“Conspiracy Theory”

George W. Bush said that we should not entertain “conspiracy theories.”



What makes some “conspiracy theories” far more believable than others? After all, a theory is just that— an explanation drawn from an assortment of ideas, observations, factual conjecture, contemplation or speculation. Or at the root, “spectator — seeing”   and by such observations, such as the younger Obama toking on a reefer joint, one can conclude that the gateway way drug “Marijuana” is the reason the older Obama is no good as a president. A conspiracy theory might postulate, that if the communists, who were trying to take over America by conspiracy, used all forms of drugs, especially marijuana, to make America’s boys to peaceful to fight the commies– this justified its severe prohibition— to keep said boys as violent as possible to get them commies.

Mr. Anslinger, who is the man most responsible for placing the phrase, “Good Feeling, aka Marihuana, aka Marijuana” into the law books as a DRUG– which was derived from the Cannabis plant– Sativa or Indica— was simply fighting those no good, dirty communists. Naturally, he had to claim the drug was so dangerous, one whiff would make you a psycho, just to keep it from being used by people who would not be fighting those very same communists. He made no mention of what happens when communists smoked the reefer and would be too peaceful to fight the American boys he was protecting from those very same violent communists. They didn’t call it “reefer madness” for nothing.

—–“To satisfy the UN Narcotics Convention, some Cannabis strains have been bred to produce minimal levels of THC, the principal psychoactive constituent responsible for the “high” associated with marijuana. Marijuana [Good feeling] consists of the dried flowers of Cannabis plants selectively bred to produce high levels of THC and other psychoactive cannabinoids. Various extracts including hashish and hash oil are also produced from the plant.[3]

–“The Cannabis genus was first classified using the “modern” system of taxonomic nomenclature by Carolus Linnaeus in 1753, who devised the system still in use for the naming of species.[36] He considered the genus to be monotypic, having just a single species that he named Cannabis sativa L. (L. stands for Linnaeus, and indicates the authority who first named the species). Linnaeus was familiar with European hemp, which was widely cultivated at the time. In 1785, noted evolutionary biologist Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck published a description of a second species of Cannabis, which he named Cannabis indica Lam.[37] Lamarck based his description of the newly named species on plant specimens collected in India. He described C. indica as having poorer fiber quality than C. sativa, but greater utility as an inebriant. Additional Cannabis species were proposed in the 19th century, including strains from China and Vietnam (Indo-China) assigned the names Cannabis chinensis Delile, and Cannabis gigantea Delile ex Vilmorin.[38] However, many taxonomists found these putative species difficult to distinguish. In the early 20th century, the single-species concept was still widely accepted, except in the Soviet Union where Cannabis continued to be the subject of active taxonomic study. The name Cannabis indica was listed in various Pharmacopoeias, and was widely used to designate Cannabis suitable for the manufacture of medicinal preparations.[39]

–“In the 1970s, the taxonomic classification of Cannabis took on added significance in North America. Laws prohibiting Cannabis in the United States and Canada specifically named products of C. sativa as prohibited materials. Enterprising attorneys for the defense in a few drug busts argued that the seized Cannabis material may not have been C. sativa, and was therefore not prohibited by law. Attorneys on both sides recruited botanists to provide expert testimony. Among those testifying for the prosecution was Dr. Ernest Small, while Dr. Richard E. Schultes and others testified for the defense. The botanists engaged in heated debate (outside of court), and both camps impugned the other’s integrity.[33][34] The defense attorneys were not often successful in winning their case, because the intent of the law was clear.[41] http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Cannibis

Cannabis Seeds

Cannabis sativa fruits (achenes) that contain the seeds

–“Hemp is valuable in tens of thousands of commercial products, especially as fibre[82] ranging from paper, cordage, construction material and textiles in general, to clothing. Hemp is stronger and longer-lasting than cotton. It also is a useful source of foodstuffs (help milk, hemp seed, hemp oil) and biofuels. Hemp has been used by many civilizations, from China to Europe (and later North America) during the last 12,000 years.[82][83] In modern times novel applications and improvements have been explored with modest commercial success.[84][85]

–“According to Delphic analysis by British researchers in 2007, Cannabis has a lower risk factor for dependence compared to both nicotine and alcohol.[94] However, everyday use of Cannabis can in some cases be correlated with psychological withdrawal symptoms such as irritability and insomnia,[88] and evidence could suggest that if a user experiences stress, the likeliness of getting a panic attack increases because of an increase of THC metabolites.[95][96] However, Cannabis withdrawal symptoms are typically mild and are never life-threatening.[97] http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Cannibis


When Anslinger made his presentation before Congress, he did not cite one single fact, regarding any truth about the Hemp plant, instead he relied exclusively on “Conspiracy Theory” to promote a back-story which would later came to a culmination in the Hollywood propaganda film, Reefer Madness. A ridiculous film, which in turn promoted the [fear] so required to demonize not just the entire Species, but anyone who dared question the governments classification scheme. So in a nutshell, a federal “conspiracy theory” concerning Hemp is good, when used by the feds to harm people, but bad when the people state what they believe is the actual reason for the “Evil Behavior” of those very same federal servants. And those very same authorities, which rely on bold-faced lies, to prop up their disingenuous “theories” wonder why it is that so many youths, and adults, think they are full of it…? If a Law is based on pure BS, how can that law gain respect, once the BS no longer scares people into believing such BS, after it is proved, again and again, to be BS? How much BS does it takes to create a “Conspiracy Theorist” might very well require another one of those “Czars” courtesy of the current head of the House-of-BS, who is creating a BS legacy therefrom.

The sad fact of the matter is no matter how many ways it has been proven that the drug classification is “BS” the federal servants absolutely refuse to correct their personal ignorance, much less the stain upon the law so created by the misuse of “theory” over facts. The confusion over the entire issue is a direct result of the government stooges still lying through their DEA mouthpieces, as well as their chosen media, even as more States seek to decriminalize the use of the Hemp plant, but still without recognizing the root of the lies they are actually still ignorantly promoting.

