doctor G
04-30-2005, 04:47 PM
A Brief History of the Politics of Cannabis
In the United States
Before the Revolution
Cannabis was used by the natives of this continent long before the arrival
of the white man. As one of the gifts of mother earth cannabis was used in
religious ceremonies as well as for medicinal and practical uses.
Early settlers to this country brought hemp seeds in their survival kit
because of the large number of uses they had for hemp and itâ??s products. Taxes
could be paid in hemp from 1631 to the mid 1800â??s. In Virginia colony from 1763
to 1789, a landowner could be imprisoned for refusing to grow hemp (Cannabis)
Aside from itâ??s value as food and fiber it was valued for itâ??s medicinal
effects. A tea of the flowers was used to relieve numerous â??womenâ??s alimentsâ?
from cramps to childbirth. Cannabis was also recommended for a multitude of
other ailments from tooth ache and back pain, to melancholy
Considering the importance of this noble weed to our founding fathers the
current political attitude regarding the Cannabis plant is most confounding.
The historical facts are plain; the British controlled the American colonists
by restricting the amount of powder and ball a person could be in possession of.
Remember this was a time of self sufficiency. If you wanted bread you grew
wheat, if you wanted meat in the dinner you took a walk and brought something
home. Much of what the colonists hunted was small game and birds. Salt was
very expensive so it was impractical to preserve large quantities of meat. As a
result of this the colonists hunted for virtually every meal. By controlling the import
and distribution of gunpowder and musket balls the Kings forces could make sure
the natives would not rise up. Possession of excess powder or ball could be
punishable by death.
The French Government aided the Colonial Founding Fathers by
supplying; troops, gunpowder, musket balls, cannon, and cannon balls. The
question needs to be asked; what did the founding fathers have to pay for this?
The colonies had no minerals, no manufacturing, and the forests (Naval Supplies)
were carefully accounted by the British.
It was Benjamin Franklin, in his meeting with General Lafayette in Paris in
1778, who proposed trading hemp for powder and ball to free the colonies from
the British king. It was American hemp that was offered in trade for French
troops.
The French needed hemp to support their colonial expansion efforts
around the world. Colonies exist in places where things that are not common at
home may be found. In order for these things to have value they must be brought
home. The transport technology of the time was the sailing ship and in order to
control the sail you needed hemp rope.
Many fibers had been experimented with by civilizations over the
centuries but in the end hemp was the fiber that withstood the test of the ocean.
At this time all of the â??worldsâ? hemp was produced in India, under the control of
the British. The British saw this as a way to take control of French colonies
because without supplies from home and a way to bring the goods home there
was no way a colony could survive. The British realized this and sought to
deprive the French of the hemp their ships needed.
It was Benjamin Franklin with the fields of American hemp at his disposal
who negotiated for cannon, ball and troops. The fertile soils of the plantations of
Washington and Jefferson and other Colonial farmers produced thousands of
bales of hemp. The British had never been able to mount an effective blockade
and colonial long boats were able to meet French clippers almost at will. By the
time the colonials were wining the hostilities and the British realized what had
been happening it was too late; the French troops had landed and the colonists
were armed and formed into efficient militia units. When the hostilities were
ended our first export to our French allies was the hemp the colonists were
producing.
After the Revolution
Hemp and Cannabis production continued through the United States,
expanding west with the settlers. Hemp seed oil was used for lamp oil and
cooking, the leaves bedded the animals and the stalks were made into all manner
of textiles; from bed sheets to paper. Most paper in this country was made of
hemp fiber until the mid 1800â??s. The flag Betsy Ross created was made of hemp
cloth. The Declaration of Independence was inscribed on hemp linen. The finest
paints were made with hemp oil. Grain was shipped in hemp bags because it was
more durable.
Laws concerning hemp and Cannabis production did not come into
consideration until after the First World War. A time much noted for people
legislating what was â??good for youâ?. Those are the years of Prohibition, and
innumerable other inroads on personal freedom.
