I don't refute any of that Rock. I checked into it, since it was a hotel I didn't know if I still had the same rights as I do in my house or an apartment. I didn't mean to indicate that I felt a right of mine had necessarily been violated in this scenario... just that if this was a common practice (searching through other people's shit) a lot of us would be in jail. I need to talk to an attorney to be sure you don't have the same right's as you do when you sign a lease of an apartment. Technically, that's not yours either. Neither is this house I'm renting. But I don't ever have people storm through the front door, and start searching through all my shit.
While a law may not have been violated in the search, I don't feel as though it should have been against the law for me to have my personal stash of marijuana I was going to smoke in the bathtub.
For all the reasons below. As I most likely no longer have a job, it is my intention to relieve the world of their ignorance. I'll start now. Anybody reading the below that feels the same way as I do on the matter... something can be done. 60 some odd years ago, if people that were bootlegging alcohol just figured it was a helpless fight, that no matter what they did... nothing would be changed anyway, you and I would never have gotten to drink an alcoholic beverage legally. There would also be a lot more parent's, businessman, son's, daughter's, brothers and sisters, and grandparent's alike in jail for a victimless crime... which actually has much more of a victim (the wife lying on the floor right now that just got socked from her drunk husband, the parent's mourning their child because of a drunk driving accident, the list goes on and on my friends) than smoking marijuana by an unbelievable factor. If you feel strongly about the matter, stand up for what you have passion for. This is going to spark a new poll.
CANNABIS PROHIBITION - A VERY SERIOUS CRIME
Please distribute widely
Cannabis is safe
INTRODUCTION.
Cannabis has been misrepresented and mis-classified in both national and international law, as a "drug" that is:
dangerous to health, and
of no therapeutic value.
Herein, I indicate and present some of the hard scientific that reveals the falsity of those beliefs and hence the very 'wrongness' and injustice of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, UK, and other cannabis prohibition legislation world-wide. At best that prohibition is a grievous error, at worst a deep-rooted conspiracy amongst profit-motivated tyrants and businessmen (believed by many).
Consider this:
the UK Government has already been presented with some of this evidence, t
the press have reported the safety aspects and medical benefits of cannabis many times,
the UK Government have refused to comment on this information,
the UK Government have rejected reports from experts in health, in medicine and in law,
the present Labour Government have refused a Royal Commission saying that even should such a body declare that cannabis should be made legal again they would not listen.
Does this not suggest 'False Law' is favoured over justice? That is, a law that is anti-health, anti-public order, anti-justice, anti-environment that enables and ensures the profits of many massive multi-national cooperations that produce damaging synthetic alternatives to hemp.
In any case a False Law based upon false information, is a CRIME. That the Governments of this world mostly so stubbornly support a law that, we claim, they KNOW to be a false law makes the guilt ten fold heavier.
That many Governments yet refuse to grant legal access to this beneficial plant for the many sick and dying of this world, refuse therein to enable the production of food from the seed and pollution-free fuel from the biomass, is indeed a VERY SERIOUS CRIME - A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.
THE EVIDENCE.
In the light of the Rulings of DEA Judge Francis Young (1988) and the Articles of both the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human rights and the European Convention for The Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the denial of an effective medicine to people is a very serious CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY. All Governments and authorities that participate in this denial are guilty of very serious crimes.
This information should be distributed widely so that the Heads of States and Governments, and the courts, are aware that it is in the public domain.
Here is some of the important SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. It is followed by an excerpt from the rulings of Judge Young and the Articles of the International treaties.
Pot Smokers Just As Healthy - Study: National Post (Canada), 11 June 2001
UK: Natural Cannabis Better Than Extracts: BBC News (UK Web), 5 April 2001
1) Cannabis may help prevent lung cancer
"Marijuana Use and Mortality", American Journal of Public Health, April 1997.
Table 2 provides data on the relative risk of death for ever users and current users of marijuana, by sex and cause of death: Kaiser Permanente Medical care Program, Oakland and San Francisco, June 1979 to December 1985 (n=65,171), section regarding cancer (Neoplasms) as the cause of death. The table shows that men and women who are or have smoked cannabis but not tobacco have a lesser risk of developing cancer than those who were non-smokers of both marijuana and tobacco. see:
http://www.paston.co.uk/users/webbooks/cancdata.html
Ireland: Cannabis Eases Cancer Sickness, Study Finds: Irish Examiner, 6 July 2001
2) Cannabis may help slow down natural cognitive decline
"Cannabis use and cognitive decline in persons under 65 years of age", American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol 149, No 9 pages 794-800, 1999.
Table 3 shows the mean change in Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score between wave 2 (1982) and wave 3 (1993-1996) in men and women, by level of cannabis use, Baltimore Epidemiologic Catchment Area study follow-up.
A deterioration in Mental Functioning occurs in all age groups as a natural function of ageing and exposure to toxins. We see less cognitive decline among marijuana smokers than non-users. The authors also acknowledge alcohol and tobacco as two of the prime causes of cognitive decline. They did not publish their conclusion that cannabis caused a significant difference because the measured values were close, the difference between cannabis smokers and tobacco /alcohol users is undeniable. see
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n1330.a12.html
3) Cannabis may kill brain tumours
The type of tumour, a glioma, is relatively uncommon but fatal in humans. Dr Ismael Galve-Roperh and his team at Complutense University, Madrid, infused tetrahydrocannibinol (THC) into the rats' brains through tubes. In a third of the rats, the tumour was eliminated. Another third lived for an extra six weeks instead of dying within two to three. Another third gained no benefit. The team reports in Nature Medicine that the treatment works by stimulating the cancer cells to commit suicide in a natural process called apoptosis. The effect occurs in cancer cells but not in normal ones and, they say, "could provide the basis for a new therapeutic approach for the treatment of malignant gliomas".
The Times, February 20, 2000
see also
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00.n289.a05.html
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00.n289.a09.html
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00.n289.a08.html
4) Cannabis counteracts the effects of strokes and may help prevent Parkinson's Disease and ALZHEIMER'S
A team led by the British-born biologist Aidan Hampson, at the US National Institute for Mental Health, in Maryland, has discovered that two active components of cannabis - compounds called THC and cannabidiol - will each act to prevent damage to brain tissue placed in laboratory dishes.
The experiments, reported in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, reveal an unexpected potential use for a drug known for centuries to have valuable medical properties. The discovery is likely to increase pressure to make marijuana and its derivatives more widely available for use on prescription.... Dr Hampson's study has focused on cannabidiol, rather than the psychoactive chemical THC, because this substance has no side-effects. ..Stroke victims suffer a blood clot that starves brain cells of glucose and oxygen, and sets off a cascade of chemical reactions which destroys cells. He found that both cannabis compounds seemed to block the destructive process. Some drugs work well in test tubes, but fail in living creatures because they do not reach the target. Cannabis compounds go straight to the brain.
The results suggest that cannabidiol could also become a treatment for other neurological disorders, such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases. Dr Hampson said: "We have something that passes the brain barrier easily, has low toxicity, and appears to be working in the animal trials. So I think we have a good chance. (The Guardian, July 4 1999)
See
http://www.paston.co.uk/users/webbooks/guard4jy.html
5) Cannabis relieves pain.