The most significant aspect of this debate is never directly mentioned in most cases, and that is simply, why is it classified both as a hallucinogenic Cannabis, and as a drug Marijuana?  The phrase ‘marihuana’ meaning ‘good feeling’ was derived from Mexican peasant slang, by Mr. Anslinger who knew it was not a drug.  As a substance “marihuana” does not exist— re-name your bowl of cheerios by the same criteria– and then dial up the DEA and have yourself arrested. Sure sounds like nonsense right? But to answer the questions so posed will require a longer journey just to demonstrate, how silly it really is, and yet, how entrenched the LIE has become as a consequence for never asking the right questions. How was a molecule outlawed well before it was even discovered?

A recent show—Published on Apr 25, 2014 Stoned America – Hannity Audience Edition 4-25-2014 – Part 1 — [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmUVkAVvKiE#t=556 ] still reflects the same old rug-worn theories while doing very little to educate people on the deeper issues itself: Can a plant be classified as a drug Pusher?

The key aspect of the argument against “Hemp-C. sativa” is that it is a “Gate-Way Drug” leading users to more serious drugs such as heroin etc. However, there is no direct medical evidence, or any statistical studies (double-blind) which actually proved the assumption with evidence, not just politically motivated, mythical conjecture. Simply put, correlation isn’t cause.

–“Scientists long ago abandoned the idea that marijuana causes users to try other drugs: as far back as 1999, in a report commissioned by Congress to look at the possible dangers of medical marijuana [Good feeling], the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences wrote:”Patterns in progression of drug use from adolescence to adulthood are strikingly regular. Because it is the most widely used illicit drug, marijuana is predictably the first illicit drug most people encounter. Not surprisingly, most users of other illicit drugs have used marijuana first. In fact, most drug users begin with alcohol and nicotine before marijuana [Good feeling]— usually before they are of legal age.

–“In the sense that marijuana [Good feeling] use typically precedes rather than follows initiation of other illicit drug use, it is indeed a “gateway” drug. But because underage smoking and alcohol use typically precede marijuana [Good feeling] use, marijuana [Good feeling] is not the most common, and is rarely the first, “gateway” to illicit drug use. There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana [Good feeling] are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs.

–“Since then, numerous other studies have failed to support the gateway idea. Every year, the federal government funds two huge surveys on drug use in the population. Over and over they find that the number of people who try marijuana [Good feeling] dwarfs that for cocaine or heroin. For example, in 2009, 2.3 million people reported trying pot — compared with 617,000 who tried cocaine and 180,000 who tried heroin. (More on Time.com: See photos of cannabis conventions)”—  http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/29/marijuna-as-a-gateway-drug-the-myth-that-will-not-die/

–“Marijuana [Good feeling] is widely regarded as a “gateway” drug, that is, one whose use results in an increased likelihood of using more serious drugs such as cocaine and heroin. This gateway effect is one of the principal reasons cited in defense of laws prohibiting the use or possession of marijuana [Good feeling]. A recent analysis by RAND’s Drug Policy Research Center (DPRC) suggests that data typically used to support a marijuana [Good feeling] gateway effect can be explained as well by a different theory. The new research, by Andrew Morral, associate director of RAND Public Safety and Justice, Daniel McCaffrey, and Susan Paddock, has implications for U.S. marijuana [Good feeling] policy. However, decisions about relaxing U.S. marijuana [Good feeling] laws must necessarily take into account many other factors in addition to whether or not marijuana [Good feeling] is a gateway drug.

–“This evidence would appear to make a strong case for a gateway effect. However, another explanation has been suggested: Those who use drugs may have an underlying propensity to do so that is not specific to any one drug. There is some support for such a “common-factor” model in studies of genetic, familial, and environmental factors influencing drug use. The presence of a common propensity could explain why people who use one drug are so much more likely to use another than are people who do not use the first drug. It has also been suggested that marijuana [Good feeling] use precedes hard-drug use simply because opportunities to use marijuana [Good feeling] come earlier in life than opportunities to use hard drugs. The DPRC analysis offers the first quantitative evidence that these observations can, without resort to a gateway effect, explain the strong observed associations between marijuana [Good feeling] and hard-drug initiation.

–“Some might argue that as long as the gateway theory remains a possible explanation, policymakers should play it safe and retain current strictures against marijuana use and possession. That attitude might be a sound one if current marijuana [Good feeling] policies were free of costs and harms. But prohibition policies are not cost-free, and their harms are significant: The more than 700,000 marijuana [Good feeling] arrests per year in the United States burden individuals, families, neighborhoods, and society as a whole.

–“Marijuana [Good feeling] policies should weigh these harms of prohibition against the harms of increased marijuana [Good feeling] availability and use, harms that could include adverse effects on the health, development, education, and cognitive functioning of marijuana [Good feeling] users. However, the harms of marijuana [Good feeling] use can no longer be viewed as necessarily including an expansion of hard-drug use and its associated harms. This shift in perspective ought to change the overall balance between the harms and benefits of different marijuana [Good feeling] policies. Whether it is sufficient to change it decisively is something that the new DPRC research cannot aid in resolving.” — http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB6010/index1.html  Using Marijuana [Good feeling] May Not Raise the Risk of Using Harder Drugs

Now which “theory” actually best describes the truth, must also take into account the best evidence towards the Claim, not just the political conclusions already in play to aggressively prejudice the Law.

–“Prejudice can also refer to unfounded beliefs[2] and may include “any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence.[3] Gordon Allport defined prejudice as a “feeling, favorable or unfavorable, toward a person or thing, prior to, or not based on, actual experience.”[4]

By using a phrase which was unknown to a significant cross-section of the English speaking Americans, the phrase did not raise alarms among the Hemp growers, or the knowledgeable class who were professionally acquainted with the various compounds which were derived from the Hemp plant. This critical strategy of misinformation and its subsequent false classification scheme was not by accident. Somebody did not want the modern world to re-discover what had been known to ancient cultures, or the wider assortment of uses the Hemp plant. Uses which were about to become worth billions in long term wealth production, increasing the economic vitality of the western and southern states. People who live in freedom do not need Lenders controlling every aspect of their economic lives, via government toadies, who not only fail to understand the actual law upon the lands, but seek to destroy such knowledge which benefits the people.

