WAR ON DRUGS or is it a WAR ON US???

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
Capitalism at Its Worst: 5 Deadly Sins of Big Pharma


Big Pharma: Capitalism at Its Worst
For Mylan Pharmaceuticals, it was a perfect plan — diabolical, unstoppable. The company made changes in its anti-allergy EpiPendispenser in 2009, enough to give it patent protection. Then, in 2012, it began to give away free pens to schools, gradually making school nurses at least partly dependent on them. Meanwhile the company was successfully lobbying for the “Emergency Epinephrine Act”, commonly referred to as the “EpiPen Law“, which encouraged the presence of epinephrine dispensers in schools. Then, most recently, after raising the price from $100 to $600, Mylan announced a half-price coupon, making itself appear generous — even though the price had effectively jumped from $100 to $300.

This is capitalism at its worst, a greedy and disdainful profit-over-people system that leaves millions of Americans sick — or dead. This is just one of the sins of the pharmaceutical industry…


1. Gouging Customers
The Mylan story is just one of many.

A 12-week course of Sovaldi, a treatment prescribed for hepatitis, costs Gilead Sciences about $84 to produce, and is priced at $84,000.

An American with cancer will face bills of up to $183,000 per year, even though it hasn’t been established that the expensive treatments actually extend lives. (See: The Truth About Chemotherapy – History, Effects and Natural Alternatives.)

Big Pharma is an industry that can suddenly impose a 60,000% increase on desperately ill people. Yet the pharmaceutical industry’s profit margin is matched only by the unscrupulous financial industry for the highest corporate profit margin.

2. Disposing of People Who Can’t Afford Medication
A Forbes writer summarizes:

“Somewhere, right now, a cash-strapped parent or budget-limited patient with a severe allergy will skip acquiring an EpiPen. And someday, they will need it in a life-threatening situation… and they won’t have it. And they will die.”

A recent Health Affairs study concluded that, since 2004, our medical dollars have been “increasingly concentrated on the wealthy.” As a result the richest 1% of American males live nearly 15 years longer than the poorest 1%; the difference in life expectancy is 10 years for women. The high cost of medication is one of the factors leading to early death.



3. Gouging Us a Second Time
We’re paying twice for outrageously overpriced medications, both directly and with our tax dollars. The average medical insurancedeductible has increased 67 percent since 2010, and most Medicare patients still face out-of-pocket costs of $7,000 or more a year.

Over $5 billion of our tax dollars was spent by Medicare and Medicaid in 2014 on just two drugs: Sovaldi and Harvoni. Pharmaceutical lobbyists have rigged the system to prevent Medicare from negotiating for lower drug prices.

Not satisfied with Medicare-related abuses, Purdue Pharmaceuticals began targeting troubled post-9/11 miltary veterans with expensive and addicting opioid medications, and within ten years, a third of the Army’s soldiers were hooked on prescription drugs.

4. Stealing Our Research
The pharmaceutical industry receives most of its basic research funding from the taxpayers, and 75 percent of the most innovative drugs were initially funded by the National Institutes of Health.

Dean Baker, macroeconomist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research,notes that the U.S. is unique in giving drug companies patent monopolies on drugs that are essential for people’s health and lives. An example is genetically engineered insulin which, due to patent protection, cannot be made generically, and as a result can cost a patient up to $5,000 a year — many times more than a patent-expired version. Another example is the anti-parasite drug Daraprim, which has been on the market for 62 years, yet was appropriated by the now-infamous Martin Shkreli and price-hiked from $13.50 to $750.00.

A common excuse for pharmaceutical greed is the cost of research and development. But the industry spends almost $20 on marketing for every dollar spent on R&D. Meanwhile, Big Pharma has cut nearly 150,000 jobs since 2008 — mostly in R&D.

5. Cheating on Taxes
Three of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies, with over $20 billion in combined profits last year, claimed nearly $9 billion in U.S. losses despite having nearly half their sales in the United States. (Clearly something doesn’t add up here.)

Other major drug companies use the notorious inversion procedure to skip out on taxes. AbbVie has done it. Pfizer tried. And Mylan, along with all its other transgressions, ditched the U.S. for the Netherlands, despite having its employees and facilities in West Virginia.

“… the company withdrew its United States corporation and re-incorporated in the Netherlands, even while its physical plant, all its employees and executives, stayed in West Virginia. That saved the company paying its corporate tax rate of somewhere between 16 and 23 percent, even while it still takes full advantage of its location in the United States and all the infrastructure the country puts around it…”

Adding a further touch of hypocrisy, Mylan even sought the protection of the U.S. government’s Federal Trade Commission when another company attempted a hostile takeover.

Patriotism is a beautiful thing to corporations when it protects their profits.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
Meet the Special Interests Keeping Marijuana Criminalized

Americans overwhelmingly agree that marijuana should be legal, so why isn't it? So glad you asked...

Justice War on Drugs Drug War Cannabis Marijuana marijuana legalization Police Alcohol Big Pharma
In this era of political polarization, when Americans seem to agree on absolutely nothing, let me reassure you. We overwhelmingly agree that cannabis should be legal.

1 in 5 Americans have (state) legal access, 1 in 2 have experimented with it, and more than 1 in 10 smoke regularly. Southern California yuppies are publicly winning prizes for growing the same plant that landed Georgia teenagers in prison.

Half of states allow at least limited use, and a few attract elite cannabis tourism. Federally, the drug remains fiercely criminalized, despite irrefutable evidence of its medical value.

So what’s the hold-up?

Being in the anti-marijuana business is astonishingly lucrative for bureaucrats and campaign donors. Here are just a few of the heavy hitters addicted to federal prohibition:

Big Booze:

National Beer Wholesalers Association

Anheuser-Busch InBev

Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America

The makers and distributors of America’s top-selling beers, wines, and liquors are already facing stiff competition from newly deregulated microbrewers and craft distilleries.

Cannabis prohibition shuts out a zero-calorie competitor with far fewer short- and long-term health risks. The industry donated (read: invested) $19 million to re-election campaigns in 2016, and another $4 million to soft money groups like “Public Safety First” which specifically oppose cannabis legalization efforts. The efforts here are well documented.

Cannabis legalization does reduce alcohol sales, and its regular use reduces alcoholism and alcohol-related deaths. Each year 37,000 deaths in the US are attributed to alcohol, compared to zero deaths from cannabis use, ever. Brewers and distillers are eager to point “public health and safety” attention in another direction.

The Boys in Blue:

National Fraternal Order of Police

National Association of Police Organizations

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees

The nation’s policy means guaranteed revenue, low-risk, peaceful “offenders” to fill arrest quotas, and easy excuses to search or detain citizens.
Local law enforcement has become highly dependent on federal and state money devoted to the War on Drugs. Civil asset forfeiture – a legacy of the 1984 drug war omnibus crime bill – allows local police departments to keep 80 percent of property seized in suspected (not proven) drug activity. Local cops regularly auction off homes and cars connected with small marijuana sales, pocketing the proceeds without convicting anyone of any crime. Drug raids “were no longer just about putting on a good show and terrorizing the counterculture. Now the raids could generate revenue for all of the police agencies involved.” (Randy Balko, Rise Of The Warrior Cop). Property stolen from innocent Americans (the Washington Post found 80 percent of victims of asset forfeiture were never even charged) has paid for military-grade equipment and SWAT teams used in still-more-terrifying drug raids for profit.

National Fraternal Order of Police, National Association of Police Organizations, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and literally dozens of smaller interest groups and political action committees represent the interests of law enforcement officers. Drug testing laboratories, prosecutors, drug court lawyers and judges, rehab centers, counselors, and other unionized social services also depend on marijuana arrests to keep numbers up.

For them, the nation’s outdated marijuana policy means guaranteed revenue, low-risk, peaceful “offenders” to fill arrest quotas, and easy excuses to search or detain citizens.

Big Brother: The Prison Industrial Complex

Association Of Administrative Law Judges

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees

GEO Group, Inc.

Private prison companies and state institutions alike lobby for longer mandatory sentences; stricter enforcement; younger, healthier, and less violent prisoners. Corrections jobs are a major source of rural employment.

Unprecedented mass incarceration plagues the conscience of the Land of the Free.
Prisons contract for an occupancy rate, charging taxpayers for unmet quotas. More Americans are arrested for marijuana annually than for all violent crimes combined. More Americans are in prison than ever before, and since 1985 at least half the increase is drug offenders alone.

Increasingly, lobbyists for drug testing centers and addiction treatment providers have sought to have marijuana dependence (for which there is limited medical evidence) perceived – and insured – as a medical condition. Compulsory and court-ordered treatment for this “addiction” is a reliable source of revenue for unscrupulous operators.

What violent crime remains is largely a product of drugs prohibition. Cash-oriented transactions between known lawbreakers (drug deals) don’t make for peaceful business practices.

All smuggled goods and illegal sales share the same vulnerability to violence. Now, Budweiser and Coors might sue to resolve a contract dispute; in 1929, criminal rum runners settled scores with Molotov cocktails and Tommy guns. Violent deaths of police officers peaked during prohibition and fell rapidly after its repeal; the number of officers wouldn’t approach that level again until the year Nixon declared the War on Drugs.

The violence of black markets still unnecessarily mars American neighborhoods, and unprecedented mass incarceration plagues the conscience of the Land of the Free.

Big Pharma:

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)

Pfizer Inc

Eli Lilly & Co

Express Scripts

Merck & Co

AstraZeneca PLC

Pharmaceutical industry products are expensive, and many have life-altering side effects. Cannabis can be grown by the patient and has far fewer and less severe side effects.

Before President Ford shut down cannabis research at universities, scientists had noticed cannabis’s effectiveness in reducing seizures, relieving pain, even shrinking tumors. Specialized strains are bred to treat depression, anxiety, nausea, Parkinson’s, and dozens of other common conditions for which patients currently take patented pills.

Despite continued denials by the federal government that marijuana has any accepted medical uses, the government’s own researchers have patented a synthetic cannabinoid called Marinol. Patent No. 6,630,507 credits “The United States of America as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services” and lists federal researcher as “inventors” of “cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants.” The patent reads “cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia.” A dozen other derived chemicals are in development to treat nerve pain, memory loss, traumatic brain injury, arthritis, hypertension, and obesity.

Since this patent was granted in 1999, The Drug Enforcement Administration has twice renewed its stance that cannabis has “no currently accepted medical use.”

Big Government:

American Federation of Government Employees

National Active & Retired Federal Employees Assn

American Federation of Government Employees

Marijuana prohibition is a $20 Billion annual federal jobs project. Departments and agencies will not give up power or budgets voluntarily. The DEA seized $27 Billion in assets in 2014 through its cannabis enforcement program, in excess of its $3 Billion annual budget. 10,000 DEA employees, 63,000 Federal Prison System employees, border guards, and thousands more “interagency” positions funded by the expansive, failed War on Drugs don’t want to see their budget downsized or authority curtailed.

Similarly, the CIA, NSA, State Department, and Department of Defense also rely heavily on public acceptance of the War on Drugs as a pretense for overriding national sovereignty around the world. In their bullying of Latin American leaders and control of opiate fields in the Levant, drug suppression money is often both carrot and stick.

Liberty vs. Lobbyists
Doing battle against big government and corporate cronies like the criminals above is more satisfying than punching Nazis and more practical than protesting. The American people are fed up with prohibition and the failed War on Drugs.

Ending prohibition has something for everyone:

Cut the budget deficit
Prevent opiate overdoses
Restore respect for the Bill of Rights
Reduce police violence against minorities
Attack income inequality
Improve public health
Lower unemployment
Reduce illegal immigration
Improve survival and reduce violence in developing countries
Position the US as a leader of humane policy abroad
What can possibly unite an impossibly divided America? A serious push to end prohibition.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
The Green Rush is coming to a town, city or state near you!! At least have a plan in your head or written done, to get in the Hemp world!!


Green Rush: How Hemp Is Growing the Economy and Transforming American Farming


Now that there are no longer legal ramifications for its cultivation, the floodgates have been opened for this new market.

Economics Green Rush Hemp CBD Farm Economies of Scale Development Economics
As federal marijuana prohibition slowly fades away into the depths of history, the burgeoning legal recreational cannabis market is poised to usher in a green rush for the US economy. And while many are excited about the fiscal implications of this entirely new economic sector, and rightfully so, there is another “green” market on the rise that isn’t getting quite as much attention.

When Congress passed the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, also known as the Farm Bill, last December, it effectively ended the federal government’s prohibition of industrial hemp. And just six months after its passage and subsequent declassification as a federally controlled substance, hemp is already proving itself to be a lucrative crop for farmers, consumers, and job-seekers. In fact, hemp has so much potential economically speaking, it leads many to wonder why it was ever illegal in the first place.

What Is Hemp, Anyway?
If you ask any given passerby on the street what hemp is, it’s likely they will be able to tell you it has something to do with the cannabis plant. However, many might not be able to expand on what exactly sets hemp apart from the marijuana that is typically smoked or consumed to induce feelings of euphoria.

To be sure, while hemp and marijuana are both derivatives of the cannabis plant, they are very different. Its most significant difference lies in the fact that hemp has drastically less tetrahydrocannabinol—or THC, as it is most commonly referred to—than marijuana. While this has always been the case, it was not until the passage of the Farm Bill last year that the legal definition of hemp was officially set to be defined as a part of the cannabis plant that contains less than 0.3 percent THC.

Now that there are no longer legal ramifications for its cultivation, the floodgates have been opened for this new market.

For those unfamiliar, THC is the chemical responsible for inducing the “high” commonly associated with “smoking weed.” But since hemp has such low traces of THC, you would have to smoke ungodly amounts before inducing the same high as you would from, say, smoking a joint. In fact, while it is often said in jest that a person would need to smoke a joint the size of a telephone pole in order to get high on hemp, this is actually not that far off from the truth.

Yet, even though hemp does not contain the same psychoactive compounds as marijuana, the government still lumped it into the same category as heroin and LSD, successfully preventing it from becoming a cash crop for farmers and a commodity for consumers. However, now that there are no longer legal ramifications for its cultivation, the floodgates have been opened for this new market.

The Other Green Rush
Some might be shocked to learn that hemp is one of the earliest domesticated plants and has been cultivated by humans for more than 12,000 years. It is also currently used in some 25,000 products from automotive parts, rope, furniture, textiles, food, beverages, beauty products, and construction supplies. Hemp also contains cannabidiol, or CBD, which has been effective in combating insomnia, anxiety, chronic pain, and other ailments and has been a major reason for the hemp boom currently being experienced throughout the country.

In fact, CBD has become such a popular product in the health and wellness world that one hemp farmer in California even recalls,

I've had people come up to me and shake my hand for growing hemp because of the CBD, because they truly think it is going to help them.

While hemp just got the official green light from Congress, the 2014 farm bill allowed farmers to “pilot” the cultivation of hemp so long as they worked with and got approval from local state agricultural programs. This gave many farmers the opportunity to experiment with the cultivation of hemp to see if it was worth their time and money.

In that time, the legal CBD market has taken off, with just about everyone and their mom getting into the business. Google “CBD oil,” and you will be overwhelmed with options. Currently, the CBD market is a multi-million dollar industry but is soon expected to be a multi-billion dollar one. Currently, the CBD market is a multi-million dollar industry but is soon expected to be a multi-billion dollar one.
“The demand for CBD products is exploding. At the moment the demand is far outpacing the supply,” says Heather Darby, a hemp expert at the University of Vermont Extension. “Farmers and businesses are scaling up production quickly and moving from producing an acre to producing 50 acres.”

To put this number into perspective, according to the Brightfield Group, a Chicago-based cannabis research firm, one acre of land can house anywhere from 1,500 to 2,000 hemp plants, which can generate $40,000-$50,000 for producers. Looking at the bigger picture, the Brightfield Group also estimates that the legal CBD market could be worth $20 billion by the year 2022.

A Booming Industry
Vote Hemp’s 2017 US Hemp Crop Report found that 23,343 acres of hemp were cultivated in America that year alone. In 2018, that number rose to 77,000 acres. Now that hemp is legal nationwide, this number is expected to skyrocket during 2019.

In rural parts of the country where farmland is plentiful, this presents a huge opportunity for the agricultural sectors. In Massachusetts alone, for example, there are over half a million acres of farmland. And for many farmers, growing hemp has become far more beneficial than growing traditional crops like corn, soybeans, and even tobacco.

If the industry continues to grow at this rate, innovation is inevitable.

In Kentucky, Brent Cornett, a farmer and member of the hemp grower’s group Atalo Holdings, explained how over the last three years he has been increasingly replacing his tobacco crops with hemp. “There’s been plenty of challenges with a new crop, but as of today, a mediocre hemp crop is yielding a better return than an excellent tobacco crop,” Cornett explained. Cornett has also increased his hemp cultivation from 20 acres in 2016 to 85 acres in 2018.

Another farmer in Northern California, Ben Roberti, has also been experimenting with the cultivation of hemp. Traditionally a dairy and alfalfa farmer, Roberti has been worried that he has to diversify his crops if he wants to stay in business.

So many of the dairies are shutting down on the west coast that we just don't view alfalfa as a commodity for the future.

While hemp requires less water on average than a tobacco plant, it is harder to harvest. This is largely due to the fact that the harvesting process just hasn’t been perfected yet. According to Roberti, it is labor-intensive since no commercial machinery exists yet to aid in the process. However, if the industry continues to grow at this rate, innovation is inevitable.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
Green Rush: How Hemp Is Growing the Economy and Transforming American Farming

Now that there are no longer legal ramifications for its cultivation, the floodgates have been opened for this new market.

hemp-farming-boom_3.jpg


As federal marijuana prohibition slowly fades away into the depths of history, the burgeoning legal recreational cannabis market is poised to usher in a green rush for the US economy. And while many are excited about the fiscal implications of this entirely new economic sector, and rightfully so, there is another “green” market on the rise that isn’t getting quite as much attention.

When Congress passed the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, also known as the Farm Bill, last December, it effectively ended the federal government’s prohibition of industrial hemp. And just six months after its passage and subsequent declassification as a federally controlled substance, hemp is already proving itself to be a lucrative crop for farmers, consumers, and job-seekers. In fact, hemp has so much potential economically speaking, it leads many to wonder why it was ever illegal in the first place.

