Legalizing it the right way did not work... now its time to go to WAR

will you plant 1000?


  • Total voters
    27

r3dn3ck

Active Member
I've been ninja planing pot for years. Big problem has actually been getting seeds. I like to put them in the middle of a patch of ivy or out in some blackberry bushes. Most of the time they're eradicated by gardeners the moment they're discovered. If you want to screw with em' plant clones. Seedlings are just too easy to kill.

Brick Top seems to have his head screwed on straight regarding the whole issue.

When the war comes, this will be but one more grievance.
 

greenesthaze

Well-Known Member
you talk too much... They cant spray a chemical over a heavy populated cities for one, two they wouldnt for a few plants here a few plants their and their, their, their and so on they just wouldnt do it. And you dont have to smoke “reggie“ to get seeds put your females outside for flower and any strain will produce seeds because of the constant light changing hours... Unless thats only a midwest thing which i highly doubt. Anyway i have already begun this plan so let the war as you so call it begin lol.
 

Nice Ol Bud

Well-Known Member
A thousand is a bit much,
not even alot will survive is you just plant them.
Sorry for bringing negativity but even if people planted around their neighbor hood for people to see,
their going to find out whos doing it first, and if the grower has a bad rep he'll ruin himself cause he'll be looked into.
Also,
if it does make an impact,
thats MORE money out of our pockets going towards tax's to go for the War on Drugs.
Crazy idea man,
High as hell..

NoB
 

zem

Well-Known Member
what about organising a pot smoking march? like a demonstration with a million smokers in every city in the same day. they walk together smoking pot in the streets with demands to legalize it, and with a media coverage and organization to explain the cause. they cannot arrest millions who are demonstrating. the voice will get out and people will hear. even many non-smokers will join in the cause if they see it just. and this will be a launch of an ongoing effort, the march will ask for every demonstrator to grow some plants and to join efforts. if you can get celebrities and scientists, doctors and so, to join, you will have a strong voice. the government can be asked to legalize it, tax it, get billions, possibly trillions in tax return every year, and they can use this money to deal with the really harmful drugs, combat heroin and coke addiction, do some social effort for a change, place more restrictions on tobacco alcohol and prescription drugs companies and the remainder of the money can go in social reform. with the right lobbying and effort, this can be done. it needs some funding and leadership. the leading group would start with advertising for the march like a year before hand. they will get followed and possibly arrested for it, but this will only cause more advertising for it! with determination and some sacrifice it can be done :) freedom is NOT granted, it is won!
 

Canon

Well-Known Member
Don't know about war,,,,
But it's definately time for new politicians. VOTE! (whenever you can)
 

Brick Top

New Member
you talk too much... They cant spray a chemical over a heavy populated cities for one, two they wouldnt for a few plants here a few plants their and their, their, their and so on they just wouldnt do it. And you dont have to smoke “reggie“ to get seeds put your females outside for flower and any strain will produce seeds because of the constant light changing hours... Unless thats only a midwest thing which i highly doubt. Anyway i have already begun this plan so let the war as you so call it begin lol.
A guy was doing that years ago. Tokers called him Johnny Potseed and others called him the Johnny Appleseed of pot. After years of doing it he was busted. It made no difference in legalization. If anything it hurt the chances of legalization because the 'straight community' was bitching that little kids had access to pot plants all over.

The is idea of attempting to get pot legalized by mass planting is absurd. It is just the sort of thing that will make getting pot legalized more difficult.

I have said it for years ... most tokers are their own worst enemy when it comes to trying to get pot legal. They don't think clearly, they don't realize that you do not pressure or beat the system from the outside and they don't have a clue about what will help the cause and what will hurt the cause.

The only way pot will become legal will be when a valid case can be presented where the government will see that it will be very advantageous to them to legalize it. Over the decades likely billions have been spent trying to fight it and Just Say No and This Is your Brain, This Is Your Brain On Drugs propaganda campaigns have flooded the airwaves and print media. The government will never reverse it's position just because a few plants pop up here and there. The government has wasted too much money to do an about turn. The government has to save face and keep up the farcical fight until they can proclaim to the nation that so much good would come from legalization that the time for it has come.

Federal charges could be in store for man who planted over 4,000 seeds
 

smokermore

Well-Known Member
i use to think this exact thing alomg time ago lol. but now i think, dam thats alot of work. because i think if you really want a plant to survive you should at least veg it for awhile inside before just throwing it in the ground. ive thrown thousands of seeds all over everywhere and i dont think 1 sprouted lol. im actually trying to find a good outdoor location but cant =( i would love to get some outdoor action going on
 

greenesthaze

Well-Known Member
do any of you even know why pot is illegal in the first place?! Its because lsd came about and they saw how devistating that was on the minds of hippies and how it made them “free thinkers.“ marijuana used to be a schedule 1 drug the highest rating you can put on a drug. The goverment is all a bunch of bs to begin with in the first place does anyone know about the one world goverment? Also known as the new world order aka one world... Its happening under all your noses and you dont even know it so before you talk about tax dollars do a little investigation on where your money is really going, kids arent getting eduacation anymore lack of funding where did it go? Not cause of the war on drugs i can tell you that much. Most people live in a box with no windows they dont see the bigger picture... I dont plant where a little kid can find it btw thank you very much, how many of you have seen a tobacco field? How many of you have seen a mary bean? The goverment doesnt like wat it cant contrl
 

Brick Top

New Member
do any of you even know why pot is illegal in the first place?!l
Do you know why pot is illegal?

You are here: Home » Issues » History of Marijuana and How It Became Illegal in The United States Part One
History of Marijuana and How It Became Illegal in The United States Part One

by porschey114 in Issues, September 28, 2010



This paper discusses Harry Anslinger and his campaign against marijuana. It also goes into the researched medical benefits of the plant and how the government continues to forbid its use for no reason.