When looking through the various sources it is quite important to see the “assumptions” or “prejudice” which are always included in some way. The reason being obvious— conformity.

–“The Yanghai Tombs, a vast ancient cemetery (54 000 m2) situated in the Turfan district of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of the People’s Republic of China, have revealed the 2700-year-old grave of a shaman. He is thought to have belonged to the Jushi culture recorded in the area centuries later in the Hanshu, Chap 96B.[119] Near the head and foot of the shaman was a large leather basket and wooden bowl filled with 789g of cannabis, superbly preserved by climatic and burial conditions. An international team demonstrated that this material contained tetrahydrocannabinol, the psychoactive component of cannabis. The cannabis was presumably employed by this culture as a medicinal or psychoactive agent, or an aid to divination. This is the oldest documentation of cannabis as a pharmacologically active agent.[120]” http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Cannibis

–“psychoactive substance:  any chemical compound that affects the mind or mental processes; used particularly for drugs used therapeutically in psychiatry, the major classes being the antipsychotic, antidepressant, anxiolytic-sedative, and mood-stabilizing drugs.”

–“There are several different classes of psychoactive substances: antidepressants are used for the relief of symptoms of major depression. lithium is the most common agent used to treat manic episodes of bipolar disorder. antipsychotic agents (or major tranquilizers) are used for management of the manifestations of psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia. antianxiety agents (called also minor tranquilizers), such as diazepam (Valium), are used for relief of anxiety disorders. While none of these drugs can effect a cure, they can reduce the severity of symptoms and permit the patient to resume more normal activity.

–“Also included in the category of psychotropic drugs are many other substances that affect the mind but are not used to treat mental disorders, including stimulants such as caffeine, amphetamines, and cocaine; opiates; and hallucinogens.

–“Controlled Substances Act, a U.S. law enacted in 1970 that regulates the prescribing and dispensing of psychoactive drugs, including stimulants, depressants, and hallucinogens. The act lists five categories of restricted drugs, organized by their medical acceptance, abuse potential, and ability to produce dependence.”–

—-“a federal law that regulates the prescribing and dispensing of psychoactive drugs, including narcotics, hallucinogens, depressants, and stimulants. See table at drug dependence.

— stimulant, abused,
n the substances– such as amphetamines (e.g., methamphetamine or “ice”), cocaine (e.g., “crack” or “coke”), nicotine products (e.g., cigars, cigarettes, or chewing tobacco), and caffeine products (e.g., tea, soft drinks, and soda)–that are misused to increase the functioning of the central nervous system.
— Hallucinogen
A chemical agent that induces hallucinations: Agents Cannabis, DMT, Dronabinol, Ketamine, LSD, Phencyclidine, Psilocybin


Notice how the “plant” is now referenced as an agent… but is not specified as “THC” or by the phrase as a drug itself.

–“Furthermore, “not all abuse and dependency is created equal,” as the authors of Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know put it. The authors point out that while some heavy marijuana [Good feeling] users do experience symptoms of clinical dependency and feel discomfort or withdrawal when trying to quit, kicking a pot addiction doesn’t lead to the same type of intense, dangerous physical and psychological pain that often accompanies alcohol, nicotine or heroin dependency.

–“Not many people may be willing to make this argument directly — even President Barack Obama knows there isn’t any reliable evidence to support it — but the Drug Enforcement Administration’s classification of pot is based entirely upon this contention.

–“Schedule I drugs like marijuana [Good feeling], LSD and heroin “are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence,” according to the DEA. They are also said to have “no currently accepted medical use. Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.

“Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are: heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote.” — http://www.justice.gov/dea/druginfo/ds.shtml

–“Key anti-drug officials have been unwilling to budge on the supposed parallels between pot and these harder drugs. During congressional testimony in 2012, DEA Administrator Michelle Leonhart refused to answer a question about whether crack was more harmful than pot. In January, Michael Botticelli, the drug czar’s chief deputy, ducked a question about whether meth or cocaine was more addictive than marijuana, leading Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) to explain why these repeated denials and other inconsistencies in federal anti-drug policy only serve to undermine broader anti-drug efforts.

–“While some studies have indicated higher marijuana use among criminal offenders, that doesn’t mean it’s the pot itself that leads users to a life of crime. In fact, dozens of studies on the issue show that a causal relationship between marijuana use and crime has not been found.

–“When it comes to violent crime, alcohol is a much more significant factor than marijuana. A report from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism suggests that 25 to 30 percent of violent crimes are linked to alcohol use. A 2003 article from the journal Addictive Behaviors noted that “alcohol is clearly the drug with the most evidence to support a direct intoxication-violence relationship,” and that “cannabis reduces likelihood of violence during intoxication.” The National Academy of Sciences even found that in chronic marijuana [Good feeling] users, THC causes a decrease in “aggressive and violent behavior.”

–“Although there is little evidence that marijuana [Good feeling] use increases the likelihood of criminal behavior, marijuana [Good feeling] convictions are definitely likely to ruin lives and expose people to a life of crime behind bars. State laws differ, but in some places, possessing just one marijuana [Good feeling] joint can be punishable by up to a year in prison and a $10,000 fine. Marijuana [Good feeling] convictions also appear to be racially biased. A recent ACLU report, which tracked marijuana arrests by race and county in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, found that black people are nearly four times more likely to be arrested for possession of marijuana [Good feeling] than white people.

–“In 2010, for example, there were approximately 189,000 emergency room visits by people under 21 for injuries and other conditions linked to alcohol, including accidental poisoning. While there have been reports of people being treated at the hospital due to discomfort after using too much marijuana [Good feeling], these are far outweighed by the number of alcohol-poisoning incidents. To this day, aside from one recent, unprecedented and widely contested conclusion about a cannabis-related death in the United Kingdom, there have been no reported deaths due to marijuana [Good feeling] overdose in at least 10,000 years of human consumption.

