The War on Reefer is Madness

“How the Federal Government banned the drug ‘Good Feeling‘ in America”

The insanity of Federal DEA drug policies, in regards to hemp, has cost this Nation untold billions upon billions of productive economic output. Quite specifically the war on Hemp, thinly disguised by the DEA as a drug Marijuana, which has been classified as a bad drug— ” Good Feeling ” by policy determinations alone, and nothing else, was from day one a superficial lie dressed in fraud. This policy artfully wrapped around a treasury tax, was also blatantly unsound by any scientific principle. There is no factual evidence to support the classification as no such drug exists called “Good Feeling ” aka marijuana. The war on Cannabis Sativa is political hyperbole, based on botanical ignorance, coupled with dubious legal sophistries, therefore of no genuine moral merit. Feeling good was prohibited in America.

In 1937 the U.S. government passed the Marijuana Tax Act which placed all Cannabis culture under control of *U.S. Treasury Department regulations. This act required the registration and licensing of all hemp growers with the federal government in an effort to restrict production of psychoactive Cannabis varieties in the United States. Additional legislation established penalties for production, sale, and possession of marijuana and hashish (Dempsey, 1975).

*How strange that a plant known as Hemp, is outlawed as an unknown drug called Marijuana–Mexican peasant slang translated to proper English  ‘Good Feeling’ , which is classified as a  psychoactive Cannabis variety. The absurdity of this frivolous arrangement for the purpose of “Policy” requires going back to the origination of this sordid nonsense to understand why such lies about Hemp persist as National Policy—to this day.

To read what Mr. Anslinger had to say about Hemp to Congress go here:

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

MR. ANSLINGER: No, sir; I have not heard of a case of that kind. I think it is an entirely different class. The marihuana addict does not go in that direction.

MR. DINGELL: And the hardened narcotic user does not fall back on marihuana.

MR. ANSLINGER: No, sir: he would not touch that.

Note Mr. Anslinger, affirmed in the positive the so named addict does not turn to these other substances. Or vise versa— odd he speaks some truth even as he peddles the bigger lie— addiction is caused by this drug. Not even the government has ever been able to substantiate this lie. Proving it is NOT in the same category as such substances which are so addicting.

Mr. Anslinger “As I say, marihuana is the same as Indian hemp, and is sometimes found as a residual weed, and sometimes as the result of a dissemination of birdseed. It is known as cannabin, cannabis Americana, or Cannabis Sativa. Marihuana is the Mexican term for cannabis indica. We seem to have adopted the Mexican terminology, and we call it marihuana, which means good feeling. In the underworld it is referred to by such colorful, colloquial names as reefer, muggles, Indian hay, hot hay, and weed. It is known in various countries by a variety of names.”

Anything that might produce a good feeling has to be bad right? How about that “good feeling” was the sole and only reason he called marihuana a drug! That drug made people feel good and so it was Prohibited. Good Feeling  was prohibited as a DRUG—  disguised as a policy to allow racist, policing powers to be used against the lower class minorities to control them by outlawing their choices to feel good. Which is why these lying political hacks demonized the plant named Hemp.

Miss-classification was an important factor to justify the harsh penalties handed down for people daring to feel good. The plant is bad by policy alone, so those people must be punished for the good of society? The only true reason the federal shit-for-brains will not stop this damn evil policy is because they know they will be held accountable for damages so inflicted. A class action lawsuit might well tally into the $trillions for the damages so wrought by this infernal, racist-motivated policy. This war was never necessary. When positive research was outlawed as well the Supreme Court said nothing about this obtuse tactic to up-hold a lie by silencing the truth. Truth needs no defense only lies need billions of dollars in protection money.

Mr. Anslinger admits to using the Mexican slang term on purpose which also gives away a different aspect of the actual motive:

“In a country that was puritanical and racist enough in 1919 to outlaw alcohol in 1919, forbidding cannabis was politically very easy. Alcohol had been the most pervasive recreational drug in the Western world for millennia.  Marijuana was virtually unknown. And though Prohibitionists — like the immigration laws of the 1920s, the resurgent Ku Klux Klan, and the 1928 presidential campaign against Irish Catholic Democrat Al Smith — demonized whiskey-sodden Micks, wine-soaked wops, traitorous beer-swilling Krauts and liquor-selling Jew shopkeepers, at least those people were sort of white. Marijuana was used mainly by Mexican immigrants and African-Americans.”

“In the United States, marijuana prohibition began partly as a throw-in on laws restricting opiates and cocaine to prescription-only use, and partly in Southern and Western states and cities where blacks and Mexican immigrants were smoking it[Nobody really knows for sure what they were smoking as actual records with real data are not to be found]. In 1937, after a very cursory debate, Congress enacted the Marihuana Tax Act, levying a prohibitive $100-an-ounce tax on cannabis. “I believe in some cases one cigarette might develop a homicidal mania,” Anslinger testified in a hearing on the bill.

Mr. Anslinger was of course lying through his teeth. No such behavior has ever been proven by direct, variable evidence. Another reason why clinical research had to be banned to prevent the lies from being fully exposed.

“In 1937 Anslinger testified before Congress that “Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.” And yet he testified the drug was so named for a Good Feeling?

“After the 1938-1944 New York City “LaGuardia Marijuana Report” refuted his argument, by reporting that marijuana caused no violence at all and citing other positive results, Harry J. Anslinger, in public tirade after tirade, denounced Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, the New York Academy of Medicine and the doctors who researched the report.

“Anslinger proclaimed that these doctors would never again do marijuana experiments or research without his personal permission, or be sent to jail!”

“He then used the full power of the United States government, illegally, to halt virtually all research into marijuana while he blackmailed the American Medical Association (AMA) into denouncing the New York Academy of Medicine and its doctors for the research they had done.”

“To refute the LaGuardia report, the AMA, at Anslinger’s personal request, conducted a 1944-45 study of an experimental group of 34 “negroes” and one white (for statistical control) who smoked marijuana, became disrespectful of white soldiers and officers in the segregated military.”

