Cannabis News

The Guy Who Made Marijuana Illegal in 1971 Said Weed Really Isn’t That Bad on Secret Tape Recordings

Published

3 months ago

September 20, 2024

admin

Nixon on marijuana not being that bad

Secret Tapes Reveal that the Father of the Drug War didn’t think that weed was that bad

Richard Nixon, often regarded as the “Father of the Drug War,” left an indelible mark on American drug policy that continues to shape our society today. In 1971, Nixon signed the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) into law, setting in motion a series of events that would dramatically alter the landscape of drug regulation and enforcement in the United States. This pivotal piece of legislation not only granted pharmaceutical companies a virtual monopoly over drug production and distribution but also weaponized the justice system against non-violent individuals who chose to consume substances deemed illegal by the government.

Nixon’s public stance on drugs, particularly marijuana, was uncompromising and harsh. He championed a zero-tolerance approach, famously declaring drug abuse as “public enemy number one” and calling for an “all-out offensive” against it. This rhetoric laid the groundwork for decades of aggressive anti-drug policies that have led to the incarceration of countless individuals for non-violent drug offenses.

However, recently uncovered secret recordings paint a starkly different picture of Nixon’s private views on marijuana. These tapes, captured in the intimate chambers of his staff meetings, reveal a man whose personal opinions on cannabis were far more nuanced and less severe than his public pronouncements suggested. The disconnect between Nixon’s public policy and private thoughts raises troubling questions about the foundations of the War on Drugs and its lasting impact on American society.

Today, we’ll take a deep dive into Nixon’s recorded statements, analyzing them in the context of a nation where hundreds of thousands of people continue to face legal consequences for cannabis-related offenses. As we examine these private conversations, we’ll confront the unsettling reality that the architect of America’s drug war may have been fully aware of the disconnect between marijuana’s actual risks and the draconian measures he publicly supported to combat its use.

The public persona of Richard Nixon was that of a staunch anti-drug crusader, a man who viewed drug abuse as an existential threat to American society. In June 1971, Nixon famously declared drug abuse as “public enemy number one” and called for a “new, all-out offensive” to combat it. This declaration effectively launched the War on Drugs, a campaign that would reshape American criminal justice policy for decades to come.

Nixon’s public actions matched his rhetoric. He signed the Controlled Substances Act in 1970, which established the scheduling system for drugs that remains in place today. Under this system, marijuana was classified as a Schedule I substance, alongside drugs like heroin, deemed to have “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.” This classification flew in the face of scientific evidence even then, but it aligned with Nixon’s public stance on cannabis.

The case of Timothy Leary, the LSD researcher and counterculture icon, exemplifies Nixon’s public approach to drug enforcement. In March 1970, Leary received a draconian sentence of up to 10 years in prison for possessing less than an ounce of marijuana. Rather than viewing this as an excessive punishment, Nixon doubled down. As he told his Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman in May 1970, “I want a goddamn strong statement on marijuana. By God we are going to hit the marijuana thing, and I want to hit it right square in the puss.”

Nixon’s public rhetoric often took on racist overtones, particularly when discussing drug use among minority communities. He frequently associated drug use with African Americans and other minorities, using coded language to appeal to white voters’ fears and prejudices. This racialized approach to drug policy was later confirmed by Nixon’s domestic policy chief, John Ehrlichman, who admitted in a 1994 interview that the War on Drugs was designed to target “the antiwar left and black people.”

However, behind closed doors, a different Nixon emerged. Recently uncovered audio recordings reveal a man who privately held much more nuanced views on marijuana. In a March 1973 recording, Nixon candidly admitted, “I know nothing about marijuana. I know that it’s not particularly dangerous; I know most of the kids are for legalizing it.”

This private acknowledgment stands in stark contrast to his public actions and statements. Nixon even expressed misgivings about harsh marijuana penalties, telling John Ehrlichman, “The penalties are ridiculous. I have no problem with the fact that there should be, there should be an evaluation of penalties on it, and there should not be penalties that, you know, like in Texas where people get 10 years for marijuana. That’s wrong.”

