Cannabis News
The Guy Who Made Marijuana Illegal in 1971 Said Weed Really Isn’t That Bad on Secret Tape Recordings
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 kratom addictive? Discover the potential for dependence on Kratom, the risks involved with its use, and how to approach its consumption responsibly.
From 2011 to 2017, over 1,800 calls to poison centers involved kratom in the U.S. This significant number highlights the concern regarding kratom addiction.
However, without Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversight, and due to various consumption methods like teas and capsules, there are significant health risks. Safe use of kratom is now in question due to these issues.
Research debates how dependence develops, outlining signs like loss of control and withdrawal symptoms. These signs are seen in regular kratom users. Ironically, some people switch from drugs like heroin to kratom, looking for a legal alternative.
Understanding Kratom: Origins and Prevalence
Kratom comes from the Mitragyna speciosa tree in Southeast Asia. It can act like a stimulant or like opioids, based on how much you take. People use it in different ways, for a small energy boost or stronger effects at higher doses.
The legal status of kratom in the U.S. is complicated and changing. It’s a hot topic because some worry about its misuse. It’s still legal in several states. This shows how different places handle drug rules. The National Institute on Drug Abuse is looking into its medical benefits. But, the FDA hasn’t approved it for medical use yet. The DEA calls it a “drug of concern,” which means policies might change.
-
From 2011 to 2017, poison control centers in the U.S. got over 1,800 reports about kratom. This shows it’s widely used and might pose health risks.
-
Kratom’s main ingredients bind to opioid receptors very strongly, stronger than morphine even. This fact is key to understanding its effects.
-
As more people use kratom, more are reporting serious health problems. These include liver and heart issues, and tough withdrawal symptoms, particularly in those already sick.
The statistics show mounting worries about kratom in the U.S. As its use grows, it’s becoming more important to health policies and laws. What happens next will depend on further research and legal decisions.
Is Kratom Addictive: Investigating the Substance’s Nature
The question of kratom’s addictiveness focuses on how it affects brain receptors and its long-term health implications. The ongoing debate highlights concerns about dependence and the risk of addiction. Scientists are closely looking at these issues.
How Kratom Works in the Brain
Kratom’s main alkaloids, mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine, bind to the brain’s opioid receptors, similar to painkillers and narcotics. This connection suggests a potential risk of dependence. These alkaloids are key to kratom’s pain relief but also point to possible addiction concerns, especially with frequent, high-dose usage.
Patterns and Consequences of Long-term Use
-
Using kratom often, especially in large doses, can increase the risk of dependence and intense withdrawal symptoms, similar to opioid withdrawal.
-
Although some use it for pain or to improve mood, long-term kratom users might see serious health problems, like liver damage and mental health issues.
-
Withdrawal symptoms, including irritability, nausea, and sleep problems, show kratom’s impact on one’s physical and mental health.
Assessment of Addiction Risks
Studies indicate a significant risk of addiction to kratom, especially with high doses or frequent use. Dependence develops as the body gets used to kratom, leading to tolerance and a need for more to feel its effects. Withdrawal symptoms emphasize this risk, as highlighted by health experts.
Physiological Effects: Kratom’s Impact on the Body
There is a lot of debate about the safety and use of kratom. This herbal extract comes from the Mitragyna speciosa plant. It has drawn attention for its possible harmful effects on the body. The FDA has issued many warnings about kratom, raising safety concerns.
-
Kratom Adverse Effects: Kratom users have reported side effects like nausea, vomiting, and confusion. More serious issues include high blood pressure and liver damage. These problems highlight the risks of using kratom.
-
Herbal Extract Safety: Some kratom products contain heavy metals and pathogens. These can cause severe health issues, including death. This shows the importance of safety in herbal products.
-
FDA Warnings and Regulations: The FDA has linked kratom to over 35 deaths and warns against using it. They point out the lack of medical uses and the risk of addiction.
-
Physiological Impact: Kratom’s effects depend on the dose and the user’s body. Yet, it can lead to dangerous outcomes like liver damage and seizures.
-
Safety Concerns from Authorities: Federal agencies like the DEA are worried about kratom’s safety. Although not a controlled substance, monitoring suggests users should be careful.