“This technique of biasing the outcome of a study is known among researchers as “gutter science.””

After the 1944 New York City La Guardia Marijuana Report refuting marijuana causing violence at all, Anslinger changed his tune before Congress by 1948, when he told Congress that he no longer thought marijuana violence-causing, but “a much more dangerous drug than America than that.”

He testified that “Marijuana causes its users to become so peaceful and pacifistic that in the future American boys will not want to fight in our wars.

So he lied like a dirty bastard about Hemp to get the drug named marihuana by slang, so all rules etc. can also say the drug ” Good Feeling ” was not causing hysteria and violence, but was causing such peaceful feelings American youth will not fight in wars. This is why policy has no validity as Law. The violation here is private opinion was BANNED by the Constitution from becoming public law. The Supreme Court is guilty of dereliction of Duties— to allow such private opinion to even be claimed as law.

Anslinger also warned Congress that “The Communists could use “Good Feeling”  to sap our will to fight.” This represents a reversal of the reasoning which originally produced marijuana’s illegalization in this country in 1937. Anslinger retired in 1961. (Omni Magazine, Sept. 1982)

And a De facto admission he lied and the federal policy as based on lies is still a lie today.

A very well done research paper,  by John Craig Lupien  provides the essential factual evidence which illustrates why this grossly, unscientific “tax based racist policy” which violates the inalienable Rights of the American citizen, became yet another episode of unconstitutional deprivations of Rights, by falsifying lawful intentions, by a confabulated, classification scheme.


“Later, during 1929, the federal government formally acknowledged the existence of *marihuana [note spelling-the word was borrowed from illiterate Mexican peasants as a slang derivative Good Feeling ]. Senator Morris Sheppard of Texas introduced the first federal anti-marihuana [There is no such thing as the ‘drug marihuana’ this is the first lie] legislation. His bill, S. 2075, provided for the inclusion of marihuana in the Narcotic Drugs Export and Import Act which had been passed in 1922 without considering marihuana [An absurdity because it did NOT exist to be included!] . In 1929, Congress’s knowledge about marihuana was extremely limited, therefore, Senator Lawrence Phipps requested that the Surgeon General conduct a study on the marihuana problem as it would relate to the proposed bill, S. 2075.

[Wikipedia entry —The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, Pub. 238, 75th Congress, 50 Stat. 551 (Aug. 2, 1937) was a United States Act—–

–that placed a tax on the sale of cannabis by the absurd political claim it was a drug marihuana.—- which technically does not exist is now taxed by association “policy” to an entire species of plants, of which no harm has ever been recorded. Nobody knew what the the hell these lying, political hacks were talking about, and therefore, did not understand the actual goal of the new taxing scheme was a prohibition of a plant known as Cannabis Hemp.

“It was legal to pay taxes with Cannabis hemp in the United States from 1631 until the early 1800s. (Los Angeles Times, Aug. 12, 1981, and other sources). Refusing to grow Cannabis hemp was against the law in the United States during the 17th and 18th century; one could be jailed in Virginia for refusing to grow hemp from 1763 to 1769. (L.A. Times, Aug. 1981, and Hemp in Colonial Virginia, G.M. Herdon).”[Plus that little war of 1812 was over Hemp.]

Here is where the bigger absurdity really takes off– at no time did this weasel, lying, duplicitous, slime-ball Anslinger ever admit he had no proof of his grossly, exaggerated claims. His lies were immoral and yet he had the gall to accuse other men, who were not harming anyone, of being violent psychopaths. His criminal actions were sanctified by lying to Congress. Countless lives were destroyed by his lies and those like him. And for what? To prohibit the smoking of plant leaves, flowers which gave good feelings to the person. The moral hypocrisy of such men like Anslinger ruined the credibility of the federal government because people knew they were lying scum-bags.

At no time did the prohibition policies allow a single acre of this drug ” Good Feeling ” to be grown anywhere in America much less sold. The transfer taxing regulations simply put any actual business of Hemp, out of business by the convoluted demands, of the un-realistic regulations, falsely hooked on the drug—“Good Feeling” without farmers really knowing why this plant, known for centuries, was suddenly a grave danger to society.

The absurdity of taxing something that does not exist, except by falsification of name, converted the tax to an out-right prohibition. A rather draconian one at that. No farmer was selling a drug called ” Good Feeling ” therefore, there is no evidence showing something called, or described as the drug “Good Feeling ”  was actually taxed, as a SUBSTANCE  as sold. No sales of the “SUBSTANCE” was ever recorded in the States, as nobody knew what the hell it was or WHERE it came from so produced. The drug  named by Anslinger as ” Good Feeling ” is just the tip of the bigger absurdity.

Specifically, where are the tax payment records from before, or after, this taxing regulation being passed, which show by common standards of proof SOMEBODY was selling the drug ” Good Feeling ” as described? There are none of course. The drug  ” Good Feeling ” as named by Mr. Anslinger, the illiterate ass-wipe, DOES not exist as a botanical species.  He wrote taxing regulations for a substance that did not exist and was never known or sold anywhere in America, specifically by that name. If the lying scum-bag wanted to prohibit cannabis extracts— the entire country would have known his scheme– was a bold-faced lie.

Better yet where are the records of  ” Good Feeling ”  as sold prior to the tax, demonstrating the sale histories of buyers to sellers proving the validity of the tax to the income or excise rates as valid?  Such histories do not exist as NO such plant was ever sold as described as a drug. In fact, in all the years I have been researching this topic I have never seen any hard, empirical evidence, vetted by any un-biased source which can even list a single record of the ” drug Good Feeling ” as a crop period. Does it not stand to reason that IF the Mexicans and Negroes are smoking this DRUG, disguising itself as a plant, actually named Cannabis Indica, some record somewhere would list facts of its cultivation and or use?  The miss-classification also placed Hemp under jurisdictions it did not belong. This is a war on Rights to grow crops on private land disguised as drug enforcement policy.

