Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I believe that you folks who think the market is enitrely moving based on the day-to-day events in the news are being mislead by your theories that the government has total control over the market.
Certainly sometimes that might be true but every damned say?
I do not think the market works that way, folks.
As an S&P futures day-trader of many years, I can assure you that a individual day's price movement is determined by news, actions by the Fed, and then market operators mostly when the other two are not operative.
Lately it has been all Fed. Most S&P traders have been out of the S&P since it looked like The Prophet was going to be elected. Everything now is based on news and the Fed. The Wall Street houses, who often maintain a semblence of order, are either gone or in such bad shape they are not really driving the market on a consistent basis either.
And the market is coming off an extreme over-sold condition. Perhaps we are turning around. Who knows.
As an S&P futures day-trader of many years, I can assure you that a individual day's price movement is determined by news, actions by the Fed, and then market operators mostly when the other two are not operative.
Lately it has been all Fed. Most S&P traders have been out of the S&P since it looked like The Prophet was going to be elected. Everything now is based on news and the Fed. The Wall Street houses, who often maintain a semblence of order, are either gone or in such bad shape they are not really driving the market on a consistent basis either.
And the market is coming off an extreme over-sold condition. Perhaps we are turning around. Who knows.
Well I'm certainly NOT arguming that what the FED does or the government does, or even what some foreighn government does will NOT effect the markets, IO.
But can you tell me exactly why the market went up yesterday?
Can you really prove that the day before yesterday's news cause the market to react as it did yesterday?
Because if you could, then you could also never lose a fucking penny in the market, right?
All you'd need do is pay attention the news about what the government is doing and then?
Then you could capitalize on it couldn't you?
Now are telling me that you never guessed wrong about how the market would react?
Never?
Not once?
that would have done more for the economy than that bullshit congress passed and Obama signedOne TRILLION DOLLARS = Every mortgage in American paid for 14 months.
You want to jump start MY economy?
Pay my (pay all our) mortgage(s) for 14 months.
That'll do it.
that would have done more for the economy than that bullshit congress passed and Obama signedOne TRILLION DOLLARS = Every mortgage in American paid for 14 months.
You want to jump start MY economy?
Pay my (pay all our) mortgage(s) for 14 months.
That'll do it.
Marihuana Tax Act of 1937
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Marijuana Tax Act)
Jump to: navigation, search
HR. 238 [75th]: Marihuana Tax Act
full text
Signed by the president.
Introduced August 2, 1937
Sponsor(s) Rep. Robert L. Doughton [-]
Source: {{{footnotes}}}
Major U.S. Federal
narcotic laws
Image:Marijuana icon.jpg
1906 Pure Food and Drug Act
Regulates labeling of products containing
certain drugs including cocaine and heroin
1914 Harrison Narcotics Tax Act
Regulate opiates and cocaine
1937 Marihuana Tax Act
Criminalization of marijuana.
1964 Convention on Narcotics.
Treaty to control marijuana
1970 Controlled Substance Act
Scheduling list for drugs
v d e
In the United States, the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act, Pub. 238, 75th Congress, 50 Stat. 551 (Aug. 2, 1937), was a significant bill on the path that led to the criminalization of cannabis. It was introduced to U.S. Congress by "Drug Czar" Harry Anslinger, then Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 References
* 2 Further reading
* 3 External links
The Act did not itself criminalize the possession or usage of hemp, marijuana or cannabis, but levied a tax equaling roughly one dollar on anyone who dealt commercially in cannabis, hemp or marijuana. It did, however, include penalty provisions and a complex Regulation 1 codifying the elaborate rules of enforcement marijuana cannabis or hemp handlers were subject to. Violation of these procedures could result in a fine of up to $2000 and five years' imprisonment. The net effect was to make it too risky for anyone to deal in the substance until World War II required the United States Department of Agriculture to make its 1942 movie "Hemp for Victory". The film encouraged and taught farmers to grow variants of hemp suitable as raw material for hawsers used by U.S Marines; the hemp was used as a substitute for other raw materials that were blocked by Japan.
The bill was passed on the grounds of different reports[1] and hearings [2]. Anslinger also referred to the International Opium Convention that from 1928 included cannabis as a drug, and that all states had some kind of laws against improper use of cannabis. Some testimonies included that cannabis caused "murder, insanity and death.[citation needed] Today, it is generally accepted that the hearings included incorrect, excessive or unfounded arguments.[citation needed] By 1951, however, new justifications had emerged, and a bill that superseded the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was passed.
