The Cannabis Conspiracy

[The-Gus]

Cannabis, marijana, hemp, it's the "killer weed". But is it? Or have sheer greed and calculated hysteria shaped a beneficial plant into one of the "Prime evils of our time"? Lets examine a public relations campaign which is nothing less than a Cannabis conspiacy.
Given that hemp is as old as time, it is mot suprising that it helped shape america, for example by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
Prior to it's prohibition, smoking was probably the least of hemp's uses. Medicinal benefits alone included: clearing of Bronchial passages; relief of migraines; and treatments of Glaucoma. Cannabis is also an excellent source of linen and cloth. The westward-lurching wagons of pioneers were literally covered in the stuff, the word canvas deriving from Canbacius. Ship sails and most of our early flags were manufactured from hemp. (Just don't try to pledge allegiance to it now!) Even the first Levi's Jeans were made from Hemp, and hemp rope was usedby virtually everyone including the U.S Navy.
In fact if the history of cannabis were an open book, it's pages would be the non-polluting acid-free production of Hemp-Fibre PAPER!!!! [in fact in a saner world all the paper you own right now would be hemp paper]
Indeed each and every acre of cannabis would --and once did-- save FOUR AND A HALF ACRES OF TREES!!! Superior quality paper and no more deforestation by wood pulping or acid rain!
At one time, up to ninety percent of all paper in the world was manufactured from hemp. Pssst! The Declaration of Independence was written on Dutch hemp.
So what happened to this weed of a thousand uses, capable of growing ANYWHERE(???!!!) How did hemp become so reviled? who orchestrated this conspiracy against cannabis?
Enter William Randolph Hearst, media giant, industrialist, art collector, museum bulider, and model for Orson Welles' "Citizen Kane". By the mid-1930's, this man stood to lose a fortune to hemp. With the end of the civil war, labor-intensive hemp production was replaced by the cheaper (but far more noxoius) wood pulp sulfide process (simmilar to the process to modern paper.)
But by the mid-1930's a new invention called the Decoryicator threatened to make hemp paper actually cheaper than wood pulp. Hemp was promtly forecasted as "America's fist BILLION dollar crop." With his vast holdings in pulp, timber, and paper mills, Hearst was poised on the brink of finacial ruin-- and if the march of technology could not be halted, what was he to do? Stamp out hemp? Itself? HOW???
The answer was brilliant: Hearst drenched his precious wood pulp in yellow journalism to combat the hemp threat on a different front. Not covered in th Hearst press were government and medical studies (the Siler commission for example) indicating that marijuana was NOT harmful, but was in fact beneficial. Churning out endless editions of his propaganda, Hearst's smear campaign inevitably swayed public opinion. But the real target was congress: Cannabis had to be banned.
At the same time, Dupont (holders of the patent for a sulfuric acid wood pulping process) had had developed the synthetic fibres Rayon and Nylon -- direct compeditors of natural hemp cloth and rope. Dupont, then also faced enormous losses. Enter Andrew Mellon, chairman of Mellon bank (Dupont's main source of finance) and the U.S treasury secretary who apointed Harry Anslinger commissioner of the federal bureau of narcotics. Anslinger was married to Mellon's niece.
Most of Aslinger's testimony before congress consisted of Hearst newspaper articles read aloud: "Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind" (WHAT???!!!!)
And Hearst dutifully quoted Anslinger's every word: "If the hideous monster Frankenstien came face ro face with the monster marijuana he would DROP DEAD WITH FRIGHT. But later when the New York City Languardia Marijuana Report refuted the violence claims (in 1944) Anslinger changed his tune: "Marijuana causes it's users to become so peaceful and pacifistic that in the future American boys will not want to fight in our wars."(AGAIN WHAT???!!!!) By then, however Cannibus had already lost the battle, with congress passing the Marijuana Tax Act 1937, the weed was effectively outlawed. Hearst, Mellon and Dupont had prevailed, presumably laughing all the way to each others doorsteps. But that was the 30's and 40's surely we're more enlightened now?
FAT CHANCE Cannabis is more illegal than ever, as the government earmarks huge amounts of tax dollars for the prosecution of growers and users, still parroting Hearst's discredited propaganda.
The U.S goverment has offered financial aids to other countries to spray poison on their hemp crops -- even though Paraquat (A powerful weed killer) poses a greater threat than marijuana ever could. Even the president of Cheveron, the U.S manufacturer of Paraquat, urged the cessation of all use of Paraquat in this manner, then-president Ronald Reagan replied: "Marijuana is an illegal and harmful drug. If you don't use it you don't have to worry" (When was the last time you heard of a death due to directly taking dope?)
Reagan successor George Bush Sr., served a stint as director of the president's U.S drug taskforce -- but from 1977 to 1979 Bush also served as director of the Eli Lilly company, a major drug manufacturer which has long been trying (unsuccessfully) to synthesize the active ingredients in Cannabis, which could lose a third of it's patented monopoly, including Davon, were cannabis legalized. Bush's family happens to own controllings interest in Lilly, which may account for why the former President is one of recent history's more rabid detractors.
But what George fails to mention is how hemp saved his life, when Bush bailed out of his burning plane over the pacific during WW2 his parachute-webbing was made entirely made from hemp!!!! Good thing it wasn't illegal then.
Here's a riddle: if as much as 80% of all violent crime is linked to alcohol abuse, then why is "pacifistic" Cannabis illeagl???
Answer: because you cant make rope, cloth, and cheap medicines out of booze. It just can't compete.
What do you make of THAT???!!!

