Reefer Madness! Hilarious Bullshit Propaganda Film From 1936

[Fat Man]

Reefer Madness is the unintentionally hilarious movie about the dangers of smoking weed. It's a 1936 exploitation film revolving around the tragic events that follow when high school students are lured by pushers to try "marihuana": a hit and run accident, manslaughter, suicide, rape, and descent into madness all ensue.

The film was intended to be shown to parents as a morality tale attempting to teach them about the dangers of cannabis use. However, soon after the film was shot, it was purchased by producer Dwain Esper, who recut the film for distribution on the exploitation film circuit. The film never gained an audience until it was rediscovered in the 1970s and gained new life as a piece of unintentional comedy among cannabis smokers. Today, it is in the public domain in the United States and is considered a cult film.

Refer Madness was directed by Louis J. Gasnier and starred a cast composed of mostly unknown bit actors. It was originally financed by a church group and made under the title Tell Your Children.

Yeah! Unknown bit actors. Real professional actors would not have been caught dead making a piece of shit propaganda film like this.

Anyway, here it is in 7 parts!

Enjoy!

Public Domain Movies - Reefer Madness - Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxNVJAi7 ... re=related

Public Domain Movies - Reefer Madness - Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX805_LA ... re=related

Public Domain Movies - Reefer Madness - Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD1UzSYU ... re=related

Public Domain Movies - Reefer Madness - Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK_5VILm ... re=related

Public Domain Movies - Reefer Madness - Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TcZZzFr ... re=related

Public Domain Movies - Reefer Madness - Part 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5zB2An3 ... re=related

Public Domain Movies - Reefer Madness - Part 7 - finale
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkuN6Hi2 ... re=related

OK, this is absolute pure unadulterated bullshit!!!

I'm not saying that smoking pot is completely harmless, but this was definitely an exaggeration of the effects of weed.

Alcohol actually causes far more violence than smoking weed, and a little bit of pot actually mellows you down.

The propaganda behind this movie with its exaggerations and out-right lies actually does far more damage than the drug itself.

But what can we expect? This movie was made 74 years ago back when people didn't know shit.

Also, the Marijuana that is smoked today is much stronger than what was available 74 years ago, which of course, makes this movie even more hilarious!

This might have been intended to be a serious documentary, but in the light of what we know today, we would view this movie as almost a dark comedy.

I'm still laughing my fat ass off!!!

[The Imperialist]

Well, my view is that:

Drugs (illegal, but even legal drugs like paracetamol can kill you) are actually bad for you.

Smoking is bad for you.

Why would one want to breathe in smoke? Would you breathe in all the smoke generated by bonfires?

So a mixture of smoking and drugs is not really a logical way of going about things.

Therefore, private enterprise for 'drugs' should not be allowed, but controlled by the State, and distribute it accordingly. However, those taking drugs should have all their social security, insurance etc. stripped off them so they do not waste public money if they do decide to become sick because of their habit.

[Fat Man]

Well, my view is that:

Drugs (illegal, but even legal drugs like paracetamol can kill you) are actually bad for you.

Smoking is bad for you.

Why would one want to breathe in smoke? Would you breathe in all the smoke generated by bonfires?

So a mixture of smoking and drugs is not really a logical way of going about things.

Therefore, private enterprise for 'drugs' should not be allowed, but controlled by the State, and distribute it accordingly. However, those taking drugs should have all their social security, insurance etc. stripped off them so they do not waste public money if they do decide to become sick because of their habit.

The point I was trying to make is that the effects of Marijuana was greatly exaggerated back in 1936.

For example, in one of the videos, it mention that after a teenager smoked Marijuana he murdered his entire family with an ax. No it wasn't actually shown, but only mentioned.

Well, Marijuana does not make people violent. It will not turn you into an ax murderer and it will not make you go insane for the rest of your life.

Too much will make you a dumb-ass but it won't make you violent.

I'm not defending the use of Marijuana, I'm only saying that the truth needs to be known without all the exaggerations and the bullshit propaganda.

Back in 1936 they didn't know shit!

Oh! And by the way, I'm a smoker.

