nisakiman

I used to really quite like Chang Draught in bottles (Draught? Bottles? Don't ask me... ) but as usual, when I find something I like, they stop making it. These days, I tend to drink Heineken or Singha, although I'm not really wild about either of them. I'm more of a red wine drinker when I'm here in Greece (10 litre box of very drinkable Merlot, 13% ABV for €18.70 is what I buy for daily use) but of course in Thailand the tax on wine is utterly ridiculous, so I tend to drink more beer (or Sangsom and coke) when I'm there.

Bloody shame about the Chang Draught.

5 hours ago, lopburi3 said:

Many here in Thailand uses such a system and have done so for decades.  And I suspect many are just as efficient as those in Greece.   The water pressure will be determined not only by your pipes but by the pump used.   

Oh I'm sure they are at least as efficient as the Greek ones; my father-in-law fitted his own many years ago when budgets were tight, so I guess went for the cheapest option he could find. Now, even though he could easily afford to upgrade, he sees no need to. "Well, it works! What more do you need?"

So the two visa exemption rule applies to calendar years? Does that mean that if I arrive by air in Thailand at the beginning of October, I could do a cross border run (getting another 30 day exemption on return) in November, December, January and February? Not that I have any plans to do so, but I'm just interested to know if this is the case.

It's actually more pertinent in the situation where someone might come for an extended holiday in January,  go for a trip to Lao a week after arriving in Thailand, spend a few days in Lao, return to BKK, and a week after that go to Cambodia for a week, returning to BKK again for a week before returning home. So in theory, leaving less than a month after arriving, but having done two side trips to Lao and Cambodia in the meantime. Our tourist then, having enjoyed his itinerary before, decides to repeat the exercise, but this time arriving in Thailand the following November, having been unable to arrange his holidays for January. But this time, the Thai authorities tell him he's not allowed to do any side trips, because he's used up his visa exempt stamps, even though the last time he didn't even exceed thirty days overall, and in fact was only in Thailand for a bit over two weeks.

This is not an unlikely scenario, and seems manifestly unfair on any tourist who falls into my theoretical holidaymaker's category.

Or have I missed something?

On the islands here in Greece the water supply tends to be variable - sometimes they cut it off entirely for several hours a day during summer months. What most people do here is install a holding tank (1000 litres or more) and a pumping system which delivers a constant pressure, which you can set to your needs. The tank tops up automatically with a ballcock valve and the pump system works on demand. It's not terribly expensive to set up - maybe €500, depending on the system you choose. I know similar systems exist in Thailand, because my father-in-law has something along those lines, although not as efficient as the ones here. Once it's installed, you can set it to power-shower pressure if your pipework will take it! :)

7 hours ago, Enoon said:

 

Religious indoctrination in the West? 

 

In the 17th century sure, but now it's the heartland of Atheism.

 

In Thailand they get plenty of religious indoctrination,  and as much of the other stuff as Westerners do.

 

It's not that they get one system rather than the other.

 

They get both!

 

 

 

 

The new religion of the West is Political Correctness and Healthism. The propaganda and indoctrination flies thick and fast, for the most part based on the Frankfurt School philosophy and its fellow traveller Common Purpose.

3 hours ago, BMW Overlander said:

 

This topic will give you pretty good idea what places to visit in Kanchanaburi:

 

Kanchanaburi Adventures

What a fantastic photo-journal! I thoroughly enjoyed looking through it.Thanks for posting that link. I envy you! Sadly we will be without personal transport, so our itinerary will be somewhat limited.

1 hour ago, grollies said:

Just keep away from the floating raft hotels. Lovely setting, food buffet style where we stayed with the kids (August) was ok.

 

Lots of people swimming off the rafts.

 

We did wonder how the toilets worked. Each room had a floating septic tank under the bathroom. They didn't look too efficient and I wondered how they pumped them out. I was to discover how they worked the next day.

 

Problem was after the overnight rain all the rafts were blocked full of human excrement that had floated down river from all the other hotels.

 

Guess this is how they have them emptied. Walking past huge piles of excrement on the way to breakfast is an experience I do not wish to repeat.

Aha! I hadn't thought about that aspect. Yes, worth keeping in mind...