History of Medicinal Marijuana
What if there were a drug that one could grow in one’s backyard with very little work and that could help alleviate a variety of existing medicinal problems? Many believe that marijuana is that drug and that its use as a prescription drug should be permitted in the United States. Others believe that under no circumstances should a drug like marijuana be legal. Studies have shown that marijuana helps to reduce nausea and emesis during chemotherapy in cancer patients as well as intraocular pressure in people with glaucoma. It also increases appetite and has positive effects on mood. Proponents therefore feel that it becomes difficult as a society to tell someone who is dying of a disease that he cannot put something into his body, if that substance makes him feel better.







Other studies aim to debunk the proposed uses of marijuana as medicine. These studies show that marijuana can increase the potential for lung cancer, increase aggressiveness, and lacks any beneficial effects as a medicine. Whatever the conclusions eventually emerge, there is much room for debate because little research exists on the topic. Because of its status as an illegal substance, research on the effects marijuana has in humans is limited. Those who oppose the use of marijuana have ardently done all that they could to prevent it from entering the public as a means of medication. One such person was Harry J Anslinger, the former narcotics chief of the United States. While his policies did not focus solely on marijuana, a great deal of evidence points to the fact that he focused on the drug far beyond any other in implementing his drug policies. Anslinger instituted a campaign of fear against the drug as he presented information about it to the public. Propaganda, as found in films like Reefer Madness, served to instill fear in the public that would keep it from questioning policies. Anslinger made people believe his policies were consistently effective against narcotics in general, even if he had to alter the facts sometimes. He donated all of his files to his alma mater, Penn State, which allowed for a useful analysis of primary sources. By analyzing Anslinger’s policies and comparing them to existing research on the topic I hope to create a contrast between the two sides of the issue. I will focus on Anslinger’s policies while he was in office from 1930 to 1962 and on research from the same period up until the 1980’s. I will also look at testimonies of people that have used marijuana for medicinal purposes and the effects that it had upon them.



Marijuana refers to the flowering tops, leaves, and stems of the cannabis plant. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol or THC is the main chemical in marijuana that gives it both its mood-altering effects as well as its medicinal benefits. Marijuana has a long history of being used a therapeutic agent. Chinese documents show that it was used as an anesthetic in surgery more than 2000 years ago. In Hindu medicine it was used as a hypnotic, analgetic and spasmolytic, for dealing with mental conditions and to increase the body resistance to severe physical stress.1 But use of the drug as a therapeutic agent declined during the turn of the twentieth century. This occurred primarily for the following reasons:


http://bridge1.admarketplace.net/ct?version=4.0.0&key=4192788408.4192788440&ci=1291956511028.5003&dp=U%255D%2509%2509



1. The constituents of Cannabis had not been isolated in a pure form. Hence, crude plant preparations or extracts had to be used. Cannabis is notorious for its chemical variability and its easy deterioration. Therefore, reproducible clinical effects were not always obtained.
2. Legally, in many countries, Cannabis was linked to the opiates. The use of these drugs was officially controlled and frequently made difficult. However, the opiates due to their medical indispensibility continued to be widely employed; Cannabis use declined. Today there is virtually no official medical use of Cannabis in the Western world.2
A Duke University cancer specialist named Dr. John Laszlo in 1979 recommended that capsules of THC be approved immediately by the federal government for use in cancer patients as antiemetics. And although Dr. Laszlo did understand that much was still not known about the drug, he felt the potential benefits outweighed the potential risks, since chemotherapy affected patients so negatively, resulting in severe gastrointestinal distress.3 But the government remained ardent in its stance to label marijuana as a Schedule I drug, which meant that it could only be available for approved research and was put in the same classification given to heroin, LSD, and many hallucinogens. Schedule I drugs are classified as having high potential for abuse and as not having been proven safe for use under medical supervision. But if the government is so restrictive in allowing research in marijuana, how can its safety for use under medical supervision ever be proved or disproved? We are reminded of “Sentence first-verdict afterwards,” from Alice in Wonderland. Dr. Laszlo eventually realized that the U.S. pharmaceutical industry would not allow for the development of research in THC for two main reasons. First, it is very unlikely that a drug company could patent marijuana for exclusive marketing rights, thus taking away much profit that drug companies receive from the discoveries of new drugs that are exclusive to them. Second, the fact that this drug is so controversial makes investment in it risky.



In 1937 the passage of the Marihuana Tax Act made the first step in classifying marijuana as an addictive drug that caused violent crimes, psychosis, and mental deterioration. The law was put into effect by Harry J Anslinger and was an attempt to keep people away from the drug.4 Under the Marihuana Tax Act, anyone who used the plant for a medicinal or industrial purpose had to register and pay a tax of one dollar per ounce. A person using the drug for any other purpose had to pay a tax of 100 dollars per ounce. Those failing to comply were subject to major taxation and prison. The law was only the beginning of a massive effort to stop the existence and usage of the drug.
http://bridge1.admarketplace.net/ct?version=4.0.0&key=4193286092.4193286125&ci=1291956603731.5003&dp=_T%250D%2507





The Marihuana Tax Act did not make the drug completely illegal but had the effect of “restricting the use of the drug to industrial, medical, and scientific purposes.”5 This would prevent drug addicts from maintaining their addiction and would subsequently disallow them from increasing the intensity of the addiction. However Anslinger never called for any type of medical research on the substance. He instead created a campaign of fear in which he constantly drew upon a number of outdated sources that described the violence that the drug could create. Anslinger even wrote a book entitled ‘The Murderers” in which he talked about the narcotic history of the United States and the people involved in it. One excerpt stated a number of separate acts of violence induced by marijuana, “A gang of boys tear the clothes from two schoolgirls and rape the screaming girls, one boy after the other. A sixteen-year-old kills his entire family of five in Florida; a man in Minnesota puts a bullet through the head of a stranger on the road; in Colorado a husband tries to shoot his wife, kills her grandmother instead and then kills himself. Every one of these crimes had been preceded by the smoking of one or more marijuana “reefers.”6