Cannabis has been used to relieve various types of pain since the time of the Ancient Egyptians and the Ancient China. There have been literally thousands of testimonials claiming relief from pain from everything from spinal injury to menstrual pains. Recently scientists have confirmed the pain-relieving properties of cannabis.
UK: Cannabis Spray Helps Ease Pain: MSNBC, 3 September 2001
UK: Cannabis Tests Offer Pain Sufferers New Hope: Reuters, 2 May 2001
See also
UK: Patients with chronic pain react well to trial: Irish Times, 4 September 2001
UK: Cannabis Dramatically Improves Pain Relief: BBC News, 3 September 2001
UK: New Trial Shows Cannabis Works: Evening Standard, 3 September 2001
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/060.html#painrelief
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n833.a04.html
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n834.a04.html
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n634.a03.html
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n1148.a08.html
see also: Daily Telegraph, UK, Tuesday, October 12 1999
Rheumatoid Arthritis
UK: Rheumatoid Arthritis Treatment From Cannabis: BBC News (UK Web), 1 August 2000
UK: Marijuana May Be Just The Thing For Joints: Financial Times, 4 August 2000
6) Cannabis eases the symptoms of Multiple Sclerosis
NEW YORK, Mar 01 (Reuters Health) - Add the degenerative neurological disease multiple sclerosis (MS) to the list of ailments that might be relieved by marijuana. On the heels of a report that found THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, holds promise as a treatment for a rare brain cancer, another study shows that THC and other cannabinoid compounds relieve MS-like symptoms in laboratory mice.
The evidence is strong enough to justify the testing of these substances in people with MS, researchers report.
"For some years there has been anecdotal evidence that some people with multiple sclerosis have found relief from symptoms such as painful spasms by using cannabis," one of the study's authors, Dr. Lorna Layward, of the MS Society of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, said in a statement.
"This research sets that evidence in context."
"The study provides a firm basis for the human trials of cannabis in MS that will commence shortly," she said.
In studies of mice with an MS-like disease, Layward and colleagues found that tremors in the mice improved within 10 minutes of being treated with a man-made cannabinoid that attached to structures in the brain called cannabinoid receptors.
Reuters, March 1 2000
UK: Life Not Worth Living Without Cannabis, MS Man Tells Jury: Manchester, 22 March 2001
see also:
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00.n302.a02.html
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00.n302.a08.html
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00.n302.a05.html
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00.n302.a09.html
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00.n302.a11.html
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00.n302.a12.html
7) Cannabis helps the eyesight and help prevent Glaucoma
Scientists have found a family of chemicals that includes the "psychoactive" ingredients of marijuana plays a role in vision. For the first time, "receptor" proteins activated by these compounds - cannabinoids - - have been reported in the eye, providing a missing link in the understanding of the retina. "The scientific literature on marijuana, the known effects of cannabinoids in other parts of the brain and the places we find the receptor in the retina all make plausible the notion that cannabinoids may well have an effect on light sensitivity or light-dark adaptation," said Alex Straiker of the University of California, San Diego.However the retina is "incredibly complex", so this remains only a possibility, said Straiker, principal author of the report on the prevalence of receptors - docking points for cannabinoids - in the retina. The paper appears today in the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences". It is co-authored by scientists from the Neurosciences Institute in San Diego and the University of Washington in Seattle.
National Post (Canada), December 7 1999
see:
The Daily Telegraph (UK), Tuesday 7 December 1999
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n1326.a12.html
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n1321.a09.html
8) Cannabis helps prevent epileptic attacks.
see:
http://www.ukcia.org/medical/epilepsy.html
This list is not exhaustive. However, it does provide powerful and irrefutable evidence that
1) Cannabis has many uses as a medicine
2) The prevention of the use of cannabis is of detrimental effect on the heath on almost every person in the world, resulting in unnecessary pain, debilitation, and premature death.
3) The classification of cannabis in national law or international treaty as a drug with no medicinal value is at best a grave error.
THE JUDGE'S RULING
This is what the USA's own Drug Enforcement Administration's Judge, Francis Young, said in 1988 about marijuana (cannabis)
"In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating ten raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. "Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within a supervised routine of medical care." see Judge Young's Rulings
The REPORT OF THE FCDA, EUROPE
"Denial of general legal availability of life-saving Preventive Cannabis premeditatedly and maliciously causes early deaths. By definition and in Law, this constitutes Murder (UK) - Homicide (US). The acute need of politicians, bureaucrats and others implicated, to try and cover up their wrong-doing and culpability for their Capital Crimes and other Crimes Against Humanity, explains the conspiratorial fictions invented and circulated which derogate benign Cannabis. Motive - behind the installing of Prohibition further explains this behaviour"
The Report of the FCDA, Europe, 5th Ed, 1997
United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR)
Article 3 of the UN Declaration recognises the Right to "Life, Liberty and security of person." This is Article 5 of the ECHR.
. How can a person be expected to feel secure when ill or when a member of the family is ill? The prohibition of a safe preventative and curative medicine is a contravention of these Rights.
Article 5 of the UN Declaration recognises the Right not to be subjected to "torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment". It is Article 3 in the ECHR.
The denial of a medicine to sick and well people is tantamount to torture and certainly results in degradation.
Article 12 of the UN Declaration recognises the Right to privacy, family, home ...". This is Article 8 of the ECHR.
The implementation of the prohibition of cannabis through the sometimes armed raiding of people in their own homes and often separation from their families, without justifiable cause, is an infringement upon these Rights.
Article 18 of the UN Declaration grants the Right to "Freedom of though, conscience and religion... and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion of belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." This is Article 9 of the ECHR.
The denial of people's rights, without justification, to use cannabis to their personal benefit, alone or in community, and the Right to supply a natural plant as a therapeutic agent within a community, is a blatant contravention of this Right. It is applicable to those members of religious communities who use cannabis but not limited to religion.
The implementation of the prohibition of cannabis itself causes further violations to Human Rights
Inferences:
The prohibition of cannabis is an offence under Supreme and International Law. Government employees who participate in the application of the Misuse of Drugs Act upon the people of your country, including prosecution and defence solicitors who ignore Human rights, police, forensic scientists, prison officers, politicians, etc, are guilty of malfeasance. If they have been told of their crime, then the guilt is magnified.
The prohibition of cannabis creates unnecessary suffering and premature death. It is tantamount to Homicide (USA) and murder, as ruled by the eminent US Judge.
CANNABIS IS SAFE
Claims of various degrees of harmfulness and danger associated with the smoking of cannabis are often cited by prohibitionists and those who favour regulated legalisation alike.
Whilst many people agree that prohibition is unjust and ineffective, they differ in their opinions on the needs for regulations. Whilst few would want unnecessary regulations and limitations legislated onto cannabis once legal, few also would want to see no regulations installed if indeed necessary. It is therefore vital that we attempt to reach some sort of conclusion on the harm or potential harm through individual or widespread cannabis use.
I have personally read many reports from scientific and empirical studies on actual cannabis use, as well as some of those based upon laboratory tests carried out on mice, rats, rabbits and monkeys, using concentrated and synthetic THC - tetrahydrocannabinol - one of the main active ingredients found in the parts of the cannabis plant used recreationally and medically, particularly the tops and heads.
