Slashdot Mirror

I found this talk when I was doing a research paper for a sociology class. Its well-written and very funny, and does an excellent job of pointing just how ridiculous and arbitrary marijuana prohibition is. Section V - C - 2 is especially memorable.

http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/LIBRARY/studies/vlr/vlrtoc.htm

Nope..that got struck down, the marijuana tax laws were ruled unconstitutional by a case for the conviction of Timothy Learn (I think this is the case)...basically they ruled the recursive jeopardy of the tax law, having to have a tax stamp to have the drugs, but, you had to had the drugs first to get the stamp, but, that would be illegal to have the drugs...etc. That this basically forced you to incriminate yourself.

This ruling blew Nixon's mind...and the they came up with the drug "Scheduling" system we have today. But, again...how did they get away with this way to ban drugs....again, it took a constitutional amendment for booze....which in many cases is arguably a lesser level drug.

"Timothy Leary's dead...no, no no no he's outside...looking in..."

-The Moody Blues.

"The Consumer Union's Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs", 1972, Consumer's Union

I usually detest peoples' hyped up assertions such as the title of this post, but in this case I think it's almost subdued in comparison to the facts of the matter.

Due in large part to the contents of this book, marijuana was almost legalized ... during the *Nixon* administration. Yes, that's when us long hairs were making a lot of noise about many things, including drugs. But we had very little power then. It wasn't us who was attempting to change the law.

Reading this book is like finding out that the tin foil hat crowd was right all along. This story is a conspiracy theory that happens to be true. This book provides the evidence, with references. It is an even handed historical recounting. It's hard for some people to believe it's even handed because the conclusion and its supporting evidence are so drastically lop sided.

The summary is that the war on drug users started as and continues to be conducted for the economic benefit of the drug manufacturers and sellers that can guarantee sufficient tax income to the government. And more recently for the direct benefit of the government since they can now seize any property belonging to anyone they care to arrest.

I was a substance abuse counselor for 3.5 years, and addiction remained one of my main interests through my PhD and beyond. The worst bodily harm comes from two drugs that are both legal: tobacco and alcohol. The worst withdrawals come from these two, plus another legal drug (or class thereof), benzodiazapines (valium family). I would rather a person use any drug, legal or illegal, other than these 3. Withdrawal from tobacco won't kill you, but the other two can.

The bottom line is the URL for the book. If you care about this subject, no matter what side of any part of the argument, you really should read this book in order to learn how things came to be the way they are. It is one of the best, but certainly not the only, example of psyops (psychological operations) perpetrated by the US government on its own citizens. That's not hyperbole -- I studied that subject too.

It's available in its entirety at: http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/LIBRARY/studies/cu/cumenu.htm

http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/ACTIVIST/showstop.htm

I have here a list of every major study of drug policy in the last fifty years. Every one of them recommended decriminalization. Do you agree that the overwhelming weight of the scholarly evidence on drug policy supports decriminalization?

Last I heard it was only physically possible for about 23% THC production in the trichrome due to the size of the pocket inside of the gland.

The Montreal Police Department asserted that we have 25% THC in our Quebec Gold http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/canadasenate/vol1/chapter5_thc_concentrations.htm

La Belle Province indeed

1. Acute panic reaction.

The acute panic reactions associated with cannabis are similar to those previously reported to be caused by hallucinogens. ...

Depersonalization may be more long-lasting and recurrent, somewhat akin to "flashbacks" reported following hallucinogens;

These unpleasant experiences were not always associated with unfamiliarity with the drug; some subjects experienced these adverse reactions after repeated use

Very high doses of cannabis may evoke a toxic delirium...

3. Acute paranoid states.
In a laboratory setting, they are frequently encountered. .. ...but has been reported fairly often with cannabis use. ...experience indicates that it occurs in those whose sole drug use is cannabis...

4. Psychoses.

A variety of psychotic reactions have been ascribed to cannabis use. Many are difficult to fit into the usual diagnostic classifications. Two cases of manic reaction were reported in children who were repeatedly exposed to cannabis by elders. Both required treatment with antipsychotic drugs but ultimately showed a full recovery (16). Hypomania, with persecutory delusions, auditory hallucinations, withdrawal, and thought disorder, was observed in four jamaican subjects who had increased their use of marijuana (71). Twenty psychotic patients admitted to a mental hospital with high urinary cannabinoid levels were compared with 20 such patients with no evidence of exposure to cannabis. The former group was more agitated and hypomanic but showed less affective flattening, auditory hallucinations, incoherence of speech, and hysteria than the 20 matched control patients. The cannabis patients improved considerably after a week, while the control patients were essentially unchanged (146). Thus, a self-limiting hypomanic-schizophrenic-like psychoses following marijuana has been documented.

http://www.druglibrary.org/SCHAFFER/hemp/medical/hollis1.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPPD#What_causes_HPPD.3F

http://www.erowid.org/experiences/subs/exp_Cannabis.shtml

There's evidence, you just have to seek it.

I looked it up and you are correct -- I'm happy to see I was behind the times on my opinion of the AMA regarding cannabis use.

