Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The notorious film Reefer Madness was actually privately financed by a church group.

As an example of how forbidding something can make it attractive, it was re-cut into an "exploitation" film...




> privately financed

this means we have no clue who paid right? as in: it could still be tax money through the CIA or smth.


Privately doesn't mean secretly in this context, and the CIA did not exist in 1936. I don't know who precisely funded the film, but I've never seen anything that calls into doubt its purported source of funding.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: