Marijuana
and Hemp
Marijuana has had a lot of bad press over the last 70 years. One of its effects is to heighten the users awareness of bullshit, so it's little wonder that the people trying to oppress it, are so frequently the very same people who are trying to manipulate, exploit, and poison people. But the oppression of Marijuana and Hemp, like most corruption, is really all about money. Fortunately the hemp industry is now slowly making headway against the collective interests of multi-nationals, and conservative, ignorant morons. And the truth about Marijuana is slowly emerging, despite the best efforts of some of the world's most corrupt and powerful business interests. The internet is one of the most powerful tools in exposing the truth about Marijuana and Hemp, so the growth of the internet over the past 10 years has helped truth to fight back against this commercial oppression, as it has in many other areas. By putting Marijuana and Hemp together on the same page I am in danger of following in the footsteps of the ignorant and corrupt who try to oppress the production of Hemp by tying it in to "drug use". So I want to make it clear now that Hemp is a different plant and is of no use whatsoever if you want to get high. But the three major issues discussed here, Industrial Hemp, Medical Marijuana use, and Recreational Marijuana use, although separate issues, are all linked by the same pattern of disinformation, corruption and oppression. For anyone wanting to find out more about the hypocrisy and the real motives behind America's Marijuana Prohibition, and the so called "War on Drugs", I highly recommend the book "Reefer Madness" by Eric Schlosser (2003)
Topics on this page: ORIGINS OF MARIJUANA AND HEMP OPPRESSION The History behind Marijuana and Hemp oppression The
main factors behind the US Marijuana Prohibition: Extensive
research has been conducted to determine the factors that brought
to the prohibition of marijuana. The following are most probably the
three main reasons that initially motivated marijuana laws: Nowadays we believe that big business interests took advantage of the political climate of racism and anti-drug rhetoric to close the free market to hemp products, and so protect their profitable chemical based products. Hemp is good for making literally thousands of valuable commercial products, and that is every bit as threatening to powerful petrochemical/synthetics multinationals such as Du Pont, as Marijuana is to the "legal" drug industry. It's no surprise that the US government and Du Pont spring up as major players in the whole marijuana prohibition. The tragedy is that so few people are aware of the way American interests have managed to enforce global industrial Hemp prohibition, and the enormous cost to the planet that this has had. Hemp is the most clear cut issue - there is no reasonable argument against it, nothing that needs to be defended - all the arguments of oppression used against it are unsubstantiated, moronic bullshit - end of story. The only reason New Zealand doesn't have a thriving Hemp industry is that many of the clowns who pretend to run our country are in fact sucking American dick. Industrial Hemp is a potentially planet saving crop, with a multitude of valuable uses. Getting wasted is not one of them. That's why we should stick with high quality Marijuana plants for that, and grow masses of Industrial Hemp for all of the following reasons:
The Uses Of Industrial Hemp
Marijuana has been proven in extensive testing to be a valuable therapeutic drug, for the treatment of a wide range of conditions. But it remains illegal because the "medical" industry views it as a major threat to its vastly profitable commercial monopoly. Given the lengths the "medical" industry have gone to oppress apricot kernels, it's almost hard to imagine how far they would go to stop people using Marijuana. Pretty much whatever it takes... unless of course they could patent it and put it a pill, and sell it for shit loads themselves. And that's exactly what Bayer are working on right now. As soon as a powerful multinational has it in pills, things will probably change very rapidly. Because lets face it, the Pharmaceutical Industry are nothing less than the world's No#1 drug dealers. Healthful Tokeage If you are using Marijuana for therapeutic reasons (or if you just dig smoking the shit but care about your health), keep in mind: The best way to inhale it is to use a vaporiser. This cuts out most of the harmful oxidising effects of smoking. An effective vapouriser is easily obtained, and they are not that expensive. The BC Vaporizer for example is a good product, and is readily available in New Zealand online and in shops for around NZ$140. (search on Trade Me under vaporizer or vapourizer or vapouriser) Some vapourisers are very expensive - NZ$500 - $1000, and yes they are pretty good, but there are also a lot of equipment snobs online who lash the cheaper units, for looking homemade, looking like bongs, not having digital temperature controls etc. Yeah whatever! A distant second choice is a bong, pipe, or spotting off knives. DO NOT smoke "joints" - if your pot is so weak that you need more than a couple of tokes, get hold of some decent shit and stop smoking lawn clippings. There is nothing therapeutic about inhaling lungfulls of burning paper and cabbage smoke. I know some people like inhaling smoke, but I am not coming from that angle, that's for sure... Obtain quality weed - the more THC, the less other crap you have to inhale. Outdoor grown (natural sunlight is therapeutic for people and plants), or high quality indoor, organic (pesticides are very, very unhealthy), primo sticky buds are best. If you are holding a stash of lawn clippings, try cooking with it. If it tastes odd, smells or looks dodgy, makes you cough, or leaves a bad taste in your mouth - don't smoke it, it may have some toxic shit in it. Buy quality weed from a reputable source, and a little goes a long way.