Kratom might offer temporary relief for some ailments, but it comes with significant risks. The FDA’s warnings should make people think twice. If considering kratom, it’s crucial to talk to a doctor first. Experts stress the need for safety and caution with herbal extracts.
Conclusion
Kratom’s role in health and regulation is complex, with views and research findings widely varied. Some people use kratom for its claimed health benefits, but it’s a hot topic. Experts advise caution and suggest consulting a doctor before using kratom due to the unclear effects.
Clinical studies using scores like SOWS and COWS haven’t confirmed withdrawal symptoms from kratom. This adds to the debate, especially when some users report withdrawal. This makes kratom a controversial subject among different findings and user experiences.
When it comes to treating opioid addiction, kratom can be both helpful and harmful. Some have used it successfully to fight addiction. Yet, some states have banned it. This highlights the need for regulations and consistent product quality. It also raises questions about kratom’s legal status due to mixed actions by authorities.
The situation shows how complex kratom is in the realm of substance use and law. Without clear evidence supporting either its benefits or risks, it poses a challenge. More research is needed to guide regulations and health advice. For now, anyone thinking of using kratom should be careful, seek medical advice, and keep up with laws and health guidelines.
WHAT IS KRATOM ANYWAY? READ ON…
Cannabis News
New Rule, December 5: Oregon Cannabis Retailers, Processors and Labor Peace Agreements
As the popularity of CBD (cannabidiol) continues to rise, many pet owners are exploring its potential benefits for their furry companions. CBD is derived from the hemp plant and is known for its therapeutic properties, which may help alleviate anxiety, pain, inflammation, and other health issues in dogs. However, when considering CBD treats for your dog, it’s crucial to understand the ingredients that go into these products. This article will delve into the essential ingredients to look for in CBD treats, their benefits, potential risks, and how to choose the right product for your canine friend.
Understanding CBD and Its Benefits for Dogs
Before we dive into the ingredients, it’s important to understand what CBD is and how it can benefit dogs. CBD is a non-psychoactive compound found in cannabis plants. Unlike THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), which can produce a “high,” CBD does not have intoxicating effects. Instead, it interacts with the endocannabinoid system (ECS) in both humans and animals, which plays a crucial role in regulating various physiological processes.
Potential Benefits of CBD for Dogs
-
Anxiety Relief: Many dogs experience anxiety due to various factors such as loud noises, separation from their owners, or changes in their environment. CBD may help reduce anxiety levels by promoting a sense of calm.
Choosing the Right CBD Treats
When selecting CBD treats for your dog, it’s essential to look beyond just the CBD content. The overall quality of the treat is equally important. Here are some key ingredients you should be aware of:
1. High-Quality CBD Oil
The foundation of any good CBD treat is the quality of the CBD oil used. Look for treats that contain:
-
Full-Spectrum or Broad-Spectrum CBD: Full-spectrum products contain all cannabinoids found in the hemp plant, including trace amounts of THC (below 0.3% as per legal standards). Broad-spectrum products contain multiple cannabinoids but no THC. Both types can provide an “entourage effect,” enhancing the therapeutic benefits.
2. Natural Ingredients
Just like human food, the ingredients in your dog’s treats matter significantly. Look for treats made with natural ingredients rather than artificial additives or preservatives. Here are some beneficial components:
Whole grains like oat flour or brown rice flour provide essential nutrients and fiber that support digestive health. They are also a good source of energy for active dogs.
Healthy fats are vital for maintaining your dog’s coat and skin health. Ingredients like coconut oil or peanut butter not only enhance flavor but also provide beneficial fatty acids that support overall well-being.
Incorporating fruits and vegetables into your dog’s treats can boost their nutritional value:
To make treats more appealing without resorting to artificial flavors, look for natural flavorings like chicken broth or carob (a chocolate substitute safe for dogs). These ingredients can enhance taste while keeping the treat healthy.
3. Functional Ingredients
Some treats may include additional functional ingredients designed to address specific health concerns:
These compounds are often included in joint support treats to help maintain joint health and mobility, especially in older dogs or those with arthritis.
Probiotics can promote gut health by supporting a healthy balance of bacteria in your dog’s digestive system.
Certain herbs like chamomile or ginger may offer calming effects or aid digestion. Always ensure these herbs are safe for canine consumption before choosing treats containing them.