Continued from Wiki—“The act was drafted by Harry Anslinger and introduced by Rep. Robert L. Doughton of North Carolina, on April 14, 1937. The Act is now commonly referred to using the modern spelling as the 1937 “Good Feeling ” Tax Act. This act was overturned in 1969 in Leary v. United States, and was repealed by Congress the next year.[1]  In August 1954, the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was enacted, and the ” Good Feeling ” Tax Act was included in Subchapter A of Chapter 39 of the 1954 Code. In 1969 in Leary v. United States, part of the Act was ruled to be unconstitutional as a violation of the Fifth Amendment, since a person seeking the tax stamp would have to incriminate him/herself.[22] In response the Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.[23] The 1937 Act was repealed by the 1970 Act.

These actions proved the original Act was unconstitutional horse-shit from day one. All policies fed or state are under the alienable rights form. They can change with a flick of the pen. Unalienable Rights cannot be legislated away—inalienable rights cannot by exchanged without permissions granted. Feeling good is an unalienable right as Happiness is constitutionally defended— growing crops is inalienable—policy of lying fed goons not applicable to American citizens. The Courts have once again dodged the real issue to maintain status quo control.

—–“These parties[avoids the specifics as usual] argue that Hearst felt that this was a threat to his extensive timber holdings. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury and the wealthiest man in America, had invested heavily in the Du Pont family’s new synthetic fiber, nylon, a fiber that was competing with hemp.[7] In 1916, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) chief scientists Jason L. Merrill and Lyster H. Dewey created a paper, USDA Bulletin No. 404 “Hemp Hurds as Paper-Making Material”, in which they concluded that paper from the woody inner portion of the hemp stem broken into pieces, so called hemp hurds, was “favorable in comparison with those used with pulp wood”.[11] Dewey and Merrill believed that hemp hurds were a suitable source for paper production.—- However, later research does not confirm this. [Actually no research was allowed to refute the lies so enacted by policy]— The concentration of cellulose in hemp hurds is only between 32% and 38% (not 77%, a number often repeated by Jack Herer and others on the Internet).[12]– bad cite link—the requested URL /iha/iha01213.html was not found on this server. How convenient… the source is missing preventing confirmation of the the claimed data.

Another link —-It has been contended that hemp is notably superior to most crops in terms of biomass production, but van der Werf (1994b) noted that the annual dry matter yield of hemp (rarely approaching 20 t/ha) is not exceptional compared to maize, beet, or potato.

This Werf guy is cited as the counter-claim favorite, as IF his research was the final authority on the subject which seems rather unlikely.

Another link using the Wikipedia reference– Van der Werf H.M.G., 1994.— Crop physiology of fibre hemp—- Results suggest that hemp can yield large quantities of useful cellulose when ecologically adapted cultivars are sown in proper plant densities. The cultivation is environmentally friendly with little harmful accumulation or emission of chemical inputs. More research on ideotyping is required and breeding efforts should be broadened.”

Another entry same attempt to locate this amazing refutation of Jacks work: “For a start, cellulose content of hemp hurds has been found to vary between 32 and 38 % (Bedetti and Ciaralli 1976, van der Werf 1994). Possibly, Herer confuses the hurds, which form the woody core of the hemp stem, with the bark, which forms the outer layer of the hemp stem.”—  I seriously doubt Mr. Herer made such an error.

“The bark contains the long bast fibres which are used in textile manufacturing. The cellulose content of the bark is much higher than that of the core. It has been found to lie between 53 and 74 % (Bedetti and Ciaralli 1976, van der Werf 1994).”

So 74 % is closer to the average perhaps? Which actual research is Wikipedia referencing correctly? Who benefits when the factual answers are repressed, or such research is banned to prevent facts from being discovered? The seed was banned as well despite the fact it contains no THC… and back when Anslinger was perjuring himself before Congress, no such specific knowledge existed of any compounds in the plant itself. Birds go after Hemp seed like man goes after gold. If you want Truth observe Nature, if you want lies go read the federal policies. Anslinger had no idea WHY good feelings resulted from smoking cannabis leaves or flowers. His ignorance became a Nations ignorance by policy and suppression of actual historical science.

“Hemp seed was used in porridge, soups, and gruel by virtually all the people of the world daily until the twentieth century. Monks were required to eat it three times a day, they made their clothing from hemp, and
printed their Bibles on hemp. Australia survived two prolonged famines in the 19th century using virtually nothing but Hemp seed for protein and leaves for roughage.”

Back to the research of Mr. Lupien for a better answer of the historical treachory:

“The subsequent report was entitled Preliminary Report on Indian Hemp and Peyote. This report was presented and accepted as if it were the final word on the subject of marihuana when, in reality, it displayed total disregard for the standards of objectivity and blatantly ignored the findings of both the 1925 Panama Canal Zone Report and the British Indian Hemp Commission Report. In place of the well-established truth, the Preliminary Report on Indian Hemp and Peyote labeled marihuana a narcotic and presented the myth of the Assassins as historical fact. Furthermore, it lent official confirmation to the unfounded rumor that marihuana possessed the capability of inducing addictive, criminal, and even insane behavior. Needless to say, this document had a significant impact on the perception of marihuana in Congress, but apparently not enough, because S. 2075 died in committee.[118]

“Just as S. 2075 was being laid to rest, Congress took a giant step forward and created a new agency to oversee the nation’s drug problem. On June 14, 1930, the Federal Narcotics Control Board and the narcotics division of the Bureau of Prohibition were terminated and their responsibilities were placed under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, which became an independent division of the Treasury Department.

