As for the grower who wanted to buy my paper, it’s possible that he would have done a great job. Maybe he would have turned it into the best dang weekly newspaper in America. Maybe. But maybe not.

I suspect he would have ran it like the Humboldt Advocate. It would go gangbusters for awhile, then slowly fade away. That’s pure speculation on my part.

I can think of far better investments for the typical pot/dope dealer; a more traditional fertilizer would be a start.

Captain Glunk…

These terms come and go, evolve and mutate. “Dope” is old-fashioned, like “balling” and “outasite.” Nobody calls it “boo” or “gage” any more either, except for comedic or nostalgic reasons.

For a while TJ Doyle and I tried to propagate “Captain Glunk” as a term for pot, but for some strange reason it didn’t take.

Date of Origin 19th c.
Dope originated in the USA, where it was borrowed from Dutch doop ‘sauce’. This was a derivative of the verb doopen ‘dip’, which is related to English dip. It was at first used as a general colloquialism for any thick semi-liquid preparation, whether used as a food or, e.g., as a lubricant, but during the 19th century some specific strands began to emerge: notably ‘drug’, and in particular ‘opium’, and ‘varnish painted on the fabric of an aircraft’. The effects of the former led to its use in the sense ‘fool’, and to the coinage of the adjective dopey, first recorded in the 1890s. The sense ‘information’ dates from around 1900.

Word Origin & History

dope
1807, Amer.Eng., “sauce, gravy,” from Du. doop “thick dipping sauce.” Extension to “drug” is 1889, from practice of smoking semi-liquid opium preparation. Meaning “foolish, stupid person” is older (1851) and may have a sense of “thick-headed.” Sense of “inside information” (1901)

Only when cannabis was lumped in with narcotics like heroin by the government did non-users start to refer to ALL drugs as dope.

THE FORBIDDEN FRUIT AND THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE: AN INQUIRY INTO THE LEGAL HISTORY OF AMERICAN MARIJUANA PROHIBITION

Richard J. Bonnie & Charles H. Whitebread, II

III. THE GENESIS OF MARIJUANA PROHIBITION

Until the inclusion of marijuana in the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act in 1932 and the passage of the Marihuana Tax Act in 1937, there was no “national” public policy regarding the drug. However, as early as 1914 the New York City Sanitary Laws included cannabis in a prohibited drug list and in 1915 Utah passed the first state statute prohibiting sale or possession of the drug. By 1931 twenty-two states had enacted such legislation. In the succeeding section, we shall delve into the circumstances surrounding the passage of several of these early laws and the ensuing judicial acquiescence in the legislative value judgments concerning marijuana. We conclude that the legislative action and approval were essentially kneejerk responses uninformed by scientific study or public debate and colored instead by racial bias and sensationalistic myths.

A. Initial State Legislation 1914-1931

As indicated above, the Harrison Act, a regulatory measure in the garb of a taxing statute, left many gaps unfilled in the effort to prohibit illegal or nonmedical use of opiates and cocaine. Although Commissioner Anslinger of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics stated in 1932 that few states had responded to the Harrison Act,1 most states had in fact enacted or reenacted narcotics laws in the period from 1914 to 1931.2 In so doing, twenty-one states had also restricted the sale of marijuana as part of their general narcotics articles, one state had prohibited its use for any purpose, and four states had outlawed its cultivation.3 Our objective in this section is to determine why these states chose to include cannabis in their lists of prohibited drugs.

The first consideration was the increasing public awareness of the narcotics problem. As noted above, the Harrison Act engendered a shift in public perception of the narcotics addict. With ever-increasing frequency and venom, he was portrayed in the public media as the criminal “dope fiend.” This hysteria, coupled with the actual increases in drug-related criminal conduct due to the closing of the clinics,4 was the basis for a good many of the post-Harrison Act narcotic statutes.5 Other forces such as lurid accounts in the media,6 publications of private narcotics associations 7 and the effective separation of the addict and his problems from the medical profession8 all pressed legislatures into action to deal more effectively with what was perceived as a growing narcotics problem.

Despite the increasing public interest in the narcotics problem during this period, we can find no evidence of public concern for, or understanding of, marijuana, even in those states that banned it along with the opiates and cocaine. Observers in the middle and late 1930′s agreed that marijuana was at that time a very new phenomenon on the national scene.9 The perplexing question remains-why did some states include marijuana in their prohibitive legislation a decade before it achieved any notice whatsoever from the general public and the overwhelming majority of legislators?

From a survey of contemporary newspaper and periodical commentary we have concluded that there were three major influences. The most prominent was racial prejudice. During this period, marijuana legislation was generally a regional phenomenon present in the southern and western states. Use of the drug was primarily limited to Mexican-Americans who were immigrating in increased numbers to those states. These movements were well noted in the press accounts of passage of marijuana legislation. A second factor was the assumption that marijuana, which was presumed to be an addictive drug, would be utilized as a substitute for narcotics and alcohol then prohibited by national policy. This factor was particularly significant in the New York law, the forerunner of nationwide anti-marijuana legislation. Finally, there is some evidence that coverage of the drug by the Geneva Conventions in 1925 was publicized in this country and may have had some influence.

http://imaginepeace.com/archives/3793