What Is Hemp, Anyway?
If you ask any given passerby on the street what hemp is, it’s likely they will be able to tell you it has something to do with the cannabis plant. However, many might not be able to expand on what exactly sets hemp apart from the marijuana that is typically smoked or consumed to induce feelings of euphoria.

To be sure, while hemp and marijuana are both derivatives of the cannabis plant, they are very different. Its most significant difference lies in the fact that hemp has drastically less tetrahydrocannabinol—or THC, as it is most commonly referred to—than marijuana. While this has always been the case, it was not until the passage of the Farm Bill last year that the legal definition of hemp was officially set to be defined as a part of the cannabis plant that contains less than 0.3 percent THC.

Now that there are no longer legal ramifications for its cultivation, the floodgates have been opened for this new market.

For those unfamiliar, THC is the chemical responsible for inducing the “high” commonly associated with “smoking weed.” But since hemp has such low traces of THC, you would have to smoke ungodly amounts before inducing the same high as you would from, say, smoking a joint. In fact, while it is often said in jest that a person would need to smoke a joint the size of a telephone pole in order to get high on hemp, this is actually not that far off from the truth.

Yet, even though hemp does not contain the same psychoactive compounds as marijuana, the government still lumped it into the same category as heroin and LSD, successfully preventing it from becoming a cash crop for farmers and a commodity for consumers. However, now that there are no longer legal ramifications for its cultivation, the floodgates have been opened for this new market.

The Other Green Rush
Some might be shocked to learn that hemp is one of the earliest domesticated plants and has been cultivated by humans for more than 12,000 years. It is also currently used in some 25,000 products from automotive parts, rope, furniture, textiles, food, beverages, beauty products, and construction supplies. Hemp also contains cannabidiol, or CBD, which has been effective in combating insomnia, anxiety, chronic pain, and other ailments and has been a major reason for the hemp boom currently being experienced throughout the country.

In fact, CBD has become such a popular product in the health and wellness world that one hemp farmer in California even recalls,

I've had people come up to me and shake my hand for growing hemp because of the CBD, because they truly think it is going to help them.

While hemp just got the official green light from Congress, the 2014 farm bill allowed farmers to “pilot” the cultivation of hemp so long as they worked with and got approval from local state agricultural programs. This gave many farmers the opportunity to experiment with the cultivation of hemp to see if it was worth their time and money.

In that time, the legal CBD market has taken off, with just about everyone and their mom getting into the business. Google “CBD oil,” and you will be overwhelmed with options. Currently, the CBD market is a multi-million dollar industry but is soon expected to be a multi-billion dollar one. Currently, the CBD market is a multi-million dollar industry but is soon expected to be a multi-billion dollar one.

“The demand for CBD products is exploding. At the moment the demand is far outpacing the supply,” says Heather Darby, a hemp expert at the University of Vermont Extension. “Farmers and businesses are scaling up production quickly and moving from producing an acre to producing 50 acres.”


To put this number into perspective, according to the Brightfield Group, a Chicago-based cannabis research firm, one acre of land can house anywhere from 1,500 to 2,000 hemp plants, which can generate $40,000-$50,000 for producers. Looking at the bigger picture, the Brightfield Group also estimates that the legal CBD market could be worth $20 billion by the year 2022.

A Booming Industry
Vote Hemp’s 2017 US Hemp Crop Report found that 23,343 acres of hemp were cultivated in America that year alone. In 2018, that number rose to 77,000 acres. Now that hemp is legal nationwide, this number is expected to skyrocket during 2019.

In rural parts of the country where farmland is plentiful, this presents a huge opportunity for the agricultural sectors. In Massachusetts alone, for example, there are over half a million acres of farmland. And for many farmers, growing hemp has become far more beneficial than growing traditional crops like corn, soybeans, and even tobacco.

If the industry continues to grow at this rate, innovation is inevitable.



In Kentucky, Brent Cornett, a farmer and member of the hemp grower’s group Atalo Holdings, explained how over the last three years he has been increasingly replacing his tobacco crops with hemp. “There’s been plenty of challenges with a new crop, but as of today, a mediocre hemp crop is yielding a better return than an excellent tobacco crop,” Cornett explained. Cornett has also increased his hemp cultivation from 20 acres in 2016 to 85 acres in 2018.

Another farmer in Northern California, Ben Roberti, has also been experimenting with the cultivation of hemp. Traditionally a dairy and alfalfa farmer, Roberti has been worried that he has to diversify his crops if he wants to stay in business.

So many of the dairies are shutting down on the west coast that we just don't view alfalfa as a commodity for the future.

While hemp requires less water on average than a tobacco plant, it is harder to harvest. This is largely due to the fact that the harvesting process just hasn’t been perfected yet. According to Roberti, it is labor-intensive since no commercial machinery exists yet to aid in the process. However, if the industry continues to grow at this rate, innovation is inevitable.

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs
Atalo Holdings CEO William Hilliard commented on this agricultural boom, saying,

The hemp CBD industry is growing exponentially and presents a real opportunity for rural economic development, with tremendous enthusiasm from consumers.

With consumers wanting more hemp products, there are more opportunities for entrepreneurs to find new and innovative ways to turn the crop into various consumer goods. And with more hemp-based products on the market, there are now more opportunities for new jobs to be created in the economy.

“Job creation is going to happen in every economic bracket,” said Erica McBride Stark, executive director of the National Hemp Association. “The hemp industry will create high-skilled management jobs, labor-type jobs and everything in between. It’s going to touch all of society.”

It’s hard to find any downsides to the burgeoning hemp market. The real question is: why did it take so long to get here?

While the cultivating, processing, and manufacturing of hemp are the most obvious areas where new jobs can be created, this is just the tip of the iceberg. With new products and companies popping up as a result, the industry will have a pressing need for lawyers, compliance officers, accountants, IT specialists, marketing specialists, retail employees, transporters, researchers, CEOs, CFOs, and everything in between.

HempStaff, a job recruiting site for the cannabis industry, has seen job openings double over the last year, now accounting for 16 percent of its business. Indeed, a more general employment search engine, has seen a sharp rise in job openings in the legal hemp sector. It’s hard to find any downsides to the burgeoning hemp market. The real question is: why did it take so long to get here?

Why Did It Take So Long?
Like many sectors, the lack of growth and innovation in the hemp sector is a result of government regulation. While the cultivation of hemp in America can be traced back to the time of the founding of the Jamestown Colony, in 1937 the crop garnered a bad reputation after it was labeled “the evil weed.”

Due to its relationship to marijuana, hemp was lumped into the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, which passed a $100 transfer tax on its sale, making it too expensive to cultivate. However, the reasons behind this tax had more to do with protectionism, specifically involving William Randolph Hearst and the Dupont company.

As explained by Global Hemp:

Those thought to gain the most were Hearst who owned large timber holdings which feed the paper industry. DuPont who dominated the petrochemical market, which manufactured plastics, paints, and other products of fossil fuels and the Secretary of the Treasury and owner of Gulf oil Andrew Mellon who pushed legislation through Congress giving tax breaks to oil companies. The Conspiracy was against hemp, it threaten[ed] certain vested financial and industrial interest especially those in the paper and petrochemical industries.

During World War II, the government made an exception since hemp was a great source for making rope and other textiles, allowing farmers to grow it legally once more. However, as soon as the war ended, so did the government's leniency.

It may have taken nearly eight decades, but now that federal prohibition is coming to an end and more information about hemp is available, more people are understanding the significant role this part of the cannabis plant can play in stimulating economic growth all across the country.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
The War on Drugs Has Failed. It’s Time to Rethink Our Prison System.

It’s clear the system is broken.

drug_war_failed.jpg


Last week, Canada made history when both the House of Commons and Senate passed legislation legalizing the recreational use of marijuana. After the governor general approves it, the country will have retail systems ready in just a few months and will focus efforts on studying the drug instead of demonizing it.

How the War on Drugs Started – and How It Failed
Unfortunately, the strong commitment to curbing the use of drugs through increased enforcement and harsher prison sentences has backfired in the long-run, costing excessive taxpayer money and ruining millions of lives.

Nearly 50 years ago, U.S. President Richard Nixon declared drug abuse "public enemy number one." In 1971, the administration offered a ‘tough on crime’ approach as the solution to growing drug use. The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act was subsequently passed, establishing five schedules for drugs that explain their appropriate medical use and abuse potential (according to the federal government).

Unfortunately, the strong commitment to curbing the use of drugs through increased enforcement and harsher prison sentences, as the 1970s approach entailed, backfired in the long-run, costing excessive taxpayer money and ruining millions of lives.

On March 8 of this year, Pew Charitable Trusts released a brief on the relationship between imprisonment and drug problems. The data presented showed no relationship between prison terms and changes in drug abuse, a finding that undermines the longstanding narrative that drug use can be curbed through incarceration. The organization suggested policymakers instead enact strategies that are proven by research to work better and save money.

This need for a different approach is evident.

Between 1980 and 2013, the federal prison population rose almost 600 percent, but the self-reported use of illegal drugs has also increased. Further, a third of the released population commits new crimes and gets arrested again. In one example of these failures, Tennessee ranks fifth out of all 50 states in drug imprisonment rates. Meanwhile, New Jersey ranks 45th, but their drug use rates are almost identical.

Being tough on crime has simply not curbed drug use, and funds would be better spent researching drugs like marijuana—similar to what Canada plans to do—and figuring out the potential harms and benefits.

The System Can Change If It Fosters Freedom and Financial Responsibility
The Pew brief also examined which policies have worked to combat abuse, pointing to law enforcement and sentencing strategies that have a more positive impact. One potential course of action cited in the brief is ending mandatory minimum sentencing, which forces judges to sentence offenders for a minimum amount of time depending on the crime.

Pew advised that there should be a greater focus on substance abuse treatment for drug abusers rather than extended sentences. Ultimately, locking people up for long periods of time is costly and does not deter drug use, and alternative strategies should be implemented to allow for true rehabilitation among drug users before they are sent back into their communities.

Fortunately, some solutions are being offered. Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) introduced the Marijuana Justice Act of 2017, which would legalize marijuana and expunge the records of those with possession convictions. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) introduced similar legislation in the House this year, and though neither bill is likely to become law, the growing demand for change is evident.

Further, the FIRST STEP Act, introduced by Reps. Doug Collins (R-GA) and Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), recently passed the House. This bipartisan legislation would give federal prisoners access to vital programs and prepare them for successful reentry into civilian life after they are released. These solutions will not solve all the problems with our current prison system, but they are a step in the right direction and indicate that viable solutions exist.

If three out of four prisoners released from prison are arrested for a new crime within five years, it’s clear the system is broken.

Reducing recidivism, as Collins' and Jeffries' bill aims to do, is a worthy goal. With generally modest upfront costs, helping people leave prison with the ability to be productive members of society is a good thing. After all, one of the main reasons for putting a person in prison is ostensibly to rehabilitate them until they are prepared to be valuable contributors to their communities. If three out of four prisoners released from prison are arrested for a new crime within five years, it’s clear the system is broken. Paying for services that help lower recidivism can save money in the long-run because fewer people end up going back to prison and are able to live their lives freely.

Certain states like Washington, Colorado, and California have legalized cannabis for recreational use, and many others have done so for medical use. These states, along with Canada, serve as role models for a policy that saves taxpayer money, removes harmless individuals from the prison system, and encourages scientific research.

Reform Is Preferable to Out of Control Spending and Fractured Communities
In the United States, local, state, and federal governments spend about $80 billion a year running prisons and jails. Some of that cost is justified, as there are dangerous criminals who should be locked up for committing heinous crimes. But throwing nonviolent drug offenders behind bars for decades is simply not necessary.

Most of the costs are forced upon the families, children, and communities of incarcerated people. Once released from imprisonment, former inmates earn less money and die earlier than those who have never been incarcerated, and this undoubtedly adds to the massive social costs.

In 2016, researchers at Washington University in St. Louis found that when accounting for the social costs of incarceration, the price tag for the American prison system jumps to over $1 trillion. Most of the costs are forced upon the families, children, and communities of incarcerated people. Once released, former inmates earn less money and die earlier than those who have never been incarcerated, and this undoubtedly adds to the massive social costs.

However you look at it, imprisoning people is expensive. One out of five of those incarcerated in local, state, and federal prisons is a nonviolent drug offender. Releasing these people would offer savings upfront and also curb the long-term growth of criminal justice spending by lowering recidivism rates.

The national debt continues to tick upward, and Congress doesn’t seem eager to address it before the elections in November. Lowering the cost of imprisonment and giving people their lives back, however, is a simple and moral bipartisan victory.





1546542670-FEEcon-White@2x.png
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
How an Axe Murderer Helped Make Weed Illegal
When the head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics heard about the Licata case, he knew it was the break he'd been waiting for.

shutterstock_536416564_mini.jpg



Tampa police arrived at the Licata residence one afternoon in October 1933. Neighbors in the tightly-knit immigrant community were concerned. No one had come in or out of the Italian-American family’s home all day, which was strange, considering the school-aged children, and that the father, Mike, ran two bustling barber shops.

Licata was determined to be suffering from “dementia praecox.”

When the police opened the door, they found carnage. Twenty-one year-old Victor Licata had murdered his family with an axe the night before – his parents, one of his brothers, and his younger sister were all dead and another younger brother would be soon. Victor was discovered in the bathroom, curled in a chair, murmuring incomprehensibly. His family was trying to dismember him, he said, and replace his arms with wooden ones.

According to Larry Slomans’s book, Reefer Madness, shortly after the murders, Licata was evaluated by psychiatrists and determined to be suffering from “dementia praecox,” (now known as schizophrenia). The doctors speculated that his condition was congenital. Two cousins and a great uncle had been committed to asylums, his brother also suffered from “dementia praecox,” and his parents were first cousins. The police had been trying to have him committed for over a year, but stopped when his parents said they would care for him at home.

The case would have slipped largely unnoticed into grisly small-town lore if it were not for one detail. According to the local newspaper, at the time that he committed the murders, Victor Licata had been “addicted to smoking marihuana cigarettes for more than six months.”

Driven By Racism

After prohibition ended, bureaus like Anslinger’s were threatened by obsolescence.

Four years later when Harry Anslinger heard about the Licata case, he knew it was the break he had been waiting for. Anslinger had recently been appointed head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (the precursor to the DEA) after making his name as a temperance hardliner during prohibition. But as Johann Hari explains in his book, Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs, after prohibition ended, bureaus like Anslinger’s were threatened by obsolescence.

Anslinger’s office was focused on narcotics like cocaine and heroin, but these drugs were only used by a small minority. In order to ensure a robust future for his bureau, “he needed more,” Hari writes. Marijuana was used more widely.

Anslinger consulted 30 doctors about the drug’s connection to violence. All except one told him there was none, so he bucked the other 29 and trumpeted the findings of that one doctor. Anslinger warned in a congressional hearing, “Some people will fly into a delirious rage, and they are temporarily irresponsible and may commit violent crimes.”

His anti-marijuana push was driven by racism. “Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men,” he was quoted as saying, and “There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others.”

Crusaders switched from calling it “cannabis” to “marijuana,” hoping to capitalize on anti-Mexican sentiment.

Beginning in 1939, immediately following her performance of “Strange Fruit,” Anslinger began ruthlessly targeting Billie Holiday who was rumored to have a heroin addiction. Those closest to her believed Anslinger’s campaign created an enormous strain, contributing to her early death. During this time, anti-drug crusaders switched from calling it “cannabis” to “marihuana” or “marijuana,” hoping the Spanish word would capitalize on anti-Mexican sentiment.

At hearings in 1937 on a bill to prohibit marijuana, Anslinger was asked for “horror stories” proving the marijuana-violence connection. Two weeks later, a letter from the chief inspector at the Florida Board of Health arrived telling the story of Victor Licata. The inspector also sent along a picture, presumably the young man’s mugshot, which had been circulated widely in the Florida dailies. In the photograph, Licata is crazed violence incarnate, his wild-eyed stare entirely unnerving. This would be the face of Anslinger’s marijuana crackdown.

victor_licata.jpg
Victor Licata, driven “mad” by reefer.

Anslinger began giving speeches and writing articles on the dangers of marijuana, harping on the Licata case. “You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill your brother,” he said. In his most famous article, “Marijuana – Assassin of Youth” published in the American magazine, Licata is transformed from a congenitally mentally ill person into “a sane and rather quiet young man” whose reefer-toking had turned him into an axe-wielding murderer – not his schizophrenia.

Anslinger succeeded in turning marijuana into a national issue. By 1938, the film Reefer Madness had been purchased by a new director and was being circulated more widely, warning of the “frightful toll of a new drug menace which is destroying the youth of America … The Real Public Enemy Number One!”

In the coming years, hundreds of thousands of men and women would spend huge portions of their lives behind bars.

In the 1930s, The New York Times ran dozens of articles about police crackdowns on “marijuana rings,” whereas in 1926, the paper ran an articletitled, “Marijuana Smoking Is Reported Safe.”

The Marijuana Tax Act, legislation that Anslinger drafted himself, was passed in 1937, effectively making the sale and possession of marijuana illegal across the country. In 1950, Victor Licata hanged himself with a bed sheet. Meanwhile, Anslinger’s bureau flourished.

According to Hari, “within thirty years, he succeeded in turning this crumbling department with these disheartened men into the headquarters for a global war that would continue for decades.” In the coming years, hundreds of thousands of men and women – disproportionately people of color – would spend huge portions of their lives behind bars.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
The Still Raging Drug War Ruined Millions of Lives in 2015
The government has no business regulating what substances nonviolent individuals choose to put in their bodies.

cannabis_handcuffs.jpg


According to a new crime report published last week by the FBI, the Drug War is still a pervasive cause for arrest in the United States. The data, which covers recorded arrests for violent crime and property crime as disclosed by local police departments, revealed that arrests for simple possession of drugs — mostly marijuana — are still widespread across the country.

According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program report, titled “2015 Crime in the United States,” there were 1,488,707 total arrests for “drug abuse,” a category that includes the sale, trafficking, and possession of drugs.

Arrests for the sale or manufacture of drugs accounted for just 16.1% of all drug arrests.

Compared to arrests for other specific categories of offenses, drug violations were the most common. Of 10,797,088 total recorded arrests in the United States in 2015, drug abuse arrests were the highest (1,488,707), followed closely by property crimes, which accounted for 1,463,213 arrests. Drunk driving arrests came in third, with 1,089,171. By comparison, there were just 11,092 arrests for murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, though “other assaults” did account for 1,081,019 arrests, the fourth most common.