[The-Gus]

And here's my sources:

Anger, Kenneth
Hollywood Babylon
San Francisco: Straight Arrow books
1975

Herer, Jack
The Emperor Wears No Clothes
H.E.M.P Publishing
(sorry no date)

Solomon, David
The Marijuana papers
New York: Signet Books
1968

[morefngdbs]

the_Gus please move to Canada and join a political party and run for Prime MInister.
I know I will vote for you. Well written post ,but the Gov. and big business have been covering that up for years.
The only way this will change is slowly over time.

[BigBlueBalls]

At 6/16/05 01:45 PM, morefngdbs wrote: the_Gus please move to Canada and join a political party and run for Prime MInister.

You mean the Marijuana Party of Canada.

[Demosthenez]

You answered why it is illegal in America, but why is it illegal in much of the world and Europe?

Did they just follow Americas lead or did we sorta force it on them? Any information?

And, btw, very well written and very infromative. I have known bits and pieces of that story but not the entire thing. And I would especially love this topic if there are nay dissenters. So, SPEAK UP, if ya dont dig Mary Jane.

[Toadenalin]

At 6/16/05 11:45 AM, The_Gus wrote: Cannabis, marijana, hemp, it's the "killer weed". But is it? Or have sheer greed and calculated hysteria shaped a beneficial plant into one of the "Prime evils of our time"? Lets examine a public relations campaign which is nothing less than a Cannabis conspiacy.

Okay, I'm going to argue against you. I've never smoked in my life, so I'm talking from a very one sided viewpoint

Prior to it's prohibition, smoking was probably the least of hemp's uses. Medicinal benefits alone included: clearing of Bronchial passages; relief of migraines; and treatments of Glaucoma.

I have not read your sources, but I was not aware there was any scientifically proven benifits other than depressing heart rate and adrenaline. Bear in mind that tobacco was once thought to do all these things, and nowdays - after proper lab tests - is thought to do the exact opposite

Even the first Levi's Jeans were made from Hemp, and hemp rope was usedby virtually everyone including the U.S Navy.

But surely you'd agree that denim and nylon superceed these? I appreciate the point you are making, but I don't think it's applicable to your argument

Cannabis is more illegal than ever.

Is it? I know in Britain it is only a Class C drug (which basically means a slap on the wrist) In some places it is legal (Amsterdam bars spring to mind)

When was the last time you heard of a death due to directly taking dope?