Hemp is a pretty big interest of mine. There are many things hemp can do used for, hemp is probably the most industrially useful plants there is. It can be used for clothing, fiber, food, fuel, medicine, and plastic among other uses. Throughout much of history hemp has been put to use by society. Heck even artists have used hemp. The canvas painters used to paint on comes from hemp, "canvas" comes from "cannabis". The only reason hemp was made illegal, by the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, was because it posed a threat to some rich and powerful people. Plastic was originally made from plants with hemp being one of the sources for Bioplastic. The camera company Kodak made plastic, such as used for film, from plants. However in the mid '30s DuPont was granted a patent on making plastic from petroleum oil. Henry Ford built a vehicle on his Iron Mountain Estate not only with plastic made from hemp but was also powered by ethanol made from hemp. Hemp he grew on the estate. Using hemp to make fuel was a threat to Rockefeller of Standard Oil. Also in the mid '30s MIT published a study showing an acre of hemp made more pulp for paper than an acre of forest. Because he owned thousands of acres of forest he used for making paper, Newspaperman William Randolph Hearst saw hemp as a threat. What I find ironic about this is that the January 1938 issue of "Popular Mechanics" published an article calling hemp the "New Billion Dollar Crop", and Hearst's publishing company owns PM.

It was Harry J Anslinger, as head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, who pushed to make hemp illegal. And Anslinger was the nephew-in-law of Andrew W. Mellon, who was the Treasury Secretary under Roosevelt as well as the Mellon from Mellon Bank. And DuPont's biggest financial backer, banker, was Mellon. So in the end hemp was made illegal strictly because some wealthy people saw it as a threat.

Actually, pot was legal throughout prohibition. Is was the http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/taxact.htm Marijuana Tax Stamp Act of 1937 that caused pot to become verboten.

For a good history of the legal process that resulted in pot being illegal, see http://www.adrugwarcarol.com./ For more general information, please see http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/, a truely impressive compendium of information on the topic.

Hmmm, I don't know. I've seen some pretty crazy arguments about filesharing, but I don't know that I've ever seen a quote that quite rivals this one.

"With all the press present at this flamboyant murder trial in Newark New Jersey, in 1938, the pharmacologist said, and I quote, in response to the question "When you used the drug, what happened?", his exact response was: "After two puffs on a marijuana cigarette, I was turned into a bat."

He wasn't done yet. He testified that he flew around the room for fifteen minutes and then found himself at the bottom of a two-hundred-foot high ink well"

Quite possibly, but that means I always have someone to talk to. Wikipedia also has nice articles on Ad hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem and Red Herring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring arguments. But they were also probably written by some druggie fool. If the druggies are writing them, lord knows they seem to write well and to be able to collect facts and prepare reasoned arguments in spite of their impaired condition. It must be the drugs talking, because it couldn't possibly be that the writers are reasonably intelligent, competent, and functional despite their horribly destructive behavior. :-)

In all seriousness, the data is pretty clear, collected from sources that are primarily funded by the US government, that the vast majority of recreational drugs users lead quite normal, productive lives. A good, primary source is SAMHSAhttp://www.samhsa.gov/index.aspx. The data is equally clear that the drug that ruins more people's lives than any other is alcohol. The usage profiles and physiology associated with pot and LSD, for example, simply don't support the assertions that they should be demonized the way they are. Neither is toxic, for example, while alcohol is. Neither induces aggression and violence (Source: DOJ study, 1994). Alcohol does. Neither leads to physical withdrawal when usage is ceased. Alcohol does. These are not wikipedic suppositions, they are agreed on clinical facts. Ask a cop who he'd rather face, a drunk or a stoner.

Your hostility is kind of interesting. It suggests strongly that you are not confident of your data. It would cost you nothing to browse Cliff Shaffer's libraryhttp://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/index.htm, a truly impressive compendium of material on the subject. The current position of the US costs you about $250/year for every person in your household. We might all save a little money if we rethought it.

Question: As you know, in the Netherlands they have very few inhibitions about hemp (and related crops). So, are farmers in that country growing lots of hemp? Why not, if it has so many profitable uses?

I don't know how much hemp is grown in the Netherlands. However according to this over four hundred thousand acres of hemp were cultivated in the US between 1942 and 1945. The federal government made the movie "Hemp for Victory" to encourage farmers to grow it. It was important for the war effort.

That's some really interesting information - I am surprised that the federal rules are as harsh as they are. It looks like the moral is to be charge by state enforcement and not federal.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/moscone/c hap3.htm

http://www.canorml.org/laws/calmjlaws.html

So in california, smoking a joint in your home (first offense): misdemeanor.
Anything having to do with selling: felony.

That doesn't surprise me.

Looks like it's about the same in Kansas (random sample):
http://www.norml.org/pdf_files/state_penalties/NOR ML_KS_State_Penalties.pdf

Here's something that may encourage safer drugs of abuse. It's easier to beat the drug tests after marijuana than after cocaine.

(Doctors told me that it's safe for a healthy person to drink a gallon of water, but maybe not if they have kidney disease. Ironically, one of the cases in the medical literature of someone being injured from water intoxication was a woman who was forced by her employer to drink water in order to give a urine sample for a drug test.)

Here's a report from the Schaffer Drug Library http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/drinkwate r.htm

SIMPLE WAY TO BEAT URINE TESTS -- JUST DRINK WATER

Report from American Academy of Forensic Sciences

Forensic Drug Abuse Advisor, Vol. 6, Issue 3, March 1994

Workplace drug testing programs can be foiled by adulterating the specimen, and the adulterants can be added inside or outside of the body. Last summer it became apparent that many peole were cheating by adding solutions of concentrated glutaraldehyde (Urinaid) to their voided sample. New data, presented in February at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS), suggests that there is a simpler way to foil urine screening tests: drink lots of water.

Dr. Edward Cone of the Addiction Research Center (ARC) in Baltimore, described the results of a study he had undertaken at the request of Donna Smith, Acting Director of the Department of Transportation's (DOT) Office of Drug Enforcement. Smith was concerned that advertising claims for some herbal teas and "internal cleansing" agents might actually be true. Cone was at first skeptical, but, as he reported at the AAFS meeting, the study was a "sleeper."

