Big Head Press Forum

Printed Graphic Novels => A Drug War Carol => Topic started by: jselvy on October 11, 2006, 10:48:52 am

Title: A few small things
Post by: jselvy on October 11, 2006, 10:48:52 am
I really enjoyed the story, but I have a few small gripes.

1. Hemp and Marijuana are NOT the same plant, they are closely related but not the same. This has been a misconception for almost as long as the other misconceptions of marijuana.

2.  The reluctance of Southern senators to vote for these far reaching laws that flagrantly violate the U.S. Constitution probably had little to do with segregation laws (in the anti-bellum period) than a belief in strict constructionism. The voting records on other issues bears this out as does the construction of the Constitution of the Confederate States of America of 1861. There seems to have been a firm stand against the growing power and interference of the Federal Government. This dislike for Federal interference is clearly illustrated in the infamous "South Carolina Gag-Order"which was a critical issue in the draw up to the War of Northern Agression. For the record there does not seem to be any segregation laws inthe South prior to Reconstruction(please refer to C. Dickens letters to the U.K.Parlaiment.), There certainly was no legal difference between a free black man and a free white man in the aforementioned Constitution of the CSA.


Thank you for your time,

Jefferson A. Selvy A.A.S.


P.S.feel free to contact me anytime at the email address listed for me
Title: Re: A few small things
Post by: Frank B. on October 11, 2006, 05:19:43 pm
For the record there does not seem to be any segregation laws inthe South prior to Reconstruction(please refer to C. Dickens letters to the U.K.Parlaiment.), There certainly was no legal difference between a free black man and a free white man in the aforementioned Constitution of the CSA.

Glad you enjoyed the story.  On segragation, I wouldn't imagine there would be a perceived need for segregation prior to reconstruction given almost all southern blacks were property.  I"m not sure about free black men, though I've always had the impression though perhaps formally tolerated, in practice they were largely ostricised if not finding suddenly finding themselves property once again.  Segregation laws were likely not deemed needed until the north attempted to formally force the south to change its informal behavior.  But I admit my impression of that situation is based on non-scholarly sources.
Title: Re: A few small things
Post by: jselvy on October 12, 2006, 06:52:29 am
It is not true that all or almost all black in the South during the Anti-Bellum period were property.There was a rather large population of free blacks in many states. In fact 7% of these free blacks engaged in slavery themselves. You see, slavery is not a racial condition but an economic one. There were even black officers in the Confederate army (refer to the 4th Louisiana Native Guard) something that was not allowed until c. 1967 in the U.S. Army. This paricular unit was all black, but not by policy. Remember hat regiments were raised in specific communities and this one was raised in two predominately black parishes in Louisiana. There were at least 60,000 free black soldiers in Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest's army (we do have records on them) and possibly as many as 180,000 (these record were poorly and obviously changed).
There was no legal difference between the poor white and the poor black populations as far as it is possible to tell. Unfortunately, many records were conveiniently destroyed in unneccessary fires at the end of the war.

Just for trivia's sake the last white slave (NOT indentured servant, but property) that we have records for was a sale in 1836 of a white woman in Virginia (now West Virginia, a illegal division of the sovereign state of Virginia)

As to why this kind of information has been suppressed, why are the facts about 'illicit' drugs suppressed. The U.S. government had a vested interest in portraying the population of the South to the voters in the north in a certain way. They were unreasonably vilified much like the addicts were as you so cleverly pointed out in your story. The Federal Government used this vilification to justify the 'War Powers Act' which represented a unprecedented seizure of power by the executive branch. The same way that the vilification of addicts justified another unwarranted seizure of power.

Thanks,
Jefferson
Title: Re: A few small things
Post by: Frank B. on October 12, 2006, 08:52:09 am
It is not true that all or almost all black in the South during the Anti-Bellum period were property.There was a rather large population of free blacks in many states. In fact 7% of these free blacks engaged in slavery themselves. You see, slavery is not a racial condition but an economic one. There were even black officers in the Confederate army (refer to the 4th Louisiana Native Guard) something that was not allowed until c. 1967 in the U.S. Army. This paricular unit was all black, but not by policy. Remember hat regiments were raised in specific communities and this one was raised in two predominately black parishes in Louisiana. There were at least 60,000 free black soldiers in Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest's army (we do have records on them) and possibly as many as 180,000 (these record were poorly and obviously changed).
There was no legal difference between the poor white and the poor black populations as far as it is possible to tell. Unfortunately, many records were conveiniently destroyed in unneccessary fires at the end of the war.

I understand slavery as an economic condition.  It is a very old practice, spanning many cultures.  Slavery is the historical lot of the survivors on the losing side of some aggression.  The protestant vs catholic clashes in the 17th century saw many poor europeans wind up as property servants to royalty and other aristocrats.  It was also a common way to deal with criminals and enemies of the aristocracy.  Many europeans went to their death as galley slaves sold in the Arab/African slave market.

