From: Stoner Stuff Date: Jan 1 2007 3:52 PM

Marijuana Health Mythology

June 1994
by Dale Gieringer, Ph.D.
Coordinator, California NORML

---

HTMLized by Chris Pressey, Cat's-Eye Technologies, cats-eye@cats-eye.com.

---

Table of Myths

Myth: Marijuana is a dangerous drug

Any discussion of marijuana should begin with the fact that there have been numerous official reports and studies, every one of which has concluded that marijuana poses no great risk to society and should not be criminalized. These include: the National Academy of Sciences Analysis of Marijuana Policy (1982); the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse (the Shafer Report) (1973); the Canadian Government's Commission of Inquiry (Le Dain Report) (1970); the British Advisory Committee on Drug Dependency (Wooton Report) (1968); the La Guardia Report (1944); the Panama Canal Zone Military Investigations (1916-29); and Britain's monumental Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (1893-4). It is sometimes claimed that there is ``new evidence'' showing marijuana is more harmful than was thought in the sixties. In fact, the most recent studies have tended to confirm marijuana's safety, refuting claims that it causes birth defects, brain damage, reduced testosterone, or increased drug abuse problems.

The current consensus is well stated in the 20th annual report of the California Research Advisory Panel (1990), which recommended that personal use and cultivation of marijuana be legalized: "An objective consideration of marijuana shows that it is responsible for less damage to society and the individual than are alcohol and cigarettes."

References: The National Academy of Sciences report, Marijuana and Health (National Academy Press, 1982), remains the most useful overview of the health effects of marijuana, its major conclusions remaining largely unaffected by the last 10 years of research. Lovinger and Jones, The Marihuana Question (Dodd, Mead & Co., NY 1985), is the most exhaustive and fair-handed summary of the evidence against marijuana. Good, positive perspectives may be found in Lester Grinspoon's Marihuana, the Forbidden Medicine (Yale Press, 1993) and Marihuana Reconsidered (Harvard U. Press 1971), which debunks many of the older anti-pot myths. See also Leo Hollister, Health Aspects of Cannabis, Pharmacological Reviews 38:1-20 (1986).

Up to the Table of Myths.

Myth: Marijuana is harmless

Just as most experts agree that occasional or moderate use of marijuana is innocuous, they also agree that excessive use can be harmful. Research shows that the two major risks of excessive marijuana use are:

1. respiratory disease due to smoking and
2. accidental injuries due to impairment.

Marijuana and Smoking:A recent survey by the Kaiser Permanente Center found that daily marijuana-only smokers have a 19% higher rate of respiratory complaints than non-smokers.(1) These findings were not unexpected, since it has long been known that, aside from its psychoactive ingredients, marijuana smoke contains virtually the same toxic gases and carcinogenic tars as tobacco. Human studies have found that pot smokers suffer similar kinds of respiratory damage as tobacco smokers, putting them at greater risk of bronchitis, sore throat, respiratory inflammation and infections.(2)

Although there has not been enough epidemiological work to settle the matter definitively, it is widely suspected that marijuana smoking causes cancer. Studies have found apparently pre-cancerous cell changes in pot smokers.(3) Some cancer specialists have reported a higher-than-expected incidence of throat, neck and tongue cancer in younger, marijuana-only smokers.(4) A couple of cases have been fatal. While it has not been conclusively proven that marijuana smoking causes lung cancer, the evidence is highly suggestive. According to Dr. Donald Tashkin of UCLA, the leading expert on marijuana smoking:(5)"Although more information is certainly needed, sufficient data have already been accumulated concerning the health effects of marijuana to warrant counseling by physicians against the smoking of marijuana as an important hazard to health." Fortunately, the hazards of marijuana smoking can be reduced by various strategies:

1. use of higher-potency cannabis, which can be smoked in smaller quantities,
2. use of waterpipes and other smoke reduction technologies,(6) and
3. ingesting pot orally instead of smoking it.

Up to the Table of Myths.

Myth: One joint equals one pack of (or 16, or maybe just 4) cigarettes

Some critics exaggerate the dangers of marijuana smoking by fallaciously citing a study by Dr. Tashkin which found that daily pot smokers experienced a "mild but significant" increase in airflow resistance in the large airways greater than that seen in persons smoking 16 cigarettes per day.(7) What they ignore is that the same study examined other, more important aspects of lung health, in which marijuana smokers did much better than tobacco smokers. Dr. Tashkin himself disavows the notion that one joint equals 16 cigarettes. A more widely accepted estimate is that marijuana smokers consume four times as much carcinogenic tar as cigarettes smokers per weight smoked. (8) This does not necessarily mean that one joint equals four cigarettes, since joints usually weigh less. In fact, the average joint has been estimated to contain 0.4 grams of pot, a bit less than one-half the weight of a cigarette, making one joint equal to two cigarettes (actually, joint sizes range from cigar-sized spliffs smoked by Rastas, to very fine sinsemilla joints weighing as little as 0.2 grams). It should be noted that there is no exact equivalency between tobacco and marijuana smoking, because they affect different parts of the respiratory tract differently: whereas tobacco tends to penetrate to the smaller, peripheral passageways of the lungs, pot tends to concentrate on the larger, central passageways.(9) One consequence of this is that pot, unlike tobacco, does not appear to cause emphysema.

Up to the Table of Myths.

Myth: Prohibition reduces the harmfulness of pot smoking

Whatever the risks of pot smoking, the current laws make matters worse in several respects:

1. Paraphernalia laws have impeded the development and marketing of water pipes and other, more advanced technology that could significantly reduce the harmfulness of marijuana smoke.
2. Prohibition encourages the sale of pot that has been contaminated or adulterated by insecticides, Paraquat, etc., or mixed with other drugs such as PCP, crack and heroin.
3. By raising the price of marijuana, prohibition makes it uneconomical to consume marijuana orally, the best way to avoid smoke exposure altogether; this is because eating typically requires two or three times as much marijuana as smoking.

Unlike the government, NORML is interested in reducing the dangers of pot smoking; California NORML and MAPS (the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies) are currently researching the use of waterpipes and other advanced smoke reduction technology.

References on Marijuana and Smoking: Donald Tashkin, Is Frequent Marijuana Smoking Hazardous To Health?, Western Journal of Medicine 158 #6: 635-7; June 1993; Research Findings on Smoking of Abused Substances, ed. C. Nora Chiang and Richard L. Hawks, NIDA Research Monograph 99 (National Institute on Drug Abuse, Rockville, MD 1990); NAS Report,op. cit.; California NORML, Health Tips for Marijuana Smokers.

Up to the Table of Myths.

Myth: No one has ever died from using marijuana

The Kaiser study also found that daily pot users have a 30% higher risk of injuries, presumably from accidents. These figures are significant, though not as high as comparable risks for heavy drinkers or tobacco addicts. That pot can cause accidents is scarcely surprising, since marijuana has been shown to degrade short-term memory, concentration, judgment, and coordination at complex tasks including driving.(1) There have been numerous reports of pot-related accidents --- some of them fatal, belying the attractive myth that no one has ever died from marijuana. One survey of 1023 emergency room trauma patients in Baltimore found that fully 34.7% were under the influence of marijuana, more even than alcohol (33.5%); half of these (16.5%) used both pot and alcohol in combination.(2) This is perhaps the most troublesome research ever reported about marijuana; as we shall see, other accident studies have generally found pot to be less dangerous than alcohol. Nonetheless, it is important to be informed on all sides of the issue. Pot smokers should be aware that accidents are the number one hazard of moderate pot use. In addition, of course, the psychoactive effects of cannabis can have many other adverse effects on performance, school work, and productivity.

Up to the Table of Myths.

Myth: Marijuana is a major road safety hazard

A growing body of research indicates that marijuana is on balance less of a road hazard than alcohol. Various surveys have found that half or more of fatal drivers have alcohol in their blood, as opposed to 7 - 20% with THC, the major psychoactive component of marijuana (a condition usually indicative of having smoked within the past 2-4 hours).(3) The same studies show that some 70 - 90% of those who are THC-positive also have alcohol in their blood. It therefore appears that marijuana by itself is a minor road safety hazard, though the combination of pot and alcohol is not. Some research has even suggested that low doses of marijuana may sometimes improve driving performance, though this is probably not true in most cases.(4) Two major new studies by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration have confirmed marijuana's relative safety compared to alcohol. The first, the most comprehensive drug accident study to date, surveyed blood samples from 1882 drivers killed in car, truck and motorchycle accidents in seven states during 1990-91.(5) Alcohol was found in 51.5% of specimens, as against 17.8% for all other drugs combined. Marijuana, the second most common drug, appeared in just 6.7%. Two-thirds of the marijuana-using drivers also had alcohol. The report concluded that alcohol was by far the dominant drug-related problem in accidents. It went on to analyze the responsibility of drivers for the accidents they were involved in. It found that drivers who used alcohol were especially culpable in fatal accidents, and even more so when they combined it with marijuana or other drugs. However, those who used marijuana alone appeared to be if anything less culpable than non-drug users (though the data were insufficient to be statistically conclusive). The report concluded, "There was no indication that marijuana by itself was a cause of fatal accidents." (It must be emphasized that this is not the case when marijuana is combined with alcohol or other drugs). The second NHTSA study, Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance, concluded that the adverse effects of cannabis on driving appear "relatively small" and are less than those of drunken driving. (6) The study, conducted in the Netherlands, examined the performance of drivers in actual freeway and urban driving situations at various doses of marijuana. It found that marijuana produces a moderate, dose-related decrement in road tracking ability, but is "not profoundly impairing" and "in no way unusual compared to many medicinal drugs." It found that marijuana's effects at the higher doses preferred by smokers never exceed those of alcohol at blood concentrations of .08%, the minimum level for legal intoxication in stricter states such as California. The study found that unlike alcohol, which encourages risky driving, marijuana appears to produce greater caution, apparently because users are more aware of their state and able to compensate for it (similar results have been reported by other researchers as well.(7)) It should be noted that these results may not apply to non-driving related situations, where forgetfulness or inattention can be more important than speed (this might explain the discrepancy in the Baltimore hospital study, which looked at accidents of all kinds). The NHTSA study also warned that marijuana could also be quite dangerous in emergency situations that put high demands on driving skills.

Up to the Table of Myths.

Myth: Marijuana prohibition improves public safety

There is no evidence that the prohibition of marijuana reduces the net social risk of accidents. On the contrary, recent studies suggest that marijuana may actually be beneficial in that it substitutes for alcohol and other, more dangerous drugs. Research by Karyn Model found that states with marijuana decrim had lower overall drug abuse rates than others; another study by Frank Chaloupka found decrim states have lower accident rates too. (8) In Alaska, accident rates held constant or declined following the legalization of personal use of marijuana.(9) In Holland, authorities believe that cannabis has contributed to an overall decline in opiate abuse. Recent government statistics showed that the highest rates of cocaine abuse in the West were in Nevada and Arizona, the states with the toughest marijuana laws.

