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

76 Incredible Real-Life Products Made from Hemp
Hemp is the oldest agricultural crop on our planet, one that has long been used by a number of great civilizations. Although forsaken at some point, hemp is now going through a renaissance, showing us once again that it can help people in a myriad of ways.

Let’s take a look at the quote from an article published in Popular Mechanics in 1938:

“American farmers are promised a new cash crop […] and it will provide thousands of jobs for American workers throughout the land.”

Yes, dear friends, hemp was once claimed the New Billion-Dollar Crop. With such an extremely wide range of potential applications, it’s no wonder that hemp gained such a reputation among the U.S. citizens. It seemed that the opportunities for using hemp in our lives were endless.

Still, it took the government not even a year after this publication to pass harsh restriction on cannabis and hemp that essentially buried the entire industry down in the ground. For almost a century, hemp has been forgotten and stigmatized due to the sea of misconceptions spread by the Reefer Madness propaganda.

Today, the vast majority of people assume that hemp is the same thing as marijuana. While these two are, indeed, connected, they are distinct cousins. Sadly, modern society has never got the chance to experience the incredible benefits that come with using hemp.

Fortunately, as times are changing, more and more people become aware of how hemp can improve the quality of our lives. In this article, we will show you 76 amazing real-life hemp products – we hope you’ll try some of them once you learn how awesome they are.

Hemp Products List by Category:
  • Clothing & Accessories
  • Foods & Drinks
  • Health & Wellness
  • Beauty
  • Pets
  • Home & Office
  • Farming & Gardening
  • Automobiles
Clothing & Accessories
We bet you’ve heard about things like hemp ropes and industrial fabric, but did you know that hemp is actually a decent clothing material, superior to its counterparts in almost every aspect?

Here’s why you should consider adding some hemp clothes to your wardrobe:

  • Hemp is more porous and breathable. Even materials like cotton won’t let your skin breathe as easily as hemp.
  • Hemp excels at durability. Hemp fiber is the most durable of all plants. Hemp-made clothes tend to last much longer than their counterparts.
  • Hemp is eco-friendly and sustainable. As much as we prefer cotton over other mainstream clothing materials, we cannot be indifferent towards its water-insensitivity. It requires 50% more water to grow than hemp, not to mention that it uses 25% of the world’s pesticides. Hemp, on the other hand, requires no use of pesticides.
1. Shirts
1-hemp-shirt.jpg


Photo Credit: Creative Anchor

It’s not like hemp shirts are made of 100% hemp, but a decent hemp shirt should contain a mix of hemp and organic cotton. Typically, producers hold a 60% hemp / 40% cotton ratio. Their shirts some of the most durable clothes you’ll ever try.

For the best-quality hemp shirts, check the following companies:

2. Jeans
2-hemp-jeans.jpg


Jeans are another example of how hemp fiber can improve the quality of clothes. So, imagine a durable, breathable, and absorbent pair of jeans that happens to have amazing anti-microbial properties – it sounds like a wise shopping decision, doesn’t it?

3. Hemp Shoes
3-hemp-shoes-stan-smith-adidas.jpg


Cannabis is growing its roots into the mass culture and leading national brands cannot resist but to contribute to this rapidly-developing community. Every year, on April 20th (4/20), some of the most recognizable clothing companies (e.g. Adidas and Converse) come out with limited hemp shoes, ranging from classic models to modern sneakers.

4. Hemp Coat/Jacket
4-hemp-jacket.jpg


Just like hemp t-shirts, hemp jackets are not made with 100% hemp fiber, but using hemp allows companies to make a more durable product that is also more sustainable than what you can buy in the majority of the stores. If you’re looking for a wide array of coats and jackets made of hemp, check out Hoodlamb’s collection – we’re sure you will not leave them with empty hands.

5. Backpacks
5-hemp-backpack.jpg


Photo Credit: Rawganique

Have you ever bought a backpack that just tore or broke after a couple of years, if not months? We’ve all been there at some point, but it looks like hemp backpacks may cause you to forget about the previous ordeal. A hemp backpack can last you 10+ years, being a resilient and sustainable product you can carry around anywhere.

6. Yoga Pants
6-hemp-yoga-pants.jpg


When it comes to doing yoga, elasticity is of the essence, and mixing hemp fabric with some organic cotton offers completely another level of elasticity. Hemp yoga pants will make stretching and meditation easier than ever. Fun fact: they will also serve as perfect pajama wear.

7. Sunglasses
7-hemp-sunglasses.jpg


This is by far the most creative and the coolest application developed with this plant. Hemp Eyewear, a Scottish designer company, uses 100% sustainable ingredients to manufacture their products. Not only are hemp glasses an evergreen addition to your outfit, but they also get shipped in hemp-made cases – consistency at its best.

8. Hats
8-hemp-hat.jpg


Photo Credit: Tinlid Hats

Whether it’s your sports cap or a white brim hat, they can all be made from hemp. Such hats are sturdy and look outstandingly well in comparison with hats that are made from artificial materials. You will find hemp hats in boutique brands like Tinlid Hats.

9. Hemp Beanie
9-hemp-beanie.jpg


Photo Credit: All Things Being Eco

No need to worry about keeping your head warm over the winter months! Hemp beanies are now a real thing and the nightmare of throwing your winter camp at the end of each season will be gone once and for all.

10. Wallets
10-hemp-wallet.jpg


Photo Credit: The Hemp Cooperative

While we don’t have hemp banknotes yet, you can keep your money in a sturdy and stylish wallet that is made of hemp fiber. Considering the durability of this material, we’re sure that hemp wallets will serve you for a while. For premium-quality Hemp Denim wallets, visit Hemp Co-Op and keep your money safe and sound.

11. Socks
11-hemp-socks.jpg


Say “goodbye” to holes in your socks. Hemp is much more durable cotton, so it goes without saying that such socks won’t get wasted so quickly.

12. Totes
12-hemp-totes.jpg


With all that hype on totes and other reusable bags, we should ask ourselves one important question: Why not go grocery shopping with a bag that is sustainable itself? Hemp totes are 100% hemp-made, and as you already know, hemp is one of the most sustainable plants on the planet.

13. Flip Flops
13-hemp-flip-flops.jpg


Photo credit: Vaibhab Jewellers

The definite majority of top soles and straps in sandals are made of plastic, gum, or other artificial materials. Not only are they less durable than hemp, but they are also dangerous for the environment. Hemp sandals, on the other hand, turn out to be naturally durable shoes which you can wear with clear conscience.

14. Belts
14-hemp-belt.jpg


Photo Credit: Sandi Pointe – Virtual Library of Collections

If hemp can be used for making ropes, why couldn’t we use it to produce belts? As a matter of fact, hemp belts go great for casual wear, not to mention that they are less prone to damage than, say, leather. It might not be the best option for a business dinner, but other than that, it can make a fine addition to your outfit.

15. Scarf
15-hemp-scarf.jpg


Photo Credit: RedGreen Rivers

Of course, it’s quite easy to find a warm and solid scarf, but sometimes, it can be really heavy, making colder seasons overwhelming with all these clothes you need to put on every day. Feeling sick and tired of regular scarfs? A hemp scarf will come in handy; it’s lightweight, yet still warm and cozy. It’s a win-win situation if you ask us.

16. Ties
16-hemp-tie.jpg


Photo Credit: The Hill-Side

As mentioned, hemp can be used to make almost anything. Guess what? Ties and bow ties fall into that bracket, too.

17. Handkerchief
17-hemp-handkerchief.jpg


Gone are the times when people were using handkerchiefs, but they still look cool as pocket squares for your suit. While hemp doesn’t make you high, a hemp handkerchief can make for a high-fashion item. Check out Haute Hemp Co for 100% organic hemp pocket squares.

18. Bracelets
18-hemp-bracelets.jpg


When it comes to materials like ropes and bracelets, hemp is essentially indestructible, which is why making hemp bracelets used to be remarkably popular for kids in the past. If you mention hemp to those people who remember anything about the plant, you will find many of them evoking hemp bracelets that they made in their teens.

19. Robes
19-hemp-robes.jpg


Hemp was an essential clothing material for official events in many ancient civilizations, some of which – like Japan – cultivate this tradition today. In Japan, the incoming emperor wears a hemp robe when undergoing the Shinto coronation ceremony. This ritual doesn’t have any political implications, but it’s rather performed to highlight the plant’s values of health, wellness, and abundance.

20. Diapers
20-hemp-diapers.jpg


Photo Credit: Responsible Mother

It’s estimated that Americans throw out over 18 billion disposable diapers a year, which isn’t the best indicator of their quality. Hemp, in turn, is durable without being that bulky, which makes it a better alternative. Just like hemp t-shirts, hemp diapers are more breathable and have better absorbent and anti-microbial qualities. It’s both a comfortable fit and an eco-friendly solution.

Foods & Drinks
Hemp is considered a superfood for a good reason. The abundance of nutrients and the number of ways in which you can incorporate hemp into your diet is jaw-dropping. Being a complex source of protein and having the optimal 3:1 ratio of Omega 3 to Omega 6 fatty acids, hemp has gained the respect of athletes, dieticians, chefs, and regular folks who are focused on living a healthy lifestyle.

Here’s a quick rundown of hemp-based foods and drinks:

21. Hemp Seeds
21-hemp-seeds.jpg


The popularity of hemp seeds has been well deserved by their nutritional value. Commonly used by vegetarians and athletes, hemp seeds are often mentioned among chia and flax as superfoods. Eating hemp seeds comes with the following health benefits:

  • Hemp is one of the most nutritious foods available in nature.
  • Easily digested.
  • Hemp can meet our dietary needs, even without consuming any other superfoods.
  • It contains the perfect proportion of essential fatty acids (Omega-3 and Omega-6) and thus boosts the immune system and controls cholesterol levels.
  • Helps with immune deficiency diseases.
  • An ideal source of protein for vegetarians.
22. Hemp Seed Oil
22-hemp-seed-oil.jpg


Hemp offers different types of oil, but hemp seed oil appears to be the most common nutritional application on the market. Hemp seed oil is made by cold-pressing the seeds of the plant itself. In its unrefined form, it’s commonly referred to as the “Nature’s most perfectly balanced oil.”

Here’s why:

  • It supports hair and nail health.
  • Reduces inflammation.
  • Contains a 3:1 ratio of Omega-3 and Omega-6 essential fatty acids.
  • A great source of minerals such as magnesium, potassium, calcium, sulfur, phosphorus, zinc, and iron.
  • Rich in Vitamin A & E.
  • An invaluable skin care ingredient.
23. Protein Powder
23-hemp-protein.jpeg


Of all vegetable-based proteins, hemp protein is the most popular protein powder among active athletes. It’s sourced from hemp seeds and contains an average of 15 grams of protein per saving, which gives it the highest protein content of all vegan sources.

Even if you’re not a vegan or vegetarian, but you won’t handle that additional steak, adding hemp protein powder to your nutrition plant is a great way to increase your daily protein intake. Hemp protein is also lactose-free, which makes it easily digestible by those who are lactose intolerant or have difficulties processing whey protein.

24. Hemp Tea
24-hemp-tea.jpg


Both hemp and tea are known for their antioxidant properties and the fact that they can improve one’s cardiovascular health, detox the body, and speed up the metabolism. Blending your teas with hemp seeds allows you to get the best of both worlds, not to mention that you can incorporate hemp seeds into any tea flavor. Brands like Hemp Kettle Tea sell a variety of hemp-infused teas, including combinations such as Cardamon, Holy Basil, or Jasmine.

25. Energy Bars
25-hemp-energy-bars.jpg


As you can see, hemp can be a decent source of both protein and energy. Hemp energy bars will make your stomach satisfied until your next meal so that you don’t have to worry about carb cravings that many people experience while changing their eating habits. Most energy bars on the market are filled with glucose syrup, maltodextrin, and artificial flavor additives, but their hemp equivalents are made of organic ingredients like hemp protein powder, hemp seeds, and different fruits. Such a snack will keep you going for hours! If you’re looking for a trustworthy hemp energy bar supplier, check out Ever Bar for their selection of differently flavored treats.

26. Coffee
26-hemp-coffee.jpg


Photo Credit: The Cannabist

Brewing hemp coffee is not rocket science. It is made from ground coffee beans with added hemp seed that are roasted prior to mixing them with the coffee. The blend of toasted hemp seeds with roasted coffee beans results in a nutty flavor and a nutritional profile unachievable by other worldwide coffees, with less caffeine and incomparably more vitamins and minerals.

27. Burgers
27-hemp-burgers.jpg


Photo Credit: EquityNet

There are two reasons why people go vegan: they are driven either by their health concerns or they want to be morally okay with animals, living a 100% cruelty-free lifestyle. However, regardless of the reason, all vegans miss a legitimate burger from time to time. And since necessity is the mother of invention, Good Seed Burger came up with protein-packed hemp-based veggie burgers. Aside from hemp seeds, these goodies contain other superfoods like wild-crafted seaweeds, sprouted beans, grains, and chia seeds. It’s a perfect substitute for people who avoid meat but are looking for savory, nutty flavors and the earthy complexity accompanied by mild spices.

28. Healthy Flavored Water
28-hemp-water.jpg


Photo Credit: Superfoodly

Recently, CBD water has become a hot topic industry, but have you heard about hemp’s version of Vitamin Water – Hemp2O? This hemp-infused water is loaded with vitamins B3, B5, B6, B12, vitamin C, and Omega-3 fatty acids. On top of that, this water contains all of the essential amino acids that are responsible for supporting muscle growth. But the best part about hemp-infused water is that it’s low in saturated fats and has strong antioxidant properties.

29. Hemp Seed Butter
29-hemp-seed-butter.jpg


If you think that making a hemp butter or paste is close to impossible, we are happy to prove you wrong. In fact, hemp seed butter is as easy to make as tahini paste or peanut butter. It’s made from finely ground and pressed seeds to extract its outstanding nutritional benefits.

30. Hemp Milk
30-hemp-milk.jpg


Similar to soy, almond, or hazelnut milk, hemp milk is made from grinding hemp seeds with water. It carries a distinct nutty taste, so chances are that you won’t like it. Nonetheless, hemp milk is a healthy alternative to those who can’t tolerate lactose.

31. Hemp Vodka
31-hemp-vodka.jpg


Photo Credit: Circa

Okay, this product is a far cry from being healthy, but yes, it is fermented and distilled with hemp, so we can count it as a hemp product. Hemp vodka contains a 40% alcohol content and is praised by critics for its smooth and mellow character accompanied by appealing fruitiness.

32. Hemp Beer
32-hemp-beer.jpg


Hemp and hops are relatively close cousins, so this pairing is actually something natural. Fans of craft beers can indulge in a whole new palette of scents and flavors. These beverages are brewed with toasted hemp seeds that bring in the unique richness. Still not sure if this is a good combo? In the Great International Beer & Cider Competition in 2014, the Humboldt Hemp Ale won Silver in the American Brown Ale category.

33. Hemp Hot Dogs
33-hemp-hot-dogs.jpg


Photo Credit: Courier-Journal

This is yet another invention created by vegans who can’t get enough of the American classic. Have you ever heard of Hemp Dawgs? The child of Victory Hemp Foods and David Neville, a cattle farmer who worked on this project, conquered the hearts of vegans and vegetarians across the U.S. when the concept was launched in 2016.

Here’s how Hemp Dawgs incorporates hemp into their hot dogs:

  • Hemp protein powder as an adhesive of keeping all the parts together.
  • Ground up hemp seeds for improved texture
  • Hemp oil for added flavor and smoothness
And, of course, the health benefits in the form of Omega-3 and Omega-6 healthy fats.

34. Hemp Flour
34-hemp-flour.jpg


Hemp seed flour is gluten-free, packed with nutrients, and serves as a superior source of energy. The flour contains 33% protein and is second to soy in terms of protein content. Moreover, the protein that comes from hemp seed flower is more easily digested by the body, making it perfect for those with dairy, gluten, wheat, or nut allergies.

35. Hemp Granola
35-hemp-granola.jpg


Photo Credit: Macheesmo

The popularity of granola skyrocketed a couple of years ago and it doesn’t seem to decrease any time soon. There’s a reason why hemp granola is one of the healthiest treats; you can easily make them at home, buy them at your grocery store or purchase some online. It’s probably the most nutritious granola you’ll ever try.

36. Tofu
36-hemp-tofu.jpg


Photo Credit: Kitchn

Love tofu but avoiding soybeans due to an allergy or other reasons? If that’s your story, then hemp tofu may solve the problem. Hemp tofu is made with the same processing techniques as regular tofu, with one simple exception: soybeans get substituted with hemp seeds. It might not carry the same texture as the “authentic” version, but it offers a much better nutritional profile.

Health & Wellness
The first record of hemp being used as “medicine” dates back to about 2300 B.C.E. in China, when the emperor Shen Nung prescribed hemp for the treatment of gout, constipation, and menstrual cramps.

Hemp has long been used by different civilizations, from India and Egypt, to Persia, Europe, and even in the United States during their early days.

Here’s how you can incorporate hemp into your supplementation regimen to improve the quality of your life and combat a wide range of physical and physiological ailments:

37. Hemp-derived CBD
37-hemp-cbd-oil.jpg


Hemp extracts consist of cannabinoids found in the leaves of hemp. CBD, short for Cannabidiol, is one of the better-researched compounds, with a plethora of documented health benefits.

The patent held by the US Health and Human Services says:

“Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The 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.”

CBD comes in different forms, including tinctures, capsules, vape juices, topical creams, edibles, extracts, and more. Contrary to marijuana-derived CBD, Cannabidiol sourced from hemp is now legal to be sold in all 50 states in the US.

If you want to learn more about CBD and cannabinoids in general, check out Dr. Raphael Mechoulam from Israel who is the leading scientist in the cannabinoid field. You can learn more about his findings through his documentary: The Scientist.

38. Hemp Essential Oil
38-hemp-essential-oil.jpg


Although even less popular than hemp extracts, hemp essential oil comes with an impressive number of health benefits. It is made by steam distillation through the upper leaves and flowers of the hemp plant. This results in capturing the pure hemp essence. It can be light green to pale yellow in color, with a distinct concentrated aroma and therapeutic qualities. It takes more than fifty pounds of the plant matter to produce 1 ounce of hemp essential oil.

Unlike CBD extracts, hemp essential oil contains no THC or CBD. It is, however, well known for its essential aroma and therapeutic effects on the central nervous system. The most common uses of this hemp product include anxiety, sleep-deprivation disorders, pain, and inflammation. It’s a decent natural remedy for those caught up in the busy modern day lifestyle.

39. Soothing Aromatherapy Candles
39-hemp-candles.jpg


Photo Credit: Popsugar

Looking for a trustworthy provider of hemp essential oil and soothing aromatherapy candles? Kushed, a boutique brand operating in California, has developed a selection of candles and oils that are perfect to use in the evenings to soothe your body.

40. Massage Oil
40-hemp-massage-oil.jpg


Photo Credit: Ecocanem

When it comes to health and wellness, hemp is one of the most versatile ingredients known to humans. It can serve as a body wash or even as lotion, but the true wonder of the modern wellness industry is hemp-based massage oil. Its properties help make your skin smoother to the touch and more moisturized, which can elevate the massage experience even higher.

41. Hemp Heat Muscle Rub
41-hemp-muscle-rub.jpg


Photo Credit: Merry Hempsters

According to early human research and testimonials from patients, Cannabidiol can help ease joint pains and arthritis thanks to its anti-inflammatory properties. Cannabis and hemp-based topicals have recently gained much support from athletes who use hemp muscle rubs to relieve the joint pain and muscle soreness in a safe and natural way.

42. Vape Juice
42-hemp-vape-juices.jpg


Vaping has now become incredibly hot among everyone, from A-list celebrities to medical cannabis patients and recreational folks. It’s no wonder that people give up smoking in favor of vaping, as this method offers the highest bioavailability of CBD. In other words, more Cannabidiol reaches your bloodstream through vaporization than through other ingestion methods. It’s currently the most effective and budget-friendly options to consume CBD.

Beauty
What makes hemp skin and body care products superior to their conventional counterparts? Plenty of reasons, to be honest, but the most important include:

  • Hemp oil is rich in vitamins – Vitamin B, C, E to name just a few.
  • Hemp oil-based skin and beauty products offer the perfect ratio of Omega-3 to Omega-6 fatty acids compared to other oils. Omega-3 is particularly important when it comes to soothing our skin and making it look firm.
  • Key amino acids contained in hemp oil prevent wrinkles and keep the skin more moisturized. This quality may prove invaluable for fighting conditions like dry skin, psoriasis or eczema.
Here’s a complete list of hemp beauty products:

43. Body Lotion
43-hemp-lotion.jpg


When choosing hemp body lotion, make sure you pick a trustworthy brand that uses organic ingredients in their products and sources their lotion from the finest-quality hemp plants. Our favorite product comes from Fay Farms, whose healing body lotion brings a gentle feeling on the skin and gets absorbed quickly. The texture of the lotion feels like mousse, which adds to the wellness experience.

Hemp lotions are particularly useful for conditions such as:

  • Bug bites, burns, ringworm, athlete’s foot, and dry, damaged skin.
  • Eczema, contact dermatitis, psoriasis, and other autoimmune skin illnesses
44. Balms
44-hemp-balm.jpg


Hemp balms are a more potent option than lotions. It can easily penetrate the top skin layers for the improved absorption of nutrients. Check out Get Hemp Butter’s hemp balms for their selection of hemp-based skin products.

45. Shampoo & Conditioner
45-hemp-shampoo.jpg


Have you ever cringed at the view of the ingredients list on your shampoo bottles? You probably found it hard to recognize more than half of the ingredients on that list! Hemp shampoos and conditioners are made using an only natural formula to offer your hair the treatment they deserve. Hemp shampoos and conditioners are available in hemp boutique brands like the Wonder Seed.

46. Body Wash
46-hemp-body-wash.jpg


One of the reasons why hemp is used in soaps is the unbeatable essential fatty acid (EFA) content, which also makes such soaps smoother and less harsh on the skin. Dr. Bronner’s is the leading soap brand that incorporates hemp into their products. They have been making soap for over 100 years, so their experience seems like a fair testament to the quality of their products. It contains less than 10 ingredients, all of which are organic and sustainable.

47. Facial Cream & Cleanser
47-hemp-facial-cleanser.jpg


Here’s a natural solution to those of you whose skin is sensitive and prone to acne – just use hemp oil. Some people apply hemp seed oil on their face on a daily basis, but this is not the most pleasant experience. Thus, you can check out some top hemp body care brands to find a dedicated hemp cleanser that will fight all little imperfections on your face:

48. Hemp Sunscreen
48-hemp-sunscreen.jpg


Photo Credit: Rebel Kate

As with any other skin products, a conscious consumer will always examine the list of ingredients before moving to check out. If you’re looking for a sunscreen that uses only natural ingredients and GMO-free hemp oil, Raw Elements should meet your standards.

49. Hemp Serum
49-hemp-serum.jpg


Hemp serums can prove useful in fighting more serious skin conditions, such as eczema, psoriasis, or seborrheic dermatitis. The serum contains CBD and other cannabinoids contained in hemp oil that is added to the serum for an easy application. Not only do hemp serums allow you to experience almost 100% absorption, but it also protects your skin from getting too greasy.

Pets
Did you know that dogs and cats have the endocannabinoid system, too? CBD can serve as a natural remedy for your pet’s physical and psychological ailments related to aging or other issues. But hey, hemp is about way more than just medication for dogs and pets. It can make a fine dog toy, collar, leash, and other products that are usually produced from inferior materials.

Let’s shed some light on some of the most popular hemp products for pets:

50. CBD Oil for Pets


Photo Credit: Substance Cannabis Market

CBD oil can be a safe alternative to prescription drugs, even for dogs and cats. Early studies have shown that CBD can alleviate such conditions as anxiety, depression, chronic pain, arthritis, seizures, and inflammatory issues in humans. Due to the similar anatomy of mammals, dogs and cats, too, have the endocannabinoid system. Therefore, CBD can also help our four-legged friends. Testimonials and animal research show that CBD has helped animals in many different ways, including, seizures, arthritis, lethargy, anxiety, pain, cancer, lack of appetite, and a variety of phobias.

51. CBD Pet Treats


Photo Credit: Feed Pet Purveyor

It may happen that your dog won’t like the distinct taste of CBD oil. If that’s the case, consider adding some CBD pet treats to his food. CBD pet treats come in different flavors, including chicken, bacon, and beef, but they also offer a fixed dosage of Cannabidiol. This, in turn, makes it easy for dog owners to measure the CBD dosage for their puppies.

52. Pet Toys


Photo Credit: The Green Dog

If it takes your dog a couple of days to chew up and destroy his toy, then it’s time for some serious changes. The same applies to cats who can’t help but bite through their mouse hanging on a thin rope. Hemp ropes are one of the most durable materials out there, so we would be surprised if any cat or dog could destroy it.

53. Collar & Leash


Photo Credit: Feed Pet Purveyor

Let’s be honest, puppies (especially big puppies) are not big fans of collars and leashes. They will chew on them and pull them like crazy. Over time, your leash will start getting torn, so you need to buy another one, and the vicious circle continues to spin. Hemp collars and leashes may be the answer to your problem; keep in mind that hemp ropes are so durable that the US government was buying as much as they could during World War II.

54. Bedding


Photo Credit: Chicken Heaven On Earth

Using hemp hurds for animal bedding can prove beneficial in many aspects. First of all, hemp is extremely absorbent and it can hold 4 times its own weight, not to mention that it can last much longer than straw or pine bedding.

Moreover, hemp bedding doesn’t tend to catch dust, which is great for horses with heart issues. It also prevents the odor better than wood or straw shavings. All animal owners who care about their wellness should consider switching from the aforementioned materials to hemp.

Home & Office
Hemp can make a fine addition to your home & office arsenal. From pens to laundry detergents, you will be surprised how many products you can substitute with hemp to make your life even more eco-friendly.

55. Pens


Photo Credit: The Green Spring Technologies

It’s a pen lover’s dream come true. Green Spring Technologies sells customized hemp-made pens that are all natural and sturdy. On top of that, you can engrave anything on it – it’s one of our top hemp products on this list.

56. Hemp Sheets


As mentioned, hemp fiber is more porous and breathable than other materials; even cotton can’t match the quality of hemp. That being said, hemp sheets might serve as the perfect ingredient for summer sheets. While not as smooth as cotton, they will last you much longer than cotton sheets – to that we swear!

57. Hemp Towel


Photo Credit: MetaEfficient

The worst thing about regular towels is that they get sharper with age. At some point, you have no other choice than to throw them into the void and forget that you’ve ever had such towels. A hemp towel, on the other hand, softens with age and is also mildew resistant.

58. Paper


Hemp paper is better than tree paper for a couple of good reasons:

  • Hemp stalks grow in as long as 4 months, whereas trees usually take 20-80 years to fully grow.
  • Hemp can have up to 85% cellulose content, which is almost 3 times as much as trees.
  • 1 acre of hemp can produce between 4-10 acres of trees over a 20-year period.
  • Hemp paper is more durable than tree paper. It does not yellow, crack, or lose quality over time.
  • Increasing the number of hemp plants grown worldwide can support the sustainability efforts to stop deforestation.
59. Hemp Curtains


Photo Credit: Verdant Design

Cat owners are going to love this! Yes, you can make hemp curtains. After all, if hemp towels and sheets are real things, why wouldn’t curtains be, too? They are extremely durable and can withstand even the most intensive scratching from a young cat’s devilish hunting when you’re doing something important at that time.

60. Laundry Detergent/Soap


Have you heard about Dr. Bronner’s 18-in-1 Hemp Pure-Castille Soap? If not, it’s time to make up for it. This laundry detergent is as effective in cleaning your clothes as other mainstream brands. Plus, the unequivocal advantage of Dr. Bronner’s over its competitors is that it is non-toxic and hypoallergenic.

61. Hemp Crafts


Hemp cords, twines, spools, braided ropes – they all fall into the Hemp Crafts bracket. They are a friend of every homeowner who values durability and is aware of the benefits of using hemp in everyday life.

62. Hemp Chair


We’re not sure if there is a company that actually produces and sells hemp chairs today, but a hemp chair, made of natural hemp fiber, was developed for a design exhibition in 2012. If it can be done, it will sooner or later land in stores!

63. Tablecloths


Photo Credit: Roxie Daisy

Looking for high-quality, durable, and mildew-resistant material? Hemp fiber will be a perfect choice for your next set of tablecloths.

64. Hemp Blankets


Photo Credit: Earthdog

There are many beautiful hemp blankets on the market, and it’s actually no surprise that this particular hemp product has grabbed people by the throat. A hemp blanket can reduce the intensity of night sweating (also known as “hot flashes”) and help with skin conditions like eczema/rashes.

Farming & Gardening
Outdoor is where hemp can really spread its leaves, to be metaphorical. Hemp products for farming and gardening can serve you as a solid and sustainable material, one that is far safer for the environment than plastic and other artificial resources.

65. Hemp Growing Mats


Photo Credit: BioComposites Group

Typical growing mats are produced using hemp or treated materials. Hemp is a bio-accumulator, meaning that it will absorb whatever it is grown in. That being said, choosing plastic for growing a plant that is genuinely organic and meant to provide a number of health benefits can prove counterproductive.

Thankfully, brands like Grass Roots Grow Mats offer hemp mats that are plastic-, petroleum-, and chemical-free. No need to worry about harmful substances getting into your roots anymore!

66. Soil Cleanup


Photo Credit: Rolling Stone

When you clean up your soil with conventional crops, such as soy, corn, or wheat, you need to come to terms with the fact that they will deplete the nutrition of your soil, causing it to dry out and eventually erode.

Hemp is much different than its more commonly used counterparts. Its deep roots help stabilize the soil structure, not to mention that they also naturally shades out weeds. Growing 6-16 ft tall in 110 days, hemp can be a natural solution for farmers who don’t want to use costly and toxic herbicides. As the plant absorbs heavy-metal pollutants from soil, it is, slowly but surely, purifying the earth.

Industrial
Wondering how industrial hemp got its name? Here’s a quick “why:”

67. Ropes


Photo Credit: Ropes Direct

During World War II, the US government was in a great need for more raw material to make solid, durable ropes. This material had been severely limited during their battle with Japan. This is when the government came up with a campaign named “Hemp For Victory”, encouraging US farmers to start cultivating hemp to support the United States in the war. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) even promoted a public commercial to underline the benefits of hemp as an industrial material.

68. Plastics


Photo Credit: Hemptastic

Okay, this one might be a bit weird, but hemp plastic can actually do anything that traditional plastic can do. However, the biggest issue with using hemp plastic on a broad scale is that it’s not cost-effective. Farming hemp is still strictly regulated, so domestic cultivators are still in short of this supply.

Still, hemp plastic is much more durable and environment-friendly. On top of that, it can be used to make cars, sunglasses, pens, and more.

69. Hemp Concrete

Photo Credit: Dezeen

There is a huge promise in using hemp for building homes in the future. Hemp concrete, or hempcrete, offers plenty of benefits, including amazing thermodynamic insulation, being hypoallergenic, and absorbing CO2 as it ages. As a result, hempcrete becomes stronger over time, unlike mainstream materials, let alone the reduction of your carbon footprint.

When it comes to durability and construction, hempcrete homes produce zero construction waste. It turns out even more huge when you consider that 55% of the world’s energy consumption is associated with construction waste.

70. Oil Spill Cleanup


Photo Credit: The Virginian-Pilot

Did you know that hemp’s core has been found to carry microorganisms that are responsible for bioremediation? Simply put, bioremediation refers to the microorganisms living in hemp and breaking down the oil by actually consuming it, metabolizing it, and then, pushing it back into the water and soil without th carrying the toxins.

71. Hemp Flags


Photo Credit: Greener Country

The first American flag made by Betsy Ross used industrial hemp fiber. That’s because hemp fiber can be used to produce durable, rustic flags. Patagonia even developed a short documentary that features a war veteran making a US flag from hemp.

72. Hemp Batteries


Photo Credit: Aether Force

Even graphene is less conductive than hemp fibers. This fact makes hemp a superior source for batteries and supercapacitors. Here’s what Dr. David Mitlin, a hemp researcher, says about hemp batteries:

“Hemp works just as well [as graphene]. And it costs a fraction of the price [at] $500 to $1,000 a tonne.” >> Read the full article <<

73. Fiberboard

Compressed hemp hurds and bast fibers are a sustainable alternative to traditional insulation materials. It’s also lighter, stronger, and water-resistant than mainstream materials.
 
A lot of people suffered and caught alot of hell, because these greedy people are only concerned about money!!


Meet the Man Responsible for Marijuana Prohibition

bigstock-140047493.jpg


Most cannabis consumers are only too aware of the federal-level prohibition that forces so many to purchase from the black market. This illegality potentially exposes medical and recreational users to harder drugs and criminal elements — and obviously drives up prices.

What most fans of the culture don’t know is the story of the man who was the architect of American cannabis prohibition. Harry Anslinger, the nation’s first drug czar (as Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics), for years contributed racist, sensationalistic — and typically completely fabricated — articles to a variety of newspapers and magazines owned by his co-conspirator, William Randolph Hearst. He was also the author of the Marijuana Tax Act legislation passed by Congress in August of 1937. This law, although replaced by the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, was the genesis of the modern day drug war and has been responsible for the emergence of a healthy black market for cannabis and the prosecution and incarceration of millions of pot smokers.

The following is an excerpt from my new book Understanding Medical Marijuana (Chapter 3: Why is Marijuana Illegal?):

___________________________________

Paramount Protectionism: Anslinger & Hearst
Two men are primarily responsible for the modern federal-level legal prohibition of marijuana that has been in existence for the past 78 years: Harry Anslinger and William Randolph Hearst.

Anslinger was an ambitious government bureaucrat who, in 1930, became Director of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (the precursor to today’s Drug Enforcement Agency, or DEA). Nepotism was in full force: Anslinger was appointed by his wife’s uncle, Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon (of Mellon Bank, one of the most powerful financial institutions in the world at the time). Hearst was a publishing and timber mogul who owned major newspapers and popular magazines (think of him as the evil Rupert Murdoch of his day).


Harry Anslinger

Hearst, according to one biography, “…hated minorities, and he used his chain of newspapers to aggravate racial tensions at every opportunity.” His motives were understandable: He lost 800,000 acres of timberland to Pancho Villa during the Mexican revolution. His means of institutionalizing his bigotry, however, were less deserving of empathy.

The term “marijuana”—derived from the Mexican slang “marihuana” (either purposefully or accidentally misspelled)—was first coined in the United States in the 1890s. It was popularized in the early 1930s by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and in articles appearing in magazines and newspapers owned by Hearst. Hearst, via his publishing empire, continually attempted to taint public perception of the plant by leveraging popular prejudice against Mexican-Americans. The Mexican Spanish term “marihuana” was used to elude the public’s existing familiarity and comfort level with hemp and the medical application of cannabis tinctures (it was not a commonly smoked recreational drug at the time).

In fact, the terms “marihuana” and “marijuana” weren’t even included in official dictionaries at the time. If not for the efforts of Anslinger and Hearst, the herb would almost certainly be referred to as cannabis (the Latin name that’s most common in Europe, the United Kingdom, and Australia), not marijuana.

Anslinger drew upon the social stereotypes and prejudices of the day to stigmatize cannabis. “There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, results from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and others” he said. Anslinger also made highly inflammatory and provocative statements involving significant fear mongering, such as “Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death.” His racist side is revealed by statements such as “Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.” He also proclaimed, “You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill your brother.”


William Randolph Hearst

Hearst and Anslinger were supported by Lammot du Pont of the DuPont chemical company and a variety of pharmaceutical corporations, all of which had a financial interest in defeating hemp to promote their own products. For example, DuPont began selling rayon (the first man-made fiber) in 1924 and invented nylon, a synthetic competitor to hemp, in 1935. One reason pharmaceutical and petrochemical companies disliked cannabis was because people could grow it themselves. (It should be noted that Andrew Mellon, the Treasury Secretary who appointed Anslinger to the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and the wealthiest man in America at the time, was—along with Mellon Bank—a financial backer of DuPont.)

In February 1938, Popular Mechanics Magazine reported that hemp was the new “billion dollar crop” in the United States[1], due entirely to the introduction of mass production harvesting equipment. The hemp decorticator, a farm machine that mechanically separated the fiber of the hemp stalk, threatened to make hemp a strong competitor to wood. The decorticator saved massive amounts of labor and made hemp production affordable and practical on a small scale (such as on family farms).

Capable of yielding up to three crops per year in southern climates, one acre of hemp produces about the same amount of cellulose (used to create paper, among other things) as four acres of trees. Amazingly, hemp can be made into about 5,000 different products—from paper, clothing, and food to fuel and construction timbers.

The promise of hemp-based products was so great that they threatened to replace those made from petroleum-based petrochemicals, such as synthetic fibers and even gasoline. If you think this was just slightly intimidating to the likes of corporate barons such as Hearst, Mellon, and DuPont, you’re right. Billions in profits were at risk for entrenched old-school businesses and their financial backers and cronies.

Surprisingly, Henry Ford’s first Model-T automobile was built using hemp plastic panels, not metal (which featured an impact strength 10 times greater than steel). Ford envisioned his car running on fuel made from hemp or other plants. These facts threatened DuPont’s petrochemical market share (driven by new synthetic products such as rayon, nylon, cellophane, and oil-based plastics) and Hearst’s huge timberland and mill empire.

The Smear Campaign
Anslinger (basically the government puppet of corporate barons DuPont and Mellon) and Hearst (who had a clear financial interest in defeating the success of hemp), embarked on one of the world’s most effective and long-lasting smear campaigns.

Together, they crafted a highly inflammatory anti-marijuana public relations crusade with the goal of making the euphoric herb (and, more importantly, its sibling hemp) illegal—effectively eliminating it as a competitor to a variety of petrochemical products (DuPont’s territory) and timber (Hearst’s goldmine). Using Anslinger’s position within the U.S. government and leveraging Hearst’s empire of newspapers and magazines as propaganda outlets, the two concocted outlandish stories, all of which depicted marijuana as being hyperbolically more destructive than what is perceived today as a mild euphoriant that gives its recreational users giggles and the munchies. Their dramatic and sensationalistic stories described pot as an evil drug that led to murder, rape, and insanity.

As early as January 1923, Hearst published in the San Francisco Examiner that “Marihuana is a short cut to the insane asylum. Smoke marihuana cigarettes for a month and what was once your brain will be nothing but a storehouse for horrid specters. Hasheesh [a purer, more potent form of marijuana] makes a murderer who kills for the love of killing out of the mildest mannered man…”



In February 1928, a similarly sensational article appeared in the Hearst publication the Examiner, falsely stating that marijuana was known in India as the “murder drug,” claiming that it was common for a man to “catch up a knife and run through the streets, hacking and killing every one he [encountered].” Even more outlandish, the article claimed one could grow enough cannabis in a window box to “drive the whole population of the United States stark, raving mad.”