And I did say "almost all".  But of course, with the destruction of records, it is damned difficult to reliably know what the percentage of free vs enslaved blacks there were in the south.  I don't trust the history that I was taught in government schools.  I tend to view all information with a skeptical eye.
Title: Re: A few small things
Post by: jselvy on October 12, 2006, 11:06:39 am
Yes, we must always remember that information control has been one the defining characteristics of the U.S. government. It is for all modern governments, but especially so for us. Being a historian (Now persuing an MA at Edinburgh Uni) has shown me alot of this type of spin control. As Heinlein said "Forget public opinion, forget what 'goes without saying'...get the facts they are your only reliable channel markers."

I like the work y'all are doing. Carry on :)


Jefferson
Title: Hemp and marijuana
Post by: DarbyClash on April 11, 2008, 11:53:37 am
It's not as simple as "they're not the same plant"; it's more like they can be different varieties of the same plant, or the same plant raised under different conditions.  For example, all pure sativa strains, including those grown mostly for drugs (e.g., Thailand's classic) can easily reach fifteen feet if allowed to do so, making them at least decent for hemp fibre. 

Take the same plant, cullthe male plants, grow it under strong lights that are drastically curtailed after six weeks' time, and you get a perfectly good drug plant (perhaps not of super-potency, but the quest for super-potency is a bad artifact of the W.o.S.D., for which see the growth of hard liquor over beer during Proinhibition).

All varieties can freely interbreed with each other, and in fact a burgeoning hemp industry could be very bad for pot growers if the level of hemp pollen grew too high.

I think the "they're not the same plant" meme is an attempt to get past the bigfella tabu-tabu nature of the word "marijuana"...for example, imagine all your best pro--mediical-marijuana arguments with "marijuana" replaced with "baby heads", and you'll understand the opposition better:

Me:  But baby heads have proved to be effective against nausea!
Him: But...it's baby heads!!!  We can't even think of using them.
Title: Re: A few small things
Post by: enemyofthestate on April 12, 2008, 01:12:09 pm
Just for trivia's sake the last white slave (NOT indentured servant, but property) that we have records for was a sale in 1836 of a white woman in Virginia (now West Virginia, a illegal division of the sovereign state of Virginia)
Not surprising considering the number of Irish sold into slavery in Virginia and New England.
Title: Re: A few small things
Post by: Rocketman on April 12, 2008, 07:06:11 pm
I'm not one hundred percent sure about this but I think that the old television show "Daniel Boone"  starring Fess Parker and Ed Ames (my favorite singer) mentioned that Boone's wife Becky was an indentured servant from Ireland who agreed to indenture herself for seven years in order to pay for her passage to America.  This is as far as I know the only reference to white indentured servants that I can ever remember hearing on television.
Title: Re: Hemp and marijuana
Post by: Dr. No on April 14, 2008, 11:03:24 pm
It's not as simple as "they're not the same plant"; it's more like they can be different varieties of the same plant, or the same plant raised under different conditions.  For example, all pure sativa strains, including those grown mostly for drugs (e.g., Thailand's classic) can easily reach fifteen feet if allowed to do so, making them at least decent for hemp fibre. 


I think the muddy waters concerning hemp and MJ is/was deliberate. 

Citizen Kane, sometimes mistaken for William Randolph Hearst who lived in another dimension, owned lots of forest land and had a process to make paper from his wood pulp. Once Hemp and MJ were outlawed, other news papers had to buy paper from ???

Commerce Distortion, latter day vat wreckers, plain and simple.
Title: GMO Hemp
Post by: AzureLupine on June 02, 2011, 02:25:12 pm
So why hasn't Con-Agra, Monsanto, etc. developed a GMO hybrid hemp that is 100% non-THC?
It would seem that if they could alter corn and soybeans for higher sugar, oil, etc., then a GMO hemp developed for superior fiber, oil, and other other essential end-products could just as easily be made.  I, for one, see abloutely no harm in hemp if grown for such purposes.  This is for several reasons, but mainly because I forsee its use as a biomass fuel and uses in a burgeoning bio-diesel industry.  A nice side effect would be a resurgance if not a rennaisance of the near-extinct American textile industry.  (Yes, I'm from the South, living in what was once a predominately a "Textile Town".)  Another side benefit would be as an alternate 'cash crop' for farmers in the eastern parts of my state, who can no longer make money on the tradional crop of tobacco. (and we all know how evil tobacco is, don't we children?  ;))   
Title: Re: A few small things
Post by: Scott on June 03, 2011, 06:35:25 pm
It's possible they have something like that in the works, or under wraps. When the political climate is suitable, they will announce it.
Title: Re: A few small things
Post by: jonie25 on October 15, 2011, 11:30:23 pm
How will the tired poetry brush against the asking monster? The sixth melody suspends a smile behind the novel. A few small things toys with the molecule outside a burst person. Can A few small things jam within the blade? Behind A few small things freezes the doe.

http://www.addmy5.info