“Harry J. Anslinger was chosen to head the Bureau.The new Commissioner had already distinguished himself as a capable enforcer with the Bureau of Prohibition’s narcotics task force, not to mention the fact that he was destined to become the nephew-in-law of the Secretary of Treasury, Andrew Mellon.[119] From the moment of the Bureau’s creation, Commissioner Anslinger decided to push for the total prohibition of marihuana, based on the premise that the need to control potential cannabis addiction outweighed the drug’s limited medicinal value. In this context, one of the first orders of business for the newly created Bureau became the enactment of a uniform state narcotic law with cannabis included in its provisions.[120]”

“During 1933, the Bureau primarily worked with the states to organize the Uniform State Narcotic Act. But, by April of 1934, only Florida, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, and Virginia had passed the optional marihuana clause. Through the rest of 1934, the Bureau continued to treat the marihuana issue secondarily, however, toward the end of the year, the Bureau began to refocus its attention on the drug.  Starting in 1935, the Bureau suddenly unleashed an unprecedented media blitz based on the false premise that marihuana was a dangerous narcotic capable of inducing criminal and violent behavior.  Except this time around, the Bureau’s demeanor and actions were far more serious and combative than they had been during the initial campaign for the UNDA. Why this abrupt change of policy occurred has never been conclusively established.”

“Despite any actual verification, the new surge of anti-marihuana activity in 1935 has been linked to the Bureau’s disappointment with the limited success of the UNDA. From the outset the American Medical Association and the pharmaceutical companies objected to the legislation and after the passage of the UNDA they successfully lobbied against the bill at the state level. Late in 1934, the Bureau decided to counter the opposition of the American Medical Association and the pharmaceutical companies.For this purpose the Bureau launched their propaganda campaign during 1935 to stimulate public support for the UNDA and further federal legislation against marihuana.[133] This act resulted in the demonization of marihuana and the passage of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.”

“The Federal Bureau of Narcotics naturally claimed that there was a genuine problem, but they failed to provide the hard evidence to substantiate their claim.  Instead, the reality appears to be that the Bureau recycled the rumors, prevarications, and myths of the past; dressed them in the garb of authority; and paraded them before the public and the law-makers as a precedent for oppressive legislation on the federal level. Why did a branch of the federal government display such an utter disregard for the truth? Based on this alarming discrepancy, there seems to be good reason to question the rationale behind the Bureau’s final assault against marihuana.”

“Commissioner Harry Anslinger seems to have become aware of the new hemp industry at approximately the same time that he focused the Bureau’s energies on securing federal legislation against marihuana in 1935.

Contrary to the traditional interpretation of history, the Commissioner’s decision to lead this final assault against marihuana was directly affected by the development of new commercial enterprises in the hemp industry. From 1935 on, the Bureau actively re-wrote the history of hemp by demonizing marihuana. Ever since this act of deceit, the memory of the new hemp industry in the 1930s has been erased from the public record.

“In retrospect, the demonization of marihuana was nothing more than a premeditated act of historical sabotage designed specifically to ensure that the truth about hemp’s economic potential never reached the investing public. The sudden cascade of insidious propaganda against the use of marihuana acted like a nebulous abstraction hiding the real motives which guided the Bureau. Ultimately, the final assault against marihuana was triggered by the monopolistic greed and economic insecurity of a few financially threatened industries. The reality of this history has been concealed from the public for roughly sixty years.”

“On June 29, 1937, Commissioner Anslinger replied to Congressman Elmer J. Ryan, who had passed the letter on to the Bureau. The Commissioner explained that Smith had been misinformed regarding the narcotic properties of hemp.  All varieties contained the narcotic substance. This situation made it necessary for the legislators to include domestic hemp used for commercial purposes within the purview of the law. He continued and explained that measures had been taken to ensure that the legitimate growth of hemp would not be hindered by the legislation. According to the Commissioner, the overriding purpose of the bill was “to bring out into the open all production and sale of the tops, leaves and seeds of the hemp plant which contain the dangerous drug marihuana and to prevent, if possible, the illicit production and sale of these tops, leaves and seeds.” Commissioner Anslinger concluded his letter by ensuring the Congressman that the bill would not interfere with legitimate industry.[163] This correspondence ended with the Commissioner’s reply.

“A survey of the media coverage during the final assault reveals that all of the articles about marihuana are traceable to the Bureau’s gore file.[173] None of the Bureau’s propaganda represented the truth. Instead, the public was fed a steady diet of prefabricated horror stories about marihuana.

“For instance, starting in 1935, the Bureau often cited the following prevarication as factual data: “Police officials in cities of those states where it [marihuana] is most widely used estimate that fifty per cent of the violent crimes committed in districts occupied by Mexicans, Spaniards, Latin-Americans, Greeks, or Negroes may be traced to this evil.”[174]  Similar prevaricated data was consistently disseminated to the public despite its overt prejudice and lack of truth. One theme which seemed to be particularly effective for the Bureau involved the strategy of suggesting that marihuana dealers sought out the youth of America, who in their innocence were more susceptible to the drug’s addictive powers.[175] In the final assessment, though, none of the Bureau’s allegations against marihuana were ever historically or scientifically verified.  This absence of truth was characteristic of all the Bureau’s inflammatory accounts describing marihuana’s evils.[176]”

“Further dissent was registered by several representatives from the new hemp industry during the Congressional Hearings. These representatives lobbied for the exemption from the Tax Act of hemp cultivated for legitimate commercial operations. During the ensuing debate, Commissioner Anslinger argued that the plant, hemp, produced the drug, marihuana, and therefore the two were inseparable.”

“Despite the gross misrepresentations, the Bureau easily convinced Congress to pass the Marihuana Tax Act. This feat was certainly aided by the crafty maneuvering of General Counsel Herman Oliphant. When he introduced the bill, he presented it to the House Committee on Ways and Means. According to Congressional procedure, a bill could be sent directly to the Senate via this powerful House committee. Interestingly, the Committee on Ways and Means was chaired by Representative Robert L. Doughton, a staunch ally of Du Pont.[188] The rationale for this legislative sleight of hand was quite simple. If the bill had been debated in the House, representatives from the districts where hemp was to be grown would have offered opposition and possibly killed the legislation, while bringing national attention to the economic potential of hemp. However, this scenario was not allowed to occur. Instead, the bill’s supporters astutely circumvented debate in the House and ensured the passage of bill.”