My own studies of the evidence from both sides has led me to the following conclusions:
1) All of the allegations of harm are based upon dubious work, laboratory experiments not involving cannabis and not involving tests on humans, and unreliable anecdote often exaggerated and g by drug workers.
2) Cannabis is indeed "remarkably safe" and free from danger, barring of course the obvious dangers of being hit over the head with a large lump of resin.
"We.. say that on the medical evidence available, moderate indulgence in cannabis has little ill-effect on health, and that decisions to ban or legalise cannabis should be based on other considerations.":
The Lancet, vol 352, number 9140, November 14 1998
As it is nonsensical to attempt to prove any substance to be completely harmless under all circumstances, I am tackling this issue by listing the various harm allegations and counteracting them with quotes from and references to the experts.
Myth: Cannabis is toxic / poisonous
From: OPINION AND RECOMMENDED RULING, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION OF Administrative LAW JUDGE, DATED: SEP 6 1988
Findings of Fact:
"4. Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality.
"5. This is a remarkable statement. First, the record on marijuana encompasses 5,000 years of human experience. Second, marijuana is now used daily by enormous numbers of people throughout the world. Estimates suggest that from twenty million to fifty million Americans routinely, albeit illegally, smoke marijuana without the benefit of direct medical supervision. Yet, despite this long history of use and the extraordinarily high numbers of social smokers, there are simply no credible medical reports to suggest that consuming marijuana has caused a single death.
"6. By contrast aspirin, a commonly used, over-the-counter medicine, causes hundreds of deaths each year.
"7. Drugs used in medicine are routinely given what is called an LD-50. The LD-50 rating indicates at what dosage fifty percent of test animals receiving a drug will die as a result of drug induced toxicity. A number of researchers have attempted to determine marijuana's LD-50 rating in test animals, without success. Simply stated, researchers have been unable to give animals enough marijuana to induce death.
"8. At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around 1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.
"9. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity.
"10. Another common medical way to determine drug safety is called the therapeutic ratio. This ratio defines the difference between a therapeutically effective dose and a dose which is capable of inducing adverse effects.
"11. A commonly used over-the-counter product like aspirin has a therapeutic ratio of around 1:20. Two aspirins are the recommended dose for adult patients. Twenty times this dose, forty aspirins, may cause a lethal reaction in some patients, and will almost certainly cause gross injury to the digestive system, including extensive internal bleeding.
"12. The therapeutic ratio for prescribed drugs is commonly around 1:10 or lower. Valium, a commonly used prescriptive drug, may cause very serious biological damage if patients use ten times the recommended (therapeutic) dose.
"13. There are, of course, prescriptive drugs which have much lower therapeutic ratios. Many of the drugs used to treat patients with cancer, glaucoma and multiple sclerosis are highly toxic. The
therapeutic ratio of some of the drugs used in antineoplastic therapies, for example, are regarded as extremely toxic poisons with therapeutic ratios that may fall below 1:1.5. These drugs also have very low LD-50 ratios and can result in toxic, even lethal reactions, while being properly employed.
"14. By contrast, marijuana's therapeutic ratio, like its LD-50, is impossible to quantify because it is so high."
In the journal FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED TOXICOLOGY, Dr. William Slikker, director of the Neurotoxicology Division of the National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR), described the health of monkeys exposed to very high levels of cannabis for an extended period:
"The general health of the monkeys was not compromised by a year of marijuana exposure as indicated by weight gain, carboxyhemoglobin and clinical chemistry/hematology values."
(TOXICOLOGY LETTERS, No Increase in Carcinogen-DNA Adducts in the Lungs of Monkeys Exposed Chronically to Marijuana Smoke, 1992, Dec;63 (3): 321-32.
THE ARKANSAS TIMES (Refer Madness. 16 Sept 1993) asked Dr. Merle Paule of NCTR about evidence of cannabis toxicity and the health of the monkeys in the study, Dr. Paule said,
"There's just nothing there. They were all fine."
Myth: Cannabis intoxicates
This is really a matter of semantics, as, strictly speaking, a non-toxic substance cannot 'intoxicate'.
"intoxication" is usually and often detectable simply by a detrimental effect upon motor and cognitive skills; these are covered below.
Myth: Cannabis is addictive
Here we must distinguish between firstly, addictiveness and dependency, and secondly, between medical and psychological dependency.
Medical dependency is not really the issue here, since it is perfectly natural and acceptable for a person to be dependent upon a medicine to ease their suffering, given that the medicine is at least reasonably and acceptably safe.
TRENDS IN PHARMACOLOGICAL SCIENCES: Neurobiology of Marijuana Abuse. 1992, 13:201-206. pg. 203:
"research shows cannabis has limited potential for development of...psychological dependence due to the weak reinforcing properties of Delta-9-THC."
BRAIN RESEARCH JOURNAL: Chronic cannabinoid administration alters cannabinoid receptor binding in rat brain: a quantitative autoradiographic study. 1993, 616:293-302. pg. 300.
"cannabinoid dependence and withdrawal phenomena are minimal."
The Shafer Commission (USA) of 1970 said:
"Marijuana does not lead to physical dependency, although some evidence indicates that the heavy, long-term users may develop a psychological dependence on the drug"
The Panama Canal Zone Military Investigations (US Military, 1929) said:
"There is no evidence that Marihuana as grown and used [in the Canal Zone] is a 'habit-forming' drug."
In 1997, (R. v Clay), Ontario Justice John McCart (Canada) ruled, "Cannabis is not an addictive substance." B.C. Justice F.E. Howard in a similar case confirmed his findings in 1998.
US Department of Health and Human Services, 1991:
"Given the large population of marijuana users and the infrequent reports of medical problems from stopping use, tolerance and dependence are not major issue at present."
("Drug Abuse and Drug Abuse Research, Rockville, MD, (1991) p C3
Myth: Cannabis causes hallucinations
Report of the Australian Government, 1996: "Cannabis has been erroneously classified as a narcotic, as a sedative and most recently as an hallucinogen. While the cannabinoids do possess hallucinogenic properties, together with stimulant and sedative effects, they in fact represent a unique pharmacological class of compounds. Unlike many other drugs of abuse, cannabis acts upon specific receptors in the brain and periphery. The discovery of the receptors and the naturally occurring substances in the brain that bind to these receptors is of great importance, in that it signifies an entirely new pathway system in the brain."
Myth: Cannabis causes cancer
BOSTON, Jan. 30, 1997 (UPI):
"The U.S. federal government has failed to make public its own 1994 study that undercuts its position that marijuana is carcinogenic - a $2 million study by the National Toxicology Program. The program's deputy director, John Bucher (
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/dirtob/bucher.htm), says the study "found absolutely no evidence of cancer." In fact, animals that received THC had fewer cancers. Bucher denies his agency had been pressured to shelve the report, saying the delay in making it public was due to a personnel shortage.