In another recording from September 1972, Nixon admitted to being in favor of “modification of penalties in many areas” related to drug offenses, but noted that he didn’t “talk about it anymore.” This suggests a calculated political decision to maintain a tough public stance on drugs, even while privately harboring doubts about the wisdom of such policies.

The disconnect between Nixon’s public and private personas on drug policy is striking and deeply troubling. While publicly championing a war that would lead to the arrest and incarceration of millions of Americans, particularly from minority communities, Nixon privately acknowledged the relative safety of marijuana and the excessive nature of drug penalties. This dichotomy raises serious questions about the true motivations behind the War on Drugs and the lasting impact of Nixon’s public policies on American society.

The ramifications of Nixon’s Controlled Substances Act (CSA) continue to reverberate through American society, more than half a century after its inception. This legislation has fundamentally altered the fabric of the United States, creating criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens for non-violent offenses. Perhaps even more insidiously, it has provided law enforcement with broad powers to seize assets from individuals suspected of drug crimes, often without due process or even a conviction.

One of the most troubling aspects of this policy is civil asset forfeiture, which allows law enforcement to confiscate property they believe is connected to criminal activity. This practice has led to numerous abuses, with innocent people having their possessions seized simply because of proximity to alleged drug activity. A stark example of this overreach occurred recently when a Sheriff’s department seized cash trucks from legal cannabis dispensaries. While the company eventually recovered their funds, this incident highlights the ongoing tension between state-level cannabis legalization and federal prohibition.

The human cost of these policies is staggering. Tens of thousands of individuals remain incarcerated for cannabis-related offenses, their lives derailed by laws rooted in Nixon’s public stance on drugs. These are not just statistics; they represent shattered families, lost opportunities, and communities disproportionately impacted by the War on Drugs.

So why should we care about the disparity between Nixon’s private beliefs and public actions? This disconnect exposes the fundamental hypocrisy underpinning the entire War on Drugs. If even the architect of these policies privately acknowledged that marijuana was “not particularly dangerous” and that the penalties were “ridiculous,” it calls into question the entire rationale behind cannabis prohibition.

Nixon’s private admission that he favored “modification of penalties in many areas” related to drug offenses, while publicly championing harsh measures, is particularly damning. It suggests that the severe approach to drug policy was not based on a genuine belief in its necessity or efficacy, but rather on political expediency. This revelation should prompt us to critically re-examine the foundations of our current drug policies.

If the “Father of Prohibition” himself didn’t believe we should be so harsh in our punishments, it’s high time we rethink our entire strategy. The disconnect between Nixon’s private views and public policies underscores the need for a fact-based, compassionate approach to drug policy that prioritizes public health over punitive measures.

Moreover, this discrepancy between private beliefs and public actions is deeply troubling in a leader of a nation. It erodes public trust and undermines the integrity of our democratic institutions. We cannot afford to have leaders who advocate one thing publicly while holding contradictory views privately, especially on issues that have such profound impacts on citizens’ lives and liberties.

The revelations about Nixon’s private views on cannabis should serve as a catalyst for change. They provide compelling evidence that our current approach to drug policy is not just ineffective, but was built on a foundation of political manipulation rather than genuine concern for public welfare. As we grapple with the ongoing consequences of the War on Drugs, including mass incarceration, racial disparities in enforcement, and the erosion of civil liberties, we must use this knowledge to push for meaningful reform.

It’s time to align our drug policies with scientific evidence and principles of justice, rather than political expediency. The hypocrisy revealed in Nixon’s private statements should embolden us to challenge the status quo and work towards a more rational, humane approach to drug policy – one that doesn’t criminalize personal choices and destroy lives over a substance that even the architect of prohibition privately admitted was “not particularly dangerous.”

NIXON ON CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES, READ ON…

IS IT TIME TO END THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE ACT?

Source link

Cannabis News

The Grinch Stole SAFE Banking from the Cannabis Industry This Christmas, Yet Again!