Last year

There are studies to show that cannabis can harm developing minds. They may be true - they are probably just scare stories. All the same, I would argue any responsible government should not allow it until the effects are better known.
Also, I can't quite see how your point pans out. I think you are mixing arguments of the benefits of hemp rope and dope, which are two totally different things

[Jimsween]

At 6/16/05 04:37 PM, Toadenalin wrote: Last year

http://www.norml.org.nz/article383.html

"The Federal Health Ministry of Switzerland asked Dr. Rudolf Brenneisen, a professor at the department for clinical research at the University of Bern, to review the data of this case. Dr. Brenneisen said that the data of the toxicological analysis and collected by autopsy were "scanty and not conclusive" and that the conclusion death by cannabis intoxication was "not legitimate". "

His blood actually showed only a moderate concentration of cannabis. This is more of a case of them not knowing what happened.

There are studies to show that cannabis can harm developing minds. They may be true - they are probably just scare stories. All the same, I would argue any responsible government should not allow it until the effects are better known.

So what your saying is, the government can ban things.... without first proving that they are harmfull? No thats not right, the burden of proof lies upon the one who wants to restrict civil rights.

[Fedges]

Toadenalin have you been living in a cave lately not to know about all the health benefits of marijuana? First of all however, the "OD rate" of marijuana is between 20,000 and 40,000 times depending on personal chemistry ect. what this means is that a person must ingest at minimum 20,000 times a normal dose of marijuana in order to succumb to so called "cannabis poisoning". This means if a person requires, and this is a VERY conservative number, 1/64 of an ounce to get high they would still need to smoke 312.5 oz or roughly 19.5 pounds of weed to get "cannabis poisoning".

Moving on to the medical benefits, Marijuana has been proven to be, relieve pressure from the eyes of glaucoma sufferers, help aids sufferers regain their appetites and cope with pain, relieve the severe pain of MS sufferers, suppress the nausea of people in chemotherapy and fight painn from arthritis and migranes.

[Kings-Cant-Fall]

At 6/16/05 04:37 PM, Toadenalin wrote: I have not read your sources, but I was not aware there was any scientifically proven benifits other than depressing heart rate and adrenaline. Bear in mind that tobacco was once thought to do all these things, and nowdays - after proper lab tests - is thought to do the exact opposite

Proper scientific studies where done during the anti-weed campains in the 1960's. There results turned out to be the exact opposite as they hoped. Search google, you'll be shocked.

But surely you'd agree that denim and nylon superceed these? I appreciate the point you are making, but I don't think it's applicable to your argument

Hemp would not be used for jeans, I will agree with you on that. Generally, hemp can be itchy and heavey... but it all depends on how it is produced.

Is it? I know in Britain it is only a Class C drug (which basically means a slap on the wrist) In some places it is legal (Amsterdam bars spring to mind)

In some states it is a felony to possess Marijuana, in others it can only lead to community service or fines... I think he was trying to say that the government is making a bigger deal about it now. In the 80's, although still illegal, cops would rarely bust you for weed. Now and days, depending on where you live, you can get searched left and right.

Last year

No you didn't. There has never been a single report of death directly due to Marijuana (I.E. and O.D.). It is absolutely impossible to O.D. on Marijuana, you would pass out before you could consume enough.

There are studies to show that cannabis can harm developing minds. They may be true - they are probably just scare stories. All the same, I would argue any responsible government should not allow it until the effects are better known.
Also, I can't quite see how your point pans out. I think you are mixing arguments of the benefits of hemp rope and dope, which are two totally different things

Depending on ther person, Cannabis can have a damaging effect on a childs mind. Personally, I know some kids that smoke Marijuana and are the brightest children I've ever met; I've also met others who are less than par. If Cannabis would ever become legal or every day consumption, it would not be sold to minors.

ALSO, just to set the record straight, hemp is NOT illegal. You are free to wear/use anything made of hemp. The problem is that commercial companies are not aloud to havest cannabis, making it almost impossible for use to us it resources.