“When the new hemp ventures began to emerge as a real threat to the wood pulp paper industry in 1935, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics launched its final assault against marihuana. The sudden move on the part of the Bureau to demonize marihuana was indicative of the pattern of behavior which had been set before 1935, with regard to the development of farm wastes as an alternative source for the production of paper.

In the fight against alternative sources, the International Paper and Power Company was a leader. Interestingly, this company was financially linked to J. P. Morgan & Company.[219] It is important to note, that Du Pont was also financially linked to this powerful bank. Du Pont was a participant in the wood pulp industry as the primary supplier of the chemicals necessary for pulping.In addition to this interest, Du Pont had also cornered the market on the synthetic fibers and plastics made from cellulose derived from wood pulp.[220] Furthermore, Du Pont was interested in the development of the Southern Pine as raw material source for its cellulose industries.[221] Likewise, the International Paper Company, which had been reformed as a result of the Public Utilities Holding Company Act of 1935, also expanded its operations into the Southern region, especially from 1935 on, in anticipation of utilizing the Southern Pine.”

“The previous observation raises speculation about collusion between the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and concerned industrial leaders. Commissioner Anslinger had been appointed to his post by his future uncle-in-law Andrew Mellon, who at the time had been the Secretary of the Treasury. In addition to serving as the Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew Mellon along with his brother controlled the Mellon Bank which was financially linked with J. P. Morgan & Company.[224] On a more personal level both Mellon brothers were a privileged members of J. P. Morgan & Company’s “preferred list.” This list was composed of corporate directors, government officials, and the heads of the nations largest banks. As a group, these preferred clients were kept informed on all aspects of the economy from which they shamelessly profited.

“During the Congressional Hearings for the Marihuana Tax Act a representative for Chempco, Incorporated was present. The use of term marihuana was a specific concern of this representative. Because of the demonization of marihuana, hemp now possessed a very deleterious stigma. Explaining his position during the Senate Hearings, he stated: “I do not think the use of the word ‘marihuana’ belongs in this measure, because that is the word that came up from Mexico and attached to these cigarettes. I see no use in it. This is hemp being grown, not marihuana.” According to the representative, there was a definite necessity to differentiate between hemp cultivated for legitimate industrial purposes and the drug marihuana. If this was not done, he feared that “…we might lose an industry purely by the phraseology of the measure.

“Nothing was ever said about the circumstances of the $25,000 loss suffered by Chempco, Inc. in the records of the Bureau. Considering the absence of an explanation, there is reason to believe that investors withdrew because of the public hysteria which had resulted from demonization of marihuana and the inevitable threat of government regulations. In retrospect, the emergence of these three commercial concerns was the apex of the new hemp industry in Minnesota. After this episode the activity in Minnesota never really recovered. Gunderson, Strauss, and Dixon were truly on the verge of establishing the cultivation of hemp as a cash crop for the production of paper, plastics, and textiles, when the Bureau destroyed their plans by frightening away their financial backers and their farmers, both of whom did not want to be associated with the supposedly insidious demon drug—marihuana.”

“Among the topics of interest concerning Commissioner Anslinger were the commercial uses for the hurds and the cellulose products that could be made from the fiber. He also wanted to know the advantages of using hemp over other raw materials and the prospects for hemp’s use in the future.[233]
There was not a direct response to this memorandum; however, it appears to have been in the possession of Dr. H. J. Wollner, the Bureau’s consulting chemist, who presented another memorandum of the inquisitive sort back to Commissioner Anslinger on February 14, 1938.

“In this document, Dr. Wollner expressed some concern over the Bureau’s new task of regulating marihuana.  Specifically, he discussed three topics. The first topic dealt with marihuana’s unknown drug properties and the fact that no one had developed a test which could accurately determine whether or not the active principle was present. Skipping to the third topic, Dr. Wollner noted that marihuana was a domestic plant unlike the drugs of foreign origin, such as opium and cocaine with which the Bureau was familiar. Returning to the second topic, Dr. Wollner observed: “That the agriculture of the plant marihuana caters to a legitimate industry.” With regard to his second point, Dr. Wollner noted that there was good chance that the cultivation of hemp for various industrial purposes could be beneficial and that it could expand. He recommended that the Bureau proceed with research to discover whether or not a drug free hemp plant could be produced for industrial use.[234] There is no record of this research ever having been conducted.”

“Reviewing the history of the immediate repercussions of the Marihuana Tax Act, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics displayed several alarming discrepancies in its handling of the new hemp industry after the passage of the legislation. First, it stalled on research for the benefit of the hemp industry. Then, the Bureau hampered the conduct of legitimate business by strictly enforcing the stipulations of the transfer tax. And finally, the Bureau displayed a propensity to be selective in its enforcement of the provisions of the Tax Act. Taken as a whole, these dealings effectively put an end to the new hemp industry.”

“Meanwhile, during the years following the Second World War, the Bureau continued to lobby for stricter laws against marihuana on the federal level. Their main argument remained focused on the unsubstantiated claim that marihuana posed a grave danger to the youth of America. Specifically, the Bureau argued that the use of marihuana was a stepping stone to the use of heroin. In 1951, Commissioner Anslinger stated that: “Over 50 percent of those young addicts started on marihuana smoking. They started there and graduated to heroin; they took the needle when the thrill of marihuana was gone.”[322] On the basis of the stepping stone theory, the Bureau was able to impress Congress enough to pass two new anti-narcotic bills, the Boggs Act of 1951 and the Narcotic Control Act of 1956. Both pieces of legislation included marihuana within their purview. Furthermore, these laws made the possession of marihuana a felony.[323]

“For instance, during the mid-1970s, at Tulane University, government sanctioned researchers claimed that the use of marihuana caused the death of brain cells.Their conclusion was based on the analysis of the brain cells of Rhesus monkeys which had been subjected to marihuana smoke and then compared to the brain cells of a control group of monkeys which were drug free. The findings of the Tulane project have been one of the main weapons of the Drug Enforcement Agency in its post-decriminalization propaganda campaigns against marihuana.[331] Needless to say, the general public found this information extremely troubling.”