Oh great stuff! Thanks for the input my friends, plenty of food for thought there. I'll look at all those suggestions.

It's all very well reading the reviews on Agoda etc, but they're mostly written by people who have spent just two weeks of their lives (if that) in LOS, and have no real understanding of what they should expect or indeed, how the country works. Which is why I sought recommendations here, where most members are either living or spend a good deal of time in Thailand, and so are familiar with what they should be getting for their money.

4 hours ago, kenk24 said:

I am sure you will hit all the historical sights, but if you want a nature break, be sure to take the time to visit Erawan Waterfalls... 

Yes, the falls are on the agenda!

Thanks again to all.

Thanks for the info. I think I'm a bit long in the tooth for the Jolly Frog, ageing hippy that I am notwithstanding! :)

I've been looking through the places on Agoda, and I'm rather torn between more modern places in town which are squeaky clean and have modern, well fitted bathrooms (but are rather sterile), and older, slightly run-down places on the river at the same price (about 750 Baht) with somewhat grungy bathrooms, but which are real old-style Thai and full of character.  In this particular case I've been looking at U Dee Room and Coffee (clean and modern) vs the best room on offer at Nita Raft House (a bit grotty, but literally on the river, and old Thai style). I asked my wife what she thought, and to my surprise she didn't immediately go for the more modern one, but like me was undecided.

Back in the late 60s / early 70s, when I was trawling round the Indian subcontinent and SE Asia, the only precondition for anywhere I stayed was that the price should be as close to zero as possible,  and I do have a fondness still for the more characterful places. (Although not, perhaps, quite as 'characterful' as some of the places I stayed in back then!).

I noticed the Noble Knight (Night?) on the Agoda site - I'll have a closer look at it. Thanks. Yes, eatery recommendations are always good, because once you've ordered, you are in the hands of the Gods! :) If someone else says it's good, then the odds of getting a decent meal are much improved.

It's rather an odd press release. They specify that they will permit growing hemp, which as others have already pointed out is very low in THC and isn't worth smoking, but has innumerable uses in making many and varied commercial products.

So far, so good.

But then they go on to say that the crop will be sold to the Thai Tobacco Monopoly, which suggests (to me, anyway) that it will be used for smoking, because why else would the tobacco industry be involved?

Unless, of course, they intend to go into rope making as a sideline. But that doesn't really seem very likely.

Yes, all very strange. Unless something has got lost in translation. However, my wife just said to me as I was writing this (she's looking at a Thai news site on her laptop) that on there they refer to 'ganchong' (my rendering of what she said) as opposed to 'ganchaa', and as she understands it, the former is hemp, and the latter is what you smoke to get high.

"Curiouser and curiouser", cried Alice....

On 19/12/2016 at 9:43 AM, ubonjoe said:

You should of wrote a visa or a flight out of the country within 30 days of arrival.

I've never been asked for a visa before boarding a flight to Thailand, and I've always gone for more than a month.. I'm on a UK passport, and for the past 15 years I've been boarding at Athens airport, as I now live in Greece. I'll be flying (with my Thai wife, who lives with me here in Greece) to Thailand in mid February, and our return flight is booked for six weeks later. The plan is that we will go for a week to Lao (the in-laws, who we'll be visiting, live in Ubon, so it's an easy trip), and on return from Lao I'll get another 30 day exemption which will more than cover the rest of our stay.

If, as some say, the airlines are demanding visas if the return is more than thirty days later, is that not mistaken? Because a G7 passport holder can quite legally be in Thailand for more than thirty days just on visa exemptions if he / she makes a side trip to a neighbouring country, as I will be doing.

There also seems to be the assumption on this thread that visitors to Thailand fall into two neat categories - cheap-charlie backpacker types, or those that have multiple thousands in the bank and six-figure incomes. I am neither of those. I have a small pension which I manage on because I own my property here in Greece, but I certainly don't have a swollen bank account. I do, however, have enough to be able to fly with my wife (economy) to Thailand and enjoy doing some travelling around staying in mid-range accommodation without having to worry about what I'm spending. I doubt, however, that I would qualify for one of these multiple entry tourist visas. And I would imagine there are many who would be in a similar situation to me.

