On 21 April 2014 15:26, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 4/20/2014 2:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 19 Apr 2014, at 20:50, meekerdb wrote: > On 4/19/2014 12:37 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > Then, the cultivation of industrial help -- which is not psychoactive -- > was also made illegal. Industrial has a wide range of applications: paper, > fabric, building material and cheap protein source, to name a few. It > threatens several industries and it is not a narcotic. How do you explain > that? > > > How do you explain that growth of industrial hemp was encouraged by the > government up through World War 2? Did it not pose the same threats then? > > > Good question, but it seems to go in Telmo's direction. It shows that > the banning of hemp was indeed purely irrational, and motivated by making > easy money based on lies. it was only a way to impose oil and forest > against a natural efficacious sustainable competitor. > > It can't be both. Making easy money is quite rational. But I don't know > who you think led the campaign to ban marijuana. It's my impression that > it was a lot of self-righteous and fearful conservative Christians who did > not stand to gain anything monetarily - anymore than they now stand to gain > by preventing gay marriage. I don't see that going hemp was any threat to > the oil industry or lumber? > > I don't know much about it but I would guess there were both a bunch of self-interested people who stood to gain, and a load of righteously indignant people who couldn't stand the idea that someone, somewhere might be enjoying themselves.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