“Following the disturbing revelations from Tulane, the National Organization for the Reform of Marihuana Laws (NORML) and Playboy requested an accurate accounting of the research procedures.Initially, the requesters were denied but after six years of suing the government for this information they final received the material.What they discovered was one of the most horrendous examples of scientific deception ever concocted:

“… Rhesus monkeys had been strapped into a chair and pumped the equivalent of 63 Colombian strength joints in ‘five minutes through gas masks,’ losing no smoke…”

“The monkeys were suffocating! Three to five minutes of oxygen deprivation causes brain damage – ‘dead brain cells.’”

The Heath Monkey study was actually a study in animal asphyxiation and carbon monoxide poisoning.”[332]”

Prohibition and law enforcement costs of the drug Good Feeling:

“The Lewin Group identifies $22.5 billion of expenses for prisons and court costs for drug-related charges as well as for DEA and other ‘supply reduction’ programs (spending in these areas has greatly increased in the years since this study.) They also list $9.1 billion for “police protection.” What is meant by this isn’t entirely clear; presumably much of this expense stems from the constant pursuit of drug offenders.

Some interesting facts from the work of  Jack Herer:

Hempseed contains 30% (by volume) oil. This oil has been used to make high-grade diesel fuel oil and aircraft engine and precision machine oil. Throughout history, hempseed oil was used for lighting in oil lamps. Legend says the genie’s lamp burned hempseed oil, as did Abraham the prophet’s. In Abraham Lincoln’s time, only whale oil came near hempseed oil in popularity for fuel.”

“Biomass for Energy Abundance—Hemp stems are 80% hurds (pulp byproduct after the hemp fiber is removed from the plant). Hemp hurds are 77% cellulose – a primary chemical feed stock (industrial raw material) used in the production of chemicals, plastics and fibers. Depending on which U.S. agricultural report is correct, an acre of full grown hemp plants can sustainably provide from 4 to 50 or even 100 times the cellulose found in cornstalks, kenaf, or sugar cane – the planet’s next highest annual cellulose plants.”

“In most places, hemp can be harvested twice a year and, in warmer areas such as Southern California, Texas, Florida and the like, it could be a year-round crop. Hemp has a short growing season and can be planted after food crops have been harvested.”

“An independent, semi-rural network of efficient and autonomous farmers should become the key economic player in the production of energy in this country. The United States government pays (in cash or in “kind”) for farmers to refrain from growing on approximately 90 million acres of farmland each year, called the “soil bank.” And 10-90 million acres of hemp or other woody annual biomass planted on this restricted, unplanted fallow farm land would make energy a whole new ball game and be a real attempt at doing something to save the Earth. There are another 500 million marginal unplanted acres of farm land in America.”

“Each acre of hemp would yield 1,000 gallons of methanol, or 500 gallons of gasoline. Fuels from hemp, along with the recycling of paper, etc., would be enough to run America virtually without oil.

Once in awhile some positive Medical research manages to get through the federal barriers—

United States government-funded studies at St. Louis Medical University in 1989 and the U.S. government’s National Institute of Mental Health in 1990 moved cannabis research into a new realm by confirming that the human brain has receptor sites for THC and its natural cannabis cousins to which no other compounds known thus far will bind. In order for a chemical to affect the brain it must bind to a receptor site capable of receiving it.

(Omni, August 1989; Washington Post, Aug 9, 1990)

One reason cannabis is so safe to use is that it does not affect any of the involuntary muscles of breathing and life support. Rather, it affects its own specific receptor cites for motion (movement strategy) and memory (mental strategies). On the molecular level, THC fits into receptor sites in the upper brain that seem to be uniquely designed to accommodate THC. This points to an ancient symbiosis between the plant and people.”

“Perhaps these neuronal pathways are the product of a pre-cultural relationship between humans and cannabis. Carl Sagan proposes evidence using the Bushmen of Africa to show hemp to have been the first plant cultivated by humanity dating to when he was a hunter-gatherer. Some scientist assume that these receptor sites did not evolve for the purpose of getting high: “There must be some kind of neuronal pathway in the brain that developed, whether there were cannabis plants or not,” speculated mystified St. Louis University pharmacology professor Allyn Howlett in 1989.

One of the more durable misconceptions is the perception that getting high is an act of breaking the law. Knowing that the slang term means in English “Good Feeling” directly confirms that the people who sought out the plant did so due to the fact it has a positive relationship with the human need for novel substances which stimulate healthy mind-body functioning. The evolution of the two species [man and plant] strongly suggests a symbiotic relationship which has developed naturally over tens of thousands of years. This quality of relationship is side-stepped by many scientists, perhaps due to the funding mechanism which they depend on financially. Why of course no scientist working for the DEA or any other gov. lab dares to contradict or disprove the nonsensical blather that has become national policy. Here is an opportunity to study real evolutionary relationships de-railed by stupid, antagonistic, ridiculously over-expensive drug prohibitions which were never necessary as the drug “Good Feeling” has never actually existed except as an absurdity of miss-classification on purpose.

The scheme of prohibition now revolves around money:

This perverted prosecution-for-profit model, used almost exactly in the same way today by state and federal drug Nazis – and just as self-righteously, was given to us at the insistence of President Ronald Reagan in 1984 and was written for Congress by then Congressman Dan Lungren, once California Attorney General. In actuality, once the government seizes a property, more than 90% are never returned by the courts. Everyone from informant, to the police and the prosecutor now share in the bounty of forfeited goods.”

“In fact, while British common law is the basis for our modern legal system, forfeiture law relies on the medieval concept of the cursed object “Deodand” (from the latin “deo” god, and “dand” give; meaning that any object causing human death was forfeited to the crown). This is the basis for American laws of seizure and confiscation of property, rather than penalties only against persons. Why? Simple. People have guaranteed legal rights; property does not!”