Thanks guys. I'm actually fully au fait with all those sites, and I also searched the TV site for info before I posted. What I was actually looking for was some personal recommendations from people who either live there or are regular visitors there as to where the best (and by that I don't mean the fanciest or most expensive) places are to eat, drink and stay.

The wife and I will be in LOS in March, and after a couple of weeks with the outlaws in Ubon we fancied spending a few days in Kanchanaburi to have a look at the bridge, war graves etc. Neither of us have been there before, so any recommendations with regards places to stay, eat and drink would be most welcome.

Cheers!

I always use private browsing if I'm looking at flights from companies like Easyjet, Ryanair etc, but what about if you're using a site like Momondo, where you get lists from different airlines with different timetables etc? Do they track your browsing history and price accordingly? I must admit I don't use my VPN or private browsing when I check Momondo. I figured that with so many permutations they wouldn't do tailored prices, but maybe I'm wrong.

Opinions / experience?

On 23/11/2016 at 8:16 AM, sn1per said:

A leftie nazi, probably don't know if they are coming or going

In fact, the word Nazi is a contraction of the National Socialist German Worker's Party, so 'lefty nazi' is perhaps not so much of an oxymoron.

The plastic bags we get from the supermarkets here in Greece have a limited lifespan, regardless of whether or not they are exposed to sunlight. On a couple of occasions I've emptied out the bin bag in which we keep the carrier bags (we use them for rubbish) only to find that the bags at the bottom have disintegrated into tiny flakes and dust. Makes a hell of a mess. I'm not sure how long it takes, but I would guess a year or two.

On 20/11/2016 at 10:49 AM, Peterw42 said:

Are you sure its Thailand ? Nothing about the food looks Thai, olives ??? The vegetation also does not look tropical or Thai.

Also there is a condiment set of olive oil and vinegar on the table - that's typically Greek.

2400 return seems very expensive to me for a one and a half hour ferry ride. When I lived on one of the Greek islands, it was an hour and a half ferry to  the mainland, and a return ticket for my van (6m, 3,5 tonne) and two people was €70 - about 2800 Baht. I think the foot passenger fare was €8 (320 Baht) each way.

Quote

Wow a lot of members seem to be struggling financially. I usually spend twice that on a night out.

it costs 1200ish to catch a taxi oneway to swampy from pattaya.

I think you miss the point. It's not the amount of money, it's whether it represents value for money. I'm sure you could easily afford to pay 1500 Baht for a small bottle of beer in a nice bar, but the question is, would you pay that much for a beer, or would you use a cheaper bar? I think most people here are disinclined to throw their money away unnecessarily on poor value goods / services, regardless of how much they have in the bank.

7 hours ago, A1Str8 said:

What he does is not against the rules so you can't do much but ask him politely to go smoke downstairs because you can't stand smoke and makes you feel very bad. 

People might say that it's too much and that you can't expect smokers to walk away or down just to smoke and not bother you but it's actually the least, smokers can do. I used to do it when I smoked. If someone insists on dying a slow and painful death therefore decides to smoke, that's their problem. But they don't have the right to harm others regardless of any regulations. 

Why on earth should he have to go and smoke downstairs? Just because someone who lives nearby is super-sensitive to tobacco smoke? What a ludicrous suggestion.

If someone insists on dying a slow and painful death...    <deleted>?  I think you've been drinking too much of that kool-aid, matey.

A word of advice from someone who has done a lot of research on the subject. Never believe anything  that you hear from Tobacco Control. They lie. All the time. And if they're not lying, they're grossly exaggerating.

"Well, it keeps the gravy train rolling, doesn't it. There's the mortgage to pay, and the Range Rover to run, so a few porkies to keep the funding rolling in is part of the job, innit? What's that? Thousands of businesses destroyed and millions of jobs lost? Collateral damage, that's all. The main thing is that my £100K salary is secure. And thanks to the punitive taxes levied on smokers, the gravy train can keep on rolling..."

.........................................................."

When I was young, which was quite a long time ago now, most people smoked. And those that didn't (like my parents) were completely tolerant of smokers and smoking. It simply wasn't an issue. In my house, there were always ashtrays and a box with a selection of cigarettes for any guests who might visit. I never heard my parents whinge about tobacco smoke. It was just another normal smell. In fact the only comment I ever heard on the subject was from my mother, who remarked how much she liked the smell of Dutch pipe tobacco.

