The War on Excuses: Why Cannabis Should Be Legalised

[jabez]

americanchronicle.com

 

The War on Excuses: Why Cannabis Should Be Legalised

 

This is not a new debate, it has raged on through the late 20th Century and through to our current Dark Year of Our Lord 2008. Everyone knows that cannabis is illegal, ignorance is no excuse for being caught at midnight in the middle of a park with a big joint hanging out of your mouth and singing songs of religious praise with an ironic twinge, and I´d imagine the police would come down pretty hard on you for at least two things in that sentence. But the big question is why? Why has this small plant become the object for so much political hate, at least in the open? I have money riding on a suspicion that the entire of the old Clinton administration was based on a bet between a load of high Government students at University College, Oxford. As Bill Hicks said "Doesn´t making nature illegal just seem a little odd?"

 

So why has nature been illegalised? Well, let´s travel back in time to August 2nd, 1937. The date of the Marijuana Tax Act was passed making cannabis illegal at a federal level. Here is more or less what happened at the committee that day

 

Member from upstate New York: "Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?"

 

Speaker Rayburn: "I don't know. It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it's a narcotic of some kind."

 

"Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?"

 

Member on the committee jumps up and says: "Their Doctor Wentworth [sic] came down here. They support this bill 100 percent."

 

Ah, so the AMA jumped in and declared its undying support. Hmm… doesn´t seem like the AMA to just drop in support like that. And indeed it didn´t. The Act was passed because the committee member, whoever he was (and we can almost guarantee he was a die-hard conservative with a white wedding and a black gardener working below minimum wage.) lied. What actually happened was in a previous discussion, an AMA member, by the name of Dr. William C. Woodward jumped up and actually spoke out against the Bill.

 

"That there is a certain amount of narcotic addiction of an objectionable character no one will deny. The newspapers have called attention to it so prominently that there must be some grounds for [their] statements. It has surprised me, however, that the facts on which these statements have been based have not been brought before this committee by competent primary evidence. We are referred to newspaper publications concerning the prevalence of marihuana addiction. We are told that the use of marihuana causes crime.

 

But yet no one has been produced from the Bureau of Prisons to show the number of prisoners who have been found addicted to the marihuana habit. An informed inquiry shows that the Bureau of Prisons has no evidence on that point.

 

You have been told that school children are great users of marihuana cigarettes. No one has been summoned from the Children's Bureau to show the nature and extent of the habit, among children.

 

Inquiry of the Children's Bureau shows that they have had no occasion to investigate it and know nothing particularly of it.

 

Inquiry of the Office of Education--- and they certainly should know something of the prevalence of the habit among the school children of the country, if there is a prevalent habit--- indicates that they have had no occasion to investigate and know nothing of it.

 

Moreover, there is in the Treasury Department itself, the Public Health Service, with its Division of Mental Hygiene. The Division of Mental Hygiene was, in the first place, the Division of Narcotics. It was converted into the Division of Mental Hygiene, I think, about 1930. That particular Bureau has control at the present time of the narcotics farms that were created about 1929 or 1930 and came into operation a few years later. No one has been summoned from that Bureau to give evidence on that point.

 

Informal inquiry by me indicates that they have had no record of any marihuana of Cannabis addicts who have ever been committed to those farms.

 

The bureau of Public Health Service has also a division of pharmacology. If you desire evidence as to the pharmacology of Cannabis, that obviously is the place where you can get direct and primary evidence, rather than the indirect hearsay evidence."

 

Ok, so we know the AMA didn´t give their undying support. They kind of stood in the middle, a little perplexed by the evidence-less evidence being given. Which, given the fact that you would, maybe just, expect evidence to be given if you were about to ban a substance and throw peace-loving hippies into jail for having an interest in it, is understandable. In fact the ´evidence´ was a series of articles published in papers owned by William Randolph Hearst, who developed a new kind of journalism which some have taken to call ´yellow journalism´ but the truth-lovers such as myself have taken to calling ´lies´. An example of the stellar journalism undertaken on cannabis by Hearst´s papers comes from the San Francisco Examiner;

 

 

"Marihuana makes fiends of boys in thirty days -- Hashish goads users to bloodlust."