It was 1931 when a white prohibitionist was appointed as Chairman of the
US Bureau of Narcotics that controlling the â??devil weedâ? became a national
priority. His testimony to Congress in the 1936 legislative session reads like some
wild fiction. Many people are surprised that he was not struck by lightning early on
in his testimony. At one point , after swearing on a bible that the testimony he was
about to give was â??The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truthâ?
Mr. Ainslinger testified to first hand knowledge of the effects of â??reefer
addictionâ?.
â??A ten year old boyâ?, he said, â??had been arrested for selling â??mugglesâ?
(reefer) in the school yardâ?.
He was arrested and brought to the Tombs in New York City. There he
was placed in a cell with five adult criminals.
â??After being deprived of his reefer for several hours he went crazy, pulled
an icepick from his boot and stabbed the other inmates to death before plunging
the icepick deep into his own brain; taking his own life.â?
Feel free to check the Congressional Record. This is only one of several
incidents described in his testimony. As a result of this fiction and many other
equally believable â??marihuana murdersâ? Congress enacted the â??Marihuana Tax
Stamp actâ? in 1937.
For the first time that act gave the Federal Government control over
Cannabis and hemp production in the United States. This act was the result of a
cabal of Industry giants who conspired to remove the competition hemp offered.
Control of the Mexican immigrant population and money was the real reason
hemp was criminalized, a lot of money.
The Reasons for Prohibition
In 1916 the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) developed a
new papermaking process using cannabis hemp that was more efficient and less
expensive than the wood pulp sulfide processâ??s. USDA claimed one acre of
cannabis hemp could produce as much paper pulp as 4.5 acres of trees.
When the patent protection expired and that technology became widely
available in the 1930â??s the existing paper companies were threatened. Hearst
Newspapers owned itâ??s own paper company Kimberly Clark Company which
could loose millions of dollars if this new technology became wide spread. That
threat alone was enough to make Randolph Hearst declare war on hemp. He was
aided in his action by other industrialists with an eye on profit. The DuPont
companyâ??s had paid for licenses from the German government to make the new
petroleum based ropes but those ropes were more expensive than hemp so sales
were down.
DuPontâ??s banker was a man named Andrew Mellon, who was the owner of
the sixth largest bank in the country. Mellon had recently been appointed to be
the US Secretary of the Treasury. It was Mellon was proposed and pushed for the
appointment of an ex Assistant US Commissioner for Prohibition; Harry
Ainslinger, to be the new Director of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Mellon
knew Anislinger would do as he was told, after all they were in laws. So with
Hearst supplying the script, DuPont the money, Harry Ainsilinger testified to the
Congress in the finale of a campaign of yellow journalism and scare tactics,
lacking any basis in reality; to insure the financial future of his and his friends
empires.
Since that misguided time most of the laws that were enacted have been
reviewed and in many cases changed. It is no longer illegal to marry a person of a
different color, alcohol is regulated on the local level, heterosexually challenged
behavior is no longer a felony.
Why have there been no honest reevaluation of cannabis laws? Could it
be the Bush family interest in Eli Lily is threatened with the potential loss of a
third of itâ??s market in painkillers by the legalization of cannabis? The
Pharmaceutical industry has a great stake in the markets granted through itâ??s
monopoly and is likewise threatened by the reexamination of Cannabis laws.
The Lie as Truth
Websters dictionary defines drug as â??any substance used as or in a
medicineâ?. The list of medicines derived from cannabis in the 1930â??s was so
significant that the AMA (American Medical Association) testified against the
original legislation. Even today the natural extracts of cannabis hemp have
proven far superior to the pharmaceutical industryâ??s attempts at synthesizing
similar compounds. Without further impartial scientific research how can we hope
to know what else may be available from those plants?
Every argument offered by Politicians over the years to maintain the
prohibition, from gateway drug to increased crime has been knocked down by
facts and still the Federal Government continues to repeat long discredited
studies as justification to impose itâ??s will on the states and their people. In
Northern California and seventeen other jurisdictions where the people have
voiced a desire to change an ill considered law, the Federal government has
ignored the will of those people.
