Why Cannabis Will Never Be Re-Legalized

[Captain Obvious]

I'm Just the Messenger, Please don't Shoot Me B)

 

http://antiquecannabisbook.com/chap1B/NDEI.htm

 

WHY CANNABIS WILL NEVER BE RE-LEGALIZED

Part I - National Drug Enforcement Industry --- There are big bucks in IT:

 

 

QUESTION: Will Medical Cannabis Ever Be Re-Legalized?

ANSWER: In my humble opinion, the answer is NO! At least not in our lifetimes, and I will tell you why.

 

First, most of you have heard of what had is termed, 'The War on Drugs.' However, let's look at some statistics, provided to us by the U.S. Federal Government.[5]

Estimated number of Methamphetamine users: 356,000

 

Estimated number of Cocaine users:

 

Cocaine Hardcore Users (per NHSDA): 445,000

 

Cocaine Hardcore Users (per NHSDA): 2,155,000

 

Cocaine Hardcore Users (per DUF): 3,103,000

 

Estimated number of Heroin users:

 

Heroin Occasional Users (per NHSDA): 514,000

 

Heroin Hardcore Users (per DUF): 977,000

 

Estimated number of Marihuana users: 11,700,000

Now, in case you missed it, the number of illegal Medical Marihuana users is well over eleven and a half million. Even if all the other [so called] illegal drugs were ALL added together, they don't even come anywhere near to that figure. NOW what would happen to the WAR ON DRUGS if Marihuana, in any way shape or form, was taken out of the equation?

 

At least in my opinion, the whole thing would collapse; what is that expression, 'the whole gig-would-be-up'. Therefore if you want to keep the "War on Drugs" going, you have to prevent the re-legalization of Medical Cannabis ---AT ALL COSTS.

 

 

WHY THE WAR ON DRUGS:

Now a question ---Why Does the Government Need the "War On Drugs"? Actually, the real question should have been, why do a lot of people, corporations etc., need the war.

 

Not just the antique community is affected by the war, lots of people are: In fact they even have a name for it, "The National Drug Enforcement Industries," and believe me, there are big bucks in it. And while this is a subject beyond to topic of this book, still it would be worth-while to go over some examples (but only a few).

 

 

THE NATIONAL DRUG ENFORCEMENT INDUSTRIES:

--- There's big bucks in it:

"There's money to be made in stupid laws" --- Science fiction writer Robert Heinlein.

Besides Criminals (and some police officials), numerous other shady individuals have succeeded in making small fortunes out of the Drug War. Communally they have now become known as the 'D.E.I.' or Drug Enforcement Industries, and believe me, there are BIG BUCKS in it. But while the name is new, these guys have been around for a long, long time.

 

 

WEED ERADICATION SERVICES:

Starting almost as soon as the anti-Medical Marihuana laws were passed (some say before the ink was even dry), Weed Eradication Notices started going up.

 

 

 

Oshkosh Northwestern June 8, 1939

Essentially the word was out, either hire the local eradication service or else.

 

 

DRUG TESTING SERVICES:

Here's an industry that didn't even exist a few years ago, yet is now a multi-billion dollar a year business. For emphasis I'll repeat that, the Drug Testing industry DIDN'T EVEN EXIST some ten or so years ago. Need proof, just take a look at the yellow pages of your local phone book. Look under the word "DRUG," and see how many of those scalawag's are out there. Some ten years or so ago, all you would have found under that word would have been some vague references to look under pharmacy or drugstore.

 

Now just think of what would happen if the Drug War were to simply STOPPED. Just think of the unemployment that would result?

 

 

 

 

 

 

BIG PHARMA NEEDS BIG PROFITS:

True, at one time, almost ALL Pharmaceutical companies made use of Cannabis, BUT that was then and this is now. What would happen if Medical Marihuana were made Legal tomorrow? Just think of all those patented medicines:

Prozac

 

Cox-2 (Pain Killing) inhibitors

 

Anti-nausea Drugs

 

Marinol

 

etc.

Cannabis can easily replace all of those drugs (and a whole lot more), and not only that, it can do it a lot safer and cheaper. However, Cannabis does have one big drawback, it's a plant and thus almost impossible to put a patent on. Now, think of those BIG profits, and think what would happen if Cannabis were legal?