Up to the Table of Myths.

Myth: Drug urinalysis improves workplace safety

There has never been a single, controlled scientific study showing drug urinalysis improves workplace safety. Claims that drug testing works are based on dubious anecdotal reports or the mere observation of a declining rate of drug positives in the working population, which has nothing to do with job performance. Such scientific studies as have been conducted have found little difference between the performance of drug-urine-positive workers and others. The largest survey to date, covering 4,396 postal workers nationwide, found no difference in accident records between workers who tested positive on pre-employment drug screens and those who did not.(10) The study did find that drug-positive workers had a 50% higher rate of absenteeism and dismissals; put another way, however, drug users had a 93.4% attendance record (versus 95.8% for non-users) and fully 85% kept their jobs for a year (versus 89.5% for non-users)! An economic analysis of postal workers in Boston concluded that the net savings of drug testing were marginal, and that there could be many situations where it is not cost-effective.(11) Another survey of health workers in Georgia found no difference in job performance between drug-positive and drug-negative workers.(12)

Up to the Table of Myths.

Myth: Random urinalysis is needed in safety-sensitive transportation jobs

Government rules mandating random drug testing were promulgated without any prior statistical evidence that illicit drugs constituted an inordinate safety hazard. Not a single commercial passenger airline accident has ever been attributed to marijuana (or, for that matter, alcohol) abuse.(1) Drug tests on rail workers found no elevated incidence of drug use among workers involved in accidents.(2) Random drug testing of transportation workers was enacted as a hysterical reaction to a single 1987 train collision, in which 16 Amtrak passengers were killed by a Conrail train that failed to stop. The engineer and brakeman of the Conrail train at fault were found to have recently smoked marijuana, though it was never firmly proven that marijuana caused the accident. The Conrail engineer had an extensive record of speeding and drunken driving offenses and was known by management to have drinking problems. Critical safety equipment that would have averted the accident was missing or disabled. A subsequent investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board recommended that Conrail improve both its management and equipment, but did not recommend random testing. Nonetheless, Congress responded by mandating random drug testing on the entire transportation industry, from airline flight attendants to gas pipeline workers.

Up to the Table of Myths.

Myth: A single joint has effects that linger for days and weeks

While it is true that THC and other cannabinoids are fat-soluble and linger in the body for prolonged periods, they do not normally affect behavior beyond a few hours except in chronic users. Most impairment studies have found that the adverse effects of acute marijuana use wear off in 2-6 hours, commonly faster than alcohol.(3) The one notable exception was a pair of flight simulator studies by Leirer, Yesavage, and Morrow, which reported effects on flight simulator performance up to 24 hours later.(4) The differences, described by Leirer as "very subtle" and "very marginal," were less than those due to pilot age. Another flight simulator study by the same group failed to find any effects beyond 4 hours.(5) Similar "hangover" effects have been noted for alcohol.(6) Chronic users may experience more prolonged effects due to a build-up of cannabinoids in the tissues. Some heavy users have reported feeling effects weeks or even months after stopping. However, there is no evidence that these are detrimental to safety.

References on Accidents and Drug Testing: Alcohol, Drugs and Driving: Abstracts and Reviews Vol. 2 #3-4 (Brain Information Service, UCLA 1986); Dale Gieringer, Marijuana, Driving, and Accident Safety, Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20 (1): 93-101 (Jan.-Mar 1988); Dr. John Morgan, Impaired Statistics and the Unimpaired Worker, Drug Policy Letter 1(2): May/June 1989, and The "scientific" justification for drug urine testing, The University of Kansas Law Review 36: 683-97 (1988); John Horgan, Test Negative: A look at the evidence justifying illicit-drug tests, Scientific American, March 1990 pp. 18-22, and Postal Mortem, Scientific American, Feb. 1991 pp. 22-3; Dale Gieringer, Urinalysis or Uromancy? in Strategies for Change: New Directions in Drug Policy (Drug Policy Foundation, 1992).

Up to the Table of Myths.

Myth: Pot is ten times more potent and dangerous now than in the 1960's

The notion that pot has increased dramatically in potency is a DEA myth based on biased government data, as shown in a recent NORML report by Dr. John Morgan.(7) Samples of pot from the early '70s came from stale, low-potency Mexican "kilobricks" left in police lockers, whose potency had deteriorated to sub-smokable levels of less than 0.5%. These were compared to later samples of decent-quality domestic marijuana, making it appear that potency had skyrocketed. A careful examination of the government's data show that average marijuana potency increased modestly by a factor of two or so during the seventies, and has been more or less constant ever since.In fact, there is nothing new about high-potency pot. During the sixties, it was available in premium varieties such as Acapulco Gold, Panama Red, etc. , as well as in the form of hashish and hash oil, which were every bit as strong as today's sinsemilla, but were ignored in government potency statistics. While the average potency of domestic pot did increase with the development of sinsemilla in the seventies, the range of potencies available has remained virtually unchanged since the last century, when extremely potent tonics were sold over the counter in pharmacies. In Holland, high-powered hashish and sinsemilla are currently sold in coffee shops with no evident problems.

Contrary to popular myth, greater potency is not necessarily more dangerous, due to the fact that users tend to adjust (or "self-titrate") their dose according to potency. Thus, good quality sinsemilla is actually healthier for the lungs because it reduces the amount of smoke one needs to inhale to get high.

Up to the Table of Myths.

Myth: Pot kills brain cells

Government experts now admit that pot doesn't kill brain cells.(8) This myth came from a handful of animal experiments in which structural changes (not actual cell death, as is often alleged) were observed in brain cells of animals exposed to high doses of pot. Many critics still cite the notorious monkey studies of Dr. Robert G. Heath, which purported to find brain damage in three monkeys that had been heavily dosed with cannabis.(9) This work was never replicated and has since been discredited by a pair of better controlled, much larger monkey studies, one by Dr. William Slikker of the National Center for Toxicological Research(10) and the other by Charles Rebert and Gordon Pryor of SRI International.(11) Neither found any evidence of physical alteration in the brains of monkeys exposed to daily doses of pot for up to a year. Human studies of heavy users in Jamaica and Costa Rica found no evidence of abnormalities in brain physiology.(12) Even though there is no evidence that pot causes permanent brain damage, users should be aware that persistent deficits in short-term memory have been noted in chronic, heavy marijuana smokers after 6 to 12 weeks of abstinence.(13) It is worth noting that other drugs, including alcohol, are known to cause brain damage.

Up to the Table of Myths.

Myth: Marijuana causes sterility and lowers testosterone

Government experts also concede that pot has no permanent effect on the male or female reproductive systems.(14) A few studies have suggested that heavy marijuana use may have a reversible, suppressive effect on male testicular function.(15) A recent study by Dr. Robert Block has refuted earlier research suggesting that pot lowers testosterone or other sex hormones in men or women.(16) In contrast, heavy alcohol drinking is known to lower testosterone levels and cause impotence. A couple of lab studies indicated that very heavy marijuana smoking might lower sperm counts. However, surveys of chronic smokers have turned up no indication of infertility or other abnormalities.

Less is known about the effects of cannabis on human females. Some animal studies suggest that pot might temporarily lower fertility or increase the risk of fetal loss, but this evidence is of dubious relevance to humans.(1) One human study suggested that pot may mildly disrupt ovulation. It is possible that adolescents are peculiarly vulnerable to hormonal disruptions from pot. However, not a single case of impaired fertility has ever been observed in humans of either sex.

Up to the Table of Myths.

Myth: Marijuana causes birth defects

While experts generally recommend against any drug use during pregnancy, marijuana has little evidence implicating it in fetal harm, unlike alcohol, cocaine or tobacco. Epidemiological studies have found no evident link between prenatal use of marijuana and birth defects in humans.(2) A recent study by Dr. Susan Astley at the University of Washington refuted an earlier work suggesting that cannabis might cause fetal alcohol syndrome.(3) Although some research has found that prenatal cannabis use is associated with slightly reduced average birth weight and length,(4) these studies have been open to methodological criticism. More recently, a well-controlled study found that cannabis use had a positive impact on birthweight during the third trimester of pregnancy with no adverse behavioral consequences.(5) The same study found a slight reduction in birth length with pot use in the first two months of pregnancy. Another study of Jamaican women who had smoked pot throughout pregnancy found that their babies registered higher on developmental scores at the age of 30 days, while experiencing no significant effects on birthweight or length.(6) While cannabis use is not recommended in pregnancy, it may be of medical value to some women in treating morning sickness or easing childbirth.

Up to the Table of Myths.

Myth: Pot causes high blood pressure

According to the NAS, the effects of marijuana on blood pressure are complex, depending on dose, administration, and posture.(7) Marijuana often produces a temporary, moderate increase in blood pressure immediately after ingestion; however, heavy chronic doses may slightly depress blood pressure instead. One common reaction is to cause decreased blood pressure while standing and increased blood pressure while lying down, causing people to faint if they stand up too quickly. There is no evidence that pot use causes persisting hypertension or heart disease; some users even claim that it helps them control hypertension by reducing stress.

One thing THC does do is to increase pulse rates for about an hour. This is not generally harmful, since exercise does the same thing, but it may cause problems to people with pre-existing heart disease. Chronic users may develop a tolerance to this and other cardiovascular reactions.

Up to the Table of Myths.

Myth: Marijuana damages the immune system

A variety of studies indicate that THC and other cannabinoids may exercise mild, reversible immuno-suppressive effects by inhibiting the activity of immune system cells know as lymphocytes (T- and B-cells) and macrophages. It is dubious whether these effects are of import to human health, since they are based mainly on theoretical laboratory and animal studies. According to a review by Dr. Leo Hollister:(8) "The evidence [on immune suppression] has been contradictory and is more supportive of some degree of immunosuppression only when one considers in vitro studies. These have been seriously flawed by the very high concentrations of drug used to produce immunosuppression. The closer that experimental studies have been to actual clinical situations, the less compelling has been the evidence."

The immune suppression issue was first raised in research by the notorious cannabophobe Dr. Gabriel Nahas, but a flurry of research by the Reagan administration failed to find anything alarming. The recent discovery of a cannabinoid receptor inside rat spleens, where immune cells reside, raises the likelihood that cannabinoids do exert some sort of influence on the immune system.(9) It has even been suggested that these effects might be beneficial for patients with auto-immune diseases such as multiple sclerosis. Nevertheless, not a single case of marijuana-induced immune deficiency has ever been clinically or epidemiologically detected in humans.

One exception is the lungs, where chronic pots smokers have been shown to suffer damage to the immune cells known as alveolar macrophages and other defense mechanisms.(10) It is unclear how much of this damage is due to THC, as opposed to all of the other toxins that occur in smoke, many of which can be filtered out by waterpipes and other devices(11).