It is worth noting that, as the FBI explains, “arrest figures do not reflect the number of individuals who have been arrested; rather, the arrest data show the number of times that persons are arrested.”

Some proponents of the Drug War might rationalize nearly 1.5 million drug arrests as an effective effort to stop traffickers and drug dealers. But arrests for the sale or manufacture of drugs accounted for just 16.1% of all drug arrests, roughly 239,682.

Arrests for mere possession totaled 83.9% of drug-related offenses — 1,249,025.

Possession of marijuana accounted for 38.6% of all drug abuse arrests (574,641) while 19.9% were for heroin or cocaine and their derivatives (296,252). Possession of “other dangerous nonnarcotic drugs” prompted 20.2% of “drug abuse” arrests, and possession of synthetic or manufactured drugs made up for 5.1% of arrests.

Though, as the Washington Post points out, arrest rates for marijuana are the lowest they’ve been since 1996, there were over 1,500 arrests per day in 2015 — simply for possessing marijuana. In the Northeast, Midwest, and South, marijuana possession arrests were responsible for roughly 50% of all drug arrests (in the South, that figure was 50.7%). In the West, where many states have embraced cannabis use, arrests for possession of the plant accounted for just 16.5% of all drug arrests.

An Incarcerated Nation

It is unsurprising that, at least among prison populations, drug trafficking is a common offense.

The effect of the drug war is evident not just in arrest figures, but in data documenting incarceration rates in the United States. According to the Bureau of Prisons, 46.4% of inmates (83,982) were behind bars for drug offenses, making up a substantial chunk of the population. To be fair, the Bureau of Justice has asserted almost all federal drug offenders were convicted of trafficking, and in state-level facilities, drug offenders made up roughly 17% of inmates.

Regardless, it remains that on a daily basis, hundreds – if not thousands — of Americans are harassed by law enforcement for simply possessing a plant (or another substance).

Further, it is unsurprising that, at least among prison populations, drug trafficking is a common offense. When drugs are prohibited, as alcohol prohibition proved in the 1920s, black markets undoubtedly develop, meaning ultimately, the government’s own tirade against drugs is at least, in part, responsible for the growth of the narcotics market and, as a result, traffickers.

More fundamental, however, is the question of whether or not the government should be allowed to regulate what substances nonviolent individuals choose to put in their bodies, and by extension, who sells them those substances. As some police officers opt to make cannabis a lower priority – and even to take a compassionate approach toward heroin addicts in the face of the nation’s pharmaceutical opioid crisis — the country’s overall crime data appears increasingly archaic.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
Criminal Justice Reform Is Also Good Economics
Most people think of criminal justice reform as a purely social issue, but it's an economic one as well.

injail.jpg

https://fee.org/people/alex-muresianu/
Thelatest US jobs report showed that the American economy gained 157,000 jobs in July, and the unemployment rate inched down to 3.9 percent. Meanwhile, thequarterly economic report showed the economy growing at 4.1 percent, the highest quarterly growth rate since 2014.

However, the labor force participation rate (the share of working-age people who are either employed or looking for work) remainslow—only Italy has a lower labor force participation rate among prime working-age men than the United States.

Increasing labor force participation iskeyto sustaining economic growth. One of the ways the US government could do that is by rethinking its approach to the opioid crisis, which is keeping people away from work.

What is needed is a shift away from an attitude of punishment to an attitude of rehabilitation in our criminal justice system.

Incarceration, Recidivism, and GDP
The United States has thehighest incarceration rateandlargestprison population in the world. According to thePrison Policy Initiative, roughly 2.4 million people are incarcerated in the US, with 1.36 million in state prisons, 720,000 in local jails, and 210,000 in federal prisons.

Retributive justice, an understanding of criminal justice that focuses on punishment rather than rehabilitation, still dominates in the US.

While there are many factors that contribute to these abnormally high numbers, from overcriminalization to long prison sentences, one factor driving such high incarceration rates is recidivism, namely ex-cons returning to prison after committing crimes. In the United States,76.6percent of released prisoners were rearrested within five years.

In Norway, by comparison, only 20 percent of prisoners return to prison after five years. This discrepancy is largely due to an attitude of“restorative justice”in Norwegian prisons which emphasizes reintegration into society. In the United States, retributive justice, an understanding of criminal justice that focuses on punishment rather than rehabilitation,still dominates.

According to theCenter for American Progress, criminal recidivism reduces annual GDP by $65 billion a year. Moving to a less punitive criminal justice system in which prisoners have access to moreeducational and job-training opportunitieswould reduce recidivism, and, by expanding the labor force, boost the economy. Furthermore, removing occupational licensing laws thatprevent ex-criminals from entering certain professions would help accelerate economic reintegration.

The Drug War Is Expensive

The economic case for criminal justice reform bleeds over into debates over drug policy. The Tax Foundationestimatesthat the marijuana industry is valued at $45 billion dollars a year: federal legalization of marijuana would bring black market businesses into the legal economy, turning careers of crime into respectable enterprise. Furthermore, addressing the opioid crisis would have significant, positive economic effects.

The Cato Institute recently found that legalization of cannabis would decrease state spending by $6 billion and federal spending by $4 billion annually.

Opioid addiction has had a largenegative impacton labor force participation, and the estimatedeconomic costof the opioid crisis is almost $80 billion. Treating opioid addiction as a public health issue instead of a criminal justice issue,in tandem withavoiding overprescription of opioids, would not only save lives but also improve future economic prospects.

These changes would also help curb rising deficits. Thanks to the recent tax cut and omnibus spending package, the federal deficit will exceedone trillion dollarsin 2019 and going forward, even during an economic boom. Reducing incarceration would reduce government spending: we spend over$80 billionon incarceration every year.

A fall in recidivism would also help reduce outlays for federal,state, and local governments. Marijuana legalization, too, would reduce spending: the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute recentlyfoundthat legalization of cannabis would decrease state spending by $6 billion and federal spending by $4 billion annually. Decriminalization of all drugs, meanwhile, would reduce state spending by $29.4 billion and federal spending by $18.5 billion.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
This Is Your Country On Drugs: The Secret History of Getting High in America


shutterstock_696631510.jpg


Americans really like to get high, and they’ll go out of their way to do so even when the government threatens to punish them.

That’s the theme that comes through strongest in Ryan Grim’s This Is Your Country On Drugs, a look at the relationship among Americans, the drugs they use, and their government.

The author, a relatively young man, isn’t shy about his own history of casually using and enjoying drugs, particularly hallucinogens. He discovered in the early 2000s that LSD was nowhere to be found—not only could he not find any for himself but statistics showed acid use was down in general.

Investigating further, Grim found that several factors had come together to make LSD unavailable. One was a success in the war on drugs: The DEA nabbed a longtime leading supplier, Harvard graduate William Leonard Pickard. Surprisingly (or not), another major factor was the breakdown of the LSD distribution system after the Grateful Dead disbanded, the band Phish stopped touring, and the groups’ concerts could no longer serve as major trading venues.

With LSD mostly gone, Americans didn’t stop seeking mind-altering experiences. They just turned to other substances that weren’t illegal, such as the herb salvia (still legal and readily available in most states), which offered even more intense trips.

Grim shows that this sort of thing has happened many times in U.S. history, both before and after drug prohibition began with the 1914 Harrison Narcotics Tax Act. One drug goes out, others come in. In the 1980s, for example, the Reagan administration decided to focus on fighting marijuana. That made pot expensive, so people switched to other drugs, including crack—a substance that might never have been invented but for Reagan’s antidrug policies.

The book also shows how government’s attempts to discourage drug use through propaganda often fail.

For example, in one chapter Grim considers the government’s D.A.R.E. program, in which police visit schools to teach students about drugs, and reports (as have others, including the Government Accountability Office and Surgeon General’s office) that the program has been a failure. Children who go through it tend to use drugs more than other children because the education makes them less afraid. Yet the program persists because it’s popular—with police and with parents who are relieved of the burden of talking to their kids about drugs themselves.

Anti-marijuana ad campaigns that have cost taxpayers more than $1.5 billion since 1998 also failed to produce any decline in minors’ drug use. Eventually marijuana use did drop, but not because of the ads; rather, kids began participating in more structured after-school activities and doing more of their socializing online. They didn’t stop using drugs, though. They just started taking illicitly obtained prescription pills instead.

Other chapters consider such topics as the harmful effects of the drug war on people in other countries and the relationship between the drug war and U.S. foreign policy. There are also detailed examinations of Americans’ history of using amphetamines and cocaine. And Grim looks at drug prohibition’s unsavory origins. For example, he shows how DuPont helped push marijuana prohibition to eliminate hemp as a competitor to its synthetic products, and he explores the role of bigotry against blacks and immigrants in the move toward prohibition.

All these chapters don’t really fit together neatly; Grim goes from one topic to the next without much transition. And he doesn’t explicitly push any public policy conclusions.

But his main themes come through clearly. One is, again, that Americans like to get high. Another is that what we’ve been told in propaganda from Reefer Madness to “This Is Your Brain on Drugs” ads isn’t quite true—doing drugs might not be a good idea, but most drug users don’t become crazed addicts. Another theme is that the war on drugs hurts a lot of people, from would-be medical-marijuana users, to poor South American coca growers, to the many young black men in prison.

The book is not a comprehensive guide to the evils of the drug war—things are actually worse than Grim suggests—but for people looking for a highly readable look at America’s relationship with drugs, This Is Your Country On Drugs is a good place to start. That’s true even if, like me (but unlike the author and millions of our fellow Americans), they would never do drugs themselves.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
Locking up Addicts Won't Fix the Opiate Crisis
If there is no victim, there is no crime—and that’s why the War on Drugs is a war on addicts.

addict_mini.jpg


Criminalization of drug use and possession has had almost no impact on actual levels of drug use. However, the criminalizing of drugs does practically ensure a cycle of criminality and greater prison sentences. As outlined in a January memo, Attorney General Jeff Sessions wants longer mandatory minimums despite their destructive impact on the United States. At this point, it’s evident that the War on Drugs is a frantic grasp for control in a broken system.

Incarceration Doesn’t Address Addiction
But enacting longer prison sentences does not help reduce the misuse or abuse of drugs. Instead, it worsens it. Thankfully, there are policy alternatives to the status quo. Legalizing drugs would allow us to focus on treating drug addiction and breaking the pattern of being labeled a “criminal.” If there is no victim, there is no crime—and that’s why the War on Drugs is a war on addicts.

The criminalizing of drugs does practically ensure a cycle of criminality and greater prison sentences.

The opiate problem in our country has reached epidemic levels, and it’s time that we discuss legitimate solutions to the crisis in a forthright manner. Placing drug users in jail does moreharm than good. Forced abstinence during incarceration decreases the user’s tolerance and increases their drug cravings. The grim fact is that the typical drug addicted inmate will be dead two weeks after being released, due to overdose.

Incarceration also comes with bleak living conditions, and an easy availability to drugs. Open Society Foundations released an interview in 2013 with a former drug user where he stated:

But at the time when I first went in [to jail] I was coming off of heroin. ...My buddy had some heroin so it doesn’t matter what the needle looked like, I just wanted to get unsick. So I used this needle that had dried blood on it.

Roughly, two-thirds of incarcerated Americans suffer from a drug addiction, yet only 11 percent will receive any treatment at all. By focusing on the individual as a “criminal” instead of a person with dignity, high rates of recidivism, or relapse into criminal behavior after incarceration, seem to be the norm. Within three years of being released and returning to the same harsh environment, with the added stress of a prison record, around 70 percent of prisoners are rearrested.

Subjecting drug users to the same confined conditions as true criminals and violent offenders only perpetuates the inane War on Drugs.

There Is a Better Way
Enacting longer prison sentences do not help reduce the misuse or abuse of drugs. Instead, it worsens it.

The Czech Republic’s policieshave encouraged individuals to seek treatment instead of throwing them in jail. Due to this change in how they view criminality, their annual overdose deaths have greatly decreased—5.5 deaths per one million adults, which is much lower than the European Union average of 20.3 deaths per one million adults. The Czech Republic’s model of removing penalties for limited personal use of marijuana, heroin, LSD, and other substances is certainly a model worth exploring as increased criminalization has shown to be purely detrimental to our society.

Those who oppose drug liberalization suggest that it increases crime and harms public health. However, drugs are not the issue—it is how we treat drug users and abusers that truly matters.

In 1971, former President Richard Nixon proclaimed a new “War on Drugs.” He cited that:

Despite the fact that drug addiction destroys lives, destroys families, and destroys communities, we are still not moving fast enough to meet the problem in an effective way.

If we change our view on the War on Drugs—which is really a war on people—we can enable individuals to live healthier and more independent lives, taking the path toward prosperity.

Indeed, 47 years after President Richard Nixon’s speech was given, it is clear that we are “still not moving fast enough to meet the problem,” because we have been looking at the problem as an extension of criminality.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
12 Historical Facts Prohibitionists Don’t Want You to Know


5817d9f4c89af365010871.jpg


Prohibitionists make unfounded claims and tell half-truths in their war to keep cannabis enthusiasts behind bars. Examples of their propaganda include distorted driving data, incorrect medical findings, selective clinical sourcingand even suggestions that “radical Islams” use cannabis to brainwash young people into becoming terrorists. What these Drug War apologists don’t want you to know are the real reasons for prohibition, the people who fought against it and the deep damage it continues to cause. The following are 12 historical facts the prohibitionists hope you never learn.

1. The bureaucrat who put the first federal restrictions on cannabis also attacked Coca-Cola, alcohol, caffeine and saccharin.

Harvey Wiley, the Chief Chemist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, led the crusade to pass the Pure Food and Drug Act, and the government rewarded Wiley by making him the first commissioner of what later became the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The 1906 act was meant to inform the public, not prohibit specific products, but its call for truth in labelling allowed Wiley to label cannabis as addictive and dangerous and then use this label to after cannabis itself. However, the medicinal plant was not the only household product he attacked. Wiley notoriously seized a Coca-Cola cargo shipment claiming it contained caffeine, an addictive drug that impaired people’s motor skills and cognitive abilities. The pending court case, United States v. Forty Barrels & Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola, was decided in favor of the beverage maker. The agency and the courts found the need to reel Wiley back in, which likely prompted his resignation in 1912. Governor Nelson Rockefeller’s grandson, Senator Nelson Aldrich, once said "the liberty of all the people of the United States" would be undermined by "chemists of the Agriculture Department." The statement was a none-too-subtle jab at Wiley.

2. The American Medical Association (AMA) testified before Congress urging it not to prohibit cannabis ahead of the original 1937 law.

When drug warrior Harry Anslinger made the case for prohibition before the Ways and Means Committee in 1937, he faced dissent from Dr. William C. Woodward of the American Medical Association (AMA). “Most physicians would want to preserve the right to use it [cannabis],” Woodward testified, later adding, “We are told the use of marijuana causes crime. But yet no one has been produced from the Bureau of Prisons to show the number of prisoners who have been found addicted to the marijuana habit… You have been told that schoolchildren are great users of marijuana cigarettes. No one has been summoned from the Children’s Bureau… [But] in all that you have had here thus far, no mention has been made of any excessive use of the drug by any doctor or its excessive distribution by any pharmacist…. Newspaper exploitation of the habit has done more to increase it than anything else.” Dr. Woodward even accused the committee of preparing the bill in secret, purposefully excluding the medical community and deceitfully employing the then-unknown word “marijuana” instead of the medical/botanical term “cannabis.”

3. In response to prohibition, New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia commissioned a study that ultimately condemned prohibition in 1944.

The New York Academy of Medicine conducted a two-year study on cannabis, which was the first major medical study on cannabis in the United States. In 1944, the researchers issued the LaGuardia Committee Report, stating, “Marijuana did not lead to violent, antisocial behavior, or uncontrollable sexual urges. Smoking marijuana did not alter a person’s basic personality structure… [and] does not lead to addiction in the medical sense of the word.” Harry Anslinger condemned the report and commissioned a counter study that ultimately claimed African-Americans “who smoked marijuana, became disrespectful of white soldiers and officers during military segregation." In 1972, the institution behind the Anslinger report admitted "these stories were largely false" and that no evidence supporting the gateway drug theory had been found.

4. England conducted the first cannabis study in 19th-century India and confirmed its medicinal benefits.

The LaGuardia Committee conducted the first clinical study of cannabis in America, but England claims the first major study overall. The 1894 Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report looked at common cannabis-related concerns, such as the idea that it causes insanity, but the findings did more than just dispel the unfounded myths. Per the report, “It has been clearly established that the occasional use or hemp in moderate doses may be beneficial; but this use may be regarded as medicinal in character.” In terms of physical and mental effects, the report said, “The Commission have come to the conclusion that the moderate use of hemp drugs is practically attended by no evil results at all… [and] produces no injurious effects on the mind.” Remarkably, the researchers even looked at cannabis as a moral issue and concluded, “Moderate use produces no moral injury whatever. There is no adequate ground for believing that it injuriously affects the character of the consumer.”

5. When Congress used Addiction Research Center data to justify mandatory minimums for cannabis possession, its head researcher condemned the misuse of the data and called for an end to prohibition.

When the government saw increased opiate addiction numbers at the Addiction Research Center, Congress established mandatory minimum prison sentences for drug offenders via the Boggs Act of 1952, which failed to distinguish between consumers and traffickers or cannabis and opiates. Who fought against this law? Dr. Harris Isbell, Director of Research at the aforementioned federal facility, who argued the following: “Marijuana smokers generally are mildly intoxicated, giggle, laugh, bother no one, and have a good time. They do not stagger or fall, and ordinarily will not attempt to harm anyone. It has not been proved that smoking marijuana leads to crimes of violence or to crimes of a sexual nature. Smoking marijuana has no unpleasant after effects, no dependence is developed on the drug, and the practice can easily be stopped at any time. In fact, it is probably easier to stop smoking marijuana cigarettes than tobacco cigarettes. In predisposed individuals, marijuana may precipitate temporary psychoses and is, therefore, not an innocuous practice with them.” Dr. Isbell also provided statements from doctors, prison officials and recovering heroin addicts in his effort to stop the legislation, but Congress ignored it all.