CANCER PREVENTION DATA
"Marijuana Use and Mortality": AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, April 1997:
TABLE 2 Relative Risk of Death for Ever Users and Current Users of Marijuana, by Sex and Cause of Death: Kaiser Pemanente Medical Care Program Members (n = 65,171), Oakland and San Francisco, June 1979 through December
1985 - section of table regarding cancer (Neoplasms) as the cause of death:
MEN
Ever Users Relative Risk of Cancer Death
Full Model 0.78
Non-smokers/ Occasional Drinkers 0.46
Current Users
Full Model 0.97
Non-smokers/ Occasional Drinkers 0.75
WOMEN
Ever Users
Full Model 0.82
Non-smokers/ Occasional Drinkers 0.70
Current Users
Full Model 0.86
Non-smokers/ Occasional Drinkers 0.56
Here, numbers less than one for Relative Risk of Cancer Death represent a lower rate of fatal cancer among marijuana smokers in the large Kaiser Study from California. For example, women who are current marijuana smokers but did not smoke tobacco were found to have only 56% of the risk of cancer death as compared to other women who were non-smokers of both tobacco and marijuana.
Not only is the evidence linking cannabis smoking to cancer negative, but the largest human studies cited indicated that cannabis users had lower rates of cancer than nonusers. What's more, those who smoked both cannabis and tobacco had lower rates of lung cancer than those who smoked only tobacco-a strong indication of chemoprevention. Even more, in 1975 researchers at the Medical College of Virginia found that cannabis showed powerful antitumour activity against both benign and malignant tumours (the government then banned all future cannabis/cancer research).
(The Emperor Wears No Cloths. Jack Herer, Queen of Clubs Pub, 1991)
(Ganja in Jamaica: A Medical Anthropological Study of Chronic Marijuana Use. 1975. Anchor Books)
(Cannabis in Costa Rica: A Study of Chronic Marijuana Use, 1980-82, Institute for the Study of Human Issues, 3401 Science Center Philadelphia, PA.)
The NEW ENGLISH DISPENSATORY of 1764 recommends boiled cannabis roots for the elimination of tumours.(Marijuana: The First 12,000 Years. Plenum Press, 1980)
Powerful evidence that cannabis not only does not cause cancer, but that it may prevent and even cure cancer.<
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_health2.shtml>
SO, YOU THOUGHT IT WAS THE TAR THAT CAUSED CANCER
Myth: Cannabis smoking damages the lungs
Researchers at the University of California (UCLA) School of Medicine have announced the results of an 8 - year study into the effects of long-term cannabis smoking on the lungs. In Volume 155 of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Dr. D.P. Tashkin reported "Findings from the present long-term, follow-up study of heavy, habitual marijuana smokers argue against the concept that continuing heavy use of marijuana is a significant risk factor for the development of [chronic lung disease. ..Neither the continuing nor the intermittent marijuana smokers exhibited any significantly different rates of decline in [lung function]" as compared with those individuals who never smoked marijuana. Researchers added: "No differences were noted between even quite heavy marijuana smoking and non-smoking of marijuana."
Myth: Cannabis suppresses the immune system. Two studies in 1978 and 1988 showed that cannabis actually stimulated the immune system
From: "Exposing Marijuana Myths
The Lindesmith Center)" "False: Marijuana Impairs Immune System Functioning "It has been widely claimed that marijuana substantially increases users' risk of contracting various infectious diseases. First emerging in the 1970s, this claim took on new significance in the 1980s, following reports of marijuana use by people suffering from AIDS.
"THE FACTS
"The principal study fueling the original claim of immune impairment involved preparations created with white blood cells that had been removed from marijuana smokers and controls. After exposing the cells to known immune activators, researchers reported a lower rate of transformation in those taken from marijuana smokers.
"However, numerous groups of scientists, using similar techniques, have failed to confirm this original study. "In fact, a 1988 study demonstrated an increase in responsiveness when white blood cells from marijuana smokers were exposed to immunological activators.
"Studies involving laboratory animals have shown immune impairment following administration of THC, but only with the use of extremely high doses. For example, one study demonstrated an increase in herpes infection in rodents given doses of 100 mg/kg/day -- a dose approximately 1000 times the dose necessary to produce a psychoactive effect in humans.
"There have been no clinical or epidemiological studies showing an increase in bacterial, viral, or parasitic infection among human marijuana users. In three large field studies conducted in the 1970s, in Jamaica, Costa Rica and Greece, researchers found no differences in disease susceptibility between marijuana users and matched controls.
"Marijuana use does not increase the risk of HIV infection; nor does it increase the onset or intensity of symptoms among AIDS patients. In fact, the FDA decision to approve the use of Marinol (synthetic THC) for use in HIV-wasting syndrome relied upon the absence of any immunopathology due to THC.
"Today, thousands of people with AIDS are smoking marijuana daily to combat nausea and increase appetite. There is no scientific basis for claims that this practice compromises their immune responses. Indeed, the recent discovery of a peripheral cannabinoid receptor associated with lymphatic tissue should encourage aggressive exploration of THC's potential use as an immune-system stimulant."From also Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts": Lynn Zimmer Ph.D. and John P. Morgan M.D. "At the 1981 conference on marijuana sponsored by the World Health Organisation and Canada's Addiction Research Foundation, reviewers of the research literature on immunity reported "There is no conclusive evidence that cannabis predisposes man to immune dysfunction". A few years late, in approving THC (Marinol) for use as a medicine, the FDA found no convincing evidence that THC caused immune impairment. In 1992, the FDA approved Marinol as an appetite stimulant specifically for AIDS patients, who have serious immunosuppression."Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts": Lynn Zimmer Ph.D. and John P. Morgan M.D. ISBN 0-9641568-4-9; page 107.Munson and Fehr (1983) note 15, page 338
Food and Drug Administration, "Unimed's Marinol (Dronabinol) Lau, R.J. et al "Phytohemagglutinin-Induced Lymphocyre Transformations in Humans Receiving Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol," Science 192, 805-07 (1976)Dax, EM. Et al., "The Effects of 9_ENE-Tetrahydrcannabinol on Hormone Release and Immune Function," Journal of Steroid Biochemistry 34: 263-70 (1989)Myth: Cannabis causes impotency / infertility
From: "Exposing Marijuana Myths: (The Lindesmith Center)" page 93;"Studies of men in the general population have also failed to find differences in the testosterone levels of marijuana users and nonusers. "There is no convincing evidence of infertility related to marijuana consumption in humans. "There are no epidemiological studies showing that men who use marijuana have higher rates of infertility than men who do not. Nor is there evidence of diminished reproductive capacity among men in countries where marijuana use is common."
Abel, E.L., et al, "Marijuana and Sex: A Critical Survey," Drug and Alcohol Dependence 8: 1-22 (1981)
Ehrenkranz, J.R.L. and Hembee, WC., "Effects of Marijuana on Male Reproductive Function," Psychiatric Annals 16: 243-49 (1986)
Cushman, P, "Plasma Testosterone Levels in Healthy Male Marijuana Smokers," American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 2: 269-75 (1975)
Block, R I, et al, "Effects of Chronic Marijuana Use of Testosterone, Luteinizing Hormone, Follicle Stimulating Hormone, Prolactin and Cortisol in Men and women,"Drug and Alcohol Dependence 28,: 121-28 (1991)
Myth: Cannabis destroys short-term memory
The Australian Government Report 1996:
"The weight of the available evidence suggests that the long-term heavy use of cannabis does not produce any severe impairment of cognitive function."