There is no reason to think marijuana is dangerous to AIDS patients. On the contrary, many AIDS patients report that marijuana helps avert the deadly "wasting syndrome" by stimulating appetite and reducing nausea. Cannabinoids do not actually damage the T-cells, which are depleted in HIV patients: one study even found that marijuana exposure increased T-cell counts in subjects (not AIDS patients) whose T-cell counts had been low.(12) Epidemiological studies have found no relation between use of marijuana or other drugs and development of AIDS.(13)

Up to the Table of Myths.

Myth: Marijuana causes chromosome and cell damage

According to the NAS,(14) "Studies suggesting that marijuana probably does not break chromosomes are fairly conclusive." Cannabinoids in themselves are neither mutagenic nor carcinogenic, though the tars produced by marijuana combustion are. Some laboratory studies have suggested that high dosages of THC might interfere with cell replication and produce abnormal numbers of chromosomes; however, there is no evidence of such damage in realistic situations.

Up to the Table of Myths.

Myth: Marijuana leads to harder drugs

There is no scientific evidence for the theory that marijuana is a "gateway" drug. The cannabis-using cultures in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America show no propensity for other drugs. The gateway theory took hold in the sixties, when marijuana became the leading new recreational drug. It was refuted by events in the eighties, when cocaine abuse exploded at the same time marijuana use declined. As we have seen, there is evidence that cannabis may substitute for alcohol and other "hard" drugs. A recent survey by Dr. Patricia Morgan of the University of California at Berekeley found that a significant number of pot smokers and dealers switched to methamphetamine "ice" when Hawaii's marijuana eradication program created a shortage of pot.(15) Dr. Morgan noted a similar phenomenon in California, where cocaine use soared in the wake of the CAMP helicopter eradication campaign.The one way in which marijuana does lead to other drugs is through its illegality: persons who deal in marijuana are likely to deal in other illicit drugs as well.

Up to the Table of Myths.

---

National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws
1001 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 1010
Washington, D.C. 20036
or call 1-900-97-NORML ($2.95/min.; must be 18 years of age)

---

1. Michael R. Polen et al. Health Care Use by Frequent Marijuana Smokers Who Do Not Smoke Tobacco, Western Journal of Medicine 158 #6: 596-601 (June 1993).
2. Donald Tashkin, Is Frequent Marijuana Smoking Hazardous To Health? Western Journal of Medicine 158 #6: 635-7 (June 1993).
3. D. Tashkin et al, Effects of Habitual Use of Marijuana and/or Cocaine on the Lung, in Research Findings on Smoking of Abused Substances, NIDA Research Monograph 99 (1990).
4. Paul Donald, Advanced malignancy in the young marijuana smoker, Adv Exp Med Biol 288:33-56 (1991); FM Taylor, Marijuana as a potential respiratory tract carcinogen, South Med Journal 81:1213-6 (1988).
5. D. Tashkin, Is Frequent Marijuana Smoking Hazardous To Health,? op. cit.
6. Nicholas Cozzi, Effects of Water Filtration on Marijuana Smoke: A Literature Review, MAPS (Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies) newsletter, Vol. IV #2 (1993) (Reprints available from MAPS and Cal. NORML).
7. D. Tashkin, Respiratory Status of 74 Habitual Marijuana Smokers, Chest 78 #5: 699-706 (Nov. 1980).
8. T-C. Wu, D. Tashkin, B. Djahed and J.E. Rose, Pulmonary hazards of smoking marijuana as compared with tobacco, New England Journal of Medicine 318: 347-51 (1988).
9. D. Tashkin et al, Effects of Habitual Use of Marijuana and/or Cocaine on the Lung, loc.cit.

1. Herbert Moskowitz, Marihuana and Driving, Accident Analysis and Prevention 17#4: 323-45 (1985).
2. Carl Soderstrom et al., Marijuana and Alcohol Use Among 1023 Trauma Patients, Archives of Surgery, 123: 733-7 (1988).
3. Dale Gieringer, Marijuana, Driving, and Accident Safety, Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20 (1): 93-101 (Jan-Mar 1988).
4. H. Klonoff, Marijuana and driving in real-life situations, Science 186: 317-24 (1974).
5. K.W. Terhune et al., The Incidence and Role of Drugs in Fatally Injured Drivers, NHTSA Report # DOT-HS-808-065 (1994).
6. Hendrik Robbe and James O'Hanlon, Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance, NHTSA Report #DOT-HS-808-078 (1994).
7. Klonoff, loc. cit.; A. Smiley, Marijuana: On-road and driving simulator studies, Alcohol, Drugs and Driving: Abstracts and Reviews 2#3-4: 15-30 (1986).
8. Peter Passell, Less Marijuana, More Alcohol? New York Times June 17, 1992.
9. Michael Dunham, When the Smoke Clears, Reason March 1983 pp.33-6.
10. Norman, Salyard and Mahoney, An Evaluation of Preemployment Drug Testing, Journal of Applied Psychology 75(6) 629-39 (1990).
11. Zwerling, Ryan and Orav, Costs and Benefits of Preemployment Drug Screening, JAMA 267(1): 91-3 (1992).
12. David Charles Parish, Relation of the Pre-employment Drug Testing Result to Employment Status: A One-year Follow-up, Journal of General Internal Medicine 4:44-7 (1989).

1. Dale Gieringer, Urinalysis or Uromancy? in Strategies for Change: New Directions in Drug Policy (Drug Policy Foundation, 1992); testimony of R.B. Stone in Hearings on the Airline and Rail Service Protection Act of 1987, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Feb. 20, 1987.
2. Gieringer, op. cit.; statistics reported in Federal Register Vol. 53 #224, Nov. 21, 1988 p. 47104.
3. Alison Smiley, Marijuana: On-Road and Driving Simulator Studies, Alcohol, Drugs, and Driving 2 #3-4: 121-34 (1986).
4. V.O. Leirer, J.A. Yesavage and D.G. Morrow, Marijuana Carry-Over Effects on Aircraft Pilot Performance, Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine 62: 221-7 (March 1991); Yesavage, Leirer, et al., Carry-Over effects of marijuana intoxication on aircraft pilot performance: a preliminary report, American Journal of Psychiatry 142: 1325-9 (1985).
5. Leirer, Yesavage and Morrow, Marijuana, Aging and Task Difficulty Effects on Pilot Performance, Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine 60: 1145-52 (Dec. 1989).
6. Yesavage and Leirer, Hangover Effects on Aircraft Pilots 14 Hours After Alcohol Ingestion: A Preliminary Report, American Journal of Psychiatry 143: 1546-50 (Dec. 1986).
7. John Morgan, American Marijuana Potency: Data Versus Conventional Wisdom, NORML Reports (1994). See also T. Mikuriya and M. Aldrich, Cannabis 1988: Old drug, new dangers, the potency question, Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20:47-55.
8. Dr. Christine Hartel, Acting Director of Research, National Institute of Drug Abuse, cited by the State of Hawaii Dept of Health, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division in memo of Feb. 4, 1994.
9. For an overview, see NAS Report, op. cit., pp. 81-2. R.G. Heath et al, Cannabis sativa: effects on brain function and ultrastructure in Rhesus monkeys, Biol. Psychiatry 15: 657-90 (1980).
10. William Slikker et al., Chronic Marijuana Smoke Exposure in the Rhesus Monkey, Fundamental and Applied Toxicology 17: 321-32 (1991).
11. Charles Rebert & Gordon Pryor - Chronic Inhalation of Marijuana Smoke and Brain Electrophysiology of Rhesus Monkeys, International Journal of Psychophysiology V 14, p.144, 1993.
12. NAS Report, pp. 82-7.
13. Cannabis and Memory Loss, (editorial) British Journal of Addiction 86: 249-52 (1991)
14. Dr. Christine Hartel, loc. cit.
15. NAS Report, pp. 94-9.
16. Dr. Robert Block in Drug and Alcohol Dependence 28: 121-8 (1991).

1. NAS Report, p. 97-8.
2. NAS Report, p. 99.
3. Dr. Susan Astley, Analysis of Facial Shape in Children Gestationally Exposed to Marijuana, Alcohol, and/or Cocaine, Pediatrics 89#1: 67-77 ( January 1992).
4. Dr. Barry Zuckerman et al. Effects of Maternal Marijuana and Cocaine Use on Fetal Growth, New England Journal of Medicine 320 #12: 762-8 (March 23, 1989); Dr. Ralph Hingson et al., Effects of maternal drinking and marijuana use on fetal growth and development, Pediatrics 70: 539-46 (1982).
5. Nancy Day et al., Prenatal Marijuana Use and Neonatal Outcome, Neurotoxicology and Teratology 13: 329-34 (1992).
6. Janice Hayes, Melanie Dreher and J. Kevin Nugent, Newborn Outcomes With Maternal Marihuana Use in Jamaican Women, Pediatric Nursing 14 #2: 107-10 (Mar-Apr. 1988).
7. NAS Report, pp. 66-67.
8. Dr. Leo Hollister, Marijuana and Immunity, Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20(1): 3-8 (Jan/Mar 1988).
9. Sean Munro, Kerrie Thomas and Muna Abu-Shaar, Molecular characterization of a peripheral receptor for cannabinoids, Nature 365:61-5 (Sept. 2, 1993); Leslie Iversen, Medical Uses of Marijuana?, ibid. pp. 12-3.
10. D. Tashkin, Is Frequent Marijuana Smoking Hazardous To Health,? op. cit.
11. Nicholas Cozzi, ibid.
12. Donald Tashkin et al., Cannabis 1977, Ann. Intern. Med. 89:539-49 (1978).
13. Richard A Kaslow et al, No Evidence for a Role of Alcohol or Other Psychoactive Drugs in Accelerating Immunodeficiency in HIV-1-Positive Individuals, JAMA 261:3424-9 (June 16, 1989).
14. NAS Report, p. 101.
15. Survey: Hawaii war on pot pushed users to "ice," Honolulu Advertiser, April 1, 1994 p.1.