Propaganda, however, is a powerful tool, and in the case of smoking has been wielded relentlessly and cynically by the small but well funded (by the pharmaceutical industry) anti-smoking lobby for the past four decades or so. They have managed to turn tolerance into intolerance, intolerance into hatred. Because hatred and division is what they peddle. Prohibitionist groups through history have done much the same, but without the advantage of being able to control the Mainstream Media.

And now look where we are. Just look at some of the comments in this thread. Hatred. And all based on lies and propaganda. Which of course is what the lies and propaganda were designed to produce. If you don't believe what I say about how they've stirred up an unprecedented degree of hatred against nearly a quarter of the adult population of the globe, just for indulging in an almost harmless pastime that they enjoy, have a glance at this compilation of a selection of comments taken from hither and thither:

None of these comments are really original. They are just parroted from the propaganda disseminated by Tobacco Control. Maybe embellished a bit, just to say "Look at me! I'm really, really anti-smoking! Aren't I great!" Just mindless blather from fools who think: "This is what people are saying now, so I'll say it too, then I'll be 'one of them'; in with the 'in' crowd". Because most people want to feel they are 'part of the group' and to be accepted.

Personally, I don't give a damn whether I'm 'accepted' by polite society or not.

I'm 67 years old. I've been smoking since I was twelve. I'm fitter and healthier than most non-smokers I know who are 20 years  younger than me. I almost never get sick. The last time I went to a doctor for anything other than physical injury was more than thirty years ago. I don't get colds. I still do physically demanding work on a daily basis. I have a young and lovely wife. My life is very good.

I am a gregarious person by nature, and have travelled widely. As such, I have met and kept in touch with a large number of people from all walks of life, many of whom (the majority, probably) have been smokers. In that time, and of those people, I can't recall any one of them ever "dying a slow and painful death" as a direct result of smoking. That is largely a myth. Sure, there will be a few people who really don't have the metabolism to cope with smoking, and it may well kill them if they have another condition that can be exacerbated by smoking. I'm not suggesting that smoking is a risk-free pleasure. It doubtless contributes to the death of some people. But it isn't the 'killer' that we're constantly harangued about. That is just pure, unadulterated propaganda. And those gross medico-porn photos on the fag packets are either photoshopped, posed by actors or of non-smoker's ailments. Of all the medico-porn photos on from all around the world that adorn cigarette packets, as mandated by Tobacco Control, you could probably count on the fingers of one hand those that are genuinely of smokers, and even then it's debatable whether or not smoking was the cause.

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/1998/10/lies.pdf

To be honest, I used to believe all that stuff myself. The "If you smoke, you are so going to die young in a most appalling way" line. I didn't really think much about it, just accepted it. Well, they were 'experts', weren't they? I even stopped smoking a couple of times for a year or so each time because I believed it. But I missed the subtle pleasures and benefits of smoking, so I started again.

It was only when they started with the patently risible concept of 'second-hand' smoke, and mooting bans on the back of it that I started to take interest in the subject. It was so obviously utter BS (after all, my generation grew up in a fug of tobacco smoke, and we are the healthiest and longest-lived generation ever) that I started to adopt a more critical stance. When I got involved in a forum debate about it some ten or twelve years ago, I started to do some research to back up what to me seemed basic commonsense arguments. And I don't mean Googling 'SHS' and reading the first couple of pages of results. Tobacco Control aren't stupid, and have control over what comes up on search engines. No, I started to dig deep. I looked at the actual research papers, not the spin put on them by the people with an ideological agenda. And the deeper I dug, the more I realised how comprehensive was the deception being foisted upon us. Now I'm a total cynic. I don't believe a word of anything put out by Tobacco Control. I know their agenda, and how they operate. They are completely amoral. Their ethos is 'the ends justify the means'.

It really is truly frightening how populations can be controlled by the clever use of propaganda.

7 hours ago, davo2003 said:

I've been vacationing in Thailand mostly Pattaya since 2008. Up and down walking street, bars, beach road etc. Never seen a child for sale, never been offered. If it was a problem all the little kids selling trinkets in the bars would be seen disappearing to short time rooms now and then. Sometimes I think this is just made up to keep donations rolling in to NGOs. The occasional bloke arrested with a girl 17 yrs 11 months and 29 days old keeps this old tale alive though.  