To dissuade those local populations from further persueing their will the
Federal authorities have responded with increasing armed force in an effort to
impose an unwanted and resisted intrusion into peoples lives. The practice of
placing the burden of proof on the accused in drug cases allows the Federal
Authorities to confiscate millions of dollars in currency and property, while
ignoring the principal concept of our judicial system: Innocent until Proven Guilty.
Enron doesnâ??t have to prove that it did not steal billions of dollars, federal
prosecutors have to prove they did. Why do small businesses persons in the
cannabis industry have to prove they are not thieves?
The Real Drug Industry
The federal governmentâ??s continued subsidy of a product that if used as
directed will cause major illness and death illustrates the hypocrisy of cannabis
and drug laws in general. Cannabis is not, despite the protests to the contrary, a
public health issue. It is a political and economic issue. There is an immense
industry devoted to maintaining the current â??drug lawsâ?, and the special interests
(large contributors) reign supreme in influencing Federal policy. Many profitable
companies from tobacco and alcohol companies, to the pharmaceutical monopoly
and private for profit prisons have a significant stake in maintaining the hysterical
response currently applied to cannabis decriminalization efforts. Those industries
continue to support, financially and politically; lobbyists who will continue the
scare tactics. From the millions of dollars spent for celebrity endorsement to the
billions spent on special courts and cops, the anti drug industry is very profitable
for a few people. The greatest political motivation to maintaining the status quo is
the tens of thousands of jobs that depend on persecuting a significant percentage
of the population.
Cannabis Laws: Cost Vs Benefit
When you examine why countries that have liberalized cannabis laws did
so, it is the economic reasons that held the most sway. The Dutch for example,
by observing a difference between soft and hard drugs have been able to better
fund domestic programs, like national health care. Not only were significant funds
freed from unpopular enforcement, but additional income was realized by the
licensing procedures. Try to imagine the economic effect in this country.
Hundreds of billions of dollars would no longer be required to fund the DEA,
blocks of court rooms could be converted to public housing or some other useful
application. The cost of housing 735,000 people (FBI 2000) every
year(@$35,000/per person/per year minimum) in prisons and the maintenance
(welfare / public assistance) of their families would be eliminated. Not enough
economic savings yet? OK sell permits to grow a dozen plants for medical use,
charge $100 per year. If only half the smokers in America who would benefit
bought permits that would put 2.85 billion dollars ($2,850,000,000) into the federal
coffers. At least fifteen million people would pay without a qualm. Thatâ??s a billion
and a half ($1,500,000,000) dollars of NEW income to the Federal government
for the cost of printing ink and paper (both can be hemp based). Permits for
Amsterdam style â??Coffee Shopsâ? could bring hundreds of thousands of dollars per
permit per year. The estimated income from one permit per state alone is $5
billion per year. In Amsterdam each coffee shop generates 20 jobs. If the
735,000 American small businessmen that were imprisoned in 2000 were allowed
to establish coffee shops they could employ 14.7 million (14,700,000) fellow
Americans. At a minimum wage of $6.50 an hour those jobs could generate
$198.74 billion dollars in personal income alone. Is that a economic stimulus
package or what? In Amsterdam those coffee shops generate income at the rate
of ten times the employee cost. Those 14.7 million American could be generating
1.9 trillion dollars a year. Add that number to the savings from not having to
persecute a significant portion of the American population and we are talking real
money. And not just for one year, this income could be generated every year from
now on.
Even a federal bureaucrat should be able to recognize that kind of money.
25.725 billion dollars in reduced prison expenses; and if only a third of those
inmates are head of household then welfare / public assistance could take
another 25 million dollars off itâ??s books. 5 to 7 billion dollars in licensing fees, 1.9
trillion dollars in additional revenues, thatâ??s some serious revenue. Are the
financial implications obvious yet?
To review cannabis laws in the United States and allow individual States to
decide if they want to be â??Dryâ? or â??Wetâ?, in the alcohol vernacular, has the
potential to put trillions of dollars into other sectors of the economy. That is a real
stimulus package. Promises of future tax breaks cannot compare to the
immediate benefits that would result from correcting this erroneous political
decision that has been perpetuated on the American People for the past seventy
years.