Cone set up a series of experiments designed to assess the effect of various measures on "in vivo adulteration." Two of the most popular "teas" were chosen for study; Naturally Klean Herbal Tea" and "Golden Seal" root capsules. Healthy drug-free volunteers with a history of recent drug use were recruited for the study. They were housed in a closed ward for six weeks. The participants were tested under a number of different protocols during that six week period.

At 9:00 AM on the morning of Day One the study subjects smoked a standardized marijuana cigarette (3.58% THC). On Day Three they snorted 40 mg of cocaine. Twenty three hours after each drug was given, they drank one of the following combinations: (1) "Naturally Klean Herbal Tea" in one gallon of water, (2) one gallon of water without any "cleansing agent" (3) one gallon of water with 50 mg of hydrochlorothiadize (a diuretic), (4) four "Golden Seal" capsules and one gallon of water, or (5) twelve ounces of water. Each participant was tested under each protocol and all of the urine was collected.

The urine specimens were then tested by EMIT II assay for cannabinoids at a 50 ng / ml cutoff, and cocaine at a 300 ng / ml cutoff. Specific gravity and creatinine content was measured for each sample, and the two indicators were found to co-vary almost identically. Just drinking 12 ounces of water was enough to cause a significant decrease in both specific gravity and creatinine, but not enough to cause a negative test response. For example, urine cannabinoids levels which were higher than 10,000 ng / ml dropped to the low 100's after drinking 12 ounces of water. After drinking a gallon of water, with or without one of the "cleansing agents" added, it only took an hour for the specific gravity to drop to less than 1.005.

When one gallon of water was drunk, not only did specific gravity fall to very low levels (creatinine20, and specific gravity 1.003), but the marijuana assay turned negative and stayed that way, even after specific gravity levels had returned to normal! The cocaine tests turned negative for a few hours, but then turned positive again. The same results were observed whether or not tea was used, however, when diuretics were given, the test for both cannabinoids a

Are you familiar with the Harrison Narcotics Act (1914)

or perhaps the Marihauna Tax Act (1937) or, the coup de grace. The Controlled Substances Act

Ok all drug laws. All aimed at reducing recreational abuse of drugs. We can debate the social utility of this sort of measure. We can debate their overall efficacy, etc. The reason I bring them up is... notice the change over all these years.

Up through the late 1930s, the method of enacting this policy was by the imposition of taxes. By 1970, we are actually using federal law to make actions which can happen entirely within the bounds of a state, between legal adults, a violation of federal law.

If this isn't a severe encroachment, I don't know what is.

-Steve

Actually, you're wrong (sort of).

My mom, Ethel McIntosh, worked as the Executive Assistant to Chairman Raymond P. Shafer on the 1972 National Commission on Marihuana[sic] and Drug Abuse (sometimes called the "Shafer Commission").

Their report, Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, which was QUITE well researched, concluded that MARIJUANA SHOULD BE DECRIMINALIZED.

Without going into all the fascinating details about how Nixon wouldn't let them present the Report to him in the Oval Office (as is the norm for these types of Commissions), but rather made them go to some little hotel on the other side of town to "present" it to an AIDE (thus GUARANTEEING zero Press coverage!), suffice it to say that this report p.o.'ed President Nixon SO badly that he BURIED the report. Which is why you could make your statement with a clear, but ill-informed, conscience.

BTW, I do agree that this report WAS buried for no good reason, and that the 'War On Drugs', just like every other 'War on [x]', is little more than an excuse for Gummint to encroach further and further upon our liberty as Amurikans.

Although I have not personally read this book (but I will now), apparently, the rejection and burial of the "Shafer Commission" report has been very well researched and documented in this book, Smoke and Mirrors: The War on Drugs and the Politics of Failure, by Dan Baum.

Actually, you're wrong (sort of).

My mom, Ethel McIntosh, worked as the Executive Assistant to Chairman Raymond P. Shafer on the 1972 National Commission on Marihuana[sic] and Drug Abuse (sometimes called the "Shafer Commission").

Their report, Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, which was QUITE well researched, concluded that MARIJUANA SHOULD BE DECRIMINALIZED.

Without going into all the fascinating details about how Nixon wouldn't let them present the Report to him in the Oval Office (as is the norm for these types of Commissions), but rather made them go to some little hotel on the other side of town to "present" it to an AIDE (thus GUARANTEEING zero Press coverage!), suffice it to say that this report p.o.'ed President Nixon SO badly that he BURIED the report. Which is why you could make your statement with a clear, but ill-informed, conscience.

BTW, I do agree that this report WAS buried for no good reason, and that the 'War On Drugs', just like every other 'War on [x]', is little more than an excuse for Gummint to encroach further and further upon our liberty as Amurikans.

Although I have not personally read this book (but I will now), apparently, the rejection and burial of the "Shafer Commission" report has been very well researched and documented in this book, Smoke and Mirrors: The War on Drugs and the Politics of Failure, by Dan Baum.

But I figure the line has to be drawn somewhere.

The line gets drawn outside my body. What I choose to do inside it no concern of yours; that includes putting certain chemicals in it to alter the functioning of the nervous system.

Drug laws make a mockery of liberty. Keep your laws off my brain.

Maybe the advocates of these are right and they should be legalized - but it's not a terribly important change.

I find liberty, and an adherence to the Constitution by the government, to be terribly important. I'm saddened that you do not. ("Adherence to the Constitution," you ask? Yes. The federal government has no legitimate power to ban possession or intrastate sale of any drug, only to regulate imports and exports and interstate trading. It has far overreached its legitimate powers. Additionally, by their nature laws against consenual activity lead to violations of rights of privacy and due process.)