6. The Supreme Court unanimously ended cannabis prohibition.

The federal government officially prohibited cannabis with the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, and former Harvard professor Timothy Leary fought a cannabis-possession charge all the way up to the Supreme Court in 1969. After the Justices heard arguments in Leary v. United States, they unanimously sided in favor of Dr. Leary, in effect rendering the Tax Act unconstitutional. That did not seem to stop law enforcement from arresting people for cannabis, and President Nixon reinstituted prohibition the following year through the Controlled Substances Act.

7. The group commissioned to justify the “temporary” Schedule I status of cannabis ultimately questioned the constitutional legality of prohibition and called for it to be descheduled.

The National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse led the research to determine the appropriate legal classification for cannabis, which Congress temporarily made Schedule I (complete prohibition). Participants included Republican Governor Raymond Shafer, Republican Congressman Tim Lee Carter, Republican Senator Jacob Javits, Democratic Senator Harold Hughes and various medical doctors, college presidents, attorneys and psychiatrists. President Nixon expected them to rubber-stamp the Schedule I status, but instead the commission released "Marihuana, A Signal of Misunderstanding,” stating, “The criminalization of possession of marihuana for personal is socially self-defeating…. Considering the range of social concerns in contemporary America, marihuana does not, in our considered judgment, rank very high. We would deemphasize marihuana as a problem.” The report called for an end to prohibition and included this quote from a 1928 Supreme Court case: “The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness.” Nixon ignored it.

8. Nixon utilized prohibition as a political weapon.

Nixon, who described African-Americans as “just out of the trees” in a 1971 conversation with Donald Rumsfeld, implemented the prohibition that America suffers under today, and an inside source suggests his motivation was racial and political. A 2016 Harper’s magazine story recounted a 1994 interview with Nixon aide and Watergate conspirator John Ehrlichman that explained the president’s motivation for the Drug War. Ehrlichman said, “You want to know what [the Drug War] was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” When John Lennon started to campaign against Nixon, the president even used an old cannabis-possession arrest from England to justify deporting the legendary Beatle.

9. The DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge charged with considering the first rescheduling petition for cannabis sided against prohibition.

When the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) filed the first petition to reschedule cannabis back in 1972, it took 16 years to get an answer. The agency now know as the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) denied the petition, but a federal Court of Appeals ruled that the DEA must honor it. More legal finagling followed in the government’s attempt to deny the petition, and in 1980, the court ordered the DEA to stop stalling. The DEA got right on it—six years later—and the DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Francis Young issued his conclusion in 1988. The judge sided against prohibition and said cannabis should be removed from Schedule I. The DEA bureaucrats overruled the judge’s conclusion, leading to more legal battles. In 1994, a full 22 years after the original petition, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that the bureaucrats had the power to overrule the Chief Administrative Law Judge, despite having no reasonable argument for doing so.

10. Police arrest more people for cannabis use than for all violent crimes combined.

This per a 2016 report by the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch that also found that a minimum of 137,000 people are behind bars on any given day in the U.S. on simple possession charges, and most of the inmates have yet to be charged with a crime. Rather, the individuals sit in the cell for months or even years because they could not afford to post bail ahead of their court hearing.

11. Countless U.S. citizens are serving life sentences for simple possession charges.

Some states have habitual offender laws that mandate longer prison sentences for individuals convicted two or more times for various crimes, which can include cannabis possession. The aforementioned ACLU report found that, in Texas between 2012 and 2016, “116 people had received life sentences for drug possession, at least seven of which were for an amount weighing between one and four grams.” By comparison, the average single-serving sugar packet is about four grams.

12. Medical doctors want an end to prohibition.

Most people know that 60 percent of Americans want an end to prohibition, but many doctors want the same. WebMD and Medscape surveyed nearly 3,000 doctors about medical cannabis. The findings, released in 2014, showed the majority of doctors supported medical cannabis, and nearly 70 percent agreed the plant can help patients with certain conditions. Support jumped to 82 percent among oncologists and hematologists, and 60 percent of doctors who tried cannabis supported full-scale legalization. Dr. Michael Smith, the Chief Medical Editor of WebTV, remarked, “The medical community is clearly saying they support using marijuana as a potential treatment option for any number of medical problems.” Similarly, a 2016 study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) found that doctors ranked cannabis use dead last among a list of potentially risky behaviors that concern them. Alcohol, overeating and gun ownership all ranked higher.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
Harry Anslinger: The Godfather of Cannabis Prohibition



Probably no one did more to outlaw cannabis in the United States than Harry J. Anslinger, the first commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Ignoring the protests of key individuals in the American Medical Association (AMA), Anslinger fed the media a barrage of propaganda for decades that demonized the plant in the minds of countless Americans.

Born in 1892, Anslinger started out as an investigator for the Pennsylvania Railroad and rose to become the Assistant Commissioner of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Prohibition in 1929. He married the niece of Andrew Mellon, Secretary of the U.S. Treasury and one of the wealthiest people in the country, and in 1930 Mellon appointed Anslinger as Commissioner of the Treasury Department’s new Bureau of Narcotics.

Anslinger appeared before the House Ways and Means Committee on April 27, 1937, as Congress deliberated on whether to pass the Marijuana Tax Act. He testified, “Ten years ago we only heard about [marijuana] throughout the Southwest. It is only in the last few years that it has become a national menace … Since the economic depression the number of marijuana smokers has increased by vagrant youths coming into contact with older psychopaths.”

He explained that part of its appeal was its price.

“To be a morphine or heroin addict it would cost you from $5 to $6 a day to maintain your supply. But if you want to smoke a cigarette you pay 10 cents… it is low enough in price for school children to buy it.”

The committee chairman, Robert Lee Doughton, fast-tracked the proposed legislation into law, and cannabis prohibitionists now had a tool to start throwing more people in prison.

Anslinger ended his 32-year tenure as the nation’s first Drug Czar in 1962. During his reign, the prohibitionist popularized reefer madness films, the gateway drug theory, stigmas and stereotypes, the cannabis addiction myth and even the word “marijuana” itself. He also helped overcrowd the prisons with nonviolent cannabis offenders costing the U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars.

In 1966, four years after Anslinger’s tenure ended, Beat poet Allen Ginsberg wrote in The Atlantic, “A marvelous project for a sociologist, and one which I am sure will be in preparation before my generation grows old, will be a close examination of the actual history and tactics of the Narcotics Bureau and its former chief Power, Harry J. Anslinger, in planting the seed of the marijuana ‘menace’ in the public mind and carefully nurturing its growth over the last few decades until the unsuspecting public was forced to accept an outright lie.”

Anti-Cannabis Propaganda

The failure of alcohol prohibition frustrated Narcotics Bureau chief Harry Anslinger, but he saw his chance to make his mark by eradicating heroin, opium, cocaine and cannabis. For most of U.S. history, the public and doctors viewed cannabis as medicine, so to institute the plant’s prohibition, he launched a propaganda campaign that was about as factual as a Dr. Seuss book.

“Much of the irrational juvenile violence and killing that has written a new chapter of shame and tragedy is traceable directly to this hemp intoxication,” wrote Anslinger in his book The Murderers: The Story of the Narcotic Gangs.

The Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act was passed in 1934 in an effort to unify different state drug laws, and Anslinger wanted cannabis included in the Act alongside opiates and cocaine. But the AMA, the National Association of Retail Druggists and many pharmaceutical companies lobbied against the inclusion of cannabis, as they wanted to prescribe it as they saw fit, and the final draft of the Act left it up to each state to decide whether they wanted to regulate the plant.

So Anslinger devoted himself to the passage of the Marijuana Tax Act, which would restrict possession of cannabis to those who paid a tax for authorized medical or industrial use. Anyone who didn’t pay the tax could face a penalty of up to $2,000 and five years in prison.

To build his case, Anslinger went on a propaganda offensive, telling “the story of this evil weed of the fields and river beds and roadsides” in magazines, on the radio and in public forums. He was aided by “yellow journalism” mogul William Randolph Hearst, who sold newspapers by hysterically trumpeting a different national threat every week, from marijuana to immigrants to Communism. In Hearst’s Washington Herald, Anslinger proclaimed on April 12, 1937, “If the hideous monster Frankenstein came face to face with the monster marihuana, he would drop dead of fright." Anslinger claimed that cannabis made people “fly into a delirious rage” and “commit violent crimes.” In testimony before a congressional committee, he even claimed that cannabis was more deadly than opium, the poppy plant from which we get heroin and painkillers. “Opium has all of the good of Dr. Jekyll and all the evil of Mr. Hyde,” said Anslinger. “[Cannabis] is entirely the monster Hyde, the harmful effect of which cannot be measured.”

In 1970, the Journal of Social History took an extensive look at Anslinger with “The Federal Prohibition of Marihuana.” In the study, author Michael Schaller wrote, “When called upon to explain [the cannabis] problem to Congress, the Bureau relied on unsupported accounts it had supplied to magazines and newspapers. By reading its own releases into the record as outside proof, the Bureau had in fact created evidence to prove its point.” The study further noted that some examples “consisted of several accused criminals who had pleaded marihuana use as grounds for temporary insanity.”

The Anslinger Gore Files

As part of his effort to propagandize the so-called evils of cannabis, Narcotics Bureau chief Harry Anslinger collected crime stories that he could tie to cannabis use in his “Gore Files.” The Bureau collected case after grisly case of rape, murder, suicide and molestation that Anslinger & Co. tried to pin on cannabis.

Having files that reportedly showcased the homicidal roots of the drug, Anslinger went on to breathlessly relate tragedy after cannabis-inspired tragedy: the young girl who leaped from a window to her death after smoking, the young gang inspired to commit 38 holdups on “tea,” the janitors who peddled reefers to children. “In Alamosa, Colorado, a degenerate brutally attacked a young girl while under the influence of the drug. In Chicago, two marijuana-smoking boys murdered a policeman… An entire family was murdered by a youthful addict in Florida. When officers arrived at the home, they found the youth staggering about in a human slaughterhouse. With an axe he had killed his father, his mother, two brothers and a sister. He seemed to be in a daze.”

The examples are many. A man attempted to shoot his wife after smoking cannabis, but killed her grandmother instead, and then committed suicide. Another man, eventually sentenced to death, was driven to assault a 10-year-old girl due to the power of the plant. One of the more famous cases involved an axe murderer who butchered his entire family, prompting the Tampa Morning Tribune headline “Stop This Murderous Smoke” in 1933. According to Anslinger, “He had become crazed from smoking marijuana.”

The Bureau chief’s most famous article, though, was the 1937 propaganda piece “Marijuana: Assassin of Youth,” which was eventually made into a feature film. “A young girl lay crushed on the sidewalk,” he wrote, “[and] the killer was… marijuana.” By his description, you’d think a helicopter dropped a massive hash brick on her head. He also wrote, “How many murders, suicides, robberies, criminal assaults, holdups, burglaries, and deeds of maniacal insanity [cannabis] causes each year, especially among the young, can be only conjectured. The sweeping march of its addiction has been so insidious that, in numerous communities, it thrives almost unmolested, largely because of official ignorance of its effects.” Anslinger even claimed, “Homer wrote [in the Odyssey] that it made men forget their homes and turned them into swine.”

The self-perceived Greek lit scholar also got into the etymology game suggesting that cannabis is such a violent and aggressive drug that it is responsible for the word “assassin.” Anslinger wrote, “In the year 1090, there was founded in Persia the religious and military order of the Assassins whose history is one of cruelty, barbarity, and murder, and for good reason. The members were confirmed users of hashish, or marijuana, and it is from the Arabic ‘hashshashin’ that we have the English word ‘assassin.’ Even the term ‘running amok’ relates to the drug, for the expression has been used to describe natives of the Malay Peninsula who, under the influence of hashish, engage in violent and bloody deeds."

By those etymological standards, one might suggest the medical term Asperger’s comes from the name Anslinger.

Utilizing his Gore Files and the yellow press, Anslinger helped get the Marihuana Tax Act passed in 1937, and the cannabis-related arrests started the very next day. Interestingly, New York City Mayor Fiorello La Guardia decided to conduct his own study on cannabis, and the researchers concluded, “Marijuana did not lead to violent, antisocial behavior, or uncontrollable sexual urges. Smoking marijuana did not alter a person’s basic personality structure… [and] does not lead to addiction in the medical sense of the word.”

An outraged Anslinger countered by promoting his own studies, like the 1945 Army medical study with a test group of 34 blacks and one white man. Newsweek quoted the doctors as saying that, after smoking marijuana, “The soldiers felt and acted like enemy aliens toward society.”

Over the years, Anslinger’s warnings that marijuana led to violent crime and sexual deviancy began to lose their impact, so he began to rely more heavily on the “gateway” theory. Originally, when asked before Congress in 1937 if pot smokers progressed into heroin or cocaine, he replied, “No, sir; I have not heard of a case of that kind. I think it is an entirely different class.” But by 1951, he was telling congressional committees, “Over 50 percent of those young [heroin] addicts started on marijuana smoking. They started there and graduated to heroin; they took the needle when the thrill of marijuana was gone."

The Bureau of Narcotics eventually became the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and even though Anslinger left the prohibition business in the early 1960s, the agency continued to fill the Gore Files with outrageous cannabis-related horror stories well in the 1970s.

Was Harry Anslinger a Racist?

“Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men… [and] the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races,” said Harry Anslinger, according to legend, during a Narcotics Bureau conference. He also supposedly said, “There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are negroes, hispanics, filipinos and entertainers. Their satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with negroes, entertainers and any others.”

Several other racist, inflammatory quotes have also been attributed to America’s first Drug Czar, but it seems no one can point to a definitive and reliable source that backs up these claims.
5ae24eefc5427918776644.jpg
Sure, quotes made 80 years ago are hard to track, and bureaucrats typically say things in private that they never would on the record. Artwork associated with Anslinger’s crusade certainly had racist overtones often showing “a helpless, white female being seduced or overpowered by a Satan-like figure, often dark skinned” (University of Kansas professor Barney Warf in the 2014 study “High Points: An Historical Geography of Cannabis”), but the extremely racist quotes—and countless others we could recite—might just be anti-prohibition propaganda hurled back at Anslinger. Without proper sourcing, it is not fair to attribute the quotes to the Drug Czar no matter how much he looks like James Bond supervillain Ernst Blofeld.

Still, in his prohibitionist campaign, the Drug Czar used an unknown Spanish slang term, “marihuana” (its spelling at the time), rather than the well-known name cannabis. He likely did this in part so people would not realize what he actually wanted to prohibit, but the primary reason might have been a play on the rising racial tensions in the country at the time. In the early 1900s, the Mexican Revolution ignited a surge of immigrants into the U.S., multiplying their numbers in a short time, and when the Great Depression hit, the immigrants often agreed to work for less money. Around the time of the Marihuana Tax Act hearings, the U.S. adopted a repatriation policy that sent about 400,000 immigrants back to Mexico against their will. In Texas, the Rangers sometimes used force.

In “High Points,” the aforementioned Barney Warf wrote, “Many early prejudices against marijuana were thinly veiled racist fears of its smokers, often promulgated by reactionary newspapers. Mexicans were frequently blamed for smoking marijuana, property crimes, seducing children and engaging in murderous sprees." Later, the study added, “The discourses surrounding the war against marijuana reveal how particular gender and ethnic categories are selectively deployed in deliberately inaccurate ways, often invoking racist imagery.”

If Anslinger was not racist himself, he certainly did play the racist card. Interestingly, the use of the Spanish slang term even came up in the congressional hearings.

In the committee “debate” over the Tax Act, Dr. William Woodward with the legislative counsel representing the American Medical Association (AMA), complained, “We cannot understand yet, Mr. Chairman, why this bill should have been prepared in secret for two years without any intimation, even, to the [medical] profession, that it was being prepared.”

Dr. Woodward pointed out that the medical and hemp industries had been blindsided by the bill because it used the term marihuana in the title instead of cannabis.

“The term ‘marihuana’ is a mongrel word that has crept into this country over the Mexican border and has no general meaning, except as it relates to the use of cannabis preparations for smoking,” the doctor explained. “It is not recognized in medicine, and hardly recognized even in the Treasury Department. Marihuana is not the correct term. It was the use of the term ‘marihuana’ rather than the use of the term ‘cannabis’ or the use of the term ‘Indian hemp’ that was responsible, as you realized probably, a day or two ago, for the failure of the dealers in Indian hemp seed to connect up this bill with their business until rather late in the day.”

The doctor’s pleas fell on deaf ears, the legislation passed and the resulting prohibition sent untold millions into the prison system for nonviolent cannabis offenses. Despite similar cannabis-consumption rates among whites, prohibition enforcers typically targeted minorities… as they still do today.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
Prohibition’s Racist Roots


5ae277bdf36ce494555783.jpg


President Nixon famously employed a “Southern strategy” that brought racist Democrats furious at the Civil Rights Act into the Republican party. Still, recorded transcripts released by the Nixon Presidential Library in 2010 showed that Tricky Dick was an even bigger racist that most people realized. Among the many quotes that would make Trump blush, Nixon said that African-Americans needed 500 years of inbreeding to benefit the U.S., the Irish cannot hold their liquor, Italians don’t have their heads screwed on tight and Jews are “aggressive and abrasive and obnoxious.” Asked about a potential second holocaust, Nixon even said, “If they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern.” In a 1971 conversation with Donald Rumsfeld, Nixon even said, “Black Americans aren’t as good as black Africans—most of them, basically, are just out of the trees.”

In addition to being an unapologetic racist, Tricky Dick stands out as the premiere White House prohibitionist, and it ends up the two are not unrelated. In a Harper’s magazine story published in March 2016, journalist Dan Baum recalled an interview he made with Nixon aide and Watergate conspirator John Ehrlichman in 1994. Ehrlichman, who was Nixon’s chief domestic advisor when he announced the Drug War in 1971, admitted the war was really on African-Americans and the anti-war left. When Baum asked about the Drug War, the former Nixon aide (who went to jail for his key role in the Watergate break-in) said, “You want to know what this was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or blacks, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

Cannabis prohibition is rooted in racism, but decades later, the racist tactics continue. In some parts of the country, cannabis-related arrest rates are up to eight times higher for African-Americans than for whites, despite similar consumption rates.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
The No. 1 Argument for Cannabis Legalization


5cb8df1b9e891712748167.jpg


I love to debate the merits of cannabis legalization. It is an issue of freedom, health and wellness that we should celebrate every day, not just on 4/20, though the cannabis holiday can be a time to renew our collective commitment to the cause. Knowing what to say about cannabis can help ensure the legalization wave continues to crest in the direction of liberty and justice.