 

Let’s look at just one of the horror stories: MARINOL (a Syntatic form of Medical Cannabis) IS EXPENSIVE, very expensive; In fact there is as much as a 100-to-1 cost ratio between the two. But don’t take my word for it, do the math.

If Legal, a pound of high-quality Medical Marihuana would cost (much less than) $100.oo, which is enough to create 400 [11] Cigarettes.

 

 

That 15 mg of Marinol, is the equivalent of one-half of a Cannabis cigarette.[12] Therefore one pound of Cannabis = 800 medical doses, or the equivalent of 27,397-mg of Marinol.

 

 

That 20 mg of legal Marinol can costs $1,050 per month or $12,500 per year. [Don’t believe that, I just got back from my local My local Safeway Supper Market/drugstore, which sells 60 pills (10mg each) for a discounted price of $1,400 dollars.

Now at this point, do the rest of the math yourself, and Ought!

 

The list of DEI benedictory is endless, everything from fake "Drug Abuse Education Programs" to Fake "Drug FORFEITURE auctions. Just remember what Bob Dylan once said:

"Everyday someone new thinks of a new way to take your money away"

Either that or what was it that P.T. Barnum once said: "There's a sucker born every minute"

 

OK, that's enough, I think you get the picture. The only point I've been trying to make is this:

1- In order to keep the War On Drugs going Medical Cannabis MUST REMAIN against the law.

2- Too many people within the Drug Enforcement Industries depend on it and thus have a financial interest in keeping the War On Drugs going, too many for it to stop.

And if this was not enough, there are yet two more important factors to pander:

1 - LAW ENFORCEMENT:

According to the Drug Policy Foundation (affiliated with the Cato Institute), up to 60% of all criminals in our jails (national, state, local etc.) are there primarily for Drug or drug related offences. AND 23% are serving time SOLELY for simple drug possession.

 

Additionally, police arrested an estimated 755,187 persons for marijuana violations in 2003, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's annual Uniform Crime Report, released today. The total is the highest ever recorded by the FBI, and comprised 45 percent of all drug arrests in the United States.

 

One can easily imagine how (just) the prison guard union must feel about the subject.

 

2 - COURT ACTIONS / INACTIONS:

 

 

 

U.S. Supreme Court Decision, on numerous occasions now, have voted against Medical Marijuana: On June 6, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision which supported the Federal Government's position against "medical marijuana." It is unlikely (given the make-up of the court) that any changes will be forthcoming in the near future.

 

So no matter what happens, there are those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Thus my prediction, Cannabis will NOT be Re-Legalized, period and end of story.

[Captain Obvious]

Remember I'm Just the Messenger Please Don't Shoot Me To View the Pics click on the Link provided.

 

 

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

Chapter 1B.3.2

BLACKS, VOTING RIGHTS AND THE LAW:

Why it's called the War on Blacks:

 

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

 

http://antiquecannabisbook.com/chap1B/War-On-Blacks.htm

 

 

 

“The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which all other rights are protected. To take away this right is to reduce a man to slavery.” ---Thomas Paine, Founding Father

Leaving Thomas Paine aside, this country has had one hell of a history making sure that Blacks Don’t and Can’t VOTE. The Poll tax is good example, but by far the favorite method has been voter disenfranchisement.

 

It seems that the U.S. Constitution allowed disenfranchisement of criminals, a loop-hole that was ruthlessly exploited then and still exploit now.

"For example, Mississippi's 1890 constitutional convention, which became a model for other states, replaced an 1869 constitutional provision disenfranchising citizens convicted of 'any crime' with a narrower section disenfranchising only those convicted of certain crimes. Crime which blacks were supposedly more likely than whites to commit." . . . "Burglary, theft, arson, and obtaining money under false pretenses were declared to be disqualifications, while [white crimes such as] robbery and murder, and other [white] crimes in which violence was the principal ingredient, were not.” . . . "At their respective state constitutional conventions, other states, including South Carolina (1895), Louisiana (1898), Alabama (1901), and Virginia (1901-02), also disenfranchised criminals selectively with the intent of disqualifying a disproportionate number of blacks. As in Mississippi, legislators in these states thought that blacks were more likely to commit "furtive offenses" such as petty theft than "robust crimes" such as murder." [4]

[Hey Man, I told you there were going to be some moral issues.]