In analyzing his files it was found that Anslinger sometimes crossed out certain information from his speeches in order create a greater sense of danger. Assuming he was like many other politicians, he most likely made use of speech writers for his various presentations. He would then go over the speech and change, add, or delete anything he felt was necessary. One such example can be seen in a file where he crossed out, “There is a stimulation of the imagination, followed by a more or less delirious state characterized by vivid kaleidoscopic visions, sometimes of a pleasing sensual kind, but occasionally of a gruesome nature.” Also included was another sentence in which he said people can develop a “delirious rage” and were prone to commit violent crimes. He took out the “temporarily” from the sentence to make it seem like a state of constant anger.7 Another example of deletion of certain information was in another speech which was entitled “Marihuana.” The unedited version said, “Unfortunately, there has been some premature and possibly unwarranted publicity regarding conclusion to be drawn from their experiments.”8 In the revised version Anslinger crossed out the words “some” and “possibly.” He did not want the public to think that there were some things that the Narcotics Bureau was unsure of. The film Reefer Madness, which was made in 1936, was an attempt to instill the same type of fear in its audience that Anslinger was aiming for. It shows how violent people can become when using the drug. But in an experiment testing the relationship between the drug and violence it was found that violence is mostly found in those with preexisting psychological problems. After discussing the etymological evidence, retrospective case studies, studies that examined criminal records to determine the incidence of crimes committed by marijuana smokers, and experimental studies, the study concluded that marijuana does not induce violent behavior in the majority of casual or chronic users. In certain individuals however, pharmacological, neurological, psychological or sociological factors may interact to produce a violent response. At risk individuals may include those with preexisting difficulties in controlling their impulses. The study also showed that it is unclear whether these effects are unique to marijuana or whether other drugs such as alcohol may produce a similar response under similar conditions.9 But it is when Anslinger had information in front of him that cited medical uses of the drug, and subsequently ignored it, that made his campaign especially vile.







 

zem

Well-Known Member
do any of you even know why pot is illegal in the first place?! Its because lsd came about and they saw how devistating that was on the minds of hippies and how it made them “free thinkers.“ marijuana used to be a schedule 1 drug the highest rating you can put on a drug. The goverment is all a bunch of bs to begin with in the first place does anyone know about the one world goverment? Also known as the new world order aka one world... Its happening under all your noses and you dont even know it so before you talk about tax dollars do a little investigation on where your money is really going, kids arent getting eduacation anymore lack of funding where did it go? Not cause of the war on drugs i can tell you that much. Most people live in a box with no windows they dont see the bigger picture... I dont plant where a little kid can find it btw thank you very much, how many of you have seen a tobacco field? How many of you have seen a mary bean? The goverment doesnt like wat it cant contrl
thats true, theres a one world government being seeked not that it will work out but still it's there, and it's been seeked all through history. ever seen how many jew there are in U.S.? a VERY small number and they control ALL media publishing and banks! JFK talked about it clearly, that theres a worldwide organisation that has its actions secret and uses vast political, military and economic resources to achieve its goals. the people need to see what's happening but as was said, most think of it as crazy conspiracy theories, but thats only cuz theyve been trained and not educated, to think like that. think about what they teach at school, and about how the school system is in the 1st place. they train children to perform simple daunting tasks like machines and teach them not to question authority.
 

Brick Top

New Member
Part two of How Marijuana became illegal in the US.


In an article from 1916 studying the effects of Maconha, which is another name for marijuana, the author analyzed a number of aspects about the drug. There is a section on medicinal aspects and a section on violence and criminal activity that can be influence by the drug. In the index, only the portion titles “Crime and Violence” has a checkmark next to it. The health benefits that are given are reported to be asthma relief (although smoking is counteractive to asthma so other ways of taking it would be better), relief in gastro-intestinal disturbances, neuralgia, and uterine colic.10 However the only portion of the article which seems to have been read by Anslinger is the story of a soldier who was thrown into a wild delirium and tried to kill his captain. It is not that the reports of violence are untrue, it is just because Anslinger chooses to focus on these stories that the public had no knowledge of the medicinal aspects of the drug.
http://bridge1.admarketplace.net/ct?version=4.0.0&key=4194432945.4194432974&ci=1291956824480.5003&dp=XY%2504%2503




Anslinger wanted to make sure that the public never considered the drug as a possible medicine. He said, “…not only is there no beneficial attribute to be ascribed to marihuana but every association that is made with it in criminology indicates that it has a negative tendency from a social point of view. In the experimentation which has been conducted with marihuana no results have been obtained which authorize anyone to consider the drug harmless.” At the end of that statement Anslinger crossed out the original word “herb” to replace it with “drug.”11 No experiments proved it harmless because any research done on the drug, under Anslinger’s watchful eye, was to prove that it was, in fact, harmful. Medical research was difficult to do even by the people who wanted to prove Anslinger wrong, not only because funding was difficult to obtain, but also because any research that went against Anslinger’s word was put down immediately by him and his supporters, who vastly outnumbered those who disagreed with him. One such ally of Anslinger was Judge John J. Foster Symes of Denver who stated: “I consider Marihuana the worst drug of all narcotics—far worse than the use of morphine or cocaine. Under its influence men become beasts…Marihuana destroys life itself.”12