–“On the other hand, just 10 times the recommended serving of alcohol can lead to death, a recreational drug study from American Scientist found. By contrast, a marijuana [Good feeling] smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times the amount of THC in a joint in order to be at risk of dying, according to a 1988 ruling from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.“— http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/20/stupid-arguments-against-legalizing-marijuana_n_5175880.html

The circular reasoning which is employed to categorize the “substance” as a reference to an assumption only recognized by the classification itself, might lead one to conclude the Courts are purposely evading the duplicity found in the federal “Prohibitionist Regulations” to stifle proper counter-arguments and allow phrases to be called drugs without any positive evidence for prosecution actually being heard. A fiction reinforcing another fiction produces the conviction. If Mickey Mouse says drugs are bad and THC is a drug, which comes from marijuana which is a substance from the cannabis drug, conviction is assured. Never mind the fact the root of this argument is a fictional cartoon. When the government speaks as a cartoon, by god it needs to be heard as one.

–“Marijuana [Good feeling] and hashish, two substances derived from the hemp plant (Cannabis sativa), are also considered natural hallucinogens, although their potency (power) is very low when compared to others. Marijuana [Good feeling] (also called grass, pot, tea, weed, or reefer), a green herb from the flower of the hemp plant, is considered a mild hallucinogen. http://www.discoveriesinmedicine.com/Enz-Ho/Hallucinogens.html

Maybe the reason why the potency rating is so low is due to the fact the classification is quite false.

–“Scientific American lamented the fact that since the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 declared these psychoactive drugs void of any medical use by categorizing them as Schedule I substances—and three United Nations treaties extend similar restrictions to much of the world—a catch-22 has arisen: “[Federal research on] these drugs [is] banned because they have no accepted medical use, but researchers cannot explore their therapeutic potential because they are banned.

–“Additionally, while doctors in 20 states (and counting) can recommend medical marijuana, researchers aren’t allowed to properly study its effects. Scientific American notes that this leaves “unanswered the question of whether the drug might help treat attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, nausea, sleep apnea, multiple sclerosis and a host of other conditions.”

–“Like many researchers, therapists and drug policy activists have been saying for decades, it is time to allow scientific researchers to do their jobs and find out what these substances can actually do—and in order for that to happen, the U.S. needs to reschedule these substances and effectively lift its research blockade.

–“As the Scientific American article concludes, the endless obstructions to research caused by current scheduling have meant a research standstill for Schedule I drugs. http://www.alternet.org/drugs/historic-call-for-ending-ban-on-psychedelic-research

A sharp eyed reader cannot help to notice a troubling pattern has emerged: Any attempt to verify the “Claim” is forbidden. It does not require a rocket-scientist to observe a weak argument requires a strong defense. When the “schedules” were used as the means to an end they had to prohibit “positive research” to prevent the lie so promoted from being proven to be a lie. The lie itself has to be wide-spread in order to appear as a “scientific result” rather than an odious political theory with no basis in fact. Therefore, all empirical studies were deep-sixed and any attempt to prove the fallacy so promoted had to be ridiculed, or silenced by the usual methods.

–“Cannabis is an ancient hallucinogenic drug derived from the hemp plant. The plant is not indigenous to any particular area and may be found growing wild almost anywhere. The term “marijuana” [Good feeling] commonly refers to the flowering tops and leaves of the plant Cannabis Sativa L, or to any part of the plant that induces psychic change. IC 35-48-1-19 defines marijuana [Good feeling] as “all parts of the plant genus Cannabis, whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of the plant, including Hashish and Hash Oil.

–“Despite 50 years of prohibition against marijuana [Good feeling] in the United States, recent figures confirm that marijuana [Good feeling] is ranked among corn, wheat, and soybeans as one of the four main cash crops grown in terms of dollar volume of sales.

–“The active psychoactive ingredient in marijuana [Good feeling] is delta-9 THC tetrahydrocannabinol, which creates mild hallucinogenic effects and acts as a depressant to the central nervous system. Similarities have been noted between mild doses of marijuana [Good feeling] and alcohol. http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/substnce/mari.htm

Note how the terms and phrases disingenuously allude to an effect, only cited by the law and not any studies. This is the second aspect of that pattern where the fiction allows a result otherwise impossible. If the the word “hallucinogenic” is removed from the description of the fiction, what is left is close to the truth. A mild feeling— but feelings are notoriously personal. This is where prejudice fills in the gap between the fiction and the actual facts.

–“Preclinical and clinical studies show that cannabis modulates mood and possesses antidepressant-like properties, mediated by the agonistic activity of cannabinoids on central CB1 receptors (CB1Rs). The action of CB1R agonists on the serotonin (5-HT) system, the major transmitter system involved in mood control and implicated in the mechanism of action of antidepressants, remains however poorly understood.” — http://www.erowid.org/references/refs_view.php?ID=7127  Bambico FR, Katz N, Debonnel G, Gobbi G.   “Cannabinoids elicit antidepressant-like behavior and activate serotonergic neurons through the medial prefrontal cortex”.   J Neurosci. 2007 Oct 25;27(43):11700-11.

–“A cannabinoid derivative, dexanabinol (HU-211), could be the first neuroprotective agent to be approved for human use. If it is successful it might become a “standard inclusion in the kit bag of every medic and ambulance”, says neurosurgeon Nachshon Knoller (Tel Hashomer,Israel).