 

Which in today’s world translates as follows:

“Disenfranchised black males account for 35 percent of all Americans now barred from voting because of felony convictions. Two percent of all Americans, or 3.9 million, have lost the right to vote, compared with 13 percent of black men.” ---Source 1998 study by the Sentencing Project & Human Rights Watch [10]

 

In ten states, more than 20% of black men were debarred from voting. ---"Felon voting rights movement grows," Detroit News , Wed., 24 Feb 1999, p 9A

But wait, what kind of arrests are now being made? You’ve got it; ---and remember, it’s not called the “WAR ON BLACKS” for nothing.

 

Now, no one is saying that ALL supporters of the anti-Medical Marihuana laws are racists, only that their END actions are. But in either case, the laws themselves as well as those who created them ‘obviously’ had race in mind. Perhaps a good example of this is Harry Anslinger’s, now infamous, Ginger Color Negro Memo, which thanks to the courtesy of the Franklin D. Roosevelt presidential library (along with the following co-memo), we have also been able to obtain copies of:

Department of Justice

Washington D.C.

December 17, 1934

 

My dear Mr. Howe: The enclosed copy of a letter is self-explanatory. I want you to call the attention of the President to it, and have him know that an avalanche of protest against Mr. H.J. Anslinger is headed toward the White House.

 

There is absolutely no excuse for this type of official communication going all over the United States. It is not only an insult to colored people, but it has a tendency to lead colored people to believe that this is the type of treatment they may expect from the Roosevelt Administration. Or, it may also evidence the attitude of this particular Federal Officer toward colored people. In any event, the President gets the “black eye”, and this is what must not happen.

 

I am reliably informed that the recent narcotic raid was not so genuine and effective as the publicity it received indicates.

Sincerely yours,

Robert L. Vann.

 

 

White House Memo

 

 

 

Harry Anslinger's Circular Letter No. 324

 

 

Need any more proof, just look at these faces.

 

 

 

Narcotics Peddlers

 

 

 

 

And the story remains the same.

[Captain Obvious]

Yep, It's Me again, the Messenger

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

Chapter 1B.3.3

WHY CANNABIS WILL NEVER BE RE-LEGALIZED:

Part III - Civic Organizations --- their lack of courage:

 

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

 

http://antiquecannabisbook.com/chap1B/Three-Examples.htm

 

How many well recognized civic clubs and service organizations took part in the Reefer Madness dis-information campaign? The list would be endless, and a subject best left for our sister museum [13], however, the important question now is -- What are these groups doing TODAY; --- at this present time, to rectify the situation? Answer: Nothing.

 

The following examples (for the sake of brevity only three are given), are unfortunately all too atypical of the situation. Note that (almost universally) they ALL simply want to sit on the fence, and hope the whole issue would just go away. In other words, they support the de-facto situation.

 

 

 

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

EXAMPLE 1: THE CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION:

[The following are selected parts of a letter that was sent to the C.T.A. (California Teachers Association.]

January 8, 2002

[Name withheld], President

California Teachers Association

PO Box 921

Burlingame, California 94010-0921

 

Mr. [name withheld], it is our understanding (in keeping with the statements made in your "Official Journal") that your present position with regards to the Medical Marihuana Plant is as follows:

 

"Marihuana has proven to be a drug of addiction and an alarming factor in the creation of degeneracy" ….."The vicious qualities of the drug render it highly dangerous to the body and mind upon which it operates. Eventually it weakens the physical powers. It destroys the will, causes the user to lose the power of connected thought, produces imaginary situations and frequently leads to insanity. … [That] the addict may develop a delirious rage and become temporarily irresponsible and likely to commit violent crimes."

 

[The following examples are given:]

"A man under the influence of the drug attempted to shoot his wife but killed her grandmother instead and then committed suicide."

 

"A man 25 years old, charged with criminally assaulting a 10-year-old girl, entered a plea of not guilty because of insanity. He was convicted and sentenced to death."

 

"A young boy … addicted to smoking marihuana cigarets killed his father, mother, two brothers and a sister, wiping out the entire family." --- SIERRA EDUCATIONAL NEWS - Nov. 1938 (pp 40)- Official Journal of California Teachers Association.

. . . Ms. C. Heller (your local official spokesperson) has already stated "NO APOLOGY," and refuses to even acknowledge that these statements were even made by the C.T.A. I did make the attempt to show her the article, to which she replied, "I don't have time for this - Get out or I will call the police."