 

This is just not conceivably true. Have you ever seen a high person violent? It doesn´t happen, mainly because they simply cannot be bothered. I wouldn´t expect an altercation between two high people to last more than 48 seconds exactly, at which point one decides they can´t be bothered and sits down, the others skulks off in search of food. Though San Francisco has an agenda as its biggest market is amyls for its ´club members´. Another example of what doesn´t happen, from the same paper:

 

"By the tons it is coming into this country -- the deadly, dreadful poison that racks and tears not only the body, but the very heart and soul of every human being who once becomes a slave to it in any of its cruel and devastating forms.... Marihuana is a short cut to the insane asylum. Smoke marihuana cigarettes for a month and what was once your brain will be nothing but a storehouse of horrid spectres. Hasheesh makes a murderer who kills for the love of killing out of the mildest mannered man who ever laughed at the idea that any habit could ever get him...."

 

Hmm… not quite sure I can take that with any degree of seriousness, but unfortunately people did.

 

But, I hear you ask, why would somebody come up with this stuff? There must be a reason? There is. The reason is, Mexicans. Mexicans were fleeing Pancho Villa into the states, and taking cannabis with them. So there was a little bit of a ´guilty by association´ note trailing Cannabis at the time. So Hearst could sell lots of papers telling stories about wild, axe-murdering gringo´s running wild in the streets, high on marijuana, chasing white women ripe for a raping. And also Hearst lost 800,000 acres of land to Villa, so had a little bit of a personal grudge against the Mexicans anyway. But, unfortunately, Hearst was backed by another man; Henry J. Anslinger, the newly appointed head of the newly created Bureau of Narcotics, who turned his sights away from opium and cocaine, to cannabis in order to further his own position in this massive career opportunity, who also played up on the idea that cannabis made minorities violent and horny in his ´Gore Files´, which contains quotes so wild that the man must have been sampling his own evidence just to come up with it. For example:

 

"You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother."

 

"Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."

 

Considering that most days I have an urge to kill my brothers anyway, I would have argued whisky was a more likely candidate for a catalyst in murder.

 

So we can see that the case for the illegalisation of cannabis is stooped in racism, spin and all-out lies. It was a matter of convenience if anything, they had alcohol prohibited at the time, why not throw a couple of more recreational drugs in the bag as well. Difference is, they re-introduced alcohol, and ironically alcohol is far more dangerous, causes far more crime and violence than cannabis ever did.

 

The main argument for the sustained illegalisation of cannabis is the idea that it sits as a ´gateway drug´. Like some kind of angler fish that draws you in and eats you when you least expect it. Some would have you believe that 8 days after your first spliff you´ll go crazy on meth and shoot up a shopping centre. But I think you´ll find that cannabis is not a ´gateway drug´. No more than alcohol is the ´gateway drug´ to Secanol. The gateway is the dealers, who may sell you something else alongside, purely because it is available. The dealers are the gateway, the drug is not. Say it with me people, "The dealers are the gateway, the drug is not". Legalising cannabis would remove this gateway aspect and a large criminal element that relies on cannabis as its main sale.

 

I will conclude this rant safe in the knowledge that some people who have read this will be a little enlightened; maybe I changed a few opinions. But I will sign off by saying that all this article is trying to say, and is damn well presenting the facts for. Is that cannabis should be legal for one reason and one reason only; there is no reason for it to be. The illegalisation was based on lies and racism backed up by faulty government bodies and insanely poor journalism. Let its legalisation be based on one of the few values that us people should hold above all others, the truth.

[DeeW]

totally agree keep working on em

[Amdrew]

Fantastic read! I want to know about the Cannabis law history in other countries, surely the US didn't have that big of an effect that they changed the minds of every western country.

[iamnotacop]

Is that cannabis should be legal for one reason and one reason only; there is no reason for it to be.

 

Huh??

[67Special]

I thought it was just a typo and was meant to read "no reason for it not to be."

[Al Fish]

From One Who Does

To Those That Don't

 

To those who don't approve of Cannabis I say, “Go fuck yourselves”. There's no point arguing. All the voluminous medical evidence, dusty Royal Commissions, common anecdotal hearsay and painful – but obviously not painful enough - lessons of history, prove beyond a scintilla of doubt that Marijuana is a Spiritual gift from the Divine Realm! Proof of God as some infinitely gentle, infinitely stoned thing.

 

To the inhibited nay-sayers, invasive do-gooders, intellectual cripples, spiritual robots and their rich, expensive conglomerate of bureaucratic dependants I say, “Be off with you and leave me to my cones!” How fucking dare they? Who do they think they are?