REGISTER
PARTICIPATE
VOTE
After all itâ??s just YOUR freedom
In the United States
Before the Revolution
Cannabis was used by the natives of this continent long before the arrival
of the white man. As one of the gifts of mother earth cannabis was used in
religious ceremonies as well as for medicinal and practical uses.
Early settlers to this country brought hemp seeds in their survival kit
because of the large number of uses they had for hemp and itâ??s products. Taxes
could be paid in hemp from 1631 to the mid 1800â??s. In Virginia colony from 1763
to 1789, a landowner could be imprisoned for refusing to grow hemp (Cannabis)
Aside from itâ??s value as food and fiber it was valued for itâ??s medicinal
effects. A tea of the flowers was used to relieve numerous â??womenâ??s alimentsâ?
from cramps to childbirth. Cannabis was also recommended for a multitude of
other ailments from tooth ache and back pain, to melancholy
Considering the importance of this noble weed to our founding fathers the
current political attitude regarding the Cannabis plant is most confounding.
The historical facts are plain; the British controlled the American colonists
by restricting the amount of powder and ball a person could be in possession of.
Remember this was a time of self sufficiency. If you wanted bread you grew
wheat, if you wanted meat in the dinner you took a walk and brought something
home. Much of what the colonists hunted was small game and birds. Salt was
very expensive so it was impractical to preserve large quantities of meat. As a
result of this the colonists hunted for virtually every meal. By controlling the import
and distribution of gunpowder and musket balls the Kings forces could make sure
the natives would not rise up. Possession of excess powder or ball could be
punishable by death.
The French Government aided the Colonial Founding Fathers by
supplying; troops, gunpowder, musket balls, cannon, and cannon balls. The
question needs to be asked; what did the founding fathers have to pay for this?
The colonies had no minerals, no manufacturing, and the forests (Naval Supplies)
were carefully accounted by the British.
It was Benjamin Franklin, in his meeting with General Lafayette in Paris in
1778, who proposed trading hemp for powder and ball to free the colonies from
the British king. It was American hemp that was offered in trade for French
troops.
The French needed hemp to support their colonial expansion efforts
around the world. Colonies exist in places where things that are not common at
home may be found. In order for these things to have value they must be brought
home. The transport technology of the time was the sailing ship and in order to
control the sail you needed hemp rope.
Many fibers had been experimented with by civilizations over the
centuries but in the end hemp was the fiber that withstood the test of the ocean.
At this time all of the â??worldsâ? hemp was produced in India, under the control of
the British. The British saw this as a way to take control of French colonies
because without supplies from home and a way to bring the goods home there
was no way a colony could survive. The British realized this and sought to
deprive the French of the hemp their ships needed.
It was Benjamin Franklin with the fields of American hemp at his disposal
who negotiated for cannon, ball and troops. The fertile soils of the plantations of
Washington and Jefferson and other Colonial farmers produced thousands of
bales of hemp. The British had never been able to mount an effective blockade
and colonial long boats were able to meet French clippers almost at will. By the
time the colonials were wining the hostilities and the British realized what had
been happening it was too late; the French troops had landed and the colonists
were armed and formed into efficient militia units. When the hostilities were
ended our first export to our French allies was the hemp the colonists were
producing.
After the Revolution
Hemp and Cannabis production continued through the United States,
expanding west with the settlers. Hemp seed oil was used for lamp oil and
cooking, the leaves bedded the animals and the stalks were made into all manner
of textiles; from bed sheets to paper. Most paper in this country was made of
hemp fiber until the mid 1800â??s. The flag Betsy Ross created was made of hemp
cloth. The Declaration of Independence was inscribed on hemp linen. The finest
paints were made with hemp oil. Grain was shipped in hemp bags because it was
more durable.
Laws concerning hemp and Cannabis production did not come into
consideration until after the First World War. A time much noted for people
legislating what was â??good for youâ?. Those are the years of Prohibition, and
innumerable other inroads on personal freedom.