"The boisterous sea of liberty is never without a wave." - Thomas Jefferson

Legalization debates often center on comparative risk assessments. The most common comparison involves alcohol, which remains legal despite being 114 times more dangerous than cannabis. Or for those who support prohibition on the basis of road safety, texting while driving is more dangerous than drunk or stoned driving, yet we don't put people in jail for sending texts (like we do smoking cannabis) in the privacy of their own homes. Or as Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) judge Francis Young argued in defense of cannabis, "Eating 10 raw potatoes can result in a toxic response... [while] it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death," yet there is no potato prohibition.

These types of arguments highlight the hypocrisy of prohibition, but they're ultimately just a defense against claims of cannabis-related risk, and studies suggest prohibition support is actually driven by morality, not perceived risk. We need a stronger argument for legalization.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies." - C.S. Lewis

What then is the No. 1 reason for legalizing cannabis? For the United States, the answer is simple: It's the democratic will of the people.

The Center for Civic Education defines "constitutional democracy" as majority rule with protections for minorities, due process and basic individual rights like life, liberty and property. How then can America call itself a constitutional democracy when a majority of its citizens want to expand freedom to include cannabis use yet its representative government refuses to do so?

And to be clear, we're not talking about a slim majority, as the following polls attest:

  • Legalization support reached a record-high 66 percent in a 2018 Gallup poll
  • A CBS poll this week found 65-percent support for legalization
  • Legalization support hit 61 percent in the recent General Social Survey
  • Pew Research saw similar legalization support at 62 percent
  • Legalization support reached 63 percent in a 2018 Quinnipiac poll
  • Quinnipiac registered 89 percent support for legalizing medical cannabis
  • 76 percent of Ivy League students support full legalization in a College Pulse survey
  • FOX News and Rasmussen both registered majority support at 59 and 54 percent, respectively
  • A 2017 Pew poll of police officers found more support for legalization than prohibition
  • Nearly 70 percent of the police officers in the same poll would legalize medical cannabis
  • 59 percent of medical professionals support legalization in a 2018 Medscape poll
  • The same poll said 79 percent support medical cannabis and 22 percent consume cannabis

If the legislative branch did represent the will of the people, cannabis legalization would have enough support to overcome a Senate filibuster, while the Gallup poll suggests there could be enough support to override a presidential veto and/or pass a constitutional amendment. If a legalization vote was added to the November 2020 ballot, it would easily pass. The bipartisan STATES Act that allows states to set their own cannabis laws would almost certainly become law if given a vote in Congress. Even a full legalization bill could potentially pass.

Instead, under the pretense of safety, the federal government is denying liberty for cannabis consumers and suppressing the democratic will of the people. At a minimum, Congress should at least allow a vote.

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Benjamin Franklin

Majority rule has its limits. For example, it should never infringe on individual rights as it has in the past by allowing for discrimination based on race, gender and sexual preference. That is why any act of prohibition that limits freedom and liberty—regardless of its level of support—should require a much higher bar to pass. In the case of cannabis, minority support for a prohibition that was built on lies and maintained through exaggerated safety concerns did not even deserve to pass a low bar, making it a stain on American history.

By contrast, majority support for cannabis legalization is about the expansion of freedom and liberty. Common-sense regulations would be put in place to minimize risk, but Americans would be able to enjoy cannabis at home or in designated social areas without risking arrest or worse for doing so. That is the freedom that the majority of Americans are calling for and that the government is suppressing.

We either believe in the Constitution or we don't. We either believe in democracy or we don't. We either believe in the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or we don't. A majority of "we the people" across all age groups supports legalization, and the federal government betrays these American values every second it denies the people the liberty it desires.

(And for the record, three of the last four U.S. presidents smoked cannabis, and it's the one who didn't who seems to have all the brain damage.)

“When a man is denied the right to live the life he believes in, he has no choice but to become an outlaw.” - Nelson Mandela

Just as Syrian refugees defied ISIS by growing cannabis, many Americans have defied their country's cannabis oppression for decades. In the past few years alone, federal drug war tactics have included forced vaginal searches, killing a non-violent grower with a bulldozer, sentencing a 14-year-old to five years for possession, giving a pain-stricken 76-year-old disabled vet life in prison without the possibility of parole for medical cannabis, and trying to put a sixth-grade honor student in jail for possessing a maple tree leaf that merely looked like cannabis.

Until the government honors the democratic call for more freedom, millions of Americans will continue to defy prohibition and pay the price with incarceration, fines, legal fees, job loss and asset seizure. Federal law might make them outlaws, but they've made 4/20 their Independence Day.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
What Is Cannabidiol? 5 Things to Know


5ae214a92b693473212456.jpg


Cannabidiol, also known as CBD, is a naturally occurring chemical found in cannabis. It is one of the most highly concentrated and studied compounds among the more than 100 compounds, or cannabinoids, found in the plant. While it does not cause users to get high, cannabidiol has numerous health benefits.

Health Benefits

Although cannabidiol still requires further study to know all of its health benefits, scientists have been able to pinpoint some of the medical uses of the compound. CBD can help treat nausea and vomiting, making it a useful choice for cancer patients. Cannabidiol may also help shrink the growth of cancer and tumors. It may help people who suffer from psychoses, anxiety and depression. Inflammation and neurodegenerative effects, such as those with Alzheimer’s disease, may be reduced through the use of CBD. Oil made from the compound could even be used to treat forms of epilepsy in children. Its calming effects are also useful for people with social anxiety disorder.

Balancing THC

When people cite the so-called negative effects of cannabis, they are usually due to the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the compound that causes the psychoactive effects. Some of these, such as paranoia and increased levels of stress, may be negated by the balancing power of cannabidiol. The chemical can help increase feelings of calm and self-awareness to make it safer for patients to use cannabis for medical treatment without risking common side effects. Since each patient reacts differently to treatment, some may experience differing effects that can occur during cannabis consumption.

Nonsmoking Ingredient

Smoking is not a requirement for using cannabidiol. In fact, the ingredient can be utilized from a variety of products. The most common of these is cannabidiol oil, followed by cannabidiol pills. Many patients who use CBD do not smoke but use a medicine dropper to deliver their medication to their bodies. Pastes, capsules, sprays and salves are also available, providing consumers with many choices. Cannabidiol oil can even be used in vaporizers. Patients should begin with small dosages before increasing the amount of CBD taken daily.

Selective Growing

As the benefits of CBD continue to become known, growers are modifying their crops to account for more cannabidiol and less tetrahydrocannabinol to create stronger medicinal plants. Some politicians believe that all plants with THC should be kept illegal, and as CBD plants become more commonly produced, doctors remind them that both compounds have certain benefits to be had by patients. The anti-nausea and appetite stimulating properties of THC make it an optimal treatment for some patients, depending upon their conditions and symptoms. Research also shows that the two compounds work best when together.

Sleep disorders, schizophrenia and glaucoma may all be cured one day after more studies are complete regarding cannabidiol. Some popular strains of cannabis grown with increased CBD levels and little THC content include AC/DC and Charlotte’s Web. Island Junk and Hawaiian Dream are also high in cannabidiol.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
This Prohibitionist Will Really Piss You Off

57e3728c58085895823476.jpg


Drug Warrior William Bennett reared his ugly head this week to warn us about the dangers of cannabis legalization. The former Secretary of Education and Office of National Drug Control Policy chief wrote an op-ed “My Turn: 3 lies the pro-marijuana side is pushing about Prop. 205” in the Arizonan press in an effort to encourage the state to vote against legalizing recreational cannabis.

According to Bennett, the three so-called lies are as follows: 1) legalization will reduce black market sales, 2) cannabis is safer than alcohol and 3) the tax revenue will help schools. He claims these are all lies, and PRØHBTD would attempt to analyze the data he used to prove his points (as we did in the past here and here and here with other prohibitionists), but this op-ed is heavy on opinion and light on facts and figures. Rather, he offers criticisms like the $30 million raised by cannabis-related tax revenue and given to schools over the first three years is “a drop in the bucket,” meaning it won’t be enough to make a difference to the state’s 2,000 public schools.

The criticism that $30 million won’t help is an opinion, and it is an ironic opinion at that considering headlines like “Senators Assail Bennett on Education Cut” from the LA Times in 1987. As Education Secretary, Bennett defended a 30 percent cut in federal aid to education, which Republican Senator Pete Domenici called “a giant step backward” and Democratic Senator Lawton Chiles described as a way to make America “lead-pipe last” in education. Speaking directly to Bennett, Senator J. Exon stated, “I wish you were as strong an advocate for education as Secretary Weinberger is for defense."

Sure, a $30 million boost to schools doesn’t seem like much to the man who cut billions from education, but his views on the Drug War go even further, drawing comparisons to Islamic extremists. Bennett, who wanted habeas corpus rights stripped from drug dealers, said it was “morally plausible” to behead American citizens who sold drugs like cannabis. Bennett also wanted to regulate rap music and pushed for teaching abstinence education. And speaking of unwanted pregnancies, he once said on his radio program, "If you wanted to reduce crime, you could—if that were the sole purpose—you could abort every black baby in this country and the crime rate would go down."

Then there is the issue of Bennett’s own addiction. In 2003, the New York Times published “Relentless Moral Crusader Is Relentless Gambler, Too” that highlighted how Bennett makes $50,000/speech to rail against “sins” like cannabis smoking, but The Book of Virtues author lost more than $8 million gambling in Las Vegas. That same year, the Washington Monthlystory “The Bookie of Virtue” noted that Bennett denied he had a gambling problem, adding, “I view it as drinking. If you can’t handle it, don’t do it.”

An ironic comment, is it not?

Now back to the op-ed. Arizonans who read his prohibitionist rant will see the bio line, “William J. Bennett is the former U.S. secretary of education and the first director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.” These titles give the impression that Bennett is someone whose words should carry weight, but many people—including educators—would argue that’s not the case.

“[Bennett] is a preacher, not a teacher,” said Bard College president Leon Botstein to the New York Times in 1985. “He is trying to manipulate public opinion to accept his ideas of what is right and wrong.”

More than thirty years later, this characterization still fits.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
30th Anniversary of the Most Racist 1980s Drug Law


58111c98e6558489432095.jpg


Last Thursday marked the 30th anniversary of arguably the worst new drug law of the 1980s. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 marked a critical moment when the government moved from a rehabilitative system for drug offenders into a punitive one that included new mandatory minimum sentences. The legislation is best known for its racial bias.

The Reagan administration dramatically revamped the Nixon Drug War, and it found the perfect poster boy for the cause in University of Maryland basketball star Len Bias. Two days after becoming the second overall pick in the talent-stacked 1986 draft, the small forward died from cocaine intoxication. Congress used the headlines to draft and pass the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which Reagan signed four months after Bias’ death. Among the law’s many punitive mandates, it called for felony charges and mandatory minimum sentences for cocaine possession.

What made the law so racist? The law triggered mandatory sentences (starting at five years) for distributing five grams of crack cocaine, a lower-cost version more commonly associated with African-Americans, but the weight threshold rockets to 500 grams for someone distributing cocaine powder. The latter, more commonly bought and sold by whites, benefited from a 100-to-1 weight disparity.

A decade ago, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) published a report about the Anti-Drug Abuse Act and said, “In 1986, the average federal drug sentence for African Americans was 11 percent higher than for whites. Four years later, the average federal drug sentence for African Americans was 49 percent higher.” Moreover, 73 percent of individuals charged with crack distribution were low-level participants (e.g., street dealers, lookouts, couriers), meaning the law made little impact on major traffickers.

Adding to the tragic nature of the disparity, the ACLU noted that African Americans are indeed more commonly associated with crack and make up more than 80 percent of those serving sentences for the drug, but 66 percent of crack users are actually white or Hispanic.

Two years after the initial law passed, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 amended it to add mandatory minimum sentences for a first offense of crack possession. This amendment only applied to crack. The 1988 law also established the Office of National Drug Policy, whose founding director famously said, “If you wanted to reduce crime, you could—if that were the sole purpose—you could abort every black baby in this country and the crime rate would go down.”

Where the fuck do they find these assholes?

So, what else did this peach of a drug law do for Americans? Here are a few highlights from the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which are as follows:

  • Established criminal penalties for simple possession, including cannabis

  • Enhanced the spending power of the Assets Forfeiture Fund

  • Provided more funding for the Drug War domestically and overseas

  • Placed criminal restrictions of drug paraphernalia like bongs and pipes

  • Opened the door “for the imposition of the death penalty” for drug offenses

  • Imposed restrictions on U.S. aid to countries that produce illicit drugs

  • Created roadblocks to revoking diplomatic passports for DEA agents
The law also authorized the government to pressure the entertainment and written media industry to “refrain from producing material which glamorizes the use of illegal drugs and alcohol,” and it required “a list identifying Federal buildings under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense which could be used as detention facilities” to make room for the expected increase in nonviolent drug arrestees.

President Obama fortunately helped reduce some of the pain felt by the 1986 law. He granted clemency to hundreds of non-violent drug offenders, including many convicted of crack cocaine possession, with a record-setting 325 clemencies in August 2016 alone. Likewise, he signed the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which eliminated the five-year mandatory sentence for possession of certain drugs and reduced the powder-to-crack weight disparity from 100-to-1 down to 18-to1.

As one might expect, most of the organizations and lobbyists who opposed the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 actively support cannabis prohibition.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
This Is Where Mike Pence Stands on Cannabis


589386ab0119c114459235.jpeg


Vice President Michael Dick Pence is a Ted Cruz- and Tea Party-endorsing religious conservative who signed laws to legalize LGBTQ discrimination, mandate funerals for aborted fetuses and limit lawsuits against gunmakers. Not surprisingly, the Indiana governor is also a big supporter of cannabis prohibition and the Drug War.

In 2013, Indiana Public Media ran the headline, “Senators Up Marijuana Penalties to Appease the Governor,” stating that Pence fought to include tougher penalties for low-level cannabis offenses. House Bill 1006 sought to reduce possession charges, while Pence wanted to increase them. Thanks to the governor’s efforts, any amount of cannabis now results in up to six months behind bars, while second offenses can net a year or more. In fact, a person can land in jail simply for being in a place “where knowledge of drug activity occurs,” even if there is no evidence that the person has ever touched a cannabis plant. Earlier this year, he also a signed a law that reinstated 10-year mandatory minimum prison sentences for certain drug-sale crimes.

Pence, who thinks cannabis is extremely dangerous, says tobacco cigarettes aren't so bad. He penned a 2001 op-edthat claimed, “Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn't kill. In fact, 2 out of every three smokers does not die from a smoking related illness.”

The guy who thinks cannabis is deadly thinks tobacco is not, save for the unfortunate one-in-three smokers who do die from cigarettes, per his statistics. Of course, the accurate figure is one-in-three smokers survive, but Pence ain't actually a facts and figures kind of guy.

Pence continued, “The relevant question is, what is more harmful to the nation, second hand smoke or back handed big government disguised in do-gooder healthcare rhetoric…. A government big enough to go after smokers is big enough to go after you.”

In the same way that prohibitionists say there is not enough evidence that medical cannabis works, Pence argues that there is not enough evidence that tobacco causes lung cancer, and we are guessing he believes Jonah literally spent three days inside the belly of a whale. While still in Congress, he also voted against the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which “imposed new warnings and labels on tobacco packaging and their advertisements, with the goal of discouraging minors and young adults from smoking.” The law, which easily passed, also banned flavored cigarettes and limited advertising to children. As governor, he cut funding for the Indiana Tobacco Prevention and Cessation office.

Ironically, Slate published the headline “Mike Pence Might Be a Cigarette Dressed Up As a Person” last fall, noting he cashed in more than $100,000 in political contributions from tobacco companies. Because that's what Jesus would do.

Pence believes in zero-tolerance, punishment-over-treatment cannabis laws, yet his fierce resistance to tobacco taxation suggests he would shit a brick if the government ever instituted criminal tobacco prohibition. Then again, maybe his Big Tobacco donors helped motivate his support for putting people in jail for nearly half a year for a single cannabis cigarette.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
A Grower’s Take on Scotts Miracle-Gro


5988ce6a858fd265657423.jpg


It was really only a matter of time before big money found its way into what was once a boutique-only industry. Cannabis is a big money business that has only been held back by federal law and local regulation. The spread of legalization has led to new industry and community developments. Big dollar companies are closely monitoring the industry and starting to move in. One of the more vocal of the industrial agriculture behemoths, in regards to their readiness to profit from cannabis, has been Scotts Miracle-Gro.

Scotts Miracle-Gro is the world's largest distributor of home garden pesticide products and fertilizers. They are the McDonald's of garden supplies. They are also the exclusive distributor for everyone's not-so-favorite insecticide Round-Up manufactured by… you guessed it, Monsanto. To separate Scotts Miracle-Gro from Monsanto is no easy feat. Yes, defined as two separate companies, they are inseparable partners in not only pesticide distribution but in their role in the corporate agricultural lobby. It is this lobby that seeks to deregulate its practices and eliminate oversight, thus giving them free reign over the global food supply. This deconstruction of the the legal framework that protects us from harmful toxins in our drinking water and radiation in our sushi is the primary goal of Big Ag. Less regulation equals bigger profits, the health of the world be damned.

With Scotts throwing its name into the mix, many are wondering if Scotts Miracle-Gro products, which are about as cheap as they come when compared to other similar gardening lines, would be good for their cannabis. The short answer is no. Miracle-Gro nutrients are highly concentrated chemicals in ratios far above what is needed or desired, particularly when dealing with the wide variety of cannabis strains available. Scotts Miracle-Gro floods the root system with vast amounts of artificial nutrients to overcome for a lack of nutrient bio-availability. No matter how you cut it, artificial nutrients result in a mere fraction of the bio-nutrient uptake plants would otherwise receive with organic supplementation. In short, the more natural the fertilizer, the better the finished product. Miracle-Gro is inexpensive because it is made with the cheapest chemical fertilizers available. In the end, you get out what you put in.

Miracle%20Grow.jpg
Many who have sampled cannabis grown using Miracle-Gro claim it has an ammonia-like taste. Some have also stated that it has made children and pets sick when exposed to it. Despite its drawbacks and limitations, many growers have tried switching to Miracle-Gro just to save a few bucks. The same chemicals people are spraying on their lawns to give them that artificial green luster, which is proven to be harmful to animals and the ecosystem, are finding their way into cannabis gardens and ultimately your body.