Published

8 hours ago

December 22, 2024

admin

no safe banking in 2024

The landscape of cannabis legislation in the United States has been a complex and evolving issue, particularly concerning banking regulations. As of December 2024, it has become official: the current Congress will not provide any protections for banks that serve state-legal marijuana businesses. This decision has significant implications for the cannabis industry, which continues to grow rapidly despite the lack of federal support. In this article, we will explore the reasons behind this decision, the implications for cannabis businesses, and the broader context of cannabis legalization in America.

The State of Cannabis Legalization

A Growing Industry

The cannabis industry has seen remarkable growth over the past decade. As of late 2024, 23 states and Washington D.C. have legalized recreational marijuana use, while 38 states allow medical marijuana. According to recent estimates, the legal cannabis market in the U.S. is projected to reach over $40 billion by 2025. This growth has been fueled by changing public perceptions of marijuana, increased advocacy for legalization, and significant tax revenues generated by state-legal cannabis sales.

The Banking Dilemma

Despite this rapid expansion, cannabis businesses face unique challenges, primarily due to their inability to access traditional banking services. Federal law classifies marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act. This classification creates a significant barrier for banks and financial institutions that wish to work with cannabis businesses, as they risk federal penalties for facilitating transactions related to an illegal substance.

As a result, many cannabis companies operate on a cash-only basis. This situation not only poses safety risks—such as increased theft and violence—but also limits these businesses’ ability to manage finances effectively, pay taxes electronically, and build credit histories.

Legislative Attempts at Reform

One of the most prominent legislative efforts aimed at addressing these banking issues is the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act. First introduced in 2019, the SAFE Banking Act sought to provide protections for banks that serve legal cannabis businesses by preventing federal regulators from penalizing them for doing so.

The act garnered significant bipartisan support in both the House and Senate. In previous sessions of Congress, it passed multiple times in the House but faced hurdles in the Senate due to opposition from certain lawmakers who were concerned about broader implications of marijuana legalization.

In light of ongoing discussions about federal spending and budgetary priorities, advocates had hoped that some version of the SAFE Banking Act would be included in recent spending bills. However, during negotiations leading up to December 2024, a House committee led by Republicans removed any provisions related to marijuana banking protections from key spending legislation.

This decision reflects a broader trend within Congress where discussions around cannabis reform have become increasingly contentious. While there is still bipartisan support for certain aspects of cannabis legislation—particularly when it comes to medical use—more comprehensive reforms like banking protections have struggled to gain traction.

Implications for Cannabis Businesses

Continued Cash-Only Operations

The removal of banking protections means that many cannabis businesses will continue to operate primarily on a cash basis. This situation presents several challenges:

Safety Risks: Cash-only operations make cannabis dispensaries and cultivation facilities prime targets for theft and robber Employees often have to handle large amounts of cash daily, increasing their risk of violence.

Operational Inefficiencies: Without access to banking services, businesses cannot easily manage payroll or pay bills electronically. This inefficiency can lead to operational delays and increased costs.

Impact on Public Safety

Advocates argue that providing banking access would enhance public safety by reducing the amount of cash circulating within the community. By allowing cannabis businesses to deposit their earnings into banks, it would minimize the risks associated with cash transactions, making both employees and customers safer.

Moreover, having a transparent financial system would help law enforcement track illicit activities more effectively. Currently, without proper banking oversight, there are concerns that some cash-only operations may be involved in money laundering or other illegal activities.

Politics and Public Opinion

Changing Attitudes Toward Cannabis

Public opinion on marijuana legalization has shifted dramatically over recent years. According to various polls, a significant majority of Americans now support legalizing marijuana for both medical and recreational use. This shift has put pressure on lawmakers to address outdated federal policies regarding cannabis.

Despite this growing acceptance among the public, political divisions remain strong within Congress regarding how best to approach cannabis reform. Some lawmakers advocate for full legalization at the federal level, while others prefer a more cautious approach that prioritizes regulation over outright legalization.

The Role of Advocacy Groups

Advocacy groups play a crucial role in pushing for legislative change regarding cannabis banking protections. Organizations such as the National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA) and Americans for Safe Access (ASA) have been vocal proponents of reforming banking laws to support state-legal cannabis businesses.

These groups have mobilized public support through campaigns highlighting the safety risks associated with cash-only operations and advocating for policies that promote financial inclusion for cannabis entrepreneurs.