"The Safest Substance" In 1988 the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) administrative Law Judge, Francis Young concluded: "Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known....[T]he provisions of the [Controlled Substances] Act permit and require the transfer of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II. It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance. In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating 10 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 the supervised routine of medical care."
"Not a single death has ever been credibly attributed directly to smoking or consuming marijuana in the 5000 years of the plant's recorded use. Marijuana is one of the few therapeutically active substances for which there is no well defined fatal dose. It has been estimated that a person would have to smoke 100lbs of marijuana a minute, for 15 minutes, in order to induce a lethal response" from "Reefer Madness" by Eric Schlosser (2003) Field Trials - Alastair Bone, (NZ Llistener, 7 June 2003) GW
Pharmaceuticals is a £32 million company that grows thousands
of marijuana plants in a secret British location, and gives it to
volunteers suffering from a variety of ailments. Reputable scientists
measure the effects and the collected results are checked by the British
Government.
MARIJUANA - A Medicinal Marvel
Cannabis, or marijuana,
has proven medical benefits and few, if any, toxic side-effects. Why,
then, has it been a prohibited medicine for over fifty years? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Extracted
from Nexus Magazine, Volume 3, #5 (August-September '96). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this interview with Dr Grinspoon, many topics are discussed concerning the role of medicinal cannabis use in today's society. J. Ray: What got you interested in marijuana/cannabis? Dr Grinspoon: In 1967, I had some unexpected time so I thought I would look into marijuana to see what all the fuss was about. I was convinced at the time that marijuana was a terribly dangerous drug. I didn't understand why young people were ignoring the government's warnings about its danger in using it. So, I spent the next three years doing research and looking into it. I learned I had been brainwashed just like so many other citizens in the United States. While marijuana is not harmless, it is so much less harmful than alcohol or tobacco that the only sensible way to deal with it is to make it legally available in a controlled system. We can see this with alcohol which is legally available to people over the age of 21 in the United States. I put all this together in a book called Marihuana Reconsidered. It was published in 1971 by Harvard University Press and was quite controversial at the time. It has just been republished as a classic with a new introduction, 25 years later. JR: In your research you found marijuana/cannabis to be less harmful than tobacco or alcohol? Dr G: I think cannabis is not harmless. There is no such thing as a harmless drug. Cannabis is, by any criterion, less harmful than either alcohol or tobacco. For example, tobacco costs the US about 425,000 lives every year; alcohol, perhaps 100,000 to 150,000 lives, not to speak of all the other problems caused by alcohol use. With cannabis there has not been a single case of a documented death due to its use. Now, of course, death is not the only toxicity. It is the most profound one and certainly a permanent one. If you look at it from the point of view of other toxicities, again it comes out much better than either alcohol or tobacco. In fact, the subject of our latest book, Marihuana, The Forbidden Medicine, looks at cannabis from the point of view of a medicine. When cannabis regains the place it once had in the US Pharmacopoeia it will be among the least toxic substances in that whole compendium. JR: It was in the US Pharmacopoeia in the early 1900s? Dr G: That is correct. Cannabis was a very much used drug up until 1941 when it was dropped from the US Pharmacopoeia. This was after the passage of the first of the draconian US anti-marijuana laws in 1937, the Marihuana Tax Act. This Act made it so difficult for physicians to prescribe cannabis that they just stopped using it. JR: Cannabinoid receptors were recently discovered in the human brain. Are these cannabinoid receptors related to cannabis and its medical uses? Dr G: Very definitely. Some years ago it was discovered by Dr Solomon Snyder that there are endogenous opioids; that is to say, substances like opium that we produce in our bodies. It followed from that, that there would be opioid receptors in our brains. It wasn't long afterwards that a woman named Candace Pert discovered this. In other words, if you consider a receptor as a kind of keyhole and the ligand or the neurotransmitter as the key that opens it, the key has to fit into that receptor to open it. With cannabis it came about the other way: the receptor sites for cannabis were discovered first. I believe this was in 1990. From