And then various drugs are forbidden for fear that a plentiful, easy supply of them would create too many addicts in our society and a dangerous trade deficit.

Prohibition leads to unhealthy usage patterns and makes it difficult for addicts to get help; it leads to more addiction and abuse, not less.

The "trade deficit" arguement is a new line of B.S.; since when does the state get to regulate people's lives in order to make them more efficient economic units? If that's the case, better ban TV.

People who involve themselves with these drugs aren't just criminals because there's a law against what they're doing, they're criminals because they've chosen to break that law

In ancient Rome, people who worshiped the wrong diety weren't criminals just because there was a law against what they were doing, they were criminals because they chose to break that law.

In contempory America, in many states people who have any sort of interesting sex life are criminals, not just because there's a law against what they're doing, but because they choose to break that law.

In the U.S. about 150 years ago, people who helped escaping slaves weren't criminals just because there was a law against what they were doing, they were criminals because they chose to break that law.

There is nothing sacred about law. The legislature has no moral authority; when it steps outside of its rightful role as arbitrator of disputes and protector of people's basic rights, it is foolish to continue to follow its dictates; "criminal" becomes a content-free word. Indeed in our overly-regulated contempory society, few people get through a week without commiting a criminal act.

Now, supposing pot were legalized - would American society decay into ruin?

American society survived quite well prior to passage of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act in 1932.

Except unlike broken glass, nearly all the negative effects of opiates are due to their legal status.

For example, overdoses are due to people not knowing the strength of the drug. Measured doses of pharmaceutical heroin would fix that. Drug related crime occurs because people can't afford the black market markup. Pharmaceutical morphine costs pennies a dose to manufacture.

Heroin addiction itself is actually quite benign. It is not toxic to the body, and due to tolerance maintained addicts can function quite well. There's no reason that a person being addicted to heroin should be any more notable than if they were addicted to caffeine. When they don't need to spend all day engaged in drug-seeking behavior addicts can do almost anything a sober person can, such as found Johns Hopkins University.

correction:

"A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response." - Judge Francis Young, DEA. (source)

Here's a link I found on the case:

http://www.druglibrary.org/SCHAFFER/legal/l1980/Gr eenwood.htm

Ever come into close contact with nicotine? It's deadly at ~40mg, and horribly corrosive, whilst morphine is a nice bitter powder that's safe up to 100mg for first time users.

As for morphines side effects, is being constipated considered that "nasty", or would the euphoria be considered bad?

Furthermore, the"soldier's disease" is a myth, which should be rather obvious considering the DEA was formed 100 years after the civil war.

As other people have said, the stigma assoicated with drugs is far more due to puritanical ideas about suffering and politics than any real problems.

Dr. Freud recommends cocaine as morphine relief.

But the societal problems of alcohol use remained. Druken driving, domestic abuse, chronic alcohol abuse, physical problems stemming from chronic alcohol use, etc.

No one claims legalization will fix all problems, but it's still a better world to fix some of the problems than none of the problems. Legalization might even make some particular problems worse. However, one needs to compare the total effects of both policies to make a logical choice. In particular, many of the undesirable effects of illegal drugs are really a side effect of them being illegal.

The problem is that simply legalizing dangerous drugs in a complex society is fraught with lots of other problems. Yes, tiny little countries in Europe have experimented with legalization and government control of some very powerful, addicting drugs - I am not sure that this model would translate well in the US. I am also not sure of what mix of regulation and prohibition of drugs would be appropriate in the US, but I am sure the answers are neither simplistic nor easily attained.

Luckily people have already done lots of research. In some ways, it's a cost benefit analysis. Of course, one of the biggest problems is that people don't know and understand the issues well enough to do a logical cost benefit analysis.

After doing research, I've come to the conclusion that legalization is a better solution in terms of liberty, economics, and harm reduction. Of course, legalization doesn't necessarily mean selling drugs out of candy machines. The primary goal is to eliminate the black market and there are many possible legalization strategies...

This is a very scary scenario. And it certainly seem plausible. But does it actually happen? According to this report, only drugs (as in, not drugs AND alcohol) are linked with only 6% of traffic fatalities. Cocaine and/or meth (or amphetamines rather) alone was in in less than or equal to 1.3% of accidents. Now if you are one of those 1.3%, this is significant, but still, this is hardly a leading cause of traffic death.

A couple of nits on this, though I think we are for the most part eye-to-eye...

That's incorrect. My late Grandmother, who was born in 1903 and died in 2003, gave me the lowdown on prohibition. Before prohibition, few women drank, and no women drank publically.

Well, slightly incorrect. Had I written "eligible voters" instead of "adult Americans", I'd have been correct, since women did not yet have the right to vote when Prohibition was passed. Since the original point was about the electorate assenting to a law against something the majority of them do, I'd say the point still stands. But you are correct that Prohibition ushered in social acceptance of women drinking in public.

You say "Perhaps even during it," there was a marked rise in drinking during prohibition. You don't have to take my (or Grandma's) word for it, look up the statistics on how many drank before then after prohibition.

The statistics I've seen showed that alcohol usage did not return to its pre-Prohibition levels until WWII. For instance, see here.

I never seen any statistic that showed a rise in drinking during Prohibition. Any such "statistic" is fairly meaningless anyway; just like the illegal drug usage surveys today, the only way to track an illicit activity is to ask people "Have you committed a felony today?"

I doubt anyone at all refrained from drinking during prohibition.