 

Some tight-arsed, holier-than-thou, mummy-knows-best seat-warmer vomits double-think founded on cognitive dissonance. Media harlots with cheque-books and microphone street-walk: repeating themselves, like all of our yesterdays. “I never swallowed...” Wave a bit if rag on a stick. Beat the same old drum. Always works. Give your mind to the repressionists: too much cholesterol, premature ejaculation, cellulite, everybody gets more sex than me, decaffeinated carbon footprints and every other fascination – until back to black!

 

To those who don't approve of Cannabis I say, “Do us a favour and eat your children. Take up a hobby. Get your head out of your arse and your hand out of my pocket. Who put those fingerprints on your imagination? What more evidence; what more proof do you fucking need? Its a plant!” At a time when we share the world with so many, why do we feel so separate and alone? A future which holds so much promise blinds us with fear - for we have the ability to realise both our dreams and our nightmares. And it is within this context, as part of a dysfunctional society full of self-evident fuck-wits with adolescent mindsets, on a planet raped by ignorance and stupidity that I turn to Marijuana for consolation.

 

I don't want to reach one hundred! If one of my organs is still in working order when I die, I will not have fully lived! If you want to interact with the world of horrors through a constant haze of rushed prejudice, quick anger and meaningless frustration that's fine by me. Just leave me to the side with my bong, coffee cup and tobacco pipe.

 

In short, “GET FUCKED!”

 

Al.

[brick]

From One Who Does

To Those That Don't

 

To those who don't approve of Cannabis I say, “Go fuck yourselves”. There's no point arguing. All the voluminous medical evidence, dusty Royal Commissions, common anecdotal hearsay and painful – but obviously not painful enough - lessons of history, prove beyond a scintilla of doubt that Marijuana is a Spiritual gift from the Divine Realm! Proof of God as some infinitely gentle, infinitely stoned thing.

 

To the inhibited nay-sayers, invasive do-gooders, intellectual cripples, spiritual robots and their rich, expensive conglomerate of bureaucratic dependants I say, “Be off with you and leave me to my cones!” How fucking dare they? Who do they think they are?

 

Some tight-arsed, holier-than-thou, mummy-knows-best seat-warmer vomits double-think founded on cognitive dissonance. Media harlots with cheque-books and microphone street-walk: repeating themselves, like all of our yesterdays. “I never swallowed...” Wave a bit if rag on a stick. Beat the same old drum. Always works. Give your mind to the repressionists: too much cholesterol, premature ejaculation, cellulite, everybody gets more sex than me, decaffeinated carbon footprints and every other fascination – until back to black!

 

To those who don't approve of Cannabis I say, “Do us a favour and eat your children. Take up a hobby. Get your head out of your arse and your hand out of my pocket. Who put those fingerprints on your imagination? What more evidence; what more proof do you fucking need? Its a plant!” At a time when we share the world with so many, why do we feel so separate and alone? A future which holds so much promise blinds us with fear - for we have the ability to realise both our dreams and our nightmares. And it is within this context, as part of a dysfunctional society full of self-evident fuck-wits with adolescent mindsets, on a planet raped by ignorance and stupidity that I turn to Marijuana for consolation.

 

I don't want to reach one hundred! If one of my organs is still in working order when I die, I will not have fully lived! If you want to interact with the world of horrors through a constant haze of rushed prejudice, quick anger and meaningless frustration that's fine by me. Just leave me to the side with my bong, coffee cup and tobacco pipe.

 

In short, “GET FUCKED!”

 

Al.

 

A fucking men Al Amen!!!!!!

[hydroponics]

Ganja is dissliked by the governments as it helps people to be themselves, become free of regulations and violence. That makes people "unmanageble" for the government which uses us for their own profit.

[mull]

What Al said!

 

Recently someone put up a page full of links which is here (thanks for that)

 

http://www.textfiles.com/drugs/

 

 

There you can find this for a read..

 

 

http://www.textfiles.com/drugs/acid_dre.txt

 

 

First part is interesting, assuming some truth to it.

Seems that about 5 years after the marijuana tax act passed, members of the OSS (pre-CIA) were having a good old scoof of thc.

All in the name of Truth Drug research.

During war, in 1942.

 

Whether truth or not, its a great read. Especially the quote at the end of this excerpt.

 

 

 

 

_ACID DREAMS_

The CIA, LSD and the Sixties Rebellion

 

Martin A Lee and Bruce Shlain

Grove Press, New York: 1985

ISBN 0-394-55013-7

 

 

chapter 1

IN THE BEGINNING THERE WAS MADNESS...

