That's illegal. :-(
Printable View
Oh well, define illegal.
Its only illegal if you get caught ;)
>> That's illegal. :-(
Well, that depends on the locality, of course. Oddly enough, it was made illegal in the US simply because it threatened paper (lumber) interests (as new processes were being developed that would make it competitive in that market).
I think 55x55 is plenty big enough - who really wants to see a 100x100 fuzzy face with bleeding eyes??
>> Plus as a dial-up user I think CBoard is good as is, bandwidth-wise.
Agreed!
>> Me neither, as mine is only 1 character (and it's in the alphabet). :-)
I'm sure that's below the minimum password length limit.
No, it was mostly to do with lumber. Dupont came up with a method of bleaching pulp to make it more useful as quality paper instead of just newsprint. Previous to that, a lot of paper was hemp, eg, the US Constitution. Newsprint was an exception, and that in turn became threatened by new methods in hemp production which made it competitive with pulp. William Randolph Hurst (Citizen Kane) was heavily invested in lumber and the Dupont process. He and Dupont funded a public smear campaign (which must have been easy, since Hurst owned most of the daily newspapers) that pulled racist strings (eg, that blacks and latinos used marijuana to sedate and seduce white women), which in pre WWII America was probably akin to a sure bet. Most people didn't care about dope, but they would rally around the clan every chance they got.
Weed was not made illegal recreationally due to it's industrial issues. There are about a hundred thousand chemicals and substances that are legal in industry but illegal for the common citizen to have and/or use.
Citing the industrial side of the argument as the sole reason it was made illegal for consumers is a bit short-sighted.
No, that was a side effect of the Hurst campaign. This is not a hard leap to make, Bubba. Hurst's papers really did run these articles (vis, marijuana and adultery with minorities), that was what really what made banning "dr. feelgood" a winning "majority" political platform, and Hurst really was invested in PULP and paper and Dupont. They benefited *immensely* from that.
>> Citing the industrial side of the argument as the sole reason it was made illegal for consumers is a bit short-sighted.
As a matter of fact, my great-grandfather (not one to entertain wild theories, either) even reached this conclusion at the time (he wasn't personally affected by the ban, as he was involved in oil speculation and fruit tree production at the time), characterizing it as as a serious strategic mistake (due to the usefulness of the plant). As agriculture was always a major concern of his (interestingly, he often warned that the lack of diversity in banana cultivation may lead to a die-out of the crop, which turned out to be quite accurate!), he was probably as qualified as anyone to correlate the events surrounding the ban. At any rate, I think the evidence is clear if you consider all of the circumstances. Hemp was being hailed as the "billion-dollar crop", which naturally worried the paper industry, who stood to lose *everything*, so they worked very hard to remove the threat (and succeeded). Incidentally, I agree that the consumption of the plant should probably be restricted, but I do think it's a shame that we aren't utilizing the crop for other (numerous) purposes.