The American Magazine, another Hearst publication, in its July 1937 issue published a sensationalized article co-authored by Anslinger entitled “MARIJUANA—Assassin of Youth” which described a young Florida man who murdered his family, an act attributed to his “habit of smoking something which youthful friends called ‘muggles,’ a childish name for marijuana.” The article claimed that the murderer “had no recollection of having committed the multiple crimes. The officers knew him ordinarily as a sane, rather quiet young man; now he was pitifully crazed.”

Such articles are obviously, by modern standards, laughable—especially when a significant percentage of adults since the 1960s have sampled marijuana. Those who have tried the herb know, from firsthand experience, that it doesn’t make one “pitifully crazed” or cause users to kill their families.

Prohibition Begins
Dr. William Woodward, a doctor, lawyer, and the legislative counsel to the American Medical Association, testified before Congress at a 1937 hearing to outlaw cannabis, stating that there was no evidence that the herb is dangerous. He warned that prohibition “loses sight of the fact that future investigation may show that there are substantial medical uses for cannabis.”

When the legislation, drafted by Anslinger, was presented on the floor of the House for a vote, a representative from upstate New York asked, “Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?” The Speaker replied, “I don’t know. It has something to do with a thing called marijuana. I think it’s a narcotic of some kind.” The New York representative queried, “Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?” A member of the hearing committee interrupted and replied, “Their Doctor Wentworth [sic] came down here. They support this bill one hundred percent.”

And thus, with that lie—and despite the efforts of Woodward (one of only two medical doctors to testify at the committee hearings) and the actual opposition of the American Medical Association—the U.S. Congress passed the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 in early August.[2] The cultivation and possession of cannabis and hemp has been illegal in the United States ever since.[3]

According to a 2010 article by the Associated Press, “After 40 years, the United States’ war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives…” In the past 10 years, $211 million was spent to enforce pot laws in the state of Washington alone (as reported by the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington State). Meanwhile, Hearst, Mellon, and du Pont are all household names, more than a half century after the last of the group died.

One of the most indicting official statements against marijuana prohibition came, ironically, from one of the Drug Enforcement Agency’s own Chief Administrative Law Judges, Francis Young. Young, after lengthy hearings regarding the efficacy of the herb in 1988, stated, “Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known. It would be unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious for the DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance….” Despite his strong official opinion, the DEA did not implement his ruling and allow the rescheduling and testing of marijuana, citing a procedural technicality.
 
Question everything, believe nothing!!

More Than Sixty Years of Suppression & Repression

1937: Hemp banned. An estimated 60,000 Americans smoke "marijuana," but virtually everyone in the country has heard of it, thanks to Hearst and Anslinger's disinformation campaign. 1945: Newsweek reports that more than 100,000 persons now smoke marijuana. 1967: Millions of Americans regularly and openly smoke hemp leaves and flowers. 1977: Tens of millions smoke cannabis regularly, with many persons growing their own. 1998: One in three Americans, approximately 90 million citizens, have now tried it at least once, and some 10-20% (25 to 50 million Americans) still choose to buy and smoke it regularly, despite urine tests and tougher laws. Throughout history, Americans have held the legal tradition that one could not give up one's Constitutional rights and if someone was stripped of these protections, then he or she was being victimized. However by 1989, if you signed up for an extracurricular activity in school or applied for a minimum wage job, you could be asked to forego your right to privacy, protection from self-incrimination, Constitutional requirements of reasonable grounds for search and seizure, presumed innocence until found guilty by your peers, and that most fundamental right of all: personal responsibility for your own life and consciousness. By 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld that these intrusions into your privacy were constitutional! In November 1996, as earlier stated, California passed a statewide people's initiative that legalized medical marijuana within the state. Also in November 1996, Arizona passed a statewide initiative (by 65% of the vote) that included medical marijuana but, unlike California law, Arizona's legislature and the governor (now impeached) can and have since rejected the people's law. This was the first rejection by the legislature and the governor of any Arizona state initiative in 90 years! The Armed Forces and Industry The Armed Forces, as well as many civilian factories, will boot you out if you smoke marijuana; even if you smoke it 30 days before testing and while off duty. These tests are done at random and often do not include liquor, tranquilizer, or other speed/downer type drugs. However, according to OSHA and insurance actuarial findings, plus the AFL-CIO, it is alcohol(!) that is involved in 90-95% of drug related factory accidents. In fact, numerous U.S. Army test of the effects of cannabis on soldiers (through the 1950s and '60s) at Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland, and elsewhere, show no loss of motivation or performance after two years of heavy (military sponsored) smoking of marijuana. This study was repeated six more times by the military and dozens of times by universities with the same or similar results. (Also, British Indian Hemp Report; Panama/Siler study; Jamaican study, et al.) South African gold and diamond mines allowed and encouraged Blacks to use cannabis/Dagga in order to work harder. (U.S. Government Reports, 1956-58-61-63-68-69-70-76.) Privacy is a Right Groups like NORML, HEMP, ACLU, BACH, and the Libertarian Party (for example) feel that as long as military personnel (unless on alert) or factory workers do not smoke cannabis while on duty or during the period four to six hours before duty, it's their own business. This is consistent with the conclusions of the U.S. government's own Siler Commission (1933) and Shafer Commission (1972) reports, as well as the LaGuardia report (1944), the Canadian Government Study (1972), Alaska State Commission (1989), and the California Research Advisory Panel (1989), all of which held that no criminal penalties are in order for its use. Inaccurate Urine Testing Military/factory worker marijuana urine tests are only partially accurate and do not indicate the extent of your intoxication. They indicate only whether you have smoked or been in the presence of cannabis smoke or have eaten hempseed oil or any hempseed ffod product in the last 30 days. Whether you smoked or ate it an hour ago or 30 days ago and sometimes if you haven't smoked it at all the test results are the same: Positive. John P. Morgan, M.D., stated in High Times February 1989 (and in 1999 he still says), "The tests are far from reliable. Tampering and high rates of falsepositives, false-negatives, etc. are common, and further these testing companies are held to no standards but their own." At 20-50 nanograms (billionths of a gram) per milliliter of THC Carboxy Acid (a metabolite) these tests can be read as positive or negative yet results derived from this part of the scale are known to be meaningless. To the untrained eye, any positive indication sends up a red flag. And most testers are untrained and uncertified. Still, the decision to hire, fire, detain, re-test, or begin drug abuse treatment is made for you on the spot. "I believe the tendency to read the EMIT [the urine test for THC metabolites] test below the detection limit is one of the important reasons why the test was not often confirmed in published reports," Dr. Morgan said. In 1985, for the first time, Milton, Wisconsin, high school kids were ordered to have urine tests weekly to see if they smoked pot. Local "Families Against Marijuana" type organizations were demanding this testing, but not for liquor, downers, or other hazardous drugs. Hundreds of communities and high schools throughout the country were awaiting the outcome of constitutional challenges in Milton in 1988 before implementing similar testing programs in their own school districts. Because of this ruling in Milton's favor, testing for high school students participating in extra-curricular activities has since been widely adopted and continues across the United States in 1998. For instance, in Oregon the testing of high-school athletes has spread by court order to any and all extra-curricular activity. Band members and majorettes even debate team members, some debating on the marijuana issue can now be tested at will in all states except California, where even a high school student can, since 1996, legally have a doctor's recommendation or acknowledgement for the medical use of marijuana. (NORML reports, High Times, ABC, NBC & CBS News, and LA Times, 1981-1998, Oregonian, October 23, 1989.) Baseball and the Babe Former Baseball Commissioner Peter V. Ueberroth first ordered in 1985 all personnel, except unionized players, to submit to these urine tests. From the owners to the peanut vendors to the bat boys, it is mandatory in order to be employed. By 1990, it had been incorporated into all contracts, including ballplayers. Now, since November 1996, a professional baseball player (or any other sports player for that matter) in California may take advantage of cannabis as medicine, and continue to play baseball professionally. Aside from the civil liberties questions raised, it is apparently forgotten that "Babe" Ruth would regularly invite reporters to accompany him while he drank 12 beers prior to playing a game, during alcohol Prohibition. Many "dry" organizations and even the league commissioner implored him to think of the children who idolized him and stop, but the "Babe" refused. If Peter Ueberroth or his ilk had been in charge of baseball during Prohibition, the "Sultan of Swat" would have been fired in shame and millions of children would not have proudly played in "Babe Ruth Little Leagues." Lyndon LaRouche's "War on Drugs" committee told us that, along with new marijuana laws, they expected to implement their most important goal: anyone in the future playing any disco, rock 'n' roll, or jazz on the radio, on television, in schools, or in concert, or who just sold rock 'n' roll records or any music that wasn't on their approved classical lists would be jailed, including music teachers, disc jockeys, and record company executives. Tens of millions of average Americans choose to use cannabis as self medication or to relax during their time off the job, and therefore risk criminal penalties. Job performance should be the principle criterion for evaluation of all employees, not personal lifestyle choices. The Babe Ruths of sports, the Henry Fords of industry, the Pink Floyds, Beatles, Picassos, and Louis Armstrongs of the arts, and one out of ten Americans have become criminals and thousands unemployed for smoking cannabis, even when merely unwinding in the privacy of their own homes. Robert Mitchum's film career was almost destroyed by a 1948 marijuana arrest. Federal Judge Douglas Ginsburg was on the verge of being appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987 when it was revealed that he had smoked grass while a university professor and his name was withdrawn from nomination. However, George Bush's appointee Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' 1991 admission that he smoked marijuana in college was not an issue in his controversial confirmation. Dividing Communities and Splitting Up Families "Help a friend, send him to jail," says a billboard in Ventura, California. This is an example of the "zero tolerance" campaign's inform-on-your-neighbor tactics being used to enforce the laws against the victimless crime of cannabis smoking. Here's another example from TV: "If you have knowledge of a felony you can earn up to one thousand dollars. Your name will not be used and you will not be required to appear in court."* One man received a postcard in jail saying, "Our informant received $600 for turning you in. Crimestoppers." *(Crimestoppers, Ventura, California, October, 1989.) Surveillance and Seizures In rural California, where cannabis growing has supported whole communities, the well-armed CAMP forces go into a thick forest discovering 15-foot tall, lush, hearty eight-month-old plants. These are hacked down, piled up, and smothered with gasoline and rubber tires. Uncured, they burn slowly. Elsewhere, a helicopter pilot circles over a neighborhood, peering into a heat sensitive camera pointed at a house. "We're looking for the indoor sun," he explains matter-of-factly. "We only pursue specific objectives," houses where grow lights have been bought or some other tangible basis exists to suspect "manufacturing a controlled substance": a felony. "Look, there's the light from the house." His thermal-sensitive screen shows heat leaking out from under the eaves of the house. Site confirmed. Next they obtain a search warrant, raid the property, seize the house under civil proceedings, and prosecute its inhabitants under criminal law. (48 Hrs., CBS television, "Marijuana Growing in California," October 12, 1989.) UnAmerican Policies & Political Extortion Richard Nixon ordered the FBI to illegally monitor John Lennon 24-hours a day for six solid months in 1971 because Lennon had given a concert in Michigan to free a student (John Sinclair) from five years in jail for possession of two joints. (L.A. Times, August, 1983.) The drug, oil, paper, and liquor companies want pot illegal forever, no matter whose rights they suppress or how many years we have to spend in prison to assure their profits. Politicians who are liberal are investigated and, we believe, are blackmailed to keep their mouths shut on this subject and others, or risk being exposed for some past indiscretion by themselves or members of their families possibly sexual or drug-related. Police, Secrets & Blackmail A few years ago, then Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates (1978-1992) ordered surveillance of City Councilman Zev Yarslovsky, City Attorney John Van DeKamp, and Mayor Tom Bradley, among others. He monitored their private sex lives for more than a year. (Los Angeles Times, August, 1983.) J. Edgar Hoover, as Director of the FBI, did this for five years to Martin Luther King Jr. and, in the most "sick" situation, deliberately drove actress Jean Seburg to suicide with terrible ongoing federal letters and information fed to tabloids exposing her pregnancies and private dates with blacks. In fact, using the FBI, Hoover harassed selected targets, for as long as 20 years because of their civil rights stands. The former director of the FBI and also direct overseer of the DEA, William Webster, answered questions about the squandering of 50% ($500 million) of federal drug enforcement money on cannabis enforcement this way: "Oh, marijuana is an extremely dangerous drug and the proof [referring to totally discredited brain and metabolite studies by Heath, Nahas] is now coming in." Webster then asked for more money and more unrestrained powers to stop pot. (Nightwatch, CBS, January 1, 1985.) (1998 footnote: The DEA's budget for marijuana information alone figures out to 10 times the cost of 1985's budget and 100 times the cost of its 1981 budget.) Public Humiliation Entertainers caught with cannabis have had to do a "Galileo" type recanting to stay out of jail or to retain their television, endorsement, or nightclub contracts, etc. Some have had to go on television and denounce marijuana to stay out of jail (e.g., Peter Yarrow of Peter, Paul and Mary, David Crosby, and actress Linda Carter). Our courts and legislators have sold our American "guaranteed" Bill of Rights, written on cannabis, to secure a cannabis-free world. "Don't suspect your neighbor, turn him in." Any hear say is to be reported. That which revolted us as children the spectre of Nazis and Commies asking everyone to spy and inform on one another; Stalin's secret police taking persons from their homes at night to administer stupefying drugs and extort information; a government spreading lies and creating a police state has now become our everyday Amierkan reality. And those who dare to stand against the tide of oppression face the prospect of financial ruin. Seizure: Feudal Law & Order When the federal government seizes cars, boats, money, real estate, and other personal property, proceeding are set into motion based on laws that originated with medieval superstition. English common law of the Middle Ages provided for forfeiture of any object causing a man's death. Known as a "deodand," the object, such as a weapon or run-away ox cart, was personified and declared tainted or evil, and forfeited to the king. Today's in rem (against things rather than against persons) forfeiture proceedings are civil suits against the property itself. Relying on analogy to the deodand, a legal "personification fiction," declares the property to be the defendant. It is held guilty and condemned, as though it were a personality and the guilt or innocence of the owner is irrelevant. By applying this civil label to forfeiture proceedings, the government sidesteps almost all the protections offered by the Constitution to individuals. There is no Sixth Amendment guarantee of right to counsel. Innocent until proven guilty is reversed. Each violation of a constitutional right is then used as the basis for the destruction of another. The violation of the Fifth Amendment's "innocent until proven guilty" due process standard is used to destroy the prohibition of double jeopardy. Even acquittal of the criminal charges the forfeiture is based upon does not prevent re-trying the same facts, because, even through the government couldn't prove a crime was committed, at the second trial the defendant must provide proof of innocence. The Supreme Court holds that it is constitutional to forfeit property in rem from a person who is completely innocent and non-negligent in his use of the property. Lower courts accept prosecutors' arguments that if it is permissible to forfeit property from completely innocent persons, then constitutional protections could not possibly apply to anyone who is guilty of even a minor drug offense. Unlike civil suits between individuals, the government is immune to countersuit. The government can use its unlimited resources to repeatedly press a suit in the mere hope of convincing one juror the defendant did not provide a preponderance of evidence. Forfeitures imposed by the English Crown led our nation's founders to prohibit bills of attainder (forfeiture consequent to conviction) in the first article of the American Constitution. The main body of the Constitution also forbids forfeiture of estate for treason. The first Congress passed the statue, still law today, stating that "No conviction or judgement shall work corruption of blood or any forfeiture of estate." However, early Americans did incorporate in rem (proceeding against a thing) procedures under Admiralty and Maritime law, to seize enemy ships at sea and to enforce payment of customs duties. It was not until the outbreak of the Civil War that these Customs procedures were radically changed. The Confiscation Act of July 17, 1862, declared all property belonging to Confederate officers or those who aided the rebels to be forfeitable in rem. The U.S. Supreme Court held that if the Act was an exercise of the war powers of the government and was applied only to enemies, then it was Constitutionally allowable in order to ensure a speedy termination of the war. Today, the passions of the "War on Drugs" have caused Congress to once again use in rem proceedings to inflict punishment without the nuisance of the protections provided by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. "We have to save our Constitution," says Vickie Linker, whose husband served two years in prison for a cannabis offense. "We have the truth." Entrapment, Intolerance and Ignorance When not enough persons seem to be committing crimes, the DEA and police departments often resort to entrapment to make criminals out of unsuspecting and otherwise non-criminal persons. Government agents have been caught time after time provoking and participating in drug smuggling and sales.* * High Witness News department, High Times magazine; "Inside the DEA," Dale Geiringer, Reason Magazine, December, 1986; Christic Institute "La Penca" lawsuit; DeLorean cocaine trial testimony and verdict of innocence; Playboy magazine, etc. This constant fanning of public fears of marijuana turns into demands for more money for a "War on Drugs" (a euphemism for war on certain people who freely choose to use selected substances) and political pressure for the permission to use unconstitutional means to enforce the constantly harsher laws. In an October, 1989, Louisville, KY, address to the Police Chiefs of that state, then Drug Czar and social-drinking, nicotine-addict William Bennett* announced that marijuana smoking makes people stupid. * This is the same man who helped engineer a $2.9 million grant for the Texas National Guard to dress its agents up as cactus to patrol the Mexican border. This was the National Guard unit that later shot and killed a young Americanborn Mexican sheep herder assuming him to be an illegal immigrant. He offered no proof, and although crack was not a major issue in Kentucky, proclaimed that more money was necessary for the war on drugs because of this new found marijuana-induced danger stupidity! (Which, as far as we know, is still not a crime.) Bennett was seen to brace himself with a late-morning gin and tonic in December, 1989, as he tried to pitch a similar anti-marijuana message to representatives of the broadcast and film industries in Beverly Hills, CA. (High Times, February, 1990. See "Booze Brunch" in appendix of the paper version of this book.) Have your balloons and bumper stickers ready; Bennett is running for president in 2000! PDFA: Slickly Packaged Lies Another recent development has been the formation of the PDFA (Partnership for a Drug Free America) in the media. PDFA, with primarily in-kind funding from ad agencies and media groups, makes available (free of charge to all broadcast and print media) slick public service ads directed primarily against marijuana. In addition to releasing such meaningless drivel as an ad which shows a skillet ("This is drugs.") on which an egg is frying ("This is your brain on drugs. Any questions?"), PDFA is not above lying outright in their ads. In one ad, the wreckage of a train is shown. Now, everyone will agree that no one should attempt to drive a train while high on marijuana. But a man's voice says that anyone who tells you that "marijuana is harmless" is lying, because his wife was killed in a train accident caused by marijuana. This contradicts the direct sworn testimony of the engineer responsible for that disaster; that "this accident was not caused by marijuana." And it deliberately ignores his admissions of drinking alcohol, snacking, watching TV, generally failing to pay adequate attention to his job, and deliberately jamming the train's safety equipment prior to the accident. Yet, for years the PDFA has described the train accident as being marijuana-caused, even though the engineer was legally drunk and had lost his automobile driver's license six times, including permaently, for drunken driving in the previous three years. In another ad, a sad looking couple is told that they cannot have children because the husband used to smoke pot. This is a direct contradiction both of the clinical evidence developed in nearly a century of cannabis studies and of the personal experiences of millions of Americans who have smoked cannabis and borne perfectly healthy children. And in yet another ad, the group was so arrogant in putting out lies that it finally got into trouble. The ad showed two brain wave charts which it said showed the brain waves of a 14-year-old "on marijuana." Outraged, researcher Dr. Donald Blum from the UCLA Neurological Studies Center told KABC-TV (Los Angeles) News November 2, 1989, that the chart said to show the effects of marijuana actually shows the brain waves of someone in a deep sleep or in a coma. He said that he and other researchers had previously complained to the PDFA, and added that cannabis user's brain wave charts are much different and have a well-known signature, due to years of research on the effects of cannabis on the brain. Even after this public refutation, it took the station KABC-TV and PDFA weeks to pull the spot, and no apology or retraction had yet been offered for the deceit. Despite being ordered by the courts to stop, the PDFA has shown that ad continuously on hundreds of TV channels throughout the United States for the last decade.* * Groups including the American Hemp Council, the Family Council on Drug Awareness, and Help End Marijuana Prohibition (HEMP) have decided to step up their pressure to expose PDFA lies and get their distortions banned from the airwaves or, better yet, replaced with accurate information on the medical, social, and commercial uses of hemp. Perhaps a more valid ad for the PDFA to produce and the networks to run would show a skillet ("This is the PDFA.") and an egg frying ("These are the facts."). DARE: Police Propaganda The DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program, a national program that was initiated in 1983 by then Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates, has become yet another tool disinforming the public on hemp. Typically, a police department spokesperson will conduct a 17-week course at a local elementary school to promote personal responsible behavior by young persons while irresponsibly giving them distorted information and outright lies about cannabis. Most of the course does not deal with drugs as such, but rather with making choices about how to act when there are opportunities or pressures to drink, smoke, steal, lie, break laws, etc. However, the program's truly useful support for good behavior is undermined by an undercurrent of lies and innuendo about marijuana's effects and users.* * In an interview, L.A.'s main DARE instructor, Sgt. Domagalski, gave information on the program and made such unsubstantiated and untrue statements as marijuana leads to heroin, "The guy across the street or next door has been smoking marijuana for years and there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with him. There is something wrong, but it may not be obvious." And, "People in the Sixties smoked marijuana and thought there was nothing wrong with it. Now it's watered and sprayed and pampered and they're not concerned what they spray it with, either. But parents don't know this. They got all their information in the Sixties, and they're not interested in this new information."(Downtown News, July 10, 1989. Also see letters section, July 31, 1989 for BACH's reply.) See chapter 15, "Debunking" for the facts on his "new information." In 1999, DARE still consciously teaches these same lies to our children and threatens any community that dares to tell DARE to stop or cease in their school disrict. However, in 1997 the city of Oakland, California, withdrew from the DARE program and has so far suffered no consequences. What makes the DARE program uniquely dangerous is that it provides some accurate information, but undermines itself and the public record by using lies and innuendo about marijuana. For example, according to teachers who sit in on the sessions,* the police officer will remark, "I can't tell you that smoking pot causes brain damage, because you all know people who smoke pot and they seem pretty normal. But that's what it does. You just can't tell ß yet." * Some of the teachers we talked to find themselves in the uncomfortable position of knowing the real studies, or have used cannabis themselves and know its effects, but cannot openly present their case for fear of being urine tested or dismissed. No supporting evidence is then offered, and the literature that goes home with the child (and is potentially seen by marijuana-savvy parents) tends to appear more balanced, although it refers to mysterious "new studies" showing the dangers of marijuana. But throughout the entire course, the police officer refers to lung damage, brain damage, sterility, and other unfounded claims of health damage and death being caused by marijuana. Or they report on studies detailing the cardio-pulmonary risks of using cocaine, then mention marijuana smoke unrelated except by context. Or the "well-intentioned" officer tells anecdotes about persons he claims to know who "started" with marijuana and ultimately destroyed their lives with hard drugs, crime, and depravity; then lumps marijuana in with genuinely dangerous drugs and describes how youngsters or fellow police officers were killed by these desperate, drug crazed criminals. Then the officer encourages the students to "help" their drug-using friends and family by becoming a police informant. These kinds of indirect lies through innuendo and implication are given in an off-hand manner calculated to leave a strong, permanent impression on the sub-conscious mind, without basing it on any research or other sources that can be objectively studies or directly challenged just a lasting, indistinct mental image. What makes the DARE program uniquely dangerous is that it provides some accurate information and has genuine value for young people, but undermines itself and the public record by using these irresponsible, underhanded tactics. If DARE officials want responsible behavior from students, they must also act responsibly. If they have information about marijuana that is hidden from the rest of us, let's see it. But, so far as we know, no DARE organization has yet dared to debate any marijuana legalization advocacy group* or include their literature in its program. * Since 1989, Help Eliminate Marijuana Prohibition (HEMP) and the Business Alliance for Commerce in Hemp (BACH) have issued ongoing standing challenges to publicly debate any DARE representatives in the Los Angeles area, which has yet to be taken up. These groups have also offered to provide free and accurate literature on cannabis for DARE's use, but as of July 1998, have received no response. The Media in a Stupor Despite a strong injection of reason and fact into the cannabis debate by the media in the late 1960s and 1970s, the national media has largely failed to distinguish marijuana prohibition from the broader "drug war" hysteria, which "sold more copy" in the 1980s. Hemp activists have been ignored, their events censored and excluded from calendar listings even paid advertisements about events or legal, non-smoking hemp products are refused by news sources. What ever happened to fact checking? Instead of serving as the probing watchdogs of government and keepers of the public trust, corporate news groups regard themselves as the profit-making tool for forging "consensus" on national policy. "Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself." President Jimmy Carter August 2, 1977 According to groups like Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) and researchers like Ben Bakdikian and Michael Parenti, these corporations define and protect the "national interest"Often meaning their own vested financial interests and political agendas. It must be remembered that many of the largest publishers have direct holdings in timberland for paper development, and the pharmaceutical drug, petrochemical companies, etc. are among the media's major advertisers. In an article published in the L.A. Times Magazine May 7, 1989, entitled "Nothing Works," (and since mimicked in hundreds of magazines, including Time and Newsweek), Stanley Meiseler laments the problem facing schools in drug education programs and inadvertently reveals the news media's own assumptions and bias: "Critics believe that some education programs have been crippled by exaggerating the dangers of drugs. Principles and teachers, watched closely by city officials, feel pressured not to teach pupils that marijuana, although harmful,* is less addicting than cigarettes.Ú Failure to acknowledge such information means school programs can lose credibility. But more honest programs could be even more harmful." (Emphasis added.) The harm Meisler predicts is an expected increase in consumption when people learn the health benefits and lack of physical or psychological risks involved with cannabis consumption. Many persons decide that they prefer pot (which apparently does not need to advertise) to alcohol and tobacco, for which so many advertising dollars are spent. * No specific studies showing the alleged harmful effects were cited in the article. In fact, cannabis was barely mentioned except for this reference and a note that detoxification businesses report some success in "breaking a mild dependence on marijuana and alcohol." Ongoing Justice President Jimmy Carter addressed Congress on another kind of harm done by prohibition and the drug issue August 2, 1977, saying that "penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself. "Therefore, I support legislation amending federal law to eliminate all federal criminal penalties for the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana." However, his efforts to apply even this bit of reason to America's marijuana laws 21 years ago were derailed by a Congress determined to show that it is tough on crime, no matter whether an action is criminal or poses any real threat to society, no matter how many persons are hurt in the process. And this attitude of intolerance and oppression has escalated in the post-Carter years. By 1990, some 30 states had established "Special Alternative Incarceration" (SAI) camps (called "boot camps") where non-violent, first time drug offenders are incarcerated in a boot camp-like institution, verbally abused, and psychologically worn down to break them of their dissident attitude towards drug use. Now, in 1999, there are 42 states with special alternative incarceration camps implementing similar programs. The inmates are handled with robotic precision, and those who don't conform are subject to incarceration in the state penitentiary. Most of these offenders are in for marijuana. Even more states are considering implementing similar programs.* * In These Times, "Gulag for drug users," December 20, 1989, pg. 4. What pretext has been used to rationalize this anti-American policy? A handful of official government reports and studies that are touted by the DEA, politicians, and the media to show that marijuana really is "damaging to an individual." LaRouche Declares War on Rock 'N Roll If you thought Anslinger's music craziness was over after he went after jazz in the 1930s and 40s, then consider this: One of the chief organizations among the 4,000 or so "Families Against Marijuana" type groups today is Lyndon LaRouche's "War on Drugs" committee, supported by Nancy Reagan, TV evangelists Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Robertson, and other right-wing activists. In January, 1981, this author and five members of the California Marijuana Initiative (CMI) secretly, by pretending to be pro-LaRouche, attended the West Coast convention of this organization, whose guest speaker was Ed Davis, former Los Angeles Police Chief, who was at that time a freshman state senator from Chatsworth, California. As we each walked in separately, we were asked to sign a petition endorsing a Detroit reporter who had written an open letter to the new President, Ronald Reagan, asking him to give immediate presidential clemency and make a national hero of Mark Chapman, who had murdered John Lennon of the Beatles six weeks earlier. The letter stated that John Lennon had been the most evil man on the planet because he almost single-handedly "turned on" the planet to "illicit drugs". The evils of rock 'n' roll are a constant theme of the "War on Drugs" publications. To keep up with the part we were playing, we signed the petition. (John, forgive us we were playing a clandestine role: under-cover CMI anti-narc. We remember you for "Give Peace a Chance," "Imagine," and all the rest.) After we signed the petition, their leaders took us to the back of the room to show us some of the goals that would be achieved when they would come to full power over the next decade. On five or so long tables set up in the back of the Los Angeles Marriott LAX meeting room were hundreds of recordings of Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, Chopin, Tchaikovsky, Mozart, and others, and dozens of pro-nuclear power publications. They told us that along with new marijuana laws, they expected to implement their most important goal: anyone in the future who played disco, rock 'n' roll, or jazz on the radio, on television, in schools, or in concert, or just sold rock 'n' roll records or any other music that wasn't from their approved classical lists, would be jailed, including music teachers, disc jockeys, and record company executives. School teachers, if they allowed such music by students, would be fired. (LA Times; KNBC-TV.) They were dead serious. Their magazine "War on Drugs" has always spent more space denouncing music with the "evil marijuana beat" than on heroin, cocaine, and PCP combined! Ed Davis was genuinely shocked and embarrassed about this out-front aspect of their anti-music dogma and said, "Well, I don't believe we could ever get legislation at this time outlawing these other types of music or their lyrics. Ú But I do believe with the new Reagan Law-and-Order Administration, we are going to be able to pass some new and stronger anti-marijuana paraphernalia laws, even recriminalizing marijuana altogether in the states that have decriminalization laws now . . .That's the start." I called his office a few days later and was told by an assistant that Davis had no advance idea of this group's musical fixation and that he had accepted the invitation based solely on the name "War on Drugs". Most of what Davis predicted that day has come about. Those visionaries of a new society, one free from the influence of pot and any mention of it had their way in the 1980s. Remember James Watt and the Beach Boys in 1986? Since 1981, TV programs have been censored, cut, and pulled from the air for having a pro-marijuana connotation or even making jokes about it. In an episode of "Barney Miller", Detective Fish (Abe Vigoda) was told that some brownies he'd been eating all day were laced with pot. He looked forlorn for a moment, then said with a sigh, "Wouldn't you know it, this is the best I ever felt in my life and it's illegal." This episode has been pulled from distribution. The late "screaming comic", Sam Kinison, stood on the stage of NBC's "Saturday Night Live" in 1986 and bellowed "Go ahead, you can have the cocaine! Just let us smoke our pot!" The line has been deleted from audio portion in subsequent re-runs. The Reagan/Bush drug czar, Carlton Turner, from his position as the White House Chief Drug Advisor in the mid 1980s quoted to the press passages of The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire and told police and interviewers that jazz musicians and rock singers were destroying the America he loved with their marijuana drug-beat music. In 1997, in an episode of the TV series "Murphy Brown", starring Candice Bergen, Murphy undergoes cancer treatment from which she is vomitting constantly and has lost her appetite. Finally she is told by her doctor to illegally use marijuana for nausea and appetite stimulation. Murphy smokes pot and she is saved by doing so. The Partnership For a Drug Free America and DARE tried unsuccessfully to stop this episode from airing as it "Sent the wrong message to our children" What wrong message!?That marijuana is the best anti-nausea and the best appetite-stimulant on our planet and can save millions of lives? Paul McCartney & His Band on the Run Timothy White interviewed Paul McCartney, formerly of the Beatles, for a book and developed it into a radio program called "McCartney: The First 20 Years". He asked the songwriter to explain his song "Band on the Run", on the album of the same name. "Well, at the time, bands like us and the Eagles were feeling like and being treated like, outlaws and desperadoes, you know," replied McCartney. "I mean, people were getting busted for pot, that is. And that's about all they were getting popped for. Never anything serious. " And our argument was that we didn't want to be outlaws. We just wanted to be part of the regular scene, you know, and make our music and live in peace. We didn't see why we should be treated like criminals when all we wanted to do was smoke pot instead of hitting the booze. "And that's what the song was about; it was my reaction to that whole scene. . ." "And the county judge / who held a grudge / will search forever more / for the band on the run." From "The First 20 Years", broadcast on KLSX 97.1 FM (Los Angeles) and other stations of the Westwood One radio network January 29, 1990. McCartney also wrote the famous line that got the song "A Day in the Life" banned from British radio: "Had a smoke. Somebody spoke and I went into a dream." A vocal supporter of marijuana legalization, McCartney has repeatedly been arrested and was imprisoned for 10 days during a concert tour of Japan. The Japanese government canceled his tour and banned him from playing in that country, costing him millions of dollars. To his credit, he has continued to speak out for pot smokers. The Ultimate Hypocrasy While waging its self-styled "War on Drugs" against Third World peasants and American civilians, the Reagan/Bush/Quayle/Clinton/Gore administrations (1981-1999) have encouraged and covered up drug smuggling and distribution by high ranking officials of the U.S. government. On one hand, Bush violated international law by invading Panama to bring reputed drug smuggler and long-time Bush/CIA employee Manuel Noriega to the U.S. to stand trial. On the other hand, he refused to extradite Oliver North, John Hull, Admiral Poindexter, General Secord, Lewis Tambs, and other Americans to Costa Rica, where they are under indictment by that government for operating a drug smuggling operation there. (The Guardian, British newspaper, "Cocaine shipped by contra network", July 22, 1989.) Federal hearings conducted by U.S. Senator John Kerry's (MA) Subcommittee on Terrorism and Narcotics in 1988 and 1989 documented widespread acts by the CIA and National Security Agency (NSA) to block investigations by the Customs Department and FBI into cocaine smuggling by "intelligence operatives" under the guise of national security. No indictments were ever handed down, and witnesses testified under grants of immunity with little media attention. Special Iran-Contra investigators failed to act on this information or evidence developed by the Christic Institute implicating government complicity in narco-terrorism. And when General Secord was convicted in January 1990 for crimes related to the Iran Contra drugs-for-arms scandal, he was given a fine of $50 and a brief probation when a federal judge decided that the poor fellow had already "suffered enough". This from an administration that promotes the death penalty even beheading For marijuana dealers.* * On the Larry King Show in late 1989, then drug czar William Bennett, a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2000, said he had no moral problems with beheading drug dealers -only legal ones.
 