 

 

The Truth Seekers

 

 

In the spring of 1942, General William "Wild Bill" Donovan, chief of the

OSS, the CIA's wartime predecessor, assembled a half-dozen prestigious

American scientists and asked them to undertake a top-secret research

program. Their mission, Donovan explained, was to develop a

speech-inducing drug for use in intelligence interrogations. He

insisted that the need for such a weapon was so acute as to warrant any

and every attempt to find it.

 

The use of drugs by secret agents had long been a part of

cloak-and-dagger folklore, but this would be the first concerted attempt

on the part of an American espionage organization to modify human

behavior through chemical means. "We were not afraid to try things that

had never been done before," asserted Donovan, who was known for his

freewheeling and unconventional approach to the spy trade. The OSS

chief pressed his associates to come up with a substance that could

break down the psychological defenses of enemy spies and POWs, thereby

causing an uninhibited disclosure of classified information. Such a

drug would also be useful for screening OSS personnel in order to

identify German sympathizers, double-agents, and potential misfits.

 

Dr Windfred Overhulser, superintendent of Saint Elizabeth's Hospital in

Washington, DC, was appointed chairman of the research committee. Other

members included Dr Edward Strecker (then president of the American

Psychiatric Association) and Harry J Anslinger (head of the Federal

Bureau of Narcotics). The committee surveyed and rejected numerous

drugs -- including alcohol, barbituates, and caffeine. Peyote and

scopolamine were also tested, but the visions produced by these

substances interfered with the interrogation process. Eventually,

marijuana was chosen as the most likely candidate for a speech-inducing

agent.

 

OSS scientists created a highly-potent extract of cannabis and, through

a process known as esterification, a clear and viscous liquid was

obtained. The final product had no color, odor, or taste. It would be

nearly impossible to detect when administered surreptitiously -- which

is exactly what the spies intended to do. "There is no reason to

believe that any other nation or group is familiar with the preparation

of this particular drug," stated one classified OSS document.

Henceforth, the OSS referred to the marijuana extract as "TD" -- a

rather transparent cover for "Truth Drug".

 

Various ways of administering TD were tried upon witting and unwitting

subjects. OSS operatives found that the medicated goo could "be

injected into any type of food, such as mashed potatoes, butter, salad

dressing, or in such things as candy." Another scheme relied on using

facial tissues impregnated with the drug. But these methods had

drawbacks. What if someone had a particularly ravenous appetite? Too

much TD could knock a subject out and render him useless for

interrogation. The OSS eventually determined that the best approach

involved the use of a hypodermic syringe to inject a diluted TD solution

into a cigarette or cigar. After smoking such an item, the subject

would get suitably stoned, at which point a skillful interrogator would

move in and try to get him to spill the beans.

 

The effects of TD were described in an OSS report:

 

"TD appears to relax all inhibitions and to deaden the areas of the

brain which govern an individual's discretion and caution. It

accentuates the senses and makes manifest any strong

characteristics of the individual. Sexual inhibitions are lowered,

and the sense of humor is accentuated to the point where any

statement or situation can become extremely funny to the subject.

On the other hand, a person's unpleasant characteristics may also

be heightened. It may be stated that, generally speaking, the

reaction will be one of great loquacity and hilarity."

 

(This was a rather mild and playful assessment of the effects of

marijuana compared to the public rantings of Harry Anslinger, the

narcotics chief, who orchestrated an unrelenting media campaign against

"the killer weed".)

 

After testing TD on themselves, their associates, and US military

personnel, OSS agents utilized the drug operationally, although on a

limited basis. The results were mixed. In certain circumstances, TD

subjects felt a driving necessity "to discuss psychologically-charged

topics. Whatever the individual is trying to withhold will be forced to

the top of his subconscious mind." But there were also those who

experienced "toxic reactions" -- better known in latter-day lingo as

"bummers". One unwitting doper became irritable and threatening and

complained of feeling like he was "two different people". The peculiar

nature of his symptoms precluded any attempt to question him.

 

That was how it went, from one extreme to the other. At times, TD

seemed to stimulate "a rush of talk"; on other occasions, people got

paranoid and didn't say a word. The lack of consistency proved to be a

major stumbling block and "Donovan's dreamers" -- as his enthusiastic

OSS staffers have been called -- reluctantly weaned themselves from

their reefer madness. A handwritten comment in the margins of an OSS

document summed up their stoned escapades:

 

"The drug defies all but the most expert and searching analysis

and, for all practical purposes, can be considered beyond

analysis."