Myth: Cannabis detrimentally effects motor co-ordination / driving skill
Crancer Study, Washington Department of Motor Vehicles:
"Simulated driving scores for subjects experiencing a normal social 'high' and the same subjects under control conditions are not significantly different. However, there are significantly more errors for alcohol intoxicated than for control subjects"
U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (DOT HS 808 078), Final Report, November 1993:"THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small"
Sutton (1983) also found that cannabis had little effect on actual driving performance. "Driving in traffic, however, while showing a trend toward poorer performance, was not significantly affected, and the effects of cannabis were much more variable."
The Australian Government Report, 1996, page 6) "There is no controlled epidemiological evidence that cannabis users are at increased risk of being involved in motor vehicle or other accidents.
Myth: Cannabis detrimentally effects cognitive skills
US: Cannabis Use and Cognitive Decline in Persons under 65 Years of Age
Publication date: 1 May 1999
Source: American Journal of Epidemiology
Copyright: 1999 Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health
Ref: Am J Epidemiol 1999; 149:794-800
Mail: 111 Market Place, Suite 840, Baltimore MD 21202 U.S.A.
<
http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/JEPI/"> Website
Authors: Constantine G. Lyketsos, Elizabeth Garrett, Kung-Yee Liang, and James C. Anthony (Osler 320, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, 600 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21287-5371)
"The purpose of this study was to investigate possible adverse effects of cannabis use on cognitive decline after 12 years in persons under age 65 years. This was a follow-up study of a probability sample of the adult household residents of East Baltimore. The analyses included 1,318 participants in the Baltimore, Maryland, portion of the Epidemiologic Catchment Area study who completed the Mini-Mental State (MMSE) examination during three study waves in 1981, 1982, and 1993--1996.
Individual MMSE score differences between waves 2 and 3 were calculated for each study participant. After 12 years, study participants' scores declined a mean of 1.20 points on the MMSE (standard deviation 1.90), with 66% having scores that declined by at least one point.Significant numbers of scores declined by three points or more (15% of participants in the 18--29 age group). There were no significant differences in cognitive decline between heavy users, light users, and nonusers of cannabis.
There were also no male-female differences in cognitive decline in relation to cannabis use. The authors conclude that over long time periods, in persons under age 65 years, cognitive decline occurs in all age groups
This decline is closely associated with ageing and educational level but does not appear to be associated"
Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church Study, 1980
"Some participants had smoked at least two to four large cigarettes (each containing 1/4 to 1/2 ounce of cannabis) over 16 hours a day for periods of up to 50 years.
"...the most impressive thing... is the true paucity of neurological abnormalities.
"Heavy cannabis consumers suffered no apparent psychological or physical harm. "Schaeffer: A Neuropsychological Evaluation; A Case History"...I.Q.'s of Zion Coptics increased after they began to use ganga"
US Jamaican Study 1974:
"No impairment of physiological, sensory and perceptual performance, tests of concept formation, abstracting ability, and cognitive style, and tests of memory"
Myth: Cannabis causes a-motivation / laziness
We must of course distinguish between those people who are naturally or by habit or psychological so set as lazy or a-motivated, and any such a-motivation caused by cannabis consumption.
Dr. Andrew Weil (Rubin & Comitas Ganja in Jamaica, 1975) said "a-motivation [is] a cause of heavy marijuana smoking rather than the reverse"
In 1997, (R. v Clay), Ontario Justice John McCart (Canada) ruled, "Cannabis ... does not cause a motivational syndrome." His findings were confirmed by B.C. Justice F.E. Howard in a similar case in 1998
Myth: Cannabis use leads to the use of hard drugs
Considering the millions of people in the UK, and the hundreds of millions around the world, who have used cannabis for short or long periods, it is clear that if it led to the use of hard and addictive drugs there would be many more new addicts that we have seen.
We must, here, also remember that under the UK and other government policies of "tackling drugs together", under a regime that prohibits hard drugs alongside cannabis, where the supplies remain in criminal control, it is often the case that people may be led from one substance to another by their peers and by their suppliers. This does not of course mean that cannabis itself is a gateway or hard drug use.
We must also remember that at least a proportion of cannabis users may be people prone to trying other substances, whether by way of n, research, 'spiritual' quest, or psychological imbalance.
The LaGuardia sub-committee of New York 1944 said:
"The use of marijuana does not lead to morphine or heroin or cocaine addiction and no effort is made to create a market for these narcotics by stimulating the practice of marijuana smoking"
"Marijuana: Facts for Teens." U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Washington, D.C. 1995, p.10.: "Most marijuana users do not go on to use other drugs." :
Jack Straw, The Daily Telegraph, 3 April 2000: "While it is undoubtedly the case that many drug addicts started with cannabis, to claim that taking cannabis is bound to lead to hard drugs has always seemed to me far-fetched."
Drugs Policy in the Netherlands (1995): Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport "Moreover, users of soft drugs do not as a rule tend to experiment with hard drugs, such as heroin or cocaine; this is indeed the intention of the policy of keeping the markets separate. There is little use of heroin and cocaine among minors in the Netherlands, and the trend is towards even less. "Myth: Increased availability will lead to increased usage"
Drugs Policy in the Netherlands (1995): Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport"4.1. Extent and nature of cannabis use
"The decriminalisation of the possession of soft drugs in 1976 did not result in increased use. The level of consumption stabilised in the first few years after the Opium Act was amended. According to national figures, use again increased somewhat between 1984 and 1994, a trend which has also been observed elsewhere. Indeed, the United States has experienced a considerable increase in recent years. "Both as regards the extent of cannabis use and trends in use, the Netherlands differs very little from other countries.
"As already indicated, the number of users of soft drugs has increased after falling in the 1970s. Patterns of consumption are overwhelmingly recreational, though among certain specific categories of young people, such as chronic truants and street children, the use of cannabis can be described as very substantial and intensive.
"The policy pursued by the Netherlands does not appear to have led to an increase in use, though there are indications that the existence of freely accessible coffee shops means that certain users continue to use the drugs for longer.
"Conclusions and policy intentions
"The decriminalisation of the possession of quantities of soft drugs for personal use and the existence of sales points tolerated under certain circumstances by the authorities have not resulted in a worryingly high level of consumption among young people. Moreover, users of soft drugs do not as a rule tend to experiment with hard drugs, such as heroin or cocaine; this is indeed the intention of the policy of keeping the markets separate. There is little use of heroin and cocaine among minors in the Netherlands, and the trend is towards even less."The effects of partial decriminalisation on cannabis use in South Australia, 1985 to 1993 National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney Aust J Public Health, 19: 3, 1995 Jun, 281-7:"
In 1987 the Cannabis Expiration Notice scheme decreased penalties for the personal use of cannabis in South Australia. Data from four National Campaign Against Drug Abuse (NCADA) household drug-use surveys covering the period 1985 to 1993 were analysed to measure the effect of the decriminalisation on cannabis use. The main outcomes used were the self-reported prevalence rates of having ever used cannabis and current weekly use. Logistic regression was used to control for the potentially confounding effects of age and sex. Other outcomes were rates of having ever been offered cannabis and willingness to use cannabis if offered it. Between 1985 and 1993 the adjusted prevalence rate of ever having used cannabis increased in South Australia from 26 per cent to 38 per cent. There were also significant increases in Victoria and Tasmania, and to a lesser extent in New South Wales. The increase in South Australia was not significantly greater than the average increase (P = 0.1). Adjusted rates of weekly use increased between 1988 and 1991 in South Australia, but did not change through 1993. Although the effect was in the direction of a greater increase in South Australia, this was not statistically significant when compared to increases in the rest of Australia (P = 0.07). The greatest increase in adjusted weekly use occurred in Tasmania between 1991 and 1993, from 2 per cent to 7 per cent. Although the NCADA survey data indicate that there were increases in cannabis use in South Australia in 1985-1993, they cannot be attributed to the effects of partial decriminalisation, because similar increases occurred in other states"
And now, some general quotes on the health effects of smoking cannabis:
March 20, 1997, Sydney, Australia: The National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre in Australia. The study, which involved interviews with 268 marijuana smokers and 31 non-using partners and family members, is one of the first ever conducted in Australia to determine the effects of long-term marijuana use. Its findings were reported by the Sydney Morning Herald last month. "We don't see evidence of high psychological disturbance among the [long- term users,]" said chief investigator David Reilly. "The results seem unremarkable; the exceptional thing is that the respondents are unexceptional. "The Report of the Australian Government 1996 says: "The ... major possible adverse effects of chronic, heavy cannabis use ... remain to be confirmed"
"The major health and psychological effects of chronic cannabis use, especially daily use over many years, remain uncertain"
"As has been stressed ... there is uncertainty. ......To varying degrees....inferences from animal research, laboratory studies, and clinical observations about probable ill effects. In some cases inferences depend upon arguments from what is known about the adverse effects of other drugs, such as tobacco and alcohol".