It was 1931 when a white prohibitionist was appointed as Chairman of the
US Bureau of Narcotics that controlling the â??devil weedâ? became a national
priority. His testimony to Congress in the 1936 legislative session reads like some
wild fiction. Many people are surprised that he was not struck by lightning early on
in his testimony. At one point , after swearing on a bible that the testimony he was
about to give was â??The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truthâ?
Mr. Ainslinger testified to first hand knowledge of the effects of â??reefer
addictionâ?.
â??A ten year old boyâ?, he said, â??had been arrested for selling â??mugglesâ?
(reefer) in the school yardâ?.
He was arrested and brought to the Tombs in New York City. There he
was placed in a cell with five adult criminals.
â??After being deprived of his reefer for several hours he went crazy, pulled
an icepick from his boot and stabbed the other inmates to death before plunging
the icepick deep into his own brain; taking his own life.â?
Feel free to check the Congressional Record. This is only one of several
incidents described in his testimony. As a result of this fiction and many other
equally believable â??marihuana murdersâ? Congress enacted the â??Marihuana Tax
Stamp actâ? in 1937.
For the first time that act gave the Federal Government control over
Cannabis and hemp production in the United States. This act was the result of a
cabal of Industry giants who conspired to remove the competition hemp offered.
Control of the Mexican immigrant population and money was the real reason
hemp was criminalized, a lot of money.
The Reasons for Prohibition
In 1916 the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) developed a
new papermaking process using cannabis hemp that was more efficient and less
expensive than the wood pulp sulfide processâ??s. USDA claimed one acre of
cannabis hemp could produce as much paper pulp as 4.5 acres of trees.
When the patent protection expired and that technology became widely
available in the 1930â??s the existing paper companies were threatened. Hearst
Newspapers owned itâ??s own paper company Kimberly Clark Company which
could loose millions of dollars if this new technology became wide spread. That
threat alone was enough to make Randolph Hearst declare war on hemp. He was
aided in his action by other industrialists with an eye on profit. The DuPont
companyâ??s had paid for licenses from the German government to make the new
petroleum based ropes but those ropes were more expensive than hemp so sales
were down.
DuPontâ??s banker was a man named Andrew Mellon, who was the owner of
the sixth largest bank in the country. Mellon had recently been appointed to be
the US Secretary of the Treasury. It was Mellon was proposed and pushed for the
appointment of an ex Assistant US Commissioner for Prohibition; Harry
Ainslinger, to be the new Director of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Mellon
knew Anislinger would do as he was told, after all they were in laws. So with
Hearst supplying the script, DuPont the money, Harry Ainsilinger testified to the
Congress in the finale of a campaign of yellow journalism and scare tactics,
lacking any basis in reality; to insure the financial future of his and his friends
empires.
Since that misguided time most of the laws that were enacted have been
reviewed and in many cases changed. It is no longer illegal to marry a person of a
different color, alcohol is regulated on the local level, heterosexually challenged
behavior is no longer a felony.
Why have there been no honest reevaluation of cannabis laws? Could it
be the Bush family interest in Eli Lily is threatened with the potential loss of a
third of itâ??s market in painkillers by the legalization of cannabis? The
Pharmaceutical industry has a great stake in the markets granted through itâ??s
monopoly and is likewise threatened by the reexamination of Cannabis laws.
The Lie as Truth
Websters dictionary defines drug as â??any substance used as or in a
medicineâ?. The list of medicines derived from cannabis in the 1930â??s was so
significant that the AMA (American Medical Association) testified against the
original legislation. Even today the natural extracts of cannabis hemp have
proven far superior to the pharmaceutical industryâ??s attempts at synthesizing
similar compounds. Without further impartial scientific research how can we hope
to know what else may be available from those plants?
Every argument offered by Politicians over the years to maintain the
prohibition, from gateway drug to increased crime has been knocked down by
facts and still the Federal Government continues to repeat long discredited
studies as justification to impose itâ??s will on the states and their people. In
Northern California and seventeen other jurisdictions where the people have
voiced a desire to change an ill considered law, the Federal government has
ignored the will of those people.
To dissuade those local populations from further persueing their will the
Federal authorities have responded with increasing armed force in an effort to
impose an unwanted and resisted intrusion into peoples lives. The practice of
placing the burden of proof on the accused in drug cases allows the Federal
Authorities to confiscate millions of dollars in currency and property, while
ignoring the principal concept of our judicial system: Innocent until Proven Guilty.