From: {Mr.eViL} ThE InFaMoUs BiTcH KiLLa Date: Dec 27 2006 11:08 PM The United States Constitution provides the foundation for the rights that protect all U.S. citizens from intrusive law enforcement practices. These rights should be exercised by everyone in all circumstances, regardless of whether or not an individual is guilty of a crime. Rights are like muscles -- if they are not exercised, they wither away. RULES OF THUMB Never leave anything in plain view: Although law enforcement officers must obtain a warrant before they can conduct a privacy-invading search, any illicit material that can be plainly seen by any person from a non-intrusive vantage point is subject to confiscation. An arrest and a valid warrant to search the rest of the area is likely to ensue. A "roach" in the ashtray, a pipe or baggie on the dashboard or coffee table, or a joint being smoked in public are common mistakes that can lead to prosecution. Never put anything incriminating into the trash: Various courts have ruled that law enforcement officers are allowed to rummage through curbside trash bags without a warrant. A few seeds or stems can then be used as a basis for obtaining a warrant to search the individual's home. In fact, anything discarded into the public domain can be picked up by the police and used as evidence. For example, if an individual throws an illicit substance out of his or her car window and a police officer sees it and picks it up, the person is almost certain to be arrested. NEVER CONSENT TO A SEARCH: Most individuals arrested on marijuana charges could have avoided the arrest by exercising their Fourth Amendment rights. If a law enforcement officer asks permission to search, it is usually because: (1) there is not enough evidence to obtain a search warrant; or (2) the officer does not feel like going through the hassle of obtaining a warrant. Law enforcement officers are trained to intimidate people into consenting to searches. If an individual does consent, the officer can -- and will -- conduct the search without a warrant. If the officer finds any contraband, the person will be arrested. Moreover, the validity of the evidence will almost definitely hold up in court because consenting to a search essentially amounts to handing the evidence to the officer and saying, "Here it is -- arrest me." If an individual does not consent, the officer must either release the person or detain the person and attempt to get a warrant. The fact that an individual refuses to consent does not give the officer grounds to obtain a warrant. The individual should politely say: "I do not consent to a search of my person, belongings, home, or vehicle. I retain my Fourth Amendment rights and all other rights under the United States Constitution. I will say nothing until my attorney is present." If the officer conducts a search anyway --without a warrant-- any contraband will likely be declared invalid evidence by the judge, and any charges will probably be dropped. If the officer does attempt to get a warrant and is successful in doing so, any contraband discovered may still be excluded as evidence if the individual's lawyer can convince the judge that the warrant itself was invalid --which, in many cases, it is. No matter what a law enforcement officer threatens or promises, it is always better to refuse to consent to a search. EXERCISE YOUR RIGHTS [cont.] LOOSE LIPS SINK SHIPS: Whether arrested or not, individuals should always exercise the right to remain silent. Anything a person says to law enforcement officers, reporters, cellmates, or even their friends can--and probably will--be used as evidence against them. Individuals have the right to have an attorney present during questioning. Only a qualified attorney can ensure that the suspect or defendant does not say anything damaging. The right to remain silent should always be exercised; three hypothetical examples follow: --Cop: "Is this your pipe?" --Joe Citizen: "My attorney advised me to remain silent unless she is present." --Cop: "If I look in your trunk, I'm not going to find any drugs?" --Jane Citizen: "I do not consent to a search of my trunk, and I'd rather not answer any questions without an attorney present." --Cop: [during search of apartment -- with a warrant-- upon discovering and examining a tiny bag of leaves and stems]: "Looks like a couple pounds of good bud here ... too bad. You can do some serious time in the state slammer for this." --John Citizen: [says nothing at all] DO NOT STICK AROUND ANY LONGER THAN IS REQUIRED: From the time a law enforcement officer approaches, it is wise to remain calm and not arouse suspicion. Nevertheless, individuals should always find out if the officer requires them to stay; if not, they should explain that they are in a hurry, then leave. Law enforcement officers are trained to create the impression that their suspects are obliged to stay. Individuals being questioned by an officer should simply say: "Am I under arrest or otherwise detained? If not, I really need to get going. Have a nice day." DO NOT BE HOSTILE; DO NOT PHYSICALLY RESIST: Some law enforcement officers do not care about citizens' rights; sometimes, the suspect is caught red-handed; other times, there are special-case qualifiers to certain rights, or there are loopholes beyond the scope of discussion in this publication. In any case, there are times when individuals politely assert their rights and refuse to talk or give consent, but the officers disregard their wishes and proceed to detain, search, or arrest them. In such cases, it is important to keep in mind that law enforcement officers have clubs, mace, handcuffs, guns, back-up, and usually the trust of the court. Aggression against the officers can make matters far worse. This does not mean that individuals facing such circumstances should give up all rights. Sometimes it is best to simply say, "Do what you feel you must; I will not physically resist. However, I do not consent to this." DO NOT BE A SNITCH: The police and prosecutors often try to pressure individuals into providing information that would lead to the arrest and conviction of others. Sometimes a person's own defense attorney will even encourage him or her to comply! A wise marijuana consumer will avoid the issue entirely by reducing the possibility of apprehension by knowing his or her rights. However, prudent marijuana consumers will keep in mind that the possibility of arrest always exists. They remember the adage: "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time." Threats and promises by police and prosecutors should be viewed with caution and skepticism. Decisions should only be made after consulting with an attorney and examining one's own conscience. Just remember, saving one's self by pointing the finger at others is the most cowardly thing a person can do. There is no justification for being a traitor in the War Against Marijuana Consumers.

From: {Mr.eViL} ThE InFaMoUs BiTcH KiLLa Date: Dec 27 2006 11:08 PM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hold up before you buy 'Never Get Busted' Some new information is coming to light in the uproar over Barry Cooper's Never Get Busted video's and website. From all indications it appears Mr. Cooper was never granted permission from LEAP or NORML to use their names in connection with his video. There is a HUGE discussion going on in the drug policy reform community about all of this. It seems pretty evenly divided to me with half saying it has the potential to be a wonderful thing, if it is legit, and the other half saying that this guy has no right to profit from information that the public has already paid for. They also say that if he wanted to atone for his sins as a narc he would give the info away for free. I, on the other hand, know first hand how difficult it is to be an activist and find funding for this work. If this guy is now on our side and is making this information available, and it is real information that could keep people out of jail (even if we have to pay for it) then it is a good thing. A few things that bother me though. 1. This just in from a reformer I work with and will vouch for Watching the discussion about Barry Cooper and "Never Get Busted Again" there appears to be facts that have been missed, or are not known by everyone. My understanding is that Barry Cooper 'discovered' LEAP two or three weeks ago, and presented LEAP with credentials which appeared to qualify him as a speaker. Mr. Cooper told LEAP about his video and asked if he could mention LEAP in connection with it. LEAP told him NO, very clearly. Yet Mr. Cooper not only put LEAP's name all over his website, he also went on TV shows and radio, using the LEAP name, saying he was a speaker - yet he has never made a presentation as a LEAP speaker. His target audience for his video (or videos, there are indications that it is a series, with more to come before you will have all his knowledge about how not to be busted) is clearly folks who do not want to be busted because they are either using or selling currently illegal drugs. So you buy his video. He then has a mailing address to mail it to you. Oh, you MUST buy it with a credit card, no money orders, postal or otherwise accepted. With these two items of information a government agent could easily work with local law enforcement, monitor your activities and your bank account, to see if you in fact are doing something illegal. Can anyone say for sure, beyond any doubt, that Mr. Cooper has simply not obtained a position at a higher level of law enforcement, the DEA perhaps, and is simply running an scheme to help find more folks to bust? His lack of integrity in his dealing with LEAP should lead prudent folks to be concerned, I would think. 2. He did the same thing with NORML. Yesterday on the nevergetbusted.com site there was a paragraph about NORML and High Times endorsements as well as LEAP. He also mentioned in a video that he worked with NORML. Today the references to NORML and LEAP are gone. The hairs on the back of my neck are starting to stand up a little bit. I have ordered my copy and do plan to review the DVD on my site as soon as I get it. It may take up to 6 weeks to get it. I am a widely known pot smoker and drug policy and prison reformer so I have nothing to fear from the law enforcement agencies in the US gaining my info....they already know my drawer size and other intimate details I'm sure. However YOU dear readers are NOT widely known drug policy reformers so PLEASE DO NOT ORDER THIS VIDEO. Let me review it and if it is good I will set up public showings around the state. If it is a bunch of shit from a narc who wants to bust your ass then I am not growing, I do not keep anything in the house, and they know who I am anyway so I can take the heat. Please pass this new updated and critical information around to everyone who might be considering buying this video. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! From: BillyJoe Date: Dec 28 2006 12:04 AM The first place you would see it if it were still there is at the bottom of his sites home page. Maybe it was just a mistake? Right? Nope. Here is the same link to LEAP right here in Coopers Bio. But maybe that just means he supports LEAP and is not trying to say he is a LEAP speaker. Right? But why is the link to the same LEAP site on this Book Barry page? Why would he use the same dead link on this page I wonder? Surely he isnt trying to say that he is a LEAP speaker? I wonder what happens if you click on that link? Where do you go? Barrys Bio at LEAP http://leap.cc/Speakers/speakerbio.php?spkr=./Bios/cooper.inc&name=Barry%20Cooper A REAL LEAP Bio. http://leap.cc/Speakers/speakerbio.php?spkr=./Bios/amos.inc&name=Richard%20Amos Here is an interesting page I made for myself. http://leap.cc/Speakers/speakerbio.php?spkr=./Bios/koepsel.inc&name=Billy%20Koepsel Cool!!!! I am a speaker for LEAP as well. Someone tell my I am just a paranoid moron. Prove me wrong. At the moment I think that this dude is either a crook or a cop entrapping people with some lame phishing sceem. I really want to know if I am wrong. I dont want to spread crap about an innocent person. ~Billy Joe Koepsel

The Battle of Bulletin 404

or

How World War I Cost Us Hemp & the Forests

The Setting

In 1917, the world was battling World War I. In this country, industrialists, just beset with the minimum wage and graduated income, tax, were sent into a tailspin. Progressive ideals were lost as the United States took its place on the world stage in the struggle for commercial supremacy. Is is against this backdrop that the first 20th Century hemp drama was played.

The Players

The story begins in 1916, soon after the release of USDA Bulletin 404. Near San Diego, California, a 50-year-old German immigrant named George Schlichten had been working on a simple yet brilliant invention. Schlichten had spent 18 years and $400,000 on the decorticator, a machine that could strip the fiber from nearly any plant, leaving the pulp behind. To build it, he had developed an encyclopedic knowledge of fibers and paper making. His desire was to stop the felling of forests for paper, which he believed to be a crime. His native Germany was well advanced in forestry and Schlichten knew that destroying forests meant destroying needed watersheds.

Henry Timken, a wealthy industrialst and investor of the roller bearing, got wind of Schlichten's invention and went to meet the inventor in February of 1917. Timken saw the decorticator a a revolutionary discovery that would improve conditions for mankind. Timken offered Schlichten the chance to grow 100 acres of hemp on his ranch in the fertile farmlands of Imperial Valley, California, just east of San Diego, so that Schlichten could test his invention.

Shortly thereafter, Timken met with the newspaper giant E.W. Scripps, and his long-time associate Milton McRae, at Miramar, Scripp's home in San Diego. Scripps, then 63, had accumulated the largest chain of newspapers in the country. Timken hoped to interest Scripps in making newsprint from hemphurds.