"The probable and possible adverse health and psychological effects of cannabis need to be placed in comparative perspective to be fully appreciated".
The USA Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy (1987) says:
"Cannabis can be used on an episodic but continual basis without evidence of social or psychic dysfunction. In many users the term dependence with its obvious connotations, probably is mis-applied... The chief opposition to the drug rests on a moral and political, and not toxicologic, foundation".
Jamaican Study 1970 :"... as a multipurpose plant, ganga is used medicinally, even by non-smokers. ....There were no indications of organic brain damage or chromosome damage among smokers and no significant clinical psychiatric, psychological or medical) differences between smokers and controls."
UK Royal Commission, The Wootton Report, UK, 1968: "Having reviewed all the material available to us we find ourselves in agreement with the conclusion reached by the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission appointed by the Government of India (1893-94) and the New York Mayor's Committee (1944 - LaGuardia) that the long-term consumption of cannabis in moderate doses has no harmful effects"
LaGuardia Commission Report, 1944" Cannabis smoking] does not lead directly to mental or physical deterioration... Those who have consumed marijuana for a period of years showed no mental or physical deterioration which may be attributed to the drug"
Panama Canal Zone Report, 1925"
There is no evidence... that any deleterious influence on the individual using [cannabis]"
Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1894
"The commission has come to the conclusion that the moderate use of hemp drugs is practically attended by no evil results at all. ... ...moderate use of hemp... appears to cause no appreciable physical injury of any kind,... no injurious effects on the mind... [and] no moral injury whatever."
see also:
http://www.paston.co.uk/users/webboks/serious-crime.html
http://www.paston.co.uk/users/webbooks/goddard.html
Action.
It is the duty of every citizen who believes in Human Rights, Justice, Health and Freedom, to bring this to the attention of the PRESS world-wide, and their political representatives, MP's, Senators etc.
Please spread this information far and wide
Legalise Cannabis Alliance (LCA), PO Box 198, Norwich, Norfolk, NR2 2DH, UK; E-mail
Go back to the Index
----------------------------------------------
P.I.G.S. - The Enemies of Legalisation
P is for paranoia and fear of persecution.
This prevents cannabis users and non-users with a huge barrier to overcome before they can publicly speak out against prohibition. Users fear raids from the police and arrest, loss of employment and even imprisonment. Many professional people such as Doctors, Teachers, Lawyers, Probation Officers, Social Workers etc, although privately supporting legalisation or some lesser from of change in law, are afraid of persecution from people in power and the press. MP's of all parties can be silenced and pressurised to change their statements, by the Party Whips. Many Doctors quietly advise patients that cannabis is of possible benefit to them but will not make a public statement on the issue. If you are one of those professionals please speak out and help call an end to the suffering caused to hundreds of thousands of citizens of the UK, every year, under the inefficient and expensive attempts at suppressing freedom of choice, in general, cannabis in particular. If you are a user, fear not, for to express an opinion on the law is not an offense and does not indicate that you are a user. Many non-users advocate legalisation too.
I is for indifference and for ignorance.
Many non-users and people who are alienated from society through illness, poverty or riches and power, remain unconcerned or unaware of the disastrous social and environmental effects of prohibition. These people need to be awoken. Many of them are on drugs - heroin addicts, alcoholics, Valium addicts, at all rungs of the social ladder; they just don't care. But others do care, they just either don't know or don't know what they can do. It is up to activists to educate and guide these people to the postbox and the ballot boxes. Then, when they do care, we need to reassure them to avoid them slipping into the description of P.
G is for greed.
These are the highly profit-motivated suppliers of illegal cannabis, often of dubious quality, and those directors (and their minions) of the multinational corporations that profit by billions from their environmentally damaging synthetic and dangerous alternatives. These include petroleum companies who risk losses if hemp seed oil becomes widely available; pharmaceutical companies who would lose out if people take less of their synthetic drugs and more home grown cannabis; plastics and synthetic materials companies whose products could be replaced locally from locally grown cannabis; nuclear fuel and fossil fuel companies whose products could also be replaced by locally grown cannabis, far more efficiently and cheaply than for all modern fuels; timber companies who fear that cannabis would replace wood as a material for furnishing as well as paper and packing materials; breweries and tobacco companies who fear that the use of home grown cannabis would decrease the sales of their highly dangerous legal drugs; national and international criminal and terrorist organisations who profit from illegal cannabis, possibly even the secret services of certain countries (not yours, of course); police, solicitors, barristers, judges and prison staff, with all the associated industry at colossal public expense, who may be out of a job is 250,000 less people are searched and 100,000 less prosecuted, annually.
S is for squabblers and for separation.
Those people who continually insist upon arguing over matters of minor or academic differences which distract from the general cause of delay action towards the consensus aim of legalisation. Such arguments are divisive and unproductive, often originating from personal grievances. Some times such arguments are introduced by insincere campaigners, even infiltrators from corners supporting prohibition, whose aim is to suppress by division and mistrust. Other times the arguments may be prolonged by sincere people. When the squabble, due to personal grievances, interferes with actions of the general movement for legalisation, or any particular event or group, then the squabblers become enemies of the movement.
DON'T BE ANY PART OF PIGS.
WAKE UP, LEARN, ACT, COOPERATE,
BECOME INVOLVED IN THIS MOVEMENT WHICH IS ALL ABOUT FREEDOM OF CHOICE, LIFESTYLE AND RELIGION.
IT IS ABOUT THE VERY RIGHTS GRANTED BY THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTERS. PROHIBITION OF CANNABIS IS A PROLONGED ATTEMPT AT MIS-EDUCATION AND TYRANNICAL CONTROL, AND MUST BE RESISTED BY THE MASSES.
WE CAN GET CANNABIS LEGALISED VERY, VERY SOON.
Back to the index
CLCIA, 54C Peacock Street, Norwich, Norfolk, NR3 1TB, UK; E-mail CLCIA
----------------------------------------------------------------
WRITING LETTERS
When you write letters try to keep to the point.