[Null-Donkey]

choose your battles, more wisely.... hahahahaa...

[ChibiChii]

I would agree with you, except you post offends me. Why? Hemp is not the same plant and marijuana. Same genus, but not the same specie.

[totalwar]

At 6/17/05 12:33 AM, ChibiChii wrote: I would agree with you, except you post offends me. Why? Hemp is not the same plant and marijuana. Same genus, but not the same specie.

Just put your foot in your mouth why don't you? It'd be a lot more attractive and garble any of the stupid shit you're obviously tempted to say. They are one in the same. Same plant, same kingdom, class, phylum, genus, species. Not differant.

Thanks for playing be sure the door doesn't hit you on your way out. A round of applause for our contestant.

[BoneThugRebel]

Let me tell all of you, I have been smoking gangja since I was 13. Herb is God's gift, so fuck tha law. I will smoke when ever I want to, nobody can stop me.

[ChibiChii]

At 6/17/05 12:56 AM, totalwar wrote:

At 6/17/05 12:33 AM, ChibiChii wrote:

Just put your foot in your mouth why don't you? It'd be a lot more attractive and garble any of the stupid shit you're obviously tempted to say. They are one in the same. Same plant, same kingdom, class, phylum, genus, species. Not differant.

Myth: Smoking industrial hemp gets a person high.

Reality: The THC levels in industrial hemp are so low that no one could get high from smoking it. Moreover, hemp contains a relatively high percentage of another cannabinoid, CBD, that actually blocks the marijuana high. Hemp, it turns out, is not only not marijuana; it could be called "antimarijuana."
Read and learn. Bitch.

While it's true Marijuana is technically a type of hemp, the hemp that was used as medicine and to create clothing (i.e. 90% of the things referenced in the original post) is what is now referred to as "industrial hemp". Completely different species.

[ElW]

Admittedly, I am a marijuana smoker, though not very frequently, I do use it for leisure and relaxation purposes. It kills my insomnia better than any of the pills or therapies the docs have prescribed so far.

As with the sentiments of earlier posts, I truly do agree with some of you that there is indeed some kind of plan, a conspiracy as its been called so far, to stamp out marijuana and demonise it. Even Amsterdam, famous for its cafes allowing public consumption, are facing closure. Being a resident in Sydney, Australia, I can't help but feel that there is a double standard amidst here. Smoking cannabis is villianised here, yet the government has built injection rooms and clean needle dispensaries for Heroin addicts.

Is is just me, or do I smell the sickly stench of hypocrisy amidst?

Then again, I'm just one person.

[fli]

Legalize hemp in the production of goods, including medicine.
Illegalize hemp in recreational uses.

There-- both sides should be happy.

[idle]

At 6/17/05 05:07 AM, spamishfli wrote: Legalize hemp in the production of goods, including medicine.
Illegalize hemp in recreational uses.

There-- both sides should be happy.

I don't think so. I mean, is there really any justifiable reason for making smoking a plant which grows naturally, against the law?

I myself smoke, and can't see how the government has any say in what I personally choose to do to my body. Which brings us to the simple fact that its illegal for the wrong reasons.

Illegalize hemp in recreational uses? Why?

Think about what recreation is.

[ElW]

Illegalize hemp in recreational uses? Why?

Think about what recreation is.

Noun 1. recreation - an activity that diverts or amuses or stimulates; "scuba diving is provided as a diversion for tourists"; "for recreation he wrote poetry and solved crossword puzzles"; "drug abuse is often regarded as a form of recreation"

2. recreation - activity that refreshes and recreates; activity that renews your health and spirits by enjoyment and relaxation; "time for rest and refreshment by the pool"; "days of joyous recreation with his friends"

Don't know about the rest of you guys but I do find the occasional joint to be quite refreshing.

[fli]

At 6/17/05 05:22 AM, -idle- wrote: I don't think so. I mean, is there really any justifiable reason for making smoking a plant which grows naturally, against the law?