The Official Story Debunking "Gutter Science"

After 15 days of taking testimony and more than a year's legal deliberation, DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young formally urged the DEA to allow doctors to prescribe marijuana. In a September 1988 judgement, he ruled: "The evidence in this record clearly shows that marijuana has been accepted as capable of relieving the distress of great numbers of very ill people, and doing so with safety under medical supervision . . . It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence in this record. In strict medical terms, marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man." Yet former DEA Administrator John Lawn, his successor, Robert Bonner, and current DEA Administrator John Constantine - non-doctors all! - have refused to comply and have continued to deprive persons of medical cannabis, according to their own personal discretion. Wasting Time, Wasting Lives More than 100 years have passed since the 1894 British Raj commission study of hashish smokers in India reported cannabis use was harmless and even helpful. Numerous studies since have all agreed: The most prominent being Siler, LaGuardia, Nixon's Shafer Commission, Canada's LeDain Commission, and the California Research Advisory Commission. Concurrently, American presidents have praised hemp, the USDA amassed volumes of data showing its value as a natural resource, and in 1942 the Roosevelt administration even made Hemp for Victory, a film glorifying our patriotic hemp farmers. That same year, Germany produced The Humorous Hemp Primer, a comic book, written in rhyme, extolling hemp's virtues. (See appendix I of the paper version of this book.) Yet even the humane use of hemp for medicine is now denied. Asked in late 1989 about the DEA's failure to implement his decision quoted above, Judge Young responded that administrator John Lawn was being given time to comply. More than a year after that ruling, Lawn officially refused to reschedule cannabis, again classing it as a Schedule I "dangerous" drug that is not even allowed to be used as medicine. Decrying this needless suffering of helpless Americans, the National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws (NORML) and the Family Council on Drug Awareness quickly demanded Lawn's resignation. His successors, Bonner, and now Constantine, retain the same policy. What hypocrisy allows public officials to scoff at the facts and deny the truth? How do they rationalize their atrocities? How? They invent their own experts. Government Doublespeak Since 1976, our federal government (e.g., NIDA, NIH, DEA*, and Action), police sponsored groups (like DARE*), and special interest groups (like PDFA*) have proclaimed to public, press, and parent groups alike that they have "absolute evidence" of the shocking negative effects of marijuana smoking. * National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, Drug Enforcement Agency, Drug Abuse Resistance Education, Partnership for a Drug Free America. All subsequent researchers found Heath's marijuana findings to be of no value, because carbon monoxide poisoning and other factors were totally left out. When U.S. government sponsored research prior to 1976 indicated that cannabis was harmless or beneficial, the methodology of how each study was done was always presented in detail in the reports; e.g., read The Therapeutic Potential of Marijuana (1976) and you will see exactly what the methodology of each medical study was. However, when our government bureaucrats deliberately sponsored negative marijuana research, time and time again Playboy magazine, NORML, High Times, etc. had to sue under the new Freedom of Information Act to find out the actual laboratory methodology these "experiments" employed. What they found was shocking. Dr. Heath/Tulane Study, 1974 The Hype: Brain Damage and Dead Monkeys In 1974, California Governor Ronald Reagan was asked about decriminalizing marijuana. After producing the Heath/Tulane University study, the so-called "Great Communicator" proclaimed, "The most reliable scientific sources say permanent brain damage is one of the inevitable results of the use of marijuana." (L.A. Times) The report from Dr. Heath had concluded that Rhesus monkeys, smoking the equivalent of only 30 joints a day, began to atrophy and die after 90 days. And ever since, dead brain cells found in monkeys who were forced to smoke marijuana has been given maximum scare play in federal booklets and government sponsored propaganda literature against pot. Senator Eastland of Mississippi used it throughout the mid-1970s to horrify and stop national legislators from supporting NORML's decriminalization bills in Congress, mostly sponsored by the late Senator Jacob Javitts of New York. Reports of the study have also been distributed by the hierarchy of drug rehabilitation professionals as part of their rationalization for wanting to get kids off pot, based on supposed scientific studies. It is used to terrorize parent groups, church organizations, etc., who redistribute it still further. Heath killed the half-dead monkeys, opened their brains, counted the dead brain cells, and then took control monkeys, who hadn't smoked marijuana, killed them too, and counted their brain cells. The pot smoking monkeys had enormous amounts of dead brain cells as compared to the "straight" monkeys. Ronald Reagan's pronouncement was probably based on the fact that marijuana smoking was the only difference in the two sets of monkeys. Perhaps Reagan trusted the federal research to be real and correct. Perhaps he had other motives. Whatever their reasons, this is what the government ballyhooed to press and PTA, who trusted the government completely. In 1980, Playboy and NORML finally received for the first time after six years of requests and suing the government an accurate accounting of the research procedures used in the infamous report: When NORML/Playboy hired researchers to examine the reported results against the actual methodology, they laughed. The Facts: Suffocation of Research Animals As reported in Playboy, the Heath "Voodoo" Research methodology involved strapping Rhesus monkeys into a chair and pumping them with equivalent of 63 Colombian strength joints in "five minutes, through gas masks," losing no smoke. Playboy discovered that Heath had administered 63 joints in five minutes over just three months instead of administering 30 joints per day over a one-year period as he had first reported. Heath did this, it turned out, in order to avoid having to pay an assistant's wages every day for a full year. The monkeys were suffocating! Three to five minutes of oxygen deprivation causes brain damage"dead brain cells." (Red Cross Lifesaving and Water Safety Manual) With the concentration of smoke used, the monkeys were a bit like a person running the engine of a car in a locked garage for 5, 10, 15 minutes at a time every day! The Heath Monkey study was actually a study in animal asphyxiation and carbon monoxide poisoning. Among other things, Heath had completely (intentionally? incompetently?) omitted discussion of the carbon monoxide the monkeys inhaled. Carbon monoxide, a deadly gas that kills brain cells, is given off by any burning object. At that smoke concentration, the monkeys were, in effect, like a person locked in a garage with the car engine left running for five, 10, 15 minutes at a time every day! All subsequent researchers agree the findings in Heath's experiment regarding marijuana were of no value, because carbon monoxide poisoning and other factors were totally left out and had not been considered in the report. This study and others, like Dr. Gabriel Nahas' 1970s studies, tried to somehow connect the THC metabolites routinely found in the fatty tissue of human brains, reproductive organs, and other fatty areas of the body to the dead brain cells in the suffocated monkeys. Now, in 1999, 17 years have passed and not a single word of Dr. Heath's or Dr. Nahas' research has been verified! But their studies are still hauled out by the Partnership for a Drug Free America, the Drug Enforcement Administration, city and state narcotics bureaus, plus politicians and, in virtually all public instances, held up as scientific proof of the dangers of marijuana. This is U.S. government propaganda and disinformation at its worst! The public paid for these studies and has the right to the correct information and history being taught in our taxpayer sponsored schools. In 1996, Gabriel Nahas, in France, sued Mishka, the translator of the French edition of this book, "L'Emperor est Nu!", for damages. Mishka wrote that Nahas' studies were viewed by the world as garbage. The French court, upon hearing all the testimony by Nahas, and after Nahas had spent an quivalent of tens of thousands of American dollars on legal fees, awarded him its highest insult: one franc, the equivalent of approximately 15 cents American for damages, and no legal fees! Lingering THC Metabolites The Hype: It Stays in Your System for 30 Days The government also claimed that since "THC metabolites" stay in the body's fatty cells for up to 30 days after ingestion, just one joint was very dangerous; inferring that the long range view of what these THC metabolites eventually could do to the human race could not even be guessed and other pseudoscientific double-talk (e.g., phrases like: "might be," "could mean," "possibly," "perhaps," etc.)* * "May, might, could, and possibly are not scientific conclusions." Dr. Fred Oerther, M.D., September 1986. The Facts: Government's Own Experts Say That Metabolites Are Non-Toxic, Harmless Residue We interviewed three doctors of national reputation either currently working (or having worked) for the U.S. government on marijuana research: - Dr. Thomas Ungerlieder, M.D., UCLA, appointed by Richard Nixon in 1969 to the President's Select Committee on Marijuana, re-appointed by Ford, Carter, and Reagan, and currently head of California's "Marijuana Medical Program;" - Dr. Donald Tashkin, UCLA, M.D., for the last 29 years the U.S. government's and the world's leading marijuana researcher on pulmonary functions; and - Dr. Tod Mikuriya, M.D., former national administrator and grant distributor of the U.S. government's marijuana research programs in the late 1960s. In effect these doctors said that the active ingredients in THC are used-up in the first or second pass through the liver. The leftover THC metabolites then attach themselves, in a very normal way, to fatty deposits, for the body to dispose of later, which is a safe and perfectly natural process. Many chemicals from foods, herbs, and medicines do this same thing all the time in your body. Most are not dangerous and THC metabolites show less toxic* potential than virtually any known metabolic leftovers in your body! * The U.S. government has also known since 1946 that the oral dose of cannabis required to kill a mouse is about 40,000 times the dose required to produce typical symptoms of intoxication. (Mikuriya, Tod, Marijuana Medical Papers, 1976; Loewe, journal of Pharmacological and Experimental Therapeutics, October, 1946.) THC metabolites left in the body can be compared to the ash of a cigarette: The inert ingredient left over after the active cannabinoids have been metabolized by the body. These inert metabolites are what urinary analysis studies show when taken to discharge military or factory or athletic personnel for using, or being in the presence of cannabis within the last 30 days. Lung Damage Studies The Hype: More Harmful Than Tobacco According to the American Lung Association, cigarettes and tobacco smoking related diseases kill more than 430,000 Americans every year. Fifty million Americans smoke, and 3,000 teens start each day. The Berkeley carcinogenic tar studies of the late 1970s concluded that "marijuana is one-and-a-half times more carcinogenic than tobacco." The Fact: Not One Documented Case of Cancer There are lung irritants involved in any smoke. Cannabis smoke causes mild irritation to the large airways of the lungs. Symptoms disappear when smoking is discontinued. However, unlike tobacco smoke, cannabis smoke does not cause any changes in the small airways, the area where tobacco smoke causes long term and permanent damage. Additionally, a tobacco smoker will smoke 20 to 60 cigarettes a day, while a heavy marijuana smoker may smoke five to seven joints a day, even less when potent high-quality flower tops are available. While tens of millions of Americans smoke pot regularly, cannabis has never caused a known case of lung cancer as of December 1997, according to America's foremost lung expert, Dr. Donald Tashkin of UCLA. He considers the biggest health risk to the lungs would be a person smoking 16 or more "large" spliffs a day of leaf/bud because of the hypoxia of too much smoke and not enough oxygen. Tashkin feels there is no danger for anyone to worry about potentiating emphysema "in any way" by the use of marijuana totally the opposite of tobacco. Cannabis is a complex, highly evolved plant. There are some 400 compounds in its smoke. Of these, 60 are presently known to have therapeutic value. Cannabis may also be eaten, entirely avoiding the irritating effects of smoke. However, four times more of the active ingredients of smoked cannabis are absorbed by the human body than when the same amount is eaten. And the prohibition inflated price of black market cannabis, combined with harsh penalties for cultivation, prevent most persons from being able to afford the luxury of a less efficient, though healthier, means of ingestion. Lab Studies Fail to Reflect the Real World Studies have proven that many of the carcinogens in cannabis can be removed by using a water pipe system. Our government omitted this information and its significance when speaking to the press. At the same time politicians outlawed the sale of water pipes, labeling them "drug paraphernalia." How Rumors Get Started In 1976, Dr. Tashkin, M.D., UCLA, sent a written report to Dr. Gabriel Nahas at the Rheims, France, Conference on "Potential Cannabis Medical Dangers". That report became the most sensationalized story to come out of this negative world conference on cannabis. This surprised Tashkin, who had sent the report to the Rheims conference as an afterthought. What Tashkin reported to the Rheims conference was that only one of the 29 pulmonary areas of the human lung studied the large air passageway Did he find marijuana to be more of an irritant (by 15 times) than tobacco. This figure is insignificant, however, since Tashkin also notes that tobacco has almost no effect on this area. Therefore, 15 times almost nothing is still almost nothing. in any event, cannabis has a positive or neutral effect in most other areas of the lung. (See chapter 7, "Therapeutic Uses of Cannabis.") (Tashkin, Dr. Donald, UCLA studies, 1969-83; UCLA Pulmonary Studies, 1969-95.) Afterwards in 1977, the U.S. government resumed funding for ongoing cannabis pulmonary studies which it had cut two years earlier when Tashkin reported encouraging therapeutic results with marijuana/lung studies. But now the government limited funding only to research to the large air passageway. We have interviewed Dr. Tashkin dozens of times. In 1986 I asked him about an article he was preparing for the New England Journal of Medicine, indicating that cannabis smoke caused as many or more pre-cancerous lesions as tobacco in "equal" amounts. Most people do not realize, nor are the media told, that any tissue abnormality (abrasion, eruption, or even redness) is called a pre-cancerous lesion. Unlike lesions caused by tobacco, the THC-related lesions contain no radioactivity. We asked Tashkin how many persons had gone on to get lung cancer in these or any other studies of long-term cannabis-only smokers (Rastas, Coptics, etc.) Sitting in his UCLA laboratory, Dr. Tashkin looked at me and said, "That's the strange part. So far no one we've studied has gone on to get lung cancer." "Was this reported to the press?" "Well, it's in the article," Dr. Tashkin said. "But no one in the press even asked. They just assumed the worst." His answer to us was still that not one single case of lung cancer in someone who only smoked cannabis, has ever been reported. It should be remembered that he and other doctors had predicted 20 years ago, their certainty that hundreds of thousands of marijuana smokers would by now (1997) have developed lung cancer. Another Fact: Emphysema Suffers Benefit During a later interview, Tashkin congratulated me on the tip I'd given him that marijuana used for emphysema produced good results among persons we knew. He laughed at me originally, because he had presumed that marijuana aggravated emphysema, but after reviewing his evidence found that, except in the rarest of cases, marijuana was actually of great benefit to emphysema suffers due to the opening and dilation of the bronchial passages. And so the relief reported to us by cannabis smoking emphysema patients was confirmed. Marijuana smoke is not unique in its benefits to the lungs. Yerba Santa, Colt's foot, Horehound, and other herbs have traditionally been smoked to help the lungs. Tobacco and its associated dangers have so prejudiced persons against "smoking" that most persons believe cannabis smoking to be as or more dangerous than tobacco. With research banned, these public health and safety facts are not readily available. In December 1997, we asked Dr. Tashkin again, and he unequivocably stated that "marijuana does not cause or potentiate emphysema in any way." In addition, there has not been one case of lung cancer ever attributed to smoking cannabis. . . . And So On Most of the anti-marijuana literature we have examined does not cite as much as one single source for us to review. Others only refer to DEA or NIDA. The few studies we have been able to track down usually end up being anecdotal case histories, artificial groupings of data, or otherwise lacking controls and never replicated. Reports of breast enlargement, obesity, addiction, and the like all remain unsubstantiated, and are given little credence by the scientific community. Other reports, like the temporary reduction in sperm count, are statistically insignificant to the general public, yet get blown far out of proportion when presented by the media. Still others, like the handful of throat tumors in the Sacramento area and the high rate of injuries reported in a Baltimore trauma unit are isolated clusters that run contrary to all other statistics and have never been replicated. The spurious results of Heath, Nahas, and the pregnant mice and monkey studies at Temple University and UC Davis (where they injected mice with synthetic third-cousin analogues of THC) are now discredited in the body of scientific and medical literature. Though these studies are not used in scientific discourse, mountains of DEA and pharmaceutical company-sponsored literature about the long-term possible effects of these metabolites on the brain and reproduction still goes to parent groups as if they were brand new studies. This disinformation is still very much alive in U.S. government, DEA, DARE, and PDFA reports. (Read the 1982 N.I.H.; the National Academy of Science's evaluation on past studies; and the Costa Rica report, 1980.) No Harm to Human Brain or Intelligence Hemp has been used in virtually all societies since time immemorial as a work motivator and to highlight and renew creative energies. Naha's Prescription for Bloated Police Budges Incredibly, a famous study which found that cannabis reduces tumors (see Chapter 7), was originally ordered by the Federal Government on the premise that pot would hurt the immune system. This was based on the "Reefer Madness" studies done by the disreputable Dr. Gabriel Nahas of Columbia University in 1972. This is the same Dr. Nahas who claimed his studies showed pot created chromosome, testosterone (male hormone) damage, and countless other horrible effects which suggested the breaking down of the immune system. Nahas' background is in the OSS/CIA and later the U.S. where he worked closely with Lyndon LaRouche and Kurt Waldheim. In 1998, Nahas is still the darling favorite of the DEA and NIDA (National Institute on Drug Abuse) yet no anti-marijuana studies of Nahas' have every been replicated in countless other research attempts. Columbia University specifically disassociated itself from Nahas' marijuana research in a specially called press conference in 1975! Old, discredited Nahas studies are still trotted out by the Drug Enforcement Administration today, and deliberately given to unknowledgeable parents' groups, churches, and PTAs as valid research regarding the evils of pot. The dissemination of Nahas'* dangerous horror stories is paid for with your tax dollars, even years after the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 1976 specifically forbade Nahas from getting another penny of U.S. government money for cannabis studies because of his embarrassing research in the early 1970s. * Nahas, in December 1983, under ridicule from his peers and a funding cut-off from NIDA renounced all his old THC metabolite build-up and unique chromosome petri dish tissue damage studies, conclusions, and extrapolations. Yet the DEA, NIDA, VISTA, the "War on Drugs," and now-deceased writer Peggy Mann (in Reader's Digest articles and her book Marijuana Alert, wilth foreward by Nancy Reagan) have used these discredited studies on parents' groups such as Parents for a Drug Free Youth, etc., often with Nahas as a highly paid guest lecturer, without a word of how his studies are really considered by this peers. This, we assume, is done to scare parents, teachers, legislators and judges, using scientific terminology and bogus non-clinical statistics, ultimately aimed at selling more urine-testing equipment. Therefore, more profits are created for the drug-rehabilitation clinics and their staffs of professionals; and to maintain funding for the DEA, local police, judicial, penal, corrections and other government pork barrel, police state interests. The "War on Drugs" is big money, so the shameless petitioning for more police and more jail cells continues. And we still have thousands of judges, legislators, police, Reader's Digest readers, and parents who have for years used and cited Nahas' studies in particular as the prime reasons to continue these unjust laws and to jail millions of Americans over the last decade. The DEA, after Nahas' 1983 waffling renouncement, consciously and criminally continues to use his studies to polarize ignorant judges, politicians, press, and parent groups, who are unaware of Nahas' denouncement. These groups trust the government to tell them the truth their tax dollars paid for. Most of the media, press, and television commentators still use Nahas' 1970s, unreplicated studies as gospel, and much of the frightening folklore and street myths taht are whispered around school yards spring from the deceitful "scientist's" work. Refuted and never replicated results are still taught, while the honest researcher faces prison if he attempts to test any thoughts about the medical use of cannabis. In fact, using Nahas' refuted and unreplicated synthetic THC petri dish studies on the immune system, hysterical Families for Drug Free Youth, or "Just Say No" organizations have gotten the press to say marijuana could cause AIDS - which has no basis whatsoever, but the press published all this rhetoric creating more Reefer Madness! Gabriel Nahas, in 1998, is living in Paris and goes around Europe teaching as gospel the same old lies to less informed Europeans. When asked to debate us (H.E.M.P.) on cannabis before the world press on June 18, 1993 in Paris, he first enthusiastically accepted until he found out that we would be speaking on all aspects of the hemp plant (e.g. paper, fiber, fuel, medicine). Then he declined, even though we met all of his requirements. Radioactive Tobacco: The Untold Story Tobacco smoking kills more persons each year than AIDS, heroin, crack, cocaine, alcohol, car accidents, fire, and murder combined. Cigarette smoking is as addictive as heroin, complete with withdrawal symptoms, and the percentage of relapses (75%) is the same as for "kicking" cocaine and heroin users. It is far and away the number one cause of preventable death in the U.S. today. Tobacco smokers have ten times the lung cancer of non-smokers, twice the heart disease, and are three times more likely to die of heart disease if they do develop it. Yet tobacco is totally legal, and even receives the highest U.S. government farm subsidies of any agricultural product in America, all the while being our biggest killer! What total hypocrisy! In the U.S. one in seven deaths are caused by smoking cigarettes. Women should know that lung cancer is more common than breast cancer in women who smoke and that smoking on the pill increases cancer and heart risks dramatically. Seven million dollars a day promotes the tobacco business, and it is estimated that the cigarette industry needs about 3,000 new smokers a day to replace those who quit or die each day from smoking. Kentucky's principal business and agriculture for 100 years (until 1890) was Kentucky's principal business and agriculture for 100 years (until 1890) was the healthful, versatile, and useful cannabis hemp. It has since been replaced by non-edible, non-fibrous, soil-depleting tobacco, which is grown in soil fertilized with radioactive materials. U.S. government studies have show that a pack-and-a-half of tobacco cigarettes per day over a year for just one year is the equivalent to your lungs of what some 300 chest x-rays (using the old, pre-1980s slow x-ray film and without using any lead protection) are to your skin. But while an x-ray dissipates its radioactivity instantly, tobacco has a radioactive half-life that will remain active in the lungs for 21.5 years. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop said on national television that radioactivity contained in tobacco leaves is probably responsible for most tobacco-related cancer. No radioactivity exists in cannabis tars. (National Center for Atmospheric Research, 1964; American Lung Assn.; Dr. Joseph R. DiFranza, U. of Mass. Medical Center; Reader's Digest, March 1986; Surg. Gen. C. Everett Koop, 1990.) Some Studies the Feds Don't Talk About The Coptic Study (1981) No Harm to Human Brain or Intelligence Hemp has been used in virtually all societies since time immemorial as a work motivator and to highlight and renew creative energies. (Jamaican study; Coptic study; Costa Rican study; Vedas; Dr. Vera Rubin, Research Institute for the Study of Man; et al) In 1981, a study showed that 10 of American's heaviest pot smokers (from the Coptic religion and residing in Florida) actually believed that using 16 huge high potency spliffs* a day had improved their minds somewhat over a period of 10 years. They were studied by Drs. Ungerlieder and Shaeffer (UCLA) and who showed absolutely no brain differences between them and non-smokers nor did it confirm any increase in IQ that the Coptics had claimed. * One spliff is generally equal to five average American joints. Longer Life, Fewer Wrinkles Most studies (matched populations, past and present) indicate that everything else being equal an average American pot smoker will live longer than his counterpart who does no drugs at all; with fewer wrinkles, and generally less stress thereby having fewer illnesses to upset the immune system, and being a more peaceful neighbor. (Costa Rican and Jamaican Studies) Jamaican Studies (1968-74, 1975) Definite Benefits For Marijuana Smokers The most exhaustive study of hemp smoking in its natural setting is probably Ganja in Jamaica A Medical Anthropological Study of Chronic Marijuana Use by Vera Rubin and Lambros Comitas (1975; Mouton & Co., The Hague, Paris/Anchor Books, NY). The Jamaican study, sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Center for Studies of Narcotic and Drug Abuse, was the first project in medical anthropology to be undertaken and is the first intensive, multidisciplinary study of marijuana use and users to be published. From the Jamaican Study introduction: "Despite its illegality, ganja use is pervasive, and duration and frequency are very high; it is smoked over a longer period in heavier quantities with greater THC potency than in the U.S. without deleterious social or psychological consequences. The major difference is that both use and expected behaviours are culturally conditioned and controlled by well established tradition." "No impairment of physiological, sensory and perceptual-motor performance, tests of concept formation, abstracting ability, and cognitive style and test of memory." Positive Social Attitudes The study outlines the positive reinforcement given socially to ganja smokers in Jamaica, the universal praise for the practice among users, who smoke it as a work motivator. Subjects described the effects of smoking making them "brainier", lively, merry, more responsible and conscious. They reported it was good for meditation and concentration, and created an general sense of well-being and self-assertiveness. No Link to Criminal Behavior Vera Rubin and her colleagues found no relation of cannabis to crime (except marijuana busts), no impairment of motor skills, and smokers and nonsmokers alike had identical extroversion scores with no difference in work records or adjustment. Heavy use of ganja was not found to curtail the motivation to work. From the psychological assessment the smokers seemed to be more open in their expressions of feeling, somewhat more carefree, and somewhat more distractable. There was no evidence of organic brain damage or schizophrenia. No Physiological Deterioration Marilyn Bowman, in a battery of psychological tests on chronic cannabis users in Jamaica in 1972, found "no impairment of physiological, sensory and perceptual-motor performance, tests of concept formation, abstracting ability and cognitive style and tests of memory." These Jamaicans had smoked anywhere from six to 31 years (16.6 mean average) and the average age at the first puff was at 12 years and six months. In the 1975 study between users and non-users, no difference was found in plasma testosterone, no difference in total nutrition, slightly higher performance on the intelligence sub-tests (not statistically significant), and "a basic measure of cell-mediated immunity Ú was no less vigorous in the users" Finally, "Users in our matched pair sample smoked marijuana in addition to as many tobacco cigarettes as did their partners. Yet their airways were, if anything, a bit healthier than their matches. "We must tentatively conclude either that marijuana has no harmful effects on such passages or that it actually offers some slight protection against the harmful effects of tobacco smoke. Only further research will clarify which, if either, is the case." No "Stepping Stone"/Gateway Effect As to the stepping-stone or gateway drug charges leveled against cannabis: "The use of hard drugs is as yet virtually unknown among working class Jamaicans no one in the study (Rubin's) had ever taken any narcotics, stimulants, hallucinogens, barbiturates or sleeping pills" In America during the late 1800s cannabis was used in treating addiction. Opiate, chloral hydrate, and alcohol addicts were successfully treated with potent cannabis extracts. Some patients recovered with less than a dozen doses of cannabis extract.1 Likewise, smoking cannabis has been found to be valuable in modern alcohol addiction treatment.2 Costa Rican Study (1980) The Jamaican results were largely confirmed by another Carribean study, the 1980 Cannabis in Costa Ricah - A Study in Chronic Marijuana Use edited by William Carter for the Institute for Study of Human Issues. (ISHI, 3401 Science Center, Philadelphia.) Again researchers found no palpable damage to the native population's chronic cannabis smokers. Alcoholic social problems, so evident on neighboring cannabis-free islands, are not found in Costa Rica. This study makes clear that socially approved ganja use will largely replace or mitigate the use of alcohol (rum) if available. The Amsterdam Model Since adopting a policy of tolerance and non-prosecution of cannabis/hashish smokers (it is available in cafes and bars) and rehabilitation and diversion programs for hard drug users, Holland has seen a substantial reduction in cannabis consumption among teenagers2 and a 33% drop in the number of heroin addicts. The strategy of separating cannabis sales from hard drug dealers by bringing pot above-ground has been quite successful. (L.A. Times, August 1989). In 1998, despite constant pressure from the U.S. government and the DEA, the Dutch government has totally refused to recriminalize marijuana! Footnotes: 1. "Cannabis Indica as an Anodyne and Hypnotic," J.B. Mattison, M.D., The St. Louis Medical and Surgical Journal, vol. LVI, no. 5, Nov. 1891, pg 265-271, reprinted in Marijuana: The Medical Papers, Tod Mikuriya, M.D. 2. "Cannabis Substitution: An Adjunctive Therapeutic Tool in the Treatment of Alcoholism," Tod H. Mikuriya, M.D., Medical Times, vol. 98, no. 4, April, 1970, reprinted in Marijuana Medical Papers, Tod Mikuriya, M.D.) More Prohibitionist Deceptions Scientific American reported in 1990: "The alarming statistics, cited by testing advocates, to demonstrate the high costs of drug abuse . . . do not always accurately reflect the research on which they are based. In fact, some of the data could be used to 'prove' that drug use has negligible or even beneficial effects." (March 1990, page 18) One of the examples given is the often cited statistic former president George Bush utlized in 1989: "Drug abuse among American workers costs businesses anywhere from $60 billion to $100 billion a year in lost productivity, absenteeism, drug-related accidents, medical claims and theft." Yet according to a 1989 assessment by NIDA, all such claims derive from a single study that grew out of a 1982 survey of 3,700 households. The Research Triangle Institute (RTI) found that households where at least one person admitted having used marijuana regularly reported average incomes 28 percent lower than average reported income of otherwise similar households. RTI researchers ascribed the income difference to "loss due to marijuana use." RTI then extrapolated costs of crime, health problems and accidents to arrive at a "cost to society of drug abuse" of $47 billion. The White House "adjusted" for inflation and population increases to provide the basis for Bush's statement. Yet the RTI survey also included questions about current drug use. The answers revealed no significant difference between income levels of households with current users of illegal drugs, including cocaine and heroin, and other households. Thus the same statistics "prove" that current use of hard drugs does not result in any "loss," in contrast to a single marijuana binge in the distant past! Official Corruption: Carlton Turner In all the research this author has done about the misapplication of public funds and trusts, nothing, it seems, compares with the either totally ignorant or willful manslaughter of fellow Americans by the bureaucrats and politicians of the following story: One Man & His Drug Scams The U.S. government policy, starting in the Nixon and Ford administrations and continuing under Carlton Turner* (Drug Czar under Reagan 1981-1986), allowed federal medical marijuana, supplied to the individual state marijuana medical programs, to consist only of the leaf of the marijuana plant, even though it's usually only one-third as strong as the bud and doesn't contain the same whole spectrum of the "crude drug," i.e. the THC and CBNs. * Prior to becoming Special White Hose Advisor (read: National Drug Czar) Carlton Turner, from 1971 to 1980, was the head of all U.S. government marijuana grown for drugs by reason of his position at the University of Mississippi. The U. of Mississippi Marijuana Research Program is directed by state charter to discover initiate or sort out the constituents of Thc a "simple" crude cannabis drug that works as a medicine then synthesize the substances with beneficial medicinal properties to attain their full potential for pharmaceutical companies. For example, the leaf's relief of ocular pressure for glaucoma patients is much shorter lasting and therefore unsatisfactory, compared to the bud. Also, the leaf sometimes gives smokers a headache. The federal government until 1986 used only the leaf. Turner said to the pharmaceutical companies and in interview, that leaf is all Americans would ever get although the bud works better. Still today in 1999, the seven legal marijuana users in the U.S. only get leaf, branch, and bud chopped up and rolled together. Although buds work better for chemotherapy, glaucoma, etc., the branches can be as toxic as smoking wood. Turner said, in 1986, that natural marijuana will "never" be given as a medicine and, as of April 1998, it still hasn't. (Except in California, where citizens successfully voted, in November 1996, to overrule the federal government on medical marijuana!) The Reasons Given: - Buds are too hard to roll through a cigarette machine. (Forget the 25 million Americans who do quite well at rolling bud everyday.) - By extracting compounds from the "crude drug" of the bud, there would be no pharmaceutical patents, therefore no profits. Therefore, his program would have worked against his former employers, the Mississippi University's legislative charter and funding. (Interviews by Ed Rosenthal for High Times Magazine; Dean Latimer, et al; National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, or NORML.) Although buds work better for chemotherapy, glaucoma, etc., Turner said they will "never" be given. It also became evident the famous marijuana 'munchies' (appetite stimulation) were not working for the cancer chemotherapy patients using federal leaf. And even though no studies have been allowed to compare leaf with bud, we know of doctors who unofficially recommended bud and watch their wasting cancer patients put on weight (NORML). Poisoning Pot Smokers In August and September, 1983, Turner went on national television to justify the illegal marijuana spraying (by plane) of paraquat in Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee by the DEA. He said it would teach a lesson to any kid who died from paraquat-poisoned pot. Turner was forced to resign after announcing his conclusions in public that marijuana caused homosexuality, the breakdown of the immune system, and, therefore, AIDS. Looking into the therapeutic potential of cannabis is the most controlled and discouraged research, but any tests pursuing negative or harmful effects of cannabis are promoted. Since these tests often backfire or are inconclusive, even this research is rare. Turner quoted "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" to show how jazz (rock) singers are eroding the America "he" loves with this hallucinogenic drug marijuana! Which he meant to stamp out. Phony Paraquat Kits During the 1978 Mexican marijuana paraquat scare, and while still a private citizen working for the state of Mississippi marijuana farm, this same Carlton Turner called High Times magazine to advertise a paraquat tester. Unknown to Turner, High Times was not accepting ads for any paraquat testers because all evidence showed the testers didn't work. Dean Latimer then a High Times associate editor, strung Turner along in virtually daily phone conversations for a month, listening to Turner talk about how much money Turner was going to make from sales of the device. High Times wanted to see a sample. When Turner delivered his prototype version of the paraquat test kit to High Times, it was a total "Rube Goldberg" type rip-off, "just like the dozen or so phony kits other companies tried to buy ad space for at this time," wrote Latimer in an article published in 1984. Turner apparently never thought High Times was ethical enough to check the contraption out. He assumed they would just take the ad money and run print the ad and make Turner rich. He didn't care if some kid died or was bilked out of money believing in his bogus paraquat test kit. After this attempted mail fraud, this man became President Reagan's national drug czar in 1981, recommended by George Bush and Nancy Reagan. A Wanton Disregard For Life Turner even said that he doesn't even care if hundreds of kids die from smoking pot the federal government has deliberately sprayed with paraquat. Then at the April 25, 1985, PRIDE conference in Atlanta, Georgia, with Nancy Reagan and 16 foreign First Ladies in attendance (including Imelda Marcos), Turner called for the death penalty for drug dealers. Turner was, after all, Reagan's, Bush's, and the pharmaceutical companies' own hired gun, who saw his entire mission as not against heroin, PCP, or cocaine, but to wipe out pot and jazz/rock music Carlton Turner was forced to resign after Newsweek magazine excoriated him October 27, 1986, in a large editorial sidebar. His resignation was a foregone conclusion after being lampooned in the Washington Post and elsewhere as no other public figure in recent memory for his conclusions (in public addresses) that marijuana smoking caused homosexuality, the breakdown of the immune system, and, therefore, AIDS. He resigned December 16, 1986. What should have been front page headline news was buried in the back pages during the Iran-contra scandal that exploded that week. Urine Testing Company After his resignation, Turner joined with Robert DuPont and former head of NIDA, Peter Bensinger, to corner the market on urine testing. They contracted as advisors to 250 of the largest corporations to develop drug diversion, detection, and urine testing programs. Soon after Turner left office, Nancy Reagan recommended that no corporation be permitted to do business with the Federal government without having a urine purity policy in place to show their loyalty. urine purity policy in place to show their loyalty. Just as G. Gordon Liddy went into high-tech corporate security after his disgrace, Carlton Turner became a rich man in what has now become a huge growth industry: urine-testing. This kind of business denies the basic rights of privacy, self-incrimination (Fifth Amendment) rights, unreasonable search and seizure, and the presumption of innocence (until proven guilty). Submission to the humiliation of having your most private body parts and functions observed by a hired voyeur is now the test of eligibility for private employment, or to contract for a living wage. Turner's new money-making scheme demands that all other Americans relinquish their fundamental right to privacy and self-respect. Bush Strikes Again President Ronald Reagan, at the urging of then Vice President George Bush, appointed Carlton Turner as the White House Drug (czar) Advisor in 1981. At conventions (1981-1986) of pharmaceutical companies and their lobbyist the American Chemical Manufacturers, Turner promised to continue the research ban on the 400 chemical compounds of cannabis. Bush managed to continue to direct this effort, simply by not allowing any grants for private or public research with a positive implication to be issued by NIDA or NIH, or approved any recent FDA applications unless they pursued negative results. As of this writing (July 1998) President Clinton's policy has remained the same. Comparison to Alcohol There are many terrible drug habits. The worst of which is alcohol, in both numbers of users and the anti-social behavior associated with extreme use. Alcoholism is the leading cause of teen-age deaths: 8,000 American teenagers are killed each year and 40,000 are maimed from mixing alcohol and driving. (MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving; SADD, Students Against Drunk Driving; NIDA, National Institute on Drug Abuse, etc.) In fact, U.S. government/police statistics confirm the following strange numbers: The mortality figure for alcohol use are 100,000 annually, compared with zero marijuana deaths in 10,000 years of consumption. From 40-50% of all murders and highway fatalities are alcohol related. In fact, highway fatalities that are alcohol related might be as high as 90%, according to the Chicago Tribune and L.A. Times. Alcohol is also indicated in the majority (69-80%) of all child rape/incest cases; wife beating incidents are in great majority (60-80%) alcohol influenced. Heroin is indicated in 35% of burglaries, robberies, armed robberies, bank robberies, grand theft auto, etc. And there were more than 600,000 arrests for simple marijuana possession in the U.S. in 1997 (up from 400,000 in 1992), according to the Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation.
 
Marijuana Is Safer Than Alcohol: It's Time To Treat It That Way



For decades, our federal government and supporters of marijuana prohibition have led people to believe that marijuana is so dangerous that it must be kept illegal at all costs. They have exaggerated its potential for harm, spread myths about its impact on society, and even spent hundreds of millions of tax dollars on TV ads designed to convince you that anyone who uses marijuana is a loser who sits around on the couch all day.

It is time to wipe the slate clean and take a closer look at the facts about marijuana. We are not here to tell you that it is entirely without harms — what product is? — or that it is some kind of miracle drug. We simply hope you will come to understand that it is far, far less harmful than what your government has told you.

The truth is that marijuana is widely used in a manner quite similar to alcohol. Most adults consume it while socializing with friends or relaxing after work. And while some consume it for its medical benefits, others use it for therapeutic purposes. For example, some consume it to alleviate arthritis, relieve a migraine, or because it helps them fall asleep and get a good night’s rest.

Most Americans would agree this is not “bad,” “wrong,” or “immoral” if it is done responsibly, just as it is not “bad," “wrong,” or “immoral” for an adult to drink a cocktail after work, a beer during a ballgame, or a glass of wine with dinner. Consuming marijuana is simply something that some adults choose to do, and some specifically choose to do it instead of having that cocktail, beer, or glass of wine. And for good reason. Marijuana is less toxic than alcohol, less addictive, less harmful to the body, and less likely to contribute to violent or reckless behavior.

Below are just a few facts that highlight the very different impacts of marijuana and alcohol on those who consume them and on the broader community.
Impact on the Consumer


  • Many people die from alcohol use. Nobody dies from marijuana use. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that more than 30,000 annual U.S. deaths are attributed to the health effects of alcohol (i.e. this figure does not include accidental deaths). On the other hand, the CDC does not even have a category for deaths caused by the health effects of marijuana. A study published in Scientific Reports in January 2015 found that the mortality risk associated with marijuana was approximately 114 times less than that of alcohol.
  • People die from alcohol overdoses. There has never been a fatal marijuana overdose. The official publication of the Scientific Research Society, American Scientist, reported that alcohol is one of the most toxic drugs and using just 10 times what one would use to get the desired effect could lead to death. Marijuana is one of – if not the – least toxic drugs, requiring thousands of times the dose one would use to get the desired effect to lead to death. This “thousands of times” is actually theoretical, since there has never been a case of an individual dying from a marijuana overdose. Meanwhile, the CDC attributes more than 1,600 U.S. deaths per year to alcohol poisoning.
  • The health-related costs associated with alcohol use far exceed those for marijuana use. Health-related costs for alcohol consumers are eight times greater than those for marijuana consumers, according to an assessment published in the British Columbia Mental Health and Addictions Journal. More specifically, the annual cost of alcohol consumption is $165 per user, compared to just $20 per user for marijuana. This should not come as a surprise given the vast amount of research that shows alcohol poses far more – and more significant – health problems than marijuana.
  • Alcohol use damages the brain. Marijuana use does not. Despite the myths we’ve heard throughout our lives about marijuana killing brain cells, it turns out that a growing number of studies seem to indicate that marijuana actually has neuroprotective properties. This means that it works to protect brain cells from harm. For example, a 2009 study found that teens who used marijuana as well as alcohol suffered significantly less damage to the white matter in their brains. Of course, what is beyond question is that alcohol damages brain cells.
  • Alcohol use is linked to cancer. Marijuana use is not. Alcohol use is associated with a wide variety of cancers, including cancers of the esophagus, stomach, colon, lungs, pancreas, liver and prostate. Marijuana use has not been conclusively associated with any form of cancer. In fact, a a 2009 study contradicted the long-time government claim that marijuana use is associated with head and neck cancers. It found that marijuana use actually reduced the likelihood of head and neck cancers. If you are concerned about marijuana being associated with lung cancer, you may be interested in the results of the largest case-controlled study everconducted to investigate the respiratory effects of marijuana smoking and cigarette smoking. Released in 2006, the study, conducted by Dr. Donald Tashkin at the University of California at Los Angeles, found that marijuana smoking was not associated with an increased risk of developing lung cancer. Surprisingly, the researchers found that people who smoked marijuana actually had lower incidences of cancer compared to non-users of the drug.
  • Alcohol is more addictive than marijuana. According to a 1998 report by Drs. Jack E. Henningfield of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and Neal L. Benowitz of the University of California at San Francisco, alcohol’s addiction potential is significantly greater than that of marijuana based on a number of indicators. A comprehensive federal study conducted by the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine arrived at a similar conclusion: "Millions of Americans have tried marijuana, but most are not regular users [and] few marijuana users become dependent on it … [A]lthough [some] marijuana users develop dependence, they appear to be less likely to do so than users of other drugs (including alcohol and nicotine), and marijuana dependence appears to be less severe than dependence on other drugs."
  • Alcohol use increases the risk of injury to the consumer. Marijuana use does not. Many people who have consumed alcohol or know others who have consumed alcohol would not be surprised to hear that it greatly increases the risk of serious injury. Research published in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, found that 36 percent of hospitalized assaults and 21 percent of all injuries are attributable to alcohol use by the injured person. Meanwhile, the American Journal of Emergency Medicine reported that lifetime use of marijuana is rarely associated with emergency room visits. According to the British Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, this is because: “Cannabis differs from alcohol … in one major respect. It does not seem to increase risk-taking behavior. This means that cannabis rarely contributes to violence either to others or to oneself, whereas alcohol use is a major factor in deliberate self-harm, domestic accidents and violence.”some research has even shown that marijuana use has been associated with a decreased risk of injury.
Back to top



Impact on the Community


  • Alcohol use contributes to aggressive and violent behavior. Marijuana use does not. Studies have repeatedly shown that alcohol, unlike marijuana, contributes to the likelihood of aggressive and violent behavior. An article published in the Journal of Addictive Behaviors reported that “alcohol is clearly the drug with the most evidence to support a direct intoxication-violence relationship,” whereas “cannabis reduces the likelihood of violence during intoxication.”
  • Alcohol use is a major factor in violent crimes. Marijuana use is not. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism estimates that 25-30% of violent crimes in the United States are linked to the use of alcohol. According to a report from the U.S. Dept. of Justice, that translates to millions of alcohol-related violent crimes per year. By contrast, the government does not even track violent acts specifically related to marijuana use, as the use of marijuana has not been associated with violence. (Of course, we should note that marijuana prohibition, by creating a widespread criminal market, isassociated with acts of violence.)
  • Alcohol use contributes to the likelihood of domestic abuse and sexual assault. Marijuana use does not. Alcohol is a major contributing factor in the prevalence of domestic violence and sexual assault. This is not to say that alcohol causes these problems; rather, its use makes it more likely that an individual prone to such behavior will act on it. For example, a study conducted by the Research Institute on Addictions found that among individuals who were chronic partner abusers, the use of alcohol was associated with significant increases in the daily likelihood of male-to-female physical aggression, but the use of marijuana was not. Specifically, the odds of abuse were eight times higher on days when men were drinking; the odds of severe abuse were 11 times higher. The website for the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN) highlights alcohol as the “most commonly used chemical in crimes of sexual assault” and provides information on an array of other drugs that have been linked to sexual violence. Given the fact that marijuana is so accessible and widely used, it is quite telling that the word “marijuana” does not appear anywhere on the page.
 