–“Dexanabinol is a non-psychotropic derivative of a synthetic family of tetrahydrocannabinoid analogues. The drug has three independent mechanisms of action: it blocks glutamate-induced neurotoxicity; it scavenges both peroxy and hydroxy free-radicals; and it inhibits the action of the inflammatory cytokine alpha-tumour necrosis factor. “The triple action stops the spread of the primary neuronal damage from the core of injury to the surrounding brain tissue, even after a single intravenous injection, up to 6 hours after the initial insult”, says Raphael Mechoulam, professor of pharmacology, Hadassah Medical School, Jerusalem, Israel. Cannabis Science: Cannabinoid Derivative Protects Neurons  http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/references/journal/1996_fishman_lancet_1/1996_fishman_lancet_1_text.shtml

Thanks to years of banning proper scientific inquiry, the positive merits of the active compounds (molecules) remain elusive to the mainstream, and no doubt repressed even in the research circles where such information might lead to the breakthroughs which would then nullify the “classification schedules” thereby requiring the complete decriminalization of any cannabis property, derivative etc. while also removing the odious “taxification racket” now severely hampering farmers from re-establishing the Hemp plant where it rightfully belonged all this time. The blatant misuse of this scheduling scheme is not confined just to the States. This was a dedicated world-wide effort with long-term goals, none of which were actually the least bit helpful to people, much less, for their actual good. The boogieman aka (what-ever fills that space as a function of scaring people) as one of the favorite go to “agents” of a repressive totalitarian system of control, helps foster the social prejudice that only bad people might want to change the law and so the law must be protected from the bad people, by even more laws, more restrictive yet. Another pattern which becomes more obvious as the circular references turn.

Across the pond a “Lords Report” made for some very interesting reading. I pulled a few sections that seemed proper to the over-all examination, of the subject itself:

–“3.6     According to Professor Trevor Robbins, speaking for the Medical Research Council (MRC), “Cannabinoid pharmacology has exploded in the last decade, opening up all sorts of exciting possibilities” (Q 628). These advances are reviewed in evidence to this Committee by the Royal Society and by Dr Roger Pertwee of the University of Aberdeen[5]. It is now recognised that THC interacts with a naturally occurring system in the body, known as the cannabinoid system. THC takes effect by acting upon cannabinoid receptors (see Box 1). Two types of cannabinoid receptor have been identified: the CB1 receptor and the CB2 receptor. CB1 receptors are present on nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord as well as in some peripheral tissues (i.e. tissues outside the brain); CB2 receptors are found mainly on cells of the immune system and are not present in the brain.

–“3.7     The roles played by CB1 and CB2 receptors in determining the various effects of cannabis in the whole organism remain to be established. Among the effects of cannabinoids known from animal experiments to be mediated by CB1 receptors are pain relief, impairments in memory and in the control of movements, lowering of body temperature and reductions in the activity of the gut. As CB1 receptors are the only ones known to exist in the brain, it is assumed that they mediate the intoxicant effects of THC. Little is known about the physiological role of the more recently discovered CB2 receptor, but it seems to be involved in the modulation of the function of the immune system.

–“3.9     These discoveries have transformed the character of scientific research on cannabis, from an attempt to understand the mode of action of a psychoactive drug to the investigation of a hitherto unrecognised physiological control system in the brain and other organs. Although the physiological significance of this system is still largely unknown, one of the principal actions of THC and the endogenous cannabinoids seems to be to regulate the amounts of chemical messenger substances released from nerves in the brain, thus modulating neural activity.

–“3.10     The discovery of the endogenous cannabinoid system has significant implications for future pharmaceutical research in this area. Drugs that selectively activate CB1 or CB2 receptors (agonists), or selectively block one or other of these receptor types (antagonists), have already been developed by some pharmaceutical companies (Lambert p 109 and Q 438; Pertwee Q 285). Agonists to the CB2 receptor may have beneficial effects in modulating immune responses, and would not be expected to possess any psychoactive properties as the CB2 receptor is not found in the brain. Antagonists to the CB1 receptor are also being investigated, as novel therapeutic agents with the potential of reducing memory deficits associated with ageing or neurological disease, as novel treatments for schizophrenia or other psychoses, and as appetite suppressants.

–“3.11     It seems likely that most of the putative medical indications proposed for cannabis involve actions of the drug on CB1 receptors in the central nervous system. Extensive attempts were made by academic and pharmaceutical industry researchers during the 1970s to develop new chemically modified cannabinoid molecules that separated the desired therapeutic effects from the psychoactive properties of these substances; but so far no such compound has been discovered.

–“5.22     It is natural to wonder whether the beneficial effects of cannabis reported by MS patients might simply be related to the feeling of well-being caused by the intoxicant properties of the drug. Clare Hodges said that cannabis greatly helped her physical symptoms, specifically the relief of discomfort in bladder and spine, and relief from nausea and tremors (Q 98). “Cannabis helps my body relax. I function and move much easier. The physical effects are very clear. It is not just a vague feeling of well-being“. She positively prefers to avoid intoxication, and feels able to control the dose of cannabis to obtain physical relief without getting high (p 27, Q 98; cp LMMSG p 270). Professor Wall likened this to the experience of patients using self­ administered morphine or related narcotics for pain control, who control the dose to achieve a bearable level of pain without muddled thinking (Q 98).

–“5.23     The BMA report concluded, “It is somewhat paradoxical that cannabinoids are reported to be of therapeutic value in neurological disorders... since very similar symptoms can be caused by cannabis itself... it is not clear how much of the reputed effects of cannabis in motor disorders are due to psychoactive or analgesic effects“. Nevertheless, it recommended that “A high priority should be given to carefully controlled trials of cannabinoids in patients with chronic spastic disorders which have not responded to other drugs”. This view is shared by many of our witnesses.

–“5.41     Several of our witnesses have commented on the difficulties of conducting clinical trials with cannabis. How can a standardised product be made available? What formulation is to be used? How can the dose be predicted for any particular medical condition? How consistent and predictable would blood levels of THC be (QQ 7, 8, 180, 781)? In addition, individual patients are likely to differ considerably in the dose needed to control their symptoms—as with the use of opiates in the control of severe pain, where Professor Wall points out that a tenfold range of doses is commonly observed (QQ 112-3).

–“5.42     Professor David Grahame­Smith, Chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (Q 8), raised the question of the difficulty of carrying out a double­ blind placebo-controlled trial with a psychoactive agent, as the drug could easily be distinguished from the inert placebo. Professor Lader suggested that one solution to this might be to test cannabis by comparison with some other psychoactive drug, rather than against an inactive placebo. Other possibilities are to use doses of the active drug too small to have psychoactive effect; or to proceed with an inactive placebo, and find out at the end of the trial how far patients could tell whether they were receiving the active drug or the placebo (Q 779).

