol prohibition? If Progressives were still a cogent force, perhaps. The social progress momentum made in the late 20th century has, by now, spent itself; we have civil unions across the board for heterosexuals and LBGT people, we have women's rights and civil rights, and marijuana is (mostly) legalized. Most hardline "cultural progressives" went out West into the Transcendentalist communes- only New Mexico has a culturally Progressive political scene. The rest, of course, folded into the Republican coalition after moderating themselves quite a bit. It doesn't help that stoned youth who would normally be on the Left have become even more apathetic than purported by their elders.

Welfare progressives, meanwhile, have a more populist streak- this would be a thoroughly elitist move (and nothing is so unpopular as restrictions based in the spurious realm of "public health and safety"). Although their brand has been damaged, the overall "Populist coalition" in the Democratic Party has survived, largely thanks to the Southern strategy after the utter failure of Henry Wallace. Sure, some of their oldest members were a bunch of racists, but they have been cleaned out of the party.

As for Conservatives- the Christian Coalition aborted in the mid-1980s and more moderate and libertarian forces have seized the Republican brandname (as led by the excellent 4 term president Richard Nixon). With the full fall of the Soviet Union in 2002 (although its empire fell in 1993, and it reformed largely by 1998), and the inauguration of the Eurasian Union, military spending has gone down along with domestic expenditures. I don't see the Republicans restricting alcohol either.

Banning or restricting alcohol or tobacco seems ridiculous- they had and have massive, powerful industries behind them, especially in the reactionary South where opposition to liquor could be strong. Urban progressives in the early 20th century also enjoyed alcohol, too much to truly argue for its banning. The Temperance Union lost most power in the 20s- and was dead by WWII. Alcohol prohibition would have fueled more smuggling and more crime- marijuana only really flourished in the backwoods of the South and on the Mexican border, along with innumerable local growers. The other groups you mentioned were barely significant, despite the inflation of their reputations by anti-marijuana groups.

It is truly unthinkable in modern times (hell, even prostitution is legal in some states).

OOC; Because someone has to corrupt the Progressive wankery. Seriously, this belongs in ASB. You would not have a mirror of Prohibition with weed in the 1930s and 1940s. Sure, there are striking parallels between prohibition and the later War on Drugs, but this is wish fulfillment. Hence my own total destruction of a Progressive political paradise.

OOC: I actually will accept much of this(some really good ideas here, TBH), but some things need to be edited.

I didn't appreciate the "wish fulfillment" comment, though.(That wasn't cool. :()

IC: Umm okay, but I'd like to clear up a few things.

1.)Firstly, the Soviet Union collapsed in 1992, not 2002.
2.)Richard Nixon was only in office between 1968 and August 1974 and is generally regarded as one of the top 5 worst presidents of all time, thanks to the Watergate and Eastland scandals.
3.)The Christian Coalition not only didn't fall apart in the '80s but they did so much damage to the GOP(along with the so-called "libertarians") that it nearly ceased to exist by the late '90s. Only the guiding hands of Lincoln Chafee and Nelson Rockefeller, Jr. saved the party from destruction, and only now is the Republican brand name recovering(That didn't stop Democrat Jesse Jackson, Jr. from winning his second term last year, though).
4.)Marijuana was indeed grown in some parts of the South((albeit largely illicitly), particularly in the Appalachian regions of Tennessee and North Carolina, but it really flourished out West and in Minnesota, Vermont, and Maine, amongst a few others.
5.)The Dixie Mafia wasn't quite "insignificant" on a national scale, MC. That may have been true to a degree up north(particularly in the places were the old Italian, Jewish, and Irish syndicates still dominated), but they particularly ran huge sections of the South(with the Klan amongst their chief enforcers, a few whole states were their personal playground....namely, Mississippi, Georgia, and S. Carolina), and even here in southern California and certain other places out West they were causing problems until about 30 years ago: hell, the cities of Anaheim and Newport Beach in Orange County were practically their little Pacific outposts for a little while, especially when I was a little kid.
 
Top