Turn-of-the-century newspaper barons needed huge amounts of paper to deliver their swelling circulations. Nearly 30% of the four million tons of paper manufactured in 1909 was newsprint; by 1914 the circulation of daily newspapers had increased by 17% over 1909 figures to over 28 million copies.1 By 1917, the price of newsprint was rapidly rising, and Mcae, who had been investigating owning a paper mill since 1904,2 was concerned.

Sowing the Seeds

In May, after further meetings with Timkin, Scripps asked McRae to investigate the possibility of using the decorticator in the manufacture of newsprint.

McRae quickly became excited about the plan. He called the decorticator "a great invention. . . [which] will not only render great service to this country, but it will be very profitable financially. . . [it] may revolutionize existing conditions." On August 3, as harvest time neared, a meeting was arranged between Schlichten, McRae, and newspaper manager Ed Chase.

Without Schlichten's knowledge, McRe had his secretary record the three-hour meeting stenographically. The resulting document, the only known record of Schlichten's voluminous knowledge found to date, is reprinted fully in Appendix I.

Schlichten had thoroughly studied many kinds of plants used for paper, among them corn, cotton, yucca, and Espana bacata. Hemp, it seemed, was his favorite:

"The hemp hurd is a practical success and will make paper of a higher grade than ordinary news stock," he stated.

His hemp paper was even better than that produced for USDA Bulletin 404, he claimed, because the decorticator eliminated the retting process, leaving behind short fibers and a natural glue that held the paper together.

At 1917 levels of hemp production Schlichten anticipated making 50,000 tons of paper yearly at a retail price of $25 a ton. This was less than 50 percent of the price of newsprint at the time! And every acre of hemp turned to paper, Schlichten added, would preserve five acres of forest.

McRae was very impressed by Schlichten. The man who dined with presidents and captains of industry wrote to Timken, "I want to say without equivocation that Mr. Schlichten impressed me as being a man of great intellectuality and ability; and so far as I can see, he has created and constructed a wonderful machine." He assigned Chase to spend as much time as he could with Schlichten and prepare a report.

Harvest Time

By August, after only three months of growth, Timken's hemp crop had grown to its full height - 14 feet! - and he was highly optimistic about its prospects. He hoped to travel to California to watch the crop being decorticated, seeing himself as a benefactor to mankind who would enable people to work shorter hours and have more time for "spiritual development."

Scripps, on the other hand, was not in an optimistic frame of mind. He had lost faith in a government that he believed was leading the country to financial ruin because of the war, and that would take 40% of his profits in income tax. In an August 14 letter to his sister, Ellen, he said: "When Mr. McRae was talking to me about the increase in the price of white paper that was pending, I told him I was just fool enough not to be worried about a thing of that kind." The price of paper was expected to rise 50 percent, costing Scripps his entire year's profit of $1,125,000! Rather than develop a new technology, he took the easy way out: the Penny Press Lord simply planned to raise the price of his papers from one cent to two cents.

The Demise

On August 28, Ed Chase sent his full report to Scripps and McRae. The younger man also was taken with the process: "I have seen a wonderful, yet simple, invention. I believe it will revolutionize many of the processes of feeding, clothing, and supplying other wants of mankind."

Chase witnessed the decorticator produce seven tons of hemp hurds in two days. At full production, Schlichten anticipated each machine would produce five tons per day. Chase figured hemp could easily supply Scripps' West Coast newspapers, with leftover pulp for side businesses. He estimated the newsprint would cost between $25 and $35 per ton, and proposed asking an East Coast paper mill to experiment for them.

McRae, however, seems to have gotten the message that his boss was no longer very interested in making paper from hemp. His response to Chase's report is cautious: "Much will be determined as to the practicability by the cost of transportation, manufacture, etc., etc., which we cannot ascertain without due investigation." Perhaps when his ideals met with the hard work of developing them, the semi-retired McRae backed off.

By September, Timken's crop was producing one ton of fiber and four tons of hurds per acre, and he was trying to interest Scrips in opening a paper mill in San Diego. McRae and Chase travelled to Cleveland and spent two hours convincing Timken that while hemp hurds were usable for other types of paper, they could not be made into newsprint cheaply enough. Perhaps the Eastern mill at which they experimented wasn't encouraging - after all, it was set up to make wood pulp paper.

By this time, Timken, too, was hurt by the wartime economy. He expected to pay 54% income tax and was trying to borrow $2 million at 10% interest to retool for war machines. The man who a few weeks earlier could not wait to get to California, no longer expected to go West at all that winter. He told McRae, "I think I will be too damn busy in this section of the country looking after business."

The decorticator resurfaced in the 1930s, when it was touted as the maching that would make hemp a "Billion Dollar Crop" in articles in Mechanical Engeneering and Popular Mechanics.*

(Until the 1993 edition of The Emperor, the decorticator was believed to be a new discovery at that time.)

Once again, the burgeoning hemp industry was halted, this time by the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.

- Ellen Komp

A fuller account of the story may be found in the Appendix.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes:

1. World Almanac, 1914, p. 225; 1917.

2. Forty Years in Newspaperdom, Milton McRae, 1924 Brentano's NY

3. Scripps Archives, University of Ohio, Athens, and Ellen Browing Scripps Archives, Denison Library, Claremont College, Claremont, California

From: Add me if you want to help legalize.... Why Not Use Hemp to Reverse the Greenhouse Effect & Save the World? In early, 1989, Jack Herer and Maria Farrow put this question to Steve Rawlings, the highest ranking officer in the U.S. Department of Agruculture (who was in charge of reversing the Greenhouse Effect), at the USDA world research facility in Beltsville, Maryland. First, we introduced ourselves and told him we were writing for Green political party newspapers. Then we asked Rawlings, "If you could have any choice, what would be the ideal way to stop or reverse the Greenhouse Effect?" He said, "Stop cutting down trees and stop using fossil fuels." "Well, why don't we?" "There's no viable substitute for wood for paper, or for fossil fuels." "Why don't we use an annual plant for paper and for fossil fuels?" "Well, that would be ideal," he agreed. "Unfortunately, there is nothing you can use that could produce enough materials." "Well, what would you say if there was such a plant that could substitute for all wood pulp paper, all fossil fuels, would make kmost of our fibers naturally, make everything from dynamite to plastic, grows in all 50 states and that one acre of it would replace 4.1 acres of trees, and that if you used about 6 percent of the U.S. land to raise it as an energy crop - even on our marginal lands, this plant would produce all 75 quadrillion billion BTUs needed to run America each year? Would that help save the planet?" "That would be ideal. But there is no such plant." "We think there is." "Yeah? What is it?" "Hemp." "Hemp!" he mused for a moment. "I never would have thought of it. . . You know, I think you're right. Hemp could be the plant that could do it. Wow! That's a great idea!" We were excited as we outlined this information and delineated the potential of hemp for paper, fiber, fuel, food, paint, etc., and how it could be applied to balance the world's ecosystems and restore the atomosphere's oxygen balance with almost no disruption of the standard of living to which most Americans have become accustomed. In essence, Rawlings agreed that our information was probably correct and could very well work. He said, "It's a wonderful idea, and I think it might work. But, of course, you can't use it." "You're kidding!" we responded. "Why not?" "Well, Mr. Herer, did you know that hemp is also marijuana?" "Yes, of course I know, I've been writing about it for about 40 hours a week for the past 17 years." "Well, you know marijuana's illegal, don't you? You can't use it." "Not even to save the world?" "No. It's illegal", he sternly informed me. "You cannot use something illegal." "Not even to save the world?" we asked, stunned. "No, not even to save the world. It's illegal. You can't use it. Period." "Don't get me wrong. It's a great idea," he went on, "but they'll never let you do it." "Why don't you go ahead and tell the Secretary of Agriculture that a crazy man from California gave you documentation that showed hemp might be able to save the planet and that your first reaction is that he might be right and it needs some serious study. What would he say?" "Well, I don't think I'd be here very long after I did that. After all, I'm an officer of the government." "Well, why not call up the information on your computer at your own USDA library. That's where we got the information in the first place." He said, "I can't sign out that information." "Well, why not? We did." "Mr. Herer, you're a citizen. You can sign out for anything you want. But I am an officer of the Department of Agriculture. Someone's going to want to know why I want all this information. And then I'll be gone." Finally, we agreed to send him all the information we got from the USDA library, if he would just look at it. He said he would, but when we called back a month later, he said that he still had not opened the box that we sent him and that he would be sending it back to us unopened because he did not want to be responsible for the information, now that the Bush Administration was replacing him with its own man. We asked him if he would pass on the information to his successor, and he replied, "Absolutely not." In May, 1989, we had virtually the same conversation and result with his cohort, Dr. Gary Evans of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Science, the man in charge of stopping the global warming trend. In the end, he said, "If you really want to save the planet with hemp, then you [hemp/marijuana activists] would find a way to grow it without the narcotic (sic) top - and then you can use it." This is the kind of frightened (and frightening) irresponsibility we're up against in our government.