No, I don't smoke Marijuana and I don't smoke cigarettes because they suck.

I smoke a pipe and my favorite pipe tobacco is Black Cavendish or Toasted Cavendish which has a nice sweet taste and aroma.

I also enjoy a good cigar.

I'm 58 years old and I have been smoking a pipe since I was 19 years old.

And it's nobody's damn business if I smoke a pipe or a cigar.

[The Imperialist]

It may be no one's damned business if you smokes whatever you smoked, but assuming that you have thought through and you do not smoke in front of somebody who doesn't smoke, because external breathers from smoke is actually more dangerous (due to the chemical discharge of the smoke that is unfiltered, and the fact that the leaves are more exposed to oxygen, which makes a more dangerous cocktail then the smoke which smoker inhales which is mostly due to incomplete combustion which doesn't make the chemicals as dangerous as the one that is being given off by the burning end of the cigarette/cigar/pipe), and the fact that if you do succumb to anything that is smoking related, it is very preferrable doesn't waste precious public money treating the person that succumed when that money could have been used somewhere else if the person decided to desist from smoking that would have decreased their chance in getting illnesses that is in someway related to smoking.

If the above points are considered, then I have no right to complain then.

[Fat Man]

It may be no one's damned business if you smokes whatever you smoked, but assuming that you have thought through and you do not smoke in front of somebody who doesn't smoke, because external breathers from smoke is actually more dangerous (due to the chemical discharge of the smoke that is unfiltered, and the fact that the leaves are more exposed to oxygen, which makes a more dangerous cocktail then the smoke which smoker inhales which is mostly due to incomplete combustion which doesn't make the chemicals as dangerous as the one that is being given off by the burning end of the cigarette/cigar/pipe), and the fact that if you do succumb to anything that is smoking related, it is very preferrable doesn't waste precious public money treating the person that succumed when that money could have been used somewhere else if the person decided to desist from smoking that would have decreased their chance in getting illnesses that is in someway related to smoking.

If the above points are considered, then I have no right to complain then.

People who smoke pipes or cigars do not inhale deeply like cigarette smokers. People who smoke cigarettes inhale deeply to get the nicotine.

I smoke a pipe or a cigar for the flavor of the tobacco and I like pipes and cigars because to me, they tasted good and smell. I love the smell of a good cigar and a good pipe tobacco.

I remember when I was a kid, I couldn't stand cigarette smoke, and when my stepfather was driving the car he was always smoking cigarettes. But one day he was smoking a cigar, and I remember I likes the smell of his cigar, so I told him from now on if he was going to smoke, to please smoke a cigar instead because to me, it smelled much better than a cigarette.

My grandfather smoked a pipe, and I remember when I was a kid, I liked the smell of pipes.

So, when I was a kid, I thought to myself, that when I grew up, I would never smoke cigarettes, but if I did smoke, I would smoke a pipe or a cigar.

And so, I have been a pipe smoker since I was 19 years old and it has never done me any harm, but even though I'm a pipe and cigar smoker, I still can't stand to be around cigarette smoke.

People who smoke cigarettes only care about the nicotine, they don't care about the taste or the smell, it's only the nicotine drug they want, so they smoke crummy rabbit-tobacco wrapped in shit-paper.

I smoke my pipe and cigars for the flavor, and since I don't inhale them as deeply I don't get as much nicotine. It's only the flavor and smell I care about.

Now all public place in Texas do not allow smoking, so I abide by the rules and I wait until I'm home.

But some people want to enforce more rules saying that you can't smoke in your own care, even it your alone, you can't smoke outdoors in a park, and in some cities you can't even smoke outdoors in your own back yard.

When the time comes when I won't be allowed to smoke in my own home, I'll join a militia to overthrow my own government.

What I do in the privacy of my own home is nobody's damn business.

So, you can put that in your pipe and smoke it!

[The Imperialist]

If you insist, if you insist.

[Fat Man]

If you insist, if you insist.

Oh! I insist!

I insist on having privacy in my own home!

I will abide by the no smoking rules in public.

But stay the fuck out of my home.