Anslinger makes the comparison of marihuana to opium, in order to show how much more harmful marihuana is and how it serves no medical purpose. “When [opium] quiets the hacking cough of the tubercular, and stills the agonies of death caused by cancer, it is the kindly Dr. Jekyll; but when it merely satisfies the craving of addiction, it becomes the hideously cruel monster, Mr. Hyde. Unlike opium, which is the good in Jekyll and the bad in Hyde, Marihuana is the Hyde only.”13 However, Anslinger did make it seem like he wanted to study the aspects of the drug. It is just that he focused only on what the drug could do to harm someone, rather than what it could do to help someone. Anslinger said that the nation “must extend facilities of its researchers to determine [marijuana’s] chemical analysis and identification to the police powers of the states and joining with them in their enforcement activities for the eradication of this evil and in the prosecution of violators in their several communities.” He also said that the Federal Government would work alongside the League of Nations in “conducting research and studying abuses.”14 Thus he assigned a committee to study the effects of the drug. Their duties included; collection and making available to governments carefully prepared documentation concerning cannabis and problems connected therewith, study of the dangers and effects of addiction and the causes to which its persistence and extension may be attributed, and a suggestion of means to cope with the peril.15 But it is possible that Anslinger knew that certain aspects of the drug, when used medicinally, were actually harmful to a person.
http://bridge1.admarketplace.net/ct?version=4.0.0&key=4194557942.4194557965&ci=1291956847756.5003&dp=_Y%2504%2506





One aspect that held marijuana back from being used medicinally in the early to middle 20th century was the fact that it acted differently on every person. “The reactions to the drug are definitely unpredictable, a factor which prevents its use as a medicant.”16 It was found that marijuana caused problems in adolescent development, proper production of sperm, and acted in decreasing the effectiveness of an immune response.17 Harry Anslinger in his book The Murderers said, “One man has no reaction at all; the next may go berserk and try to stab somebody or harm himself. The medical profession after many such experiments was forced to drop the narcotic as a possible analgesic because of this unpredictable quality.”18 Later evidence presented by the Institute of Medicine would prove that marijuana did show negative effects on the body. This had to do with the fact that marijuana was not released from the body as quickly as other drugs but rather persisted for a long period of time:





The long persistence of cannabinoid metabolites in the body may have delayed effects or health implications not yet recognized, because, even with relatively infrequent use, there is a chronic exposure to biologically unknown materials. In this respect, cannabis differs fundamentally from such drugs as alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine, which are rapidly metabolized and eliminated from the body.19
http://bridge1.admarketplace.net/ct?version=4.0.0&key=4194916388.4194916413&ci=1291956918439.5003&dp=UU%250E%2507





Also the effect of cannabis in the alveoli was shown to impair the natural defense mechanism which exists to resist pulmonary bacterial function. In this way marijuana is a greater medical danger than tobacco. Thus there was a greater fear for lung infection and eventual lung disease.20 The drug also frightened many people because it was presented, mostly by Anslinger, as being addictive and creating a strong dependence upon the user.




Physical dependence on cannabis is rare but possible. It is psychological dependence that occurs more frequently. “International reports have shown that chronic users of cannabis may refuse to stop using it even when it is manifestly obvious to all concerned that their involvement with the drug is adversely affecting their lives, and economic and social status, and is constantly throwing them in conflict with the law.”21 Evidence was also found in a case study of individuals that the drug induced mental problems that did not exist previously. In a study done by Kolansky and Law, the cannabis smoking habits of 38 patient ranging from the ages of 13 to 24 were examined. Each of these people smoked cannabis at least twice a week. They were examined over a period of five years and all showed adverse effects. Prior to the use of cannabis none of the patients in the study showed any psychotic symptoms nor had any history of psychosis in the family. There was also no delinquency found in the family upbringing. The cases were divided into five groups:







1) Four patients between 14 and 17 years old had developed a psychotic illness with suicidal attempts.
2) Four patients between the ages of 18 and 24 had developed psychotic illness without suicidal attempts.
3) Twelve patients between 15 and 18 years old had developed marked personality changes and were assessed while on trial for possessing cannabis.
4) Six patients from 14 to 20 years old had developed severe personality changes which at first were not thought to be associated with cannabis use, but which on close questioning were found to be closely related to the onset of heavy use of the drug.


5) Thirteen young girls aged upwards from 13 years old had marked personality changes with sexual promiscuity; seven of these girls became pregnant, one several times. Sexual promiscuity had not been seen in any of these patients before cannabis smoking.22
With evidence such as this it is understandable why a fear of the drug existed and why it was not used medicinally at the time. However, the harmfulness of the drug was overplayed by Anslinger and his supporters. Even though it is true that adverse effects did exist and psychosis was induced in certain patients, these are usually small subsets of the overall effects of the drug. The fact that marijuana was considered just as, if not more dangerous, than narcotics such as cocaine and morphine is very alarming and halted any advances in studying the drug.


Lawrence Kolb, the former Assistant Surgeon, was interviewed along with Harry Anslinger in a magazine in March 1957 about various aspects of narcotics. In response to what physicians can do for people who need narcotics his response was: “When it is found after several trials that the patient is not amenable to cure and will relapse but will get along well with a minimum dose of narcotic (though not marijuana or cocaine), he should be given this for the rest of his life-under medical supervision.” So he supported giving narcotics such as morphine for the rest of patient’s life but did not consider other options. On top of that he classified marijuana with cocaine. Anslinger’s answer to the same question was that giving narcotics just to keep an addict comfortable was a perversion of the word “prescription.”23