 

Andrew Garret

Cc interested groups

An unofficial reply was received, stating that this ‘was no longer their position on the subject,’ BUT to the best of our knowledge NO OFFICIAL corrections, retractions or actual clarifications etc., have ever been made. Please do contact them to hear their side of the story, and then let us over here at this museum know. We would love to get their official position on the matter.

 

 

 

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

EXAMPLE 2: THE CALIFORNIA JAYCEES:

[The following is an internet Posting that was made a few years back. I believe that it's self-explanatory]

 

I'm afraid that I have yet another piece of bad news. It seems that the California Junior Chamber of Commerce [or the Jaycees], with whom I have been corresponding with, will be sticking by their 1937 anti-marihuana resolution from the Reefer Madness Era. A resolution which officially puts the California Jaycees, "Officially on Record" as being anti-Marihuana, as well as anti-Medical Marihuana as well.

According to the S.F. Chronicle (Oct 6, 1937):

"a resolution adopted at the last State meeting of the junior chambers, the committee said that sale of marihuana to school children is widespread and that a campaign of education is vitally necessary to stamp out this evil."

According to Jaycees State President [Name withheld by request]:

"At this time there are no resolutions or wording(s) to the effect that we are 'for' or 'against' the use of marijuana for medical uses in our policies or bylaws."

 

"[the] California Jaycees is not a political organization . . . nor do we endorse politically charged issues such as this."

 

"We will remain neutral as an organization on this matter."

 

"At this time, on behalf of the California Jaycees, we are declining your request to get involved with this issue. We are not obligated in any way shape or form to argue a point on a resolution that was passed back in 1937. It was the opinions of the organization at that time."

Huh?! Excuse me; I'm I the only one who thinks there is a disconnect with reality somewhere out there?

 

Maybe the subject of evil is a little hard to grasp, but the way I see it:

(a) The Jaycees are now trying to hide behind the old, "we don't want to take a position, one way or the other," on the issue. Now leaving aside the fact that such a position automatically places the Jaycees in support of the status-quo, meaning in favor of the anti-medical marihuana laws. But again, leaving that aside for now, the Jaycees have, by virtue of their reefer madness resolution, ALREADY taken an anti-Medical Marihuana stand on the matter.

 

(B ) Thus if the Jaycees "really" don't what to take a stand on the matter, "One way or the Other." Logic would dictate that they should officially null-and-void, their original 1937 resolution.

Instead, they are choosing to hide, behind their by-laws and various other pieces of paper. Which I (and I feel the average sane person out there) can only interpret as meaning that they wish to maintain their present position against the right of Cancer patients to make use of the Medical Marihuana plant.

 

 

 

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

EXAMPLE 3: ASSOCIATION OF CANCER EXECUTIVES:

Below is the last in a series of back and forth letters between the Museum and the Association of Cancer Executives. They had made it clear that with respect to the right of cancer victims to use Medical Cannabis, they didn't want to take a position "One Way Or The Other", on the subject. To which, I had replied that for a [so-called] anti-Cancer Society to has such a position, was the equability of, Not having a position "One Way or the Other" as to whether or not the Jews should be herded off on the trains during WW2. Might as well just go out and wave bye bye, to them.

Dear Sir:

Our organization does not make any claims regarding marihuana and it's use in cancer treatment. We have no stand on it and will not consider any stand in the near future.

 

I am requesting that you remove the mention of Association of Cancer Executives from all of your materials, exhibits, mailers, etc. In addition, remove us from your e-mail list. Thank You.

 

[Name Withheld] Executive Director

Association of Cancer Executives

PO Box 9539 Downers Grove, IL 60515

 

rcipollo@cancerexecutives.org

www.cancerexecutives.org

Ok, Ok, maybe I do have as much tact as a clam, but honestly, HOW on earth is it possible for a (so-called) anti-Cancer Organization to, "Not have a position, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER" on the subject. At least in my opinion the book, "Dante’s Inferno” was right, the hottest spot in hell should be reserved for those "neutrals" who should have acted, when the time came to act.

 

 

 

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

And the list of examples can go on and on. Look the only point I'm trying to make is this --- no one is going to do Jack. The very organizations and civic groups that should be leading the fight to END the anti-Medical Marihuana laws, are apparently just kicking back and doing nothing.