HMM!!!:angry::smh::angry::confused:




ROCKEFELLER DOMINATION OF EDUCATION


In the early 20th century both the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations were donating large sums of money to education and the social sciences. They supported, in particular, the National Education Association. By way of grants, they spent millions of dollars, money which was used to radically bend the traditionalist education system toward a new system that favored standardized testing over critical thinking, toward “scientific management” in schools. This was part of a calculated plan to make the schooling system benefit corporate America, at the expense of the American school child. Powerful foundations with private interests, such as the Ford Foundation, continue to support, and thereby influence the policy of, the NEA to this day.

Additionally, an unprecedented U.S. Congressional investigation into tax-exempt foundations identified the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations engagement in an agenda for vast population control. Norman Dodd, Research Director for the Congressional Committee, found this statement in the archives of the Carnegie endowment:

“The only way to maintain control of the population was to obtain control of education in the U.S. They realized this was a prodigious task so they approached the Rockefeller Foundation with the suggestion that they go in tandem and that the portion of education which could be considered as domestically oriented be taken over by the Rockefeller Foundation and that portion which was oriented to International matters be taken over by the Carnegie Endowment.”

The impact of promoting standardized testing remains to this day. “No Child Left Behind,” enacted in 2001, enforced yet even more standardized testing on US school children. It requires that all government-run schools receiving federal funding administer a state-wide standardized test to all students annually. NCLB has been widely criticized, the most common criticism being that it reduces effective instruction and student learning by causing states to lower achievement goals.
 
February 1938: Popular Mechanics Magazine: "NEW BILLION-DOLLAR CROP" February 1928: Mechanical Engineering Magazine:

"THE MOST PROFITABLE & DESIRABLE CROP THAT CAN BE GROWN" Modern technology was about to be applied to hemp production, making it the number one agricultural resource in America. Two of the most respected and influential journals in the nation, Popular Mechanics and Mechanical Engineering, forecast a bright future for American hemp. Thousands of new products creating millions of new jobs would herald the end of the Great Depression. Instead hemp was persecuted, outlawed and forgotten at the bidding of W.R. Hearst, who branded hemp the "Mexican killer weed, marihuana." As early as 1901 and continuing to 1937, the U.S. Department of Agriculture repeatedly predicted that, once machinery capable of harvesting, stripping and separating the fiber from the pulp was invented or engineered, hemp would again the America's number one farm crop. The introduction of G.W. Schlichten's decorticator in 1917 nearly fulfilled this prophesy. (See pages 13- 15 and Appendix.) The prediction was reaffirmed in the popular press when Popular Mechanics published its February, 1938 article, "Billion-Dollar Crop."The first reproduction of this article in over 50 years was in the original edition of this book. The article is reproduced here exactly as it was printed in 1938. Because of the printing schedule and deadline, Popular Mechanics prepared this article in Spring of 1937 when cannabis hemp for fiber, paper, dynamite and oil, was still legal to grow and was, in fact, and incredibly fast-growing industry. Also reprinted in this chapter is an excerpt from the Mechanical Engineering article about hemp, published the same month. It originated as a paper presented a year earlier at the February 26, 1937 Agricultural Processing Meeting of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New Brunswick, New Jersey. Reports from the USDA during the 1930s, and Congressional testimony in 1937, showed that cultivated hemp acreage had been doubling in size in America almost every year from the time it hit its bottom acreage, 1930 - when 1,000 acres were planted in the U.S. - to 1937 - when 14,000 acres were cultivated - with plans to continue to double that acreage annual in the foreseeable future. As you will see in these articles, the newly mechanized cannabis hemp industry was in its infancy, but well on its way to making cannabis America's largest agricultural crop. And, in light of subsequent developments (e.g. biomass energy technology, building materials, etc.), we now know that hemp is the world's most important ecological resource and therefore, potentially our planet's single largest industry. The Popular Mechanics article was the very first time in American history that the term "billion-dollar"* was ever applied to any U.S. agricultural crop! *Equivalent to $40-$80 billion now. Experts today conservatively estimate that, once fully restored in America, hemp industries will generate $500 billion to a trillion dollars per year, and will save the planet and civilization from fossil fuels and their derivatives - and from deforestation! If Harry Anslinger, DuPont, Hearst and their paid-for (know it or not, then as now) politicians had not outlawed hemp - under the pretext of marijuana (see Chapter Four, "Last Days of Legal Cannabis") - and suppressed hemp knowledge from our schools, researchers and even scientists; the glowing predictions in these articles would already have come true by now - and more benefits than anyone could then envision - as new technologies and uses continue to develop. As one colleague so aptly put it: "These articles were the last honest word spoken on hemp's behalf for over 40 years..." New Billion-Dollar Crop Popular Mechanics, February 1938 American farmers are promised new cash crop with an annual value of several hundred million dollars, all because a machine has been invented which solves a problem more than 6,000 years old. It is hemp, a crop that will not compete with other American products. Instead, it will displace imports of raw material and manufactured products produced by underpaid coolie and peasant labor and it will provide thousands of jobs for American workers throughout the land. The machine which makes this possible is designed for removing the fiber-bearing cortex from the rest of the stalk, making hemp fiber available for use without a prohibitive amount of human labor. Hemp is the standard fiber of the world. It has great tensile strength and durability. It is used to produce more than 5,000 textile products, ranging from rope to fine laces, and the woody "hurds" remaining after the fiber has been removed contains more than seventy-seven per cent cellulose, and can be used to produce more than 25,000 produces, ranging from dynamite to Cellophane. Machines now in service in Texas, Illinois, Minnesota and other states are producing fiber at a manufacturing cost of half a cent a pound, and are finding a profitable market for the rest of the stalk. Machine operators are making a good profit in competition with coolie-produced foreign fiber while paying farmers fifteen dollars a tone for hemp as it comes from the field. From the farmers' point of view, hemp is an easy crop to grow and will yield from three to six tons per acre on any land that will grow corn, wheat, or oats. It has a short growing season, so that it can be planted after other crops are in. It can be grown in any state of the union. The long roots penetrate and break the soil to leave it in perfect condition for the next year's crop. The dense shock of leaves, eight to twelve feet about the ground, chokes out weeds. Two successive crops are enough to reclaim land that has been abandoned because of Canadian thistles or quack grass. Under old methods, hemp was cut and allowed to lie in the fields for weeks until it "retted" enough so the fibers could be pulled off by hand. Retting is simply rotting as a result of dew, rain and bacterial action. Machines were developed to separate the fibers mechanically after retting was complete, but the cost was high, the loss of fiber great, and the quality of fiber comparatively low. With the new machine, known as a decorticator, hemp is cut with a slightly modified grain binder. It is delivered to the machine where an automatic chain conveyer feeds it to the breaking arms at the rate of two or three tons per hour. The hurds are broken into fine pieces which drop into the hopper, from where they are delivered by blower to a baler or to truck or freight car for loose shipment. The fiber comes from the other end of the machine, ready for baling. From this point on almost anything can happen. The raw fiber can be used to produce strong twine or rope, woven into burlap, used for carpet warp or linoleum backing or it may be bleached and refined, with resinous by-products of high commercial value. It can, in fact, be used to replace the foreign fibers which now flood our markets. Thousands of tons of hemp hurds are used every year by one large powder company for the manufacturer of dynamite and TNT. A large paper company, which has been paying more than a million dollars a year in duties on foreignmade cigarette papers, now is manufacturing these papers from American hemp grown in Minnesota. A new factory in Illinois is producing fine bond papers from hemp. The natural materials in hemp make it an economical source of pulp for any grade of paper manufactured, and the high percentage of alpha cellulose promises an unlimited supply of raw material for the thousands of cellulose products our chemists have developed. It is generally believed that all linen is produced from flax. Actually, the majority comes from hemp - authorities estimate that more than half of our imported linen fabrics are manufactured from hemp fiber. Another misconception is that burlap is made from hemp. Actually, its source is usually jute, and practically all of the burlap we use is woven by laborers in India who receive only four cents a day. Binder twine is usually made from sisal which comes from Yucatan and East Africa. All of these products, now imported, can be produced from home-grown hemp. Fish nets, bow strings, canvas, strong rope, overalls, damask tablecloths, fine linen garments, towels, bed linen and thousands of other everyday items can be grown on American farms. Our imports of foreign fabrics and fibers average about $200,000,000 per year; in raw fibers alone we imported over $50,000,000 in the first six months of 1937. All of this income can be made available for Americans. The paper industry offers even greater possibilities. As an industry it amounts to over $1,000,000,000 a year, and of that eighty per cent is imported. But hemp will produce every grade of paper, and government figures estimate that 10,000 acres devoted to hemp will produce as much paper as 40,000 acres of average pulp land. One obstacle in the onward march of hemp is the reluctance of farmers to try new crops. The problem is complicated by the need for proper equipment a reasonable distance from the farm. The machine cannot be operated profitably unless there is enough acreage within driving range and farmers cannot find a profitable market unless there is machinery to handle the crop. Another obstacle is that the blossom of the female hemp plant contains marijuana, a narcotic, and it is impossible to grow hemp without producing the blossom. Federal regulations now being drawn up require registration of hemp growers, and tentative proposals for preventing narcotic production are rather stringent. However, the connection of hemp as a crop and marijuana seems to be exaggerated. The drug is usually produced from wild hemp or locoweed which can be found on vacant lots and along railroad tracks in every state. If federal regulations can be drawn to protect the public without preventing the legitimate culture of hemp, this new crop can add immeasurably to American agriculture and industry. The Most Profitable and Desirable Crop Than Can be Grown Mechanical Engineering, February 26, 1937 "Flax and Hemp: From the Seed to the Loom" was published in the February 1938 issue of Mechanical Engineering magazine. It was originally presented at the Agricultural Processing Meeting of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers in New Brunswick, NY of February 26, 1937 by the Process Industries Division. Flax and Hemp:From the Seed to the Loom By George A. Lower This country imports practically all of its fibers except cotton. The Whitney gin, combined with improved spinning methods, enabled this country to produce cotton goods so far below the cost of linen that linen manufacture practically ceased in the United States. We cannot produce our fibers at less cost than can other farmers of the world.Aside from the higher cost of labor, we do not get as large production. For instance, Yugoslavia, which has the greatest fiber production per are in Europe, recently had a yield of 883 lbs. Comparable figures for other countries are Argentina, 749 lbs.; Egypt 616 lbs.; and India, 393 lbs.; while the average yield in this country is 383 lbs. To meet world competition profitably, we must improve our methods all the way from the field to the loom. Flax is still pulled up by the roots, retted in a pond, dried in the sun, broken until the fibers separate from the wood, then spun, and finally bleached with lye from wood ashes, potash from burned seaweed, or lime. Improvements in tilling, planting, and harvesting mechanisms have materially helped the large farmers and, to a certain degree, the smaller ones, but the processes from the crop to the yarn are crude, wasteful and land injurious. Hemp, the strongest of the vegetable fibers, gives the greatest production per acre and requires the least attention. It not only requires no weeding, but also kills off all the weeds and leaves the soil in splendid condition for the following crop. This, irrespective of its own monetary value, makes it a desirable crop to grow. In climate and cultivation, its requisites are similar to flax and, like flax, should be harvested before it is too ripe. The best time is when the lower leaves on the stalk wither and the flowers shed their pollen. Like flax, the fibers run out where leaf stems are on the stalks and are made up of laminated fibers that are held together by pectose gums. When chemically treated like flax, hemp yields a beautiful fiber so closely resembling flax that a high-power microscope is needed to tell the difference - and only then because in hemp, some of the ends are split. Wetting a few strands of fiber and holding them suspended will definitely identify the two because, upon drying, flax will be found to turn to the right or clockwise, and hemp to the left or counterclockwise. Before [World War I], Russia produced 400,000 tons of hemp, all of which is still hand-broken and hand-scutched. They now produce half that quantity and use most of it themselves, as also does Italy from whom we had large importations. In this country, hemp, when planted one bu. per acre, yields about three tons of dry straw per acre. From 15 to 20 percent of this is fiber, and 80 to 85 percent is woody material. The rapidly growing market for cellulose and wood flower for plastics gives good reason to believe that this hitherto wasted material may prove sufficiently profitable to pay for the crop, leaving the cost of the fiber sufficiently low to compete with 500,000 tons of hard fiber now imported annually. Hemp being from two to three times as strong as any of the hard fibers, much less weight is required to give the same yardage. For instance, sisal binder twine of 40-lb. tensile strength runs 450 ft. to the lb. A better twine made of hemp would run 1280 ft. to the lb. Hemp is not subject to as many kinds of deterioration as are the tropical fibers, and none of them lasts as long in either fresh or salt water. While the theory in the past has been that straw should be cut when the pollen starts to fly, some of the best fiber handled by Minnesota hemp people was heavy with seed. This point should be proved as soon as possible by planting a few acres and then harvesting the first quarter when the pollen is flying, the second and third a week or 10 days apart, and the last when the seed is fully matured. These four lots should be kept separate and scutched and processed separately to detect any difference in the quality and quantity of the fiber and seed. Several types of machine are available in this country for harvesting hemp. One of these was brought out several years ago by the International Harvester Company. Recently, growers of hemp in the Middle West have rebuilt regular grain binders for this work. This rebuilding is not particularly expensive and the machines are reported to give satisfactory service. Degumming of hemp is analogous to the treatment given flax. The shards probably offer slightly more resistance to digestion. On the other hand, they break down readily upon completion of the digestion process. And excellent fiber can, therefore, be obtained from hemp also. Hemp, when treated by a known chemical process, can be spun on cotton, wool, and worsted machinery, and has as much absorbency and wearing quality as linen. Several types of machines for scutching the hemp stalks are also on the market. Scutch mills formerly operating in Illinois and Wisconsin used the system that consisted of a set of eight pairs of fluted rollers, through which the dried straw was passed to break up the woody portion. From there, the fiber with adhering shards - or hurds, as they are called - was transferred by an operator to an endless chain conveyer. This carries the fiber past two revolving single drums in tandem, all having beating blades on their periphery, which beat off most of the hurds as well as the fibers that do not run the full length of the stalks. The proportion of line fiber to tow is 50% each. Tow or short tangled fibers then goes to a vibrating cleaner that shakes out some of the hurds. In Minnesota and Illinois, another type has been tried out. This machine consists of a feeding table upon which the stalks are placed horizontally. Conveyor chains carry the stalks along until they are grasped by a clamping chain that grips them and carries them through half of the machine. A pair of intermeshing lawnmower-type beaters are placed at a 45-degree angle to the feeding chain and break the hemp stalks over the sharp edge of a steel plate, the object being to break the woody portion of the straw and whip the hurds from the fiber. On the other side and slightly beyond the first set of lawnmower beaters is another set, which is placed 90-degrees from the first pair and whips out the hurds. The first clamping chain transfers the stalks to another to scutch the fiber that was under the clamp at the beginning. Unfortunately, this type of scutcher makes even more tow than the so-called Wisconsin type. This tow is difficult to reclean because the hurds are broken into long slivers that tenaciously adhere to the fiber. Another type passes the stalks through a series of graduated fluted rollers. This breaks up the woody portion into hurds about 3/4 inch long, and the fiber then passes on through a series of reciprocating slotted plates working between stationary slotted plates. Adhering hurds are removed from the fiber which continues on a conveyer to the baling press. Because no beating of the fiber against the grain occurs, this type of scutcher make only line fiber. This is then processed by the same methods as those for flax. Paint and lacquer manufacturers are interested in hempseed oil which is a good drying agent. When markets have been developed for the products now being wasted, seed and hurds, hemp will prove, both for the farmer and the public, the most profitable and desirable crop that can be grown, and one that can make American mills independent of importations. Recent floods and dust storms have given warnings against the destruction of timber. Possibly, the hitherto waste products of flax and hemp may yet meet a good part of that need, especially in the plastic field which is growing be leaps and bounds.


 
pmlogo.gif

pmbigttl.gif

American farmers are promised a new cash crop with an annual value of several hundred million dollars, all because a machine has been invented that solves a problem more than 6,000 years old.
It is hemp, a crop that will not compete with other American products. Instead, it will displace imports of raw material and manufactured products produced by underpaid coolie and peasant labor and it will provide thousands of jobs for American workers throughout the land.

The machine that makes this possible is designed for removing the fiber-bearing cortex from the rest of the stalk, making hemp fiber available for use without prohibitive amounts of human labor.

Hemp is the standard fiber of the world. It has great tensile strength and durability. It is used to produce more than 5,000 textile products, ranging from rope to fine laces, and the woody "hurds" remaining after the fiber has been removed contain more than 77 percent cellulose, which can be used to produce more than 25,000 products, ranging from dynamite to Cellophane.

Machines now in service in Texas, Illinois, Minnesota, and other states are producing fiber at a manufacturing cost of half a cent per pound, and are finding a profitable market for the rest of the stalk. Machine operators are making a good profit in competition with coolie-produced foreign fiber, while paying farmers $15 a ton for hemp as it comes from the field.

From the farmer's point of view, hemp is an easy crop to grow and will yield from three to six tons per acre on any land that will grow corn, wheat, or oats. It can be grown in any state of the Union. It has a short growing season, so that it can be planted after other crops are in. The long roots penetrate and break the soil to leave it in perfect conditionfor next year's crop. The dense shock of leaves, eight to twelve feet above the ground, chokes out weeds. Two successive crops are enough to reclaim land that has been abandoned because of Canadian thistles or quack grass.




Under old methods, hemp was cut and allowed to lie in the fields for weeks until it "retted" enough so that the fibers could be pulled off by hand. Retting is simply rotting as a result of dew, rain, and bacterial action. Machines were developed to separate the fibers mechanically after retting was complete, but the cost was high, the loss of fiber great, and the quality of fiber comparatively low.

With the new machine--known as a decorticator--hemp is cut with a slightly modified grain binder. It is delivered to the machine where an automatic chain conveyor feeds it to the breaking arms at a rate of two or three tons per hour. The hurds are broken into fine pieces that drop into the hopper, from where they are delivered by blower to a baler, or to a truck or freight car for loose shipment. The fiber comes from the other end of the machine, ready for baling.

pmsmlttl.gif



From this point on, almost anything can happen. The raw fiber can be used to produce strong twine or rope, woven into burlap, used for carpet warp or linoleum backing, or it may be bleached and refined, with resinous by-products of high commercial value. It can, in fact, be used to replace foreign fibers which now flood our markets.
Thousands of tons of hemp hurds are used every year by one large powder company for the manufacture of dynamite and TNT. A large paper company, which has been paying more than a million dollars a year in duties on foreign-made cigarette papers, now is manufacturing these papers from American hemp grown in Minnesota. A new factory in Illinois is producing bond paper from hemp. The natural materials in hemp make it an economical source of pulp for any grade of paper manufactured, and the high percentage of alpha cellulose promises an unlimited supply of raw material for the thousands of cellulose products our chemists have developed.

It is generally believed that all linen is produced from flax. Actually, the majority comes from hemp--authorities estimate that more than half of our imported linen fabrics are manufactured from hemp fiber. Another misconception is that burlap is made from hemp. Actually, its source is usually jute, and practically all of the burlap we use is woven from laborers in India who receive only four cents a day. Binder twine is usually made from sisal, which comes from the Yucatan and East Africa.

pmquote.gif
All of these products, now imported, can be produced from home-grown hemp. Fish nets, bow strings, canvas, strong rope, overalls, damask tablecloths, fine linen garments, towels, bed linen, and thousands of other everyday items can be grown on American farms. Our imports of foriegn fabrics and fibers average about $200 million per year; in raw fibers alone we imported over $50 million in the first six months of 1937. All of this income can be made available for Americans.

The paper industry offers even greater possibilities. As an industry it amounts to over $1 billion a year, and of that, 80 percent is imported. But hemp will produce every grade of paper and government figures estimate that 10,000 acres devoted to hemp will produce as much paper as 40,000 acres of average pulp land.

pmsmlttl.gif



One obstacle in the onward march of hemp is the reluctance of farmers to try new crops. The problem is complicated by the need for proper equipment a reasonable distance from the farm. The machine cannot be operated profitably unless there is enough acreage within driving range and farmers cannot find a profitable market unless there is machinery to handle the crop.
pmpict4.gif

Another obstacle is that the blossom of the female hemp plant contains marijuana, a narcotic, and it is impossible to grow hemp without producing the blossom. Federal regulations now being drawn up require registration of hemp growers, and tentative proposals for preventing narcotic production are rather stringent.
However, the connection of hemp as a crop and marijuana seems to be exaggerated. The drug is usually produced from wild hemp or locoweed, which can be found on vacant lots and along railroad tracks in every state. If federal regulations can be drawn to protect the public without preventing the legitimate culture of hemp, this vast new crop can add immeasurably to American agriculture and industry.
 
MARIJUANA MYTHS MARIJUANA MYTHS by Paul Hager Chair, ICLU Drug Task Force


1. Marijuana causes brain damage The most celebrated study that claims to show brain damage is the rhesus monkey study of Dr. Robert Heath, done in the late 1970s. This study was reviewed by a distinguished panel of scientists sponsored by the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences. Their results were published under the title, Marijuana and Health in 1982. Heath's work was sharply criticized for its insufficient sample size (only four monkeys), its failure to control experimental bias, and the misidentification of normal monkey brain structure as "damaged". Actual studies of human populations of marijuana users have shown no evidence of brain damage. For example, two studies from 1977, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) showed no evidence of brain damage in heavy users of marijuana. That same year, the American Medical Association (AMA) officially came out in favor of http://www.drugtext.org/sub/marmyt1.html (1 of 6)3/24/2004 8:51:05 AM MARIJUANA MYTHS decriminalizing marijuana. That's not the sort of thing you'd expect if the AMA thought marijuana damaged the brain.

2.
Marijuana damages the reproductive system This claim is based chiefly on the work of Dr. Gabriel Nahas, who experimented with tissue (cells) isolated in petri dishes, and the work of researchers who dosed animals with near-lethal amounts of cannabinoids (i.e., the intoxicating part of marijuana). Nahas' generalizations from his petri dishes to human beings have been rejected by the scientific community as being invalid. In the case of the animal experiments, the animals that survived their ordeal returned to normal within 30 days of the end of the experiment. Studies of actual human populations have failed to demonstrate that marijuana adversely affects the reproductive system.

3.
Marijuana is a "gateway" drug-it leads to hard drugs This is one of the more persistent myths. A real world example of what happens when marijuana is readily available can be found in Holland. The Dutch partially legalized marijuana in the 1970s. Since then, hard drug use-heroin and cocaine-have DECLINED substantially. If marijuana really were a gateway drug, one would have expected use of hard drugs to have gone up, not down. This apparent "negative gateway" effect has also been observed in the United States. Studies done in the early 1970s showed a negative correlation between use of marijuana and use of alcohol. A 1993 Rand Corporation study that compared drug use in states that had decriminalized marijuana versus those that had not, found that where marijuana was more available-the states that had decriminalized-hard drug abuse as measured by emergency room episodes decreased. In short, what science and actual experience tell us is that marijuana tends to substitute for the much more dangerous hard drugs like alcohol, cocaine, and heroin.

4.
Marijuana suppresses the immune system Like the studies claiming to show damage to the reproductive system, this myth is based on studies where animals were given extremely high-in many cases, near-lethal-doses of cannabinoids. These results have never been duplicated in human beings. Interestingly, two studies done in 1978 and one done in 1988 showed that hashish and marijuana may have actually stimulated the immune system in the people studied.

5.
Marijuana is much more dangerous than tobacco http://www.drugtext.org/sub/marmyt1.html (2 of 6)3/24/2004 8:51:05 AM MARIJUANA MYTHS Smoked marijuana contains about the same amount of carcinogens as does an equivalent amount of tobacco. It should be remembered, however, that a heavy tobacco smoker consumes much more tobacco than a heavy marijuana smoker consumes marijuana. This is because smoked tobacco, with a 90% addiction rate, is the most addictive of all drugs while marijuana is less addictive than caffeine. Two other factors are important. The first is that paraphernalia laws directed against marijuana users make it difficult to smoke safely. These laws make water pipes and bongs, which filter some of the carcinogens out of the smoke, illegal and, hence, unavailable. The second is that, if marijuana were legal, it would be more economical to have cannabis drinks like bhang (a traditional drink in the Middle East) or tea which are totally non-carcinogenic. This is in stark contrast with "smokeless" tobacco products like snuff which can cause cancer of the mouth and throat. When all of these facts are taken together, it can be clearly seen that the reverse is true: marijuana is much SAFER than tobacco.

6.
Legal marijuana would cause carnage on the highways Although marijuana, when used to intoxication, does impair performance in a manner similar to alcohol, actual studies of the effect of marijuana on the automobile accident rate suggest that it poses LESS of a hazard than alcohol. When a random sample of fatal accident victims was studied, it was initially found that marijuana was associated with RELATIVELY as many accidents as alcohol. In other words, the number of accident victims intoxicated on marijuana relative to the number of marijuana users in society gave a ratio similar to that for accident victims intoxicated on alcohol relative to the total number of alcohol users. However, a closer examination of the victims revealed that around 85% of the people intoxicated on marijuana WERE ALSO INTOXICATED ON ALCOHOL. For people only intoxicated on marijuana, the rate was much lower than for alcohol alone. This finding has been supported by other research using completely different methods. For example, an economic analysis of the effects of decriminalization on marijuana usage found that states that had reduced penalties for marijuana possession experienced a rise in marijuana use and a decline in alcohol use with the result that fatal highway accidents decreased. This would suggest that, far from causing "carnage", legal marijuana might actually save lives.

7.
Marijuana "flattens" human brainwaves This is an out-and-out lie perpetrated by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America. A few years ago, they ran a TV ad that purported to show, first, a normal human brainwave, and second, a flat brainwave from a 14-year-old "on marijuana". When researchers called up the TV networks to complain about this commercial, the Partnership had to pull it from the air. It seems that the Partnership faked the flat "marijuana brainwave". In reality, marijuana has the effect of slightly INCREASING alpha wave activity. Alpha waves are associated with meditative and relaxed states which are, in turn, often associated with human creativity. http://www.drugtext.org/sub/marmyt1.html (3 of 6)3/24/2004 8:51:05 AM MARIJUANA MYTHS

8.
Marijuana is more potent today than in the past This myth is the result of bad data. The researchers who made the claim of increased potency used as their baseline the THC content of marijuana seized by police in the early 1970s. Poor storage of this marijuana in un-air conditioned evidence rooms caused it to deteriorate and decline in potency before any chemical assay was performed. Contemporaneous, independent assays of unseized "street" marijuana from the early 1970s showed a potency equivalent to that of modern "street" marijuana. Actually, the most potent form of this drug that was generally available was sold legally in the 1920s and 1930s by the pharmaceutical company Smith-Klein under the name, "American Cannabis".

9.
Marijuana impairs short-term memory This is true but misleading. Any impairment of short-term memory disappears when one is no longer under the influence of marijuana. Often, the short-term memory effect is paired with a reference to Dr. Heath's poor rhesus monkeys to imply that the condition is permanent.

10.
Marijuana lingers in the body like DDT This is also true but misleading. Cannabinoids are fat soluble as are innumerable nutrients and, yes, some poisons like DDT. For example, the essential nutrient, Vitamin A, is fat soluble but one never hears people who favor marijuana prohibition making this comparison.

11.
There are over a thousand chemicals in marijuana smoke Again, true but misleading. The 31 August 1990 issue of the magazine Science notes that of the over 800 volatile chemicals present in roasted COFFEE, only 21 have actually been tested on animals and 16 of these cause cancer in rodents. Yet, coffee remains legal and is generally considered fairly safe.

12.
No one has ever died of a marijuana overdose This is true. It was put in to see if you are paying attention. Animal tests have revealed that extremely high doses of cannabinoids are needed to have lethal effect. This has led scientists to conclude that the ratio of the amount of cannabinoids necessary to get a person intoxicated (i.e., stoned) relative to the amount necessary to kill them is 1 to 40,000. In other words, to overdose, you would have to consume 40,000 times as much marijuana as you needed to get stoned. In contrast, the ratio for alcohol varies between 1 to 4 and 1 to 10. It is easy to see how upwards of 5000 people die from alcohol overdoses http://www.drugtext.org/sub/marmyt1.html (4 of 6)3/24/2004 8:51:05 AM MARIJUANA MYTHS every year and no one EVER dies of marijuana overdoses.
 
HOW CANNABIS COMPARES TO OTHER TREATMENTS Arthritis Medications

Nearly 100 medications are listed by the Arthritis Foundation website for use with arthritis or other related conditions, such as fibromyalgia, psoriasis, osteoporosis and gout. These medicines include aspirin, ibuprofen and other oral and topical analgesics that dull pain. The most commonly used analgesic, acetaminophen (aspirin-free Anacin, Excedrin, Panadol, Tylenol) is usually not associated with side effects, though long-term use of acetaminophen is thought to be one of the common causes of end-stage renal disease. To effectively control arthritis, aspirin must be taken in large, continuous doses (1000-5400 mg daily), which can cause stomach pain or damage; it is believed to cause more than 1,000 deaths annually in the United States. For that reason, some doctors prescribe one of several chemical variations referred to as nonacetylated salicylates, such as CMT, Tricosal, and Trilisate, which can cause deafness or ringing in the ears in large doses.

Much stronger analgesics are also prescribed for arthritis, sometimes along with acetominophen. These are: codeine (Dolacet, Hydrocet, Lorcet, Lortab, Vicodin); morphine (Avinza, Oramorph); oxycodone (Oxycontin, Roxicodone); propoxyphene (Percocet, Darvon, Darvocet) and tramadol (Ultram, Ultracet). These medicines can cause psychological and physical dependence, as well as constipation, dizziness, lightheadedness, mood changes, nausea, sedation, shortness of breath and vomiting. Taking high doses or mixing with alcohol can slow down breathing, a potentially fatal condition.

Analgesics don't treat the inflammation that can cause severe arthritis pain. For inflammation, steroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and newer COX-2 inhibitors are prescribed. Corticosteroids (Cortisone), prednisone and related medications can cause bruising, cataracts, elevated blood sugar, hypertension, increased appetite, indigestion, insomnia, mood swings, muscle weakness, nervousness or restlessness, osteoporosis, susceptibility to infection and thin skin.

Twenty NSAIDs are available with a doctor's prescription, with three of those also available over the counter. They are diclofenac (Arthrotec, Cataflam, Voltaren); diflunisal (Dolobid); etodolac (Lodine); fenoprofen calcium (Nalfon); flurbiprofen (Ansaid); ibuprofen (Advil, Motrin IB, Nuprin); indomethacin (Indocin); ketoprofen (Orudis); meclofenamate sodium (Meclomen); mefenamic acid (Ponstel); meloxicam (Mobic); nabumetone (Relafen); naproxen (Naprosyn, Naprelan); naproxen sodium (Anaprox, Aleve); oxaprozin (Daypro); piroxicam (Feldene); sulindac (Clinoril); and tolmetin sodium (Tolectin).

Side effects of NSAIDs include abdominal or stomach cramps, edema (swelling of the feet), pain or discomfort, diarrhea, dizziness, drowsiness or lightheadedness, headache, heartburn or indigestion, nausea or vomiting, gastric ulcers, stomach irritation, bleeding, fluid retention, and decreased kidney function. This is because NSAIDs act on arthritis by inhibiting prostaglandins, which protect the stomach lining, promote clotting of the blood, regulate salt and fluid balance, and maintain blood flow to the kidneys. The gastrointestinal complications of NSAIDS are the most commonly reported serious adverse drug reaction, though NSAIDs cause more than 7,600 annual deaths and 70,000 hospitalizations.

The newer group of arthritis drugs is known as cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors (COX-2), which include Celebrex, Bextra and Vioxx. These medications have the same side effects as NSAIDS, except they are less likely to cause bleeding stomach ulcers and susceptibility to bruising or bleeding.

Non-selective NSAIDS have been associated with an increased risk of congestive heart failure. Less is known or has been concluded about the cardio- vascular effects of COX-2 inhibitors, though a retrospective analysis of the risk of hospital admission for heart failure done by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences in Toronto, Canada suggests some may have serious side effects. The study of 130,000 older patients found that those using Vioxx had an 80% increased risk of hospital admission for congestive heart fail- ure. Those using non-selective NSAIDS had a 40% increased risk, and those using Celebrex had the same rate of heart failure as people who had never used NSAIDS.

Antipyretic and anti-inflammatory effects of NSAIDs can mask the signs and symptoms of infection. Their use can interfere with the pharmacologic con- trol of hypertension and cardiac failure in patients who take beta-adrener- gic antagonists, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, or diuretics. Long-term use may damage chondrocyte (cartilage) function. Only about 60% of patients will respond to any single NSAID. Approx- imately 10% of rheumatoid arthritis patients will not respond to any NSAID.

Biologic response modifiers such as adalimumab (Humira); etanercept (Enbrel); infliximab (Remicade), and anakinra (Kineret)) are prescribed to either inhibit or the supplement the immune system components called cytokines. Rare reports of lupus (with symptoms such as rash, fever and pleurisy) have been linked to treatment with adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab. Lupus symptoms resolve when the medication is stopped. Multiple sclerosis has rarely developed in patients receiving biologic response modifiers. Seizures have been reported with etanercept.
 
Cannabis or Marinol?

Those committed to the prohibition on cannabis frequently cite Marinol, a Schedule III drug, as the legal means to obtain the benefits of cannabis. However, Marinol, which is a synthetic form of THC, does not deliver the same therapeutic benefits as the natural herb, which contains at least another 60 cannabinoids in addition to THC.

Recent research conducted by GW Pharmaceuticals in Great Britain has shown that Marinol is simply not as effective for pain management as the whole plant; a balance of cannabinoids, specifically CBC and CBD with THC, is what helps patients most. In fact, Marinol is not labeled for pain, only appetite stimulation and nausea control. But studies have found that many severely nauseated patients experience difficulty in getting and keeping a pill down, a problem avoided by use of inhaled cannabis.

Clinical research on Marinol vs. cannabis has been limited by federal restrictions, but a New Mexico state research program conducted from 1978 to 1986 provided cannabis or Marinol to about 250 cancer patients for whom conventional medications had failed to control the nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy.

At a DEA hearing, a physician with the program testified that cannabis was clearly superior to both Chlorpromazine and Marinol for these patients. Additionally, patients frequently have difficulty getting the right dose with Marinol, while inhaled cannabis allows for easier titration and avoids the negative side effects many report with Marinol. As the House of Lords report states, "Some users of both find cannabis itself more effective."
 
Cannabis vs. Other Medications Cannabis:

By comparison, the side effects associated with cannabis are typically mild and are classified as "low risk." Euphoric mood changes are among the most frequent side effects. Cannabinoids can exacerbate schizophrenic psychosis in predisposed persons. Cannabinoids impede cognitive and psychomotor performance, resulting in temporary impairment. Chronic use can lead to the development of tolerance. Tachycardia and hypotension are frequently documented as adverse events in the cardiovascular system. A few cases of myocardial ischemia have been reported in young and previously healthy patients. Inhaling the smoke of cannabis cigarettes induces side effects on the respiratory system. Cannabinoids are contraindicated for patients with a history of cardiac ischemias. In summary, a low risk profile is evident from the literature available. Serious complications are very rare and are not usually reported during the use of cannabinoids for medical indications.
 
Cancer-fighting properties of cannabis

Recent scientific advances in the study of cannabinoid receptors and endocannabinoids have produced exciting new leads in the search for anti-cancer treatments. More than twenty major studies published between 2001 and 2006 have shown that the chemicals in cannabis known as cannabinoids have a significant effect fighting cancer cells. We now know cannabinoids arrest many kinds of cancer growths (brain, breast, leukemic, melanoma, phaeochromocytoma, etc.) through promotion of apoptosis (programmed cell death) that is lost in tumors, and by arresting angiogenesis (increased blood vessel production).

There is growing evidence of direct anti-tumor activity of cannabinoids, specifically CB1 and CB2 agonists, in a range of cancer types including brain (gliomas), skin, pituitary, prostate and bowel. The anti-tumor activity has led in laboratory animals and in-vitro human tissues to regression of tumors, reductions in vascularisation (blood supply) and metastases (secondary tumors), as well as the direct destruction of cancer cells (apoptosis). Indeed, research on the complex interactions of endogenous cannabinoids and receptors is leading to greater scientific understanding of the basic mechanisms by which cancers develop.

The findings of these studies are borne out by the anecdotal reports of such patients as Steve Kubby, whose cannabis use is credited with keeping rare, terminal cancers in a state of remission for decades beyond conventional expectations.
 
REMEMBER, it's up to you to inform your friends, family, neighbours and co-workers that we have been lied-to, cheated, relieved of freedoms, happiness, privacy, civil rights and liberties by the WOD.

Hemp prohibition is a political issue driven by big business interests and it's damn well time we turn these policies around through extreme civil-disobedience. Grow it everywhere, they can't get it all...

Hemp laws are immoral.
Hemp can save the forests, the planet and us.
Prohibition laws create crime and black markets.
Taxing drugs would pay for treatment of addicts.
350,000 people die every year from smoking tobacco.
150,000 people die every year from drinking alcohol.
0 people die every year from smoking pot.
Cannabis could potentially save .5 million lives every year in the US alone.
The CIA is the worlds' biggest cocaine dealer.
The CIA would rather you smoke crack than pot.
The War on Drugs is a campaign of fear and mind control; a war on civil liberties.
Stop political prison sentences in our time.
Stop the promotion of poisons and the prohibition of medicines.
Stop the lies.
Tell the truth.
 
A tool of domestic policy (1900-30)

In the United States cannabis was a freely available, socially acceptable, and widely used euphoriant and therapeutic agent until the end of the 1930s. This is attested by the fact that every edition of the official US Pharmacopoeia from 1850 to 1942 lists it as a safe remedy for a wide range of maladies.

The leaves of the female cannabis plant were first smoked in the western hemisphere in 1870, on the West Indian islands of Jamaica, the Bahamas, and Barbados. The custom was then brought to North America by Mexican and black sailors. The first written record of the use of marihuana in the United States dates from 1903 and comes from the Mexican community of Brownsville, Texas; the next dates from 1909, in the black community of Storeyville in New Orleans, which is regarded as the home of jazz. (82) After 1910 the use of marihuana began to spread into the communities of Mexican and black workers in Texas and Louisiana, and it later became associated with the jazz world, which facilitated its spread amongst Whites.

During the first decade of the twentieth century, the Mexicans and blacks who were living in the southern states under a harshly racist legal regime began to demand better living conditions.