The first comprehensive study done on the drug and the actions that it has upon people was ordered by Mayor Fiorello H. LaGuardia of New York in 1944. He wanted to conduct an unbiased study of marijuana and asked the New York Academy of Medicine to conduct it. There were two phases to the study. The first was to analyze the social implications of the drug. This included things like where in the city it could be found and what groups would use it most frequently. They also looked in the issue of whether or not the drug had a propensity to create violence in a user. The second purpose was to study the clinical aspects of marijuana. Experiments were performed in order to test physiological and psychological aspects of the drug and whether it caused mental or physical deterioration. This was the most thorough investigation conducted on marijuana up to that time and still remains as such. The committee, with its findings, was able to disprove almost every negative theory held about marijuana at the time. One of the committee members visited a Harlem “tea pad,” apartments where black jazz musicians would listen to music and smoke marijuana, and saw that the people were relaxed and “free from the anxieties and cares of the realities of life.” This was in direct contrast to the public belief that was instilled by Anslinger. There was no observed violent or rowdy behavior. Its direct relationship to crime was also disproven as policemen who were interviewed had no proof that major crimes were associated with use of the drug. Another conclusion made by the committee was that smoking of marijuana did not lead to addiction. Findings also showed that the widespread use of marijuana, in New York City at least, was more exaggerated than true. Personality traits were not shown to be altered when seventy-seven volunteer prisoners in a hospital ward were studied. There were no alterations in personalities or behavior patterns. These people were already in prison for criminal offenses, yet had no adverse reaction when taking the drug. Thus the study showed that Anslinger had to have exaggerated in his reports of violence that were caused by the drug. The interesting study of the finding showed that marijuana likely contained certain medicinal aspects that could help in the therapy of addicts in heroin withdrawal.24 Compare this finding to the earlier statement made by Lawrence Kolb that marijuana and cocaine were the only two drugs that should never be given to a person as medicine.


This study infuriated Anslinger because it went against much of what he said and, probably, believed. Anslinger responded to the report by saying:


http://bridge1.admarketplace.net/ct?version=4.0.0&key=4196229347.4196229386&ci=1291957172776.5003&dp=ZY%250E%2508




This report declared, in effect, that those who had been denouncing marijuana as dangerous, including myself and experts in the Bureau, were not only in error, but were spreading baseless fears about the effects of smoking Cannabis. I say the report was a government printed invitation to youth and adults-above all to teenagers-to go ahead and smoke all the reefers they felt like smoking.25
It goes without saying that Anslinger missed the point of the report. Rather than rethinking, at least somewhat, some of the misconstrued facts that he always told the public, he decided to denounce the study completely, even though it was conducted by numerous scientists, doctors, and many other well-respected officials. Anslinger added “Relying solely on a series of experiments with a group of 77 prisoners who volunteered to make the tests, the Mayor’s experts asserted that they found no major menace in the use of this narcotic, which they termed ‘a mild drug smoked by bored people for the sake of conviviality.’”26 Anslinger criticized the legitimacy of this study because the committee made these conclusion “solely” on the 77 prisoner study. However, in analyzing Anslinger’s files, he consistently uses the same stories of violence over and over again. He used outdated reports that have been proven incorrect in order to keep a firm grasp on his point. Anslinger knew that he had to put up a strong case against the report done by Mayor LaGuardia in order to keep the public believing that which he wanted them to believe.


Anslinger was infuriated by the medical “mumbo-jumbo” that the report was spreading. “The lies continue to spread”27 Anslinger was completely honest in his reports, so why was it fair for these “scientists” and “doctors” to spread false information just because they claim to have done a thorough study of the drug that nobody had done before. “I continued to hammer at the facts,” Anslinger said this about the duty he was doing to inform people correctly about the drug.28 Anslinger was also angry that the study claimed that there was no apparent connection between the drug and violence. He also stated that the report claimed that the drug was not addictive and that it was so mild, in fact, that it could be used to cure other drug addictions. Anslinger then went on to cite a report of a 16-year old boy who smoked marijuana after reading La Guardia’s report. He cited a response by the editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association as he criticized the report: “The value of the conclusions is destroyed by the fact that the experiments were conducted on 77 confined criminals. Prisoners were obliged to be content with the quantities of the drug administered. Ant-social behavior could not have been noticed, as they were prisoners.” Of course, prisoners have no feelings and do not participate in social interaction with fellow inmates. The editor ended by saying, “Public officials will do well to disregard this unscientific, uncritical study, and continue to regard marijuana as a menace where it is purveyed.”29 The study was, however, more scientific than many of the articles and examples that Asnlinger consistently referred to.
LaGuardia’s committee was the first to break preconceived notions of the drug that the majority of the public so ardently believed in because of what was told to them by Anslinger and his department. After the report, others started to question the policies and what they thought was true about the drug. In this way, studies started to prove the medicinal aspects of the drug. Such studies were needed because, as one study from 1982 showed, “the body of research covered clearly indicates that virtually all research efforts have dealt with the negative impact of marihuana on health.”30
http://bridge1.admarketplace.net/ct?version=4.0.0&key=4196837513.4196837534&ci=1291957279393.5003&dp=%255E%255C%2508%2506





Reports now show that when patients are either not responsive to or hurt by other drugs in treatments such as chemotherapy, marijuana can be used as an option to relieve pain and nausea. Early studies were done in the area of pain relief for cancer patients and one such file was found among Anslinger’s papers. One case cited was that of a woman who was suffering from cancer which was spreading from her vagina into her back. Her treatment consisted mostly of irradiation therapy along with morphine to reduce pain. The report states that she dropped from 168 pounds to 82 pounds in 6 months.31 This weight loss was most likely due to the massive nausea and emesis that results as a bodily reaction to irradiation therapy. Massive system failure results because of a general decrease in strength of the patient and an overall will to continue fighting the disease. The fact that people such as the Assistant Surgeon General of the United States supported giving a patient morphine, an addictive drug, for the rest of his or her life rather than seeking other options is frightening to say the least. By studying various experiments and studies it can be shown that marijuana can be used to prevent the emesis and massive weight loss that is almost always associated with chemotherapy.