There are several trends occurring in cannabis as we speak. There is a trend to streamline and maximize production at low cost, primarily in commercial grows. Then there is the eco-centric home grower who seeks out natural ways to increase quality over quantity and find organic solutions to pest control. Miracle-Gro grow products should find a home in neither. Not only because using Scotts Miracle-Gro is taking a horticultural shortcut, there’s the company's proven track record of gross disregard for the environment and human life, all for profit.

Not everyone out there is politically minded, some just want the best for their garden. Even if Miracle-Gro was great for your garden, which it isn't, its associations with Monsanto and Big Ag should be enough to give you pause. Supporting Scotts fundamentally supports a system of agricultural monopolies, propriety seeds and unscrupulous business practices. Scotts is solely responsible for bringing glyphosate to the market on behalf of Monsanto.

Otherwise known as Round-Up, glyphosate has been directly linked to the death of vast numbers of bees and monarch butterflies. Traces of it are found in nearly 100 percent of produce consumed by Americans every day. The use of Round-Up led to Monsanto's “Round-Up Ready” GMO seeds, which are modified to resist to the effects of glyphosate that kill virtually everything it touches. How is it that a poison linked to birth defects and wildlife eradication is still being sold and used by farmers around the world? The answer: because the big agricultural global lobby has had the freedom to write their own laws and owns a monopoly that crushes competition.

Aside from their relationship with Monsanto, Scotts Miracle-Gro has been enveloped in its own controversies. Scotts was hit with $8 million in fines for using poison in its birdseed products. Not only did the company use banned insecticides like Storcide II and Actellic 5E, proven harmful to birds and wildlife, they continued to sell it for six months after employees warned the company about its dangers. They took public safety and threw it out the window to turn a buck. They have also been fined over the spread of genetically modified DNA from herbicide-resistant Kentucky bluegrass and creeping bentgrass lawn strains. Their Frankenstein's monster of GMO grass found its way into the population of native grasses as far as 10 miles away. This resulted in a slap on the wrist fine of only $500,000. Scotts has shown blatant disregard for local ecosystems and the environment on a large scale.

Scotts Miracle-Gro, as a company, is buying up key players in the cannabis industry. Their CEO recently came out in support of the cannabis industry as an opportunity for his company to strike gold. The company has recently made hundreds of millions of dollars worth of investments into a range of businesses that provide logistics to the cannabis industry. They purchased Dutch lighting manufacturer Gavita, whose all-in-one ballast and lighting systems can be found in commercial and home grows across North America. They also scooped up Botanicare, a company whose nutrient products are heavily depended on by both commercial pot growers and home gardeners alike. Other key acquisitions include Boulder's AeroGrow and California hydroponics company General Hydroponics. Gaining footholds in this still-independent industry are sure signs the corporate takeover of cannabis is currently underway.

Quasi-legal cannabis has been around in the U.S. for two decades, but the big money players like Philip-Morris have yet to take over the industry. Some believe the corporate takeover would have happened by now if it was going to happen at all. The problem with this mode of thinking is that big money giants like Scotts Miracle-Gro and R.J. Reynolds think along much different timelines than we do. These agricultural giants think 10, 20, even 50 years down the line.

Rumors have persisted for years that these multinational giants have bought up large warehouses around Denver that remain vacant to this day. The fact that the strategic takeover of key cannabis businesses is happening now shows that the Big Ag leaders are ready and positioning themselves for future cannabis industry growth. This is not good for anyone except Big Ag. In the long run, this translates to a fewer choices for the consumer, a lesser quality product and the elimination of competition on a large scale.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
American Hemp: A Game-Changing Cash Crop


5cd5d550b22e0510219115.jpg


Why do we need hemp? Why did the Federal Government reclassify it as an agricultural commodity after all this time? Why now when the American economy hasn’t been stronger? Yes, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that in April alone, a total of 263,000 non-farm jobs were added to the economy. The unemployment rate is the lowest it’s been since literally December 1969—the year we put astronauts on the moon. But did anyone take note that those were non-farm jobs? Because American farmers are currently living in economic crisis. According to data from the U.S. Department of Commerce, in the first quarter of 2019, their income declined by $11.8 billion, marking the biggest first quarter drop in three years.

Why is our agricultural sector experiencing one of the worst economic crises during a time of prosperity? For starters, the issues affecting their income (or lack of income) are out of their control:

  • Farmers are experiencing record flooding, particularly in the Midwest, which means planting has been significantly delayed. The Mississippi River has been flooding since March; the National Weather Service indicated in their Spring Flood Outlook that “snowmelt alone will cause rivers to rise near or above flood stage,” and heavy rains (that the Midwest has been experiencing) will only increase the degree of flooding.
  • Apart from the weather, commodity prices are low, and interest rates are high. According to the Des Moines Register, data from a 2018 fourth quarter report from the Chicago Federal Reserve noted that seven percent of farm borrowers in Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin were struggling to repay operating loans (which are used to purchase seed, etc.), which is the largest percentage since 1999.
  • Domestic commodity prices are low in part because exports have declined. Trade wars with China have increased the tariffs on everything from beef to soybeans.
While hemp can’t change the weather or negotiate trade deals with China, it can bring more sources of income to farmers so that the bank doesn’t take the farm. In Kentucky, soybeans have replaced tobacco as the state’s leading crop. As of December 2018, an acre of soybeans yielded about $500, yet an acre of hemp being grown for cannabidiol (CBD) could bring in as much as $30,000 per acre. While this appears to be an overly optimistic figure, it turns out that earning $30,000 per acre is not only accurate, but a conservative estimate.

According to Kentucky growers surveyed by Hemp Business Daily in 2018, a pound of dried CBD flower went for about $20 to $50 (depending on the quality of CBD content). Most CBD farms yield about one pound per plant, and they can fit up to 2,500 plants per acre, so on the low end of the spectrum, one acre could very well produce $30,000 to $50,000. Bringing that math full circle, Kentucky has 75,800 farms, with the average size being 169 acres (the national average for a farm is 444 acres). Now, I’m not a hemp farmer, nor do I live in Kentucky, but if I was growing 169 acres of soybeans, making approximately $84,500.00 every harvest season (prior to expenses), and had the opportunity to make at least $5,070,000.00 on the same exact piece of land, I’d want in on that. Who wouldn’t?

Of course, that total amount isn’t net pay, but even after all expenses from growing the plant are deducted, that’s still an obscene monetary difference for farmers looking to avoid bankruptcy. In Kentucky, most farms are small family farms—not the mammoth corporate farms that get all the USDA subsidies. More than 50 percent of Kentucky (that’s 12.8 million acres) is considered farmland, yet 55 percent of its farms (41,800 farms) have had annual sales of less than $10,000. No wonder Kentucky farmers are excited about adding a new crop to their portfolio.

According to the Courier Journal, in 2018, Kentucky’s hemp program employed 459 people:

  • Hemp processors made $57.75 million in gross product sales, which is a significant increase from 2017’s $16.7 million total.
  • The processors paid Kentucky farmers a total of $17.74 million for all harvested hemp materials, which is a $7.5 million increase from 2017.
As of May 2019, Kentucky’s agricultural department approved more than 50,000 acres (20,234 hectares) for hemp production, which is more than triple the approved acreage in 2018. As for the number of approved hemp growers for 2019, that is set to be 1,047, which is nearly five times higher than what was approved the previous year. Now that hemp is defined as an agricultural crop, the industry as a whole can operate as any other legal industry by opening bank accounts, applying for federal loans, deduct expenses on their taxes, and so on, making it much easier for a farmer to incorporate it into the crop rotation.

Even though hemp is a legal crop, the average person can’t grow it. We can’t go down to our local Home Depot and pick up a pack of seeds for our backyard vegetable gardens the same way we do with tomatoes or zucchini. Plus, anyone convicted of a drug charge is completely ineligible to grow it until 10 years after their conviction date (which I personally don’t understand and don’t agree with for many reasons… in the first place, it’s not a drug and can’t get you high). Those who do want to grow hemp must apply for a license to do so, and the fees associated with the license vary from state to state.

For instance, in Illinois, where 75 percent of the state’s total land area is considered farmland, there’s a $100 application fee; then if the farmer is approved (within 30 days), the next expense is the license fee. A one-year license costs $375, two-years costs $700, and a three-year license costs $1,000. On May 1, the Illinois Department of Agriculture announced it was accepting hemp applications, and within 24 hours, the state received nearly 400 applications to grow or process industrial hemp. So even with these additional fees, the benefit of adding another crop to the farm (which mainly consists of corn and soybeans) is being well-received. Especially since farmers in the neighboring state of Wisconsin, who are entering their second year of hemp production, can reportedly make $100,000 per acre from hemp-derived CBD, before the costs of seed, labor and processing are factored in.

As more and more states allow hemp to be grown for commercial purposes, the skeptics are already claiming we’ll soon find the market flooded with too much CBD, and farmers will find themselves in the same predicament they’re in now. What we’re seeing is the need for more CBD extraction facilities, and now that hemp can be transported across state lines, if there aren’t enough local extraction facilities built yet, there may be one a state or two away.

Personally, as long as CBD extraction facilities continue to sprout up alongside hemp, I can’t see how we’ll ever reach a point where we have too much CBD, considering how many emerging markets there are for it currently. While CBD isn’t entirely legal yet in Texas, CBD massages are already being offered at a luxury chiropractor’s office in Dallas. Walgreens and CVS are selling CBD lotions and other products in nearly 1,500 stores in multiple states. There’s CBD-infused soda. Heineken is selling CBD beer in California. Snack companies, such as the makers of Chips Ahoy, Cadbury chocolate and Oreos are also getting on the bandwagon. Carl’s Jr. is developing a CBD-Infused burger to be sold in Colorado. Supermarket chains are selling CBD oil, lotions, bath bombs, even sparkling juices infused with cannabinoids. CBD derived from hemp has only been federally legal for a handful of months, yet here we are, seeing major developments in established industries.

Plus, CBD is only one aspect of hemp. There are other varieties that produce nutritional food products, such as hemp protein powder, hemp seeds, hemp milk and hemp seed oil rich in Omega 3 & 6 fatty acids. Whether hemp is grown for CBD or food, the rest of the plant (leaves, stalk, etc.) can be sold to processors to manufacture additional products such as 3D printing filaments. Car companies have been using the fiber in hemp stalks (bast fiber) to replace carbon fiber and fiberglass; the body of one particular sports car made in Florida is manufactured entirely from woven hemp fiber. The Hemp Plastic Company based in Denver makes biodegradable plastic. The University of California recently received more than $12,000 in grant funding from the EPA to develop new ways to process hemp fibers into hempcrete, and there are companies in the U.S. that already use hemp-based building materials.

The point here is that other aspects of hemp are being embraced by researchers, start-ups and major corporations alike, so a farmer can get multiple sales out of one harvest: Sell the CBD flower to an extraction facility, sell the hemp hurds (inner stalk) to a pulp-paper facility and/or hempcrete manufacturer, sell the bast fiber (outer stalk) to a hemp fabric and/or hemp plastic facility, or use it as “green manure” (an organic fertilizer) to put nutrients back into the soil.

While all these uses are currently possible, we’re admittedly on dial-up speed right now with our emerging domestic hemp industry, but by next year, and the year after that, we’ll see more stability and opportunities. Who would’ve predicted the bulky home computer with finicky internet access would be the first step in developing Wi-Fi, artificial intelligence, and so many other aspects of our daily lives? As American hemp continues to expand our domestic industry, we’re going to see job growth across so many sectors—starting with farming—something we haven’t seen in a long time.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
10 Innovative Technologies in the Hemp Industry


technology-hemp-industry.png

Demand for hemp products has been growing significantly in recent years, and with hemp legalization in the United States moving closer to reality, innovative technology is coming to the industry, too. In fact, as the hemp industry grows, more advanced technology will be required to boost production in order to keep up with consumer demand. As a result, this technology should help decrease costs for cultivators and manufacturers, thereby boosting their profits and hopefully, lowering prices to consumers.

Here are 10 innovative technologies that are changing the hemp industry and the larger world.

1. Cultivation and Manufacturing Machinery
Within the hemp industry, technology is having a significant impact on cultivation and manufacturing. From artificial intelligence used to grow hemp and new machinery used to harvest it, innovative technology is helping farmers and processors boost production and lower costs.

For example, Canadian Greenfield Technologies Corp. developed machinery for hemp manufacturing that processes raw hemp and separates it into hemp fibers, leaves, and hurds, which are then used to manufacture a wide variety of hemp products for commercial sale.

Another example is PureHemp Technology, which patented its Continuous Countercurrent Reactor (CCR) technology to convert raw hemp into pulp, lignin, sugars, flowers, and seed oil. These components can then be used to manufacture finished hemp-based products. When PureHemp Technology began operations, it could process 1,200 pounds of dry, raw hemp per day. Thanks to its technological innovations, the company can now process four tons per day and expects to process more than 40 tons per day by 2021.

2. Fuel
Did you know that hemp can be used as a raw material for biofuels as cellulosic ethanol? Unlike corn-based ethanol, which researchers have found to be nearly as bad for the environment as fossil fuels, cellulosic ethanol is a lot closer to carbon-neutral, meaning it has a carbon footprint of closer to zero than corn-based ethanol. In addition, as a biofuel, hemp is more sustainable than fossil fuels and could be used for electricity and to power cars.

Companies are taking notice of hemp’s potential as a biofuel. In 2014, Extreme Biodiesel received a $5 million line of credit to grow hemp. The company also operates a mobile hemp biodiesel unit through its subsidiary, XTRM Cannabis Ventures, which can move to different sites as needed.

3. Plastic
Hemp can be used to make all kinds of plastics, which are just as durable and lightweight as traditional plastic but the hemp material is far more environmentally friendly. Plastic made from hemp can be used just like traditional plastic. It can be molded and 3D printed, and it’s biodegradable.

Zeoform is a material that uses industrial hemp along with other recycled fibers to make a type of plastic that is 100% recyclable. Zeoform can be molded as needed to replace traditional plastic, wood, or composite material.

4. Paper
It takes 20-80 years for each tree cut down to make paper to be replaced with a new tree that has grown to maturity. It only takes hemp stalks four months to grow. The world produces around 400 million tons of paper every year, and it takes an average of 17 trees to produce one ton of paper (the number varies from 12 for newsprint to 24 for white office paper). That means six billion, eight hundred million trees are cut down to produce paper every year.

Unlike trees, hemp grows quickly and is easily replanted. Over a 20 year period, one acre of hemp can produce as much paper as four to 10 acres of trees. Companies like TreeFreeHemp (part of the Colorado Hemp Company) in Colorado and Green Field Paper Company of California sell paper made from hemp using as many locally-sourced materials as possible.

5. Supercapacitors and Batteries
In 2014, engineering professor David Mitlin of Clarkson University learned how to turn hemp fibers into carbon nanosheets, which could be used as electrodes for supercapacitors. The nanosheets resemble the structure of graphene, a semi-metal commonly used to make nanosheets and the strongest metal ever tested.

Mitlin’s carbon nanosheets actually store energy better than graphene and can be used for supercapacitors and batteries. While traditional graphene costs $2,000 per gram, the graphene-like hemp costs only $500 per ton. Ultimately, these nanosheets could be used to power houses, cars, and more.

6. Building Materials
Technological innovations have brought us building materials manufactured with hemp. For example, hempcrete is a type of concrete made with hemp and lime. It’s carbon negative and stronger than traditional concrete but just one-seventh the weight. It’s also resistant to cracks, fire, mold, and termites and offers highly efficient insulation which can reduce energy costs by up to 70% annually.

While hempcrete has been in use since the 1960s, it’s only just gaining popularity in the United States. Companies like Tiny Hemp Houses in Colorado are already gaining traction helping people build all-natural homes from hempcrete.

7. Furniture
Technology is also being used to process hemp into materials that can be used to make furniture. The patented Zeoform can be used for plastics as discussed in #3 above, and it can be used to make furniture like tables and chairs. Zeoform can be molded and coated in a variety of finishes making it an excellent replacement for wood.

Even designers are getting involved in taking hemp technology to the next level. Furniture designer Werner Aisslinger partnered with BASF Acrodur (a division of BASF) to design and manufacture a hemp chair using BASF Acrodur’s ecotechnology.

8. Clothes
Hemp can be used not just to make fabric but to make bacteria-fighting fabric. Scientists in China developed a blend of hemp fibers in the 1990s with a high resistance to staph bacteria. Since staph infections are so common and can be deadly for some patients, this type of technological innovation is extremely important to the healthcare industry.

Colorado’s EnviroTextiles manufactures a hemp-rayon fabric blend that research studies have found to be 98.5% staph resistant. The fabric is also 61.5% pneumonia-free. But that’s not all! It’s also resistant to UV and infrared wavelengths.

9. Cars
For years, scientists have been researching ways to develop materials from hemp that can replace both the plastic and metal components of cars. They’ve discovered that hemp fibers, which have a higher strength to weight ratio than steel and are significantly less expensive, are the solution.

Hemp-based materials are also biodegradable, and they typically weigh 30% less than materials currently used in car manufacturing. That means cars made with hemp-based materials will see a sizeable increase in fuel efficiency compared to cars made with plastics and metals. Considering that hemp fibers are less expensive to manufacture than metals and plastics, it’s not surprising that companies like Diamler/Chrysler, BMW, and Audi Volkswagen are already using hemp materials in their cars.

However, it’s not just the big car companies that are using hemp. After entrepreneur Bruce Michael Dietzen built his own hemp car (like Henry Ford did in 1941), he started a company, Renew Sports Cars, which builds custom hemp bodied sports cars.

10. Household Goods
Hemp technology can be found in a wide variety of household goods. Aside from foods and essential oils, consumers can also find hemp water filters, glasses, pens, and more. In fact, a quick Google search reveals far more products than you probably thought could be made from hemp. Here are some of those hemp products:

  • Sunscreen
  • Makeup
  • Towels
  • Tablecloths
  • Shoes
  • Jackets
  • Hats
  • Wallets
  • Belts
  • Jewelry
  • Shampoo
  • Soap
  • Candles
  • Dog toys
  • Curtains
  • Laundry detergent
The list goes on and on, and as more innovative technologies continue to disrupt the hemp industry, we can assume this list will keep getting longer.