Between 1884 and 1990, 3,500 documented deaths of black Americans were caused by lynchings; between 1900 and 1917, over 1,100 were recorded. The real figures were undoubtedly higher. It is estimated that one-third of these lynchings were for insolence, which might be anything from looking (or being accused of looking) at a white woman twice, to stepping on a white man's shadow, even looking a white man directly in the eye for more than three seconds, not going directly to the back of the trolley; etc. It was obvious to whites, marihuana caused Black and Mexican viciousness or they wouldn't dare be insolent; etc. Hundred of thousands of Blacks and Chicanos were sentenced from 10 days to 10 years mostly on local and state chain gangs for such silly crimes as we have just listed.(83)

In the circumstances, certain powerful economic factors realised that a ban on marihuana could be used as a means of marginalising and oppressing the underprivileged black, immigrant, and working-class communities and bringing them to heel, just as had been done in the past with the Chinese and the ban on opium smoking. Cannabis was not likely to prove an exception to the standard rule that penal control of a substance is a precondition for penal and political control of its users.

According to the racist propaganda that found fertile ground amongst the whites, "Mexicans and blacks
under marihuana's influence were demanding humane treatment, looking at white women, and asking
that their children be educated while the parents harvested sugar beets; and other insolent demands. (84)
By blaming marihuana for the black community's efforts to improve their situation, the whites could
justify all their own atrocities against them.

And so began the first smear campaigns against cannabis led by the Hearst Group's yellow press. Their
main target, of course, was the black and Mexican workers. The upshot was that various states (led by
Utah and California in 1915 and Colorado in 1917) adopted measures that criminalised possession and
use of cannabis and thus paved the way for a process of prohibition that grew all the more easily from
the 1920s onwards in the climate of repression created by the folly of alcohol prohibition (1920-33).

By 1917, penalties for using cannabis had been instituted for the first time in Egypt (1879), Greece (1890), and Jamaica (1913). The penalties were those applicable to a misdemeanour, were imposed for cannabis use only by the lower social classes, and were justified on the grounds that it was associated with unacceptable or objectionable social conduct (vagrancy, social parasitism, etc.). But two countries, which had a similar domestic policy of discrimination, began to adopt penal measures against cannabis on the grounds that it was necessary to stamp out `black insolence': South Africa (1911) and the United States (1915) were subsequently to lead the campaign for the prohibition of cannabis all over the world. (85)

However, until the early 1930s, which brought the technological and economic changes that necessitated cannabis prohibition for the benefit of the economic behemoths which controlled the new technologies, cannabis was a fundamental stabilising factor in the US economy and its products covered a wide range of everyday needs. This forced the federal government to adopt a Janus-faced policy towards cannabis in order both to shield the racist and economic expediencies served by the ban on marihuana in the Deep South and to promote the cultivation of cannabis in the north-eastern states by producing special Department of Agriculture leaflets exhorting farmers to intensify their activities in this particular sector of productions.(86)

The authorities and the medical community were well aware that cannabis and its derivatives were nonnarcotic therapeutic agents of enormous value. This is precisely why they were not included under the restrictions imposed by the Harrison Bill of 1914, which instituted controls over the supply of narcotic substances (opiates and cocaine) used for medical purposes. Between 1900 and 1920, American consumers were more interested in cannabis' therapeutic properties (which meant that cannabis products were legally prescribed for a host of physical and psychological dysfunctions right up until 1940) than in its euphoriant effects.

But during the period of alcohol prohibition, from 1920 to 1933, they began to show increasing interest in precisely these euphoriant effects, since cannabis was a cheap, harmless substitute for the alcohol they were no longer permitted to consume. So, `during the 1920s, marihuana tea pads - late-night smokeries similar to bars - operated in many large cities, including New York City', which were much like to the bars and coffee houses found in The Netherlands today.(87)
 
The system is built on lies and deceptions and fear!! The truth is hidden right in front of our faces!!

The witch-hunt (1946-60)


After the war, prohibition hysteria returned with a vengeance, drawing even greater strength from its
alliance with the reds-under-the-bed phobia, inflamed by the high noon of McCarthyism. Once again
cannabis became a `murderer of young people' and a `threat to the nation'.

From then on, for several decades, the Government and the powerful financial interests subjected society
to a systematic process of brainwashing by means of repeated campaigns against cannabis. The effect
was that "public attitudes towards the use of marihuana were generally marked by hysteria and
exaggerated claims of disastrous individual and social consequences of the use of the drug „(103)
Under the pressure applied by Harry Anslinger and the yellow press, the states began to institute
increasingly severe penal sanctions for mere possession of cannabis, and in some of them, indeed,
persecution reached fever pitch. In Louisiana, for instance, "the penalty is death on the first offence, but
if the jury recommends mercy, then there is a mandatory sentencing of thirty-three years to life
imprisonment. Thus, in Louisiana a twenty-one-year-old man who is caught giving some pot to his
twenty-year-old girlfriend may be legally executed" (104) while Texas instituted "sentences up to life in
prison with ten and twenty-year sentences because they were caught with a few marihuana cigarettes.
(105)

In the years following the Marihuana Tax Act, Anslinger and the FBN carried out numerous propaganda
campaigns and gradually instilled public opinion with a completely distorted image of cannabis based on
three fundamental misconceptions: that the use of cannabis impels people to commit violent crimes; that
it leads to the use of heroin; and that it poses an enormous threat to society.

The demonising and terrorising activities carried out by the FBN, which acted like a state within a state
as far as public life was concerned, stifled at birth any inclination to resist the anti-drug policy of
Anslinger and his bosses. An attempt by the medical profession to react against the FBN's totalitarianism
ended in an ignominious compromise: the AMA requested that the FBN not be allowed to remove
cannabis from its therapeutic arsenal after 1937, and Anslinger, being responsible for seeing that the
Marihuana Tax Act was observed, responded with a stream of prosecutions of doctors. On the FBN's
initiative, in 1939 alone 3,000 members of the AMA were prosecuted for illegally prescribing
marihuana. The blackmail campaign had the desired effect and the medical profession reached a
compromise with Anslinger: over the next ten years (1939-49), the FBN instigated legal proceedings
against only three doctors, while the official organs of the medical profession uttered never a word on
the subject of cannabis. (106)

It is a long-standing truth that has been confirmed over and over again in the course of history that,
whenever professional repressionists and the members of the prohibition brigade are confronted with an

obvious discrepancy between the mendacity of those in power on the one hand and the conclusions of
experience and scientific knowledge on the other, they typically adopt a schizophrenic double-talk,
which is extremely alarmist when addressed to the public and moderately frank when addressed to
specialists.

The professional repressionists (of other people's liberties) used this ploy ad nauseam in order to
negotiate the obstacle of the manifest discrepancy between the stereotype of cannabis projected by the
theorists of its persecution and the scientific facts adduced by many intellectuals, scientists, and
politicians.

During House hearings, the following exchange between the Michigan representative John Dingell and
Harry Anslinger, Director of the FBN, is revealing:

Mr Dingell: I am just wondering whether the marihuana addict graduates into a heroin, an opium, or a
cocaine user.

Mr Anslinger No, sir; I have not heard of a case of that kind. I think it is an entirely different class. The
marihuana addict does not go in that direction.(107)
 
:hithead::pain:

Back to the past: `Just say no' (1981-8)

After 1978 the political climate in the United States began to change. Energy problems and the recession
were causing unrest; people were starting to turn towards the champions of neoliberalism; and
developments abroad, as the balance of power the United States had engineered in various vital areas of
the planet was upset (in the Middle East, for instance, with the establishment of a theocratic regime in
Iran), were engendering an alarm and insecurity that made the electorate increasingly conservative in its
attitudes. This found political expression in 1980, when Ronald Reagan was elected President of the
United States.

RONALD REAGAN, a former film actor, an informer for the secret services, a betrayer of many of his
colleagues to the Committee of Un-American Activities, and an associate of the notorious morphineaddicted Senator McCarthy and his assistant Richard Nixon during the Cold War, proved to be the right man to express the new political climate that was developing at that time in the United States.

During his first term (1981-4), Reagan tried to impress public opinion by implementing a repressive
policy that was ostensibly intended to reduce the supply of illicit substances. Its key aims were:
1) To apply pressure on various foreign governments to make their drug legislation stricter.(146)
2) To increase the powers of the DEA and reduce the `legal obstacles' to its activities.
3) To extend `Operation Paraquat' by spraying cannabis and opium poppy plantations not only in
neighbouring countries but within the United States too.
4) To increase the budget for equipping other countries' drug task forces.
5) To continue the financial aid programmes for replacing poppy, coca, and cannabis plantations.
6) To attempt to force scientists to destroy the protocols, documents, and findings of all the
investigations into the biological effects of marihuana conducted between 1966 and 1976 with
government permission and funding.

Whichever way one looks at this doomed policy, which increased rather than decreased supply, it did
have one very special and historically unprecedented aspect; and that was the cold-blooded murder of
marihuana users who unknowingly smoked grass that the DEA had sprayed with Paraquat. The long arm
of the unscrupulous criminals masquerading as protectors of society caused and established a brand new
category of deaths: those caused by marihuana with a Paraquat coating, a new lethal product launched
onto the market by the DEA.

In 1981, on the recommendations of George Bush and Nancy Reagan, President Reagan appointed
Carlton Turner Director of the White House Narcotics Bureau. The standard of Ronald and Nancy's antidrug policy is clearly reflected in the curriculum vitae of the man they chose as their `drug tsar'.

CARLTON TURNER was a careerist with a `business mind'. In 1978 he tried to market a fake Paraquat
test. In 1981, Reagan appointed him Director of the White House Narcotics Bureau, and from then until
1986 he relentlessly targeted jazz and rock music and made unsuccessful efforts to ban radio and TV
networks from broadcasting it, obsessed as he was by the idea that it was the main reason behind the
`drug problem'. On 25 April 1985, he demanded the death penalty for `drug traffickers'. On 27 October
1986, Newsweek mounted an acrimonious attack on him, as a result of which he was forced to resign on
6 December 1986. Having taken advantage of every microphone that was offered to him to declaim that
the use of marihuana led to homosexuality, depressed the immune system, and caused AIDS, Turner
then worked with Robert DuPont and the formerDirector of the NIDA, Peter Bensinger, to market a test
for detecting cannabis in urine.

Between 1981 and 1983, the DEA sprayed marihuana plantations in Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee
with Paraquat, and this led to the `inexplicable' deaths of many users. In 1983, in a vain attempt to
defuse public outrage when the truth came out and to play down the government's responsibility, Turner
appeared on national television and, having first contested that the deaths had in fact been caused by
Paraquat (which had been proven by state organisations and state laboratories), he then proceeded to
justify the DEA's activities by claiming that if the victims had indeed been killed by Paraquat they had
only themselves to blame for smoking a prohibited substance in the first place.

In 1983, the US government was forced publicly to condemn the use of Paraquat for spraying
plantations and to announce that Paraquat would henceforth be prohibited for that purpose. The trouble
was that the ban was never enforced, and in 1993 government planes were still shedding that dangerous
poison over vast areas of the United States and certain neighbouring countries. (147)

In September 1983, the President's office wrote to all the universities in an effort to sound out their
intentions and likely reactions to the proposed destruction of the data from all the cannabis research
conducted between 1966 and 1976, including the synopses in the university libraries. (148) It was all
research that had been undertaken with government permission and government funding. All the
documents were public records, and their destruction would constitute a violation of the restrictions the
Constitution laid upon the executive powers. The reasoning behind these machinations, so reminiscent
of the practices of Nazi and Communist totalitarianism, is obvious.

Between 1966 and 1987, 10,000 investigations into cannabis had been carried out, and only twelve of
them had produced negative conclusions about the `forbidden plant'. The findings of those twelve had
never been corroborated when other researchers repeated them. The whole of this vast mass of research
material proved that the state's policy of repression of cannabis was totally at odds with the scientific
facts and that the prohibition of cannabis was based not on scientific criteria but on self-interested
financial and political ones. Consequently, if it were to maintain the policy of repression and return to
the good old days of the witch-hunt, as it wanted to do, the President's office needed to get rid of all
those bothersome scientific data that gave the lie to everything it said.

During Reagan's second term (1985-8), the resounding failure of the presidential policy to reduce the
supply of illicit substances could no longer be ignored and was being criticised by most of the American
press. So Reagan's anti-drug squad dropped it and adopted another, in an attempt this time to target
demand for the said substances. All that this meant was that persecution now focused on use and users,
rather than on dealing and dealers.

So for the first time in human history an `international crusade against drugs' was organised, the publicly
proclaimed target of which was not the dealers but the users of illicit, substances. Its revealing slogan,
`Just say no', was, of course, addressed exclusively to users. `Just say no': in other words, since we can't
get at the supply, i.e. the dealers, let's wipe out the demand, i.e. the users.
 



Persecution frenzy: `Zero tolerance' (1989-92)

In 1989, George Bush took over the presidency from Reagan. He appointed William Bennett Director of
the White House Drug Bureau and put him in charge of the presidential 'anti-drug' policy, chiefly within
the United States, and Melvin Levitski Undersecretary of State for drugs, who was responsible for
implementing the policy abroad.

WILLIAM BENNETT, addicted to alcohol (daily `social' use) and nicotine and a rabid opponent of
marihuana, had no particular knowledge of drugs; but he was admirably suited to the organising of all
the presidency's dirty work in relation to them. During his reign, he bombarded public opinion with 'antidrug' clichés and, needless to say, he was zealously in favour of the death penalty for dealers. `I have no
moral problem with hanging dealers,' he said. `My only problem is legal.' MELVIN LEVITSKI was
closely involved with the secret services and the DEA and was thus in a position to apply pressure upon
such international organisations as the UN and the EC, and particularly upon the governments of various
countries, in his efforts to persuade them to adopt George Bush's `Zero tolerance' policy.

GEORGE BUSH, addicted to benzodiazepine (Halcion),(149) was an agent and later Director of the
CIA (1975-7), after which he was appointed a director of the Eli Lilly pharmaceutical company (1977-9)
by the father of his future vice-president Dan Quayle, whose family controls the company. The Bushes
have close links with the pharmaceutical industry and own a significant number of shares in Eli Lilly,
Abbott, Bristol, and Pfizer. As director of Eli Lilly & Co., G. Bush "owned $145,000 worth of stock in
the drug company. He lied on April 14, 1982, that he had sold his 1500 shares in 1978. It was, in fact,
still his single most valuable stock holding."(150)

From 1981 to 1988, Bush was director of Reagan's Drug Task Forces and at the same time VicePresident of the United States. In this dual capacity he was implicated in cocaine trafficking,(151) and
did his best to promote Eli Lilly's interests in South America, particularly in Puerto Rico, by no end of
unfair practices, for which he was called sharply to heel by the US Supreme Court in 1982.(152) As
President (1989-92), Bush continued Reagan's 'six-point' drug policy, merely changing the slogan from
`Just say no' to `Zero tolerance' (of users).

Within the United States, he stepped up the repressive measures, armoured the forces of repression both
financially and legislatively, and doubled the prison population. Between 1988 and 1991, the budget for
the forces of repression was increased by $4,000 and their unconstitutional (and therefore illegal)
activities were 'legalised' by a string of presidential regulations. Arrests for mere possession of
marihuana went up from 324,000 in 1988 to 390,000 in 1990.(153) In this way Bush kept one part of the
twofold promise he had given to the American people when he announced his drug policy on 5
September 1989: that he would solve the drug problem by sending all dealers to jail. During his
presidency, over 500,000 users were arrested and imprisoned annually (400,000 were users of cannabis),
and the only result was that the drug problem got worse and the prison population doubled.

Outside the United States, Bush used the `war on drugs' as a foreign-policy tool, and in the name of
protecting humankind from the danger of drugs he `legalised' the drug trade as a source of revenue that
could be used to overthrow regimes that were in Washington's bad books and to further the United
States' right to invade other countries' territory.

With full presidential cover, top-ranking state officials supplied the Contras in Nicaragua with laundered
money to help them in their efforts to overthrow the Sandinista regime. On the President's orders, the US
army invaded Panama, and toppled and arrested the dictator Manuel Noriega, a former CIA agent and
high-ranking member of the international consortium of organised crime that controls traffic in illicit
substances. The link between Iran and Nicaragua, Granada and Panama clearly reveals the real purposes
behind the unified policy of `arms for drugs' implemented by Reagan and Bush, the undisputed leaders
of the `world crusade against drugs'. Particularly in view of the fact that all the protagonists in the policy
(those eminent crusaders Oliver North, John Hull, John Poindexter, General Secord, Lewis Tambs, and
many other members of the American secret services) are now wanted by the Costa Rican authorities
because of their extensive drug trafficking in that country.(154)

In 1991, the United Nations transferred synthetic ∆9-THC from Schedule I to Schedule II of controlled
mind-affecting substances, but cannabis stayed on Schedule 1, after intensive lobbying by Melvin
Levitski on Bush's orders.(155)

Proffering the excuse that ∆9-THC `has proven medical benefits and is not widely used outside
legitimate medical channels', whereas cannabis `is used illegally by millions of people worldwide', the
US government placed the control of the profits from the production and supply of synthetic ∆9-THC
securely in the hands of the synthetic pharmaceutical industry (which would never have been possible
with natural cannabis).(156) One of the companies that stood to gain considerably from the arrangement
was Eli Lilly.

Synthetic ∆9-THC was put on Schedule II of controlled mind-affecting substances because, like all
synthetic pharmaceuticals (most of which are extremely toxic, hazardous rubbish), for the last seventeen
years it has been the exclusive monopoly of the pharmaceutical companies that produce it and make an
enormous profit from it. Cannabis stayed on Schedule I because it is a natural product and as such its
production and supply cannot be monopolised by the pharmaceutical companies.

In 1988, after two years of hearings on marihuana's therapeutic benefits `for individuals undergoing
cancer chemotherapy and for multiple sclerosis patients', the DEA's Chief Administrative Law Judge,
Francis L. Young, ruled that current federal policies prohibiting marihuana's medical use are
`unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious', and urged the DEA to reclassify marihuana to reflect its
medical uses.

The evidence in this record clearly shows that marihuana has been accepted as capable of relieving the
distress of a great number of very ill people, and doing so with safety under medical supervision. It
would be unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious for the DEA to continue to stand between those
sufferers and the benefit of this ,substance in light of the evidence in this (157)

But shortly after George Bush took office in 1989, the head of the DEA, John Lawn, rejected the 1988
recommendation of his own agency's top administrative law judge, and marihuana still remains on
Schedule I, proving that the marihuana issue is primarily a political issue rather than a medical one.
The criticism the American press unleashed against the deplorable farce of Reagan's and Bush's `drug
crusades' focused on their resounding failure, their immensely destructive side-effects on American
society, and their enormous cost, which was overwhelming even for a wealthy nation like the United
States.
 
Before 1908, natural medicines where the go to medicines doctors used and had good results.. However, the greed people didnt like doctors curing medical conditions and wanted to use all that oil waste to make what is known as western medicine today!! Anyway, you cant tell people anything because they have been programmed to defend the money class!! The deception runs very deep!!


Cannabis Cures

Studies carried out in California to determine why patients used cannabis for
medicinal purposes reported that it relieved pain, muscle spasms, headaches,
anxiety, nausea, vomiting, depression, cramps, panic attacks, diarrhea and itching.
Others reported that cannabis improved sleep, relaxation, appetite,
concentration and energy. Many patients use it to prevent side effects from
medication or to treat anger issues, involuntary muscle movements and seizures
whilst others used it as a substitute for prescription drugs and alcohol. It can be
argued that recreational cannabis use is also of medical benefit in that it relieves
stress and thereby acts as a preventative treatment for many stress-related
conditions.

If you are diagnosed with any of the conditions that can be treated with
cannabis, you are advised to consult with your physician before you begin selfmedicating. However, in some countries, such as the U.K., a doctor has a duty to
report any illegal drug use that may impair a patient’s ability to drive, so such a
confession could have consequences.
Many medical practitioners are becoming aware of the benefits of cannabis
medication and most will have no objection to you using it alongside any treatment
you may be receiving.
Case History: Corrie Yelland
Corrie Yelland is a remarkable and determined lady who refused serious radiation
treatment and against all odds cured her terminal cancer using only cannabis oil.

1
In May of 2007 she suffered a heart attack and subsequently had a double heart
bypass. As a result of the heart surgery she suffered with chronic debilitating pain
from a maligned sternum and post sternotomy neuralgia/syndrome. She was
constantly in pain and ingesting large amounts of various painkillers, and at night,
even after taking sleeping pills, she would wake in agony within two hours of
falling asleep.
In July of 2011, already coping with two spots of skin cancer on her
collarbone, she was stunned to be diagnosed with anal canal cancer. Following
two surgeries, the doctors told her that they could not remove all of the cancer and
she would have to endure a regime of radiation treatments. She was informed that
this was the worst area of the body to radiate as the radiation beam would hit both
her coccyx and pubic bone potentially causing permanent damage. Additionally,
she would suffer second and third degree burns vaginally and rectally, and there
was a good possibility both her vagina and rectum would fuse shut from the burns
and subsequent scarring.
Refusing to accept this was her only option, Corrie began to research
alternatives and discovered information regarding the benefits of cannabis oil. She
began a course of treatment soon after. As well as ingesting the cannabis oil, she
topically applied it to the skin cancer on her collarbone. Within 48 hours, there
were visible changes to the skin cancer. In just over a week, the two spots were
completely gone. Elated, she continued ingesting the oil in the hope it would work
on the other cancer attacking her body. Two weeks into her treatment regime the
pain in her sternum, as well as the nerve pain, had become almost non-existent.
Before using cannabis, Corrie typically took 10-15 Tylenol 3 per day, along with
other drugs, which she managed to reduce to half a Tylenol 3 per day once
treatment had began.
Corrie had met a woman from Texas diagnosed at the same time as her with
the identical cancer. They gave each other support and felt fortunate to have found
each other as they were identical in many respects: they were the same age, had
gone through the same diagnostic procedure, were at the same stage of the cancer
and both had radiation recommended as treatment. The Texan lady chose to have
the radiation. Sadly she died in March 2012 as a result of infection from radiation
burns. She left behind a husband and 12-year-old daughter.
Medical marijuana is now available in many U.S. states.
Corrie continued ingesting the oil on a daily basis, slowly increasing the
amount she was taking. She also began filling gelatin capsules with a mixture of
the cannabis oil and olive oil and inserting them rectally. On September 20, 2012,
she saw her specialist/surgeon again and heard the news she had only dared to
hope for. “It’s gone! I can’t find anything at all. If it wasn’t for the scar tissue I
would never have known you had ever had cancer.” She received confirmation
that the cancer was confirmed to be 100% clear. You can read more of this
remarkable story and view her medical notes, et cetera at the authors’ website:
www.cannabiscure.info/files/corrie.htm.

Conditions That Cannabis Can Assist With Include:
Alcohol and Opiate Abuse
Cannabis can ease both the physical and psychological effects associated with
withdrawal from both of these addictive substances. No clinical trials concerning
the efficacy of cannabis as a substitute for alcohol are available, apart from the
work of Tod Mikuriya in 1970, who describes patients using cannabis to
successfully discontinue abusing alcohol.

2
(Cannabis as a Pharmacological
Harm Reducer 1997–unpublished). Tod Hiro Mikuriya was a psychiatrist and an
advocate for the legalization of the use of cannabis for medical purposes, and,
quite fittingly, he is regarded as the grandfather of the medical cannabis movement
in the United States.
A healthy and vigorous indica-dominant female in flower.
Cannabis was listed as a treatment for delirium tremens in medical texts of the
1800s.

3 There are also 19th-Century references to the use of cannabis as a
substitute for opiates. These were among the first documented uses of medical
cannabis by European physicians.
It is apparent from reading the old medical texts that many of the new cannabis
preparations and methods of administration around today are not new discoveries.
They are, for the most part, just rediscoveries.
The U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that more
than 80,000

4 annual deaths are attributed to alcohol use alone. Untreated and
severe alcohol withdrawal can kill you, mainly due to seizures. Fortunately, these
fatalities are almost completely preventable if people are properly weaned off
alcohol using gradually decreasing amounts of alcohol itself or medication. In
contrast, the CDC does not even have a category for deaths caused by the use of
cannabis because there have never been any.

Alzheimer’s Disease
Alzheimer’s disease is the leading cause of dementia amongst the elderly, and
with the ever-increasing population, cases of Alzheimer’s disease are expected to
triple over the next 50 years.

5
Investigation shows that cannabis can prevent the
formation of deposits in the brain associated with this degenerative disease.

Researchers at the Scripps Research Institute in California found that the active
component of cannabis, Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) inhibits the enzyme
acetylcholinesterase (AChE) as well as prevents AChE-induced amyloid betapeptide (Abeta) accumulation, the key indicator of Alzheimer’s disease.

6 There is
also research concluding that amongst the other cannabis compounds, cannabidiol
(CBD), which has no psychotropic effect, may represent a very promising agent
with the highest prospect for therapeutic use in Alzheimer’s patients, many of
whom would find that the effect of THC alone could actually add to the confusion
they experience.

Whilst THC is recognized as an important compound in the treatment of
dementia, it needs to be administered with a corresponding or even higher value
of CBD, which research has shown will lessen the psychotropic effect of THC on
the elderly patient. This can easily be achieved by careful selection of the
cannabis strain used for medication and high CBD content cannabis strains are
recommended for use in the treatment of dementia patients. There are
pharmaceutical medicines that can treat the symptoms of Alzheimer’s, but there is
no cure. Some medicines will keep memory loss and other symptoms from
progressing but this is a short-term solution. Compared to drugs currently
prescribed for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, THC in particular has been
shown to be a considerably superior inhibitor of Abeta accumulation.

Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS)
ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, is characterized by the death of motor
neurons leading to loss of limb control, breathing, swallowing, speech and
widespread cellular dysfunction.

7 The condition refers to a disease of the nerve
cells in the brain and spinal cord that control voluntary muscle movement. This is
a fatal, degenerative disease marked by progressive muscle weakness and
atrophy. Research has shown that cannabis may help ALS patients by relieving
pain, spasticity, drooling and appetite loss. In scientific studies it has been shown
that THC, along with other cannabinoids, can benefit laboratory mice specifically
bred with ALS. This mounting evidence of cannabinoids halting the progression of
the condition has started to change the attitudes of doctors, and prominent
researchers have recently called for ALS clinical trials with cannabinoids on
humans.

Case History: Cathy Jordan
8
Cathy Jordan was diagnosed with ALS in 1986 and given 3-5 years to live by her
neurologist. Cathy began using cannabis to treat her ALS in the late 1980s. Nearly
3 decades later she is still alive and coping with ALS. Initially, doctors wouldn’t
accept that cannabis could be responsible for Cathy’s survival and informed her
that smoking anything would impair her lung function. Cathy asked her doctors if
they would take a drug if it was neuroprotective, an antioxidant and antiinflammatory. They replied that they would and asked her if she knew one, she
informed them she did and it was cannabis. Cathy has said, “There are ALS
patients’ associations that fight for the right of patients to die with dignity. But
what about my right to life? Keeping my medicine illegal removes my right to
life.”
Dried and chopped cannabis bud ready for use.

Anorexia Nervosa
The prescription drug Olanzapine has been shown to be effective in treating
certain aspects of this condition as it increases appetite, causes the body to store
fat and helps to raise body mass index. However, the drug can have serious side
effects including hives, difficulty breathing, swelling of the face, lips, tongue, or
throat, high blood sugar, numbness or weakness, confusion, problems with vision,
speech, or balance, fever, chills, body aches, flu-like symptoms, sores in the
mouth and throat, swelling in the hands or feet and many other complications.

9
Cannabis has none of these side effects and can increase appetite and ease
anxiety.

10 Dr. Elliot Berry, a consultant to the World Health Organization, has
conducted a trial using cannabis oil to treat this eating disorder. Early results
show that cannabinoids stimulate a chemical in the brain that effectively boosts
appetite. In another unrelated trial it was reported that after 21 days of inpatient
cannabis smoking, both body weight gain and caloric consumption were higher in
casual and heavy users than in the control subjects who did not use cannabis.
11, 12,

13
Arthritis (Rheumatoid or Osteoarthritis)
Rheumatoid arthritis is caused by a malfunction of the immune system. Instead of
fighting bacteria or viruses, the body attacks the synovial membranes, which
facilitate the movement of joints, eventually destroying cartilage and eroding
bones. This manifests as a painful and debilitating inflammation of one or more
joints. A joint is the area where two bones contact. When the body metabolizes
THC it generates chemicals that include at least one that is an anti-inflammatory,
THC also achieves relief from the pain associated with the condition.
14
Cannabidiol (CBD) is also useful in the treatment of arthritis and has been found
to minimize destruction of the joints in laboratory rats and mice. Cannabis is
beneficial not only when smoked by patients who seek relief from the symptoms,
but it also works extremely well when applied topically as a cream.

Asthma
Cannabis use has been shown to ease asthma attacks in patients. Asthma is the
shortness of breath and wheezing caused by spasms of the bronchial tubes,
overproduction of mucus and swelling of the mucous membranes; it kills more
than 4,000 U.S. citizens each year. Clinical research shows that THC acts as a
bronchial dilator, clearing blocked air passageways and allowing free breathing.

The New England Journal of Medicine published a 1973 study that claimed that,
“Marihuana smoke, unlike cigarette smoke, causes broncho-dilation rather than
broncho-constriction [narrowing of the air passages] and, unlike opiates, does not
cause central respiratory depression.”

15 Cannabis smoke at 2.6% THC content
causes a fall of 38% in airway resistance and an increase of 44% in airway
conductivity.

16 However, it is recommended that asthma sufferers use a vaporizer
to relieve their symptoms rather than any other method of delivery.

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
ADHD is one of the most common psychiatric disorders of childhood, and is
characterized by persistent impairments in attention and concentration with the
associated symptoms of impulsivity and hyperactivity.

Over 6.4 million children in the U.S. have been diagnosed with ADHD, and
two thirds of those are currently taking drugs to control ADHD, fueling a $9-
billion-a-year industry.

17 Although ADHD is most commonly treated with
amphetamine-derived formulations, pure methamphetamine is actually approved
by the FDA for the treatment of ADHD–they just prefer to call it Desoxyn
(methamphetamine hydrochloride).

18 There is also growing concern about the use
of Ritalin, the most widely prescribed drug for ADHD, and many parents and
professionals are worried about side effects, including damage to the
cardiovascular and nervous systems. A lack of dopamine is believed to be one of
the primary underlying factors in ADHD.

19 This is the reason why stimulants are
such an effective and commonly prescribed treatment, as stimulants mainly act to
increase dopamine levels. Dysfunction of the dopamine (DA) system explains
some of the clinical manifestations of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD) and it is thought that the body releases its own natural cannabinoids as a
protective response to the onset of ADHD-related symptoms. This would explain
why ADHD sufferers gain relief from cannabis use.

Atherosclerosis
Atherosclerosis (also known as arteriosclerotic vascular disease or ASVD) is a
condition in which an artery wall thickens as a result of the accumulation of fatty
materials such as cholesterol. It is commonly referred to as a hardening or furring
of the arteries, but is a disease where cholesterol deposits form on the inner
surfaces of the arteries, obstructing blood flow. Cannabinoids, acting via both
CB2 and CB1 receptor modulation, have an important role in immune system
regulation. Because inflammation plays a key role in atherogenesis, cannabinoids
can potentially affect atherogenesis via modulation of the immune system. In a
pioneering study by Steffens et al, oral administration of low-dose THC (1
milligram per kilogram/day) was shown to inhibit progression of atherosclerotic
lesions in the aortic root and abdominal aorta via activation of CB2 receptors on
these cells.

20
Autism
Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a developmental disorder that appears within
the first 3 years of life and mainly affects communication and social skills. The
cause of the disorder is not known but is linked to abnormal brain chemistry.
Pharmaceutical medications are available to deal with the behavioral
consequences of the disorder, but not the disorder itself. These pharmaceuticals
have a host of serious side effects that include permanent tics (involuntary muscle
movement) and diabetes, as well as being highly toxic chemicals. In 2000
researchers at the University of California at Irvine discovered that because of the
interaction between the cannabinoids in the cannabis plant and the body’s own
natural endocannabinoid system it could be used to treat autism along with
Parkinson’s disease and schizophrenia.

21 Cannabinoids not only regulate emotion
and focus but also serve as a neuroprotective preventing the further degradation of
brain cells. Moderating an autistic person’s mood consistently is best achieved
with an oral dose of cannabis that can be adjusted according to need.

Case History: Marie Myung-Ok Lee
22
Marie is a novelist who teaches at Columbia University and writes for Slate,
Salon, The New York Times, and The Guardian. Marie has been treating her
autistic son with legally acquired medical cannabis for several years. It has
helped calm her son’s gastrointestinal pain and decrease his associated violent
behavior. Cannabis has allowed them to forego the use of pharmaceutical
psychotropic drugs that were used to control aggressive outbursts, but were totally
ineffective at alleviating his pain. Marie has written several essays regarding
cannabis and autism and these can be found online. She states that, “In our case, I
would call our experiment a qualified success. Not because cannabis has cured J,
who’s now 11, or anything near it. But it’s alleviated some of his severest
symptoms so that he, my husband and I can actually enjoy each other, rather than
being held hostage by his autism in a house full of screams, destruction and three
very unhappy people.”

Bipolar Disorder
This is a psychiatric disorder characterized by extreme mood swings, ranging
between episodes of acute euphoria, mania and severe depression. Cannabis is
extremely beneficial in treating this condition (see Depression). Bipolar disorder
is conventionally treated with lithium salts and anticonvulsant drugs, which can
have serious side effects. Many sufferers report that cannabis is more effective
than conventional anti-manic medication and can relieve the side effects
associated with lithium use. Reports from the Zucker Hillside Hospital in New
York show that patients with bipolar I (BD I) disorder who regularly used
cannabis performed better on tests of attention, processing speed and working
memory than other BD I patients.
23

Cancer
Referred to medically as a malignant neoplasm, cancer is a broad group of
various diseases, all involving unregulated cell growth. High concentrations of
CBD found in cannabis oil have been shown to block the activity of a gene called
Id-1, which is believed to be responsible for the aggressive spread of cancer cells
away from the original tumor site (a process called metastasis). Research has
shown that CBD can also reverse aggressive human brain cancers; it appears to
have a similar effect on breast cancer cells, and is also highly effective in the
treatment of lung cancer. A study by Complutense University of Madrid
discovered that THC also has anticancer effects when treating brain tumors.
24

They found that the chemicals in cannabis promote the death of cancer cells by
causing them to feed upon themselves in a process called autophagy.
Conventional medical practice uses surgery, highly toxic antineoplastic drugs,
and/or the destruction of body tissue by radiation, which is energy directed at the
tumor. It can range from what we think of as light photons to particles like
electrons or even something as large as a carbon ion. Chemotherapy is classed as
drug treatment and these are the main tools for treating cancer. Surgery is effective
if carried out early enough, but chemotherapy is also commonly employed to treat
patients and studies have raised serious questions about its efficacy–in particular
the role it plays in hastening and even causing the death of late-stage cancer
sufferers. One study carried out following patient outcome and deaths looked at
the cases of 600 cancer sufferers who had passed on within 30 days of
treatment.

25 The study found that approximately one in four of such deaths had
either occurred far more rapidly, or been caused by chemotherapy. The study also
revealed that two out of five patients had suffered significant poisoning from the
treatment.

Moreover, a team of researchers studying cancer cell resilience discovered
that chemotherapy seriously damages healthy cells and triggers them to release a
protein that sustains and fuels tumor growth. Reporting their findings in Nature
Medicine, the scientists reported that the results were completely unexpected and
showed there was significant DNA damage from chemotherapy, using tissue
derived from men with prostate cancer.

26 Furthermore, the tumors became highly
resistant to future treatment. If you have recurring cancerous tumors, there is no
effective conventional cure.

Studies published in The Lancet reported that use of the pharmaceutical drug
Tamoxifen reduced the breast cancer death rate by one third.

27 The National
Cancer Institute’s breast cancer prevention trial stated that there was a 49%
decrease in the incidence of this cancer in women who took it for five years.

28
However, when we examined the figures, we discovered that the risk of
developing breast cancer without using the drug is only 1.3% and its use caused a
reduction to 0.68%. That represents a 49% difference between these two reported
numbers, but just a little over half of 1% difference (0.62%) in real terms. This is
how the statistics are manipulated in favor of toxic pharmaceutical drugs.
Tamoxifen is a controversial synthetic hormone also sold in England as
Nolvadex.

29 This toxic drug earns an estimated $500 million a year for the
pharmaceutical companies; it’s sold to women after breast surgery to prevent
cancer from spreading to the other breast. Science News of March 4, l989
reported slight benefits (9% in one study, 6% in another) but a Swedish trial
indicated a 400% increased risk of endometrial cancer for those who took
Tamoxifen over a 5-year period.

30, 31 Current guidelines for Tamoxifen
recommend that patients take the drug for 5 years. The ATLAS study suggests that
taking Tamoxifen for 10 years greatly increases a woman’s survival rate from
estrogen-positive breast cancers.

32 The ATLAS study was sponsored by none
other than the drug manufacturer AstraZeneca that currently markets and
manufactures Nolvadex, a brand-name version of the drug Tamoxifen. By doubling
the number of years women take Tamoxifen, AstraZeneca doubles its profit!
Tamoxifen is known to cause cancer of the uterus, ovaries and gastrointestinal
tract and is shown to cause liver cancer. In 1996, a division of the World Health
Organization declared Tamoxifen a Group I carcinogen for the uterus.

33 R. J.
Kedar of King’s College School of Medicine and Dentistry in London studied 61
women in a Tamoxifen trial and said: “Our study detected endometrial
abnormalities at various times from the first tablet of Tamoxifen.”

34 The
endometrium appeared abnormally thick in 24 of these women (39%) and 10 of
these underwent potentially precancerous changes. Other permanent damage
includes osteoporosis, retina damage, optic nerve damage and cataracts. The half
percent reduction in breast cancer rates is insignificant compared to the increased
incidence of other cancers and diseases.

The medical use of cannabis causes none of these life-threatening
complications. A team of researchers at the California Pacific Medical Center
Research Institute who have been researching the benefits of CBD have concluded
that it can provide a nontoxic alternative to chemotherapy for cancer treatments.

35
Dr Sean McAllister stated:
“Right now we have a limited range of options in treating aggressive forms of
cancer. Those treatments, such as chemotherapy, can be effective but they can also
be extremely toxic and difficult for patients. This compound offers the hope of a
nontoxic therapy that could achieve the same results without any of the painful
side effects.”

