drug prohibition and prohjbition avoided, diffent attitudes

Drugs allowing none-white males to victimize white women goes back deep into the 1800's. It makes a good excuse to explain why white women will have sex with non-white men. Opium dens for Chinese men. Pot was black/mexicans. Also made them "uppity". LSD was the hippies, but you get the undesirable sex part too, but less racial.

American has this strange Puritan streak where we like to pretend that monogamy is the only thing people want, and we need excuse (the devil) to explain why it is not that way. IMO, in some ways, our drug laws can be seen as a proxy war on the devil.

Yep. Which is, again, one of the main reasons that I believe that it was inevitable.

I'm not so sure an amendment was required to outlaw liquor; that was just the way it happened. Congress did outlaw cocaine earlier in the decade. They could have just as easily outlawed whiskey circa 1916 and whole history of liquor control would have changed. Perhaps mixed drinks would have returned only at the hands of licensed bartenders, to assure the drinks were not served too strong. But then again, some of the more fancy mixed drinks might not have emerged without bad-tasting bootleg liquor. In any case, the spread of organized crime would have been greatly affected.

It may not have been, TBH.

Some agents are going to be banned regardless. If you think drunk drivers are a hazard, imagine somebody doped up on LSD driving. Alcohol dulls the reflexes, but hallucines are going to make the driver think pedestrians are demonic dung beetles or something, and he'll deliberately hit them.

True.

I think even with the lack of the "rebelling" aspect of marijuana use, a subculture like hippies could still find psychoactives alluring; especially so with strong psychedelic drugs like LSD and natural occurring hallucinogens (psilocybin etm.)

That I can agree with.
 
Maybe out West and certainly in the North, there's lots of potential. You can forget about the area south of the Mason-Dixon line, though, hemp will still be likely as good as dead at least in most of those states(it may survive in New Mexico, Arizona, and maybe Kentucky if enough pro-cannabis people make their voices heard and get enough votes to the ballot boxes. Depends on how powerful the old planters families are, though. If they have enough power left, this won't succeed.) at some point; down south, racism was one of the primary reasons for the support of cannabis's illegalization in these areas; after all, high society often claimed that it was causing black men to screw white girls & ladies, and it sure as hell didn't matter one whit, that most blacks were still living in conditions that were only a small step above the old slavery system(for a decent, though not exact, ATL comparison to OTL's sharecropping system, think of the typical living conditions of peons in Decades of Darkness). No matter how you look at it, it was all but inevitable in some places; with no Civil War and/or a surviving slavery system south of the Mason-Dixon, it almost surely would have been even more of a reality there.

There may be a way to prevent marijuana prohibition from taking off in the South, but it would almost certainly require, amongst other things, a significantly harsher Reconstruction, with many big planters driven permanently out of business, more Hispanic influence(& less racism towards them), and possibly even a greater backlash against the big tobacco growers(who certainly would have, almost to a man, been opposed the rise of cannabis as a smoking crop, for fear of losing profits).

I would think market for smoking cannabis is much smaller that Tobacco.

The people using wood pulp to make paper would be the people who would have most to lose.

"In the mid-1930s, when the new mechanical hemp fiber stripping machines and machines to conserve hemp’s high-cellulose pulp finally became state-of-the art, available and affordable, the enormous timber acreage and businesses of the Hearst Paper Manufacturing Division, Kimberly Clark (USA), St. Regis – and virtually all other timber, paper and large newspaper holding companies, stood to lose billions of dollars and perhaps go bankrupt.
Coincidentally, in 1937, DuPont had just patented processes for making plastics from oil and coal, as well as a new sulfate/sulfite process for making paper from wood pulp. According to DuPont’s own corporate records and historians,* these processes accounted for over 80 percent of all the company’s railroad car loadings over the next 60 years into the 1990s.
*Author’s research and communications with DuPont, 1985-1996.
If hemp had not been made illegal, 80% of DuPont’s business would never have materialized and the great majority of the pollution which has poisoned our Northwestern and Southeastern rivers would not have occurred.
In an open marketplace, hemp would have saved the majority of America’s vital family farms and would probably have boosted their numbers, despite the Great Depression of the 1930s."
http://www.jackherer.com/thebook/chapter-four/
 
I would think market for smoking cannabis is much smaller that Tobacco.

The people using wood pulp to make paper would be the people who would have most to lose.

"In the mid-1930s, when the new mechanical hemp fiber stripping machines and machines to conserve hemp’s high-cellulose pulp finally became state-of-the art, available and affordable, the enormous timber acreage and businesses of the Hearst Paper Manufacturing Division, Kimberly Clark (USA), St. Regis – and virtually all other timber, paper and large newspaper holding companies, stood to lose billions of dollars and perhaps go bankrupt.
Coincidentally, in 1937, DuPont had just patented processes for making plastics from oil and coal, as well as a new sulfate/sulfite process for making paper from wood pulp. According to DuPont’s own corporate records and historians,* these processes accounted for over 80 percent of all the company’s railroad car loadings over the next 60 years into the 1990s.
*Author’s research and communications with DuPont, 1985-1996.
If hemp had not been made illegal, 80% of DuPont’s business would never have materialized and the great majority of the pollution which has poisoned our Northwestern and Southeastern rivers would not have occurred.
In an open marketplace, hemp would have saved the majority of America’s vital family farms and would probably have boosted their numbers, despite the Great Depression of the 1930s."
http://www.jackherer.com/thebook/chapter-four/

Yes, that was definitely true and thanks for reminding me about that, I actually kinda forgot about it. :eek:
 
Top