Future Prospects for Cannabis Banking Reform

While current congressional efforts have stalled regarding marijuana banking protections, there are still potential avenues for reform:

Incremental Reforms: Rather than pursuing comprehensive federal legislation like the SAFE Banking Act all at once, lawmakers may consider incremental reforms that address specific issues related to banking access without fully legalizing marijuana at the federal level.

The Role of Public Awareness

As public awareness about the challenges faced by cannabis businesses grows, there may be increased pressure on lawmakers to act decisively on this issue. Continued advocacy efforts can help ensure that banking reform remains a priority on Congress’s agenda.

Conclusion

The decision by Congress not to include marijuana banking protections in its current spending bill underscores ongoing tensions surrounding cannabis legislation in America. While public opinion increasingly favors legalization and reform, political divisions continue to hinder progress on critical issues such as banking access for state-legal marijuana businesses.

As the industry continues to grow despite these challenges, stakeholders must remain vigilant in advocating for change while exploring alternative solutions at both state and federal levels. The future of cannabis banking reform remains uncertain; however, with continued advocacy and public support, there is hope that meaningful progress can be made in addressing these pressing issues facing one of America’s fastest-growing industries.

SAFE BANKING SINCE 2018, WHAT A FAILURE, READ ON…

SAFER BANKING ACT FAILS AGAINS, SAME OF BANANA IN THE TAILPIPE!

Source link

Cannabis News

HHC vs. Delta 9: Differences & Similarities

Published

2 days ago

December 20, 2024

admin

Cannabis has so many compounds, and two that have been making the rounds lately are HHC and Delta 9 THC. They’re not the same thing, even though they’re both cannabinoids that interact with the body’s endocannabinoid system. Some people want a mild, steady experience, while others might be looking for something more intense. Understanding these two can help you figure out what’s right for you.

What Is HHC?

HHC, short for hexahydrocannabinol, is a hydrogenated version of THC. It’s not something you’d find naturally in large amounts in cannabis plants. Instead, it’s made through a process that adds hydrogen molecules to THC. The result? A more stable compound that’s less prone to breaking down when exposed to heat or UV light.

How HHC Is Made

Think of it like a science experiment. HHC is usually created in a lab by taking Delta 9 or Delta 8 THC and using hydrogenation—basically, combining it with hydrogen under pressure and in the presence of a catalyst. This process changes its structure while keeping its effects somewhat similar to THC.

Common Uses and Effects of HHC

People who use HHC say it’s somewhere between Delta 8 and Delta 9 in terms of effects. It’s often described as relaxing but without being overly sedative. You might feel a light buzz, reduced stress, or mild euphoria. Some even claim it helps with discomfort or improving sleep, but solid research is still catching up. Since it’s less potent than Delta 9, it’s often favored by those who want a manageable experience without the strong psychoactive punch.

If you’re interested in trying HHC and Delta 9 for yourself, check out their wide range of products at trycandycloud.com. They’ve got everything from gummies to disposable vapes, all crafted for a smooth experience.

What Is Delta 9 THC?

Delta 9 THC is the main psychoactive compound in cannabis. It’s the reason you feel “high” when you use weed. Chemically speaking, Delta 9 has a double bond in its ninth carbon chain, which plays a big role in how it interacts with your brain.

Natural Occurrence in Cannabis

This one is straightforward: Delta 9 is found in high concentrations in marijuana plants. It’s what most people think of when they hear “THC.” Unlike HHC, there’s no need for a lab process—it’s already there. Hemp plants, however, contain much lower levels of Delta 9 THC, which is why it’s primarily extracted from marijuana.

Common Uses and Effects of Delta 9 THC

The effects of Delta 9 are well-documented. Depending on the dose, you might feel euphoria, increased appetite, or deep relaxation. For medical users, it’s often used to manage chronic pain, nausea, and other conditions. It’s also been studied for its potential benefits in anxiety relief, though higher doses might have the opposite effect, causing paranoia. Delta 9 THC is versatile, but it’s not without its risks, particularly for new users or those sensitive to its psychoactive effects.

