It's evident from reading through the posts on this thread that unfortunately, most people still don't understand why pot and other recreational drugs such as opium were criminalized in the first place. It's amazing to me that the general public still accepts the propoganda that these laws were created for health/social welfare reasons, presumably with the best interests of the population at heart!

This is simply not so. Lawmakers (ie the gov'ts of Canada and the US) never did, do not now and most likely never will have the best interests of the common people at heart. That is not why they were created, and it is NOT their purpose!

The purpose of the gov't and all it's supporting laws is simple - to protect, promote and serve the economic and political interests of the white ruling classes who designed and maintain them. Plain and simple.

Back in the 1920's, the intent of the ruling classes (ie the white, wealthy, 99% male and politically powerful law-makers) was simply to exert legal power and control over what they saw as "problem populations" - specifically the Orientals, blacks, natives, Hispanics and poorer whites - by criminalizing their drug(s) of choice. These populations had been using natural, cheap and easy to grow plants like opium and marijuana for recreation and relaxation for millenia.

And harming no one.

Europeans had long preferred alcohol, and had been reaping huge profits from the manufacture and sale of their deadly, debilitating and poisonous drug of choice for centuries. In fact, they still are!

It's interesting to note that while the users of opium in it's natural form were criminalized - ie the poor Orientals who flocked to the west coast of North America in droves in the late 1800's and early 20th century, taking precious jobs away from the whites - wealthier whites and their doctors who could afford the expensive and deadly derivatives of opium - heroin, morphine, laudenum etc - were not.

NO wonder! There's big bucks to be made from the manufacture and sale of deadly, addictive opium derivatives! But what profit could be made from poorer people who preferred growing and and harvesting poppies or hemp in their own backyards (instead of buying alcohol like their white neighbours) to change their state of consciousness?

Absolutely none.

To quote from A Sociology of Crime by Peter Elgin, PhD and professor of sociology/criminology at WLU, the following factors led to the Canadian Opium Act of 1908 and culminated in the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act of 1929:

(1) the racial conflict between 'whites' and 'orientals', (2) the status conflict between the high-status medical profession and its clients using narcotics for therapeutic purposes and the low-status users, particularly Chinese, using opium for pleasure and (3) the prevailing cultural beliefs and values about drugs and their link with sexual promiscuity and 'race-mixing'.

The racism of the time was expressed in such claims as 'they [Asiatics] make the country of no value for the surplus population of Great Britain', uttered by Mr Duncan Ross of Vancouver (House of Commons Debates 1907-1908) and 'whatever their motive, the traffic [in drugs] always comes with the Oriental, and ... one would, therefore be justified in assuming that it was their desire to injure the bright-browed races of the world'.

The criminalization was shaped by the differential power arising from status differences of different groups of users and producers of opium. Thus, while physicians created addicts among their often middle-class and maternal clientele by prescribing medicines containing opiates for a variety of complaints, neither they nor their practice was considered criminal ... Similarly, producers of the drugs alcohol and tobacco were often British, of high status and contributed useful taxes; their activities were not proscribed ...

... The 'solution' to the marijuana 'problem' is not the prevention of it's use but a changing of the attitudes towards it. If the cultivation, distribution and sale of cannabis were legalized, one would do away with a lot of devaint activity. One would have put and end to the need to smuggle the drug and also the illegalities involved in the use of the profits from the trade.

Whether marijuana is harmful is a complicated question, and whether it is more so than other drugs (tobacco and alcohol) is debatable. As to the suggestion that 'soft' drugs lead to the use of 'hard' drugs, this too might be contested. If it is the case that that they do, then part of the reason may be that it is in someone's economic interests to move people from 'soft' to 'hard' drug use, together with the fact that because of its illegality, the marijuana trade and the 'hard drug' trade are tied up with one another."

Little Hawk made some great points here, but I think Donuel said it best ...

Problem is, in the repressive regieme I live under, my family could lose the house, savings and child custody if the police had the excuse of finding pot here.

That's the purpose of criminalizing marijuana - it's an excuse for dominating and 'busting' people identified as 'problems' by the powers that be.

Some things just never change.

daylia