Newspapers seem to like letters which are provocative (to attract further letters), questioning and even humorous. Often a controversial letter against legalisation will provoke positive response from other readers.
Very few people write to the papers so if you keep trying you will eventually get published. You must put your full name and address and write 'FOR PUBLICATION' at the top.
You may need a different tone for MP's, MEP's etc. They are elected people and usually value votes much more close to an election. It is best just to write to your own MP since letters get passed to him or her anyway. You can write to MP's such as Tony Banks, or write to the party leaders. Also write to all your local candidates telling them your feelings and that you are reluctant to vote for a cannabis prohibitionist.
Here are a few points upon which to base letters:-
1. The huge social cost. Over half a billion pounds resulted in 83% drug arrests being for cannabis only, in 1994. The Department of Health does not recognise the need for specialised treatment of cannabis users. A gross waste of public funds.
2. Mass alienation. Over 7 million users. Young people alienated.
3. The law throws cannabis and its supply in with hard drugs.
4. The hypocrisy of laws which prohibit cannabis and allow alcohol and tobacco. 5. The law itself causes more damage than cannabis use. Loss of freedom, family, future plans, added criminal record, alienation, paranoia, social outcast, employment problems.
6. Humiliation of searches. Otherwise law abiding citizens. This is a strong point if you tell how it feels to be searched and questioned.
7. Unjust laws. Misplacement of cannabis in Single Convention etc. Misclassification as a narcotic in the 1920's
8. Waste of police time, court time, prison space at huge cost to taxpayer. It was about 400 miilion pounds in the UK in 1995.
9. Not a gateway drug.
10. Medicinal uses in particular personal stories of medical need. Many politicians now accept that people benefit from using cannabis in certain cases such as MS, Glaucoma, AIDS and cancer. They are beginning to accept that cannabis ought to be available medicinally ie on prescription. However, in the UK doctors are not allowed to prescribe plants and a cannabis pill would most likely be not smokeable, semi or fully synthetic. It would seem better that we advocate that medicinal users be allowed cannabis, ie allowed to grow their own or have somebody grow it for them, or buy it with all the protection of the law on quality and weight.
11. Not just dope; i.e. rope, fabric, fuel, medicine, sacrament paper, bricks, food, plastic, paint etc.
12. Decriminalisation no good because no quality control and left to the whims of the police and Prosecution services, varying from place to place and time to time. This is not justice. Also allowing the use of a substance which cannot be sold legally is illogical. This is a failure of the UK Green Part's stance for decriminalisation
13. Impurities and health hazards of illegal supply.
14. Smoking cannabis is harmless (quote Lancet and Judge Young).
15. Less harmful than tobacco. Not addictive. No non-medicinal dependency. Passive smoking no problem apart from smell?
16. Take the money out of hands of criminals and tax the profits.
17. Legal cannabis could be cheaper cannabis. Less crime. Although cannabis is not addictive some people who have addictive or dependent personalities may go to the extent of committing crimes to get money to buy it; legal cannabis would mean cheaper (home grown) cannabis and would inevitably lead to a drop in crime figures; on top of this is the drop in crime due entirely to legalisation.
18. Legalisation means deglorification.
19. Has been used for thousands of years, no deaths.
20. Cannabis in the Bible in the Holy Ointment and as the New Wine.
21. Prohibition is repressive of religious rights.
22. Prohibition contravenes United Nations Articles.
23. The Dutch situation and coffee shops. After an initial increase in the incidence of cannabis use in Holland after decriminalisation, the rate of increase fell off compared with other European countries. What is more the increase in the number of new drug addicts fell drastically compared with other countries.
24. Environmental uses; the Greenhouse Effect; soil erosion prevention.. When cannabis fuel is used the process only releases back into the atmosphere the same amount of carbon dioxide which was absorbed during the growing process several months earlier; in the case of fossil fuels the carbon dioxide was absorbed millions of years ago (by the growing trees), when the atmosphere was very different to now.
25. History of prohibition. The prohibition of commercially viable commodities has always failed - like alcohol prohibition in the USA; in 1997 India is considering withdrawing the prohibition of dangerous alcohol whereas they are tightening up on harmless cannabis which grows wild and has been used as a sacrament for centuries.
26. No adequate research can be done on illegal cannabis.
27. THC-free hemp cigarettes would be healthier than tobacco.
Keeping an eye on what other politicians do and say can invoke letters. e.g Jack Straw, Keith Hellawell, Charles Kennedy, Clare Short, Tony Banks, George Howarth.
Watch the press - articles about cannabis are appearing more and more. Each article is an opportunity to write, either agreeing or disagreeing and stating facts; your local press is up to you - if you don't write who will?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
QUICK FIRE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Q: Is cannabis harmful to health?
A: No, not pure cannabis. See The Lancet and Judge Young, The Merck Manual, LaGuardia, Wootton, Shafer, Jamaican Studies, Costa Rica Studies.
Q: Is cannabis a drug?
Q: Is cannabis poisonous? / Is there a fatal dose? A: No. It has been established that there is no conceivable toxic amount of cannabis for human beings. Medicinal substances frequently have a dosage above which death may follow after consumption. This quantity is known as the LD-50 rating - that is the dose above which 50 per cent of animals tested have dies. It has never been possible to give enough cannabis to an animal to kill it. It is estimated that the LD-50 for cannabis is around 1:20,000, which means that an average human would have to be given at least 20,000 times as much cannabis as is contained in the average joint or spliff. Based upon the dosage supplied to patients on the NIDA program in the USA, this would mean consumption of some 1500 pounds in weight of cannabis within 15 minutes to induce death. This of course is impossible and cannabis can accurately be described as non-toxic.
The figure of 20,000, sometimes quoted as 40,000, was based upon research carried out in the laboratory on mice using concentrated THC.
Q: Does cannabis intoxicate?
A: Not in the sense of losing control, which is what intoxication does. Toxins produce intoxication; cannabis is not toxic. The word "intoxicate" is semantically incorrectly applied to cannabis.
Q: Is cannabis THC?
A: Tetrahydrocannabinol is one of hundreds of cannabinoids in cannabis. THC is not cannabis, cannabis is not THC.
Q: What are the effects of cannabis?
A: We'd like to simply say 'take it and see' but that would be a crime! Cannabis relaxes alpha waves produced by the brain. The effect is usually mild, relaxing and pleasant. Any undesirable or unpleasant effects or high dosed or in the novice wears off as the cannabis wears off. It can produce giggles, increase concentration, stimulate appetite, help sleep etc. Many artists and sportsmen use cannabis. We must be careful to distinguish between the effects of pure cannabis and those of the dubious quality substances often sold on the street, which may contain drugs.
Q: Does cannabis damage the reproductive system?
A: No. This false claim was based on the work of Dr Gabriel Nahas who experimented with cells in Petri dishes. The scientific community has rejected Nahas' generalisation from the laboratory dish to human beings. Studies of humans have failed to reveal any damage. Moreover we all know plenty of people who have used cannabis for years and they all have plenty of normal, healthy children. See also Greek Studies.
Q: Does cannabis damage the immune system?
A: No. Again there is no evidence. Two studies in 1978 and one in 1988 showed that cannabis actually stimulates the immune system.