The background also included a report about the commercialized hemp reporting that from 1880 to 1933 the hemp grown in the United States had declined from 15,000 acres (61 km2), to 1,200 acres (5 km2), and that the price of line hemp had dropped from $12.50 per pound in 1914 to $9.00 per pound in 1933.[3]
In 1967, President Johnson's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of justice opined, "The Act raises an insignificant amount of revenue and exposes an insignificant number of marijuana transactions to public view, since only a handful of people are registered under the Act. It has become, in effect, solely- a criminal law, imposing sanctions upon persons who sell, acquire, or possess marijuana."[4]
In 1969 in Leary v. United States, this act was found to be unconstitutional since it violated the Fifth Amendment, since a person seeking the tax stamp would have to incriminate him/herself.[5] In response the Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970[6]. The 1937 Act was repealed by the 1970 Act.
Although the spelling "marijuana" is more common in current usage, the correct spelling for the Marihuana Tax Act is "Marihuana". "Marihuana" was the spelling most commonly used in Federal Government documents at the time. To stay consistent with prior law, it is still spelled "Marihuana" in some congressional bills such as HR 3037, the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2005.
In addition... the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 legitimized, made official, the use of the labeling of hemp and cannabis plants and products to be termed/called, "marihuana" or, as it is now said, "marijuana"... prior to 1937, "marihuana/marijuana" was slang, it was not included in any official dictionaries... as a reference (consult any dictionary prior to 1937) the author refers you to Webster's New International Dictionary, 1921, Published by G.&C. Merriam Company, Springfield, Mass., U.S.A., pg. 1318 - which is where if such a official word existed, it would be present, and it's not. The slang word marihuana/marijuana is probably of Mexican origin. In the years leading up to the tax act considerable issues existed involving illegal immigration of Mexicans into the United States, and the one thing Mexicans were identified as being in possession of was cannabis, what they called marihuana. It was the southern, border states that called for action. As documented by the History Channel's documentary, "Hooked: Illegal Drugs and How They Got That Way", copyright 2000, A&E Television Network, Cat. No. AAE-70805, Volume 1, Harry Anslinger resisted the call to even consider criminalizing cannabis... but under considerable pressure by southern states, and recent propaganda/horror movies inspired by, such notable figures as, William Randolf Hearst, Anslinger bowed to pressure, and based on the success of the tax act earlier created to "ban" possession of machine guns, created the tax act to ban what the Mexicans seemed to possess, that being marihuana, and therefor, illegal immigrants could now be arrested for possession of marihuana, as well as all US citizens.
i wouldnt have a problem with that, it would also kill most of the drug businessShit.......ya wanna stimulate the economy? Legalize cannabis. It is a BILLION DOLLAR A YEAR business in California alone.
I guarantee.......legalize it and within 6 months the economy will be making a strong comeback. We could get off oil (hemp makes oil), as well as have food and other things.
Additionally, maybe everyone would be able to get the sticks out of their collective asses.
Not only that, but the infrastructure and the legislation ALREADY IS IN PLACE. All the government has to do is start selling Marijuana Tax stamps.
Marihuana Tax Act of 1937
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Marijuana Tax Act)
Jump to: navigation, search
HR. 238 [75th]: Marihuana Tax Act
full text
Signed by the president.
Introduced August 2, 1937
Sponsor(s) Rep. Robert L. Doughton [-]
Source: {{{footnotes}}}
Major U.S. Federal
narcotic laws
Image:Marijuana icon.jpg
1906 Pure Food and Drug Act
Regulates labeling of products containing
certain drugs including cocaine and heroin
1914 Harrison Narcotics Tax Act
Regulate opiates and cocaine
1937 Marihuana Tax Act
Criminalization of marijuana.
1964 Convention on Narcotics.
Treaty to control marijuana
1970 Controlled Substance Act
Scheduling list for drugs
v d e
In the United States, the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act, Pub. 238, 75th Congress, 50 Stat. 551 (Aug. 2, 1937), was a significant bill on the path that led to the criminalization of cannabis. It was introduced to U.S. Congress by "Drug Czar" Harry Anslinger, then Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 References
* 2 Further reading
* 3 External links
The Act did not itself criminalize the possession or usage of hemp, marijuana or cannabis, but levied a tax equaling roughly one dollar on anyone who dealt commercially in cannabis, hemp or marijuana. It did, however, include penalty provisions and a complex Regulation 1 codifying the elaborate rules of enforcement marijuana cannabis or hemp handlers were subject to. Violation of these procedures could result in a fine of up to $2000 and five years' imprisonment. The net effect was to make it too risky for anyone to deal in the substance until World War II required the United States Department of Agriculture to make its 1942 movie "Hemp for Victory". The film encouraged and taught farmers to grow variants of hemp suitable as raw material for hawsers used by U.S Marines; the hemp was used as a substitute for other raw materials that were blocked by Japan.
The bill was passed on the grounds of different reports[1] and hearings [2]. Anslinger also referred to the International Opium Convention that from 1928 included cannabis as a drug, and that all states had some kind of laws against improper use of cannabis. Some testimonies included that cannabis caused "murder, insanity and death.[citation needed] Today, it is generally accepted that the hearings included incorrect, excessive or unfounded arguments.[citation needed] By 1951, however, new justifications had emerged, and a bill that superseded the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was passed.