Patients going through chemotherapy sometimes have such intense nausea they can tear their esophagus and break their rib cages. It is a very tough therapy that poisons the body in order to try to destroy a tumor or a spreading cancer. Many drugs do not help during the therapy in relieving the nausea and emesis. One of the negative aspects that Anslinger focused on, the unpredictable nature of marijuana is one of the positive aspects that make it work in cancer therapy. In about 30 to 40% of cancer patients, the commonly used antiemetics are not very effective.32 In a study done by Sallan et al., in 20 patients receiving treatment by delta-9-THC, 14 of them felt “complete or partial relief.” It was also reported that the “high” that was felt with treatment was necessary in the antiemetic effects.33 In another study, of fifty-six patients who got no relief from standard antiemetic agents, 78 percent of them became symptom-free when they smoked marijuana”34 But it is by hearing testimonies of people who are directly affected by a loved one having cancer and going through the process that the miraculous aspects of the drug can be clearly seen.

























 

Brick Top

New Member
Part three of the discussion of medicinal marijuana and how it became illegal in the US.


Dr. Lester Grinspoon was a medical doctor and an associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. He began to study cannabis in 1967, and claims that “by the time I published my book in 1971, I had learned that much of what I thought I knew about it had been wrong.”35 His book was titled Marihuana Reconsidered. His son Daniel was diagnosed with acute lymphatic leukemia in 1967. In 1972 Daniel started to resist taking chemotherapy due to the uncontrollable nausea and emesis that it caused. After hearing a story about a boy taking marijuana to alleviate the nausea caused by chemotherapy, Dr. Grinspoon and his wife decided to obtain some for their son. They had to obtain it through a friend of Daniel’s, who was shocked when his friend’s mother asked him to obtain drugs for her. Dr Grinspoon reported, “Daniel was not at all convinced that marijuana would solve his problem, but he did not protest as he was given the medicine. He was as surprised and pleased as we were when there was no nausea or vomiting afterward. In fact, he asked Betsy (his mother) if he could stop for a submarine sandwich on the way home and when he arrived at home he did not take to his bed, but went on right to his usual activities. We could scarcely believe it…From then on he used marijuana before every treatment and we were all much more comfortable during the remaining years of his life.”36 A drug that had to be obtained illegally proved to give Daniel a better quality of life for the short amount of time he remaining. It is difficult as a society to tell a terminally ill cancer patient that he or she cannot take a certain drug that will make him or her feel better.
Brand Name Jewelry
Jewelry Superstore. Everyday Low Prices, Free shipping.
bidz.com

Home Improvement Services
Find thousand of unbiased ratings on services for home improvements, car repairs and more.
angieslist.com

Free to Flirt!
Find out why millions of singles love Lavalife!
lavalife.com


ads by adMarketplace


A 1978 study by the American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs showed that the intermittent use of marijuana by healthy individuals rarely constitutes a health hazard, but immature, unstable or unhealthy people were warned to avoid the drug.37 These negative aspects of the drug in unhealthy individuals deal with aspects that weaken the immune system and have adverse long-term effects on a patient’s lungs. An earlier experiment conducted in 1976 by Bernstein et al. verified that healthy individuals were not affected negatively by the drug. Throughout the study psychological, medical and clinical laboratory tests were conducted. The results of physical and neurological examinations, chest x-ray, EKG, blood chemistry profiles, blood cell counts, cell morphology and urinalyses showed no significant abnormalities in any of the subjects.38 One interesting case of the battle for medicinal marijuana occurred in New Mexico. Dr. George Goldstein served as the secretary of health for the state of New Mexico between the years of 1978 and 1983. In 1978 he was approached by a cancer patient named Lynn Pierson. He told Dr. Goldstein that after he wanted to suspend chemotherapy due to the intense vomiting that it caused, his doctor suggested trying marijuana. “Lynn stressed that because marijuana helped to control his nausea and vomiting he was able to continue his life-prolonging anti-cancer treatments.”39 Dr Goldstein and the Department of Health and Enviornment studied potential ways in which the public health needs of New Mexico cancer and glaucoma patients could be met. In 1978 due to the persistence of Mr. Pierson in convincing the legislature of the benefits of marijuana, New Mexico became the first state in the United States to recognize the therapeutic value of marijuana. Marijuana was reclassified to schedule II so it could be given to patients under the supervision of a doctor. But the FDA needed to be involved in the program in order to obtain federal supplies of medicinal marijuana. The FDA wanted to establish a double blind study in which half of the patients entering the New Mexico program would be given a placebo. But such a study directly contrasted the medical intent of the legalization. Patients who needed the drug would be given a placebo and therefore would not benefit from the therapeutic effects, which directly would negatively effect their quality of life, even though a substance existed that could help them. In order for the program to be recognized, federal admission that marijuana was incorrectly classified was necessary. “Seven months after the New Mexico legislature recognized marijuana’s medical value, Lynn Pierson died without ever receiving his first legal marijuana cigarette. I made certain that the fact of Lynn’s death was communicated to the FDA officials who had failed to respond to our repeated requests for help. These same FDA officials, apparently sensitive to news reports if not to human needs, verbally approved the New Mexico program on the day of Lynn’s death.”40 Dr. Goldstein wrote a letter to Mr. Joseph Califano, the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, accusing the FDA of being responsible for the deaths of nine individuals who were awaiting for federal marijuana supplies that never arrived. He indicated that if the problem were not resolved, New Mexico would be prepared to make its concerns available to the press. Shortly after this letter was sent in October of 1978, New Mexico’s program was finally approved. It had taken 10 months to gain federal approval for an “emergency measure” that was enacted by an overwhelming majority of the New Mexico legislature. In providing 100 New Mexico cancer patients with access to marijuana, 90% reported a significant reduction in nausea and vomiting. Synthetic THC was only 60% effective. “It is clear, based on the evidence, that marijuana’s relative therapeutic advantages far outweigh any risk associated with the drug’s therapeutic use,” said Dr. Goldstein.41