this it was implied that there had to be an endogenous cannabinoid, a ligand that would turn this receptor site on. Indeed, a couple of years later, a man named W. A. Devane and his group discovered this ligand and they gave it the name "anandamide", after the Sanskrit word ananda, which means "bliss". Now there are many studies of these receptors and anandamide. It is clear that these receptors are not just located in the brain but in various other organs in the body as well. I think we are going to see in the future that these receptors play a very important part in the medicinal utility of cannabis. Right now the clinical evidence is empirical and anecdotal but, in my view, powerful enough to be translated into a policy which would allow people to use cannabis legally for medicinal purposes. JR: Do these recent discoveries contradict past research that warned of brain damage from cannabis use? Dr G: In my view, that kind of thing is in the realm of myth and misinformation about cannabis. Think about it for a minute. If the brain produces its own cannabinoid-like substances, it doesn't make much sense that it would produce a substance which is going to damage the brain. Indeed, long before it was discovered that there are endogenous cannabinoids, the empirical evidence did not demonstrate that cannabis damaged the brain. There are a few studies which were methodically unsound that the US Government and, specifically, NIDA, the National Institute of Drug Abuse, and the DEA, the Drug Enforcement Administration, focus on. JR: Can you tell me something about the US Drug Enforcement Administration, the DEA? Dr G: The predecessor agency of the DEA, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, was organised in 1930 by a man named Anslinger. Anslinger undertook what he called a "great educational campaign", which actually turned out to be a great disinformational campaign. This is symbolised by one of the flagships of that campaign: the movie, Reefer Madness. If you see the movie Reefer Madness today, even a person who is not very sophisticated about marijuana will laugh at the grossness of the exaggerations dramatised in that movie. JR: Do you think pharmaceutical drug companies have anything to do with the government's prohibitive stand against medicinal cannabis use? Dr G: Absolutely. The Partnership for a Drug Free America has a budget of about a million dollars a day. A lot of that money comes from drug companies and distilleries. You see, these companies and distilleries have something to lose- the distilleries for obvious reasons. The drug companies are not interested in marijuana as a medicine because the plant cannot be patented. If you can't patent it, you can't make money on it. Their only interest is a negative one. It will eventually displace some of their pharmaceutical products. Imagine a patient who requires cancer chemotherapy. Now he can take the best of the anti-nausea drugs, which would be ondansetron. He would pay about US$35 or $40 per 8-milligram pill and would then take three or four of them for a treatment. Normally, he would take it orally, but people with that kind of nausea often can't, so he would take it intravenously. The cost of one treatment for that begins at US$600 because he will need a hospital bed, etc. Or he can smoke perhaps half of a marijuana cigarette and receive relief from the nausea. Currently, marijuana on the streets is very expensive. One can pay from US$200 to $600 an ounce. This is what I call the prohibition tariff. When marijuana is available as a medicine, the cost would be significantly less than other medications; it would cost about US$20 to $30 an ounce. You can't tax it in the US because it is a medicine. So that would translate out to maybe about 30 cents for a marijuana cigarette. So our chemotherapy patient could get, many people believe, better relief from the marijuana cigarette for 30 cents. This, in comparison to the ondansetron which would cost at the very least US$160 a day and, if he had to take it intravenously, more than US$600 per treatment. Well, if you multiply that by all of the symptoms and syndromes we discuss in the book, Marihuana, The Forbidden Medicine, then you can see that the drug companies will have something to lose here. JR: Do you see this as a big obstacle in changing drug policy here in North America? Dr G: Well, it is certainly playing a part. It is indirectly playing a part in the Partnership for a Drug Free America ads. To say they are inaccurate is an understatement. JR: Are we also talking about DARE, the Drug Abuse Resistance Education program we see in many schools at this time? Dr G: Oh yes, that is a terrible program. Again, it is miseducating children about drugs. It has now been established in a major study that it doesn't do a bit of good. We're all worried about youngsters doing drugs, but now DARE has been demonstrated not to do any good. JR: In your book, Marihuana, The Forbidden Medicine, there are many references to the medicinal uses of cannabis. What are some