 

Thus again, I am of the belief that NO re-legalization will take place.

[Captain Obvious]

Guess Who ? Yea it's Me again, the Messenger, you did put your Gun away, Right ?

 

 

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

Chapter 1B.4

1.4.3 - WHY CANNABIS WILL NEVER BE RE-LEGALIZED:

Part IV - The Narc's and Big Time -- CENSORSHIP:

 

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

 

http://antiquecannabisbook.com/chap1B/Censorship.htm

 

AND as if what has been said elsewhere is NOT ENOUGH to convince you; -- Just look at the steps the narcs have taken/are taking to suppress ALL modern day scientific studies on Medical Cannabis. No way it is ever going to obtain FDA approval the way things are going.

 

The following (abridge) was taken from "The Project Censored" [12] website:

"Although the federal government is aware of the therapeutic potential of marijuana, they have routinely suppressed scientific findings. For example, a two-year study of THC was conducted on rats and mice that found THC treated animals had significantly lower rates of many types of cancer. This report was shelved for over two years until a copy was leaked to AIDS Treatment News, stamped on every page "NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION OR ATTRIBUTION" [30]. Health and Human Services quickly made a version available to the public after being confronted with the leaked copy [26].

 

Another example is the 1997 NIH Workshop on the Medical Utility of Marijuana. The transcripts from the workshop show that the panel of experts agreed marijuana has medical value [31]. It was even found that "the evidence is perfectly clear that smoking is an outstanding route of administration....it's a very safe drug and therefore it would be perfectly safe medically to let the patient determine their own dose through the smoking route" (ibid p.28-29). The Executive Summary that was issued to the public by NIH was far less enthusiastic than the group of experts. It recommended further research and no smoking [32].

[26]- NTP Technical Report on the Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of 1-Trans-Delta(9)-Tetrahydrocannabinol (CAS No. 1972-08-3) in F344/N Rats and B6C3F(1) Mice (Gavage Studies); NTP TR 446, NIH Publication No. 94-3362, of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Nov.1996 <"http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/htdocs/LT-studies/tr446.html>;

[30]- James, J.S.; Medical Marijuana: Unpublished Federal Study Found THC- Treated Rats Lived Longer, Had Less Cancer, AIDS Treatment News 1997; 263

[31]- National Institutes of Health. Transcript of the NIH Workshop on the Medical Utility of Marijuana. Tab B, Deliberations of the Ad Hoc Group of Experts; February 19&20, 1997. (Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc., Cr66002.0) Ref Type: Transcript, p.21-33

[32]- Executive Summary of the Workshop on the Medical Utility of Marijuana; National Institutes of Health; February 19&20, 1997.

 

 

 

Photo courtesy AMMA website

 

 

U.S. GOVERNMENT REPRESSED MARIJUANA-TUMOR RESEARCH

Alternet - May 31, 2000 ( #22 )

Title: - Pot Shrinks Tumors; Government Knew in '74 [13]

"A Spanish medical team's study released in Madrid in February 2000 has shown that tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active chemical in marijuana, destroys tumors in lab rats. These findings, however, are not news to the U.S. government. A study in Virginia in 1974 yielded similar results but was suppressed by the DEA, and in 1983 the Reagan/Bush administration tried to persuade U.S. universities and researchers to destroy all cannabis research work done between 1966 and 1976, including compendiums in libraries.

 

The research was conducted by a medical team led by Dr. Manuel Guzman of Complutence University in Madrid. In the study, brains of 45 lab rats were injected with a cancer cell, which produced tumors. On the twelfth day of the experiment, 15 of the rats were injected with THC and 15 with Win-55, 212-2, a synthetic compound similar to THC. The untreated rats died 12-18 days after the development of the tumors. THC treated rats lived significantly longer than the control group. Although three were unaffected by the THC, nine lived 19-35 days, while tumors were completely eradicated in three others. The rats treated with Win-55,212-2 showed similar results.

 

In an e-mail interview for this story, the Madrid researcher said he had heard of the Virginia study, but had never been able to locate literature on it. "I am aware of the existence of that research. In fact I have attempted many times to obtain the journal article on the original investigation by theses people, but it has proven impossible," Guzman said. His response wasn't surprising, considering that in 1983 the Reagan/Bush administration tried to persuade American universities and researchers to destroy all 1966/76 cannabis research work, including compendiums in libraries, reports Jack Herer. "We know that large amounts of information have since disappeared," he says.