–“5.43     In addition to these practical problems, clinical researchers face extra legal hurdles, and a generally negative climate of opinion, because of the status of cannabis as a Schedule 1 controlled drug. We consider this problem, and what might be done about it, in Chapter 7.

–“5.57     Although there is general agreement that smoked cannabis carries a potential risk for long-term users, the medical application of smoked cannabis is not ruled out by all. The US National Institutes of Health report says, ” …there might be some patient populations, e.g. cancer patients experiencing nausea and vomiting during chemotherapy, for whom the inhalation route might offer advantages over the currently available capsule formulation [of THC]”. They conclude, “In summary, the testing of smoked marijuana to evaluate its therapeutic effects is a difficult, but not impossible, task“. The American Medical Association report recommends “that adequate and well controlled studies of smoked marijuana be conducted in patients who have serious conditions for which preclinical, anecdotal or controlled evidence suggests possible efficacy including AIDS wasting syndrome, severe acute or delayed emesis induced by chemotherapy, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, dystonia [involuntary muscle movements, e.g. a tic], and neuropathic pain…”. Among our witnesses, those who would include smoking in trials include Dr Schon (p 304), Dr Stewart (p 305) and Dr Robson (Q 480); and Professor Radda of the MRC would be prepared to do so, provided that the trial protocols were satisfactory (QQ 646, 654).

–“6.17     Most of our professional witnesses agree that the adverse effects of cannabis fully justify prohibition (e.g. Henry/RCPath p 224). The only argument on the other side is that cannabis is arguably less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco (e.g. RCGP p 281, Kendall p 268). Professor Hall acknowledged this, but noted “the difficulty in predicting the effect that relaxation of cannabis prohibition would have on current patterns of cannabis use and the harms caused by that use” (p 222).

–“6.18     The Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, George Howarth MP, told us confidently that legalising recreational use would cause such use to increase (Q 674). Professor Edwards, writing for the Royal Society, is less sure: “We would expect weakening of controls over cannabis to result in increased use levels, but this is an empirical question on which research at present is not conclusive...Removal of prohibition on cannabis would have to be described as a voyage into the unknown. Some added harm and some added costs would undoubtedly result” (p 303). There is international experience which might throw light on this question, but we have not explored it in detail.

–“6.19     We have not considered the wider range of social and criminological issues which would be raised by any proposal to change the law on recreational cannabis use. These include enforcement, the impact on use of other illegal drugs, and the international context and the danger of “drug tourism”; as well as ethical, philosophical and religious questions about the freedom of the individual, the nature of society and the morality of mind-altering drugs. As we said when we began this enquiry, these matters fall outside our remit as a Science and Technology Committee. An Independent Inquiry into the Misuse of Drugs Act, chaired by Lady Runciman of Doxford and supported by the Police Foundation, is currently considering the matter in its wider context; they expect to report next year.

–“8.9     Unlike cannabis itself, the cannabinoid THC (dronabinol) and its analogue nabilone are already accepted by the Government as having medical value (paragraphs 5.11-17)—producing the anomaly that, while cannabis itself is banned as a psychoactive drug, THC, the principal substance which makes it psychoactive, is in legitimate medical use. Some of our witnesses are prepared (paragraph 5.50) to contemplate wider medical use of the cannabinoids, but not of cannabis itself. We disagree, since some users of both find cannabis itself more effective (paragraph 5.51). We do, however, welcome the inclusion of THC in the trials proposed by the Asscher group, in like-for-like comparison with cannabis itself.

–“8.10     Dronabinol (THC), though not licensed in this country, has already been moved to Schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations, and nabilone is a licensed medicine and not a controlled drug; so no Government action is required in either case to permit clinical trials or indeed prescription. All cannabinoids other than THC remain in Schedule 1, and transferring them would require agreement through the WHO under the 1971 Convention. We do not regard this as a priority, since we are not persuaded that any other cannabinoid has a convincing medical use; but we recommend that the Government should raise the matter of rescheduling the remaining cannabinoids with the WHO in due course, in order to facilitate research.”  http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/uk_lords_report/IndexOfReport.shtml

Now after reading very carefully through the reports, as cited, the critical reader cannot ignore the specific admission that THC is in legitimate Medical use, and that it is the cannabis [drug] which makes it against the law to use. The writers of the ‘Lord Report’ call this an “anomaly” when in FACT, it lets the cat out of the bag, to wit: NONE of the “other” cannabinoids (if cited at all) cause the UNWANTED “psychoactive effect” thereby, negating the classification in which THC [as a distinct molecular substance] has been placed. This is not an anomaly— it is the deliberate falsification of natural, compounds/properties into a drug class wholly artificial for the expressed purpose of making the use of a non-hallucinogenic substance [cannabis] a punishable offense. And that is assuming THC is a hallucinogenic— because those marijuana [Good feeling] smokers have no lawful right to decide what is and what is not a good feeling much less when they are allowed to have one at all.

Now is it really much of a stretch to postulate, that there was a deliberate “conspiracy” among the governments [1971 Convention] to classify the Hemp plant and its naturally occurring derivatives as drugs? The actual question is when did this plan really get rolling amongst the Nations who recognize the authority, behind the demand itself?

 –“As Secretary of the Treasury, Morgenthau was in charge of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, which had law-enforcement and domestic-surveillance capabilities. Its Commissioner, Harry Anslinger, was an ambitious bureaucrat out to maximize his agency’s power. West’s theory is that Morgenthau orchestrated the federal prohibition and that Anslinger’s railing against marijuana was part of the play.

–“In a paper on the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act that ran in the Archives of General Psychiatry (and was reprinted by Tod Mikuriya in Marijuana Medical Papers), Musto wrote, “The hearings before the House were held in late April and early May. They were curious events. The Treasury’s presentation to Congress has been adequately described many times, although no retelling has equaled reading the original transcript.”  Could there be a better blurb for our e-book?