Key Differences Between HHC and Delta 9 THC

Chemical Structure and Composition

The main difference is in their structure. Delta 9 THC has that iconic double bond, while HHC’s hydrogenation makes it more stable. This difference might not mean much to the average person, but it’s why HHC is less likely to degrade over time.

Potency Levels

Delta 9 THC is generally more potent. HHC might require a higher dose to get a comparable effect, but some people prefer its lighter touch. Potency differences can also depend on the method of consumption, with edibles typically providing a stronger, longer-lasting effect compared to vaping or smoking.

Duration of Effects

Both last a few hours, but some users report that HHC’s effects fade more gradually. Delta 9, on the other hand, can have a sharper comedown. HHC’s gradual fade makes it appealing for those who want a smooth end to their experience.

Benefits and Drawbacks of HHC and Delta 9 THC

HHC: Pros and Cons

Pros:

More stable, so it lasts longer on the shelf.
Effects are milder, making it less overwhelming for beginners.
Can be a functional option for daytime use.

Cons:

Limited research, so we don’t know its full impact yet.
Availability can be hit or miss depending on where you live.
Legal gray area in many regions.

Delta 9 THC: Pros and Cons

Pros:

Well-studied with established medical uses.
Widely available in areas where cannabis is legal.
Stronger effects make it ideal for experienced users or those with high tolerance.

Cons:

Higher chance of side effects like anxiety.
More likely to show up on drug tests.
Shorter shelf life compared to HHC.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q. Is HHC safer than Delta 9 THC?

Not enough research exists to say definitively, but HHC’s milder effects might make it feel safer to some users.

Q. Will HHC or Delta 9 THC show up on a drug test?

Yes, both can potentially show up on a drug test, so use with caution if that’s a concern.

Q. Which one is better for recreational use?

That depends on your preferences. HHC is great for a mellow time, while Delta 9 is better if you’re looking for something more intense.

HHC vs. Delta 9: Choosing the Right One for You

The choice comes down to what you’re after. If you want a milder, more laid-back experience, HHC might be a good option. On the other hand, if you’re looking for something stronger or need it for medical reasons, Delta 9 is the way to go. It also depends on what’s legal and available where you are. And always consider your tolerance levels and experience before diving in. If you’re unsure, consult with a knowledgeable dispensary staff.

Resources:

Source link

Cannabis News

What Federally Illegal Drug Has Created Almost $10 Billion in Sales Tax Revenue for States in the Last 40 Months?

Published

2 days ago

December 20, 2024

admin

sales tax revenue with marijuana

In a significant development for the burgeoning cannabis industry, the U.S. Census Bureau has reported that states across the nation have collectively amassed over **$9.7 billion** in tax revenue from marijuana sales since mid-2021. This figure underscores the economic impact of legalized cannabis and highlights the growing acceptance of marijuana as both a recreational and medicinal substance in various states. As more states move toward legalization, the financial implications both positive and negative are becoming increasingly evident.

The Landscape of Cannabis Legalization

The journey toward cannabis legalization in the United States has been long and complex. Initially criminalized in the early 20th century, cannabis began to regain acceptance in the late 20th century, particularly for medical use. The first state to legalize medical marijuana was California in 1996, setting a precedent that many states would follow.

By 2012, Colorado and Washington became the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, paving the way for a wave of legalization efforts across the country. As of now, more than 20 states have legalized recreational marijuana, while over 30 states allow medical use. This shift reflects changing public attitudes toward cannabis and recognition of its potential benefits.

Economic Implications of Legalization

The legalization of cannabis has not only transformed social norms but has also created a substantial economic impact. States that have embraced legalization have seen significant increases in tax revenue, job creation, and investment opportunities.

According to the latest Census Bureau report, states like California, Colorado, Illinois, and Michigan have emerged as leaders in cannabis tax revenue generation. These states have implemented various tax structures on marijuana sales, including excise taxes, sales taxes, and local taxes. The revenue generated is often earmarked for essential public services such as education, healthcare, infrastructure improvements, and drug rehabilitation programs.