 

Guzman provided the title of the work-"Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabinoids," an article in a 1975 Journal of the National Cancer Institute-and author Raymond Cushing obtained a copy at the UC Medical School Library in Davis, California, and faxed it to Madrid. The 1975 article does not mention breast cancer tumors, which were featured in the only newspaper story ever to appear about the 1974 study in the local section of the Washington Post on August 18, 1974. The headline read, "Cancer Curb Is Studied," and was followed in part by, "The active chemical agent in marijuana curbs the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice and may also suppress the immunity reaction that causes rejection of organ transplants, a Medical College of Virginia team has discovered. The researchers found that THC slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers, and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent."

 

Drug Enforcement Agency officials shut down the Virginia study and all further cannabis research, according to Jack Herer, who reports on these events in his book, The Emperor Wears No Clothes. In 1976, President Gerald Ford put an end to all public cannabis research and granted exclusive research rights to major pharmaceutical companies. These companies set out-unsuccessfully-to develop synthetic forms of THC that would deliver all the medical benefits without the "high."

The following, taken from the very same web page [12]; Note that (un-intentionally) the author explains in no nuances detail, WHY Medical Cannabis -- WILL NEVER be re-legalized:

"When I was a cub reporter twenty-eight years ago at the daily Advocate in Stamford, Connecticut, my first city editor-a white-haired veteran of the International Herald Tribune named Marian Campbell-told me that the cure for cancer was the holy grail of all news stories.

 

"Unless they discover the cure for cancer," she would say over the clackety-clack of the manual typewriters, "this paper goes to press on time."

 

What I found out a quarter-century later is that not even the cure for cancer is a big enough story to crack the Berlin Wall of media censorship in this country. Toss in the facts that the cure appears to be a benign substance that has been illegal for 63 years, and that the government knowingly suppressed evidence of its curative powers 25 years, and you get twice the story and twice the censorship.

 

I won't name the "investigative journalists" who didn't respond when I sent them this story. I won't list the numerous "progressive" publications that ignored it. I won't describe the forbidding sense of professional isolation I endured in the months I tried to place the story.

 

Suffice it to say that it's what one would expect in a society that has criminalized its own young for two generations around the cannabis issue simply because we were told to do so.

 

Thousands of innocent people who are in U.S. prisons for possessing or selling "the cure for cancer" await liberation and reparations. Someday our grandchildren will look back and ask, "What did you do to set the cannabis prisoners free?"

 

Here's what any responsible journalist should be doing:

Go to primary sources when evaluating cannabis research. The AP and other news organizations love to elevate "bad science" and suppress "good science" when it comes to cannabis. You have to read the original research articles yourself and make your own judgments.

 

Investigate and report on the war on children that is a major component of the war on drugs. The marijuana laws are the main tool the police use to persecute minors. No other policy affects more families in more insidious and devastating ways than cannabis prohibition.

 

Learn about the history of cannabis prohibition and about the pharmaceutical, liquor, and tobacco giants that are behind it. If you don't know the history of cannabis and hemp prohibition, you're too ignorant to justifiably call yourself a journalist.

 

If it turns out-as my story would seem to indicate-that cannabis is the cure for cancer and the government suppressed this information for 25 years (and continues to suppress it), then the body count alone will make this the biggest holocaust in recorded history. Virtually all federal drug policy makers of both parties since 1975-including legislators, presidents and the DEA-will be complicit and criminally liable. That's why they don't want this story covered."

And while I understand the frustration of the above author, still it must be pointed out that this is nothing new. The narc's have a very long history of repressing / ignoring the truth. And that's just to begin. There are numerous other ways the narc's have of assuring that Cannabis NEVER gets FDA approval. HOW?