Stick you head into my home without my permission and I'll slam the fucking door on your fucking neck!

[The Imperialist]

I won't be rude enough to stick my own head into your own doors; that is, if I am acting as an INDIVIDUAL...

[Safety]

I think pot should be made legal under certain circumstances. Most of my friends smoke weed, or do some other drugs and it doesn't affect them one bit. But then again, none of them are addicted to it, they just enjoy it every once in a blue moon.

[The Imperialist]

Hmmm... Only if it was strictly regulated by the government. (And do anything to offset the cost of helping people get somesort of problems relating to such drugs)

And besides, I believe that drugs are just a convienient way of distracting oneself from reality, where one has to face reality fully from the front. (And I hate to think about people who can only get enjoyment by taking drugs). This also includes the supposedly socially accepted, but MAYBE more harmful than cannabis ALCOHOL.

[Fat Man]

Personally, I believe that ALL drugs should be decriminalized, not necessarily legalized, but at least, decriminalized.

I don't believe that anyone should go to jail just for having a couple ounces of Marijuana or even a couple of small rocks of crack, or a few grams of cocaine or heroine, as long as you only have a small quantity for personal use only.

Drug addiction is a medical issue, so we should just let the medical experts deal with how to treat addiction and the law should stay out of it.

Too many people, non-violent offenders, are in prison because of mandatory sentencing for drug use, and as a result, people who are doing time for violent crimes are getting released too early. Most drug users are not violent people. Yes some are, but most are not.

If you steal to support your drug habit, then you should to jail for stealing, but the mandatory sentencing for mere drug use has shown to be a failure.

Now, if you are in possession of large quantities of drugs, or operating you own meth-lab, then you should be busted and have the book thrown at you because it's obvious you're in possession with intent to sell.

Back it the 1920s and 1930s we had the Prohibition against alcohol here in the USA. Then when Franklin D Roosevelt was elected President, the 18th Amendment was repealed and the Prohibition against alcohol was lifted.

During Prohibition, the crime rates went up and bottling plants and breweries were shut down and people lost their jobs. But after Alcohol was legal again the bottling and the breweries reopened creating more jobs, and the crime rates went down.

You really can't pass laws telling people what not to eat, drink or consume.

Now, there are some people who want to outlaw tobacco. I'll be damned if I have to give up cigars and smoking my pipe. I love a good cigar and my favorite sweet Black Cavendish pipe tobacco, and I refuse to give that up.

Some people never learn from history and will continue to repeat the same mistakes that were made in the past over and over again.

Our drug laws are a dismal failure. As long as drugs are illegal, that's not going to stop some people from using them, and drug dealers find it very profitable to sell illegal drugs on the streets, and we have violence because of the drug dealers.

Incidentally, the big time dope dealers are also against legalizing drugs, because as long as drug are illegal, it's very profitable to sell dope on the streets.

But if drug we legalized, and produced legally, the cost of drugs would go down, and it would put the big time dope dealers out of business and the crime rates would go down.

So, I say, legalize the drugs, tax the Hell out of them, it would still be much cheaper than what was bought on the streets, and drugs addict should be registered so they can purchase a limited quantity from a pharmacy for personal use only.

Also, it would make it a lot easier for drug addicts to seek medical and psychological treatment to eventually get off drugs.

But as long as the drugs are illegal, and as long as we have mandatory sentencing, then drug addicts are going to be afraid to seek treatment to get over their addiction, because in order to seek treatment, you have to admit to using drugs, and you risk getting busted.

Mandatory sentencing for mere drug use is one of the reasons for overcrowding in our prisons, and having to release violent criminal too early to make more room for non-violet drug users is why we have so much crime.

Let's face it. All laws that attempt to regulate what we can consume are doomed to failure.

I like to smoke my pipe, and I love a good cigar, and I like to drink beer once in a while, and I love to eat, and I eat as much as I like.

You really can't regulate what people eat, drink, smoke, or consume internally.

Lets focus or more serious crimes, like child abuse, pedophilia, and rape!

[The Imperialist]

Taxing the hell out of 'addictions'=profit for the state= society profits= solution to a lot of things.