of the medical problems you have seen medicinal cannabis help? Dr G: The most common cancer treatment in the last couple of decades is with the cancer chemotherapeutic substances. A big problem with some of these is the severe nausea and vomiting. It is the kind of nausea that anybody who has not experienced it can only imagine. It is very important that this nausea be defeated so patients can be reasonably comfortable with this treatment. As I have mentioned, there are conventional drugs available; it is just that cannabis is often the best. Then there is glaucoma which is a disorder of increased intraocular pressure in the eyes. If that pressure is not brought down, glaucoma can eventually lead to blindness. There are conventional medicines that work pretty well; but, for some people, cannabis works better and with fewer side-effects. Epilepsy is a disorder which has been treated by cannabis for centuries. About 25 per cent of people in the US who have various forms of epilepsy don't get good relief from the conventional medicines. Many of them do get relief from one of the oldest anti-epileptic medicines, cannabis. Multiple sclerosis affects more than two million people in the US, and one of its distressing symptoms is muscle spasm. It is very painful. Anybody who has had a cramp while swimming will know what muscle spasm pain is all about. Cannabis is very effective for the muscle spasms of not only multiple sclerosis but also of paraplegia and quadriplegia. Furthermore, cannabis helps people with MS who may have trouble controlling their bladders. Cannabis is very helpful in reducing this kind of loss of control. Not long ago I was in London doing a TV debate on the topic of medicinal cannabis use. There was a woman in the audience who said she had come down from Leeds, two-and-a-half hours on the train, to be in the television audience. She has MS. The part that was so distressing for her was the social embarrassment of losing control over her bladder. Well, she said cannabis has restored her bladder control and she could now make the two-and-a-half-hour trip from Leeds with no trouble. Cannabis has been used for centuries in the treatment of various kinds of chronic pain. It was used on the battlefields of the Civil War as an analgesic medicine until morphine displaced it. Morphine was much quicker for the pain and a much more powerful pain-reliever than cannabis. Cannabis cannot defeat very powerful pain. The price of using morphine was that many people suffered from what was then called "soldier's disease", which was addiction to morphine. Cannabis is very useful in the treatment of migraine headaches. Sir William Osler, in his last textbook on medicine, describes cannabis as the best single medicine for the treatment of the pain of migraine. The list is longer than that but I don't think you want me to go on and on about this. One of the amazing things about cannabis is its versatility. It has many uses. It is also remarkably non-toxic and it will be quite inexpensive when it is not a prohibited substance. In my opinion, cannabis will be seen as a wonder drug of the 1990s, much as penicillin was in the 1940s. JR: In your first book on cannabis, Marihuana Reconsidered, you mentioned that the international drug-control treaties, specifically the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, were not a serious obstacle to the legalisation of cannabis. Do you still go along with this? Dr G: There is no question about it. There is no serious obstacle. Treaties can be changed and I think the push to do that will come from Europe. The interest in this is growing much more rapidly in Europe than in the US. In fact, there is so much new information regarding medicinal cannabis use that Yale University Press has asked us for a second edition of Marihuana, The Forbidden Medicine. This book has been translated into 10 languages, including Japanese. Late in 1995 we received a letter from our German publisher congratulating us on our seventh printing. They said our book has begun a "robust debate on the medicinal use of marijuana in Germany". So, the Europeans are way ahead of us, and I think the pressure will probably come from them to make the necessary legal changes so cannabis can be used as a medicine without interference. The present situation is just awful. These poor people who use it as a medicine already have some degree of anxiety regarding their disease. Another layer of anxiety is imposed on them by their government; namely, they might get arrested or have their homes confiscated because they use cannabis as a medicine. JR: Do you think these international treaties are what keep the 'war on drugs' alive? Dr G: I think the Single Convention is not a big obstacle, frankly. I think lots of people use that as an excuse, that we can't do anything because of the Single Convention. I'm not an expert on it, but the international lawyers I've talked to say this is not the problem. I think the war on drugs is a much bigger thing than our discussion of medicinal