Breakdown of Tax Revenue by State

As the largest legal cannabis market in the United States, California has been at the forefront of marijuana tax revenue generation. Since mid-2021, California has contributed approximately $2.5 billion to state coffers from cannabis taxes. This revenue is derived from both recreational and medical marijuana sales.

California’s tax structure includes a 15% excise tax on retail sales, along with local taxes that can vary significantly by city and county. The state has allocated a portion of these funds to various programs aimed at addressing issues related to drug abuse and public health.

Colorado was one of the pioneers in cannabis legalization and continues to serve as a model for other states. Since mid-2021, Colorado has generated around $1.8 billion in tax revenue from marijuana sales. The state imposes a 15% excise tax on wholesale marijuana transactions and a 2.9% sales tax on retail sales.

The revenue generated from cannabis taxes has been instrumental in funding education initiatives through the Public School Fund, as well as supporting mental health programs and substance abuse treatment services.

Illinois has seen remarkable growth in its cannabis market since legalizing recreational use in January 2020. In just two years, Illinois has collected approximately $1 billion in tax revenue from marijuana sales. The state imposes a tiered excise tax based on the potency of the product, ranging from 10% to 25%.

The funds collected are allocated to various initiatives, including community reinvestment programs aimed at addressing social equity issues related to past drug enforcement practices.

Michigan’s cannabis market has also flourished since legalization. Since mid-2021, Michigan has generated about $700 million in tax revenue from marijuana sales. The state’s tax structure includes a 10% excise tax on recreational marijuana and a 6% sales tax.

The revenue is utilized for various purposes, including education funding and support for local governments impacted by legalization.

Broader Economic Impact

The legalization of cannabis has led to significant job creation across various sectors. According to industry reports, the legal cannabis market supports hundreds of thousands of jobs nationwide—from cultivation and processing to retail and distribution. As more states legalize marijuana, this trend is expected to continue.

With the growth of the legal cannabis industry comes increased investment opportunities. Entrepreneurs are entering the market at an unprecedented rate, leading to innovations in product development, marketing strategies, and distribution channels. This influx of investment not only benefits individual businesses but also stimulates local economies.

Social Equity Considerations

While the financial benefits of cannabis legalization are clear, it is essential to address social equity issues that arise alongside this new industry. Many states have recognized that communities disproportionately affected by past drug enforcement policies should benefit from legalization efforts.

States like Illinois have implemented community reinvestment programs that allocate a portion of cannabis tax revenues to support communities impacted by previous drug laws. These funds can be used for education initiatives, job training programs, and mental health services—aiming to rectify historical injustices associated with cannabis prohibition.

In addition to financial support for communities affected by past policies, some states are also working to create equitable licensing opportunities for individuals from those communities. By prioritizing applications from minority-owned businesses or those directly impacted by previous drug laws, states can foster a more inclusive cannabis industry.

Challenges Ahead

Despite the significant progress made through legalization efforts, challenges remain on both state and federal levels.

Federal Legalization Uncertainty

One major hurdle is the ongoing conflict between state and federal laws regarding cannabis. While many states have legalized marijuana for recreational or medical use, it remains classified as a Schedule I substance under federal law. This discrepancy creates complications for businesses operating legally at the state level but facing potential federal prosecution.

Efforts toward federal legalization or decriminalization have gained traction recently; however, progress remains slow due to political divisions and differing opinions on drug policy reform.

Regulatory Hurdles

As more states enter the legal cannabis market, regulatory frameworks must evolve to ensure consumer safety while promoting fair competition among businesses. States face challenges related to product testing standards, labeling requirements, advertising restrictions, and taxation policies that can impact market dynamics.

Conclusion

The U.S. Census Bureau reports that states have collected over $9.7 billion in marijuana tax revenue since mid-2021, highlighting the significant economic impact of cannabis legalization. As public acceptance grows, more states are likely to pursue legalization. Despite ongoing challenges, including federal regulations and social equity issues, legalized cannabis is poised to remain a vital part of state economies. Collaboration among government officials, business leaders, and community advocates will be essential for fostering an equitable and sustainable cannabis industry. This evolving landscape not only presents economic growth opportunities but also addresses historical injustices tied to drug policy enforcement, shaping the future of cannabis legislation in the U.S.