The background also included a report about the commercialized hemp reporting that from 1880 to 1933 the hemp grown in the United States had declined from 15,000 acres (61 km2), to 1,200 acres (5 km2), and that the price of line hemp had dropped from $12.50 per pound in 1914 to $9.00 per pound in 1933.[3]
In 1967, President Johnson's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of justice opined, "The Act raises an insignificant amount of revenue and exposes an insignificant number of marijuana transactions to public view, since only a handful of people are registered under the Act. It has become, in effect, solely- a criminal law, imposing sanctions upon persons who sell, acquire, or possess marijuana."[4]
In 1969 in Leary v. United States, this act was found to be unconstitutional since it violated the Fifth Amendment, since a person seeking the tax stamp would have to incriminate him/herself.[5] In response the Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970[6]. The 1937 Act was repealed by the 1970 Act.
Although the spelling "marijuana" is more common in current usage, the correct spelling for the Marihuana Tax Act is "Marihuana". "Marihuana" was the spelling most commonly used in Federal Government documents at the time. To stay consistent with prior law, it is still spelled "Marihuana" in some congressional bills such as HR 3037, the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2005.
In addition... the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 legitimized, made official, the use of the labeling of hemp and cannabis plants and products to be termed/called, "marihuana" or, as it is now said, "marijuana"... prior to 1937, "marihuana/marijuana" was slang, it was not included in any official dictionaries... as a reference (consult any dictionary prior to 1937) the author refers you to Webster's New International Dictionary, 1921, Published by G.&C. Merriam Company, Springfield, Mass., U.S.A., pg. 1318 - which is where if such a official word existed, it would be present, and it's not. The slang word marihuana/marijuana is probably of Mexican origin. In the years leading up to the tax act considerable issues existed involving illegal immigration of Mexicans into the United States, and the one thing Mexicans were identified as being in possession of was cannabis, what they called marihuana. It was the southern, border states that called for action. As documented by the History Channel's documentary, "Hooked: Illegal Drugs and How They Got That Way", copyright 2000, A&E Television Network, Cat. No. AAE-70805, Volume 1, Harry Anslinger resisted the call to even consider criminalizing cannabis... but under considerable pressure by southern states, and recent propaganda/horror movies inspired by, such notable figures as, William Randolf Hearst, Anslinger bowed to pressure, and based on the success of the tax act earlier created to "ban" possession of machine guns, created the tax act to ban what the Mexicans seemed to possess, that being marihuana, and therefor, illegal immigrants could now be arrested for possession of marihuana, as well as all US citizens.
I am glad that the market is back on the move up (for once) but it is becoming a bit much with amount of money being spent to get us out the issue. Then again if we look way back when the New Deal was criticized for using alot of dough and it ended up saving the entire country in the end.
We can't take it with us I guess.
i wouldnt have a problem with that, it would also kill most of the drug businessShit.......ya wanna stimulate the economy? Legalize cannabis. It is a BILLION DOLLAR A YEAR business in California alone.
I guarantee.......legalize it and within 6 months the economy will be making a strong comeback. We could get off oil (hemp makes oil), as well as have food and other things.
Additionally, maybe everyone would be able to get the sticks out of their collective asses.
Not only that, but the infrastructure and the legislation ALREADY IS IN PLACE. All the government has to do is start selling Marijuana Tax stamps.
Marihuana Tax Act of 1937
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Marijuana Tax Act)
Jump to: navigation, search
HR. 238 [75th]: Marihuana Tax Act
full text
Signed by the president.
Introduced August 2, 1937
Sponsor(s) Rep. Robert L. Doughton [-]
Source: {{{footnotes}}}
Major U.S. Federal
narcotic laws
Image:Marijuana icon.jpg
1906 Pure Food and Drug Act
Regulates labeling of products containing
certain drugs including cocaine and heroin
1914 Harrison Narcotics Tax Act
Regulate opiates and cocaine
1937 Marihuana Tax Act
Criminalization of marijuana.
1964 Convention on Narcotics.
Treaty to control marijuana
1970 Controlled Substance Act
Scheduling list for drugs
v d e
In the United States, the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act, Pub. 238, 75th Congress, 50 Stat. 551 (Aug. 2, 1937), was a significant bill on the path that led to the criminalization of cannabis. It was introduced to U.S. Congress by "Drug Czar" Harry Anslinger, then Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 References
* 2 Further reading
* 3 External links
The Act did not itself criminalize the possession or usage of hemp, marijuana or cannabis, but levied a tax equaling roughly one dollar on anyone who dealt commercially in cannabis, hemp or marijuana. It did, however, include penalty provisions and a complex Regulation 1 codifying the elaborate rules of enforcement marijuana cannabis or hemp handlers were subject to. Violation of these procedures could result in a fine of up to $2000 and five years' imprisonment. The net effect was to make it too risky for anyone to deal in the substance until World War II required the United States Department of Agriculture to make its 1942 movie "Hemp for Victory". The film encouraged and taught farmers to grow variants of hemp suitable as raw material for hawsers used by U.S Marines; the hemp was used as a substitute for other raw materials that were blocked by Japan.
The bill was passed on the grounds of different reports[1] and hearings [2]. Anslinger also referred to the International Opium Convention that from 1928 included cannabis as a drug, and that all states had some kind of laws against improper use of cannabis. Some testimonies included that cannabis caused "murder, insanity and death.[citation needed] Today, it is generally accepted that the hearings included incorrect, excessive or unfounded arguments.[citation needed] By 1951, however, new justifications had emerged, and a bill that superseded the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was passed.
The background also included a report about the commercialized hemp reporting that from 1880 to 1933 the hemp grown in the United States had declined from 15,000 acres (61 km2), to 1,200 acres (5 km2), and that the price of line hemp had dropped from $12.50 per pound in 1914 to $9.00 per pound in 1933.[3]
In 1967, President Johnson's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of justice opined, "The Act raises an insignificant amount of revenue and exposes an insignificant number of marijuana transactions to public view, since only a handful of people are registered under the Act. It has become, in effect, solely- a criminal law, imposing sanctions upon persons who sell, acquire, or possess marijuana."[4]
In 1969 in Leary v. United States, this act was found to be unconstitutional since it violated the Fifth Amendment, since a person seeking the tax stamp would have to incriminate him/herself.[5] In response the Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970[6]. The 1937 Act was repealed by the 1970 Act.
Although the spelling "marijuana" is more common in current usage, the correct spelling for the Marihuana Tax Act is "Marihuana". "Marihuana" was the spelling most commonly used in Federal Government documents at the time. To stay consistent with prior law, it is still spelled "Marihuana" in some congressional bills such as HR 3037, the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2005.
In addition... the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 legitimized, made official, the use of the labeling of hemp and cannabis plants and products to be termed/called, "marihuana" or, as it is now said, "marijuana"... prior to 1937, "marihuana/marijuana" was slang, it was not included in any official dictionaries... as a reference (consult any dictionary prior to 1937) the author refers you to Webster's New International Dictionary, 1921, Published by G.&C. Merriam Company, Springfield, Mass., U.S.A., pg. 1318 - which is where if such a official word existed, it would be present, and it's not. The slang word marihuana/marijuana is probably of Mexican origin. In the years leading up to the tax act considerable issues existed involving illegal immigration of Mexicans into the United States, and the one thing Mexicans were identified as being in possession of was cannabis, what they called marihuana. It was the southern, border states that called for action. As documented by the History Channel's documentary, "Hooked: Illegal Drugs and How They Got That Way", copyright 2000, A&E Television Network, Cat. No. AAE-70805, Volume 1, Harry Anslinger resisted the call to even consider criminalizing cannabis... but under considerable pressure by southern states, and recent propaganda/horror movies inspired by, such notable figures as, William Randolf Hearst, Anslinger bowed to pressure, and based on the success of the tax act earlier created to "ban" possession of machine guns, created the tax act to ban what the Mexicans seemed to possess, that being marihuana, and therefor, illegal immigrants could now be arrested for possession of marihuana, as well as all US citizens.
then the tobacco companies could switch over a bunch of their crop to MJ and we could cut all the subsidies they are given
uh, bobo, the tobacco companies would start producing poti wouldnt have a problem with that, it would also kill most of the drug businessShit.......ya wanna stimulate the economy? Legalize cannabis. It is a BILLION DOLLAR A YEAR business in California alone.
I guarantee.......legalize it and within 6 months the economy will be making a strong comeback. We could get off oil (hemp makes oil), as well as have food and other things.
Additionally, maybe everyone would be able to get the sticks out of their collective asses.
Not only that, but the infrastructure and the legislation ALREADY IS IN PLACE. All the government has to do is start selling Marijuana Tax stamps.
then the tobacco companies could switch over a bunch of their crop to MJ and we could cut all the subsidies they are given
And the government would make billions in tax revenue. NEW tax revenue!!!
Legalizing pot is the answer to all our problems.
PS. The GOP (and probably the dems too), protect the tobacco companies profits by keeping pot illegal.
And the courts make a lot of money on people who got caught smoking a joint.
Pathetic really.
hey, i want all you pot smokers to have as much as you wantYou know.......with all the things that I've seen on the news lately, there are more and more politicians that are turning towards the idea of the legalization of cannabis.
Google "marijuana legalization" sometime........it's pretty eye opening.