(If one wants to go down the route of compeltely criminalising the recreational use of drugs, it is better to crack down on the users than the suppliers, because it is a simple economics problem: get rid of suppliers, decreases the supply, therefore, increasing the demand per gram. If you say got rid of the users in some way or the other, the supply will still be there, but the profit will not be as great, therefore, there is less incentive to bein the drug trade. TO prevent the decreasing amount of suppliers raising the demand, you get as many of the users until it is just stupid to trade in drugs because there is nobody left to buy. This is theory anyway)

[i_like_1981]

Well, I see where Fat Man is coming from about decriminalising softer drugs but hard drugs NEED to be kept illegal. Substances like crack cocaine and heroin need to carry strict punishments for possession and even stricter punishments with intent to distribute them. If too many drugs are decriminalised then more people will get the impression that they're being decriminalised because people have discovered that they don't cause as much harm as they thought. And the more drugs are legalised, the more people will try to push their luck. If weed was decriminalised then people would probably get bored of that after a while as decriminalising it would take away that "badass" edge to it. And then a harder drug would take its place as the one which the wannabe gangsters and thugs would aspire to. I definitely don't think tobacco should be outlawed, even though I don't smoke, as although it's addictive, there's a huge market for it in the real world. But we don't want the same happening for these harder drugs as no doubt people would try to cash in on those, put them in their cigarettes and see how much they could make. How far will people want to go? Decriminalise one drug and people will be pushing to have more decriminalised. It is the way of the world, and the masses need to be kept under control. Some drugs are definitely bad news and they need to remain bad news in legal terms to protect people's health. Decriminalising anything harder than weed would definitely cause problems.

Best regards,
i_like_1981

[The Imperialist]

I think that is why there needs to be a big small print (oh irony) that if you take drugs, you are banned from public service, public money and public health benefits. Strike off pension for them. If they die, salvage any useful parts of their body that can be donated. Burn the rest of the body and use as fertiliser. They are human RESOURCES afterall. (Hahahaha- oh good old cynicism)

If they start crying "Why isn't the government doing anything to help us?" the governments reply will be "We gave you quite a lot of slack here. We ENTRUSTED you with responsbility, and the ability to control yourself. If you know that you are uncontrolable, you shouldn't have gone down that route. You know it is addictive, and bad for your health from your education. If you still haven't got the message, sod off because we are not going to waste public money on you people. And don't say 'I am paying also' because the tax money generated from your drug habit is essentially directed in helping people EXCEPT for helping idiotic addicts who thinks that they are invincible and cannot see reality. If you are a good taxpayer, you will be a good 'producer', or a diligent servant of the state. We cannot let you become either because you are too dangerous to society with your habit. Therefore, it is your own goddamn fault. And the state is not liable to help you once we gave you a warning, you decide to ignore and come back saying 'Help me, help me, even though I ignored your warning, I feel I am owed servitude' because that is just bloody rude, and society doesn't owe anything to addicts who precisely ignores warnings and convieniently comes back when their new found 'freedom' became inconvienienty for them."

[HugeFanOfBadReligion]

I believe that marijuana should be decriminalized, but not cocaine or heroine or other hard drugs.

I also think that there should be stricter rules and enforcement on underage smokers. In front of my school there are countless people who stand there all day and smoke cigarettes, often not going to class. I think there should be a law against smoking under the age of 18. There were a lot of cops at my school yesterday because 1 person was beaten up by a group of 30 people at my school, yet they just stood by as there were probably around 100 smokers outside. They also need to enforce the rules on how these underage smokers obtain these cigarettes. It is against the law to sell cigarettes to minors, and all convenience stores have signs stating this law, however I have walked by smokers on several occasions as they talk about how they can buy cigarettes from certain variety stores (and I know for a fact that a lot of these people don't even use fake ID's). I could probably easily ask a few people where they get them from, and I'd know who was breaking the law by selling tobacco to minors. But the cops don't do anything to enforce this law. It's pathetic really, and it's costing a lot of money to stupid fools who want to look cool (although perhaps they deserve it) along with their health.