I don't doubt that some people refrained from drinking, just as I don't doubt that the drug laws deter some people from using drugs. The problem is that the people who will be deterred will entirely consist of light to moderate users, i.e., the people who are the least part of the "problem" that you're trying to address. That's how prohibitions work, take an activity that is harmless to most people but detrimental to a few, restrict the freedom of those who aren't the problem, and heap endless amounts of negative social consequences on those who don't comply to "save them from themselves." Oh, and as a side benefit, expand police state powers while guaranteeing a generous revenue stream to organized crime.

You are completely wrong. But don't take my word for it, read the words of a law professor who has researched it extensively.

some studies have shown it does more damage to your lungs than smoking a pack of cigarrettes.

• They will have to explain away the effects of radioactive heavy metals and nitrosamines in commercial cigarettes, the former produced from cheap phosphate fertilizer and readily uptaken by the tobacco plant, and the latter produced by open-air curing of the tobacco.
• They will have to explain why tobacco chewers get cancer.
• They will have to explain how PACs in the concentrations and duration present in smoke (both tobacco and marijuana) supposedly cause carcinogenic mutations.
• They will have to explain away the antioxidant and anti-tumor properties of cannabinoids.
• They will have to explain away the apoptosis-suppressing (and thus cancer-friendly) effects of nicotine.
• They will have to explain why they cannot unearth a single case of lung cancer or emphysema in a marijuana-ONLY smoker that has no other risk factors. Where are the bodies?
• Speaking of emphysema, THC is an expectorant which means it aids the lungs in clearing smoke particles from the small airways. Nicotine is a vasoconstrictor, which means it does a good job of keeping smoke particles inside the small airways (and raises blood pressure). Asthmatics have successfully used sufficiently potent cannabis to ward off asthma attacks when no other option was available.
• If you still think tobacco and marijuana smoke are the same, why in the heck does tobacco smoke stick to everything and turn it yellow?

Also, nicotine in tobacco smoke raises the heart rate and blood pressure while at the same time the carbon monoxide starves it for oxygen. Marijuana smoke, while containing CO as well raises heart rate but decreases blood pressure. Even if the same amount of marijuana as tobacco was smoked, and the same amount of CO taken in over the same period of time, the vasodilating effects of THC may mitigate heart damage that would otherwise be caused by the CO. It is a good area for further research (with appropriate controls).

If you think smoking is risky, don't smoke it. Make brownies, or use a vaporizer. But the jury is most definitely still out on this one.

Since the beginning of reliable testing in 1980, marijuana potency has remained fairly constant. Were marijuana an "order of magnitude" more potent today than in 1980, it would be 30% THC on average. Where can I get some?

Well, I'm not saying that respiratory depression isn't dangerous, but merely that stimulant abuse is generally more physially harmful even when your life isn't at risk. In other words, both extreme hypotension and hypertension can be dangerous and even fatal, but in general the hypotensive effect that heroin and other opiates induce are not harmful for your body, whereas regular stimulant use always has a cardiotoxic effect, and that effect over time can result in a higher risk of stroke or infarction. Mixing opiates with other downers such as alcohol or benzos is a different story though.

Also, opiates, unlike meth is not neurotoxic. And unlike smoking cigarettes it does not introduce carcinogens to your body. Opiates in general don't really have any long-term negative physical side-effects. And I have talked to much more experienced ex-heroin/meth users and all concur that a heroin user is hard to pick out in a crowd, whereas a meth user you can spot a mile away. Heroin generally doesn't put much strain on your body, so most physical deterioration suffered by heroin addicts can be attributed to poverty rather than any pharmacological effects of the drug. (Here's a good study outlining the differences between popular image of heroin uses and scientific views.)

Don't get me wrong. I've met plenty of heroin users who have ruined their lives in the course of addiction, been jumped, been mugged, have had to escape out of car trunks, have done hard time, etc. But the drug itself isn't any worse for you physically than vicodin.

The actual phrase is "Like Swift Death", which comes from an article written in the The Los Angeles Free Press: http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/lsd/staf1.htm But, considering that is the only google hit for the term, I suspect that it never really caught on in the public psyche.

Hemp is extremely high in cellulose. It grows from the desert to the mountains. Hemp is nature's #1 photosynthesizer producing more per acre, faster than possibly anything.

LOOK IT UP. (USDA Bulletin 404)

As far as the one poster who mentioned "plastics" --you'll find through study that that is EXACTLY (at least partially) how we got into this mess of dependence on such rude resource as oil.

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 four to 50 or even 100 times the cellulose found in cornstalks, kenaf, or sugar cane - the planet's next highest annual cellulose plants.

On plastics: look up what Henry Ford did for the war effort when the military needed all the steel --Hemp produced automobile panels are lighter and 10x the strength. Search Popular Mechanics magazine archives.

Look up the HempCar, or better yet read about in full Hemp here.

Read what Hugh Downs said before America's desert brinksmanship.

So remember the challenge:
Prove us wrong! Prove us wrong! Prove us wrong!
We hereby extend our $100,000 challenge to prove us wrong!

If all fossil fuels and their derivatives, as well as trees for paper and construction, were banned in order to save the planet, reverse the greenhouse effect and stop deforestation; then there is only one known annually renewable natural resource that is capable of providing the overall majority of the world's paper and textiles; meet all of the world's transportation, industrial and home energy needs, while simultaneously reducing pollution, rebuilding the soil and cleaning the atmosphere all at the same time... and that substance is the same one that has done it before . . . CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA!

GO BIO!

(Those laughing are probably the same ones laughing before 9 American states approved medical use.)

It seems that all the intelligent people I've met understand the the War on Drugs is a total snipe hunt.

As long as their is demand, there will be a market.

The fundemental question seems to be:
Is the government trying to punish marijuana smokers or educate them?

More than 60% of all drug incarcerations are for non-violent possesion of marijuana.