Same as that, both in Thailand and Cambodia. I've met, and enjoyed the company of many 'ladies of the night', some as young as their mid-twenties. I've also encountered numerous kids (especially in PP) selling newspapers and such. But not once since I started regularly visiting the region have I ever come across any suggestion that children were available for sex.

As already mentioned, the whole child sex thing provides a rich stream of funding for NGOs operating in the area, so of course they talk it up. I don't doubt that it exists here and there, but I think you'd probably have to look pretty hard to find it. And I would imagine that the last place you'd find it would be in the popular red light districts of Pattaya and Bangkok. They have far too much to lose.

2 hours ago, JustNo said:

At that time wasn't there also a business tycoon in the US who owned either a paper company or newspaper company, and he helped fund this campaign as he was worried that hemp would ruin his business? 

The war on drugs is a crooked affair, and many people still think governments give a damn about your health. To an extent they do, but only because they want a healthy work-force; the governments you will find are at the heart of many of the drug running anyway, especially the US and South American governments. There is evidence against the CIA showing they helped control and do control the flow of crack cocaine and heroin. Control control control 

" William Randolph Hearst (Citizen Kane) and the Hearst Paper Manufacturing Division of Kimberly Clark owned vast acreage of timberlands. The Hearst Company supplied most paper products. Patty Hearst's grandfather stood to lose billions because of hemp.

In 1937, DuPont patented the processes to make plastics from oil and coal. DuPont's Annual Report urged stockholders to invest in its new petrochemical division. Synthetics such as plastics, cellophane, celluloid, methanol, nylon, rayon, Dacron, etc., could now be made from oil. Natural hemp industrialization would have ruined over 80% of DuPont's business.
 The Conspiracy Andrew Mellon became Hoover's Secretary of the Treasury and Dupont's primary investor. He appointed his future nephew-in-law, Harry J. Anslinger, to head the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. Secret meetings were held by these financial tycoons. Hemp was declared dangerous and a threat to their billion dollar enterprises. For their dynasties to remain intact, hemp had to go. These men took an obscure Mexican slang word: 'marihuana' and pushed it into the consciousness of America. "

http://www.answers.com/Q/Why_is_marijuana_illegal

There is in fact a bit more to it than that, but the quote above is accurate enough for all intents and purposes.

On 05/09/2016 at 9:35 AM, MisterTee said:

When I first came to Thailand in the late 1970s, ganja was almost as easy to buy as beer.

A lot has changed since then, but I really miss those days.

Yes, when I was first in Thailand in 1971, I was invited to share a bong almost everywhere I went, both in the cities and in the country. I smoked it with both hi-so and lo-so, there were no social boundaries - it was universal, cheap, readily available and top quality. And because it was both good and cheap, people weren't interested in opiates or amphetamines. Why should they be?

There was no 'yaba' problem then. And there wouldn't be a 'yaba' problem today, either, if they had allowed the situation with grass to continue as it was then.

The stupidity of people with power knows no bounds.

So how will this law impact on what I imagine must be hundreds, if not thousands of tourists who come on holiday to Thailand with their e-cigs and supply of juice? Given the fairly broad acceptance of the technology and ready availability of the hardware in Europe and USA, I very much doubt that most vapers would be aware of the fact that Thailand has adopted this totally bonkers attitude towards them. Are we going to see hordes of tourists being busted at Swampy for having (importing / smuggling) an e-cig? That'll go down well with the tour operators.

Who on earth decided on this stupid, pointless and unnecessary law? It really is madness writ large.

3 hours ago, NativeSon360 said:

Pardon my ignorance,  If Professor Robert Molimard states that Queen Elizabeth I was totally misguided, about her chiding Sir Walter Raleigh for importing the "scourge" of the tobacco smoking addiction to Britain, back in1590, then whatever Professor Molimard has to say on the topic, is (of course) the "undisputed" gospel truth. Thanks for the education update! Cheers!    

Since you seem to think that what you have read in 'The Daily Trash' is superior to Prof Molimard's assessment, perhaps a little further reading on your part is in order.