Opium, beer, heroin, cocain, etc. All started as naturally growing plants.
One of my quarals with labels the say "all natural".

Just because it's all natural doesn't mean it's good for you...

I myself smoke, and can't see how the government has any say in what I personally choose to do to my body. Which brings us to the simple fact that its illegal for the wrong reasons.

I've done it too. Strongest stuff too. It's not hyped up what it suppose to be...
Weed is boring. It's vanilla.

Still doesn't change my position.
Legalize weed as a resource. Keep it illegal for recreational use.

If it became legal to smoke, who cares any way.
Still, hopefully it will be regulated. Don't want every place I go smelling like ass.

Illegalize hemp in recreational uses? Why?
Think about what recreation is.

Recreational use of weed is this: using weed when your body don't need it, purely for fun. If you're sick and can't keep food down-- then use it.

Why should it be legalized?
Aren't there enough legal drugs to keep us more then busy?

4th of July is coming up.
The legal drug beer is going to be used. And you know a bunch of idiots are going to kill other people...

One problem at a time--

[idle]

At 6/17/05 05:32 AM, spamishfli wrote: Opium, beer, heroin, cocain, etc. All started as naturally growing plants.
One of my quarals with labels the say "all natural".
Just because it's all natural doesn't mean it's good for you...

It would be rare to find someone who would debate what you just said, but unfortunately, it has nothing to do with my point. Fried chicken is bad for you, but is it illeagal? To make something against the law because it's "bad" for you is ridiculous.

I suppose you are one of these people who drinks a beer, while saying that weed should be illegal for recreational use :/

I've done it too. Strongest stuff too. It's not hyped up what it suppose to be...
Weed is boring. It's vanilla.

You find weed boring? irrelevant.

I have been smoking for around 5 years, in fact, I smoke most days. I have had the strongest stuff, both naturally grown, and hydro. I don't find it boring, but this is also irrelevant to the argument.

Still doesn't change my position.
Legalize weed as a resource. Keep it illegal for recreational use.

But WHY?
How can you justify using it for one thing, but making it illegal for other uses?

If it became legal to smoke, who cares any way.
Still, hopefully it will be regulated. Don't want every place I go smelling like ass.

I don't think much would change if it became legal, except the price of weed increasing somewhat. As you will find will all people who smoke, they do it anyway, no matter what the law says. There are certain places you can't smoke ciggarettes. It would be no different for weed. Both items are 18+, and both are drugs. Go figure.

Recreational use of weed is this: using weed when your body don't need it, purely for fun. If you're sick and can't keep food down-- then use it.

WTF?
Using weed when your body doesn't need it?
Everyday we do hundreds of things our body "doesn't need". For example, your body doesn't need you to be sitting indoors at your computer, formulating a witty response to my post.

Why should it be legalized?
Aren't there enough legal drugs to keep us more then busy?

I rate that comment 0/10 for logic.

[fli]

At 6/17/05 05:47 AM, -idle- wrote: But WHY?
How can you justify using it for one thing, but making it illegal for other uses?

Cause I like it that way.

Just like you want recreational use of weed legal: cause you like that way. Except that--
You never bothered to share any of your argument.

WTF?
Using weed when your body doesn't need it?
Everyday we do hundreds of things our body "doesn't need". For example, your body doesn't need you to be sitting indoors at your computer, formulating a witty response to my post.

What was so witty what I wrote?

Why should it be legalized?
Aren't there enough legal drugs to keep us more then busy?

I rate that comment 0/10 for logic.

I'll bother you for your comments, no beg for em, when I finish watching my finger nails grow.

Wait for it... wait for it...

[idle]

At 6/17/05 05:55 AM, spamishfli wrote: Cause I like it that way.

Just like you want recreational use of weed legal: cause you like that way. Except that--
You never bothered to share any of your argument.