Case History: Bradley Jones
“I’m a 39-year-old married family man with an 8-year-old boy and twin girls. I
was diagnosed with bowel cancer in August 2008, with a tumor the size of an
apple. During 2008 and November 2009 I took many conventional therapies
including chemotherapy in tablet form combined with radiotherapy. As the weeks
went by the side effects of the chemotherapy increased and it was hard to take the
tablets knowing that they would make me feel worse. The radiotherapy burnt me
so badly that my skin blackened and I could no longer walk. I recovered from
these treatments and the tumor had reduced to the size of a pea. As it had reduced I
could now have a procedure called Pappillion. This was a clinical trial and
involved my tumor being zapped by a device that was inserted into my rectum. I
endured three sessions and it was very, very painful. Three months later and my
tumor was growing again. I now suffered another intrusive surgery called a
THAMES; this involved them again going up my rectum but this time with a laser
scalpel to cut the tumor away, after this operation I was informed that I should
have a colostomy operation. After this painful operation I was subjected to more
bouts of chemotherapy and after the third I felt as if I was dying. At the time, death
would have been a welcome release. Over time I recovered and regular CT scans
showed that I was cancer free, until one scan showed hotspots on my lungs; three
on the left lung and two on the right. I was devastated! In February 2010 I had the
bottom of my left lung removed. A biopsy found that it was bowel cancer that had
spread to my lungs. I started to research other treatments for my condition and
started to read about cannabis oil curing cancer.

I was very lucky to be put in touch with the authors of this book and I arranged
to meet them. After asking me many questions I was given a syringe full of oil.

Under guidance I took a small blob and swallowed it. The first effects could be
felt within an hour, I felt the tightness and pain leave my chest and ribs and I could
breathe more deeply and easily. I then began to feel a warm sensation and started
to feel very stoned. I took the oil daily in small amounts four times a day and
slowly increased the dose up to a gram a day. At my next meeting with my
oncologist to discuss my latest scan results he informed me that the tumors on my
right lung had reduced. I was lost for words. My new guardian angels again
supplied me with another syringe of oil and I continued with the treatment. The oil
also had a very positive effect on my anxiety and I did not feel at all anxious when
I was taking it. I also managed to gain the weight I had lost from the chemotherapy.
The oil gave me my appetite back and I gained enough weight to get back to a
healthy and stable size.

Then came the news I’d been praying for: my wife and I attended an
appointment with my oncologist and he commented on how well and healthy I
looked. He seemed very pleased that I had put some weight on. After reading
through my file he said, “The hotspots have reduced further on both sides at this
moment in time. You are cancer free.” Yet despite all this my oncologist isn’t
interested in the results I have achieved through use of cannabis oil. I feel totally
let down by him and his attitude; he wasn’t pleased or excited by my results and in
fact he appeared lost and out of his depth. However, despite everything I am still
cancer free and happy to report that cannabis oil has saved my life.”

Clinical Endocannabinoid Deficiency (CECD)
Research has been carried out into many of the conditions that cannabis has been
shown to successfully treat and according to a study by Ethan B. Russo, who is the
Senior Medical Advisor to GW Pharmaceuticals, the company responsible for
producing Sativex, the medical benefits of cannabis could be due to a deficiency
in the brain’s own endocannabinoid system, which closely mirrors the
cannabinoids found in the cannabis plant.

36 The study examined the interesting
concept that clinical endocannabinoid deficiency (CECD) could be the underlying
cause of migraine, bromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome, and other functional
conditions alleviated by clinical cannabis.

Since the discovery of the human brain’s own endogenous cannabinoid
(endocannabinoid) system, we now have a better understanding of how cannabis
may alleviate these conditions by boosting the body’s own naturally produced
cannabinoids and it may be that many of these conditions are in fact due to patients
not producing enough cannabinoids themselves.
A capsule support makes accurate filling far easier.

Cystic Fibrosis
This condition is an inherited genetic disorder that is caused when two particular
genes fail to function correctly. Symptoms include disruption of the endocrine
glands that affect the pancreas, intestine, bronchial and sweat glands. Breathing
and digestion are impaired by mucus. Medical cannabis use has been shown to
reduce the severity of the condition and ease breathing (See Asthma).

Depression
There have been some controversial yet widely publicized studies linking
depression to chronic use of cannabis. However, a peer-reviewed and well
documented study that reviewed thousands of chronic, heavy cannabis users found
normal rates of depression, once other factors such as alcohol use, gender and
illness were accounted for.
37

It has been known for many years that depletion of
the neurotransmitter serotonin in the brain leads to depression. Cannabis sativa
varieties used in moderation have been shown to help combat clinical depression
by increasing the production of serotonin.

When scientists looked at the overall death rates of research participants they
discovered that those taking antidepressants had a 32% higher risk of death from
other causes compared to non-users. In a survey, 72% of American doctors said
they had prescribed antidepressants to children under 18, but only 16% of those
said they felt comfortable doing so, and only 8% said they had adequate training to
treat childhood depression. The United Nations has recently criticized the U.S. for
overprescribing psychiatric drugs, as they consume 80% of the world’s
methylphenidate (generic of Ritalin).
38

Antidepressants fail to help about half the people who take them, and a study
in laboratory mice helps to explain why. Most antidepressants, including the
commonly used Prozac and Zoloft, work by increasing the amount of serotonin, a
message-carrying brain chemical made deep in the middle of the brain by cells
known as raphe neurons. In January 2010 researchers at Columbia University
Medical Center in New York reported that genetically engineered mice that had
too much of one type of serotonin receptor in this region of the brain were less
likely to respond to antidepressants. According to Columbia University’s Rene
Hen:

“These receptors dampen the activity of these (serotonin-producing) neurons.
Too much of them dampen these neurons too much, it puts too much brake on the
system.”
39

In October 2007 a new neurobiological study by Dr. Gabriella Gobbi of
McGill University found that THC is an effective antidepressant at low doses.
40

However, at higher doses, the effect reverses itself and can actually worsen
depression. This study offers the first evidence that cannabis can also increase
serotonin, at least at lower doses. When laboratory rats were injected with the
synthetic cannabinoid WIN55,212-2 and then tested with the Forced Swim test to
measure “depression,” the researchers observed an antidepressant effect of
cannabinoids paralleled by an increased activity in the neurons that produce
serotonin. However, increasing the cannabinoid dose beyond a set point
completely undid the benefits.

Diabetes Mellitus
Diabetes refers to a group of metabolic diseases in which a person suffers from
high blood sugar, either because the body does not produce enough insulin or
because cells do not respond to the insulin that is produced. This produces
symptoms including polyuria (frequent urination), polydipsia (increased thirst)
and polyphagia (increased hunger). Medical cannabis use has been shown to help
patients by stabilizing blood sugars, suppressing arterial inflammation common in
diabetes sufferers, preventing inflammation of nerves and reducing the pain of
neuropathy. It also acts as an antispasmodic agent, relieves muscle cramps and the
pain of gastrointestinal disorders and acts as a vasodilator to help keep blood
vessels open thereby causing lower blood pressure, which is vital for diabetics.

Topical application of cannabis oil or cream has been shown to relieve
neuropathic pain and tingling in hands and feet, and also reduce diabetic restless
leg syndrome.

Dystonia
This is a severely painful neurological disorder causing involuntary muscle
spasms and twisting of the limbs. A case study published in The Journal of Pain
and Symptom Management reported improvement of the symptoms in a 42-yearold chronic pain patient, whose subjective pain score fell from nine out of 10 to
zero following cannabis inhalation, and did not require any additional analgesic
medication for the following 48 hours.
41

It is reported that no other treatment to
date had resulted in such dramatic improvement in the patient’s condition.
Cannabidiol was given in doses, increasing from 100 to 600 milligrams per day,
to five patients with idiopathic dystonia, along with previously administered
treatments. Dose-related improvement ranging from 20% to 50% was noted in all
patients.

Emphysema
Sufferers exhibit a gradual deterioration of the lungs caused by pollution and
tobacco smoking. The lung air sacs become distended and rupture. Symptoms
include breathlessness and blue lips. Cannabis aids in expansion of the bronchii
and bronchioles allowing higher oxygenation in patients. This is not a cure but
provides tremendous relief for patients (See Asthma).

Epilepsy
This is a medical disorder involving episodes of irregular electrical discharge
within the brain, characterized by the periodic sudden loss or impairment of
consciousness, often accompanied by convulsions. Cannabis is shown to reduce
the frequency of attacks and researchers have discovered that three compounds
found in medical cannabis can help to reduce and control seizures. CBD was
tested on 15 epileptic patients, of whom 8 were given doses of 300mg. The
remainder were assigned a placebo and treated for over four months, whilst
continuing their past anticonvulsant drugs. Of the eight CBD-treated patients, four
remained free of seizures, three showed partial improvements and one showed no
response.

Fibromyalgia (FM or FMS)
People with fibromyalgia typically experience pain in their joints and muscles and
may also suffer from frequent headaches and fatigue. This medical disorder is
characterized by chronic widespread pain and allodynia, which is a heightened
and painful response to skin contact or touch. Even light pressure is agonizing for
many sufferers. This debilitating affliction causes aching muscles, sleep disorders
and fatigue. Our bodies naturally make pain relievers called endorphins, but they
also make other substances that can trigger pain relief in the endocannabinoid
system. Fibromyalgia patients typically experience multiple areas of pain in the
body and they often take multiple drugs for other symptoms, which can include
difficulty sleeping, restless legs syndrome, depression, and anxiety. Cannabis
uniquely has the ability to treat multiple symptoms. There is no known cure for
fibromyalgia; it is notoriously difficult to treat and only 35–40% of people with
the chronic pain condition get relief from the available medications. However,
sufferers report a reduction in pain and improved sleep patterns from regular
medical cannabis use. Lynda is a 48-year-old mother of three who lives in upstate
New York, and was diagnosed with fibromyalgia in 2000. She is quoted on the
website Health (.com) as saying, “I would use [cannabis] when the burning pains
started down my spine or my right arm, and shortly after, I found I could continue
with housework and actually get more done.”

Glaucoma
This is caused by high pressure inside the eyeball that damages the optic disk.
Typical treatments have serious side effects and have little effect on end-stage
glaucoma. Cannabis lowers intraocular pressures dramatically, with none of the
side effects, and is highly recommended as a treatment. When patients with ocular
hypertension or glaucoma were tested with a dose of 19 milligrams of THC, seven
out of 11 showed a 30% fall in intraocular pressure.

Glioma
This is the term for a tumor in the brain or spine. Malignant Glioma is very
difficult to treat and the average survival time from diagnosis is only 40 to 50
weeks. THC has been shown to kill the Glioma cancer cells and is an effective
treatment; many patients owe their lives to medical cannabis. A report published
by the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology based at the
Complutense University in Madrid, with regard to cannabis and cancer treatment
(particularly Glioma) states:

“Cannabinoids, the active components of Cannabis sativa L., act in the body
by mimicking endogenous substances, the endocannabinoids that activate specific
cell surface receptors. Cannabinoids exert various palliative effects in cancer
patients. In addition, cannabinoids inhibit the growth of different types of tumor
cells, including Glioma cells, in laboratory animals.

42 They do so by modulating
key cell signaling pathways, mostly the endoplasmic reticulum stress response,
thereby inducing antitumor actions such as the apoptotic death of tumor cells and
the inhibition of tumor angiogenesis. Of interest, cannabinoids seem to be
selective antitumor compounds, as they kill Glioma cells, but not their nontransformed astroglial counterparts.”

Hepatitis C
Hepatitis C kills over 15,000 people in the U.S. every year, and whilst there is no
vaccine currently available, there is new hope in nanoparticle technology.

43 More
tests need to be carried out and the current treatment for hepatitis C still involves
interferon medication. Its side effects can induce flu-like symptoms, fatigue,
insomnia, loss of appetite, nausea, muscle or joint pain and depression. According
to a report published in the October 2006 European Journal of Gastroenterology
and Hepatology, a Northern California study involving 71 participants
demonstrated that moderate cannabis use may relieve interferon’s side effects,
helping people with hepatitis C stick with the full treatment regimen.
44

Researchers state that cannabis’s influence on hepatitis C is due to side-effect
management, rather than an antiviral effect. Lead researcher Diana Sylvestre, MD,
of the University of California at San Francisco emphasized that the benefit was
primarily due to improved ability to stay on adequate doses of interferon and/or
ribavirin.

Herpes
Herpes simplex is a viral disease from the herpesviridae family caused by both
herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) and type 2 (HSV-2). Infection causes small,
painful recurring blisters and inflammation, most commonly at the junction of skin
and mucous membrane in the mouth, nose or genitals. THC has been shown to
have a beneficial effect when used in the treatment of herpes. A topical
application reduces the healing time of blisters and regular cannabis use reduces
the frequency of attacks.

High Blood Pressure
High blood pressure can adversely affect the rate at which the heart works and is
very destructive to the body. Poor sleeping patterns, diet, stress and overuse of
alcohol can all contribute to an increase in blood pressure and cannabis use is
helpful in relieving many of the causes of high blood pressure. Abnormally high
blood pressure is known as hypertension and generally affects middle-aged men.
However, most of us are going to suffer from cardiovascular disease at some
point, as it is the number one cause of death in both men and women. Preliminary
studies show that cannabinoids can lower blood pressure by dilating the blood
vessels. This is despite cannabis use initially speeding up the heart rate in some
users, thereby increasing blood pressure. However, for patients suffering from
orthostatic hypertension or postural hypertension (a medical condition consisting
of a sudden increase in blood pressure when a person stands up), cannabis use
will actually cause blood pressure to lower.

HIV
Many people with HIV/AIDS use medical cannabis to combat wasting and other
symptoms (See Anorexia Nervosa) and there are indications that cannabis use and
a dietary supplement of hemp seeds has a positive influence on the body’s immune
system. Medical cannabis use for AIDS patients is proven to be beneficial, is
extremely cost effective and offers an alternative for patients in third world
countries who simply cannot afford expensive AIDS medicines. The supply of
AIDS medication is big business. The pharmaceutical industry recently sued the
South African government for breaking international patent laws. South Africa had
tried to provide their desperately ill citizens with affordable copies of expensive
AIDS medicines in a purely humanitarian act. The pharmaceutical companies
indicated to the South Africans that they would be interested in helping them with
the growing epidemic, providing it was shown to be financially beneficial.

Case History: Henry J. Sizluski, Jr.
45
Henry has been living with HIV and herpes for over 24 years now. Previous to his
cannabis use he was on pharmaceutical drugs that left him weak and his weight
had dropped dramatically. He has relied on medical cannabis to help him deal
with a variety of conditions, including the side effects of other medications.
Cannabis has allowed him to reduce his dependency on pharmaceutical drugs and
he now medicates with cannabis in tincture form, as well as smoking the buds
from the plant. Henry has been able to regain the weight he had lost from wasting
syndrome, and now has a correctly fitting prosthetic leg due to the increase in his
body size, making it easier for him to walk again.

You can view Henry’s full and informative video on the authors’ website:
www.cannabiscure.info/files/cannabis_treatment_3

Huntington’s Disease
Disappointingly, a study by the University of Arizona found no improvement in
Huntington’s disease sufferers during a clinical trial that used only cannabidiol,
not THC or the full profile of cannabinoids.
46

However, research led by Dr. Javier Fernandez-Ruiz published in the Journal
of Neuroscience Research studied the effects of both THC and CBD on
Huntington’s disease.

47 This study was not carried out on human patients but tested
on rodents, and THC did show positive effects. In the human striatum (forebrain),
CB1 receptors are the most common receptors for THC and Huntington’s patients
have been shown to have reduced levels of CB1 receptors in this area.

Researchers administered high doses of THC to CB1-impaired rodents so as to
over-activate their reduced CB1 receptors. It was shown that THC improved their
motor function, slowed the disease symptom progression and improved the
volume of their striatum.

Incontinence
Cannabinoids have been shown to reduce incontinence episodes without affecting
voiding in patients with multiple sclerosis.

48 The study observed 630 patients who
received either an oral administration of cannabis extract, THC or a placebo.

Those receiving the active cannabis treatments showed significant effects over the
placebo. The findings demonstrated a clinical effect of medical cannabis on
incontinence episodes in patients with MS.

Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Medically, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) refers to a group of inflammatory
conditions of the colon and small intestine:
Ulcerative colitis is an inflammation of the colon that produces ulceration of
the inside wall. Its primary symptom is bloody, chronic diarrhea, often
containing pus and mucus, and associated with abdominal pain and weight and
appetite loss. This is a chronic illness with no known cure.
Crohn’s disease is an inflammation of the small and/or large intestine, with
accompanying pain, cramping, tenderness, gas, fever, nausea and diarrhea.
Though usually mild, in serious cases bleeding may occur and may sometimes
be massive. This is also a chronic illness with no known cure.
Proctitis is an inflammation of the rectum and is characterized by bloody
stools, a frequent urge to defecate but inability to do so and sometimes
diarrhea.

Beneficial effects of cannabis treatment have been reported for appetite, pain,
nausea, vomiting, fatigue, activity and depression. Patients also reported that
cannabis use resulted in weight gain, fewer stools per day and less severe flareups. Patients not only report significant relief of their symptoms, but are also able
to reduce the amount of prescribed immunosuppressive medications.

Insomnia
Cannabis has been shown to have a beneficial effect in helping sufferers or
chronic insomnia, who report positive results from moderate consumption one
hour before retiring. THC does not differ from conventional hypnotics in reducing
rapid eye movement (REM) sleep. When THC was administered orally as a
hydroalcoholic solution in doses of 10, 20 and 30 milligrams, subjects fell asleep
faster after having mood alterations consistent with a high. Some degree of a
hangover the following day follows larger doses. Ingestion can be very beneficial
in treating insomnia and a dose of cannabis oil or an edible an hour before bed
certainly benefits most sufferers.

Lack of Appetite (See Anorexia Nervosa)
One common side effect of taking cannabis is a powerful urge to eat, sometimes
known as the “munchies.” Dr Kunos, scientific director of the National Institute on
Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism at the National Institutes of Health in the United
States, carried out studies into the brain’s own natural endocannabinoids to see if
they had the same effect on appetite as cannabinoids in the cannabis plant.
49

Together with colleagues from Italy, Japan and the U.S., he found that, just like
cannabis, natural endocannabinoids did indeed stimulate the appetite. This may go
some way to explain why endocannabinoids are found in human breast milk and it
is thought this has some function in stimulating babies to feed.

One of the most fascinating aspects of cannabis in relation to appetite is the
effect of cannabis on body weight. Researchers have found that the cannabis can
induce weight loss in those that are overweight and yet induce weight gain in
people who are underweight. Currently no other drug can perform this dual
function. Doctors can prescribe drugs for weight gain and weight loss but they
cannot prescribe a drug that can do both.

Studies published in the American Journal of Epidemiology found that
nationally in the U.S., rates of obesity were approximately one third lower in
individuals who smoked cannabis at least three times a week.

50 The results were
compared to people who have never used cannabis, and even after adjusting for
other factors such as cigarette smoking, health, age and gender, the conclusion was
that there is an inexplicable connection. Researchers analyzed data from over
52,000 participants in two large national surveys of the American population. The
first survey found that 22% of those who did not smoke cannabis were obese,
compared with just 14% of regular cannabis smokers. The second survey found
that 25% of nonsmokers were obese, compared with 17% of regular cannabis
users.

Leukemia
Leukemia is cancer of the blood cells. It starts in the bone marrow, the soft tissue
inside most bones where blood cells are made. Studies have shown that THC kills
leukemia cells. Cannabis oil is an effective treatment for this condition. Exposure
of leukemia cells to cannabidiol has been shown to cause CB2-mediated reduction
in cell viability and generation of leukemia apoptosis (programmed cell death).
51

Furthermore, cannabidiol treatment led to a significant decrease in tumors.

Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA)
Cannabinoids are unaffected by the mechanism that superbugs like MRSA use to
resist antibiotics. Scientists from Italy and the United Kingdom published research
in The Journal of Natural Products reporting that cannabis-based creams could
also be developed to treat persistent skin infections.
52

Juiced organic oranges and fresh cannabis leaves; delicious!

Migraines
Many people confuse migraine headaches with cervicogenic headaches that arise
from problems originating in the structures of the neck. Migraine headaches are
usually unilateral (affecting one half of the head) and pulsating, lasting from 4 to
72 hours with symptoms of nausea, vomiting and sensitivity to light. It was once
thought that migraines were initiated exclusively by problems with the blood
vessels within the brain. However, the root causes of migraines are still unclear
and there is new research that suggests they could be caused by CECD (see
clinical endocannabinoid deficiency). Cannabis use is one of the most effective
treatments for chronic, debilitating migraine attacks. Sufferers report that cannabis
buds administered with a vaporizer give sustained relief within a very short
period of time.

Multiple Sclerosis
MS is an autoimmune disease that affects the brain and spinal cord (central
nervous system). In medical trials it was found that although THC does not halt the
progress of multiple sclerosis, it does help to ease symptoms dramatically.
Studies show that a dosage of 5 milligrams per day of THC produced relief from
symptoms.

53 According to clinical trial data published in the Journal of
Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, “The oral administration of cannabis
extracts significantly reduces muscle stiffness in patients with MS.”

Muscle Spasms
An antispasmodic is a drug that suppresses muscle spasms seen in neurologic
conditions such as cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, and spinal cord disease.
Trials show that cannabis helps relieve peripheral muscular pain and cramping as
effectively as pharmaceutical medications such as baclofen, tizanidine, and
dantrolene, with no side effects. Clinical trials conducted by Jody Corey-Bloom,
MD, PhD, of the University of California San Diego have shown smoking
cannabis cuts spasticity and pain that is resistant to conventional therapy in
multiple sclerosis (MS). Spasticity scores on the modified Ashworth scale
dropped by an average 2.74 points more with smoked cannabis than with
placebo.

54 A difference of 2 or more points is considered clinically meaningful on
the 30-point Ashworth scale indicating mobility of elbows, hips, and knees. The
trial included 30 patients with treatment-resistant spasticity randomized to doubleblind use of a placebo cigarette or smoked cannabis, once daily for 3 days with
crossover after an 11-day washout period. Pain scores, although relatively low to
begin with at an average 12 or 13 points on the 100-point Visual Analogue Scale,
fell by an additional 5.28 points with cannabis use. (Corey-Bloom J, et al -
Smoked cannabis for spasticity in multiple sclerosis: a randomized, placebocontrolled trial).
55

Nausea and Vomiting
Cannabinoids are extremely effective in treating nausea, vomiting and general
sickness in many patients. It is particularly useful for cancer patients who choose
to undergo chemotherapy and is recommended. THC is found to be superior to
either Prochloperazine or Metoclopramide for pediatric cancer patients.
56

Osteoporosis
Studies indicate that cannabis use may protect against osteoporosis, otherwise
known as brittle bone disease. In normal bone growth, there is a balance between
osteoblasts (the bone-forming cells) and osteoclasts (the bone-reabsorbing
cells).

57 As we age, the osteoblasts slow down but osteoclasts continue to
function normally and in some cases actually increase activity, which leads to the
condition. Recently, the main components of the endocannabinoid system, namely
the CB1 and CB2 receptors, along with the two main endocannabinoids,
Anandamide and 2-AG, have been found in the human skeleton and they are
reported to be involved in the regulation of bone metabolism.

CB1 receptor deficiency is believed to cause osteoporosis due to a marked
increase in bone reabsorption, with an associated reduction in bone formation
leading to increased fat cells in the bone marrow. During trials, this fat
accumulation was prevented by cannabis use. Scientists now believe that the main
physiologic involvement of specific CB2 receptors is to maintain a balance of
bone remodeling, thus protecting the skeleton against age-related bone loss.
Investigators at the Bone Laboratory of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem
reported in the January 2006 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences that the administration of the synthetic cannabinoid agonist HU-308
slowed the development of osteoporosis, stimulated bone building and reduced
bone loss.
58

Pain Relief (Analgesia)
Prescription drug abuse is a pandemic problem in the United States today, with
more than five million Americans now addicted to painkilling drugs such as
OxyContin (oxycodone).

59 The analgesic or pain-relieving effects of cannabis are
due in part to its chemical similarity to compounds produced naturally in the body,
but without the potential for addiction. The endocannabinoids produced by our
bodies are normally released by the brain under conditions of high stress or pain.
Researchers at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, found
that cannabis significantly reduces HIV-related neuropathic pain when added to a
patient’s already-prescribed pain-management regimen, and is an effective option
for pain relief in those whose pain is not controlled with current medications.
60

A further study was carried out by researchers from McGill University in
Canada, funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health and published in the peerreviewed Canadian Medical Association Journal. They reported that smoking
cannabis from a pipe could significantly reduce chronic pain in patients with
damaged nerves, adding that improvements in sleep and anxiety were also helpful
to sufferers. In another unconnected study, THC administered intravenously to
dental patients in doses of 44 nanograms per kilogram before undergoing tooth
extraction was shown to produce a longer-lasting and positive analgesic effect
compared to other analgesics, with no significant side effects noted.
61

Cannabis is also known to make anesthetic far more “efficient,” so if you are
scheduled to undergo general anesthesia for whatever reason you are advised not
to use any for at least 12 hours prior to the operation. If you are under the
influence of cannabis, your anesthetist will panic as you will go too far under
when they administer the drug. You can use as much cannabis as you require once
the anesthetic has worn off.

Parkinson’s Syndrome
Also known as Parkinson’s disease, this is a degenerative disorder of the brain
that leads to shaking (tremors) and difficulty with walking, movement and
coordination. Cannabis is very effective at reducing, and in some instances
completely stopping, the tremors and shaking (see Clinical Endocannabinoid
Deficiency). The cannabinoids need to be taken at regular intervals to maintain the
effect, and the condition is not cured by cannabis use, but it does provide relief
from symptoms of sufferers.

In two patients with Parkinson’s syndrome and coexisting dystonia who
received doses of over 300 milligrams per day, it was reported that it exacerbated
the hypokinesia and resting tremor, indicating there could be an aggravating action
in such patients.
62

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
Post-traumatic stress disorder is a severe anxiety disorder that can develop after
exposure to any event that involves psychological trauma. Cannabis reduces the
emotional impact of traumatic memories through synergistic mechanisms that make
it easier for people with PTSD to sleep and feel less anxious, with reduced
flashback memories. Whilst Israel allows medical cannabis use for any of its
soldiers suffering from PTSD, an effort to persuade the U.S. administration to
legalize cannabis for disabled war veterans who suffer from the condition was
met with rejection from the White House. Gil Kerlikowske, Director of the Office
of National Drug Control Policy, stated in June 201, that cannabis is not a benign
drug and does not meet standards of safe or effective medicine.
63

This is incorrect.
One in five Iraq and Afghanistan veterans suffer from PTSD, and those who do
seek treatment are prescribed expensive pharmaceutical drugs. Of these, nearly
20% will be given dangerous opioid-based narcotics like OxyContin and Vicodin
instead of cannabis. According to a new study reported in The Journal of the
American Medical Association, researchers found that whilst less than 7% of
veterans without any mental health problems were prescribed addictive opiate
painkillers, almost 18% with PTSD received a prescription for them.
64

Opioid-based drugs are totally unsuitable for PTSD treatment and it is
alarming that Vicodin is one of the top U.S. pharmaceutical products prescribed,
when medical cannabis is far superior in terms of efficacy and cost. OxyContin is
a $3 billion business and even more profitable than Vicodin for the
pharmaceutical companies and their investors.

65 We can safely assume that the
Office of National Drug Control Policy is fully aware of these statistics, and there
is surely something morally wrong in denying combat veterans appropriate
medication that not only works, but has been requested by the veterans themselves.
PTSD has been recognized in combat veterans since Roman times, but it is only
recently that the military has been forced to address the issue. It was found after
the Falklands war in 1982 that returning British soldiers were badly affected by
the brutal fighting and within ten years more veterans had committed suicide than
died in the actual conflict.
66

A “blunt.” A cannabis joint rolled with a cigar wrapper.
According to HealthDay News (March 2012), suicides among U.S. soldiers
rose 80% from 2004 to 2008.

67 An Army study found that as many as 40% of these
suicides may have been linked to combat experience in Iraq. Lead researcher
Michelle Canham-Chervak, a senior epidemiologist, stated:
“Our study confirmed earlier studies by other military researchers that found
increased risk of suicide among those who experience mental-health diagnoses
associated with the stresses of war.”
Michael Krawitz, Executive Director of Veterans for Medical Cannabis
Access (VMCA) and a plaintiff in Americans for Safe Access v. Drug
Enforcement Agency, admits that the Veterans association (VA) is trying to make
progress. “The Army and Veterans Administration are trying their best to deal
with these issues and have gotten pretty creative: employing meditation, yoga and
even service dogs to assist [veterans] dealing with PTSD. But they haven’t yet
discovered cannabis.”
68

Premenstrual Syndrome
Premenstrual syndrome (PMS, also called PMT or premenstrual tension) is a
collection of physical and emotional symptoms related to a woman’s menstrual
cycle. Studies indicate that moderate cannabis use can aid in the relief of painful
stomach pains and cramps that are sometimes associated with this syndrome. It
can also have a positive effect on a sufferer’s mood and mental state.

Pregnancy
Current drug education literature still maintains that genetic damage is passed on
by female cannabis users to their unborn children. This misinformation stems from
unsubstantiated claims dating back to the late 1960s, when warnings that cannabiscaused birth defects were falsely predicted. Despite later studies disproving this,
sponsored agencies continue to claim this as fact, citing studies carried out on
rodents, where large doses of THC administered at specific times during
pregnancy were shown to be detrimental. Because the effects of drugs on fetal
development differ substantially across species, these findings are of no real
relevance to humans, and studies with primates show no evidence of fetal harm
from cannabis use. In one case, researchers exposed chimpanzees to high doses of
THC for up to 152 days and found no resultant change in the sexual behavior,
fertility or health of their offspring.
Research on human children examining the effects of prenatal exposure to
cannabis have found no detrimental indications in cannabis-exposed babies in
terms of health, temperament, personality, sleeping patterns, eating habits, psychomotor ability, physical development or mental functioning. In fact other studies
indicate that babies actually benefit from exposure to cannabinoids whilst in the
womb. However, when researchers looked at black and Caucasian children
separately, they found slightly lower scores on two subscales of the IQ test. In
neither case did the frequency or quantity of the mothers’ cannabis use affect the
outcomes. This makes it extremely unlikely that they were actually caused by
cannabis use. Nevertheless, this study is now cited as evidence that using cannabis
during pregnancy impairs the intellectual capacity of children.
Melanie Dreher, RN, PhD, FAAN, coauthor of Women and Cannabis:
Medicine, Science, and Sociology, is the Dean of the University of Iowa’s
College of Nursing and also holds the post of Associate Director for the
University’s Department of Nursing and Patient Services. She has honor degrees
in nursing, anthropology and philosophy, and a PhD in anthropology from
Columbia University. Alongside her achievements as a widely published
researcher, writer and college administrator, Dreher is also a professor and
lecturer at several institutions, including the University of the West Indies. She
recently served as president of the 120,000-member Sigma Theta Tau
International Nursing Honor Society and is an internationally well-respected
academic.

Cannabis was used as legal medicine until fairly recently.
Dreher has carried out an extensive study of pregnant women in Jamaica,
which was later published in the American Journal of Pediatrics (1994)
indicating that cannabis was being used in a cultural and medical context as a way
to relieve morning sickness or nausea, prevent depression and fatigue, and to
improve appetite.

69 Dreher acknowledges that such use is discouraged at
Jamaican state prenatal clinics, but found that many women still consider cannabis
to hold therapeutic benefits to both themselves and their unborn children. She
studied a cross section of women who both used and abstained from cannabis
during their pregnancy and then examined the babies one year after birth.
During the 30-day test period, it was expected that there would be a marked
difference in the babies, specifically with regard to birth weight and neurological
tests. Unexpectedly, it was discovered that children of the women who smoked
cannabis regularly during pregnancy were more socially skilled, had better
organization skills and improved sleeping patterns, were less prone to stressrelated anxiety and made eye contact more readily. Those infants who had been
most heavily exposed to cannabinoids indicated that:
The quality of their alertness was higher.
Motor and autonomic systems were more robust.
They were inclined to be less irritable.
They were less likely to demonstrate any imbalance of tone.
They required less examiner facilitation to become organized.
They displayed better self-regulation.
They were more socially responsible and autonomically stable.
Dr. Dreher continues to argue against the restrictions placed on academics and
scientists with regard to research concerning cannabinoid use during pregnancy,
and objects strongly to the manner in which the public is deliberately
misinformed. Furthermore, because women often face severe legal sanctions,
including loss of custody, for admitting to cannabis use during pregnancy, most
mothers refuse to divulge such information. Dreher recently wrote of how she had
carried out an Internet search regarding pregnancy and cannabis. Typical of the
disinformation she found was an article entitled, “Exposure to marijuana in the
womb may harm your fetuses [sic] brain.” The article stated, “Over the past
decade several studies have linked behavior problems and lower IQ scores in
children to prenatal use of marijuana.” This statement is both inaccurate and
untrue.

Cannabis medicine.
Several major scientific studies have found that human breast milk naturally
contains an abundance of the same cannabinoids found in cannabis, and one of its
functions is to protect the cells against viruses, harmful bacteria, cancer and other
malignancies. It has also been found that without these cannabinoids in breast
milk, babies would not have the inclination to eat and promote growth. A study on
the endocannabinoid receptor system published in the European Journal of
Pharmacology (2004) states:

“Endocannabinoids have been detected in maternal milk and activation of CB1
(cannabinoid receptor type 1) receptors appears to be critical for milk sucking by
apparently activating oral-motor musculature.”
70

A survey conducted by the directors of the Vancouver Island Compassion
Society and the BC Compassion Club, published in the journal Complementary
Therapies in Clinical Practice, reported that cannabis is therapeutic in the
treatment of both morning sickness and hyperemesis gravidarum (a severe form of
morning sickness, causing severe nausea and/or vomiting that prevents adequate
intake of food and fluids).

71 Of the 84 women who responded to the anonymous
questionnaire, almost half said that they had used cannabis intermittently during
their pregnancy to treat symptoms of vomiting, nausea and appetite loss. Of these,
92% said that cannabis was “effective or extremely effective” in combating their
symptoms and whilst most women chose to self-administer cannabis by smoking,
31% also reported benefit from consuming canna-edibles, and 8% reported using
cannabis-based oils or tinctures. It is not recommended that any form of tobacco
be used during pregnancy.

Premature Ejaculation
Premature ejaculation in men is conventionally perceived as “psychological.”
This seems less tenable when anecdotes support the claim that cannabis prolongs
latency (time interval) and proof is apparent in the dose responsive delay in
ejaculation in rats noted in experiments with HU 210, a powerful CB1 agonist. An
agonist is a chemical that binds to some receptor of a cell and triggers a response
by that cell.
72

Australian research shows men who smoked cannabis daily were found to be
four times more likely to have trouble reaching orgasm than those who did not,
according to the La Trobe University study.

73 Professor Anthony Smith said whilst
the habit often had a significant impact on a man’s sex life, the effects were not
always something the smokers would consider a sexual health problem. “The
findings suggest that men are self-medicating with cannabis to delay orgasm,” said
Professor Smith from the Melbourne-based University’s Australian Research
Centre in Sex, Health and Society. The study took in more than 8600 people, aged
16 to 64, who were surveyed by telephone as part of the Australian Longitudinal
Study of Health and Relationships.

Pruritus
This is chronic itching caused by a complex process involving different
neurotransmitters, the hormonal system and blood vessels of the skin, psyche and
other systems. Positive effects have been reported by a number of patients who
have used cannabis to alleviate symptoms. Researchers at the Wroclaw
University, Poland, investigated the effects of a cannabis-based ointment on 21
patients with pruritus due to end-stage failure of kidney function.

74 All patients
applied the cream twice daily for a period of three weeks. Pruritus was
completely eliminated in eight of the patients, with a noticeable improvement in
the other test subjects.

Psoriasis
Psoriasis is an autoimmune disease that affects the skin. It occurs when the
immune system mistakes the skin cells as a pathogen, and sends out faulty signals.
Cannabis is used by many patients to treat psoriasis; the positive reaction is
thought to be due to the anti-inflammatory properties of cannabinoids and their
regulatory effects on the immune system. Regular topical applications of a
cannabis-based cream or lotion can be beneficial and effective for many sufferers.
Left image shows the results of medically prescribed treatment with the chemotherapy drug
Methotrexate. Side effects: Nausea, fever, diarrhea, abnormal liver function and increased risk of
infection. Right image is the same arm treated with cannabis oil applied topically 3 times a day for 9
days. Side effects: Can now go swimming with her family for the first time.

Sickle-Cell Disease
Sufferers of sickle-cell anemia inherit a disease that is passed down through
families, resulting in red blood cells forming an abnormal sickle or crescent shape
within the body. Red blood cells carry oxygen and are normally shaped like a
disc. Cannabis does not cure sickle-cell anemia, but is highly effective in
managing pain. Cannabis also acts as a powerful anti-inflammatory without any
side effects. The ocular (eyes and vision) effects of sickle-cell disease result from
vascular occlusion, which may occur in the conjunctiva, iris, retina and choroid.
Cannabis provides neuro-protective effects that may reduce the incidence of
retinopathy and neuropathy.

Spinal Cord Injuries
Cannabinoids have been shown to be effective in reducing spasticity, and reports
by individuals with these injuries have revealed a beneficial effect from cannabis
use. The relaxing effect of cannabis on muscles in patients with spinal cord
injury–related spasticity is due to an anti-spastic effect rather than a general
relaxation response. According to data published in the Journal of Neurotoxicity
Research, the administration of cannabidiol (CBD) improves mobility in rats with
spinal cord injuries.
75

Investigators at the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil
assessed the impact of CBD on motor function in rats with cryogenically (frozen)
induced spinal cord injury.

76 The animals received injections of a placebo or
CBD immediately before, three hours after and daily for six days after surgery.
Researchers reported that cannabidiol-treated rats exhibited higher locomotor
skills at the end of one week. Researchers reported, “Cannabidiol improved
locomotor functional recovery and reduced injury extent, suggesting that it could
be useful in the treatment of spinal cord lesions.”
77

Strokes
A stroke is extremely serious and can cause permanent neurological damage,
complications and death. Risk factors for stroke include old age, high blood
pressure, previous stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), diabetes, high
cholesterol, cigarette-smoking and arterial fibrillation. Extracts from cannabis
plants could have some efficacy in preventing brain damage after stroke,
according to a team led by the British-born biologist Aidan Hampson at the U.S.
National Institute for Mental Health in Maryland.

78 They discovered that THC and
cannabidiol each act to prevent damage to brain tissue under laboratory
conditions. Rats that were given cannabis decreased the size of their stroke by
50% and their brain injury was lessened by as much as 50%.
Cannabis oil-based cream for topical application.