As a rational individual, it seems obvioius that their current tactics only succeed in punishing marijuana smokers. Actual use of marijuana is at the same levels or higher than it has ever been so as a preventive, prohibition has most definitely failed. The supply of marijuana is greater than ever and the potency is higher too. The DEA says this to scare the uninformed. They attempt to create the analogy that stronger means greater threat. In reality, stronger means that pot heads have to consume less marijuana to get high. So in reality, higher potency means healthier pot smokers. Who do you believe the DEA with their vested interest in maintaining the status quo or an independent organization of scientists and medical researchers, the esteemed World Health Organization. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/general/w ho-index.htm

If anything prohibition has made the problem worse. Prohibition tends to create a black market which opens the door for large scale criminal organizations. Examples of these are the Mafia ( very small organization until their massive growth thanks to alcohol prohibition), the Latin & South American drug cartels in the '80's, and of course the DEA.
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html

In fact the only voices that seem to be raised against the legalization of marijuana are those of the DEA and the penal system. That's only natural, without them maintaining their lies, their free ride is over. Even the politicians are afraid of the power of the DEA. Apparently the DEA thinks they don't have to obey the Constitution.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2003 /jan/16/514528463.html?Marijuana%20Group:%20Feds%2 0Broke%20Law

http://www.leap.cc/ is a really interesting website put together by former Law Enforcement Officers that have seen that the Drug Laws cause more harm than good.

My more people that know the truth, the better our society becomes.

Just because you like being sober doesn't mean you have to hate those that want to smoke pot.

The United States is still a free country, right?

The Report of the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse Effects of Short-Term or Subacute Use "No subject reported any adverse effects from smoking. The subjects were generally able to conduct their usual daily activities including jobs. However, they reported they did not function completely up to par during the several hour duration of the acute drug effect. There were no effects which persisted for more than three to five hours and cumulative effects were not noted day to day. No persistent decrements were seen in behavior, mental status, EEG, heart, rate, short-term memory, or psychomotor function tests. In sum, daily marihuana smoking for 21 days was well tolerated by well-adjusted graduate students." "No abstinence syndrome or physical dependence was observed after abrupt termination of smoking. Signs of mild to moderate psychological dependence. were possibly seen in the heavy [users] group but no evidence of psychological dependence was seen in the casual users." "Urinalysis, complete blood counts, cell morphologies and differentials, and blood chemistry determinations (calcium, phosphorous, glucose, blood urea nitrogen, uric acid, cholesterol, total protein, albumen, total bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase, lactic dehydrogenase, and serum glutamic oxalacetic transaminase) were unaffected." "Normal body temperature was not altered. No significant change, in pulmonary function (decreased. vital capacity or acute broncho spasm) was observed during the marihuana smoking period." "No signs of neurological abnormality were observed. No cumulative effect of marihuana to cause, impairment of cognitive function was noted on a battery of tests sensitive to organic brain function." "Both groups [heavy and light users] became progressively more convivial and less task-oriented in group discussions. They offered less suggestions in problem-solving tasks but continued to efficiently solve the problem." "Finally, repeated use of marihuana over the 21day period did not decrease motivation to engage in a variety of social and goal-directed behaviors. Almost without exception, every subject earned the maximum number of points every day throughout all non-drug and drug periods. No consistent alteration in pattern of work could be related to repeated marihuana use. Subjects often performed very high work output while they were smoking marihuana and experiencing the maximum drug effects. Repeated marihuana use, did not decrease subject's motivation to complete the study. Nor was any noticeable effect observed on interest and participation in a variety of personal activities, such as, writing, reading literature, keeping up with current national and world events, and participation in both athletic and esthetic endeavors." Effects of Long-Term Cannabis Use "Psychosomatic abstinence syndromes often reported were physical weakness, intellectual apathy, loss of appetite, flatulence, constipation, insomnia, fatigue, abdominal cramps and nervousness, restlessness, and headache. For most heavy users the syndrome of anxiety and restlessness seem to be comparable to that observed when a, heavy tobacco smoking American attempts to quit smoking. However, the psychological dependence appears to be severe as evidenced by the f act that one group of subjects were unable to cease their habitual use although the frequency of use, was only eight to 12 times per month (Soueif, 1967). This psychological dependence may have made some users claim physical dependence so that the government did not terminate dispensing them their drug. Studies in the United States using much lower doses for shorter periods of time have revealed little if any evidence of psychological dependence (Bromberg, 1934 Mayors Committee, 1944; Williams et al., 1946)." "Mann et a]. (1970, 1971) and Finley (1971) studied the effect

The Report of the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse Effects of Short-Term or Subacute Use "No subject reported any adverse effects from smoking. The subjects were generally able to conduct their usual daily activities including jobs. However, they reported they did not function completely up to par during the several hour duration of the acute drug effect. There were no effects which persisted for more than three to five hours and cumulative effects were not noted day to day. No persistent decrements were seen in behavior, mental status, EEG, heart, rate, short-term memory, or psychomotor function tests. In sum, daily marihuana smoking for 21 days was well tolerated by well-adjusted graduate students." "No abstinence syndrome or physical dependence was observed after abrupt termination of smoking. Signs of mild to moderate psychological dependence. were possibly seen in the heavy [users] group but no evidence of psychological dependence was seen in the casual users." "Urinalysis, complete blood counts, cell morphologies and differentials, and blood chemistry determinations (calcium, phosphorous, glucose, blood urea nitrogen, uric acid, cholesterol, total protein, albumen, total bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase, lactic dehydrogenase, and serum glutamic oxalacetic transaminase) were unaffected." "Normal body temperature was not altered. No significant change, in pulmonary function (decreased. vital capacity or acute broncho spasm) was observed during the marihuana smoking period." "No signs of neurological abnormality were observed. No cumulative effect of marihuana to cause, impairment of cognitive function was noted on a battery of tests sensitive to organic brain function." "Both groups [heavy and light users] became progressively more convivial and less task-oriented in group discussions. They offered less suggestions in problem-solving tasks but continued to efficiently solve the problem." "Finally, repeated use of marihuana over the 21day period did not decrease motivation to engage in a variety of social and goal-directed behaviors. Almost without exception, every subject earned the maximum number of points every day throughout all non-drug and drug periods. No consistent alteration in pattern of work could be related to repeated marihuana use. Subjects often performed very high work output while they were smoking marihuana and experiencing the maximum drug effects. Repeated marihuana use, did not decrease subject's motivation to complete the study. Nor was any noticeable effect observed on interest and participation in a variety of personal activities, such as, writing, reading literature, keeping up with current national and world events, and participation in both athletic and esthetic endeavors." Effects of Long-Term Cannabis Use "Psychosomatic abstinence syndromes often reported were physical weakness, intellectual apathy, loss of appetite, flatulence, constipation, insomnia, fatigue, abdominal cramps and nervousness, restlessness, and headache. For most heavy users the syndrome of anxiety and restlessness seem to be comparable to that observed when a, heavy tobacco smoking American attempts to quit smoking. However, the psychological dependence appears to be severe as evidenced by the f act that one group of subjects were unable to cease their habitual use although the frequency of use, was only eight to 12 times per month (Soueif, 1967). This psychological dependence may have made some users claim physical dependence so that the government did not terminate dispensing them their drug. Studies in the United States using much lower doses for shorter periods of time have revealed little if any evidence of psychological dependence (Bromberg, 1934 Mayors Committee, 1944; Williams et al., 1946)." "Mann et a]. (1970, 1971) and Finley (1971) studied the effect

The Report of the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse Effects of Short-Term or Subacute Use "No subject reported any adverse effects from smoking. The subjects were generally able to conduct their usual daily activities including jobs. However, they reported they did not function completely up to par during the several hour duration of the acute drug effect. There were no effects which persisted for more than three to five hours and cumulative effects were not noted day to day. No persistent decrements were seen in behavior, mental status, EEG, heart, rate, short-term memory, or psychomotor function tests. In sum, daily marihuana smoking for 21 days was well tolerated by well-adjusted graduate students." "No abstinence syndrome or physical dependence was observed after abrupt termination of smoking. Signs of mild to moderate psychological dependence. were possibly seen in the heavy [users] group but no evidence of psychological dependence was seen in the casual users." "Urinalysis, complete blood counts, cell morphologies and differentials, and blood chemistry determinations (calcium, phosphorous, glucose, blood urea nitrogen, uric acid, cholesterol, total protein, albumen, total bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase, lactic dehydrogenase, and serum glutamic oxalacetic transaminase) were unaffected." "Normal body temperature was not altered. No significant change, in pulmonary function (decreased. vital capacity or acute broncho spasm) was observed during the marihuana smoking period." "No signs of neurological abnormality were observed. No cumulative effect of marihuana to cause, impairment of cognitive function was noted on a battery of tests sensitive to organic brain function." "Both groups [heavy and light users] became progressively more convivial and less task-oriented in group discussions. They offered less suggestions in problem-solving tasks but continued to efficiently solve the problem." "Finally, repeated use of marihuana over the 21day period did not decrease motivation to engage in a variety of social and goal-directed behaviors. Almost without exception, every subject earned the maximum number of points every day throughout all non-drug and drug periods. No consistent alteration in pattern of work could be related to repeated marihuana use. Subjects often performed very high work output while they were smoking marihuana and experiencing the maximum drug effects. Repeated marihuana use, did not decrease subject's motivation to complete the study. Nor was any noticeable effect observed on interest and participation in a variety of personal activities, such as, writing, reading literature, keeping up with current national and world events, and participation in both athletic and esthetic endeavors." Effects of Long-Term Cannabis Use "Psychosomatic abstinence syndromes often reported were physical weakness, intellectual apathy, loss of appetite, flatulence, constipation, insomnia, fatigue, abdominal cramps and nervousness, restlessness, and headache. For most heavy users the syndrome of anxiety and restlessness seem to be comparable to that observed when a, heavy tobacco smoking American attempts to quit smoking. However, the psychological dependence appears to be severe as evidenced by the f act that one group of subjects were unable to cease their habitual use although the frequency of use, was only eight to 12 times per month (Soueif, 1967). This psychological dependence may have made some users claim physical dependence so that the government did not terminate dispensing them their drug. Studies in the United States using much lower doses for shorter periods of time have revealed little if any evidence of psychological dependence (Bromberg, 1934 Mayors Committee, 1944; Williams et al., 1946)." "Mann et a]. (1970, 1971) and Finley (1971) studied the effect

You're looking to read this paper. While the URL title has the word "conspiracy" in it, the author of the paper takes very special care to ensure that there is no conspiracy involved. The author outlines very clearly the rationale behind early marijuana illegalization and how a local policy (used primarily to round up Mexicans when the US was still fighting with Mexico over Texas) was influenced by many different interests until it became a federal policy.

There's no single "conspiracy" about the demonization of marijuana. It really is nothing more than a series of profit margin minded business decisions made by ignorant people in positions of power. Not unlike the primary function of every other aspect of our illegitimate Federal Government.