“As noted before, marijuana medicine was so highly regarded by Americans (including some Protestant theologians) during the 19th century, that in 1860, for example, the Committee on Cannabis Indica for the Ohio State Medical Society reported and concluded that, “High Biblical commentators [scholars]” believe “that the gall and vinegar, or myrrhed wine, offered to our Saviour, immediately before his crucifixion, was in all probability, a preparation of Indian hemp [marijuana], and even speak of its earlier use in obstetrics.”*

*Reprinted from the transcripts of the 15th annual meeting of the Ohio State Medical Society, at White Sulphur Springs, Ohio, June 12-14, 1860, pg. 75-100.

“The main reasons that cannabis medicines fell into disuse in America was the difficulty of identifying and standardizing dosage, e.g., in 1964, 27 years after America outlawed cannabis in 1937, Dr. Raphael Mechoulam of Tel Aviv University first discovered the THC delta molecules as the active ingredients in cannabis. Also, doctors in the late 19th century could not find a way to inject it into humans with their brand new hypodermic needles…and still haven’t.”

“American newspapers, politicians, and police had virtually no idea, for all these years (until the 1920s, and then only rarely), that the marijuana the “darkies” and “Chicanos” were smoking in cigarettes or pipes was just a weaker version of the many familiar concentrated cannabis medicines they’d been taking since childhood, or that the same drug was smoked legally at the local “white man’s” plush hashish parlors.”

“White racists wrote articles and passed city and state “marijuana” laws without this knowledge for almost two decades, chiefly because of “Negro/Mexican” vicious “insolence”* under the effect of marijuana.”

This “reefer racism” continues into the present day. In 1937, Harry Anslinger told Congress that there were between 50,000 to 100,000* marijuana smokers in the U.S., mostly “Negroes and Mexicans, and entertainers,” and their music, jazz and swing, was an outgrowth of this marijuana use. He insisted this “satanic” music and the use of marijuana caused white women to “seek sexual relations with Negroes!”

“Throughout history, Americans have held the legal tradition that one could not give up one’s constitutional rights—and if someone was stripped of these protections, then he or she was being victimized. However, by 1989, if you signed up for an extracurricular activity in school or applied for a minimum wage job, you could be asked to forgo your right to privacy, protection from self-incrimination, Constitutional requirements of reasonable grounds for search and seizure, presumed innocence until found guilty by your peers, and that most fundamental right of all: personal responsibility for your own life and consciousness.”

“By 1995, the U. S. Supreme Court upheld that these intrusions into your individual privacy were constitutional!”

“Edgar Hoover, as Director of the FBI, did this for five years to Martin Luther King Jr. and, in the most “sick” situation, deliberately drove actress Jean Seburg to suicide with terrible ongoing federal letters and information fed to tabloids exposing her pregnancies and private dates with blacks. In fact, using the FBI, Hoover harassed selected targets for as long as 20 years because of their civil rights stands. The former director of the FBI and also direct overseer of the DEA, William Webster, answered questions in 1985 about the squandering of 50% ($500 million) of federal drug enforcement money on cannabis enforcement this way: “Oh, marijuana is an extremely dangerous drug and the proof [referring to totally discredited brain and metabolite studies by Heath, Nahas] is now coming in.”

“Webster then asked for more money and more unrestrained powers to stop pot. (“Nightwatch,” CBS, January 1, 1985.) And more money has been asked for by every succeeding DEA administrator and drug czar up to the present, 2007.”

“In 2006, the DEA’s budget was almost 2.5 billion dollars and growing.

Seizure: Feudal Law & Order:

“When the federal government seizes cars, boats, money, real estate and other personal property, proceedings are set into motion based on laws that originated with medieval superstition.”

“English common law of the Middle Ages provided for forfeiture of any object causing a man’s death. Known as a “deodand,” the object, such as a weapon or run-away ox cart, was personified and declared tainted or evil, and forfeited to the king.”

“Today’s in rem (against things rather than against persons) forfeiture proceedings are civil suits against the property itself. Relying on analogy to the deodand, a legal “personification fiction,” declares the property to be the defendant. It is held guilty and condemned, as though it were a personality – and the guilt or innocence of the owner is irrelevant.”

“By applying this civil label to forfeiture proceedings, the government sidesteps almost all the protections offered by the Constitution to individuals. There is no Sixth Amendment guarantee of right to counsel. Innocent until proven guilty is reversed. Each violation of a constitutional right is then used as the basis for the destruction of another.”

“The violation of the Fifth Amendment’s “innocent until proven guilty” due process standard is used to destroy the prohibition of double jeopardy. Even acquittal of the criminal charges the forfeiture is based upon does not prevent re-trying the same facts, because, even though the government couldn’t prove a crime was committed, at the second trial the defendant must provide proof of innocence.”

“The Supreme Court holds that it is constitutional to forfeit property in rem from a person who is completely innocent and non-negligent in his use of the property. Lower courts accept prosecutors’ arguments that if it is permissible to confiscate property from completely innocent people, then constitutional protections could not possibly apply to anyone who is guilty of even a minor drug offense.”

“Unlike civil suits between individuals, the government is immune to counter-suit. The government can use its unlimited resources to repeatedly press a suit in the mere hope of convincing one juror the defendant did not provide a preponderance of evidence.”

“Forfeitures imposed by the English Crown led our nation’s founders to prohibit bills of attainder (forfeiture consequent to conviction) in the first article of the American Constitution. The main body of the Constitution also forbids forfeiture of estate for treason. The first Congress passed the statute, still law today, stating that “No conviction or judgment shall work corruption of blood or any forfeiture of estate.” However, early Americans did incorporate in rem (proceeding against a thing) procedures under Admiralty and Maritime law, to seize enemy ships at sea and to enforce payment of customs duties.”