Q: Does cannabis impair short-term memory?
A: No. Some people may find themselves distracted whilst others find cannabis aids concentration and improves memory. That is why so many good musicians smoke cannabis and are able to remember complex series of notes and words.
Q: Is today's cannabis more potent than in the past?
No. It is about the same. In the past delays in analysis effected results. Potency cannot be determined by the amount of THC alone. The most potent form of cannabis that was probably that sold as 'American Cannabis' in the 1920's.
Q: What does cannabis smoke contain?
A: Over two thousand different chemicals, none of which produces harm. Compared with coffee, which contains over 800 volatile chemicals, only 21 of which have ever been tested on animals and 16 of those caused cancers in rats.
Q: How many convicted annually?
A: In 1994 there were over 72,000 convictions in the UK. This was 83% of 'drugs' convictions. This costs hundreds of millions of pounds.
Q: How many people die as a result of cannabis use?
A: None. Ever. It is not toxic, there is no overdose.
Q: Is cannabis addictive?
A: No. It is habit-forming only in the sense that it is natural to wish to repeat a pleasant experience. There is no withdrawal. One simply returns to whatever state one was in before consumption. See LaGuardia, Shafer.. But we must remember that those people with addictive personalities can come to psychologically depend on anything, and those using cannabis to ease their suffering may depend upon it as a medicine. This does not mean that the hundreds of millions of people worldwide are cannabis addicts.
Q: Is cannabis a 'gateway drug'?
A: No, otherwise the 5 million smokers of 1991 would be addicts of other drugs by now. The situation in Holland has confirmed that cannabis use does not lead to drug use. In any case a huge percentage of the population takes drugs of one sort or another. The fact that a lot of heroin users previously took cannabis does not suggest that most cannabis users will ever take heroin.
Q: Do you advocate the use of cannabis?
A: We would like to be able to advocate the medicinal use of cannabis in preference to many prescribed drugs, as well as advocate the preferred use of cannabis for hard drug users. Unfortunately if we did this we would be subject to arrest for incitement.
Q: Some doctors, nurses and drug workers frequently tell us that they see people, especially young ones, who suffer from mental problems due to cannabis. Surely legalisation would increase the numbers?
A: These problems do not seem to occur in the East where cannabis has been used for centuries. Nobody would deny that a certain percentage of society suffers mental problems, understandable maybe under the pressures that western society often puts people under, and specifically applied to cannabis users under a legal system which threatens them with arrest. It is more likely that these cases are mentally nor ill people who use cannabis, rather than the case of cannabis causing the illness. We must remember of course that all of these cases apply to banned cannabis - how sure are we that it is pure cannabis that has been used, and can we be sure that no dangerous illicit drugs have been used
But the essential question is: should the law punish people who suffer mental illnesses if they consume cannabis? Should it punish those who use cannabis at all. Surely ill people need help, not fines and prison.
It also appears true that cannabis may help bring some of these problems to the surface where they can be recognised and dealt with.
Q: When was cannabis made illegal?
A: In the UK in 1928. As a result of the mis-classification of cannabis as a narcotic.
Q: How many cannabis users in the world?
A:: An estimated 600 million - probably far too low.
Q: Is cannabis fat-soluble? Does it stay in your system?
A: Yes, for from 14 to 40 days. But this is long after any effect has worn off and it causes no harm.
Q: What are the other uses of cannabis?
A: Besides social use and medicinal use, as a fibre for paper, rope and cloth, as a building material and board for furniture, packing material, animal bedding, foodstuff, prevents land erosion, to make plastic, paints, varnish, and sealant, as a fuel, as a lubricant etc. See here.
Q: What are the penalties for cannabis?
A: For possession, ion the UK, anything from a caution to five years with or without a fine up to £2500. For cultivation, supply, possession with intent, importation and conspiracy (including being concerned or knowingly involved with any of these offences), up to 15 years in prison with an unlimited fine and confiscation of assets. In Holland the sentences for even huge amounts are relatively light. In some countries even the death penalty is a possibility.
In India the law is so crazy that there is a maximum sentence of 5 years for over 5 grams of ganja (herb) but a MINIMUM sentence of 10 years for over 5 grams of charas (resin).
Q:: What are the dangers of smoking cannabis?
A: Mixing it with tobacco.
Getting arrested.
Health hazards from impurities.
Being offered drugs.
Becoming a social outcast = persecution.
Conviction = criminal record, banned from USA, Australia etc.
All prohibition created problems.
Q: Is cannabis at all dangerous?
A: Of course, everything has some danger. You can drown in water, air starts fires, and you can choke on a sweet. Cannabis is about as dangerous as the same sized piece of wood. You could hit somebody with a large lump. However, cannabis was described, by DEA Administrator Judge Francis Young, as one of the safest of substances.
Q: Is decriminalisation a step in the right direction? A: No. Decriminalisation is simple turning a blind eye to small time users or growers. It simply avoids the real issues of control. Cannabis quality could not be tested. We want the weed to be free. We want it sold by reputable dealers with their profits taxed. We do not want limits on the amount possessed or amount of plants cultivated.
Q: What about synthetic cannabis?
A: Research is continuing to produce medicinal cannabis substances that do not give a high when consumed. Cannabis is a holistic plant - the whole plant is necessary. Synthetic 'drugs' such as Nabilone are considered virtually useless compared with natural cannabis and can have unpleasant side effects such as depression. Cannabis usually alleviates depression.
Q: In third world countries the poor and unemployed are seen sitting smoking cannabis, they never seem to get anything together and remain poor. Isn't this an effect of cannabis? That is, does the use of cannabis a-motivate?
A: No. The reverse is true. Because they are poor and unemployed they have time to sit and smoke. Cannabis grows wild in many of these countries. They smoke it because it helps them stay happy in their positions. In the same countries many working people smoke cannabis. You do not see them on the streets because they work and smoke at home. The same is true in Britain.
It would take a million wise men to answer all the questions one fool can ask.
------------------------------------------
CANNABIS AND HARD DRUG MYTHS
Go back to the Index
The argument that the use of cannabis leads to the use of hard drugs, known as the Gateway Theory is seldom used by the British Government, any more. Others, however, continually state this as if it were fact, whilst still others, even some who advocate the full legalisation of cannabis, continue to insist that it is the social setting in which cannabis is taken that leads to hard drug use. Such an argument is often based on the idea that for drinkers of alcohol in an environment where tobacco is smoked may start or restart the use of tobacco. Such arguments may often have prohibitionist undertones. The truth is that it is generally people who lead themselves or other people to try something new. There is nothing within cannabis itself that automatically leads one to try a hard drug, although people with a propensity to experiment with drugs may first try cannabis and the availability of different substances in the same place will help make that easier for them to achieve.
---------------------------------------
It's time for a change my friends.
--
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
So I tell him, 'Man, I was moving this tree and it fell over... it was an accident. I'll pick all the mess up.
I wish I had the salary of a rock star! It's amazing how much the 'moving the tree idea' is gonna cost me. I'm glad to hear neither of these charges are felonies though. Thanks bro.
all day blew anyway.
I don't get that at all. Why aren't they telling people that I no longer work there??? They've already moved my computer and shit... I'm lost on that one. It's nice though... I don't really want 'my baby's mama' 