Read and repost and if you enjoyed this reading look up Jack Herer on myspace he is the author!!! A Brief Summary of the Uses of Hemp Our Challenge to the World: Try to Prove Us Wrong! If all fossil fuels and their derivatives, as well as trees for paper and construction were banned in order to save the planet, reverse the Greenhouse Effect and stop deforestation; Then there is only one known annual renewable natural resource that is capable of providing the overall majority of the world's paper and textiles; meeting all of the world's transportation, industrial and home energy needs; simultaneously reducing pollution, rebuilding the soil, and cleaning the atmosphere all at the same time... And that substance is - the same one that did it all before - Cannabis Hemp...Marijuana! Ships and Sailors Ninety percent* of all ships' sails (since before the Phoenicians, from at least the 5th Century B.C. until long after the invention and commercialization of steam ships (mid to late19th century) were made from hemp. *The other 10% were usually flax or minor fibers like ramie, sisal, jute, abaca. (Abel, Ernest, Marijuana: The First 12,000 Years, Plenum Press, 1980; Herodotus, Histories, 5th Century B.C.; Frazier, Jack, The Marijuana Farmers, 1972; U.S. Agricultural Index, 1916-1982; USDA film, Hemp for Victory, 1942.) The word "canvas" is the Dutch pronunciation (twice removed, from French and Latin) of the Greek word "Kannabis."* *Kannabis - of the (Hellenized) Mediterranean Basin Greek language, derived from the Persian and earlier Northern Semitics (Quanuba, Kanabosm, Cana?, Kanah?) which scholars have now traced back to the dawn of the 6,000-year-old Indo-Semitic-European language family base of the Sumerians and Accadians. The early Sumerian/Babylonian word K(a)N(a)B(a), or Q(a)N(a)B(a) is one of man's longest surviving root words.1 (KN means cane and B means two - two reeds or two sexes.) In addition to canvas sails, until this century virtually all of the rigging, anchor ropes, cargo nets, fishing nets, flags, shrouds, and oakum (the main protection for ships against salt water, used as a sealant between loose or green beams) were made from the stalk of the marijuana plant. Even the sailors' clothing, right down to the stitching in the seamen's rope-soled and (sometimes) "canvas" shoes, was crafted from cannabis.* *An average cargo, clipper, whaler, or naval ship of the line, in the 16th, 17th, 18th, or 19th centuries carried 50 to 100 tons of cannabis hemp rigging, not to mention the sails, nets, etc., and needed it all replaced every year or two, due to salt rot. (Ask the U.S. Naval Academy, or see the construction of the USS Constitution, a.k.a. "Old Ironsides," Boston Harbor.) (Abel, Ernest, Marijuana, The First 12,000 Years, Plenum Press, 1980; Ency. Brittanica; Magoun, Alexander, The Frigate Constitution, 1928; USDA film Hemp for Victory, 1942.) Additionally, the ships' charts, maps, logs, and Bibles were made from paper containing hemp fiber from the time of Columbus (15th Century) until the early 1900s in the Western European/American World, and by the Chinese from the 1st Century A.D. on. Hemp paper lasted 50 to 100 times longer than most preparations of papyrus, and was a hundred times easier and cheaper to make. Incredibly, it cost more for a ship's hempen sails, ropes, etc. than it did to build the wooden parts. Nor was hemp restricted to the briny deep... Textiles & Fabrics Until the 1820s in America (and until the 20th Century in most of the rest of the world), 80% of all textiles and fabrics used for clothing, tents, bed sheets and linens,* rugs, drapes, quilts, towels, diapers, etc. - and even our flag, "Old Glory," were principally made from fibers of cannabis. For hundreds, if not thousands of years (until the 1830s), Ireland made the finest linens and Italy made the world's finest cloth for clothing with hemp. *The 1893-1910 editions of Encyclopaedia Britannica indicate - and in 1938, Popular Mechanics estimated - that at least half of all the material that has been called linen was not made from flax, but from cannabis. Herodotus (c. 450 B.C.) describes the hempen garments made by the Thracians as equal to linen in fineness and that "none but a very experienced person could tell whether they were of hemp or flax." Although these facts have been almost forgotten, our forebears were well aware that hemp is softer than cotton, more water absorbent than cotton, has three times the tensile strength of cotton and is many times more durable than cotton. In fact, when the patriotic, real-life, 1776 mothers of our present day blue-blood "Daughters of the American Revolution" (the DAR of Boston and New England organized "spinning bees" to clothe Washington's soldiers, the majority of the thread was spun from hemp fibers. Were it not for the historically forgotten (or censored) and currently disparaged marijuana plant, the Continental Army would have frozen to death at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. The common use of hemp in the economy of the early republic was important enough to occupy the time and thoughts of our first U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, who wrote in a Treasury notice from the 1790s, "Flax and Hemp: Manufacturers of these articles have so much affinity to each other, and they are so often blended, that they may with advantage be considered in conjunction. Sailcloth should have 10% duty..." (Herndon, G.M., Hemp in Colonial Virginia, 1963; DAR histories; Able Ernest, Marijuana, the First 12,000 Years; also see the 1985 film Revolution with Al Pacino.) The covered wagons went west (to Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, Oregon, and California*) covered with sturdy hemp canvas tarpaulins,2 while ships sailed around the "Horn" to San Francisco on hemp sails and ropes. *The original, heavy-duty, famous Levi pants were made for the California '49ers out of hempen sailcloth and rivets. This way the pockets wouldn't rip when filled with gold panned from the sediment.3 Homespun cloth was almost always spun, by people all over the world, from fibers grown in the "family hemp patch." In America, this tradition lasted from the Pilgrims (1620s) until hemp's prohibition in the 1930s.* *In the 1930s, Congress was told by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics that many Polish-Americans still grew pot in their backyards to make their winter "long johns" and work clothes, and greeted the agents with a shotguns for stealing their next year's clothes. The age and density of the hemp patch influences fiber quality. If a farmer wanted soft linen-quality fibers he would plant his cannabis close together. As a rule of thumb, if you plant for medical or recreational use, you plant one seed per five square yards. When planted for seed, four to five feet apart. (Univ. of Kentucky Agricultural. Ext. leaflet, March 1943.) One-hundred-twenty to 180 seeds to the square yard are planted for rough cordage or course cloth. Finest linen or lace is grown up to 400 plants to the square yard and harvested between 80 to 100 days. (Farm Crop Reports, USDA international abstracts. CIBA Review 1961-62 Luigi Castellini, Milan Italy.) By the late 1820s, the new American hand cotton gins (invented by Eli Whitney in 1793) were largely replaced by European-made "industrial" looms and cotton gins ("gin" is short for engine), because of Europe's primary equipment-machinery-technology (tool and die making) lead over America. Fifty percent of all chemicals used in American agriculture today are used in cotton growing. Hemp needs no chemicals and has few weed or insect enemies - except for the U.S.government and the DEA. For the first time, light cotton clothing could be produced at less cost than hand retting (rotting) and hand separating hemp fibers to be handspun on spinning wheels and jennys.4 However, because of its strength, softness, warmth and long-lasting qualities, hemp continued to be the second most-used natural fiber* until the 1930s. *In case you're wondering, there is no THC or "high" in hemp fiber. That's right, you can't smoke your shirt! In fact, attempting to smoke hemp fabric - or any fabric, for that matter - could be fatal! After the 1937 Marijuana Tax law, new DuPont "plastic fibers," under license since 1936 from the German company I.G. Farben (patent surrenders were part of Germany's World War I reparation payments to America), replaced natural hempen fibers. (Some 30% of I.G. Farben, under Hitler, was owned and financed by America's DuPont.) DuPont also introduced Nylon (invented in 1935) to the market after they'd patented it in 1938. (Colby, Jerry, DuPont Dynasties, Lyle Stewart, 1984.) Finally, it must be noted that approximately 50% of all chemicals used in American agriculture today are used in cotton growing. Hemp needs no chemicals and has few weed or insect enemies - except for the U.S. government and the DEA. (Cavendar, Jim, Professor of Botany, Ohio University, "Authorities Examine Pot Claims," Athens News, November 16, 1989.) Fiber & Pulp Paper Until 1883, from 75-90% of all paper in the world was made with cannabis hemp fiber including that for books, Bibles, maps, paper money, stocks and bonds, newspapers, etc. The Gutenberg Bible (in the 15th Century); Pantagruel and the Herb pantagruelion, Rabelais (16th Century); King James Bible (17th Century); the works of Fitz Hugh Ludlow, Mark Twain, Victor Hugo, Alexander Dumas; Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland" (19th Century); and just about everything else was printed on hemp paper. The first draft of the Declaration of Independence (June 28, 1776) was written on Dutch (hemp) paper, as was the second draft completed on July 2, 1776. This was the document actually agreed to on that day and announced and released on July 4, 1776. On July 19, 1776, Congress ordered the Declaration be copied and engrossed on parchment (a prepared animal skin) and this was the document actually signed by the delegates on August 2, 1776. Hemp paper lasted 50 to 100 times longer than most preparations of papyrus, and was a hundred times easier and cheaper to make. What we (the colonial Americans) and the rest of the world used to make all our paper from was the discarded sails and ropes by ship owners as scrap for recycling into paper. The rest of our paper came from our worn-out clothes, sheets, diapers, curtains and rags* sold to scrap dealers made primarily from hemp and sometimes flax. *Hence the term "rag paper." Our ancestors were too thrifty to just throw anything away so, until the 1880s, any remaining scraps and clothes were mixed together and recycled into paper. Rag paper, containing hemp fiber, is the highest quality and longest lasting paper ever made. It can be torn when wet, but returns to its full strength when dry. Barring extreme conditions, rag paper remains stable for centuries. It will almost never wear out. Many U.S. government papers were written, by law, on hempen "rag paper" until the 1920s.5 It is generally believed by scholars that the early Chinese knowledge, or art, of hemp paper making (1st Century A.D. - 800 years before Islam discovered how, and 1,200 to 1,400 years before Europe) was one of the two chief reasons that Oriental knowledge and science were vastly superior to that of the West for 1,400 years. Thus, the art of long-lasting hemp papermaking allowed the Orientals' accumulated knowledge to be passed on, built upon, investigated, refined, challenged and changed, for generation after generation (in other words, cumulative and comprehensive scholarship). The other reason that Oriental knowledge and science sustained superiority to that of the West for 1,400 years was that the Roman Catholic Church forbade reading and writing for 95% of Europe's people; in addition, they burned, hunted down, or prohibited all foreign or domestic books - including their own Bible! - for over 1,200 years under the penalty and often-used punishment of death. Hence, many historians term this period "The Dark Ages" (476 A.D. - 1000 A.D., or even until the Renaissance). (See Chapter 10 on Sociology.) Rope, Twine & Cordage Virtually every city and town (from time out of mind) in the world had an industry making hemp rope.6 Russia, however, was the world's largest producer and best-quality manufacturer, supplying 80 percent of the Western world's hemp from 1740 until 1940. Thomas Paine outlined four essential natural resources for the new nation in Common Sense (1776); "cordage, iron, timber and tar." Chief among these was hemp for cordage. He wrote, "Hemp flourishes even to rankness, we do not want for cordage." Then he went on to list the other essentials necessary for war with the British navy; cannons, gunpowder, etc. From 70-90% of all rope, twine, and cordage was made from hemp until 1937. It was then replaced mostly by petrochemical fibers (owned principally by DuPont under license from Germany's I.G. Corporation patents) and by Manila (Abaca) Hemp, with steel cables often intertwined for strength - brought in from our "new" far-western Pacific Philippines possession, seized from Spain as reparation for the Spanish American War in 1898. Art Canvas Hemp is the perfect archival medium. 7 The paintings of Van Gogh, Gainsborough, Rembrandt, etc., were primarily painted on hemp canvas, as were practically all canvas paintings. A strong, lustrous fiber, hemp withstands heat, mildew, insects and is not damaged by light. Oil paintings on hemp and/or flax canvas have stayed in fine condition for centuries. Paints & Varnishes For thousands of years, virtually all good paints and varnishes were made with hempseed oil and/or linseed oil. For instance, in 1935 alone, 116 million pounds (58,000) tons*) of hempseed were used in America just for paint and varnish. The hemp drying oil business went principally to DuPont petrochemicals.8 *National Institute of Oilseed Products congressional testimony against the 1937 Marijuana Transfer Tax Law. As a comparison, consider that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), along with all America's state and local police agencies, claim to have seized for all of 1996, 700+ tons of American-grown marijuana; seed, plant, root, dirt clum and all. Even the DEA itself admits that 94 to 97 percent of all marijuana/hemp plants that have been seized and destroyed since the 1960s were growing completely wild and could not have been smoked as marijuana. Congress and the Treasury Department were assured through secret testimony given by DuPont in 1935-37 directly to Herman Oliphant, Chief Counsel for the Treasury Dept., that hempseed oil could be replaced with synthetic petrochemical oils made principally by DuPont. Oliphant was solely responsible for drafting the Marijuana Tax Act that was submitted to Congress.9 (See complete story in Chapter 4, "The Last Days of Legal Cannabis.") Lighting Oil Until about 1800, hempseed oil was the most consumed lighting oil in America and the world. From then until the 1870s, it was the second most consumed lighting oil, exceeded only by whale oil. Hempseed oil lit the lamps of legendary Aladdin, Abraham the prohet, and in real life, Abraham Lincoln. It was the brightest lamp oil. Hempseed oil for lamps was replaced by petroleum, kerosene, etc., after the 1859 Pennsylvania oil discovery and John D. Rockefeller's 1870-on national petroleum stewardship. (See Chapter 9, "Economics.") In fact, the celebrated botanist Luther Burbank stated, "The seed [of cannabis] is prized in other countries for its oil, and its neglect here illustrates the same wasteful use of our agricultural resources." (Burbank, Luther, How Plants Are Trained To Work For Man, Useful Plants, P.F. Collier & Son Co., NY, Vol. 6, pg. 48.) Biomass Energy In the early 1900s, Henry Ford and other futuristic, organic, engineering geniuses recognized (as their intellectual, scientific heirs still do today) an important point - that up to 90% of all fossil fuel used inthe world today (coal, oil, natural gas, etc.) should long ago have been replaced with biomass such as: cornstalks, cannabis, waste paper and the like. Biomass can be converted to methane, methanol or gasoline at a fraction of the current cost of oil, coal, or nuclear energy - especially when environmental costs are factored in - and its mandated use would end acid rain, end sulfur-based smog, and reverse the Greenhouse Effect on our planet - right now!* *Government and oil and coal companies, etc., will insist that burning biomass fuels is no better than using up our fossil fuel reserves, as far as pollution goes; but this is patently untrue. Why? Because, unlike fossil fuels, biomass comes from living (not extinct) plants that continue to remove carbon dioxide pollution from our atmosphere as they grow, through photosynthesis. Furthermore, biomass fuels do not contain sulfur. This can be accomplished if hemp is grown for biomass and then converted through pyrolysis (charcoalizing) or biochemical composting into fuels to replace fossil fuel energy products.* *Remarkably, when considered on a planet-wide, climate-wide, soil-wide basis, cannabis is at least four and possibly many more times richer in sustainable, renewable biomass/cellulose potential than its nearest rivals on the planet - cornstalks, sugarcane, kenaf trees, ect. (Solar Gas, 1980; Omni, 1983; Cornell University; Science Digest, 1983; etc.). Also see Chapter 9, "Economics." One product of pyrolysis, methanol, is used today by most race cars and was used by American farmers and auto drivers routinely with petroleum/methanol options starting in the 1920s, through the 1930s, and even into the mid-1940s to run tens of thousands of auto, farm and military vehicles until the end of World War II. Methanol can even be converted to a high-octaine lead-free gasoline using a catalytic process developed by Georgia Tech University in conjunction with Mobil Oil Corporation. Medicine From 1842 through the 1890s, extremely strong marijuana (then known as cannabis extractums) and hashish extracts, tinctures and elixirs were routinely the second and third most-used medicines in America for humans (from birth, through childhood, to old age) and in veterinary medicine until the 1920s and longer. (See Chapter 6, "Medicine," and Chapter 13, "19th Century.") As stated earlier, for at least 3,000 years, prior to 1842, widely varying marijuana extracts (buds, leaves, roots, etc.) were the most commonly used and widely accepted majority of mankind's illnesses. However, in Western Europe, the Roman Catholic Church forbade use of cannabis or any medical treatment, except for alcohol or blood letting, for 1200-plus years. (See Chapter 10, "Sociology.") The U.S. Pharmacopoeia indicated that cannabis should be used for treating such ailments as fatigue, fits of coughing, rheumatism, asthma, delirium tremens, migraine headaches and the cramps and depressions associated with menstruation. (Professor William EmBoden, Professor of Narcotic Botany, California State University, Northridge.) Queen Victoria used cannabis resins for her menstrual cramps and PMS, and her reign (1837-1901) paralleled the enormous growth of the use of Indian cannabis medicine in the English-speaking world. In this century, cannabis research has demonstrated therapeutic value - and complete safety - in the treatment of many health problems including asthma, glaucoma, nausea, tumors, epilepsy, infection, stress, migraines, anorexia, depression, rheumatism, arthritis and possible herpes. (See Chapter 7, "Therapeutic Uses of Cannabis.") Food Oils & Protein Hempseed was regularly used in porridge, soups, and gruels by virtually all the people of the world up until this century. Monks were required to eat hempseeed dishes three times a day, to weave their clothes with it and to print their Bibles on paper made with its fiber. (See Rubin, Dr. Vera, "Research Institute for the Study of Man;" Eastern Orthodox Church; Cohen & Stillman, Therapeutic Potential of Marijuana, Plenum Press, 1976; Abel, Ernest, Marijuana, The First 12,000 Years, Plenum Press, NY, 1980; Encyclopedia Brittanica.) Hempseed can be pressed for its highly nutritious vegetable oil, which contains the highest amount of essential fatty acids in trhe plant kingdom. These essential oils are responsible for our immune responses and clear the arteries of cholesterol and plaque. The byproduct of pressing the oil from the seed is the highest quality protein seed cake. It can be sprouted (malted) or ground and baked into cakes, breads and casseroles. Marijuana seed protein is one of mankind's finest, most complete and available-to-the-body vegetable proteins. Hempseed is the most complete single food source for human nutrition. (See discussion of edistins and essential fatty acids, Chapter 8.) Hempseed was - until the 1937 prohibition law - the world's number-one bird seed, for both wild and domestic birds. It was their favorite* of any seed food on the planet; four million pounds of hempseed for songbirds were sold at retail in the U.S. in 1937. Birds will pick hempseeds out and eat them first from a pile of mixed seed. Birds in the world live longer and breed more with hempseed in their diet, using the oil for their feathers and their overal health. (More in Chapter 8, "Hemp as a Basic World Food.") *Congressional testimony, 1937; "Song birds won't sing without it," the bird food companies told Congress. Result; sterilized cannabis seeds continue to be imported into the U.S. from Italy, China and other countries. Hempseed produces no observable high for humans or birds. Only the most minute traces of THC are in the seed. Hempseed is also the favorite fish bait in Europe. Anglers buy pecks of hempseed at bait stores for chumming (casting the hempseeds on the water), causing the fish to scramble from all over to get the seeds, thereby getting caught. Hempseed is the favorite of fish, as well as most birds. (Jack Herer's personal research in Europe.) (Frazier, Jack, The Marijuana Farmers, Solar Age Press, New Orleans, LA, 1972) Building Materials & Housing Because one acre of hemp produces as much cellulose fiber pulp as 4.1 acres of trees,* hemp is the perfect material to replace trees for pressed board, particle board and for concrete construction molds. *Dewey & Merrill, Bulletin #404, United States Dept. of Agriculture, 1916. Practical, inexpensive fire-resistant construction material, with excellent thermal and sound-insulating qualities, is made by heating and compressing plant fibers to creat strong construction paneling, replacing dry wall and plywood. William B. Conde of Conde's Redwood Lumber, Inc. near Eugene, Oregon, in conjunction with Washington State University (1991-1993), has demonstrated the superior strength, flexibility, and economy of hemp composite building materials compared to wood fiber, even as beams. Isochanvre, a rediscovered French building material made from hemp hurds mixed with lime, actually petrifies into a mineral state and lasts for many centuries. Archeologists have found a bridge in the south of France, from the Merovingian period (500-751 A.D.), built with this process. (See Chenevotte habitat of Rene, France in Appendix I.) Hemp has been used throughout history for carpet backing. Hemp fiber has potential in the manufacture of strong, rot resistant carpeting - eliminating the poisonous fumes of burning synthetic materials in a house or commercial fire, along with allergic reactions associated with new synthetic carpeting. Plastic plumbing pipe (PVC pipes) can be manufactured using renewable hemp cellulose as the chemical feedstocks, replacing non-renewable coal or petroleum-based chemical feedstocks. So we can envision a house of the future built, plumbed, painted and furnished with the world's number-one renewable resource - hemp. Smoking, Leisure & Creativity The American Declaration of Independence recognizes the "inalienable rights" of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Subseuqent court decisions have inferred the rights to privacy and choice from this, the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments. Many artists and writers have used cannabis for creative stimulation - from the writers of the world's religious masterpieces to our most irreverent satirists. These include Lewis Carroll and his hookah- smoking caterpillar in Alice in Wonderland, plus Victor Hugo and Alexander Dumas; such jazz greats as Louis Armstrong, Cab Calloway, Duke Ellington and Gene Krupa; and the pattern continues right up to modern-day artists and musicians such as the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, the Eagles, the Doobie Brothers, Bob Marley, Jefferson Airplane, Willie Nelson, Buddy RIch, Country Joe & the Fish, Joe Walsh, David Carradine, David Bowie, Iggy Pop, Lola Falana, Hunter S. Thompson, Peter Tosh, the Grateful Dead, Cypress Hill, Sinead O'Connor, Black Crowes, etc. Of course, smoking marijuana only enhances creativity for some and not for others. But throughout history, various prohibition and "temperance" groups have attempted and ocasionaly suceeded in banning the preferred relaxational substances of others, like alcohol, tobacco or cannabis. Abraham Lincoln responded to this kind of repressive mentality in December, 1840, when he said: "Prohibition . . . goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes . . . A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." Economic Stability, Profit & Free Trade We believe that in a competitive market, with all facts known, people will rush to buy long-lasting, biodegradable "Pot Tops" or "Mary Jeans," etc., made from a plant without pesticides or herbicides. Some of the companies who have led the way with these products are Ecolution, Hempstead, Marie Mills, Ohio Hempery, Two Star Dog, Headcase, and in Germany, HanfHaus, et al. It's time we put capitalism to the test and let the unrestricted market of supply and demand as well as "Green" ecologically consciousness decide the future of the planet. A cotton shirt in 1776 cost $100 to $200, while a hemp shirt cost 50 cents to $1. By the 1830s, cooler, lighter cotton shirts were on par in price with the warmer, heavier, hempen shirts, providing a competitive choice. People were able to choose their garments based upon the particular qualities they wanted in a fabric. Today we have no such choice. The role of hemp and other natural fibers should be determined by the market of supply and demand and personal tastes and values, not by the undue influence of prohibition laws, federal subsidies and huge tariffs that keep the natural fabrics from replacing synthetic fibers. Sixty years of government suppression of information has resulted in virtually no public knowledge of the incredible potential of the hemp fiber or its uses. By using 100% hemp or mixing hemp with cotton, you will be able to pass on your shirts, pants and other clothing to your grandchildren. Intelligent spending could essentially replace the use of petrochemical synthetic fibers such as nylon and polyester with tougher, cheaper, cool, absorbent, breathing, biodegradable, natural fibers. China, Italy and Eastern European countries such as Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Russia currently make millions of dollars worth of sturdy hemp and hemp/cotton textiles - and could be making billions of dollars worth - annually. These countries build upon their traditional farming and weaving skills, while the U.S. tries to force the extinction of this plant to prop up destructive synthetic technologies. Even cannabis/cotton blend textiles were still not cleared for direct sale in the U.S. until 1991. The Chinese, for instance, were forced by tacit agreement to send us inferior ramie/cottons. (National Import/Export Textile Company of Shangai, Personal communication with author, April and May, 1983.) As the 1990 edition of The Emperor went to press, garments containing at least 55 percent cannabis hemp arrived from China and Hungary. In 1992, as we went to press, many different grades of 100% hemp fabric had arrived directly from China and Hungary. Now, in 1998, hemp fabric is in booming demand all over the world, arriving from Romania, Poland, Italy, Germany, et al. Hemp has been recognized as the hottest fabric of the 1990s by Rolling Stone, Time, Newsweek, Paper, Detour, Details, Mademoiselle, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, Der Spiegel, ad infinitum. All have run, over and over again, major stories onindustrial and nutritional hemp. Additionally, hemp grown for biomass could fuel a trillion-dollar per year energy industry, while improving air quality and distributing the wealth to rural areas and their surrounding communities, and away from centralized power monopolies. More than any other plant on Earth, hemp holds the promise of a sustainable ecology and economy. In Conclusion . . . We must reiterate our original premise with our challenge to the world to prove us wrong: If all fossil fuels and their derivatives, as well as trees for paper and construction were banned in order to save the planet, reverse the Greenhouse Effect and stop deforestation; Then there is only one known annually renewable natural resource that is capable of providing the overall majority of the world's paper and textiles; meeting all of the world's transportation, industrial and home energy needs, while simultaneously reducing pollution, rebuilding the soil, and cleaning the atmosphere all at the same time . . . And that substance is - the same one that didi it all before - Cannabis Hemp . . . Marijuana! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Footnotes: 1. Oxford English Dictionary; Encyclopedia Brittanica, 11th edition, 1910; U.S.D.A. film, Hemp for Victory, 1942. 2. Ibid. 3. Levi-Strauss & Company of San Francisco, CA, author's personal communication with Gene McClaine, 1985. 4. Ye Olde Spinning Jennys and Wheels were principally used for fiber inthis order: cannabis hemp, flax, wool, cotton, and so forth. 5. Frazier, Jack, The Marijuana Farmers, Solar Age Press, New Orleans, LA, 1974; U.S. Library of congress; National Archives; U.S. Mint; etc. 6. Adams, James T., editor, Album of American History, Charles Scribner's Sons, NY, 1944, g. 116. 7. Frazier, Jack, The Marijuana Farmers, Solar Age Press, New Orleans, LA, 1974; U.S. Library of Congress; National Archives. 8. Sloman, Larry, Reefer Madness, Grove, New York, NY, 1979, pg. 72. 9. Bonnie, Richard and Whitebread, Charles, The Marijuana Conviction, Univ. of Virginia Press, 1974.