 

Brick Top

New Member
Sula Io > Q: What is hemp? Just another word for marijuana? Yeah, and that's one of the things that happened in 1937. Cannabis Hemp was one of history's most widely used plants. Tincture of Cannabis was the basis for almost every patent medicine prior to the discovery of aspirin. Hemp was used for rope, twine, and cloth. Sailing ships were loaded with hemp. The word "canvas" is derived from "cannabis", because that's what canvas was. Sails were made of hemp because salt water deteriorated cotton. Old sails were made into wagon covers and ultimately original Levi's Jeans. And the pressed oil from hemp seeds was used for paints and varnishes. Everyone knew what hemp was. But nobody knew what marijuana was.
Basically, it came down to this. America in the 1900's saw two powerful rivals, agriculture and industry, faced off over several multi-billion dollar markets. When Rudolph Diesel produced his engine in 1896, he'd assumed it would run off of vegetable and seed oils, especially hemp, which is superior to petroleum. Just think about that for a second. A fuel that can be grown by our farmers that is superior to foreign oil. What a lot of history would have been rewritten!
Ok. So we have an elite group of special interests dominated by Du Pont petrochemical company and it's major financial backer and key political ally, Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon. Mellon was a banker who took over Gulf Oil Corporation. In 1913, Henry Ford opened his first auto assembly line, and Gulf Oil opened its first drive-in gas station. In 1919, with ethanol fuel poised to comptete with gasoline, Alchohol Prohibition descended on the nation. Lucky Mellon. When President Harding made him Secretary of the Treasury, he was considered the richest man in America. In the 1920's, Mellon arranged for his bank to loan his buddies as Du Pont money to take over General Motors. Du Pont had developed new gasoline additives and the sulfate and sulfite process that made trees into paper.
In the 1930's, Ford Motor Company operated a successful biomass fuel conversion plant using cellulose at Iron Mountain, Michigan. Ford engineers extracted methanol, charcoal fuel, tar, pitch ethyl-acetate and creosote from hemp. The same fundamental ingredients for industry were also being made from fossil fuels.
During the same period, Du Pont was developing cellophane, nylon, and dacron from from fossil fuels. Du Pont held the patents on many synthetics and became a leader in the development of paint, rayon, synthetic rubber, plastics, chemicals, photographic film, insecticides and agricultural chemicals.
From the Du Pont 1937 Annual Report we find a clue to what started to happen next: "The revenue raising power of government may be converted into an instrument for forcing acceptance of sudden new ideas of industrial and social reoganization".
Ok, enter William Randolph Hearst. Hearst's company was a major consumer of the cheap tree-pulp paper that had replaced hemp paper in the late 19th century. The Hearst Corporation was also a major logging company, and produced Du Pont's chemical-drenched tree pulp paper, which yellowed and fell apart after a short time. Fueled by the advertising sold to the petrochemical industries, Hearst Newspapers were also known for their sensationalist stories. Hearst despised poor people, black people, chinese, hindus, and all other minorities. Most of all he hated Mexicans. Pancho Villa's cannabis-smoking troops had reclaimed some 800,000 acres of prime timberland from Hearst in the name of the mexican peasants. And all of the low-quality paper the company planned to make by deforesting it's vast timber holdings were in danger of being replaced by low-cost, high quality paper made from hemp.
Hearst had always supported any kind of prohibition, and now he wanted cannabis included in every anti-narcotics bill. Never mind that cannabis wasn't a narcotic. Facts weren't important. The important thing was to have it completely removed from society, doctors, and industry.
Around 1920 or so, a new word arose - "Marihuana". Through screaming headlines and horror stories,"marihuana" was blamed for murderous rampages by blacks and mexicans. Hearst continued to use his power of the press to impress on his readers the dangers of the "marihuana" plant.
When the Federal Bureau of Narcotics was formed in 1932, Mellon's nephew Harry Anslinger was appointed its head, a job in Mellon's treasury department that was created just for him. Treasury agents were beginning to operate on their own agenda. Deep in the throes of the depression, congress began to reexamine all federal agencies. Anslinger began to fear that his department was in danger of emasculation. Although worldwide, hemp was still big business, in 1935 the Treasury Department began secretly drafting a bill called The Marihuana Tax Act. The Treasury Department's general counsul Herman Oliphant was put in charge of writing something that could get past both Congress and the Court disguised as a tax revenue bill. Congress wasn't all that interested in the matter, seeing as all the information they had to work with was what was provided to them by Anslinger. They deliberately collected horror stories on the evils of marihuana pulled primarily from the Hearst newspapers, called Anslinger's Gore Files. Crimes that had never happened at all were being attributed to marihuana.
So, in 1937, Anslinger went before a poorly attended committee hearing and called for a total ban on marihuana. He stated under oath "This drug is entirely the monster Hyde, the harmful effects of which cannot be measured". Bureaucrats planned the hearings to avoid the discussion of the full House and presented the measure in the guise of a tax revenue bill brought to the six member House Ways and Means Committee, chaired by Du Pont ally Robert Doughton of North Carolina. This bypassed the House without further hearings and passed it over to the Senate Finance Committee, controlled by another ally, Prentiss Brown of Michigan, where it was rubber stamped into law. Once on the books, Anslinger would "administer" the licensing process to make sure that no more commercial hemp was ever grown in the United States. Clinton Hesterm assistant general counsel for the Department of the Treasury, explained to the House Committee " The leading newspapers of the United States have recognized the seriousness of this problem and have advocated federal legislation to control.. marihuana...The marijuana cigarette is one of the most insidious of all forms of dope, largely because of the failure of the public to understand its fatal qualities."