cannabis use. The 'war on drugs' is a much more complicated problem. If we stick to the narrow agenda of medicinal cannabis use, I think putting pressure on our government representatives and other people in powerful positions is the way. People are learning about cannabis as a medicine. Anybody who knows a person with AIDS who is dealing with the wasting syndrome probably knows someone who has discovered that cannabis not only retards his weight-loss but maybe helps him to regain weight. People who know patients with multiple sclerosis, migraine, glaucoma who are using cannabis, begin to see that it is a very useful medicine and they begin to wonder what all the fuss is about. So I think people are getting educated. The other thing that is happening that I think is very hopeful is that doctors are getting educated. You see, doctors usually get their drug education from drug companies or from pharmaceutical company sales people who go around to doctors' offices, as well as from journal articles, advertisements and promotional campaigns from these drug companies. There are no drug companies interested in cannabis, so doctors don't learn much about it. In my view, doctors have not only been miseducated like so many other people, but they have also been agents of that miseducation. What is happening now is doctors are learning from patients. This is a new way for doctors to learn about a new medicine. They learn lots of things from their patients, but generally not about new medicines. An example of this would be an AIDS patient who started using cannabis for his wasting syndrome. Imagine him going into his doctor's office and getting on the scales. The doctor knows he's been losing weight all along and nothing that the doctor has given him has helped. Suddenly, the doctor sees his patient has gained weight since the last visit and he asks, "What's going on?" The patient says, "It is the cannabis I've been smoking: it has helped me put on some weight." This makes a powerful impression on a doctor who has been struggling to help his patient gain weight. Once this happens to a doctor, his attitude begins to change. JR: How can the average person work for changes in the drug laws? Dr G: Well, right now in the US, Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts has introduced a bill to do just this; to make it possible for people to use cannabis as a medicine. He needs co-sponsorship and support for this bill. People who are interested in this can contact Barney Frank or even their own representatives and ask them to support HR 2618, the Bill for medical cannabis use for those in medical need. JR: Is this a similar bill to what Newt Gingrich and others had introduced into Congress in the early 1980s? Dr G: It's the same bill. It is the McKinney bill. I had suggested to Congressman Frank to expand the number of symptoms and syndromes for which cannabis can be used. We know more about it than we did in 1982, but it is the same bill. Gingrich supported it then, but not now. JR: In February 1994 you and James Bakalar wrote, "The War on Drugs: A Peace Proposal", published in The New England Journal of Medicine. In it you talk about harm-reduction strategies in the Netherlands and other countries. What do you think is holding back these governments in North America from making the changes necessary for a truce in the drug war, specifically in regards to medicinal cannabis use? Dr G: Unfortunately, it is attitudes and fears that are unwarranted. Take one harm-reduction approach; namely, clean needles. Now, we've been saying for years that clean needles will reduce the spread of AIDS among drug users. The IV drug users are the group spreading it the most. There are people who are afraid of needle-exchange programs because they think it will cause an increase in the use of intravenous drugs. I would say this has been going on now for four or five years. Now the data is overwhelming. It clearly demonstrates that exchanging needles does cut down the spread of AIDS and it does not cause an increase in the use of these drugs. It is so convincing that some local municipalities have gone ahead with needle exchanges, but the Federal government and President Clinton are all dead set against it. We could have saved a lot of people from AIDS by instituting this policy of clean needles early on. Even now we are dragging our feet because of this misapprehension about giving needles out. Ignorance and fear are not always corrected by data. The data on needle exchange is compelling whether it's from Australia, New Haven or wherever. There is no question. You would think when you have this kind of data it would be translated into social policy, considering the cost of AIDS in human suffering. But we're having an awful tough time persuading the authorities that we should go full steam ahead with needle exchange. There is an attitude here in the US that the only way to treat anyone using a drug not approved of is to treat them as a criminal. Many of these people even go to jail. The costs of criminalising