–“Another way to raise commodity prices was to reduce the gold value of the dollar, which could be achieved by the Treasury Department buying gold at a higher price than was set by statute. Dean Acheson, Acting Secretary of the Treasury, argued vehemently that the Administration did not have the legal right to take the country off the gold standard. According to Schlesinger, “The Attorney General supported Acheson… A few days later Morgenthau showed Roosevelt a longhand memorandum from his general counsel Herman Oliphant suggesting various ways by which the President might buy gold through his executive power… Oliphant, digging into the recesses of his memory, recalled a Civil War statute which permitted the government to buy gold at changing prices; combined with the Reconstruction Finance Act, this seemed to give the President the power he needed.”

–“Dean Acheson would resign in high dudgeon [furiously, resentfully]. Morgenthau became Secretary of the Treasury on January 1, 1934. Herman Oliphant moved with him to Treasury as general counsel, and would be called on a few years later to devise a cockamamie scheme to outlaw the Cannabis plant.

–“Hemp processing operations in Illinois and Minnesota were launched in the mid-1930s, implementing newly developed technology and with ambitious business plans. Foremost was a company called AmhempCo, organized  by an entrepreneur of German descent named Alexander J. Auchterlonie. AmhempCo was blindsided when the Marijuana Tax Act was introduced in Congress in late April, 1937, but Auchterlonie immediately hired lawyers and protested —in vain— when the bill went to the Senate. After the Tax Act passed, hemp expert John Lupien confirms, Anslinger sicked agents on the new hemp companies. Investors pulled out from AmhempCo and a fire of mysterious origin destroyed Auchterlonie’s mill and the huge stack of harvested hemp plants awaiting transformation into cellulose pulp.

–“Dave West determined that while the new hemp companies were being strangled by federal red tape, the hemp producers of Wisconsin, who had been in business long before the 1930s, were left alone. “Morgenthau wasn’t concerned about hemp,” West concludes. “He was concerned about certain people who were producing hemp.” — http://www.alternet.org/drugs/who-masterminded-us-pot-prohibition?page=0%2C2

 The history of Hemp here in America is much longer than many might realize:

 –“The first cultivation of hemp in the Americas seems to have been in Nova Scotia in 1606 and it subsequently became widely grown across North America for its use as a fiber. It seems, however, that there was no awareness of its psychoactive properties until the middle of the nineteenth century. In two books published in the 1850s the popular writer Bayard Taylor wrote of his hashish experiences in Egypt in a manner not unlike that of some members of the Parisian Hashish Club. Although rarely read today, his books were, for many of his numerous readers at the time, the first they had heard about the psychoactive effects of the hemp plant. The author of The Hasheesh Eater: Being Passages from the Life of a Pythagorean (1857), Fitz Hugh Ludlow, who is often considered to be one of the best writers on the subjective effects of hashish, never reached the contemporary audience that Taylor did, despite his posthumous fame.

 –“It was not, of course, only writers that began to spread the word. Dubious figures in the unofficial world of medicine (better known as quackery) seized upon the ‘new’ drug and peddled it as an aphrodisiac. Ernest Abel has unearthed what must be one of the earliest and certainly one of the best lurid headlines concerning drugs. It is from the Illustrated Police News of 2 December 1876, and next to a drawing of elegant young women lounging in a swish apartment in a state of intoxication are written the immortal words: ‘SECRET DISSIPATION OF NEW YORK BELLES: INTERIOR OF A HASHEESH HELL ON FIFTH AVENUE.’

–“It was not just the media but also the medical profession that were becoming increasingly aware of cannabis. Although doctors used it in treating many disorders (ranging from epilepsy and hysteria to alcoholism and asthma) the demonisation of drugs that began with opium was soon to spread to other psychoactive substances, including cannabis. As the anti-opium movement was intertwined with bigotry against the Chinese so with marijuana [Good Feeling] it was to be the turn of the Mexicans and then the Blacks. In 1915 California became the first state to make it illegal to possess cannabis. By the 1920s marijuana (called muggles or moota and later mezz, sassfras or tea; marijuana cigarettes or joints were known, as they still sometimes are, as reefers) had become a major ‘underground drug’.

–“It was the first psychoactive substance (apart from alcohol) that became a common subject in modern popular music, with jazz classics from the 1930s such as Louis Armstrong’s Muggles and Cab Calloway’s That Funny Reefer Man topping the bill of marijuana[Good Feeling]-inspired fare. In opposition to the positive portrayal of cannabis in the jazz scene were wildly sensational accounts – supposedly based on fact – of the intimate connection of the drug with violence (drawing on the tradition of the Assassins, an Islamic sect who were supposed to take cannabis before committing murders) and sexual promiscuity. Finally, in 1937, through the considerable persuasive powers of Harry J. Anslinger, the first commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, the Marihuana (Marijuana) Tax Act became federal law and in 1956 the drug was incorporated into the more comprehensive Narcotics Act.” — http://www.cannabis.net/hist/index.html

Writers often fail to catch the absurdities of nomenclature in the descriptivism so used. Why did the phrase change from Mari-huana to Mari-juana is it because there is no ‘J’ in illiterate peasant Mexican slang or because the “Phrase” is lost in translation…  thereby confusing people why a PHRASE was outlawed in America, as if it was a substance like milk in a bottle, or a pill in the hand. Researchers do seem to be attempting to keep the facts straight as possible by using the proper terms, but this effort is undermined paradoxically enough by people using whatever catchy slang suits them, not that it matters in atypical conversations. However, when one of those law-enforcement, super-sized SWAT teams are kicking down your doors in the middle of the night to conduct a raid, putting the entire family in immediate and dangerous Harms Way— people may really want to take the extra few minutes to recognize where the law departs from reality. Another pattern is quite clear when considering how these “law enforcement” actions have become more and more violent no matter what the reason may be for the action itself. It is a very small step from shooting dogs, to shooting kids… and those that swear otherwise are not really paying attention to the “Trend” itself.

