On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 6:39:18 PM UTC-5, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 14:47:53 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

Another allegation is that Hearst was in on the conspiracy, because he
allegedly had timber interests and didn't want hemp competing with that.
That's also debunked, with people pointing out Hearst was actually
a big consumer of paper for his newspapers, would have benefited from
more sources and had no forest of tree, etc. Oh, and apparently hemp
isn't much good for making newspapers anyway.

This is getting silly. So why did the American government
spend billions of dollars and jail countless innocent people for
something relatively harmless (if compared to alcohol or tobacco).
You tell us.
[]'s


The stated reasons at the time were that govts at various levels
in the USA at the time didn' believe it was relatively harmless.
They thought it was dangerous. There had been a history of moving
in the direction of making it and other drugs illegal within parts
of the USA and other countries for decades. The action in 1937 was
just the big, final step. It's interesting
that you also want to compare it to alchohol. It is a good and
relevant comparison. Just a decade prior
to banning marijuana, the govt also had banned alcohol. Was that
due to Dupont nylon and Hearst non-existent lumber forests too? How
about if I came up with a conspiracy theory that the Volsted act
was passed via a conspiracy involving Al Capone and Joe Kennedy?
Would you instantly buy that too?

The point is if you want to come up with conspiracy theories,
you need something more than just stating some alleged link. You need
something to back it up. And it should make sense. The Dupont,
Hearst, similar stuff, from what I've seen, there is nothing beyond
the allegation itself and the arguments are full of huge holes.