 

You want to do medical research [11] on Cannabis, you FIRST have to get a permit from the Drug Police. Of which, they simply don't give out. In fact, since the passage of the control substances act (1970), all the way up until California passed Prop-215 legalizing Medical Cannabis under their state laws, NONE were issued. According to Chemical Heritage Magazine:

"Today, American researchers who wish to obtain legal cannabis for scientific study must apply to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), which maintains a government-funded, 1.5-acre marijuana farm in Oxford, Mississippi. Compared with street marijuana, however, the government's plants are low in cannabinoid content, and some researchers have also complained of the institute's slow and seemingly arbitrary decisions. In 1994 Donald Abrams, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, proposed to study the effects of smoking cannabis on HIV-related weight loss, but his application was rejected by NIDA, even though it had been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. When he then resubmitted his proposal, this time emphasizing the drug's potential negative effects, NIDA not only approved the study but also provided him with nearly a million dollars in funding. Another researcher, Lyle Craker of the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, applied to the Drug Enforcement Administration in 2001 for the right to grow cannabis for research purposes as a way of sidestepping these potency and access issues. For three years he heard nothing, until a federal court ordered the Drug Enforcement Administration to respond. They said no, so he sued them. That case is still under way. "

 

. . . . . The chill affected researchers as well as clinicians. Medical journals published dozens of studies before the tax act but few after its enactment. As researcher Lester Grinspoon noted, "virtually no medical investigation of cannabis was conducted for many years" as a string of additional laws, including the 1951 Boggs Act and the 1970 Controlled Substances Act, further deterred research." --- T. Geller - Chemical Heritage Magazine

Which is a nice way of telling Medical Antique Cannabis Collectors, not to worry about prices; -- NO WAY IS IT EVER GOING TO BE RE-LEGALIZED.

[+Silverblue]

hey Captain O, don't worry I won't shoot ya. The reasons listed are very powerful, too bad we can't take away that incentive. Greed ruins everything.

 

Sb

[Captain Obvious]

We still have a very long road ahead of us but We are getting Closer.

 

There is a Lot of Great info on this site, THE ANTIQUE CANNABIS BOOK.

 

http://www.antiquecannabisbook.com/

 

Also check out Chapter 11

CANNABIS - A CENTURY OF MEDICAL USES

[Marijuana Ranch]

420Peace Captain Obvious

 

I like the messenger...Will not shoot

However I believe

The old establishment cannot last

We are the new establishment

When we vote for marijuana friendly canidates, ballot initiatives and sign recall peitions the old establishment politicians have to eat it!

It is called Democracy...

Then at some point they like it or get voted off the puplic trough...i.e. pension,cushy job,power.

[DT61]

I would like to add the wild card they did not plan on - immigration.

When many immigrated north, some brought their abilities to grow with them. Some legal, others not (immigrating that is).

They are not going to stop simply because they changed geography. In fact, to support themselves they may do gorilla grows in some fields some where. Once amnesty hits - it will be even more prevalent.

Death and economic downturn will make some of these positions listed above obsolete, as will the violence that surrounds the illegal supply side. It will force a change in law and attitude - it already has to some extent.

Over grow the government - when the scales tip far enough - the pendulum will swing.

[phaquetoo]

Good Post! Thanks for the Info Capt,

[mizerman]

Interesting, Thanks Captain!

This is a great thread. Now I have to figure out how to put some of these statistics and info on my Facebook page.

 

Mizerman

[UrbanFarmer]

I know some may not agree, but I am only hoping for decriminalization for personal use. More likely and than total legalization, which, imho, would open the door for mj to be treated just like alcohol, ie, taxes, licensing etc etc. The vast majority of folks arrested for pot are not dealers but personal users. A waste. Let me grow 20 plants and have a pound in my house and that would be just fine with me lol.

[+Dizledot]

I know some may not agree, but I am only hoping for decriminalization for personal use. More likely and than total legalization, which, imho, would open the door for mj to be treated just like alcohol, ie, taxes, licensing etc etc. The vast majority of folks arrested for pot are not dealers but personal users. A waste. Let me grow 20 plants and have a pound in my house and that would be just fine with me lol.

 

 

Well, most of the LEO here in Wayne County feel as you do on this subject. Now how do we make it happen?

 

Dizz

[UrbanFarmer]

Well, most of the LEO here in Wayne County feel as you do on this subject. Now how do we make it happen?

 

Dizz

 

Hmm. Next ballot initiative that needs financing maybe?

[xxsesimeseedxx]

In the study, brains of 45 lab rats were injected with a cancer cell, which produced tumors.

 

Now, I would like to believe that this is NEVER done to humans through vaccination, but i would also like to believe that our gov't isn't corrupt.

[______]

BANG!!!

[Captain Obvious]

BANG!!!

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPJV2M5HXZ8

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMnSqcmANro&feature=related