Lol, nice reply full of well thought out counters to my argument. Oh wait, there was none, as you simply replied with a post of random comments.

Good work Einstein.

[fli]

At 6/17/05 06:01 AM, -idle- wrote:

At 6/17/05 05:55 AM, spamishfli wrote: Cause I like it that way.

Just like you want recreational use of weed legal: cause you like that way. Except that--
You never bothered to share any of your argument.

Lol, nice reply full of well thought out counters to my argument. Oh wait, there was none, as you simply replied with a post of random comments.

Good work Einstein.

Could you honestly look through this thread-- and say that you had any arguments?
If so-- reinstate them.

Please-- go ahead. Anytime.

[SpiffyMcPerson]

First it's absurd that manufacturing hemp products is illegal.

With marijuana however, it's a little different. I have nothing against recreational drug use - alcohol is fine and so is caffiene - but as long as the only delivery method for THC is through smoking I think it should remain illegal. On the same note, I think cigarettes should be illegal too. They're just so incredibly bad for your body.

[joe-the-magic-midget]

Last year in the uk no-one at all died of direct cannabis use. Yet alchohol killed thousands and drunks badly harmed lots of people. I'ts just to hard for governments to step back and agree there are far worse legal things than cannabis. Compared to alchohol cannabis is a god send.

[joe-the-magic-midget]

Besides it's a persons choice what they want to smoke, drink etc. Who are we to stop them?

[ChibiChii]

One they make pot THC-free, then it'll be legal. My professor (also a county DA) said this: "I see no problem with legalizing pot. The only reason it remains illigal is because if it hits mainstream, you have to consider all the crimes that will go hand-in-hand with it: stealing stuff from homes will increase for the money, and it will become so widely used, that a new, harder drug will become the new fave."

I don't know if I agree with him, but there you go. Disagree with a DA, yay.

[The-Gus]

ChibiChilli, words fail my disapointment in your response

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 6/17/05 07:00 AM, joe_the_magic_midget wrote: Last year in the uk no-one at all died of direct cannabis use. Yet alchohol killed thousands and drunks badly harmed lots of people. I'ts just to hard for governments to step back and agree there are far worse legal things than cannabis. Compared to alchohol cannabis is a god send.

Deaths caused by Cannabis aren't the only thing that you need to look at. Cannabis is a drug. All drugs are addictive. An addiction,to most drugs, can fuck up the body,the mind,families and lives, and trust me the latter two, families and lives being fucked up, are far more important than the user getting screwed over by their own stupidity if they absue the drug.

The psychological affects on families that have a drug abuser in them can be really, REALLY bad (I'm talking from personal experience here). And by legalising Cannabis you are making it easier for people to get ahold of it and becoming abusers. And if you do that ypu increase the chance sof damaging a family. Whether the physical effects of Cannabis aren't that bad. The psycological affects of cannabis on families would be absolutley dire.

[Dilapsor]

At 6/16/05 06:45 PM, fedges wrote: Moving on to the medical benefits, Marijuana has been proven to be, relieve pressure from the eyes of glaucoma sufferers, help aids sufferers regain their appetites and cope with pain, relieve the severe pain of MS sufferers, suppress the nausea of people in chemotherapy and fight painn from arthritis and migranes.

I agree. Marijuana should only be legal if you posess any of the above ailments which have been used as "proof" for the last 30 years. If you're perfectly healthy, you simply don't need it.

Also I would like to point out that there are differences between migraines and "headaches." As a chronic sufferer of migraines, I can tell you that the effects of the disorder vary from person to person. It has also been my experience that using marijuana while in the grips of a migraine often worsens the symptoms, not relieve them. The only way I can imagine marijuana helping someone with migraines is the way marijuana tends to make people sleepy and just sleep through the symptoms. Interestingly, this is what doctors recommend to people who suffer from migraines: to take your prescribed medication and try to sleep. So if sleep makes up 50% of the treatment, wouldn't a pillow and a blanket be much more effective than something that is essentially going to make you pass out unnaturally?