What’s Next for Innovative Technologies in the Hemp Industry?
Companies continue to push boundaries to develop new technologies that will drive the hemp industry forward. With a goal to expand uses of hemp, develop new methods for hemp cultivation and processing, and launch new hemp products – and doing so faster, cheaper, and with higher quality – it’s certain we’ll see many innovative hemp technologies in the future. The hard part is waiting to see what comes next!
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
The Cannabis Study Giving Xanax Producers Anxiety


5cb0d217ee9c5606063180.jpg


Benzodiazepine is a central nervous system depressant that helps reduce symptoms of anxiety and insomnia, and its many commercial variations include Klonopin (generic: clonazepam), Xanax (alprazolam), Valium (diazepam), Rohypnol (flunitrazepam) and Restoril (temazepam). More than 100 million such Schedule IV drugs are legally distributed each year in the U.S., and alprazolam alone is the second-most prescribed psychiatric drug in the country, only recently losing its first place status to Zoloft (sertaline).

Benzos, as they are commonly called, are a multi-billion dollar business for pharmaceutical companies, which is why a new cannabis study in the Journal of Psychiatric Research might have Pfizer and friends worried about their profit margins.

Ontario-based researchers surveyed 2,032 medical cannabis users in Canada, and 43.7 percent reported using cannabis to treat anxiety disorders. Moreover, 92 percent reported that cannabis improved their anxiety symptoms, while 46.3 percent had actually replaced their psychiatric medication with cannabis. If accurately reported, this represents a significant reduction in benzodiazepine use and Big Pharma profits.

This study is also just one of many that shows patients replacing benzos for cannabis.

A new study in Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research followed 146 patients who initiated medical cannabis care. The researchers found that “45.2% of patients successfully discontinued their pre-existing benzodiazepine therapy” and demonstrated a “stable cessation rate" over the course of the six-month study. Meanwhile, the Journal of Psychopharmacology published a survey of 1,513 dispensary members in New England and found that 71.8 percent of medical cannabis patients had decreased their use of anti-anxiety medications.

Whatever risks may or may not exist with cannabis use, research shows that benzo use involves a wide range of adverse side effects and risks, including rapid physical dependence, fatal overdoses, fatal withdrawal symptoms and one of the highest rates of addiction relapse. Dependence can occur in as little as four weeks, and abruptly stopping use can cause life-threatening seizures. In the case of Klonopin (clonazepam), the risks also include a one in 530 chance that you'll want to kill yourself.

If cannabis really does reduce benzodiazepine use, then it also reduces all these potentially fatal risks associated with the widely prescribed sedative.
 

Dannyblueyes

Aka Illegal Danny
BGOL Investor
I used to be in favor of legalizing marijuana. I still am in principle.

It's wrong to throw people in jail or scar them with a criminal record for using a substance less harmful than alcohol. I agree with all of the anti-prohibitionist points you posted.

However, when marijuana was legalized in Canada last year the government took a complete monopoly over its sale and strictly regulated all of the commercial growers. The weed they sold tested positive for all kinds of contaminants including mold and even radiation in some strains. Many of the people who invest and make money off this sale now are former law enforcement officials and conservative politicians. The same folks who built their careers by throwing weed smokers in jail.

During prohibition a lot of spots functioned as 'compassion clubs'. places that provided low cost marijuana to people with serious medical conditions. Police generally left these places alone because arresting terminal cancer patients is pretty bad PR. Since legalization all of these spots have been raided and shut down. The price of their marijuana has skyrocketed too.

Yes, you an legally grow your own, but for many people that's about as practical as brewing your own beer. A lot of people just don't have the time, space, or money to raise a crop. That means all of their funds either go to a corporate monopoly or a black market grower just like it did during prohibition.

If marijuana were ever federally legalized in the United States I suspect the problem would get even worse.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
Guess What Didn't Make the Top 15 Drug Overdose List


5c11aa347073f876790410.jpg


The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published a new report today that lists the drugs most frequently involved in U.S. overdose deaths. Cannabis did not make the list as its fatal overdose count is still stuck at zero, but prescription pharmaceuticals nearly ran the table.

The report covered overdose deaths between 2011 and 2016, and prescription medication took up nearly every spot in the Top 15 across all six years. Oxycodone and fentanyl topped the list in 2011 and 2016, respectively, and prescription opioids made up at least a third of the list annually. Likewise, anxiety medications like alprazolam (Xanax) and diazepam (Valium) made the list each year, while clonazepam (Klonopin) made it the last four years. Cocaine (which consistently finished second or third) and methamphetamine were also regulars, though both drugs have recognized medical value and double as prescription medication.

Other notable entries included acetaminophen (Tylenol), amphetamine (Adderall), diphenhydramine (antihistamine), gabapentin (anticonvulsant) and citalopram and amitriptyline (antidepressants). Alcohol is a central nervous system depressant that plays a major role in many overdoses, but it did not appear on the list because the government doesn't classify it as a drug.

All of the substances listed above are available with a prescription, over the counter and/or directly from the retail shelves. In the end, heroin was the only fully prohibited drug to make the list, and the opiate contributed to the most deaths between 2012 and 2015.

The U.S. government fully prohibits a drug by classifying it as Schedule I, a designation that implies no medical value, no safe use and a high potential for abuse. Heroin falls into the Schedule I category, cocaine and methamphetamine are both Schedule II, while several drugs on the list aren't scheduled at all.

Cannabis did not make any of the lists, nor will it ever, yet the government has seemingly superglued Schedule I classifications to both the plant and its non-psychoactive compound cannabidiol (CBD). Studies suggest "no medical value" cannabis can help with pain relief, anxiety, depression and other disorders, so it begs the question, how many lives might've been saved if medical patients took cannabis and/or CBD for applicable conditions instead of a Top 15 overdose drug?

And speaking of begged cannabis questions, how long will the DEA keep up this "no safe use" charade now that most of the world knows they're full of shit? Maybe seeing drug overdose deaths increase by 54 percent over the six-year period will finally wake 'em up.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
Anti-Cannabis Researcher Links Prohibition to Big Pharma Profits

5c86aca46608d370234879.jpg


Dr. Wayne Hall likes cannabis about as much as Mike Pence likes watching Queer Eye. The director of the Centre for Youth Substance Abuse Research in Australia regularly plays all the prohibitionist hits (gateway drug theory, suicide, schizophrenia, etc.), and he famously said quitting cannabis can be more difficult than getting through heroin withdrawals.

Last month, the Aussie Anslinger co-wrote the introduction to a series of papers that analyzed the risks and benefits of cannabis use on physical and mental health. As one might expect, the risks dominated the discussion, with suspect claims like CBD gets you high and legalization increases "the number of problem users." The most interesting line in the intro, though, came at the very end: "While the legalization of nonmedical use will make it easier in principle to undertake research on medical uses of cannabinoids," Dr. Hall and his associates argued, "it will also reduce the incentives that the pharmaceutical industry has to fund clinical trials of medical uses." Thus, the continuation of prohibition would increase such financial incentives.

Whether intentional or not, the argument they made is that profit potential is what drives private-sector research into health and wellness, and maintaining the prohibition on recreational cannabis provides the profit motive to encourage more medical research. Of course, that is the very reason why federal governments should fund an extensive set of clinical trials to provide clarity on the actual medical benefits and then determine optimal treatment protocols and formulations, though we're fairly confident Dr. Hall wasn't making that suggestion.

Based on his research and interviews, Dr. Hall appears to be a staunch supporter of the prohibition on recreational cannabis use, but this study's reference to financial incentives echoes what legalization advocates have said for decades: An all-natural therapeutic that people can grow at home is a financial threat to Big Pharma companies who want the public to pay a premium for health and wellness.

In the meantime, Dr. Hall should tune into ABC Australia for this report: "Despite government claims that a streamlined medicinal cannabis system has led to an increase in prescriptions, at least 100,000 people are self-medicating through the black market, outweighing legal supply in Australia by over 30 to one." The elderly population makes up a large number of the black-market medical users that the current law would put in prison for self-medicating use.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
A Brief History of Cannabis and Jazz


59aeee9479b5c813927734.jpg


“Time appears of an unmeasurable length. Between two ideas clearly conceived, there are an infinity of others undetermined and incomplete, of which we have a vague consciousness, but which fill you with wonder at their number and their extent. With hashish the notion of time is completely overthrown. The moments are years, and the minutes are centuries; but I feel the insufficiency of language to express this illusion, and I believe, that one can only understand it by feeling it for himself." — Dr. Charles Richet in 1877.

The Club des Hashischins had its final meeting around the same time this Nobel Prize-winning doctor was born in Paris, but cannabis remained en vogue for many in the French artistic class. The French started experimenting with hashish after Napoleon conquered Egypt at the end of the 18th century and his troops came in contact with the plant. Many French "scientists" began giving patients hashish, among many other Eastern drugs, and the above quote describes Dr. Richet’s observations. More than half a century later and half a world away, a new set of observations were made by arch prohibitionist Harry Anslinger and his associate Dr. James Munch, who less elegantly claimed, "After two puffs on a marijuana cigarette, I was turned into a bat."

3455861307_0ee842fb22_z.jpg
In talking about cannabis and music, the wannabe Batman stated, "Because the chief effect [of marijuana] as far as [jazz musicians] were concerned was that it lengthens the sense of time, and therefore they could get more grace beats into their music than they could if they simply followed the written copy… In other words, if you’re a musician, you’re going to play the thing the way it’s printed on a sheet. But if you’re using marijuana, you’re going to work in about twice as much music between the first note and the second note. That’s what made jazz musicians. The idea that they could jazz things up, liven them up, you see."

Anslinger is one of the most notorious names in cannabis history as the founding head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN), a precursor to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). While commissioner, Anslinger drafted the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, which created the first national prohibition on cannabis. Anslinger and Munch’s statements on the slowing-of-time effect completely contrasts the autobiographical accounts of Mezz Mezzrow, a clarinetist and notably the most famous cannabis dealer of Harlem. (His cannabis, which originated in Central and South America, was much better than the local North American variety.)

“The phrases seemed to have more continuity to them,” Mezzrow reminisced. “With my loaded horn I could take all the first-swinging, evil things in the world and bring them together in perfect harmony, speaking peace and joy and relaxation to all the keyed-up and punchy people, everywhere.”

The "keyed-up and punchy people" he referred to are other bands and groups of hop-heads who drink till they're punch-drunk, which was a point of amusement for all the mellow vipers (early jazz stoners).

One of the most famous vipers and founders of modern jazz, Louis Armstrong, told biographers about his life-long use of gage. One particular situation involves drummer Vic Berton in a parking lot during the intermission of a Hollywood show in 1931, which transpired as follows:

Armstrong passes Berton a joint, they giggle and Berton takes a drag. "We’ll take the roach boys," the voice protrudes from a detective as he and his partner walk around a car. The vipers stay quiet and stare for now. "Don’t worry, you can finish your show." Armstrong is escorted into the building by the detective and finishes the full set… the detective digs the show.

At the police station, the detective remarks, "Armstrong I am a big fan of yours and so is my family. We catch your program every night over the radio. In fact, nobody goes to bed in our family until your program’s over. And they’re all great."

Armstrong sighs with relief and responds in his hoarse voice, "Since you and your family are my fans they’d be awfully sad if anything drastic would happen to me, the same as the other thousands of my fans. So please don’t hit me in my chops."

"Why, I wouldn’t think of anything like that," the detective finishes. That’s all Armstrong wanted to hear… in that moment he knew the punishment wouldn't be bad.

Later on, Armstrong claimed, "After all I’m no criminal. I respect everybody and they respect me. And I never let ‘em down musically."

"Hell," the detective replies, "you ain’t doing any more ‘n’ anybody’s doing. It’s when they get caught is when they’re found out."

After getting to the station, the officers are all glad to see Armstrong because of his musician-celebrity status. He only spent nine days in city jail over the matter, probably much to Anslinger’s disgust.

Around the same time as Armstrong’s arrest, Anslinger begins his Marijuana and Musicians file after hearing reports of the connection between the two. This dossier is loaded with information on different musicians and their arrests and reports, and the idea came for a nationwide crackdown on jazz musicians using all aforementioned sources. It was planned for the summer of 1943 but ultimately failed because of the inability of the bureau to infiltrate music groups and spot dealers.

Was it really that hard to find Mezzrow?

The motivations behind this nationwide sweep is multifaceted. Popular history suggests Anslinger and his goons were motivated by racism, which no doubt was an issue in the Jim Crow south where many jazz musicians were born and raised. Another possible motivation, as mentioned above by Dr. Munch, is that Anslinger disliked the improvisation and fast tempo in jazz. This is clearly a deflection by Dr. Munch considering every new musical genre that appears—rock, rap, punk, metal, etc.—is essentially despised by the older generation for similar reasons, and it's a way for the younger generation to rebel and form a resistant counter-culture.

70802313_e1f131a869_z.jpg
The reality likely involved a mixture of both. Jazz in the 1920s and 1930s created a first in American culture, i.e., white youth idolizing black artists on a large scale. This must have twisted the older generation to no end; and interestingly enough, this continues today with rap. Anslinger essentially wanted to be the savior of the youth—the 1930s were a very fertile time for youth influences around the world—with his nationwide anti-cannabis sweep. It essentially gave him the motivation to allocate near-unlimited resources in his campaign, just like his friend Joseph McCarthy did in the late 1940s and early 1950s trying to root out Communism.

By 1949, Anslinger made one last push for the big jazz musician crackdown after almost two decades of failure. His right-hand enforcer, Malachi Harney, was given $160,000 and 300 agents to do undercover work in "ghettos" around the country and find the sellers. Again, they failed. In March 1949, Anslinger testified in front of the Ways and Means Appropriations Committee for his proposed 1950 budget, and he stated bluntly, “I think the traffic has increased in marihuana, and unfortunately particularly among the young people. We have been running into a lot of traffic among these jazz musicians, and I am not speaking about the good musicians, but the jazz type.”

It is interesting to note that he brings up the youth immediately (akin to Nixon and Reagan evoking the youth in their subsequent War on Drug campaigns), as if to influence the committees mood on the subject before discriminating against jazz musicians. This sentiment received some 15,000 protest letters from jazz artists and fans for playing fast and loose with calling out jazz musicians as the bad ones in opposition to the good (read: white) musicians.

Anslinger failed to receive his higher budget, failed to infiltrate jazz musician circles and failed to be the crusader against the propagators of popular youth subculture. Although the world still suffers the remnants of his campaign against cannabis all these decades later, he never got what he apparently wanted in terms of curtailing jazz music.

After all, did Anslinger ever care to understand why or how jazz musicians came to celebrate and spread cannabis? Probably not.

Smokable cannabis first emerged on a large scale in the southwest, but a scene emerged in New Orleans and eventually spread to Harlem, marking a geographic outlier. Sebastian Marincolo believes jazz musicians gravitated to cannabis for its relieving powers, which helped the many artists who suffered trauma in their upbringing.

Louis Armstrong never knew his father because his mother was a prostitute in the New Orleans red light district, Storyville, also the place where jazz was born. He was arrested multiple times in his youth, and the juvenile facility he attended is where he learned to play wind instruments. Bessie Smith was an orphan at age nine and worked on street corners during her childhood. Billie Holiday, almost raped when just 11, eventually became a prostitute in Harlem at 14. These artists are all tried and true vipers, not criminals, who made a name for themselves while trudging through the post-apocalyptic wasteland of black history in the U.S.

Peter Webster had a different theory in his 2001 "Marijuana and Music" study in the Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics. He wrote, "A reading of personal reflections about the use of marijuana by jazzmen of the time indicates that the herb was often used as a stimulus to creativity, at least for practice sessions, many such as Louis Armstrong praising its effects highly."

The researcher also suggested that "the fairly small community of jazz musicians of the time" was more like a family that "constantly practiced together, brainstormed together, performed together, and smoked marijuana together. As a cumulative effect, it is my contention that the practiced use of cannabis provides a cognitive training that assists and accentuates the improvisational, creative frame of mind much as other kinds of study or training shape abilities and perfect talents…. Over time, the kind of perception and thinking initiated by cannabis leads one to be generally more open to alternative and perhaps adventurous ways of seeing things which enrich normal consciousness."

The connection between jazz and cannabis is likely multifold, but a musician's quote in the 1993 Lester Grinspoon and James Bakalar book Marihuana: The Forbidden Medicine pretty much sums it all up: "Over the years marijuana has served as a creative stimulant to my work as a performer and my more occasional inspirations as a composer…. Melodic and rhythmic ideas just pop into my head during relaxed and happy moments—'points of creative release'—and these seminal ideas are formed into whole compositions."

If cannabis played a creative role in the roots of jazz, the music world owes the plant a giant thank you.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
I used to be in favor of legalizing marijuana. I still am in principle.

It's wrong to throw people in jail or scar them with a criminal record for using a substance less harmful than alcohol. I agree with all of the anti-prohibitionist points you posted.

However, when marijuana was legalized in Canada last year the government took a complete monopoly over its sale and strictly regulated all of the commercial growers. The weed they sold tested positive for all kinds of contaminants including mold and even radiation in some strains. Many of the people who invest and make money off this sale now are former law enforcement officials and conservative politicians. The same folks who built their careers by throwing weed smokers in jail.

During prohibition a lot of spots functioned as 'compassion clubs'. places that provided low cost marijuana to people with serious medical conditions. Police generally left these places alone because arresting terminal cancer patients is pretty bad PR. Since legalization all of these spots have been raided and shut down. The price of their marijuana has skyrocketed too.

Yes, you an legally grow your own, but for many people that's about as practical as brewing your own beer. A lot of people just don't have the time, space, or money to raise a crop. That means all of their funds either go to a corporate monopoly or a black market grower just like it did during prohibition.

If marijuana were ever federally legalized in the United States I suspect the problem would get even worse.

I gotta agree with you, they will sum how fuck up the business end of the cannabis industry!! Thats one of the reason, I have a cannabis thread and a war on drugs thread!! The cannabis thread mainly deals with grow and production and the war thread deals with the racism and bullshit laws.. I want all our brothas and sistas to get into the cannabis industry when it comes to their state and I dont mean get in line to buy sum buds either!! Anyway, let me stop before I get on a whole different roll!! Hows the music biz coming along Danny??
 