Tourette’s Syndrome
This is a neurological disorder characterized by repetitive involuntary movements
and vocalizations. In extreme cases, this condition causes the patient to move their
limbs, shout, use inappropriate language and, in many cases, spit at people. It is
very distressing for both sufferers and their families. There have been a number of
studies investigating the therapeutic benefit of cannabinoids in treating tics
associated with Tourette’s. One of these studies (Muller-Vahl et al, 1998) found
that when interviewed, 17 of 64 patients with tics admitted using cannabis, and 14
of these said that it reduced tics, premonitory urges and obsessive compulsive
disorders (OCD).
79

Another study reported a case report of a 25-year-old man with tics, ADHD,
OCD and self-injurious behavior, who found that the use of tetrahydrocannabinoid
(THC) helped with many of these symptoms (Muller-Vahl et al, 1999).

80 A single
dose of THC was shown to reduce his tic score on the YGTSS from 41 to 7, two
hours after treatment. The patient also reported reduced premonitory urges and
neuropsychological testing indicated improvements in signal detection and
sustained attention. Medical cannabis has been shown to reduce the compulsion
for patients to behave in socially unacceptable or inappropriate ways and control
involuntary limb movement.

Ulcers and Warts
Ulcers can be cured internally by ingesting high-quality cannabis oil. External
ulcers, warts and moles can be removed by topically applying cannabis oil and
covering with a breathable plaster. The most effective coverings are the strips you
cut to size yourself.
 
Last edited:
Its no wonder they have been keeping this plant away for the people!!


Hemp Nutrition and Health

The importance of good nutrition in maintaining optimum health cannot be overemphasized, considering the modern Western diet. As Dr. Alejandro Junger stated, “The problem is we are not eating food anymore, we are eating food-like products.” 1 We are the descendants of hunter-gatherers, and our ancestors primarily ate vegetables, fruit, nuts, seeds, roots, fish and meat. This diet was high in healthy fats and protein, but low in grain and sugar-derived carbohydrates. The average person’s diet today is not what we have evolved to live on and we now suffer more chronic and debilitating diseases than ever before. Particularly within Western society today, a large percentage of people are overfed and undernourished with large amounts of trans fat, refined sugar, cereal, bread, potatoes or pasteurized milk products comprising their diet. Eating a diet that is high in trans fat can raise the level of cholesterol in the blood increasing the risk of cancer and heart disease. Although traditional medical advice, based on a decades-old, misconstrued study by Nathan Pritikin, led many of us to believe that saturated fat was the enemy of good health and a major cause of heart disease, it is now thought that saturated fat is essential for good health-especially of the brain, cells, liver and for effective absorption of vitamins and minerals as well as protection against disease. Modern studies show that in fact trans fats (unsaturated fats with trans-isomer fatty acids), excessive consumption of carbs and sugars and a diet low in fat can be incredibly dangerous. The proliferation of processed food into our modern diets has caused many of the medical issues mentioned above, and the obsession with “low-fat” alternatives to fatty products means that sugars and carbs sneak into our diets under the guise of being healthy. A diverse diet based in unprocessed, whole foods with good quality fats and proteins, healthy grains and pseudocereals, lots of fruit and vegetables and limited amounts of sugar is your best bet for a healthy body–and hemp can be an important part of such a diet. Commercially available hemp seed and oil.

It was not until the 20th century that obesity became a global health issue, and the World Health Organization recognized it as a worldwide epidemic. 2 In 2008, the organization estimated that 1.5 billion adults were overweight, and of these, over 200 million men and nearly 300 million women were obese. 3 Obesity is defined as an abnormal or excessive fat accumulation that may impair health; a body mass index (BMI) greater than or equal to 25 is classified as overweight, and a BMI greater than or equal to 30 is labeled obesity. Furthermore, in 2010, more than 40 million children under five were categorized as overweight. The American Institute for Cancer Research’s second expert report, Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective, confirms the relationship between excess body fat and increased cancer risk. 4 According to the scientific literature, there is convincing evidence that body fat increases risk for cancers of the esophagus, pancreas, colon and rectum, endometrium, kidney, and breast cancer (in postmenopausal women).
 
The more I dig into the past, the more I realize how many lies were told to pass laws to benefit the money class!! Its safe to say if they lied about a plant, there's a 99.999999% that everything is a damn lie!! Anyway, lets get back to our plant!!


Anslinger: The Archnemesis of Cannabis


Adapted from Smoke Signals: A Social History of Marijuana—
Medical, Recreational and Scientific by Martin A. Lee

On August 11, 1930, Harry Jacob Anslinger became the director of the
newly formed Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) in Washington, DC.
He was the godfather of America’s war on drugs, and his influence on
public policy would be felt long after death stiffened his fingers in
1975.

Anslinger didn’t pay much attention to cannabis until 1934, when the
FBN was floundering. Tax revenues plummeted during the Great
Depression, the bureau’s budget got slashed, and Harry’s entire
department was on the chopping block. Then he saw the light and
realized that marijuana might just be the perfect hook to hang his hat
on.

Anslinger understood that the likelihood of prohibitory legislation
increased if the substance in question was associated with ethnic
minorities. He eschewed references to benign-sounding cannabis and
hemp, while calling for a federal ban on marihuana. Very few
Americans knew that marijuana, the weed that some African
Americans and Chicanos were smoking, was merely a weaker version
of the concentrated cannabis medicines that everyone had been taking
since childhood. By stigmatizing marijuana and the ‘foreigners’ who
smoked it, Hearst succeeded in exacerbating anti-Mexican sentiment
during the Great Depression, when many Anglos felt they were
competing with brown-skinned migrants for scarce jobs.

To gain public support for his crusade, Anslinger depicted marijuana
as a sinister substance that made Mexican and African American men
lust after white women. His diatribes served as a not-so-subtle
reminder to white women, who had only recently won the right to vote,
that they still needed strong men to protect them from the “degenerate
races.” He never tired of telling new versions of the same morality tale.
The film Marijuana! (1935) featured the lurid tag line “Weird orgies!
Wild parties! Unleashed passions!” But when it came to ridiculous
anti-marijuana propaganda, nothing could top Hot Fingers Pirielli, the
bug-eyed piano player who pounds out jazz tunes in Tell Your
Children (1936), better known by its later title Reefer Madness.
Although it bombed at the box office, Reefer Madness was destined to
become a cult humor classic among American college students in later
years. A vivid example of the national frenzy that set the stage for
federal pot prohibition, this film epitomized the synchronicity among
Washington, Hollywood, and mainstream media in the war against
cannabis.
 
Industrial Hemp versus Medical Cannabis–Derived CBD

The key difference between hemp plants and cannabis plants is resin
content. Industrial hemp varieties are typically a low-resin agricultural
crop, grown from pedigree seed, with about one hundred tall, skinny plants
per square meter. They are machine harvested and manufactured into a
multitude of products, including rope, cloth, and plastics. It is believed that
the word “canvas,
the cloth used for the sails of ships, is a variation of the
word “cannabis.” Modern medicinal or recreational cannabis plants are a
high-resin horticultural crop, typically grown from asexually reproduced
female clones, one or two plants per square meter, and hand harvested,
dried, trimmed, and cured.

Whether extracted from hemp or cannabis, CBD is the same molecule.
Industrial hemp usually contains about 3.5 percent CBD plus a very small
amount of THC—less than 0.1 percent. To extract CBD, a large amount of
hemp is required to make a small amount of CBD-rich product. The
challenge, therefore, becomes the extraction method for production. The
cheapest way to extract the CBD is to use solvents, such as butane and
hexane. However, with this method, toxic residues can remain in the oil.

Tests in 2014 conducted by Project CBD found significant levels of
dangerous solvent residues such as hexane (a neurotoxin according to the
Environmental Protection Agency) in random samples of CBD products
derived from industrial hemp. Also, the hemp plant itself is a bioaccumulator, meaning that it tends to absorb toxins from the soil. It does
this so effectively that it was used in the post-Chernobyl nuclear disaster
cleanup. Thus, if the hemp is to be consumed by human beings, the soil
must be monitored closely, and organic approaches are highly
recommended. Many CBD products are made from industrial hemp grown
in China, and some of them can contain significant levels of heavy metals
and pesticides. Toxic chemicals tend to accumulate and increase potency
when extraction and concentration are performed. Extraction is the usual
process of concentrating the molecules of interest, and the toxic chemicals
cannot be separated with this method. It is highly recommended to know
the source and growing techniques of any CBD products one consumes.

Much of the cannabis used in today’s medical cannabis industry does
have higher levels of THC than hemp has, but some strains are also much
higher in CBD, up to 20 percent. Because of this, CBD can be extracted
from the whole plant using a simple oil infusion method or a tincturing
method with high-proof alcohol.

For many reasons, CBD-rich cannabis is a better source of CBD than
industrial hemp. Many manufacturers of CBD oil use Chinese-grown
hemp and market their products online. They are restricted by the FDA
from calling it a dietary supplement, and in 2016 the FDA singled out
eight CBD oil producers for making substandard products as well as
making unsubstantiated medical claims about treating pain, spasms,
cancer, and other ailments.

466 The FDA and DEA have never approved
CBD as a supplement for any kind of medical use.
At time of press, according to U.S. state medical cannabis laws, a CBDinfused oil product (from hemp or cannabis) can be used legally for
therapeutic purposes if it is consumed by a certified medical patient,
following local guidelines, in a state that has legalized medical or
recreational cannabis or, in some cases, CBD-only products
 
10 CBD Facts You Need To Know


#1: Key Ingredient
Cannabidiol is a key ingredient in cannabis, one of more than 60 compounds unique to the plant and grouped under the umbrella term “cannabinoids.” Cannabidiol, otherwise known as CBD, and THC are usually the most common cannabinoids in the plant and are therefore the most widely studied.

#2: Won’t Get You High
CBD does not get you high like THC does. THC causes euphoria by binding to special CB1 and CB2 nerve receptors in the brain. CBD does not bind to these receptors, so cannabidiol does not get you stoned.

#3: CBD From Hemp is Legal
CBD can be made from medical marijuana plants or industrial hemp plants. Marijuana is illegal under federal law but legal in some states. Industrial hemp when grown in other countries can be imported legally into the United States, making it easier for consumers to get CBD treatment without breaking the law.

#4: Cannabinoid Levels Vary
CBD and THC levels, known as cannabinoids, vary between plants. Marijuana plants grown for recreational use tend to be high in THC and varying amounts of CBD. Industrial hemp plants are very low in THC while medical marijuana plants are typically high in CBD.

#5: No Prescription Needed
It is legal to order CBD made from industrial hemp plants online for use in any state without a prescription. Individuals ordering CBD products made from medical marijuana plants must live in a state where medical marijuana is legal and have a prescription.

#6: Has Medical Value
Scientific studies show CBD provides therapeutic medicinal benefits. According to a 2013 review published in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, soothes nausea and vomiting, acts as an anti-oxidant to reduce free radicals that cause neurodegenerative disorders, and works as an anti-inflammatory to reduce swelling. CBD also stimulates appetite and relieves pain.

#7: Benefits the Mind
CBD also combats psychological issues, including working as an antipsychotic to combat psychosis. Additionally, CBD works to reduce chronic anxiety and depression disorders. These benefits of CBD are also helpful for patients struggling with temporary anxiety and depression resulting from a more serious medical condition.

#8: Combats Cancer Spread
CBD products may reduce the spread of some types of cancer cells. The National Cancer Institute reviews several studies that show cannabidiol may have a protective effect against cancer. This review includes research investigating the benefits of CBD treatment for a variety of cancers, including breast, colorectal, and lung cancers.

#9: Reduce THC Fallout
CBD counteracts the negative effects of THC. According to research published in the British Journal of Psychiatry, CBD seems to prevent THC-induced memory impairment. CBD may also ease paranoia and other negative side effects commonly associated with THC.

#10: Helping Children with Seizures
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted University of California at San Francisco researchers permission to study the effects of the purified cannabidiol drug on children with uncontrolled seizures. Study participants are all between the ages of 1 and 18 years, and all suffer symptoms resistant to conventional treatments. Many participants have Dravet syndrome, a condition that begins in early childhood and causes frequent, disabling seizures on a daily basis. The FDA and Drug Enforcement Agency promise to monitor the research closely. Pending FDA approval, more institutions will take up the study.

 
The Path to Federal Legalization

We believe that cannabis will eventually become federally legal for recreational enjoyment by adults
and for use in a broad range of safe drugs and therapeutic products. A wide gulf currently separates
federal policy from state legalization initiatives. Both federal and state regulators lack experience with
science-based regulation that allows cannabis access, but they approach this lack of experience differently. Current federal policy is slow-turning and bureaucratic; it requires rigorous scientific evidence
that cannabis is safe and effective but largely prohibits the industry from developing that evidence.

State legalization initiatives are experimental: they start by legalizing the cannabis industry, then task
state regulators with implementing rules and safeguards as the industry builds its scientific foundation
and its markets.

We believe that federal policy will move (and may already be moving) in a new direction which
allows for federally approved cannabis-derived drugs. If that happens, and if several cannabis-derived
drugs are federally approved, we expect the FDA and the DEA will have developed data and protocols
that facilitate more rapid approval of medical cannabis products. And if that happens, these federal
agencies should be able to combine their science-based regulatory practices with the best practices of
state regulators to develop a comprehensive federal approach to medical and recreational cannabis.

DEA and FDA Policy Direction
The path to federal legalization begins with understanding that current federal law, in theory, allows for
the production, distribution and prescription of medical cannabis products in the United States. The
DEA can register manufacturers to produce medical cannabis products in accordance with the CSA.
The FDA can approve medical cannabis products for distribution in accordance with the FD&C Act.
The DEA (an agency of the DOJ) and the FDA (an agency of the DHHS) together can cause medical
cannabis products to be rescheduled under the CSA so that doctors legally can prescribe them. None
of these regulatory actions requires a change in law. Technically, cannabis is not entirely prohibited by
federal law.

But in any practical sense, cannabis is federally prohibited. For nearly 50 years, the DEA has registered only one cannabis manufacturer. The FDA has never approved a cannabis-derived drug. Because
marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance, the lone DEA-registered cannabis manufacturer
can produce cannabis only for strictly controlled research, and doctors cannot prescribe any marijuana
compound or derivative as medicine. A duo of federal regulatory agencies—not federal law—prohibits
lawful access to medical cannabis products; this may be changing. The DEA and the FDA appear to be
exploring policies and practices that could result in the actual production, distribution and prescription
of cannabis-derived drugs.

In August 2016, the DEA announced a new policy designed to increase (beyond one) the number
of DEA-registered cannabis cultivators and permit-registered cultivators to grow cannabis for privately
funded commercial drug development projects. The DEA has since accepted at least 25 applications for
registration but has not issued any new registrations. Some observers believe the new policy initiative
has stalled under the leadership of the DOJ, currently run by U.S. Attorney General Sessions. How-

ever, that the DEA recognized and responded to the demand for expanded registration is a significant
development on its own, and one that we believe may signal an important redirection of DEA policy.

In October 2017, the FDA accepted GW Pharmaceuticals’ New Drug Application (NDA) for the
cannabis-derived drug Epidiolex. The steps required to file an NDA for any drug involve extensive
coordination and data sharing between the FDA and the applicant; submission of the Epidiolex NDA
is an important milestone toward FDA approval. Many observers expect that Epidiolex will be the first
cannabis-derived drug approved by the FDA.

Additionally, the FDA published industry guidance on botanical drug development in December
2016, several months after the DEA announced its new registration policy. The FDA guidance discusses challenges inherent to botanical drugs, including challenges related to ensuring therapeutic consistency, and suggests certain steps to address those challenges. The FDA guidance updates and replaces
similar guidance last issued in June 2004, and we believe that the timing of this update may relate to
other cannabis-related developments at the FDA and the DEA.

Federal Legalization: Predicted Developments
We predict six developments on the path to federal legalization: (1) the FDA will begin approving individual pharmaceutical-grade drugs derived from cannabis; (2) more states will adopt medical cannabis
laws; (3) more states will adopt recreational laws; (4) the FDA will adopt routine approval procedures
for drugs with extracts of low-THC/high-CBD cannabis varieties; (5) the FDA will adopt routine
approval procedures for drugs with extracts of high-THC cannabis varieties; and (6) cannabis parts
and derivatives will be removed from the CSA schedules (either incrementally, starting with CBD, or
all at once) and will be fully legal for medical and
recreational purposes.

We do not predict that these developments
necessarily will occur in the order presented. We
do expect some of them to develop in parallel, and
none of them depends fundamentally on any other.
The manner in which federal cannabis legalization
actually proceeds, and the timing of any related
developments, are not known to us or anyone else.

Almost certainly, our predictions will prove inaccurate in some respects. States may reverse their legalization efforts. The medical efficacy of cannabis
may not be proved to be significant. Cannabis may
never be legalized federally. However, we believe
these developments will likely be among others
that lead to the federal legalization of cannabis. We
expand on each of these developments in the following discussion.

Path to Federal Legalization

1. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration will
begin approving individual pharmaceuticalgrade drugs derived from cannabis.

2. More states will adopt medical cannabis
laws.

3. More states will adopt recreational laws.

4. The FDA will adopt routine approval
procedures for drugs with extracts of
low-THC/high-CBD cannabis varieties.

5. The FDA will adopt routine approval
procedures for drugs with extracts of
high-THC cannabis varieties.

6. Cannabis parts and derivatives will be
removed from the CSA schedules and will
be fully legal for medical and recreational
purposes.


(1) FDA Approves Cannabis-Derived Pharmaceuticals
The FDA will approve pharmaceutical-grade drugs derived from cannabis through the NDA process.
FDA approval will require manufacturers to use cannabis varieties with particular chemical profiles and
to demonstrate the ability to control the chemical consistency of those varieties during manufacturing.
The DEA will place a narrow characterization of each FDA-approved drug on CSA Schedule II, III, IV
or V, and will issue one or more registrations to manufacture the drug and the cannabis variety used to
produce the drug. The FDA will improve and refine its botanical-drug review process in general and,
in particular, as it relates to cannabis-derived drugs. The FDA, the DEA and DEA-registered cannabis
researchers and manufacturers will cooperate to create a federal database of (i) each cannabis variety
approved for use in producing an FDA-approved drug and (ii) the manufacturing controls required by
the DEA and the FDA to cultivate chemically consistent plants of the variety in accordance with the
CSA and the FDA’s drug approval. We refer to each cannabis variety in this database, together with
its required manufacturing controls, as an “FDA-registered chemovar” (a chemovar is a plant variety
characterized by its chemical content).

(2) More States Adopt Medical Cannabis Laws
More states will adopt medical cannabis laws, and the number and nature of qualifying medical conditions included in such laws will expand. Scientific research will improve the ability of the state-legal
medical cannabis industry to develop products that target specific medical conditions. Companies will
increasingly seek to differentiate such medical product offerings from recreational cannabis products.
State regulators and industry leaders will seek to standardize testing, labeling and quality control procedures particular to medical cannabis products and adopt cannabis-variety recognition and manufacturing practices consistent with those for FDA-registered chemovars.

(3) More States Adopt Recreational Laws
More states will adopt recreational laws, typically after medical cannabis has been legalized for some
period of time. States will establish agencies to comprehensively regulate both recreational and medical
cannabis; some regulatory standards will apply across both categories but, increasingly, regulations will
develop specific to each category. State regulators will learn from the recreational cannabis experience
of other states and will seek to standardize regulations that allow adults to responsibly enjoy cannabis
while protecting the health and safety of the general public. Recreational cannabis regulations will
resemble federal and state alcohol and tobacco regulations, addressing issues such as product potency
and warning labels, and restrictions on advertising and packaging that appeal to minors.

(4) FDA Routinely Approves CBD Drugs
The FDA will adopt procedures for the routine approval of drugs that contain extracts of certain
low-THC/high-CBD FDA-registered chemovars. The new procedures will involve development of
a low-THC cannabis drug monograph that resembles in some ways the FDA monographs for overthe-counter drugs. The monograph will address formulation, dosing and labeling requirements. The
FDA-registered chemovars included in the monograph will be rescheduled by the DEA to Schedule II,
III, IV or V in order to relax DEA registration requirements for manufacturing; however, the chemovars themselves (particularly their flowers) will not be approved for use by the FDA, and only drugs
produced from extracts in accordance with the monograph will receive routine FDA approval.

(5) FDA Routinely Approves THC Drugs
Relying on experience with the low-THC cannabis drug monograph and a growing database of FDAregistered chemovars, the FDA will adopt procedures for the routine approval of drugs that contain
extracts of certain high-THC FDA-registered chemovars. The procedures will parallel in many ways
those used in the low-THC monograph procedure, and likely will incorporate additional safeguards
related to THC content. The FDA-registered chemovars included in the high-THC monograph will be
rescheduled by the DEA, but cannabis flower from those rescheduled chemovars will not be approved
for use by the FDA.

(6) Federal Government Legalizes Cannabis
Parts and derivatives of the cannabis plant will be removed from the CSA schedules. This could occur
incrementally, starting with CBD (which could be removed by amending the definition of marijuana
to exclude CBD) and followed later by the rest of the plant (including THC). Or all parts and derivatives of the plant could be de-scheduled at the same time. There will be three general categories of
legal cannabis products: (i) FDA-approved drugs, which will continue to be developed and approved
through the NDA and other processes; (ii) “therapeutic” cannabis products, which may be limited
to CBD concentrates and infused products if CBD is de-scheduled first, but which eventually will
include smokable flower (including high-THC flower) and most forms of cannabis, and which will
be permitted to make limited health-related claims but will not be approved by the FDA as safe and
effective for treating any specified medical condition; and (iii) recreational products, which also may
be limited to CBD products initially, but which eventually will include a broad range of high-THC
flower, concentrates and infused products. The DEA will still require registration of cannabis and CBD
manufacturers if CBD is de-scheduled first, but once the entire cannabis plant is de-scheduled, a new
federal cannabis agency will be established to regulate medical and recreational cannabis in cooperation with the FDA and state regulators. The new agency will adopt the DEA’s institutional framework
for controlling the manufacture of chemovars used in FDA-approved drugs and the most successful
state strategies for regulating recreational cannabis, such as potency limits, labeling requirements and
restrictions on marketing to minors.
 
This is a very long read!! But, you gotta witness the tactics they used on the people and it was all just so the rich can have control of the medicine in this country!!

HisTory rePeATinG

There was a time when cannabis grew freely in America.
Green leaves blanketed fields where farmers now sow golden
rows of wheat and corn. The cannabis plant likely originated
in Asia and traveled westward with British colonial expansion
until it arrived in the 1600s in what would become the United
States.1 Hemp from cannabis made the ropes and sails of ships
that brought settlers to places unknown, the tents these men and
women slept in, the fabric that kept them warm, and, perhaps,
the oil that lit their lamps.2

For many years, cannabis was called the hemp plant because
that was its primary utility. While hemp is of the genus Cannabis,
which also includes plants abundant in THC and other cannabinoids, plants grown for hemp are distinct because they have negligible traces of THC and are valued for their seeds and meaty
and fibrous stalks.3

Therefore, it is accurate to call both industrial
hemp and marijuana “cannabis,” but each has been given distinguishing nomenclature.
In 1854, Englishman Edmund Saul Dixon described hemp as a
“crop of lances.”4

This stiff, upright plant, he wrote, was “destined
for robust purposes, becoming almost a weapon in the hands of
man.” But his admiration was directed only at the plant’s stalk,
which contains the useful fibers. Of the flowers and leaves, he
wrote: “it furnishes, in the shape of ‘bang,’ a poisonous as well
as an intoxicating agent.” Hemp is not intoxicating, so it seems
that the precise differences between varieties of cannabis were
unclear at the time. In an 1801 essay, Dr. William Roxburgh,
who oversaw the cultivation of hemp for the East India Company
in Calcutta, compared hemp plants grown using European seeds
with hemp plants found in India; he wrote that he “can discover
no difference whatever, not even to found a variety on.”5 He
added, “Yet, I cannot discover, that the fibres of the bark have
ever been employed by them for any purpose. It is cultivated in
small quantities every where (in India) on account of its narcotic
qualities.”

The Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1856 inaccurately suggested in the entry for hemp that the “intoxicating properties
of hemp” (likely the cannabis Americans know today) resulted
solely from the climate in which it was grown.6 Then the text
reiterated, “But it is not as a narcotic and excitant that the hemp
plant is most useful to mankind; it is as an advancer rather than
a retarder of civilization, that its utility is made most manifest.”

England relied on colonies to produce an abundance of
hemp and began to lose access to hemp grown in the soon-tobe United States as tensions rose in the mid-1700s.7 Founding
Father Benjamin Franklin backed the colonists’ refusal to send
hemp to London, saying, “We have not yet enough for our own
consumption.” In some regions, individuals could be penalized
for not producing hemp during those crucial years.

Thomas Jefferson grew hemp, which he said was “abundantly
productive, and will grow forever on the same spot.”8 Jefferson’s
letters from 1815 reveal that he dithered between hemp and cotton, which would later come to replace hemp. “But the breaking
and beating it,” Jefferson wrote of hemp, “which has been always
done by hand, is so slow, so laborious, and so much complained
of by our laborers, that I had given it up and purchased and
manufactured cotton for their shirting.” Over time, as cotton
was increasingly used for such essentials as clothing and rope,
the nation curtailed its dependence on the hemp crop.

After the cultivation of cannabis for hemp products declined,
its cultivation for consumption steadily increased. Recreational
cannabis smoking in the United States is often traced back to
Mexican immigrants in the early twentieth century.9 It is possible, however, that some Americans partook of the “intoxicating
properties of hemp” long before.

Prohibitionist ideology also overtook the country at the turn of
the twentieth century, with some of the first legislative efforts to
ban or regulate alcohol and drugs. Efforts to specifically curb recreational cannabis use began state by state.10 Between 1911 and
1933, thirty-four states changed their laws so that the plant could
be manufactured only for medicine and industrial use.11 Cannabis
was almost included in the 1914 Harrison Narcotics Tax Act, a
federal law requiring those who manufactured or dealt opium,
coca, and their derivatives outside of a medical practice to register and pay an annual tax.12 The act represented the first time the
federal government enforced substance regulation.13 Indirect control through taxation also allowed the federal government to engage the criminal justice system in drug control but avoid full-on
prohibition. Those who sold or possessed but did not register or
pay taxes—which dealers and addicts were unlikely to do—faced
arrest. Individuals who abused these substances were not given
treatment, but time behind bars (fifteen years would pass before
mention, in 1929, of opening the first federal drug rehabilitation
centers).14 The seed for the war on drugs mentality was planted.

The Harrison Narcotics Tax Act was inspired by the 1912
International Opium Convention at The Hague, one of the first
international drug control efforts, which was led by the United
States and aimed to unify countries in restricting opium and coca
leaves and their derivatives.15 While cannabis was not included
in this treaty, it was in subsequent international drug control
efforts beginning in 1925. A cannabis law for the United States
would soon follow.

Many factors led to America’s newly hostile attitude toward
cannabis. The popularity of temperance—a movement that targeted alcohol as the root of excess and ruin, placing abstinence
at the heart of a fulfilling life—likely contributed to states’ willingness to outlaw the plant. Although the aim of the movement
was alcohol prohibition, there was no such thing as a good intoxicant. And with the tracks already built, it was easy to add another boxcar. But as alcohol prohibition came and went between
1920 and 1933, states continued to pass anti-cannabis laws.

What is unclear is why the United States would declare one
prohibition a failure and then choose to embark on another.
Perhaps drug prohibition was considered dissimilar because it
dealt with unfamiliar substances and, in minorities, unfamiliar
targets. Temperance, while it had some racist roots (it was argued that alcohol turned a black man into a “beast” or a violent
rapist), was primarily built on religious rhetoric meant to save
whites from themselves.16 The new state and national drug laws,
on the other hand, were framed as saving whites from minorities
and righteously saving minorities from their own supposed lack
of self-control. The narrative behind these early laws was that
blacks, Mexicans, and Chinese were going mad, turning murderous, and luring whites with cocaine, “marihuana,”* and opiates.17

In addition to race, panic played into the misunderstanding
around certain drugs. It’s now known, for example, that cannabis doesn’t turn people into murderous lunatics. Did people truly
* from around the time of the Marihuana Tax Act and for the next several decades,
the plant was referred to as “marihuana,” then later also “marijuana.” only recently
has language begun to change in the u.s. to reflect the plant’s scientific and most accurate name, “cannabis.” We have chosen to refer to the plant as cannabis throughout
this book, except where necessary to indicate historic nomenclature or within a quote.
believe that then and, if so, why? Was it racism gone rampant, an
irrational hysteria among the misinformed? Evidence suggests it
was both.

Certainly, at the sensationalist height of yellow journalism,
horror stories about “loco weed” proliferated. As early as 1901
the New York Times wrote that cannabis “sends its victims
running amuck.”18 In 1905, the Los Angeles Times reprinted an
article that claimed cannabis made smokers’ “brains dry up and
they die, most of the time suddenly.” A cannabis user in El Paso,
Texas, killed a policeman.19 A California man decapitated his
friend in a cannabis-induced craze. A young boy in Florida axed
his parents and three siblings to death. On the streets of New
Orleans, a man killed his wife while under the influence. Word
from Colorado was that “Mexicans” were cultivating and selling
“the weed” to “white school students.” Floyd K. Baskette, city
editor of the Alamosa Daily Courier in Colorado, wrote to the
Federal Bureau of Narcotics about hundreds of “murders, rapes,
petty crimes, insanity” that he linked to cannabis. “I wish I could
show you what a small marihuana cigarete [sic] can do to one
of our degenerate Spanish-speaking residents,” Baskette wrote.
“That’s why our problem is so great; the greatest percentage of
our population is composed of Spanish-speaking persons, most of
whom are low mentally, because of social and racial conditions.”

Most of these tales about cannabis were brought to national
attention by Harry J. Anslinger, who in 1930 became the first
commissioner of the U.S. Treasury Department’s Federal Bureau
of Narcotics.20 If the story of cannabis prohibition were told in a
comic book, Anslinger would be a formidable villain. Anslinger
didn’t investigate the panicked rumors. Instead, he became a federal megaphone for these accounts during his exaggerated and
impassioned testimonies against the “killer weed.” Already tasked
with enforcing the Harrison Act, Anslinger pushed for similar
legislation for cannabis.
The proposed law was closely modeled after the Harrison Act.

Instead of prohibiting cannabis outright, HR 6385, better known
as the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, aimed to tax the plant out of
existence.21 An annual tax of $50 was imposed on manufacturers, compounders, and importers; $15 for dealers; $25 for producers (growers); and $1 for researchers and medical professionals
who sought to prescribe it. All of the above were required to
register and file returns to “the collector of internal revenue.”

Additionally, the transfer of cannabis to a registered user required an additional $1 tax per ounce and transfer to a nonregistered user $100 per ounce. For perspective, fair market value of
one ounce of cannabis was $1. Dealers had to self-incriminate
and pay the taxman out of pocket to sell cannabis at a loss.
The Marihuana Tax Act passed within a year of the release of
the propaganda film Reefer Madness. The rationale behind the
act as well as the mind-set of the time can be summed up by a
statement Anslinger gave during hearings for the act: “The deleterious, even vicious, qualities of the drug render it highly dangerous to the mind and body upon which it operates to destroy
the will, cause one to lose the power of connected thought, producing imaginary delectable situations and gradually weakening
the physical powers. Its use frequently leads to insanity.”

So began the wrongful banishment of cannabis. It may be
tempting to excuse the missteps of the time with the reasoning
that no one knew better. But Anslinger was presented with alternative views; he chose to ignore them. The American Medical
Association’s legislative counsel, Dr. William C. Woodward, expressed particularly vocal opposition during hearings for the act.
Importantly, he noted that using the term “marihuana” in the
name of the act, instead of the scientifically correct “cannabis,”
led to misconceptions. In his words, “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 . . . for the failure of
the dealers in Indian hempseed to connect up this bill with their
business until rather late in the day. So, if you will permit me, I
shall use the word ‘Cannabis,’ and I should certainly suggest that
if any legislation is enacted, the term used be ‘Cannabis’ and not
the mongrel word ‘marihuana.’” The word “marihuana” remained
in the act—and therefore in American vernacular for decades to
come, maintaining a stigma that “cannabis” did not carry.

Anslinger’s deceptive efforts didn’t end there, and Dr. Woodward
expressed even deeper concerns about the haste and hysteria surrounding the act. “It has surprised me, however, that the facts on
which these statements have been based have not been brought
before this committee by competent primary evidence,” he said.
“We are referred to newspaper publications concerning the prevalence of marihuana addiction. We are told that the use of marihuana 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 marihuana habit. An informal inquiry
shows that the Bureau of Prisons has no evidence on that point.”

Dr. Woodward proceeded to note that not only was the Children’s
Bureau not present to testify in response to Anslinger’s tales of
schoolchildren on “marihuana,” but that they and the Office of
Education had heard no such complaints. He added, “The Bureau
of the Public Health Service has also a division of pharmacology.

If you desire evidence as to the pharmacology of Cannabis, that
obviously is the place where you can get direct and primary evidence, rather than the indirect hearsay evidence.”
Dr. Woodward’s statements were not taken into consideration,
and the act was passed in 1937. By 1942, cannabis was removed
from the U.S. Pharmacopeia. Anslinger was not satisfied. He
pushed for the Boggs Act of 1951, which lumped cannabis with
narcotics (the drugs included in the Harrison Act), and subsequently the Narcotics Control Act of 1956.22 Both acts increased
penalties and marked the first efforts to determine mandatory
minimum federal criminal sentences for those who possessed or
distributed narcotics. By 1956, conviction for first-time possession of cannabis led to a two-year mandatory sentence; secondoffense possession or first-time sale resulted in five years with no
option for parole or probation; and a third-time possession or
second-offense sale resulted in ten to forty years with no option
for parole or probation. An infrequent user caught in possession
of just enough cannabis for personal use on three occasions was
required to spend a minimum of ten years in prison. Convinced
that the increased threat of incarceration would work as a deterrent, Anslinger insisted that these penalties would reduce drug
abuse in America by 60 percent.23

Of course, these laws didn’t stop the increasing use of
cannabis—they just put more people behind bars. In 1958, just
after these laws were passed, there were 3,287 reported state and
local “marihuana arrests.”24 In 1967, there were 54,468, a third of
whom were offenders under twenty-one years old. If cannabis was
as lethal as Anslinger claimed, that alone would have been more
effective at curbing use than his laws. Most people, though, understand the difference between self-destruction and self-indulgence;
a 2011 survey showed that roughly 300,000 people used heroin in
the previous month while more than 18 million used cannabis.25

Cannabis use continued to climb not because the plant is so
overpoweringly addictive, but because people began to realize that
the weed wasn’t so loco after all. By the 1960s, cannabis had become an integral part of counterculture. Hundreds of thousands
of people (many of them white, middle-class, and college-aged) reclaimed the plant as a political symbol of peace, love, and protest
during a time of turmoil and progressive change. A writer described
the use of cannabis during these years in a 1967 issue of Life magazine as “the greatest mass flouting of the law since prohibition.”26
By the late 1960s, with early breakthroughs in cannabinoid
research under way, many more doctors and officials spoke out
against the reefer madness narrative. But those who advocated
for cannabis law reform during legislative hearings throughout
the 1960s and 1970s, prompted by the rise in Americans’ consumption, were mostly shamed and ignored by the (shrinking)
majority. One progressive doctor summed up this hostility when
he said, “I have come under a lot of attack simply because I am
saying the Emperor has no clothes on.” 27

In 1967, Dr. James L. Goddard, the U.S. commissioner of Food
and Drugs (head of the Food and Drug Administration), stated
that he was unsure if cannabis was more dangerous than alcohol.
This sentiment, bold for its time, shocked members of the House
of Representatives who called him unfit for office. His underlings
at the FDA even penned a limerick:
A well-known physician named Jim,
Has really gone out on a limb.

Believe it or not
He’s decided that pot
Is better than drinking straight gin.28
When confronted about his views during a hearing, an exasperated Dr. Goddard made a point that still resonates decades later,
as hundreds of thousands of nonviolent drug offenders sit behind
bars and millions are haunted by a possession arrest record: “All
I have to ask is what price are we attaching to this as far as the
future cost to society by making felons of these people, by arresting juveniles, whether they actually technically become felons or
not? Do we not tend to cast them in the role of involvement with
drugs for the rest of their lives, involvement with criminals? Now,
are there not better ways of getting at this particular problem?”

Year after year, these rather theatrical hearings played out
more like interrogations of government officials who spoke out
against common prohibitionist views surrounding cannabis than
balanced discussions about a national issue. Attempts at rational
and factual conversation often regressed into bickering. When
one doctor said cannabis was technically not a narcotic, as it was
often called, a committee member suggested changing the definition of narcotic so it would fit; when another doctor clarified
that cannabis does not cause physical addiction, a committee
member launched into a conversation about how psychological
dependence was worse.29 If, like Dr. Goddard, someone was less
than disparaging about cannabis, they were told that they were
responsible for encouraging youth experimentation with drugs.30

The following exchange between Dr. Stanley Yolles, the director of the National Institute of Mental Health, and South
Carolina representative Albert W. Watson, from a 1969 hearing, illustrates what often resulted from these tiresome battles of
opinions, in this case about the gateway drug theory:
Mr. Watson: The fact that 80 to 95 percent of present
hard narcotic and heroin users started with marihuana,
that is a specious argument or relationship?

Dr. Yolles: Some of them had mothers’ milk, some of
them have used alcohol.
Mr. Watson: Doctor, that is the most absurd thing. Are
you now intimating that we are comparing the use of
marihuana with mothers’ milk? Now, let’s don’t get ridiculous on this.
Dr. Yolles: Mr. Chairman, the World Health Organization itself has stated there is no relationship between
the use of marihuana and a progression to heroin.31

During that hearing, Dr. Yolles reiterated what Dr. Goddard
had said two years prior, which bears repeating. “The major point
I wish to make,” he said, “is that in the case of marihuana, legal
penalties were assigned to its use that are strict enough to ruin
the life of a first-time offender, with total disregard for medical
and scientific evidence of the properties of the drug or its effects.
I know of no clearer instance in which the punishment for an
infraction of the law is more harmful than the crime.”

Up until this point, no president had led a major national rewrite
of drug policy. But in 1969, Richard Nixon’s first year in office, he
detailed his plans for what one newspaper referred to as a “war on
drug abuse,” which would include the passage of a new federal drug
control act and an increased budget for enforcement.32 Nixon’s actions were mixed: he amended harsh past policies and then created
some harsher new ones. For example, despite the conversations
during the cannabis hearings that attempted to link the plant to
alcohol and distance it from narcotics, Congress, with Nixon’s
support, passed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and
Control Act of 1970 that officially placed cannabis in Schedule I
with heroin, where it remains to this day. (It is worth noting that
at the time this legislation was passed, the cannabis plant was so
misunderstood that a report misstated that cannabis resin could be
injected, like heroin, into a person’s arm.)33 Substances were listed
in one of five schedules—one being the most restrictive and five
being the least—based on harm and medical potential. Schedule
I, the most tightly regulated and home to cannabis, was reserved
for substances with no medical utility and high abuse potential.