Young Jamaican girls enjoying a toke. At the last minute, a few pro-hemp witnesses showed up. Most of the confusion came from the using of the word "marihuana". Most people had no idea that "marihuana", merely a slang word taken from a drinking song celebrating Pancho Villa's victory, "La Cucaracha", was the same thing as cannabis hemp, a plant which had been an important crop since the founding of the country. Ralph Loziers of the National Oil Seed Institute showed up representing paint manufacturers and lubrication oil processors, and stated that hempseed was an essential commodity. Dr. William C. Woodward of the American Medical Association spoke in defense of cannabis medicines and in protest of the way the bill was handled. Woodward complained that there was no certain data that marihuana use had increased, and stated that if it had, the "newspaper exploitation of the habit had done more to increase it than anything else". Asked point blank if he thought federal legislation was necessary, he replied "I do not .. it is not a medical addiction that is involved." Woodward went on to criticize the way the word "marihuana" had been used to deliberately confuse the medical and industrial hemp communities. "In all you have heard here thus far, no mention has been made of any excessive use of the drug or its excessive distribution by any pharmacist. And yet the burden of this bill is placed heavily on the doctors and pharmacists of the country, and may I say very heavily - most heavily, possibly of all - on the farmers of this country... We can not understand yet ... why this bill should have been prepared in secret for two years without any initiative, even to the profession, that it was being prepared ... no medical man would identify this bill with a medicine until he read it through, because marijuana is not a drug, ... simply a name given cannabis."
A few days later, Representative Fred Vinson of Kentucky was asked to summarize the AMA's position. He lied to the effect that the medical group's legislative counsul (Woodward) "Not only gave this measure full support, but also the approval from the AMA."
The act passed without a roll call vote. Now we can see why it was prepared in secret - passage of the Act put all hemp industries firmly under the control of the very special interests that most benefited from its repression over the years - prohibition police and bureaucrats working in collusion with the petrochemical companies, the timber companies, the alcohol and tobacco industries, the pharmaceutical drug companies, and today, the urine testing, property seizure, police and prison industries.
In that same year, 1937, Du Pont filed its patent on Nylon, a synthetic fiber that took over many of the textile and cordage markets that would have gone to hemp. More than half the American cars on the road were built by GM, which guaranteed Du Pont a captive market for paints, varnishes, plastics, and rubber, all which could have been made from hemp. Furthermore, all GM cars would subsequently be designed to use tetra-ethyl leaded fuel exclusively, which contained additives that Du Pont manufactured. All competition from hemp had been outlawed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zem

greenesthaze

Well-Known Member
marijuana was legal hell even ecstasy was legal until lsd came about, anyone ever tell you to use less words? I didnt even watch or read the marijuana report you did might read it tomorrow though too tired now. Pml
 

Brick Top

New Member
marijuana was legal hell even ecstasy was legal until lsd came about, anyone ever tell you to use less words? I didnt even watch or read the marijuana report you did might read it tomorrow though too tired now. Pml
Read and learn the true history of how marijuana became illegal. It will be good for you to know the true facts.
 

greenesthaze

Well-Known Member
sadily the old dogs don't even know why cannabis is illegal they like to read about the studies for medical use and not why it is ILLEGAL. ever heard of the WAR ON DRUGS it started because of LSD, should watch the history channels documentory on that. no need to copy and paste most of your knowledge ya know? marijuana was legal till the WAR ON DRUGS came about. i can copy and paste too... here is when it all started. the war on drugs as richard nixon called it. the beginning of the end of cannabis...


In 1968, the United States Department of the Treasury subsidiary Bureau of Narcotics and the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare subsidiary Bureau of Drug Abuse Control merged to create the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs as a United States Department of Justice subsidiary.
In 1973, President Richard Nixon's "Reorganization Plan Number Two" proposed the creation of a single federal agency to enforce federal drug laws and Congress accepted the proposal, as there was concern regarding the growing availability of drugs.[33] As a result, on July 1, 1973, the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD) and the Office of Drug Abuse Law Enforcement (ODALE) merged together to create the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).[21]
On December 1, 1975 the Supreme Court ruled that it was "not cruel or unusual for Ohio to sentence someone to 20 years for having or selling cannabis."[34]

well as i read more maybe it was a little bit before this in 1956 with the narcotics control act, but whenever it was i know that it had a big part to do with other drugs. but i will keep an open mind!
 

Brick Top

New Member
sadily the old dogs don't even know why cannabis is illegal they like to read about the studies for medical use and not why it is ILLEGAL. ever heard of the WAR ON DRUGS it started because of LSD, should watch the history channels documentory on that. no need to copy and paste most of your knowledge ya know? marijuana was legal till the WAR ON DRUGS came about. i can copy and paste too... here is when it all started. the war on drugs as richard nixon called it. the beginning of the end of cannabis...


In 1968, the United States Department of the Treasury subsidiary Bureau of Narcotics and the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare subsidiary Bureau of Drug Abuse Control merged to create the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs as a United States Department of Justice subsidiary.
In 1973, President Richard Nixon's "Reorganization Plan Number Two" proposed the creation of a single federal agency to enforce federal drug laws and Congress accepted the proposal, as there was concern regarding the growing availability of drugs.[33] As a result, on July 1, 1973, the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD) and the Office of Drug Abuse Law Enforcement (ODALE) merged together to create the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).[21]
On December 1, 1975 the Supreme Court ruled that it was "not cruel or unusual for Ohio to sentence someone to 20 years for having or selling cannabis."[34]

Marijuana was illegal before the time period you are talking about. It was also done in steps, not all at once, and the first steps were taken long before any of us here were alive and it was totally illegal before the dates you mentioned.
 
Top