From: Medical Mary Jane Date: Dec 22 2006 9:49 PM Clinical Trial: THC Reduces Pain In Fibromyalgia Patients June 22, 2006 - Mannheim, Germany Mannheim, Germany: Oral administration of THC significantly reduces both chronic and experimentally induced pain in patients with fibromyalgia, according to clinical trial data to be published in the forthcoming issue of the journal Current Medical Research and Opinion. The study is the first-ever clinical trial assessing the efficacy of cannabinoids in the treatment of fibromyalgia. Investigators at Germany's University of Heidelberg assessed the analgesic effects of oral THC in nine patients with fibromyalgia over a 3-month period. Subjects in the trial were administered daily doses of 2.5 to 15 mg of THC, but received no other pain medication during the trial. Among those participants who completed the trial, all reported a significant reduction in daily recorded pain and electronically induced pain, investigators found. "All patients who completed the delta-9-THC therapy ... experienced pain relief of more than 50 percent," authors concluded. Investigators recommended that follow up placebo-control trials be conducted assessing the use of cannabinoids on fibromyalgia. Previous trials have shown that both naturally occurring and endogenous cannabinoids hold analgesic qualities, particularly in the treatment of cancer pain and neuropathic pain, both of which are poorly treated by conventional opiates. Fibromyalgia is a chronic pain syndrome characterized by widespread musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, and multiple tender points in the neck, spine, shoulders, and hips. An estimated 3 to 6 million Americans are afflicted by the disease, which is often poorly controlled by standard pain medications. For more information, please contact Paul Armentano, NORML Senior Policy Analyst, at (202) 483-5500. Full text of the study, "Delta-9-THC based monotherapy in fibromyalgia patients on experimentally induced pain, axon reflex flare, and pain relief," will be available in the forthcoming issue of Current Medical Research and Opinion. updated: Jun 22, 2006