This act, most often referred to as the Controlled Substances Act
(CSA), still dominates the federal approach to drugs.
Conversely, the CSA reduced mandatory minimum drug sentences.34 First-offense simple cannabis possession, for example,
fell from a minimum of two but up to ten years behind bars to up
to one year. This was an improvement, though by no means the
total decriminalization recommended in 1972 by the National
Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, created by Nixon
to research cannabis and suggest sound policies. The commission
wrote in its report, “Unless present policy is redirected, we will
perpetuate the same problems, tolerate the same social costs, and
find ourselves as we do now, no further along the road to a more
rational legal and social approach than we were in 1914.”35 Nixon
ignored the very advice he sought.

Nixon’s budget to fight what was in 1971 first referred to as the
“war on drugs” increased from $81 million at the start of his presidency to nearly $800 million by the time he left office.36 (The
budget has continued to increase, reaching $25.4 billion for 2014.)
In a departure from prior (and subsequent) federal drug control
efforts, though, Nixon made treatment a financial priority. As he
said to Congress in 1969, “It has been a common oversimplification to consider narcotics addiction or drug abuse to be a law enforcement problem alone.”37 While many presidents have since
repeated versions of this sentiment, Nixon was the only president
to spend more money on drug treatment and prevention than on
enforcement. But what eventually survived of Nixon’s approach,
and what required the bulk of his budget by the time he left office,
was an extension of the Anslinger method of federal drug control:
the use of law enforcement (Nixon created the DEA in 1973) to
“tighten the noose around the necks of drug peddlers, and thereby
loosen the noose around the necks of drug users.”38

Gerald Ford took office post-Watergate in 1974, and he received a white paper in late 1975 stating that the war on drugs
could not be won and that any progress made between 1972 and
1974 had reversed.39 The paper acknowledged the need for a new
direction because drug supply and use could not be eliminated
and the aim of the government should be to contain it. “Quality
arrests” should come before the number of arrests. While this
war would mellow for a decade or so, Ronald Reagan would later
reignite it with calls for “a drug-free America by 1995.”40

Despite Nixon’s launch of the war on drugs, one man’s misfortune sparked the movement that has now breached the castle
walls of cannabis prohibition. In 1972, Robert Randall, an energetic twenty-four-year-old, had just moved to Washington, D.C.,
to be a speechwriter when he was devastated by a glaucoma diagnosis and informed that he would likely be blind by thirty.

One evening a year later, after smoking a joint obtained from a
friend, he noticed the blurry halos around the streetlights were
gone. After a string of similar experiences, Randall concluded,
though it was difficult for him to believe, that cannabis reduced
the pressure in his eyes that caused the halos and would hasten
his blindness. No medicine alone had had the same effects.

Randall continued to self-medicate with cannabis until he
was found with plants and arrested in 1975. As Randall explained to his lawyer that he used cannabis for medicine, his
lawyer challenged him to prove it. With the help of the National
Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), then
a five-year-old cannabis lobby and now the oldest in the country,
Randall set out to do just that. (Other groups had formed prior
to NORML, and a notable one was the short-lived Legalize
Marijuana, or LeMar. Beat poet Allen Ginsberg and several of
his friends started the New York City chapter in the mid-1960s.)41

It just so happened that the same year Randall was diagnosed
with glaucoma, NORML filed a petition to move cannabis out
of Schedule I and into Schedule II so it could be considered a
medicine, as it had been until thirty years earlier, when it was
removed from the U.S. Pharmacopeia.
Randall visited Keith Stroup, the young lawyer who founded
NORML with funding from the Playboy Foundation, for any information that would help his case. Stroup handed him a folder
that contained documents about the potential therapeutic uses
of cannabis. Randall had never heard of cannabis in a medical
context before. With this as a starting point, Randall found information from NIDA about a study conducted at the University
of California–Los Angeles on cannabis and glaucoma. The researcher, Dr. Robert Hepler, had obtained his cannabis from the
federal research farm at the University of Mississippi. By the end
of 1975, four months after his arrest, Randall became the subject
of one of Dr. Hepler’s glaucoma studies as a part of the Marijuana
Research Project at UCLA.

The results revealed that, indeed,
smoking cannabis reduced the pressure in Randall’s eyes that
would have accelerated his blindness. In the absence of another
therapy that offered the same results, Randall decided that he
would challenge his arrest by arguing that his use of cannabis was
a medical necessity. In a separate and pioneering move, he would
petition for a supply of cannabis as medicine from the federal farm.

A continued “mass flouting” of drug laws in the 1970s would
eventually come to aid Randall’s case. Americans felt more lenient toward cannabis than ever before and between 1968 and
1970, laws in thirty-three states were amended to make cannabis
possession a misdemeanor instead of a felony.42 By 1975, the penalty for possession of under an ounce in California and Oregon
had been reduced to a violation—a slap on the wrist—with a
fine of up to $100. Jimmy Carter, elected in 1976, was the first
(and only) president to seriously consider the decriminalization of
cannabis possession. Within months of when Carter took office,
congressional hearings were held to discuss the possibilities. Peter
Bourne, director of the Office of Drug Abuse Policy (the equivalent of today’s drug czar), said at one of these hearings, “We believe that the mechanism for discouragement should not be more
damaging to the individual than the drugs themselves. We will
continue to discourage marihuana use, but we feel criminal penalties that brand otherwise law-abiding people for life are neither
an effective nor an appropriate deterrent.” Representatives from
the Department of Justice and the DEA said that such a move
would not negatively impact their organizations’ efforts.43

The novelty of a president advocating for the decriminalization
of cannabis was amplified by an unprecedented bond between
cannabis activists and the White House. NORML’s Stroup was
friends with Carter’s son, Chip, with whom he says he smoked
cannabis. Just as Randall felt like he could go directly to the federal government for medical cannabis, Stroup went directly to the
White House when he sought change. (Today, cannabis advocates
circumvent the federal government to seek change at the state
level.) While NORML’s cannabis rescheduling petition remained
unattended to, another issue distressed Stroup at the time: the
U.S. government encouraged and funded the spraying of paraquat, a toxic herbicide, to destroy cannabis crops in Mexico. This
wasn’t the first time the U.S. government turned a forbidden substance poisonous in an attempt to destroy the supply and discourage use.

During alcohol prohibition, an estimated ten thousand
people died as a result of alcohol adulterated by the government
with such substances as methyl alcohol.44 Stroup was concerned
that the contaminated cannabis was not being discarded by growers, but instead sold in the States. The fear of unintentionally ingesting sprayed cannabis was widespread. One poster promoting
a Village Voice cover story written by Fred Gardner about Bourne
and paraquat cautioned, “Poison Pot: Even Your Dealer Doesn’t
Know for Sure.” Stroup said he met with Bourne to discuss what
he considered a major potential health hazard. But as the spraying continued, Stroup felt that Bourne wasn’t taking his concerns
seriously enough. Their relationship became strained.

In December 1977, NORML held a swank holiday party for hundreds of influential people in a D.C. town house. The celebration
encapsulated the soul of the decade—but that decade was coming
to an end. There are many versions of how events unfolded that
night. This is what Stroup remembers: As a band played, Stroup
and a female friend were talking when Bourne showed up and began to flirt with her. Stroup walked away to entertain other guests
when the woman came to him and said that Bourne wouldn’t mind
getting high. “What do you mean?” Stroup remembers asking. “I
think he might like to snort some cocaine,” she replied.

Stroup,Bourne, Hunter S. Thompson (on the NORML advisory board),
and a couple of journalists from High Times (one of the first go-to
publications for cannabis enthusiasts) went to the top floor of the
town house together. “So we went up and did what people did in
those years. We sat around and chatted and passed a joint around
and somebody laid out a couple of lines of cocaine,” Stroup said as
he described this very extraordinary example of what was at the
time a rather ordinary activity. Yes, Stroup said America’s drug
czar got high with the head of the nation’s largest pro-cannabis
group—and they would both come to regret that decision.

Months passed with no public mention of what happened
at the NORML party. One Wednesday the following summer,
newspapers reported that Bourne illegally wrote a Quaalude prescription for an aide.45 The next day, the secret kept for months
by the journalists who had been there came out, and the cocaine
story broke on Good Morning America. The Washington Post also
covered the cocaine story.46 Journalists from both had been at
the party, and at least one from the Post was in the room when
the snorting occurred. It is unclear why the journalists withheld
this story for so long. Maybe they were uncertain of what they
heard or saw.

But once the Quaalude story broke, perhaps they
piled on. Friday newspapers reported that Stroup wouldn’t deny
the cocaine allegations. Bourne had taken a leave of absence
in the wake of the prescription incident, but resigned once the
cocaine story was out, though he never admitted to the events.
At the time, Stroup felt no remorse about the resignation and
said to reporters, “I do not see it with any great sadness.”47 Stroup
believed he owed no loyalty to Bourne, who still wasn’t paying
much attention to the paraquat issue.

Today, Stroup recalls the incident with apparent sorrow. He said
that allowing his anger to override his better judgment to deny
Bourne’s cocaine use remains the greatest embarrassment of his
career and that he didn’t foresee the consequences for NORML.

As a result of this betrayal and Bourne’s resignation, a much less
cannabis-sympathetic drug czar took Bourne’s place. The White
House no longer wanted anything to do with NORML, which, as
Stroup remembers, became “persona non grata.” Stroup had no
choice but to step down as executive director of NORML.

The Bourne-Stroup scandal—and Stroup’s response—
potentially altered the course of an entire movement. Any progress that could have been made at the federal level during Carter’s
term vanished, and decriminalization never came to pass. In
hindsight, it is hard to pin too much blame on Stroup. Bourne’s
prescription incident could have eventually forced his resignation,
or at least lessened his credibility as an advocate for decriminalization. Even if Stroup’s revelation hadn’t turned the tide against
NORML then, the link between the cannabis lobby and the
White House would have been severed with Carter’s departure.

And with Reagan’s election, the Dark Ages, as cannabis activists
have retrospectively named the decade to come, was inevitable.
In 1982, Ronald Reagan declared a new war on drugs, nullifying much of the progress that had been made during Carter’s
term. “The mood towards drugs is changing in this country and
the momentum is with us,” he said. “We’re making no excuses for
drugs, hard, soft, or otherwise. Drugs are bad and we’re going after
them.”48 In just a few years, discussions about cannabis decriminalization gave way to efforts to eradicate cannabis at any cost.

While the White House post-Nixon had conceded that containment was a smarter approach to drugs and drug use, Reagan
believed he could wipe this cockroach of a plant off the map if
he just tried hard enough. In 1981, the DEA was involved in
six states’ aggressive “cooperative eradication programs” for cannabis; by 1983, the DEA expanded the programs to forty states.
That year, the number of “DEA-sponsored training schools,”
which taught local law enforcement about “aerial observation
techniques, the legal requirements to obtain search warrants
in their state, methods to conduct raids to destroy the cannabis
crop, and procedures to arrest and prosecute those individuals
identified with the cultivation,” expanded from four to seventeen.

By 1983, ten states had signed memorandums of understanding
and received support from their local National Guard units to go
after domestic cannabis growers. Thomas G. Byrne, chief of the
Cannabis Investigations Section of the DEA, insisted that “the
military should be encouraged to incorporate marijuana production detection as a regular part of their ongoing air training activities.” When Reagan declared war, he meant it.

Although the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 had been written
explicitly to limit U.S. military interference in local law enforcement, in December 1981 Reagan amended it to allow for unprecedented military involvement in “civilian” (federal, state, and
local) law enforcement efforts.49 According to a 1983 hearing,
“Underlying the action of the Congress was the notion that even
though the times called for fiscal restraint, all possible resources
should be utilized to combat narcotics trafficking; all involved
agencies should cooperate, and perhaps the greatest untapped
resource was the Department of Defense.” There was some concern that shifting the military’s attention to the drug war had the
potential to interfere with their preparedness. But with Reagan’s
amendment to the act, the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force increasingly lent troops, facilities, and aircrafts previously marked
for international defense to domestic drug law enforcement.

Reagan’s war made Nixon’s look like a play fight. He pushed
for laws allowing seized assets involved in illegal drug operations
to be reinvested into the drug war.50 From the mid-1980s to the
mid-1990s, over $3 billion worth of stuff was seized by the Justice
Department, a dramatic increase compared to the years before the
new law.51 One stated objective was to let the drug war help pay for
itself. But when Americans guilty of nothing lost anything from
tens of thousands of dollars to their homes and their supposedly
suspicious possessions were not returned, some experts suggested
that the rewards gained from such seizures had become a corrupting incentive. A bust, warranted or not, was a guaranteed windfall.

Reagan also reintroduced and increased the mandatory minimums that had all but disappeared under the original CSA, including mandatory life imprisonment.52 In a move that seemed to
target minority communities, five grams of crack cocaine led to a
minimum of five years in prison, while it would take five hundred
grams of powder cocaine to warrant the same sentence.53 The
core difference between the two substances was their markets;
one was popular on Wall Street and the other on backstreets. As
a result of penalties introduced during Reagan’s administration,
anyone convicted of a drug offense, even simple possession, could
be denied federal benefits—including student loan aid, subsidized
housing, and access to welfare—over their lifetime.54

In many cases, drug charges can also revoke one’s right to vote. According
to Michelle Alexander in The New Jim Crow, these new drug policies served as a way to foment race-based fear and build a solid,
white working-class voting bloc, as well as a backdoor way to
disadvantage and disenfranchise minority populations over the
long term.55 To this day, one bad choice could mean a lifelong
burden; it’s the conviction that keeps convicting.

While Reagan pushed law enforcement and legislation, his
wife Nancy went mainstream with her First Lady cause: Just Say
No. This phrase, still chanted in grade schools today, came to
represent a symbiotic relationship between the First Lady and
a parent-driven anti-drug movement, notably less present in
earlier decades. As Carla Lowe, vice president of the National
Federation of Parents for Drug Free Youth, said in a 1983 hearing about cannabis eradication, “Marihuana has been the impetus for the parent movement.”56 From the late 1970s to the
early 1980s, a handful of parents’ groups grew to a few thousand.

Their battle cries of “D.A.R.E.” and “Drug-Free” and “Just Say
No” were loud and influential as their mission spread from the
White House to popular culture. These groups pushed legislation that criminalized drug paraphernalia. The New Teen Titans
comic book’s anti-drug series (“in cooperation with the president’s drug awareness campaign”) included a letter from Nancy
Reagan herself that told kids they were in combat.57 “The battle is against drug abuse,” she wrote. “Declare that you will stay
drug-free. At any cost. You’re guaranteed to win. And you’ll be
a hero—to your mother and father, family and friends, but most
of all, to yourself.” By the 1990s, after Reagan left office, drugrelated Public Service Announcements were added to the end
of popular television shows; one Saved by the Bell episode about
cannabis use was called “No Hope with Dope.”58

The Reagans’ manifold approach might have halted cannabis reform for decades if not for Robert Randall’s ambitious pursuit of
federal medical cannabis, which was well under way before Reagan
took office. Randall’s expectations must have sounded delusional:
he wanted a medical exception to cannabis laws and for the federal government to bestow upon him an abundant and consistent
supply of joints. But he was armed to make those demands with
proof in hand that cannabis helped reduce the pressure in his eyes
and with testimony from a doctor who was supplied with federal
cannabis to conduct such research. Certainly, neither Randall nor
the federal government knew just how much water was building
behind the dam when Randall’s crusade began in the 1970s, or
else this crack in the drug war would have been promptly sealed.

The course for cannabis in America had been irreversibly altered in November 1976. That month, Randall’s arrest case was
dismissed due to medical necessity and he soon became the first
person with access to a federal supply of cannabis for medical
use. The original process through which Randall obtained federal cannabis was makeshift because no program yet existed.
Cannabis joints were shipped each month from the federal farm
to the physician who applied on Randall’s behalf and who gave
them to him as medicine. Randall was urged to keep quiet about
his new privilege and was even briefly cut off from his cannabis
supply after appearing on national television to smoke his medical
joints.

The media couldn’t get enough of Randall, and they could
hardly be blamed—the idea of federal medical cannabis is still
somewhat unfathomable decades later. In 1978 Randall fought
back and was officially entered into an FDA Investigational New
Drug (IND) program that allowed him to go to pharmacies in
Washington, D.C., to pick up his cannabis.

The push to silence Randall only intensified his desire to extend medical cannabis access to other patients. While speaking
about medical cannabis in New Mexico, Randall met a terminally ill twenty-five-year-old, Lynn Pierson, who wanted cannabis to relieve nausea from chemotherapy. After thinking through
many possibilities together, Randall suggested that Pierson and
his supporters in the New Mexico legislature pass a state medical cannabis research law. Federal cannabis could be obtained
for research purposes only, so the state had to pass a law that
indicated its intent to collect data and learn from the patients’
use while supplying the patients with federal cannabis. Randall
believed that the resulting research would once and for all prove
cannabis’s medical value. This strategy was used to pass the first
state medical cannabis research law, the New Mexico Controlled
Substances Therapeutic Research Act, in early 1978. Pierson
died before his cannabis supply arrived the following year.

The dam had burst: the first wave of medical cannabis was
underway in America. Access to federal cannabis was now available to individuals either through the federal IND program or
through New Mexico’s research program. Over the next decade
or so, thirty-three additional states passed similar research laws,
and a total of six managed to actually procure federal cannabis for hundreds of patients: New Mexico, Tennessee, New York,
Michigan, Georgia, and California. Fifteen patients (of the dozens
approved) received cannabis through the federal IND program.

This turned out to be too much, too soon. With increasing
demand in the 1980s, NIDA faced a supply problem and stalled.
To grow more plants in response to increasing IND applications
and state medical cannabis research laws would have threatened
to contradict Reagan’s (and then George H.W. Bush’s) national
push to eradicate cannabis. The implications of Reagan’s presidency were not lost on Randall, who had written in 1982 to his
friend Roger Winthrop, coordinator for NORML in Michigan,
“The news is not good . . . The White House is bonzo over pot.”

Two years prior, in 1980, the National Cancer Institute got approval to do its own version of the IND, with plans to distribute
capsules of synthetic THC to cancer patients. Randall also saw
this as an ominous sign. THC hadn’t worked for him in studies,
and he didn’t want a pharmaceutical product in development to
replace his or anyone else’s plant-based medicine.

Activists were hopeful, though, when the languishing petition NORML had proposed in 1972, to move cannabis from
Schedule I, was finally heard in 1986. After two years of hearings,
DEA chief administrative law judge Francis L. Young agreed that
cannabis should be rescheduled and wrote in his recommendation that “marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest
therapeutically active substances known to man.”59 In what was
likely a top-down directive, a higher-up DEA judge rejected that
ruling within a year.

While support for state medical cannabis research laws and
individual INDs was at its peak, Randall thought he could encourage NIDA to increase the federal supply of cannabis if he
could quickly demonstrate need—and there was unprecedented
need due to the emerging AIDS crisis. Cannabis’s anti-nausea and
appetite-inducing properties were well suited for this population.

In 1991, Randall bundled hundreds of individual IND applications
from AIDS patients and sent them to the FDA. The response was
not what he’d expected: denial, because the federal supply program
would soon shut down. States were cut off and their medical cannabis research laws essentially voided. The individuals in the IND
program already receiving cannabis from the federal farm would
be grandfathered in; everyone else could pursue the THC capsules.

Yet a resilient medical cannabis movement was budding. As
the federal government withdrew, the majority of Americans
sided with medical cannabis because the concept had grown
increasingly familiar and acceptable over years of exposure.
Patients remained dissatisfied with synthetic THC. If the federal
government wouldn’t supply patients’ cannabis, they would just
grow it themselves. Just as the states were first to outlaw cannabis
in the early 1900s, progress would henceforth be initiated from
within the states.

At least, this was the bold logic of Dennis Peron, well known
in the Castro area of San Francisco for selling cannabis and for
his gay rights advocacy (he had been a friend of the late Harvey
Milk). In 1991, San Francisco, which had been particularly devastated by the AIDS epidemic, passed Peron’s citywide Proposition
P with 80 percent of the vote. This law was mostly symbolic. It
did not actually legalize the use of medical cannabis, but it suggested that patients who cultivated or used it with a physician’s
recommendation be the “lowest priority” for law enforcement.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors wrote a resolution in
response to Prop P: “Federal agencies have refused to recognize
marijuana’s important role in medical therapy, continue to maintain legal prohibitions against marijuana’s prescriptive medical
use, and recently cancelled the nation’s federal marijuana-asmedicine program.”60 Prop P was the unprecedented solution to
this clearly stated dilemma. One year later, Santa Cruz County
passed a similar measure.

The fuel behind these propositions came from the AIDS
community, which had essentially created alternative treatment plans when the medical field could not catch up quickly
enough.61 Groups like ACT-UP (the AIDS Coalition to Unleash
Power) had started “buyer’s clubs,” which were illegal but tolerated, so patients could access experimental drugs not yet available in the United States. Soon enough, cannabis was on the
menu. Then cannabis-only buyer’s clubs—essentially the country’s first dispensaries—began to emerge.62

After the IND program phased out and Californians prepared
for a statewide vote on medical cannabis, Randall neared his fiftieth birthday and was exhausted by the years-long fight for cannabis. The state law strategy was, in his opinion, piecemeal and
unsustainable. He’d worked hard for the federal medical cannabis
model, but it had slipped away. By the time Randall died from
AIDS in 2001, however, the movement he helped create had garnered unstoppable support and strength as it spread from coast
to coast.

This state-by-state approach led by Californians was, and
continues to be, the only way for new patients to legally obtain
medical cannabis. In 1996, almost twenty years after Randall
first accessed federal cannabis, Californians passed the statewide
Proposition 215, also known as the Compassionate Use Act. The
one-page proposition was simple and straightforward: with a doctor’s recommendation, patients could legally cultivate, or have a
caregiver cultivate on their behalf, cannabis for medical use. This
is the version of medical cannabis most Americans know today.
 
Timeline


55 to 6.5 million years ago Cannabis evolves to become a distinct genus
during this long period ____________________ ____________________

11 million years ago Regional climate change in Central Asia
separates Cannabis into two populations;
subsequent geological uplift selects for
thc production in the southern population ____________________ ____________________

130,000 years ago Earliest physical evidence of Cannabis: pollen from
sediment in Lake Baikal, Russia ____________________ ____________________

30,000 to 10,000 years ago Cannabis follows early human migrations across
Eurasia ____________________ ____________________

5500–5000 bce Cannabis sativa is used for fibre across northern
Europe, but it is not clearly farmed ____________________ ____________________

4000 bce Cannabis indica domesticated by this time in East
Asia ____________________ ____________________

2600–1700 bce Indo-Iranian civilizations flourish around the
Hindu Kush mountains, and possibly use Cannabis
indica in sacramental beverages ____________________ ____________________

16th century bce Hempseeds are one of five staple grains during
China’s Shang Dynasty ____________________ ____________________

16th century bce Cannabis indica domesticated by this time in South
Asia; earliest physical evidence of Cannabis in
lowland South Asia ____________________ ____________________

7th to 6th centuries bce Indo-Iranians in the Tarim Basin include
Cannabis indica flowers among grave goods ____________________ ____________________

6th century bce Bhang provides a sacramental beverage in
Hinduism, Buddhism and other South
Asian religions ____________________ ____________________

5th century bce Thracians produce hempen fabric and Scythians
burn hempseed at funeral ceremonies; Herodotus
takes note ____________________ ____________________

5th to 1st centuries bce Cannabis sativa enters Europe as a domesticated
fibre crop as an outcome of Roman expansion ____________________ ____________________

2nd century bce Paper-making invented in China, with Cannabis
waste fibre ____________________ ____________________

1st century bce Chinese writers describe psychoactive uses
of Cannabis indica, which enter the Chinese
pharmacopoeia ____________________ ____________________

2nd century ce Galen and Dioscorides write about Cannabis ____________________ ____________________

10th to 13th centuries Regional hemp markets and water- and
animal-powered hemp mills appear in France ____________________ ____________________

11th and 12th centuries Increased evidence of pipe smoking across
eastern Africa suggests the diffusion of
Cannabis indica ____________________ ____________________

12th and 13th centuries Arabic poets in North Africa and the Levant
begin writing about hashish; Islamic physicians
begin to mention psychoactive Cannabis explicitly ____________________ ____________________

14th century Venice establishes a European precedent
of controlling hemp production to ensure
naval power ____________________ ____________________

14th century Baltic hemp enters international trade through
the Hanseatic League ____________________ ____________________

15th century African water pipes arrive in the Arabian
Peninsula, and subsequently in South Asia
and the Levant ____________________ ____________________
cannabis

16th century Sailors on Portuguese ships encounter smoking
in Mozambique, and bhang throughout the
western Indian Ocean; sailors bring their
knowledge into the Atlantic ____________________ ____________________

16th to 19th centuries Enslaved people bring knowledge of diamba from
eastern Africa to western Africa, and throughout
the Atlantic via the transatlantic slave trade ____________________ ____________________

16th to 19th centuries Spain, Portugal and Great Britain increasingly
rely on imported Baltic hemp, and try to increase
domestic production ____________________ ____________________

17th and 18th centuries Commercial hemp industries fail in North
American colonies, but Cannabis sativa persists
in subsistence production ____________________ ____________________

1689 Scientist Robert Hooke decides sailor Robert
Knox had used ‘Indian hemp’ in Ceylon, and
reports that ‘Indian hemp’ seeds do not produce
psychoactive plants in Britain ____________________ ____________________

18th and 19th centuries Russian hemp dominates global supply
____________________ ____________________

1753 Taxonomist Carolus Linnaeus names Cannabis sativa ____________________ ____________________

1784 Taxonomist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck name Cannabis indica ____________________ ____________________

1790s Commercial hemp production peaks in Spanish
Louisiana, and begins in Kentucky ____________________ ____________________

c. 1800 Napoleon’s troops learn about hashish in Egypt;
Europeans try to make rope from drug Cannabis
cultivars in British India and Australia, and
Portuguese Angola and Brazil ____________________ ____________________

1809 Antoine Silvestre de Sacy popularizes the
Assassin tale, which establishes hashish in
Orientalist discourse ____________________ ____________________

1829 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, establishes the first
law controlling Cannabis indica use ____________________ ____________________

1830s British physicians in India evaluate the medicinal
potential Cannabis indica; ‘Cannabis indica’ becomes
an accepted pharmaceutical in Western medicine ____________________ ____________________

1834–1920 Indentured South Asian labourers carry Cannabis
indica to many locations worldwide, particularly
around the Caribbean ____________________ ____________________

1840s The French Club des Hashischins experiments with
drug Cannabis, and the club’s members popularize
drug use through subsequent publications ____________________ ____________________

1840s Mexican authorities first become concerned
about marihuana ____________________ ____________________

1850s Hemp Cannabis peaks globally; East Asian indica
hemp introduced to Europe and North America ____________________ ____________________

1870s–1910s Multiple colonial and independent states in
South Asia, southern Africa and the Americas
prohibit recreational drug Cannabis use in order
to control labourers ____________________ ____________________

1880s–1930s Anti-drug authorities portray drug Cannabis as
certainly inducing madness and violence in users ____________________ ____________________

1910s–30s Marihuana, locoweed and reefer gain limited
popularity across the u.s. ____________________ ____________________

1925 Cannabis indica is included as a controlled substance
in the International Opium Convention ____________________ ____________________

1938 Cannabis drug prohibition begins in the u.s. ____________________ ____________________

1950s Commercial hemp production is moribund in
Europe and ceases in the u.s.; the Chinese state
discourages hemp ____________________ ____________________

1961 The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs
standardizes legal controls on drug Cannabis
among United Nations member states ____________________ ____________________

1960s–70s Cannabis indica gains global popularity as part of
social and political upheavals; celebrities popularize
drug use in music, literature, film and art ____________________ ____________________

1960s–present The popularity of hand-rolled drug Cannabis
cigarettes creates demand for hemp Cannabis
rolling papers ____________________ ____________________

1973 u.s. President Richard Nixon declares a global
War on Drugs, which continues today ____________________ ____________________

1990s–present The ‘Hemp Renaissance’ develops as people
seek renewable sources of raw materials; several
countries worldwide re-legalize hemp production ____________________ ____________________

1996 In the u.s., California and Arizona legalize
medical marijuana use; eighteen states (and
Washington, dc) follow by 2014; other countries
allowing some medical use include Austria,
Canada, Finland, Germany, Israel, Italy, the
Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden ____________________ ____________________

2012 In the u.s., Colorado and Washington State
legalize recreational marijuana ____________________ ____________________

2013 Uruguay legalizes the cultivation, sale, distribution
and use of Cannabis indica ____________________ ____________________

2014 Colorado’s government-regulated recreational
marijuana market opens; the state reports $14
million in sales and $2 million in taxes during
the first month of business
 
Top FDA Official Blows Whistle as Agency Approves Drug 10X Worse Than Fentanyl, Funded by DoD


“The lack of insight that continues to be exhibited by the agency is in many ways a willful blindness that borders on the criminal.” — top FDA official.

In a massive move to expose the Food and Drug Administration’s loyalty to big pharma, a top official from within the agency has come forward with damning claims. The FDA has succumbed to Big Pharma’s influence and is approving deadly drugs to benefit their industry backers.

Dr. Raeford Brown, who is chair of the FDA’s committee to review various opioid based drugs before approving them, blew the whistle in an interview with the Guardian this week.


Brown told the Guardian that there is a “war” inside the FDA in regard to approving opioids. Brown said the agency has “failed to learn the lessons” of the recent epidemic which now claims tens of thousands of lives each year—around 150 deaths every single day.

Brown’s interview comes on the heals of the FDA approving a horrifyingly strong drug that is 1,000 times stronger than morphine and 10 times stronger than the incredibly deadly drug fentanyl.

As TFTP reported in November, the FDA sided with its Anesthetic and Analgesic Advisory Panel, which voted 10-3 to approve Dsuvia, a sublingual tablet form of sufentanil, against the recommendation of its chairman.

Brown, who was one of the “no” votes on the panel, called Dsuvia a “terrible drug” and noted how the entire approval process was manipulated.

Adding to the ominous nature of the recent approval is the fact that Dsuvia’s development was partially funded by the Department of Defense. Part of the problem critics of the new drug claim is that it is in pill form which will undoubtedly lead to abuse and black market sales. However, that’s exactly why the DoD wants it so they can administer it on the battlefield.

The company behind the drug, AcelRx projects $1.1 billion in annual sales on Dsuvia alone, showing just how large their reach will be.

“They should stop considering any new opioid evaluation,” Brown told the Guardian. “For every day and every week and every month that the FDA don’t do the right thing, people drop dead on the streets. What they do has a direct impact on the mortality rate from opioids in this country.”

Brown explained to the Guardian that he has lost faith in the agency’s ability to protect public health and says they are more interested in bowing down to the ones pulling their strings in the world of Big Pharma. Brown went so far as to describe the FDA’s loyalty to the pharmaceutical industry as potentially criminal.

“I think that the FDA has learned nothing. The modus operandi of the agency is that they talk a good game and then nothing happens. Working directly with the agency for the last five years, as I sit and listen to them in meetings, all I can think about is the clock ticking and how many people are dying every moment that they’re not doing anything,” he said. “The lack of insight that continues to be exhibited by the agency is in many ways a willful blindness that borders on the criminal.”

Criminal indeed. As TFTP has reported, members of the Sackler family, who’ve made billions pushing their deadly OxyContin drug on the masses are arguably responsible for more deaths than any Mexican drug cartel. Instead of being hunted down at their plush mansions by DEA agents, they are rubbing elbows with members of Congress.

The state of Massachusetts has had enough however, and officially accused the company, Purdue Pharma, and its heirs of spinning a “web of illegal deceit” which fueled the deadly crisis in which America currently finds itself.

Just this week, Massachusetts attorney general Maura Healey accused the Sackler family of engineering the entire crisis. She sat down with “CBS This Morning” on Thursday and alleged that the Sackler family hired “hundreds of workers to carry out their wishes” – pushing doctors to get “more patients on opioids, at higher doses, for longer, than ever before” all while paying “themselves billions of dollars.”

The Sackler family is only partially complicit, however, as their drugs were approved and pushed by the entire system. The revolving door of big pharma employees at the FDA is designed—not to hire experts to protect the public from dangerous drugs—but instead to streamline and protect revenue generation for a corrupt industry.

We need only look at the FDA’s attack on kratom to prove this notion. As the FDA continues to approve dangerous opioid products that are currently killing 150 people a day, the commissioner of the FDA, Scott Gottlieb has made it his personal mission to demonize and attempt to ban kratom.

Because kratom has similar effects to opioids—and also happen to be vastly safer and milder—the FDA declared it to be a dangerous opioid drug.

Kratom is not an opioid. Opiates are derived from poppies and opioids are man-made opiates. Both opiates and opioids depress the respiratory system and are deadly in this respect as related to overdoses. Kratom is in the coffee family and it does not have any properties of opioid-induced respiratory depression. This is why millions of people take kratom every day and none of them die.

But these facts have no bearing on those who wish to keep their monopoly on pain treatment as well as profit from banning this highly beneficial plant.

Last year, referring to naturally wild growing kratom plant as a “street drug,” Gottlieb claimed that he and the FDA are acting “in the interest of protecting public health,” and will therefore attack a plant used by millions to enrich the police state, foster the drug war, and ensure a lifetime of profit for the pharmaceutical industry which has addicted the nation to its dangerous and extremely deadly synthetic opioids. This is now coming to a head as the crackdown on kratom has expanded outside of the FDA into other government agencies.

In the last few months, proving their loyalty to the dangerous opioid giants—responsible for tens of thousands of deaths a year—the Department of Health and Human Services, along with multiple state boards of pharmacy, have moved to classify the kratom plant as a schedule 1 drug. This movement against the plant by Big Pharma loyalists has been increasing and got exposed in November in Ohio as police began raiding stores in which kratom is sold.

In October, the Ohio Board of Pharmacy became the latest group to jump on the ‘ban kratom bandwagon’ and classified kratom as a schedule 1 drug. This followed a move by the FDA—who falsely declared kratom to be an opioid earlier this year.

Over the Thanksgiving break, police in Ohio carried out a series of raids on stores who were selling kratom. Despite the fact that the plant is currently legal in the state, SWAT teams raided these places as if they were human traffickers or meth dealers.

“They had like 10 police officers, the chief of police, it was crazy,” one store owner Jack Smith told HuffPost.

Hopefully, kratom remains legal as it has shown to be massively beneficial in curbing the opioid addictions of so many people. I can speak from experience when I say that I have personally witnessed friends give up their dangerous opioid addictions by using kratom instead.

Below is a screen shot from my phone showing one of many success stories. An ‘LT’, for those who don’t know is short for Lortab, an opioid based pain reliever that is commonly prescribed. Although it is usually a low dosage, those who get addicted to them often overdose by taking multiple pills.



It’s because of text messages like the one above that the FDA is trying to crack down on kratom. It is a direct threat to their puppet masters in the industry and a far safer alternative to the ever-expanding list of opioids they keep approving.

Hopefully, these comments by Dr. Brown will materialize into something larger than just an interview and the true intentions of the FDA will be aired for all to see.
 
Monopoly Medicine: How Big Pharma Stops Its Competitors and Monopolizes the Health Industry



Why does Big Pharma give ‘alternative health’ a bad press, as in the case of vitamins, when they’re always trying to make synthetic versions of alternative medicines? The answer lies in patents and profits…

When it comes to treating illness and disease, there is a pattern that runs throughout academia, research and development, marketing, diagnoses, orthodox treatment, press and politics. This pattern reflects how Big Pharma is able to stop its alternative health competitors from getting any significant share of the market, and thus, monopolize the health industry. This in effect suppresses alternative health treatments from being widely sold, regardless of cost and efficacy.

How the suppression works

Let me spell it out. I’ll put it to you like this: Let’s use our imagination for a moment, be hypothetical, and say that you’ve come up with a miracle cure for a previously incurable disease, and it exists in the form of a few cheap, non-toxic herbal tablets with a dietary regime to accompany it.

Your breakthrough treatment is an unorthodox alternative medicine. It has many advantages:

1. Treatment is natural; therefore, it is relatively cheap.

2. It is non-toxic with no ill side effects.

3. No need to treat possible side effects.

4. Patients are cured! No more suffering or death!

5. Because patients are cured, they no longer have to keep returning for treatment like they would if it were left to the medical / pharmaceutical approach who only treat the symptoms (most patients have to keep returning for the rest of their lives) and are only given temporary relief.

6. Think of how the money saved from this cheap alternative cure could be put to good use. What about including this treatment for individuals with low income, those in developing countries, educational programs and publicity campaigns to spread the word?

Although your innovations are far more effective than anything currently on the market, you will be in for a hard time with the big boys of the medical / pharmaceutical establishment when the word gets out about your miracle cure. You may well be genuine, caring, brilliant and with much conviction, but it is highly unlikely that you’ll ever get your miracle cure going with any impact at all, despite all the above advantages.

You have to remember, the medical / pharmaceutical establishment is only ultimately interested in oiling the wheels of commerce with big profits. Anyone seen to be a financial threat to them must be brought down, no matter what it takes. However, the public at large, for most part, have no idea of how low the corrupt establishment are prepared to go when it comes to getting what they want: to keep control of the markets and monopoly.

“It’s strange that men should take up crime when there are so many legal ways to be dishonest.” – Al Capone

To avoid a competitor (like you) breaking into the market, while keeping prescription drugs at ridiculously high prices and the pharmaceutical industry flooded with cash, the government have agreed with Big Pharma to a list of mandatory protocols; that is, new products have to go through a series of tests and approvals before they are finally accepted. This could take something like 10 years, and by this time, this Big Pharma competitor may have spent around 250 million dollars.

Fortunately, this does not also have to include you. Your cure is natural medicine. It does not have to be patented. However, right from the beginning you could be shut down and have your equipment seized for illegal medical treatment, and then face the possibility of a prison sentence. All this could happen regardless of your cure’s high efficacy! This is just one of many examples where laws have been made, not because of fairness, or public health, but because they favor the rich and powerful.

“There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.” – Montesquieu 1669 – 1755

Here you have an array of crooks who have all the necessary allies to successfully bring off their unjust operations. They don’t give a damn about people. Profits rule OK!!

So, if attempts from the authorities fail to close your practice down, you will face an onslaught of criticism, even if none of it is based on fact. You could be called a madman or a quack… or just plain wrong. In the end you will even find it difficult to give away your treatment for nothing.

Where in the so-called free world is the free market economy here? The only competition that exists in the health industry is among the major drug companies who, together with the government, steer the public toward pharmaceutical interventions – and control the prices.

In light of the above, discernment is absolutely essential. For your own health, and your family’s, educate yourself on what’s best for you, if and when you need treatment. Learn to recognize when prescription-happy doctors and other medical staff are trying to push unnecessary, toxic and invasive treatments on you for Big Pharma’s profit machine, when you’d be better off choosing an alternative medicine.
 
Back
Top