Another science based report helps to clear up another tiny corner of the THC activity in the human brain. That would be an evolutionary trait, or on the other side of aisle a Created one, by intelligent design:

—“A cannabis-like substance produced by the brain may dampen delusional or psychotic experiences, rather than trigger them. The team’s theory is that rather than triggering psychosis, the substance is released in response to psychotic symptoms to help control them. People with the worst symptoms might be unable to produce sufficient anandamide to prevent them. The new findings suggest antipsychotic drugs could be developed that target the anandamide system, but it will not be simple. The active ingredient in cannabis, THC, binds to anandamide receptors. A study by Castle, also reported at the Melbourne meeting, has found that people use the drug to get rid of unpleasant emotions associated with the disease such as anxiety and depression.”http://web.archive.org/web/20080209160543/http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6324

Now isn’t that an excellent reason for drug SWAT teams busting into homes or Medical Cannabis dispensaries? Why the nerve of people trying to get rid of those “unpleasant feelings” without a proper license is simply outrageous… are people so blind they cannot see that the law allows no self-medication? Along the odious line here is the same logic which will outlaw oranges because they contain not only “Vitamins” but the juice produces a good feeling. People get high on those good feelings and that simply cannot be allowed. If you are a totalitarian ass-wipe of course.

I found this last entry on this winding road to “illuminate” another one of those fuzzy corners of Human Rights, where conspiracy theory blocks common sense the way a brick wall stops a nose.

–“The 7 Drug Categories”

–“Physicians have long recognized that different types of drugs affect people differently. Nonetheless, drugs may be categorized or classified according to certain shared symp-tomato-logies or effects. The DRE categorization process is premised on these long-standing, medically accepted facts. DREs classify drugs in one of seven categories: Central Nervous System (CNS) Depressants, **CNS Stimulants, Hallucinogens, Phencyclidine (PCP) and its analogs, Narcotic Analgesics, Inhalants, and Cannabis. Drugs from each of these categories can affect a person’s central nervous system an impair a person’s normal faculties, including a person’s ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.


(3) Hallucinogens

Hallucinogens cause the user to perceive things differently than they actually are. Examples include LSD, Peyote, Psilocybin and MDMA (Ecstasy).

(7) Cannabis

Cannabis is the scientific name for marijuana[Good Feeling]. The active ingredient in cannabis is delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC. This category includes cannabinoids and synthetics like Dronabinol.  http://www.decp.org/experts/7categories.htm

–“Marijuana [Good Feeling] is derived from the Indian hemp plant, Cannabis sativa, a member of the Cannabaceae family. All types of cannabis strains – both male and female plants – produce THC, the active ingredient that, when smoked or ingested, intoxicates the user. This substance can be detected in every part of the plant, including the stems. The highest concentration of THC, however, is found in the resin, which is most abundant in the flowers of female plants.

–“Marijuana cannot be easily classified. It is described as a psychogenic (a cannabinoid), a narcotic (although it does not contain opium), and a hallucinogen (the USA government’s designation). Each of these definitions, however, is a compromise. Opinion is further divided on whether the drug is a **CNS stimulant or a depressant. Controversy also rages over marijuana’s [Good Feeling] medicinal properties, which are alleged and denied fiercely by proponents and detractors, respectively. One fact remains indisputable: marijuana [Good Feeling] is the most abused illegal drug in the world.

–“More than 400 chemical compounds have been identified in marijuana[Good Feeling]. Approximately 60 of these are unique to the cannabis plant and these substances are called cannabinoids. Of the cannabinoids, a group of isomers called tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) are thought to be the most psychoactive. These are ∆1-THC (also called ∆9-THC) and ∆6-THC (also called ∆8-THC). Other cannabinoids include cannabidiolic acid (CBDA), cannabidiol (CBD), and cannabinol (CBN). Their role in marijuana [Good Feeling] intoxication is not completely understood. The amount of THC produced depends on the strain of cannabis and on environmental factors such as growth, harvest, and storage conditions.

–“After years of relative tolerance, however, mandatory sentences for drug-related crimes were reinstated in 1986 by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which tied criminal penalties to the quantities of drugs involved. Later amendments to the act further tightened the judicial noose with a “three-strikes” clause and capital punishment for high-level criminals. Marijuana [Good Feeling] trafficking is vigorously prosecuted in the United States, with the FBI reporting that nearly half of its 1.5 million drug arrests in 2000 were for marijuana[Good Feeling]. More than 87% of these arrests were for possession. First-offense convictions for possession of less than 110 lbs (50 kg) of marijuana [Good Feeling] are punishable by up to five years in prison and fines of up to $250,000 for an individual. Those convicted of possessing more than 2,205 lbs (1,000 kg) of marijuana [Good Feeling] face up to life in prison and fines of up to $4,000,000.” — http://www.toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/Marijuana

The question of does the fine, or the punishment fit the crime is the last factor where prejudice has worked its rotten magic. What better way to ensure that people, will never have a smidgen of sympathy for those “worthless drug-users”, than to constantly heap abuse upon them, by every method so productive. Criminal extortion by the feds is of course the final nail in this “Criminal Conspiracy” where the crime is a fiction, but not the evil genius behind the grand purpose itself, which is to Divide and conquer.

Worked like a charm.

Considering the tens-of-billions in the prison rackets, along side the “Judicial Process” racket, plus all of the peripheral sums so generated, on both sides of the economic pie and keep counting the number of reasons why the “Evil Genius” behind the drug racket picked an essentially harmless plant to use and abuse in a guaranteed profit making venture. A racket, substantially controlled by the darkest side of the syndicate, thereby, ensuring the absolute worst elements will always be fighting for a piece of the turf, and the spoils, which enhance the notoriety, fueling the young and old alike, to be those Rebels without a clue. How easy it is for the Media to then come along and point that ignorant finger of blame and guilt… and so the entire sordid mess morphs along engulfing one generation after another.

Inhaling was never the problem, so intoned Mr. Clinton. It was ignoring the hypocrisy after all.




Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: