^ What Mr. Chomsky neglected to mention here was scale & production cost vs payoff.

Yes anyone can grow their own strawberries but how many could you ever hope to produce in the average back garden/greenhouse? Probably not enough to let you eat Strawberries everyday I'd bet, and you certainly would'nt pull much of a profit selling them to people at a domestic scale (the key issue here).

Pot however....... even a modest indoor backroom grow can easily net between 30-90oz when dried (alot!). And this can easily be repeated up to 3-4 times a year.

Tobbacco by comparison yields very little for the space and time taken. There's a reason basically no-one home grows tobbaco, you need a huge farm and large scale processing to produce a profitable quantity. Hence it being the preserve of big business and thus legal (plutocrats sure know how to lobby!).


For what its worth though, I do think the Hemp fiber thing was probably the bigger factor in legislation, but what Chomsky is alluding to here is also pretty valid I think.
Pot is a massive cash crop that is seemingly always in demand and relatively easy for a consumer to produce in their own garden/backroom.

There would be a profit in industrial production (always going to be plenty lazy people), but combined with the hemp industry and the effect it tends to have on people (makes you think!) I can totally see why the establishment fears it so much.
It'd be slow, but legal Pot would start eroding the very foundations of the elites power as it's much more profitable for the lower and middle class of society than the Plutocrats at the top and the scale is huge.

A more equal distribution of wealth/economic power is bad for Plutocracy!

^nice way to twist my words. I've not implied that everything is a conspiracy.
I've only stated that the "scientists" here on the sift have not taken into account the other influences upon science.

Perhaps since you live in Lithuania you are unaware of the history of things like "tobacco science" and the stranglehold it had on americans perceptions of smoking in our country back in the 40's-present. Hell, perhaps most of you are too young to remember ads stating that 4 out of 5 doctors recommend brand X of cigarettes , for scientifically proven health reasons or how this "science" was touted in medical journals That's not conspiracy son, it's fact. Not acknowledging or understanding the forces behind what enables science to be skewed by industry is choosing to remain ignorant.

It looks like you've turned into a sheep yourself by quoting rembars line(lie) about implying I don't have a thought of my own and only "googlefoo" as he puts it. Hmm let's see, I've been reading and researching the subjects that I choose to comment on and bookmark them for future reference. If I just stated things without attribution then you would question where the information came from, so I present the evidence and aspects that are overlooked when considering issues.

the examples I gave about tobbacco, lead, fluoride are accurate and represent no conspiracy theory on my part as they are backed up by historical records. {edit: updated hyperlink}

while I'm sure you support many "valid" science claims and positions, it seems your arrogance blinds you to an aspect of influence on the outcome of scientific claims. So, go ahead and support your tobbacco science, your lead science (scientists said it was safe!), and your fluoride science

without acknowledging (or even realizing) that science has been and is influenced by industry, government and market forces you will be ignoring history and fall victim to being mislead.

please keep attacking the messenger of this truth with your belittling comments.

I grew up During the Ultraman years, and pretended I was Hyata- Dug the geezer with the powera th' illegal tobbacco! Booyah!