Dannyblueyes

Aka Illegal Danny
BGOL Investor
I gotta agree with you, they will sum how fuck up the business end of the cannabis industry!! Thats one of the reason, I have a cannabis thread and a war on drugs thread!! The cannabis thread mainly deals with grow and production and the war thread deals with the racism and bullshit laws.. I want all our brothas and sistas to get into the cannabis industry when it comes to their state and I dont mean get in line to buy sum buds either!! Anyway, let me stop before I get on a whole different roll!! Hows the music biz coming along Danny??

Been good. Staying home today to prepare the pre-cereomy and dinner playlists for a wedding on Friday. The process is always a real pain in the ass so as soon as it ends I'm going to find a way to simplify it. the BART supervisors have asked me to play a set for Pride at the end of the month so I've been researching methods and pricing to figure out how to add speakers to a parade float. If this works out I'll be playing to tens of thousands of people on the 29th. It's crazy how little DJing there is in the DJ business.

Back to cannabis though, perhaps one solution is for users to start community gardens. Marijuana growing is an economy of scale so if you could organize a group of 20-30 smokers who donate an initiation fee, $50 a month, and a couple hours of weekly labor each member would probably get a pretty decent return. That way the supply would stay relatively pure and help cut out the corporate middlemen. Perhaps some of that marijuana could be sold, but it would depend on the each state's laws. IMO Marijuana, much like beer, always functions best in a cottage industry.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
Been good. Staying home today to prepare the pre-cereomy and dinner playlists for a wedding on Friday. The process is always a real pain in the ass so as soon as it ends I'm going to find a way to simplify it. the BART supervisors have asked me to play a set for Pride at the end of the month so I've been researching methods and pricing to figure out how to add speakers to a parade float. If this works out I'll be playing to tens of thousands of people on the 29th. It's crazy how little DJing there is in the DJ business.

Back to cannabis though, perhaps one solution is for users to start community gardens. Marijuana growing is an economy of scale so if you could organize a group of 20-30 smokers who donate an initiation fee, $50 a month, and a couple hours of weekly labor each member would probably get a pretty decent return. That way the supply would stay relatively pure and help cut out the corporate middlemen. Perhaps some of that marijuana could be sold, but it would depend on the each state's laws. IMO Marijuana, much like beer, always functions best in a cottage industry.

Damn man, thats a good idea with the cannabis!!! I like that idea, big time!! Bruh, Im going to marinade on your idea for awhile!!
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
New Study Trolls Dems for Being Cannabis Cowards


5ae79947d5581273936852.jpg


In collaboration with Justice Democrats, Data for Progress recently released a data analysis study that ultimately throws shade at Democrats who, for purely political reasons, don't actively support a change in cannabis legalization. The Future of the Party argues that Democrats often show little backbone in supporting progressive issues, and the study made several observations about cannabis in particular, including the following:

The House: National polling data suggests there is evidence that Democrats are being too conservative. For instance, legal marijuana has rapidly growing support in public opinion surveys, but only 26 percent of House Democrats support it.

The Senate: Though support for legalizing marijuana is strong among the general public, it is depressingly low among Senate Democrats, with only two Democrats (Ron Wyden and Kirsten Gillibrand) co-sponsoring Cory Booker's Marijuana Justice Act of 2017 (S.1689.).

(Note: Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, joined the bill after this report came out.)

The Electorate: According to the American National Election Studies 2016 survey, 72 percent of Democrats, 68 percent of Independents, and 45 percent of Republicans (excluding individuals who said they didn't know) support legalizing marijuana.

Millennials: Legalizing cannabis is also popular with individuals under 40, with 74 percent supporting legalizing marijuana, compared with 53 percent of those 40 or older. More than 4 in 5 young Democrats support legal marijuana.

Even Republican Millennials: Even young Republicans are supportive (61 percent). In addition, private polling of deep red districts suggests that even there, legal marijuana garners strong support.

***

As the study demonstrates, advocates must be mindful of all the fronts in the fight to legalize cannabis. Sure, we must stand up to Anslinger throwbacks like Kevin Sabet and Jeff Sessions, but we must also push so-called progressives to do more than just offer lip service. This includes writing and calling your local representatives, taking part in rallies and marches, and participating in election primaries and caucuses.

Regarding the later, consider the gubernatorial race in New York. The odds are against Cynthia Nixon unseating Andrew Cuomo, but the outspoken cannabis advocate cut his lead by 16 points in the last month alone. She made cannabis a major campaign issue, and now the anti-legalization governor has suddenly become more progressive on the issue, saying last week that "the situation has changed drastically with marijuana." And by "situation," he probably means the polls.

A majority of Democratic politicians seem to fear a conservative backlash for supporting legalization more than they fear a progressive backlash for inaction. Until this changes, progress on social issues will only see baby steps, if not outright regression.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
Why is Cannabis Illegal?

Referred to variously as marijuana, ganja, weed and herb amongst many other
slang terms, cannabis is one of the safest medicines available. As well as giving
us the dried buds that can be smoked, the plant produces nutritious seeds from
which healthy edible oils can be pressed, the plant fibers are durable and
versatile with many commercial uses, the crop is environmentally beneficial and
many parts of the plant were in use for thousands of years before prohibition.
Unlike many pharmaceutical medications, there has never been a single recorded
fatality from cannabis use. No one has ever died as a direct result of ingesting
cannabis, nor have there been any instances of brain receptor damage through its
use; unlike alcohol and other drugs cannabis does not wear out the brain
receptors, it merely stimulates them. One estimate of THC’s lethal dose for
humans indicates that 1500 pounds (680 kilograms) of cannabis would have to be
smoked within 15 minutes (approximately) for the smoker to die. If you wanted to
kill someone using 1500 pounds of cannabis you would be better advised to drop
it on them.
LD50, also called median lethal dose, is the standard measure of the toxicity
of a material through ingestion, skin contact or injection. LD50 is measured in
micrograms (or milligrams) of the material per kilogram of the test-animal’s body
weight. The lower the amount, the more toxic the material. The estimated LD50
(lethal threshold) for cannabis, established in 1988 by the DEA’s appropriate factfinder, is 1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman’s terms this means that in order to
induce death a cannabis smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as
much cannabis as is contained in one 0.9 gram joint.
1
Studies indicate that the effective dose of THC is at least 1000 times lower
than the estimated lethal dose (therapeutic ratio of 1000:1). Heroin has a
therapeutic ratio of 6:1, alcohol and Valium both have a ratio of 10:1. Cocaine has
a ratio of 15:1. Aspirin has a therapeutic ratio of 20:1; 20 times the recommended
dose (40 tablets) can cause death and almost certainly induce extensive internal
bleeding. Drugs used to treat patients with cancer, glaucoma and multiple
sclerosis (MS) are all known to be highly toxic; the ratio of some drugs used in
antineoplastic (cancer inhibiting) therapies have therapeutic ratios below 1.5:1.
2
A small percentage of people may experience a negative or allergic reaction
to cannabis use and a few patients suffer especially high heart rates and/or anxiety
when being treated with cannabis oil, although this is a comparatively low number
and the effects are merely unpleasant and cease when cannabis use is
discontinued. Many bronchial asthma sufferers benefit from both herbal cannabis
and cannabis oil extracts but for some it can serve as an additional irritant.
However, for the overwhelming majority of people, cannabis has demonstrated
literally hundreds of therapeutic uses.
So Why is There Almost Global Prohibition of this Plant?
Cannabis prohibition emanates from a commercial conspiracy that was started in
the 1920s. The word marijuana itself was first brought into the English language
by these early corporate offenders who needed to change the public’s perception
of the cannabis plant from a useful fiber and medicine to a dangerous, addictive
and destructive substance in order to destroy the hemp industry and replace
cannabis medicines and hemp fiber products with their own toxic pharmaceutical
drugs and petrochemical products. They achieved this by manipulating the media
and printing fictitious stories connecting marijuana use and crime. The
manipulation continues to this day, as former CBS News president Richard Salant
explained when discussing the media’s role in manipulating the masses: “Our job
is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have.”
3
Cannabis prohibition is indisputably the result of a corrupt conspiracy founded
on lies, propaganda and misinformation that for decades has denied society access
to a benign and highly beneficial medicinal plant.
Female cannabis plant in flower.
Cannabis has been used medically for millennia.
4 An article published in The
Economist on April 27, 2006, under the heading, “Marijuana is medically useful,
whether politicians like it or not,” stated:
“If Marijuana was unknown, and bio-prospectors were suddenly to find it in
some remote mountain crevice, its discovery would no doubt be hailed as a
medical breakthrough. Scientists would praise its potential for treating everything
from pain to cancer and marvel at its rich pharmacopoeia; many of whose
chemicals mimic vital molecules in the human body.”
5
The medicinal use of cannabis predates written history. Cannabis preparations
have traditionally been used as treatments for a wide variety of conditions for
thousands of years in India, China, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, South Africa
and South America. Furthermore, evidence of medicinal cannabis use dating from
1600 BCE has been found in Egypt, where it was used as a fumigant, topical salve
and suppository.
6
One of the earliest accounts of medical cannabis use can be found in the
Chinese pharmacopoeia text Pen-Tsao Kang-Mu (The Great Herbal), which was
written in 100 CE, but which actually dates back to the Emperor Shen-Nung in
2800 BCE.
7 The author Li Shih Chen referred to works from previous writers
who for centuries regarded cannabis and its seeds as both a food and medicine.
This early text correctly identifies the flowering tops of cannabis plants (Ma-fen)
as the most useful and potent for the production of medicines, and recommends
cannabis to treat menstrual fatigue, fevers, arthritis and malaria, as well as being
effective as an analgesic. In the second century CE, Chinese surgeon Hua Tuo is
documented as using an anesthetic made from cannabis resin and wine (Ma-yo) to
perform painless complex surgical procedures, including limb amputations.
The Greek physician and botanist Pedanius Dioscorides traveled throughout
the Roman and Greek empires to obtain material for his publication Materia
Medica, which includes references to the plant Cannabis Sativa L. (from the
Greek word kannabis), described as useful in the manufacturing of rope, with the
juice of the seeds reported to be effective for treating earaches and diminishing
sexual desire.
8 Materia Medica was translated and published throughout the
known world and was used as a medical reference resource up until the 16th
Century. It was a precursor to modern pharmacopoeias and is one of the most
influential herbalist books ever written.
America’s very first law concerning cannabis was enacted at Jamestown
Colony, Virginia in 1619. Far from prohibiting cannabis, the law stated that all
farmers were “ordered” to grow Indian hemp seed.
9 The U.S. Census of 1850
records 8,327 cannabis plantations in excess of 2,000 acres, all producing
cannabis hemp for cloth, canvas and rope. Cannabis first appeared in the U.S.
Pharmacopoeia in 1851 (3rd edition) and until prohibition was introduced,
cannabis was the primary treatment for over 100 separate illnesses and diseases.
By the time the 12th edition of the Pharmacopeia was published, cannabis had
been officially removed and its use in medical research had been halted.
In the 1930s, the U.S. federal government backed the campaign of Harry
Anslinger and his newly formed Bureau of Narcotics. Anslinger was a corrupt,
racist bigot who in order to build up his new organization sought to generate fear
of cannabis use through propaganda and lies. Anslinger created nationwide
concern over a problem that did not exist by demonizing marijuana through
spurious tales of crime, violence and insanity. The Bureau of Narcotics promoted
what they called the “Gore Files”; wild “reefer madness” tales of murder,
violence, loose morals and the effects cannabis had on the “degenerate races,”
which cynically exploited the endemic racism that was prevalent at the time. By
associating marijuana use with ethnic minorities he ensured that the majority of
white Americans would be sympathetic to any planned prohibition.
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
The Following Quotes Are From Anslinger’s “Gore Files”:

“There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are
Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and
swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek
sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.”
10

“…the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate
races.”
11

“Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity,
criminality, and death.”
12

“Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.”
13

“You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill your brother.”
14

“Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.”
15

The Bureau of Narcotics had a powerful and willing ally in the media mogul
William Randolph Hearst, who had invested heavily in the timber industry to
support his chain of national newspapers. To Hearst, hemp paper was unwanted
competition and he readily published lurid anti-cannabis propaganda from the
Bureau’s “Gore Files”, printing headlines such as:
“Marihuana makes fiends of boys in thirty days - Hashish goads users to
bloodlust.”
16

“Marihuana influenced negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on
white men’s shadows, and look at a white woman twice.”
Anti-cannabis propaganda from 1936.

“Marihuana is responsible for the raping of white women by crazed negroes.”

“Three fourths of the crimes of violence in this country today are committed by
dope slaves, that is a matter of cold record.”
17

Freshly ground cannabis.
Hearst and Anslinger were joined in the conspiracy by the Dupont chemical
corporation, and in 1937 Anslinger presented to Congress his Marijuana Tax
Act.

18 Apart from some opposition from William C. Woodward of the American
Medical Association, the bill was passed after very little discussion, and cannabis
was effectively prohibited. Most people did not realize that the “evil marijuana
drug” that was referred to in the tax act was in fact the cannabis plant that had
been essential to the early settlers and was a useful and well-known medicine.
Due to the racist corruption surrounding the use of the name “marijuana,” from
here onward we will call this plant by its correct name: cannabis.
Today, there is renewed interest in the medical use of cannabis, with numerous
respected doctors and scientists researching its many and varied indicators. A
study sponsored by the State of California, conducted by the University of
California Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research, and published in The Open
Neurology Journal (September 2012), concluded that cannabis provides muchneeded relief to chronic pain sufferers and that more clinical trials are desperately
needed:
“The classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug as well as the continuing
controversy as to whether or not cannabis is of medical value are obstacles to
medical progress in this area…”
19

“Based on evidence currently available the Schedule I classification is not
tenable; it is not accurate that cannabis has no medical value, or that
information on safety is lacking. It is true cannabis has some abuse potential,
but its profile more closely resembles drugs in Schedule III. The continuing
conflict between scientific evidence and political ideology will hopefully be
reconciled in a judicious manner.”

Multinational pharmaceutical companies are now growing tons of cannabis
plants at secret, heavily guarded locations, in order to extract just two of the
plant’s cannabinoids, mix them with alcohol, glycerin and a small amount of
peppermint for flavor, and market the end product as a “mucosal” spray (which
means you basically squirt it under your tongue) called Sativex.
 

Dannyblueyes

Aka Illegal Danny
BGOL Investor
Damn man, thats a good idea with the cannabis!!! I like that idea, big time!! Bruh, Im going to marinade on your idea for awhile!!

Cool. I still keep in touch with some growers/activists in Vancouver. I'm sure they would be happy to weigh in if you'd like.

It's a concept that's going to take a lot of planning, budgeting, and legal wrangling but I'm sure it can be done
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
Wake up or stay sleeping???

What is going on here in America and all around the world is a battle over the freedom to treat our bodies with the food 4 and medicine we choose. This is the basis of all fundamental freedoms which is control over your own body. With respect to the food you choose, the medicine you choose and the decisions and choices that work best for you. To allow any government on earth to tell you otherwise is tyranny and slavery. For the American government to prohibit the availability of Cannabis which grows easily and abundantly both indoors and out, is a huge conspiracy against humanity. For that same government to push harsh toxic pharmaceutical chemicals on its people, which have many deleterious side effects, including death, shows that government does not care or respect our fundamental freedoms. This battle over our health care runs deep, and it is really about ownership of Americans. Who controls who with what substance?
 

roots69

Rising Star
Registered
The reality is that up until the 20th century, cannabis absolutely dominated the marketplaces of the world. In 1619, the very first law in America concerning cannabis required that all settlers in the Jamestown colony grow it. The part tobacco played in the American colonies' prosperity is often hyped, while the contribution from cannabis is severely downplayed. Once upon a time in 1776 Thomas Jefferson signed his name on a piece of cannabis, and this document became our symbol of freedom and of liberty, known as the Constitution of the United States of America. Then time marched on, and this plant known as Cannabis, Hemp, and most recently history called, Cannabis has been used for everything from medicine to the American flag. The original Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and the first American flag were all made of hemp. George Washington, our first president and perhaps the greatest Founding Father, grew cannabis for industrial, medicinal, and recreational purposes. The fabric of America is made of cannabis! Literally! New York State, being extremely fertile, grew fields of Hemp & Cannabis. Why do you think Long Island has towns called, ―Hempstead‖? 5

FARMING - OR BIG PHARMA?

Farming has always been America‘s first frontier. When we look back at our country‘s first farmers, we are brought back to the Pilgrims, who learned from the Native Americans how to grow corn, pumpkin and other crops like Hemp and Cannabis. They became the staple foods which subsequently helped to create a nation. Along with food crops, came plantations of hemp, which is without a doubt, next to the Soy bean, the world‘s most versatile crop. From Hemp, rope is created, the sails for boats, clothing, soaps and bags, which are derived from the ‗male‘ side of the plant. From Cannabis, the ‗female‘ side of the plant, medicine is created to relieve pain, regulate hormones, cure nausea, and promote the body to thrive while assisting in 6 the healing and alleviating of symptoms of many diseases, such as Cancer, AIDS, MS, depression, anxiety, post traumatic stress, cachexia, digestive problems, insomnia, dementia and Alzheimer‘s without the harmful side effects of pharmaceuticals. One should wonder, how could America, after decades of scientific clinical research and studies done by our government as well as private universities and clinics, ignore the huge benefits from this medicinal plant? The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism.~ Sir William Osler

MYTH: Cannabis is a Weed – WRONG! FACT: Weeds are noxious:

A weed in a general sense is a plant that is considered by the user of the term to be a nuisance, and normally applied to unwanted plants in human-made settings such as gardens, lawns or agricultural areas, but also in parks, woods and other natural areas. More specifically, the term is often used to describe native or nonnative plants that grow and reproduce aggressively.[1] Generally, a weed is a plant in an undesired place.‖ There is nothing noxious or undesirable about Cannabis. It is an herbal medicinal plant. Hemp is an herbal plant used for building, clothing, canvas (the word canvas comes from Cannabis), soap, oils, fuels, etc. Neither Cannabis nor Hemp is a weed and while this word has affectionately become used to describe Cannabis, it is an inaccurate and distorted description that was attached to by the propagandist of prohibition as a derogatory term. Both Cannabis & Hemp are Plants of the Gods.
 
Top