Enron doesnâ??t have to prove that it did not steal billions of dollars, federal
prosecutors have to prove they did. Why do small businesses persons in the
cannabis industry have to prove they are not thieves?
The Real Drug Industry
The federal governmentâ??s continued subsidy of a product that if used as
directed will cause major illness and death illustrates the hypocrisy of cannabis
and drug laws in general. Cannabis is not, despite the protests to the contrary, a
public health issue. It is a political and economic issue. There is an immense
industry devoted to maintaining the current â??drug lawsâ?, and the special interests
(large contributors) reign supreme in influencing Federal policy. Many profitable
companies from tobacco and alcohol companies, to the pharmaceutical monopoly
and private for profit prisons have a significant stake in maintaining the hysterical
response currently applied to cannabis decriminalization efforts. Those industries
continue to support, financially and politically; lobbyists who will continue the
scare tactics. From the millions of dollars spent for celebrity endorsement to the
billions spent on special courts and cops, the anti drug industry is very profitable
for a few people. The greatest political motivation to maintaining the status quo is
the tens of thousands of jobs that depend on persecuting a significant percentage
of the population.
Cannabis Laws: Cost Vs Benefit
When you examine why countries that have liberalized cannabis laws did
so, it is the economic reasons that held the most sway. The Dutch for example,
by observing a difference between soft and hard drugs have been able to better
fund domestic programs, like national health care. Not only were significant funds
freed from unpopular enforcement, but additional income was realized by the
licensing procedures. Try to imagine the economic effect in this country.
Hundreds of billions of dollars would no longer be required to fund the DEA,
blocks of court rooms could be converted to public housing or some other useful
application. The cost of housing 735,000 people (FBI 2000) every
year(@$35,000/per person/per year minimum) in prisons and the maintenance
(welfare / public assistance) of their families would be eliminated. Not enough
economic savings yet? OK sell permits to grow a dozen plants for medical use,
charge $100 per year. If only half the smokers in America who would benefit
bought permits that would put 2.85 billion dollars ($2,850,000,000) into the federal
coffers. At least fifteen million people would pay without a qualm. Thatâ??s a billion
and a half ($1,500,000,000) dollars of NEW income to the Federal government
for the cost of printing ink and paper (both can be hemp based). Permits for
Amsterdam style â??Coffee Shopsâ? could bring hundreds of thousands of dollars per
permit per year. The estimated income from one permit per state alone is $5
billion per year. In Amsterdam each coffee shop generates 20 jobs. If the
735,000 American small businessmen that were imprisoned in 2000 were allowed
to establish coffee shops they could employ 14.7 million (14,700,000) fellow
Americans. At a minimum wage of $6.50 an hour those jobs could generate
$198.74 billion dollars in personal income alone. Is that a economic stimulus
package or what? In Amsterdam those coffee shops generate income at the rate
of ten times the employee cost. Those 14.7 million American could be generating
1.9 trillion dollars a year. Add that number to the savings from not having to
persecute a significant portion of the American population and we are talking real
money. And not just for one year, this income could be generated every year from
now on.
Even a federal bureaucrat should be able to recognize that kind of money.
25.725 billion dollars in reduced prison expenses; and if only a third of those
inmates are head of household then welfare / public assistance could take
another 25 million dollars off itâ??s books. 5 to 7 billion dollars in licensing fees, 1.9
trillion dollars in additional revenues, thatâ??s some serious revenue. Are the
financial implications obvious yet?
To review cannabis laws in the United States and allow individual States to
decide if they want to be â??Dryâ? or â??Wetâ?, in the alcohol vernacular, has the
potential to put trillions of dollars into other sectors of the economy. That is a real
stimulus package. Promises of future tax breaks cannot compare to the
immediate benefits that would result from correcting this erroneous political
decision that has been perpetuated on the American People for the past seventy
years.
REGISTER
PARTICIPATE
VOTE
After all itâ??s just YOUR freedom