“It was not until the outbreak of the Civil War that these Customs procedures were radically changed. The Confiscation Act of July 17, 1862, declared all property belonging to Confederate officers or those who aided the rebels to be forfeitable in rem. The U.S. Supreme Court held that if the act was an exercise of the war powers of government and was applied only to enemies, then it was constitutionally allowable in order to ensure a speedy termination of the war.”

“Today, the passions of the “War on Drugs” have caused Congress to once again use in rem proceedings to inflict punishment without the nuisance of the protections provided by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. “We have to save our Constitution,” says Vickie Linker, whose husband served two years in prison for a cannabis offense. “We have the truth.””

The grotesque fallacies which have saddled the real issues surrounding the drug named “marihuana the Good feeling” have contributed to a deeper social inequality which pits ordinary citizens against the authoritarians running the fed like their own private fiefdom. The little people are hunted down like wild prey to be seized and squeezed for every dollar the extortionists can demand trumpeting policy. This prohibition forces billions of cash dollars to flow out of the country following the underground economy allowing yet more advanced criminals to reel in the profits while doing business with banks no better than BCCI or worse.

Nothing happens by accident and it is quite obvious the king-pins of finance have no desire to change the rule which make them loads of money for doing absolutely nothing but mocking the law. When Congress launched a full scale invasion of privacy obtrusive policies they broke the real LAW to enforce a bad substitute looking more like a protection racket in reverse. Gresham’s law of bad money seems to be just as applicable to good laws versus bad ones.  Bad law induces criminal acts due to the lure of easy money. Corruption of the Law occurs when the enforcement agents realize they can profit from the crimes just as easy as the crooks themselves. This situation is only possible when law has been used for political purposes and is ripe for abuse. And abused it is…

A very interesting article: Dispatches from the Field: Cops Break Law on Taxpayer Dime—Cynthia Johnston Reports From Inside America’s Wrong-Headed War on Weed

“When we first reported on the Byron/Grumbine case in June of 2011, it was already a long and twisted saga. On December 10, 2008, Joe Grumbine had been arrested for marijuana possession in Riverside County, California. He and his partner Joe Byron were operating their first medical marijuana dispensary in Garden Grove, Orange County. Grumbine was driving home to Riverside County and transporting medical marijuana when he was stopped for having a trailer ball on his bumper.”

“He took his case to trial, and seventeen court days (times ten or fifteen grand per day in tax dollars) later, on November 2, 2009, he was exonerated of all charges. The Judge stated that, based on proof of patients, patient outreach programs and a huge witness list, “the Court finds that Mr. Grumbine was acting in accordance with California law.”

“Right after Grumbine was exonerated, Long Beach Police Detective Oscar Valenzuela of Los Angeles County consoled the Riverside County District Attorney, saying “Don’t worry. We’ve got him good.”

“Five weeks later, on December 17, 2009, all hell broke loose for Byron and Grumbine. Their homes and businesses, and those of their employees and volunteers – seventeen locations altogether – were swooped on by a SWAT team of over a hundred and twenty policemen with weapons drawn, drug-sniffing dogs, helicopters and a fleet of vehicles. The City of Long Beach has refused to put a price tag on the raids, in violation of multiple Freedom of Information Act requests by patient-activist Charles Monson. Claiming they don’t keep track of hours that way, Long Beach continues to stonewall on the cost of the raids, but estimates go as high as 2.4 million dollars – and higher.”

“On April 2, 2012, Oaksterdam University – “the Harvard of Hemp” in Oakland, California, where hundreds of students have learned how to comply with state law in all things relating to medical marijuana – was raided by storm troopers from the DEA, the IRS, and the Oakland Police Department, instantly bankrupting founder Richard Lee, destroying more lives and livelihoods, handcuffing patients, some in wheel chairs or on crutches, and roughly shoving protesters with riot-control batons.”  What we got for our money was a police state.”

A harmless plant was demonized as a drug named “Feeling Good” and has been used ever since as a means of taking from innocent people, both the very spirit of their unalienable Rights, as well as, the tangible protections such Rights were specifically intended to keep from being molested by authoritarians using the Constitution to wipe their asses. The federal over-lords working with their State groupies have transformed the Land of the Free to the land of the incarcerated by nothing more than manipulation of fear to cower the citizens into complying with sinister objectives unworthy of any Law based Republic. Remember the Truth of jury nullification— is to Judge the Law not just the defendant. The prosecution of Hemp related uses is straight up Political Persecutions every bit as odious and evil as the Inquisitions centuries ago.

When Truth is against the Law only outlaws speak the truth. In America today the Tyranny of the Law serves only those who reap fortunes from the misery of the people. So long as States do nothing to cease the tyranny of law enforcement the abuses of Rights will continue unabated. Government was established as an institution of the People, not the other way around. As the Law becomes ever more corrupted the people cease to respect the law adding to the civil inequalities already brimming with violence.

People who perceive that they have no future stop caring about today. It is a vicious cycle between these ends of lost hope and grinding poverty. The failure of leadership cannot be placed at the door of the down-trodden and un-employed. The failure to up-hold the law of unalienable Rights has spawned the very horrors the political muckrakers claim they are solving with heavy-handed policies, which in fact only justify the further break-down of social civility exasperating the core issues so involved. The use of extreme force by law enforcement to brutalize the innocent over nothing more than a “Good Feeling” is simply the perversion of Justice. The cut-throat barbaric attitudes towards law-abiding citizens over Hemp use has tarnished the Law and the Justice so derived  from the Constitution.

Every time you see the word “marijuana” mentally replace it with the proper English translation “Good Feeling” and wonder how the hell did that become against the Law in America— home of the free and the brave? Oh that’s right a lying weasel just made it up to prohibit minorities from enjoying their own peace of mind. No wonder the communists mocked America… when moral hypocrisy destroys a nations conscience only the foul rise to the top.


Tags: , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “The War on Reefer is Madness”

  1. lynda Says:

    Have you ever considered becoming a lawyer?


  2. New Cannabinoids Study - Enemy of the State Says:

    […] The War on Reefer is Madness […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: