this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2024
380 points (96.1% liked)

Today I Learned

17804 readers
1308 users here now

What did you learn today? Share it with us!

We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.

** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**



Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Throughout the 19th century, news reports and medical journal articles almost always use the plant's formal name, cannabis. Numerous accounts say that "marijuana" came into popular usage in the U.S. in the early 20th century because anti-cannabis factions wanted to underscore the drug's "Mexican-ness." It was meant to play off of anti-immigrant sentiments.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 155 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (7 children)

They left out some of the worst of it. (Edited to acknowledge that's arguably an unfair statement for me to make. The article is specifically about the term marijuana, so what I added below is arguably out of scope for what they were reporting. Still, Ainslinger was off his fucking rocker on this shit. This isn't even the only eyebrow raising quote from him on the topic.)

Harry J Ainslinger was the first head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, predecessor to the DEA. Here's one of his quotes on the topic:

There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others.

That was back in the early 20th century.

More recently we have this from Nixon's domestic policy head:

In a 1994 interview, Mr. Ehrlichman said, “You want to know what this was really all about?” He went on:

“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and Black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or Black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and Blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

The war on drugs has always been racist. Crack cocaine is an even more clear example.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 2 months ago (1 children)

don't forget psychadelics had the same fate! made illegal becuase they had "corrosive effects on cultural values" (had to put hippies in jail for being too peaceful)

[–] [email protected] 29 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yep, conservatives throughout history have been the party of taking things away and making sure everyone hates everyone else.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Always amazes me that the very people who preach their rights and freedom are the very ones who want to take them all away. Oh, right, they want to take your rights away not theirs.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

They aren’t beholden to truth as a virtue, just power and hierarchy

[–] [email protected] 40 points 2 months ago (2 children)

While I agree with most of what you said. The John Ehrlichman quote is pretty suspicious.

It was released in 2014, 20 years after the interview. Because allegedly, despite the intense claims and weirdness reported (Ehrlichman suddenly bursting out with this monologue while pushing the interviewer out the door), the interviewer completely forgot about it until rereading his notes 20 years later, while also trying to promote a new book about Nixon. You'd think when interviewing someone that influential, and having them drop a reveal like that would've made it into his book at the time.

But there has never been any corroboration from anyone else about Ehrlichman making these claims, his friends and family say he never said anything like that to them. And somehow, not a single other corroborater to this big conspiracy has come forward.

Ehrlichman was long dead when this claim was released, and thus unable to verify he said it. Most news sources wouldn't even report on it until buzzfeed spread it around, and comedians like 'Adam Ruins Everything' spread it as fact. Not hating on you, just hate disinformation. Nixon did so many fucked up things, yet somehow one bullshit quote by an author desperate for attention gets all the hype.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago

I appreciate the record-straightening here. You're doing good work

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago

Never questioned it, but that's one hell of a long statement. Can anyone string that many sentences together, and so clearly?

I was devouring On Writing yesterday and I could see Stephen King blasting that as bad dialog. Bad as in, unbelievable in a work of fiction.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That was back in the early 19th century.

I think you mean 20th century. There was no jazz in the 1800s.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

I did, I blame that I'd been awake about 5 min when posting. :D Will fix thank you!

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

"Satanic music, jazz and swing" would be a badass album title.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Sounds like Twin Temple to me

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Just lol @ the notion that smoking weed magically makes white women attracted to you, I can't believe people fell for that bullshit

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Typical maga thinking honestly. Why wouldn't she want to be with a "real man" (you know, a god fearing conservative macho white guy) instead of a guy like that? (you know, a non-white guy, or a soyboy, or whatever slur they are using at the moment) - must be drugs!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Yeah “why is she with a black guy instead of me? Must be the weed” Like, no you dumbass he treats her like a person and you treat her like something you deaerve

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The Ehrlichman quotes are really hardcore.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Whoops read Ehrlichman as Ainslinger. Nothing to see here, coffee incoming.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

Wouldn’t be surprised to find out that some Project 2025 types had their slimy tendrils in the fentanyl crisis