these people have been extreme. Since I started my work on marijuana in 1967, more than 10 million Americans have been arrested on marijuana charges in the US. In 1994, the year for which we have the latest FBI data on this, 483,000 Americans were arrested on marijuana charges. That is just extraordinary when you consider that cannabis imposes less harm on the individual and on society than either alcohol or tobacco. JR: What kind of feedback did you receive from your June 1995 article, "Marihuana as Medicine", in JAMA? Dr G: Well, that article caused a lot of fuss. It was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). This organisation has been steadfast in its opposition to marijuana for 50 years-since an editorial published in 1945. Although the AMA doesn't say so officially, I think publishing our article signals a growing change in physicians' attitudes towards medicinal cannabis. There were physicians who wrote me nasty letters. More impressive were the many physicians who shared their stories about how they learned about cannabis from seeing how it helped a particular patient. Several of them said we ought to have an organisation, a physicians' organisation, for the medical use of marijuana. The article created a stir not just in this country. I think JAMA is published in 33 languages. It was no small wonder that there was a lot of mail from other parts of the world as well. JR: Was the feedback mostly positive? Dr G: Absolutely. By far, most of it was positive. There were some nasty letters, but I have received those from the time I first published Marihuana Reconsidered. The first letter I received was a very nasty letter. As the years go on, though, the mail gets much more positive. JR: What do you see for the future of medicinal cannabis use? Dr G: It strikes me that there are a lot of parallels with the discovery of penicillin. Penicillin was discovered by a man named Alexander Fleming in 1928. He had gone off for summer vacation and left a Petri dish out in his laboratory. When he came back, the Petri dish was just covered with Staphylococcus, except for an area surrounding what looked like a little island of mould. He looked into it and found that the mould was giving off a substance which he called "penicillin". It was killing the Staphylococcus. Yet his discovery was ignored until 1941. For over a decade his publication was ignored, until the pressure of World War II highlighted the need for antibacterial substances other than sulphonamides. Then a couple of investigators did a study with just six patients and demonstrated it was a good antibiotic. Penicillin became very inexpensive to produce. It was clear that penicillin was not toxic and it was very versatile as a drug. It was used in the treatment of many different kinds of infectious diseases. It became the wonder drug of the 1940s. When cannabis can be produced as a medicine it will be very inexpensive. I have already listed some of the reasons why it can be said to be versatile, and, the government position notwithstanding, it is remarkably non-toxic. It has exactly the same three characteristics that made penicillin a wonder drug. These are some of the reasons I believe that, in the late 1990s, cannabis is going to be recognised as a wonder drug. References
Grinspoon, Lester, M.D., Marihuana Reconsidered, Quick American Archives
(a division of Quick Trading Company, PO Box 429477, San Francisco,
CA 94142, USA), 1994 (ISBN 0-932551-13-0), first published by Harvard
University Press, 1971. For
more information on the DARE school programs, here is a list of articles
and world wide web addresses: "Studies Find Drug Program Not Effective", USA Today, 11 October 1993. See web site: http://turnpike.net/~jnr/dareart.htm. "A Different Look at DARE", Drug Reform Coordination Network Topics, in-depth series. Web site address: http://drcnet.org/DARE. About the Interviewee:
About the Interviewer:
With the issues of Industrial Hemp and Medical Marijuana there is really no controversy, only a proliferation of profound ignorance and dishonesty. But Recreational Marijuana use does have two sides to its story. Marijuana is a drug, and like any drug it can lead to addiction, dependence, and negative side effects. But I would say the issue that's often missed here is the difference between use and abuse. With any drug, if you are using it every day, you are probably abusing it. This goes for coffee, alcohol, aspirin, Prozac, and pot too. If you use it when you want to, are happy without it, like the effect you get from using it, and are able to regulate your intake to provide the effect you desire, then you are probably doing OK. But to be honest here, I know a lot of recreational users, and the majority smoke every day if they are holding, and their lives are without doubt mildly compromised by their habit. In other words it's a lot like watching TV. If you are watching more than, say, five hours of TV a week, clearly you are not going to performing at your best, and so too if you spend more than five