Quote

Definitions that reasonably include nicotine are so broad and vague that they allow many trivial things, such as salt, sugar, and watching television, to be considered addictive. Definitions that exclude the trivia also exclude nicotine.

Dale m Atrens Ph.D.

www.forces.org/evidence/download/nicotine_addiction.pdf

Quote

My name is Michael Bozarth. I am an Associate Professor of Psychology with the State University of New York at Buffalo. I am here today to express my views on drug addiction, its underlying biological basis, and the widely popularized notion that nicotine is an addictive substance. Although I have not previously expressed my position formally, I welcome this opportunity to "speak out" on a topic of serious concern for the scientific community--that topic concerns the hasty conclusions draw from an inadequate empirical database. I strongly believe the scientific community is responsible for presenting unadulterated 'facts' so the public and the government can make informed decisions. The lay public trusts scientists to adequately interpret their data and to remain unbiased by political or other pressures.

In this brief statement I will develop the argument that research has failed to substantiate the claim that nicotine is addictive. To the contrary, it is difficult to document even mildly rewarding effects from nicotine. Because of time limitations, I will restrict my presentation to a few key issues. The evidence presented here is exemplary of a much larger series of arguments that refute the main conclusions drawn from the 1988 Surgeon General's report. An exhaustive, point-by-point critique of that report is not possible with the limited time allowed for preparation. My main objective today is to broaden the debate by discussing key points that have not received adequate consideration.

Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.

Department of Psychology
State University of New York at Buffalo
Buffalo, New York 14260-4110

 

http://wings.buffalo.edu/aru/ARUreport03.html

You can adopt your smug and sarcastic attitude all you like, but I'm afraid it still doesn't make you right, whatever you may think.

Trying to act superior in the face of facts just makes you appear foolish.

2 hours ago, NativeSon360 said:

Again, that Ministry spokesperson was referring to Cannabis as being an "addictive" behavior altering drug, not the long-term health effects to cardio-pulmonary system.

 

The Nicotine addiction is the most powerful substance addiction in human history. Thus, the tobacco industry has a guaranteed "cash-crop" market. In addition the governments of the world have a guaranteed "cash-cow" tax-base. Now, hopefully you can figure-out "the rest of the story", on your own! Cheers!

Sorry. Nicotine is not addictive at all. That's just propaganda, and you've swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

Quote

The big fraud in the tobacco issue was none other than the publication of the 1988 Surgeon General Report entitled “Nicotine Addiction’’. This fraud is incomprehensible unless one sees the link with the launch of the nicotine gum. The major premise of the Report seems to be a syllogism that states: “Tobacco products cause a powerful addiction’’ The minor premise is: “Tobacco contains a neurotropic poison - nicotine’’. Hence follows the conclusion: “Therefore nicotine is responsible for the addictiveness of tobacco’’. But there is no evidence that allows us to draw such a conclusion. A host of other assumptions are possible, and there are even major arguments to oppose it, such as the fact that no cases of nicotine dependence have ever been documented when this substance was used in isolation, as was already established long before the “Medication Enterprises” began marketing nicotine as a form of medication. This duplicity is more than amazing when you consider how common it is for addicts to experiment with the purified extracts of their plants of choice. Since no formal evidence of dependence to pure nicotine has yet to be produced, the conclusion that nicotine alone is addictive is not a syllogism, but rather, pure sophistry.

And yet, against all scientific rigor, this fallacy was implanted through repetition, hammered in as an unassailable truth, all with the support of health authorities and politicians. Thus the famous Fagerström test in the AFSSAPS good practice recommendations, continues to be called ‘’test for nicotine dependence’’. Yet not one of its 6 items even refers to it. This is simply a test for cigarette dependence and we would have no objection if it were referred to as such. Is this a minor detail? No, it is clearly an intentional mistake, extremely serious in its consequences both intellectually and scientifically. Because having arbitrarily decided that nicotine alone explains tobacco dependence and having it ingrained in the minds of doctors, the authorities and the public, any research on the other possible factors of this dependency is now excluded in advance and a vast new market is made available for commercial exploitation by the pharmaceutical industry.