Ingredients to Avoid
While there are many beneficial ingredients to seek out, it’s equally important to know which ones to avoid:
1. Artificial Additives
Many commercial pet treats contain artificial colors, flavors, and preservatives that can be harmful to your dog’s health. These additives may lead to allergic reactions or other health issues over time.
2. High Sugar Content
Just like humans, dogs do not need excessive sugar in their diets. Treats high in sugar can lead to obesity and dental problems.
3. Low-Quality Fillers
Avoid treats with low-quality fillers such as corn syrup or by-products that do not provide any nutritional value.
Always ensure that any CBD product you choose contains less than 0.3% THC to avoid any psychoactive effects on your dog.
How to Introduce CBD Treats Safely
When introducing any new treat into your dog’s diet—especially one containing CBD—it’s essential to do so gradually:
-
Start Small: Begin with a small amount of the treat to see how your dog reacts.
-
Monitor Your Dog: Observe your dog for any adverse reactions such as changes in behavior or gastrointestinal upset.
-
Adjust Dosage as Needed: Depending on your dog’s size and needs, you may need to adjust the dosage over time.
-
Consult Your Veterinarian: Before starting any new supplement regimen, including CBD treats, consult with your veterinarian—especially if your dog has existing health conditions or is taking other medications.
Conclusion
CBD treats can be a beneficial addition to your dog’s diet when chosen carefully with attention to ingredient quality and safety. By understanding what goes into these treats—such as high-quality CBD oil, natural ingredients, functional additives—and knowing what to avoid, you can make informed decisions that support your dog’s health and well-being.
Always prioritize transparency from manufacturers regarding ingredient sourcing and product testing; this will ensure you’re providing your furry friend with safe and effective options tailored to their needs. With proper research and guidance from a veterinarian, you can confidently explore the potential benefits of CBD treats for your beloved pet while ensuring they enjoy a tasty snack that’s good for them too!
CBD OIL FOR DOGS, READ ON…
Get some rest on Modified Grapes—November’s Leafly HighLight
Is Kratom Addictive? Understanding Dependence, Risks, and Safe Usage
New Rule, December 5: Oregon Cannabis Retailers, Processors and Labor Peace Agreements
The CBD Dog Treat Guide
Trippin’ Golf Balls – Can Magic Mushrooms Help Your Golf Game?
Australian Broadcasting Corp Alleges Military Veterans Have Been Targeted By Medicinal Cannabis Companies Via Social Media & Offered Free “Product”
Medical Marijuana Passed in 106 out of 106 Counties and Cities in What State? A. Florida B. Kentucky C. Ohio D. North Dakota
Green Dragon founders fired up to “get back to where we were” with new joint
Trump 2.0 Cannabis Reform? – What to Expect When Republicans Control Washington
Two men convicted in robbery-murder of marijuana dispensary employee in Santa Ana
Distressed Cannabis Business Takeaways – Canna Law Blog™
United States: Alex Malyshev And Melinda Fellner Discuss The Intersection Of Tax And Cannabis In New Video Series – Part VI: Licensing (Video)
What you Need to Know
Drug Testing for Marijuana – The Joint Blog
NCIA Write About Their Equity Scholarship Program
It has been a wild news week – here’s how CBD and weed can help you relax
Cannabis, alcohol firm SNDL loses CA$372.4 million in 2022
A new April 20 cannabis contest includes a $40,000 purse
Your Go-To Source for Cannabis Logos and Designs
City Of Oakland Issues RFP For Employee Training Programs
-
Cannabis News2 years agoDistressed Cannabis Business Takeaways – Canna Law Blog™
-
One-Hit Wonders2 years agoUnited States: Alex Malyshev And Melinda Fellner Discuss The Intersection Of Tax And Cannabis In New Video Series – Part VI: Licensing (Video)
-
Cannabis 1012 years agoWhat you Need to Know
-
drug testing11 months agoDrug Testing for Marijuana – The Joint Blog
-
Education2 years agoNCIA Write About Their Equity Scholarship Program
-
Cannabis2 years agoIt has been a wild news week – here’s how CBD and weed can help you relax
-
Marijuana Business Daily2 years agoCannabis, alcohol firm SNDL loses CA$372.4 million in 2022
-
California2 years agoA new April 20 cannabis contest includes a $40,000 purse