hours a week baked to the gills. In terms of the danger to health it poses, it's on a similar level to coffee, and far less harmful than most "legal" prescription drugs. And that's probably being hard on the Marijuana, as coffee is more addictive and has a range of negative health effects most coffee drinkers wouldn't even begin to acknowledge. Coffee can be a very effective performance drug with few serious side effects if it is used less than once a week. But more frequent use will lead to habituation, and then the side effects gradually start to kick in. What's really under threat here in NZ is the profits of the legal recreational drug dealers, the tobacco and alcohol industries - and the power of these groups to control government policy should not be underestimated. And on a wider scale Marijuana use is a threat to American interests, especially those benefiting from the "war on drugs" scam, and, with good reason, NZ is scared shitless of offending the great American Empire. Personally, I believe that both Marijuana and tobacco should be subject to the same laws:
Although I'm loath to lump Marijuana in with what I consider the sad and disgusting habit of tobacco use, at least this would mean the tobacco sold here would be cleaner, the dope would be legal and it would be a blow to hypocrisy. Marijuana can be a very stimulating drug, enhancing the appreciation of art and music, helpful in gaining new insights, providing total relaxation, and the buzz when it kicks in is great. But it's a fine line between winning and losing.... Toke with care and be the master of your habits, or they may turn round and bite you in the arse....
“Drugs and law report” Police Foundation of the United Kingdom, April 2000: "Our conclusion is that the present law on cannabis produces more harm than it prevents. It is very expensive of the time and resources of the criminal justice system and especially of the police. It inevitably bears more heavily on young people in the streets of inner cities, who are also more likely to be from minority ethnic communities, and as such is inimical to police-community relations. It criminalizes large numbers of otherwise law-abiding, mainly young, people to the detriment of their futures. It has become a proxy for the control of public order; and it inhibits accurate education about the relative risks of different drugs including the risks of cannabis itself."
"I longed to smoke cannabis at Parliament" Morris 19 July 2001 By CHRISTINE LANGDON
At
yesterday's inquiry she called for regulation to replace criminalisation
of cannabis and, in the meantime, a moratorium on cannabis arrests.
HOW
TO MAKE CANNABUTTER (by Mr Strange) The first step in cooking cannabis-laced foods is extracting the cannabinoids from the plant matter, usually in a butter solution, since the cannabinoids do not readily dissolve in water. In his book "The Art and Science of Cooking with Cannabis"(1974), Adam Gottlieb calls the product of this extraction 'CANNABUTTER'. Take a large saucepan and fill it with water (preferably filtered). Bring it to the boil, then add a 500g block of butter (pref quality NZ butter!), and allow it to dissolve. Take 1-2 oz of dry marijuana leaf, remove any seeds or stalks, and grind to powder in a coffee grinder or similar. Add this powder to the boiling butter/water and leave it boiling for 1- 1 1/2 hours. The cannabinoids dissolve into the butter, while most of the bad flavours and skanky crud dissolve into the water. Stir the mixture regularly. The smell from this is very mild compared to other methods of cooking. After cooking, strain the mixture and put the liquid in the fridge. When it cools the cannabutter will have solidified on the surface. It looks like green butter. Take it off the top and throw away the green water underneath. Cannabutter can be used straight away, or frozen and used later. It can be spread onto toast, or used for anything that butter can be used for, including muffin and cake recipes. You can replace all the butter in a recipe with cannabutter, or mix it with standard butter. Depending on the potency of your marijuana, cannabutter can turn out quite grunty, so calculate the dose per serving to achieve the desired results. (This usually requires preliminary testing by the cook!) This method of extraction is better than sauteing the marijuana in butter only as many people do, as firstly this way, the bad shit is separated and removed from the good shit. and secondly you can make stronger cannabutter than by sauteing, because you can cook more weed in the same amount of butter, due to the extra volume of the water. Also there is no danger of overheating and burning your stash, and there is very little smell to freak out the neighbours.
There are a shit load of interesting links about Marijuana and Hemp available on the web. A good place to start is the links page on www.norml.org.nz A new discussion board dedicated to growing marijuana: www.rollitup.org Help save the planet with Hemp. And don't Fear the Reefer. Free the Marijuana!
|