 

Professor Robert Molimard

http://cagecanada.blogspot.gr/2010/12/beliefs-manipulation-and-lies-in.html

Of course it should be legalised. That it was made illegal in the first place was insanity of the first order. But as usual, it was the Americans who started the ball rolling, and as usual it was money that was at the root of it. And as usual, the USA went on to impose their version of the truth on the rest of the world.

Quote

There are many sites which explain all the politics of it, but hemp (cannabis) used to be a huge cash crop in the US, and supplied the raw material for fiber, bioplastics, diesel fuel, bird seed, and paper. But it was really difficult to harvest. In 1936 a thresher was patented that made harvesting much easier. But that put hemp in direct competition with the large paper mills (owned by Hearst); and DuPont chemicals, which had developed a process for producing plastics from petroleum.

All this pretty much coincided with the repeal of alcohol prohibition in 1933. Federal agents who had been merrily busting moonshiners and bootleggers who operated illegal stills, now were out of a job. Harry Anslinger, head of those operations wanted to keep his boys employed, so together with Hearst, DuPont, and a cadre of racists, started a campaign to demonize cannabis. They renamed it as marijuana, said that minority members who smoked it were corrupting White youth, and turning everyone who used it into crazed killers.

Congress, clueless as ever, agreed to but a ban on "marijuana". Unfortunately, they didn't realize it was the same thing as hemp. So a lot of farmers were ticked off. Also, a bunch of doctors were upset because cannabis had been used for a century in many medications including children's cough syrup, and sleeping liquid.

But money talks, and it spoke loudly then, as now. Hearst, of the wood pulp and paper interests, used his many newspapers to print propaganda, and push the prohibition through.

Briefly, during World War II, access to imported hemp was cut off, and the the US Govt. realized it had shot itself in the foot, and actually had to make propaganda films encouraging farmers to grow hemp again (used in ropes, sails, parachutes, etc.)

In the 1960's cannabis smoking became popular again, and was a part of the "mind-expansion movement." Then in the early 1970's, President Richard Nixon, of Watergate fame, was upset at all the cannabis smoking hippies who also happened to be demonstrating against the Vietnam war. He wanted to crack down on them, so he commissioned a congressional committee to research cannabis so he could say how "horrible" it was.

Unfortunately for Nixon, the Shafer Commission said they thought cannabis should be legalized. Nixon tore up the study, and launched the "War On Drugs!"

Since then the lies, idiocy, and brainwashing persist. Prisons are making money on the 730,000 folks arrested each year for simple cannabis possession. Minority members, as usual, bear the brunt of these asinine policies, which to a large measure exist to oppress them.

Since mainstream media supports corporate interests which have no stake in making cannabis legal again, it is very hard to find out the truth, or even have a sensible discussion about it.

http://www.answers.com/Q/Why_is_marijuana_illegal

Above is one of the first articles I came up with when I Googled it, and although it doesn't give a complete explanation, is reasonably accurate. There was in fact a lot more skulduggery involved in the demonisation of marijuana, but this will suffice. It's all out there on the web for anyone interested enough to look.

30 minutes ago, teacherpaul said:

My facts are correct. I never said how much arsenic there are in cigarettes. However, it is a scientific fact that smoking cigarettes is far worse than smoking weed. You are clearly one of these individuals who gets some kind of smugness from disagreeing with people just for the sake of it.

Exactly.

You didn't say how much arsenic was in cigarettes.

Just as Tobacco Control never says how much arsenic is in cigarettes.

But the inference is, of course, that there are damaging amounts of arsenic in cigarettes, yes? Because otherwise, why mention it?

You wouldn't think to comment on the fact that there are measurable amounts of arsenic in water, would you? Why should you? Those measurable amounts are quite within the human body's tolerance. In fact, arsenic is an essential part of our chemical structure. The first rule of toxicology is that 'the dose makes the poison'. But you mentioned it in such a fashion that to the casual reader it would seem that those amounts are dangerous.

That is called lying by omission.

I disagree with people not 'for the sake of it', but when they try to deceive. I get no pleasure from it. But I hate being lied to, and I don't see why people like yourself who try to deceive shouldn't be exposed for the deceptive manipulators that you are.

Quote

However, it is a scientific fact that smoking cigarettes is far worse than smoking weed.

Find me the 'scientific fact', the research that says so.

And even if you can, I'm sure a few minutes on the internet will provide me with research that refutes that statement.