From: Stoner Stuff Date: Dec 23 2006 12:39 PM

Jesus and Marijuana

Was there a whiff of cannabis about Jesus?



Link: Hightimes Magazine: Was Jesus a stoner?

America Has Become Incarceration Nation
By Marc Mauer, TomPaine.com
Posted on December 22, 2006, Printed on December 25, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/45647/

Two remarkable developments in Washington in the past week highlight the extent to which the United States has become the land of mass incarceration.

First, the Supreme Court denied the appeal of Weldon Angelos for a first-time drug offense. Angelos was a 24-year-old Utah music producer with no prior convictions when he was convicted of three sales of marijuana in 2004. During these sales he possessed a gun, though there were no allegations that he ever used or threatened to use it. Under federal mandatory sentencing laws, the judge was required to sentence Angelos to five years on the first offense and 25 years each for the two subsequent offenses, for a total of 55 years in prison. In imposing sentence, Judge Paul Cassell, a leading conservative jurist, decried the sentencing policy as "unjust, cruel, and even irrational."

The Angelos decision came on the heels of a Bureau of Justice Statistics report finding that there are now a record 2.2 million Americans incarcerated in the nation's prisons and jails. These figures represent the continuation of a "race to incarcerate" that has been raging since 1972. With a 500 percent increase in the number of people in prison since then, the United States has now become the world leader in its rate of incarceration, locking up its citizens at 5-8 times the rate of other industrialized nations. The strict punishment meted out in the Angelos case and thousands of others explain much of the rapid increase in the prison population.

The composition of the prison population reflects the socioeconomic inequalities in society. Sixty percent of the prison population is African American and Latino, and if current trends continue, one of every three black males and one of every six Latino males born today can expect to go to prison at some point in his lifetime. The overall rates for women are lower, but the racial and ethnic disparities are similar and the growth rate of women's incarceration is nearly double that of men over the past two decades.

While the United States has a higher rate of violent crime than comparable nations, the substantial prison buildup since 1980 has resulted from changes in policy, not changes in crime. The "get tough" movement, which embraced initiatives designed to send more people to prison and to keep them for longer periods of time, contributed to massive prison construction and a corrections budget now totaling $60 billion annually. These policy changes included mandatory sentences that restrict judicial discretion while imposing "one size fits all" penalties, "three strikes and you're out" laws that allow life terms upon a third felony conviction, and the "war on drugs."

Drug policies have been responsible for a disproportionate share of the rise in the inmate population, with the 40,000 drug offenders in prison or jail in 1980 increasing to a half million today. A substantial body of research has documented that these laws have had virtually no effect on the drug trade, as measured by price or availability of drugs. Most of the drug offenders in prison are not the "kingpins" of the drug trade. Indeed, the low-level sellers who are incarcerated are rapidly replaced on the streets by others seeking economic gain.

While crime rates have been declining nationally for a decade, research to date demonstrates that expanded incarceration has, at best, been responsible for only a quarter of this decline. Other factors that played a key role include a strong economy in the 1990s that provided employment opportunities for low-skill workers, a marked decline in crack cocaine use and its associated violence by the early 1990s, and strategic community policing. New York City, which experienced a two-thirds reduction in homicides from 1990 to 2002, did so despite a one-third decline in its jail population during that period. And conversely, while Idaho led the nation with an astonishing 174 percent rise in its prison population, it nevertheless experienced a 14 percent rise in crime.

With a new Democratic Congress in place, there is hope that long-festering criminal justice policy inequities can finally be addressed. Long-time reform champions Reps. John Conyers, D-Mich., and Bobby Scott, D-Va., are poised to take over the chairmanships of the House Judiciary Committee and its Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security subcommittee, respectively. But we should be cautious in our expectations given the Democratic Party's record of complicity in endorsing "get tough" measures. Bill Clinton's 1994 crime bill, for example, was loaded with harsh sentencing provisions and $8 billion in new prison construction. Progressives would be wise to continue to build bipartisan support for criminal justice reform measures. In recent years this has led to alliances with conservative Senators Sam Brownback and Jeff Sessions who sponsored bills for prisoner reentry and crack cocaine sentencing reform respectively.

As we look to the new Congress, high on any reform agenda should be the following:

* Crack cocaine sentencing reform -- During the last 20 years, the federal sentencing laws for crack cocaine offenses have subjected thousands of low-level defendants to mandatory five- and 10-year prison terms, while exacerbating the racial dynamics of incarceration. More than 80 percent of the persons charged with these offenses are African Americans, who receive much stiffer terms than those meted out to powder cocaine defendants.

* Mandatory sentencing reform -- Congressional mandates to impose harsh sentences with no judicial input have created unfair and overly harsh penalties, and have been decried by the American Bar Association and Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, among many others.

* Racial impact statements -- Just as fiscal impact statements aid lawmakers in assessing the financial implications of sentencing policies, the preparation of racial impact assessments could provide similar benefits to policymakers. Had such assessments existed in 1986, we could have had a debate on the racial dynamics of the crack cocaine laws prior to their enactment, not 20 years later.

* Felon disenfranchisement reform -- Five million Americans could not participate in the November election due to a current or previous felony conviction. Laws that govern these practices are enacted by the states, but Congress has the authority to require uniform voting rules in federal elections. Legislation proposed by John Conyers in the House would require states to permit voting by any non-incarcerated person in federal elections, even if barred from participating in state elections.

Three decades of prison expansion have led to rates of imprisonment that are shameful for a democratic nation. Both public safety and community health would be better served through investments in policies that promote job creation, high school graduation and substance abuse treatment. It's time to reverse the race to incarcerate.

Marc Mauer is the executive director of The Sentencing Project and the author of "Race to Incarcerate" and co-editor of "Invisible Punishment" (both from The New Press).