Concerning flowers never grown

In 1930, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics was created within the Treasury Department, under the direction of Commissioner Harry Anslinger. From that year, until he was forced out of office by President John F. Kennedy in 1962, Anslinger ran the FBN with the same tight reins and questionable ethics that his contemporary, J. Edgar Hoover, used at the FBI.
Anslinger was appointed head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics by his uncle-in-law, Andrew Mellon.
Under President Herbert Hoover, Andrew Mellon was Secretary of the Treasury. He not only created the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, but hand-picked one of his relatives to run it.

In the mid-1930s, machinery was developed that allowed the hemp fiber to be more easily and economically separated from the plant. The flowering tops of the hemp plant, cannabis sativa, are sometimes known under the slang term
Marijuana (Spanish for Mary Jane). This new machinery meant
that paper, clothing, and other products could be produced at prices far more competitive than ever before.

This did not sit too well with two American giants: William Randolph Hearst (subject of the classic Orson Welles film
"Citizen Kane") and the Du Pont Corporation.

Hearst not only printed and sold newspapers in his vast publishing empire; he also made the paper on which a growing number of his competitors printed theirs. If hemp became the primary source of paper (remember that both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America were written on hemp paper), not only would much of Hearst's paper-making machinery become obsolete, but the forests he had recently purchased would decline in value; a forest can be cut every twenty years to make wood pulp, while hemp can produce three crops a year: with sixty times the efficiency of trees, hemp is far more economical as newsprint material.So, Hearst's newspaper chain began attacking hemp viciously and repeatedly, focusing on its recreational uses and ignoring its commercial and environmental benefits. The goal was to lower hemp's esteem in the view of the public, thus easing the way for eventual criminalization of the plant's possession.

Du Pont, meanwhile, had just patented a process for making paper from wood pulp, which Hearst would use extensively in the years to come. The process, which relied heavily upon
Du Pont chemicals, was NOT necessary in the making of paper from hemp! Additionally, Du Pont had recently purchased foreign patents and perfected the fiber which they called Nylon, to be manufactured from coal tar and petroleum products. Inexpensive, readily-grown hemp fibers would put a damper on two of Du Pont's future money makers, chemicals and textiles.

What has all of this to do with the Secretary of the Treasury? Andrew Mellon owned, and his family still owns,
Mellon Bank, one of only two banks with which Du Pont conducted business.

Make of these facts what you will. One thing is certain, however: both Hearst and Du Pont made, and continue to
make, millions of dollars from the prohibition on hemp.

source: "Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do"
(The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in a Free Society)
contains complete bibliography and source material
Prelude Press 1-800-LIFE-101

I saw a Supreme Court justice (Anthony Stevens) talking to a group of teen-agers on C-span network the other day, and one of them asked him about legalizing drugs, and he replied: "What kind of a society would we have if we legalized drugs?" The proper question would seem to be: "What kind of society would we have if we legalized drugs again?"
It seems to be generally ignored that cannabis was outlawed in 1934, and cocaine was legal until a few years before that. Coca-cola, in fact, contained an extract of the coca leaf (hence the name) and had to reformulate the drink when the government banned coca products. That's where they got the advertising theme "The pause that refreshes".
Some of the group members have wondered why I raise the issue of drugs from time to time; I would have thought that it was obvious to us that ALL societal outcasts are our
fellow travelers, and could probably constitute a majority
if we united all of the people who have been oppressed.
I've seen rednecks and hippies eyeing each other with barely concealed distaste, not even realizing that they share a common enemy: namely, a government that wants to stop one group from owning guns and the other from owning drugs, thereby violating the constitutional rights of both.
What about the people who are arrested for prostitution, either doing it or soliciting for it? Drinking a beer in a public park, instead of hiding it and pretending that it doesn't exist? Violating curfew, because they are too young according to someone's standards? Growing a bit of weed to ease the pain of chemotherapy cancer treatments?
The people who are persecuted because of, and prosecuted for, victimless crimes are ALL on our side; and are potential allies and recruits if we expand our horizons to LEGALIZE FREEDOM. Whether that is necessary before we can liberate the children, or whether children's liberation will presage a return to freedom and individual responsibility, I can't say. What do you think?

I do feel that we are not yet so strong that we can alienate potential allies.