Some readers may here be moved to protest that the bizarre behavior of rats fed massive doses of caffeine is irrelevant to the problems of human coffee drinkers, who are not very likely to bite themselves to death. Let us promptly and wholeheartedly agree. There is a lesson to be learned, nevertheless, from these rat reports. If the drug producing this effect in rats were marijuana, or LSD, or amphetamine, the report would no doubt have made headlines thrown about the country. One of the distorting effects of categorizing drugs as "good," "bad," and "nondrugs" is to protect the "nondrugs" such as caffeine from warranted criticism while subjecting the illicit drugs to widely publicized attacks--- regardless of the relevance of the data to the human condition.

Thus we come to the coffee paradox--- the question of how a drug so fraught with potential hazard can be consumed in the United States at the rate of more than a hundred billion doses a year (see Chapter 61) without doing intolerable damage--- and without arousing the kind of hostility, legal repression, antisocial condemnation aroused by the illicit drugs.

The answer is quite simple. Coffee, tea, cocoa, and the cola drinks have been domesticated. Caffeine has been incorporated into our way of life in a manner that minimizes (though it does not altogether eliminate) the hazards inherent in caffeine use. Instead of its being classified as an illicit drug, thereby grossly amplifying caffeine's potential for harm, ways to make caffeine safer have been searched for and found.[...]

That other drugs now deemed illicit might be similarly domesticated, with a similar reduction in the damage they wreak on individuals and on society, is a possibility readers may wish to keep in mind as they read the chapters that follow.

Good to see The New York Times is maintaining the same journalistic standards today as it did in 1914!

Is profiling really bad?

Here is a description of a specific suspect: Youn 20-40 year old male middle eastern with (or without) a beard, ~ 6 feet tall. Isn't that specific enough to have reason to stop every middle eastern looking man coming into the country?

Profiling helps aid efficiency. Why search old ladies, they are not going to take over a plane.

At one point, 1 in 3 (33%) of all young black men were in prison or on parole.

If I were going to be a cop, I would target the groups most likely to cause trouble, in many cases that is youn black men.

Is it a catch-22? They get targeted because they are usually bad, so the get caught, then more appear to be bad, so more get targeted and caught?

I bet it is all due to economic factors. Scale the numbers, I doubt 33% of all upper class men are in jail (Kobe, MJ, and OJ were almost in jail)

If I were TSA, I would target the groups that are likely to cause trouble, young middle eastern men.

If you fit the profile, you need to be extra careful not to do anything to get caught.

Young black men may be 1 in 4 now, from
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/other/sp/ybm1. htm

Almost one in four (23 percent) Black men in the age group 2029 is either in prison, jail, on probation, or parole on any given day.
For white men in the age group 2029, one in 16 (6.2 percent) is under the control of the criminal justice system.

Not exactly. The original idea behind drug controll was that there was a federal tax on the substance and that the government merely failed to issue stamps for the tax. But with the Controll Substances Act of 1970 the legal justification was changed to the much more convoluted and assnine concept of the interstate commerce clause being applied even when there was no interstate commerce going on. In fact the 1903 Lottery Case is in direct conflict with later interpretations of the commerce clause and was the reason that the Harrison Act was a tax statute instead of a criminal one. For a VERY complete history of the history of prohibitionist laws in the US, and specifically how they led to modern anti-drug laws see this article from the Virginia Law Review.

Here's a much more detailed history of the marijuana laws. It's long but well worth a read.

I've not heard that drug-crazed negroes were the cause of early anti-drug legislation. It did start first in the Western states, which makes Chinese immigrants and their opiate dens a more likely cause than blacks. However, very shortly after banning businesses selling cocaine (private use was still allowed), California set up public facilities for treating opium addicts, suggesting that the non-violent user was a major concern.

China has had laws against the use and sale of opium longer than America has, due to the effects of British-imported opium on its people.

See:
http://www.ibogaine.org/drugmain.html
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/CASEY1 .htm

The market for hemp was marginalized long before the introduction of nylon. Hemp Fiber Losing Ground, Despite Its Valuable Qualities (1931 USDA Yearbook of Agriculture)

Hemp for marine cordage has been superseded by abaca (Manila hemp) because the abaca ropes, cables, and hawsers are lighter and will float in water and this hard fiber is resistant to injury from salt water without being tarred...The term "hemp rope" has lost its significance for in America ropes are no longer made of hemp.

the domestic production amounting to 800 to 1,00 tons per annum is only about one-half that of the years between 1908 and 1913.

The story I read was slightly different..

Check out the history of Alcohol Prohibition. Rather interesting. Who knows, might become illigal again. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studie s/nc/nc2a.htm

I hate to reply to my own post, but the story of Dr. Halsted is better told in the Consumer's Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs, in Chapter 5 I highly recommend the entire book, it really cuts through the crap.

Basically, coccaine was outlawed because of blacks, marihauna because of Mexicans and opium because of the Chinese. Extacy & mushrooms were outlawed because party goers and hippies were having too much fun. etc etc etc ad infinitum

Morphine and Heroin still have medical uses (heroin is just repackaged morphine. 3x as strong) and extacy is experiencing a comeback as psychiatrists reevaluate its usefulness.

They run the political scene in Utah, and they have ever since Brigham Young was both the governor of the territory

Nonsense--you obviously don't know what you are talking about. When prohibition was up for repeal in 1933, the Pesident of the church, as I recall, asked the people to vote against the repeal. Despite this, Utah voted in favor of the 21st ammendment, tipping it over the necessary 3/4 ratification number.

Read about it.

The results of the studies corroborate those of previous driving simulator and closed-course tests by indicating that THC in inhaled doses up to 300 g/kg has significant, yet not dramatic, dose-related impairing effects on driving performance (cf. Smiley, 1986). Standard deviation of lateral position in the road-tracking test was the most sensitive measure for revealing THC's adverse effects.