ReLegalize.info The Green Revolution  
ReLegalize Industrial Hemp on FaceBook ReLegalize Industrial Hemp on Twitter Watch Industrial Hemp Videos on YouTube Subscribe to Industrial Hemp News Feed
Industrial Hemp | Biomass, Biofuel, Fabric, Paper AND Plastic, Wood, Bricks, Medicine, Food
  Hemp News Hemp Information Hemp Directory Advertise in Hemp Directory  
  War on Drugs  

Find Marijuana Doctors Your State! | Find Marijuana Doctors in Canada!

Table of Contents

  1. ReLegalization Videos
  2. Maps of Legal States
  3. Bills in Congress
    1. HR 1831
    2. HR 1983
    3. HR 2306
    4. HR 5326
      1. HA 1084 (A051)
  4. Prohibitionist Oil Men
    1. Henry Anslinger
    2. Hearst Magazines
    3. DuPont Plastics
    4. Andrew Mellon
    5. Herbert Hoover
  5. Forbidden History
    1. Mechanical Engineering
    2. Popular Mechanics
    3. Decortication Machine
    4. Tax Act of 1937
    5. 1952 & 1956
    6. 1968 & 1973
    7. 1977
    8. 1984 & 1986
    9. 2001
    10. 2005
  6. War on Drugs
    1. Propaganda
    2. Exagerated Risks
    3. Economics
  7. Hemp Movies

Top 10 Hemp Uses

  1. Hemp in Religion
  2. Hemp Agriculture
  3. Hemp Biomass
  4. Hemp Fabric
  5. Hemp Paper
  6. Hemp Plastics
  7. Hemp Food
  8. Hemp Biofuel
  9. Hemp Homes
  10. Hemp Medicine

ANYTHING made from hydrocarbon fossil fuels,
could be made from organic carbohydrates!

Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2011: Amends the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp from the definition of "marihuana." Defines "industrial hemp" to mean the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-nine tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3% percent on a dry weight basis. Deems Cannabis sativa L. to meet that concentration limit if a person grows or processes it for purposes of making industrial hemp in accordance with state law.

States' Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act: To provide for the rescheduling of marijuana and for the medical use of marijuana in accordance with the laws of the various States.

Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011: To limit the application of Federal laws to the distribution and consumption of marihuana, and for other purposes.

Ammendment 1084 (A051): An amendment to prohibit the use of funds to be used with respect to preventing the States of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

"Hemp is of first necessity to the wealth & protection of the country."
Thomas Jefferson

"The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this [prohibition]."
Albert Einstein (1921)

Bookmark the RSS News Feed to get updates when new sources are available.
Follow us on Facebook & Twitter!


Marijuana Law Reform in the United States 2010

Current Legislation & Bills in Congress

  • H.R.1831: Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2011
  • H.R.1983: States' Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act
  • H.R.2306: Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011
  • H.R.5326: Commerce, Justice, Science,
    and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2013

 

H.R.1831: Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2011

Sponsor: Ron Paul [TX-14] (introduced 5/11/2011) 33 Cosponsors

Latest Major Action: 6/1/2011 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

SUMMARY AS OF: 5/11/2011 Introduced

Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2011 - Amends the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp from the definition of "marihuana." Defines "industrial hemp" to mean the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-nine tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3% percent on a dry weight basis. Deems Cannabis sativa L. to meet that concentration limit if a person grows or processes it for purposes of making industrial hemp in accordance with state law.

 

Sponsor: Barney Frank [MA-4] (introduced 5/25/2011) 22 Cosponsors

Latest Major Action: 6/3/2011 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.

112th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 1983

To provide for the rescheduling of marijuana and for the medical use of marijuana in accordance with the laws of the various States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 25, 2011

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts (for himself, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. STARK, and Mr. POLIS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

SUMMARY AS OF: 5/25/2011 Introduced

States' Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act - Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), within six months of enactment of this Act, to submit to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) a recommendation on the listing of marijuana within the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and to recommend listing it as other than a Schedule I or Schedule II substance.

Requires the Administrator of DEA, within 12 months of enactment of this Act, based upon the recommendation of the National Academy of Sciences, to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking for the rescheduling of marijuana within the CSA, which shall include a recommendation to list marijuana as other than a Schedule I or Schedule II substance.

Declares that no provision of the CSA or the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act shall prohibit or otherwise restrict, in a state in which the medical use of marijuana is legal under state law: (1) the prescription or recommendation of marijuana for medical use by a medical professional or the certification by a medical professional that a patient has a condition for which marijuana may have therapeutic benefit; (2) an individual from obtaining, manufacturing, possessing, or transporting within their state marijuana for medical purposes, provided the activities are authorized under state law; (3) a pharmacy or other entity authorized to distribute medical marijuana from obtaining, possessing, or distributing marijuana to authorized individuals; or (4) an entity authorized by a state or local government from producing, processing, or distributing marijuana for such purposes.

 

Sponsor: Barney Frank [MA-4] (introduced 6/23/2011) 20 Cosponsors

Latest Major Action: 8/25/2011 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

To limit the application of Federal laws to the distribution and consumption of marihuana, and for other purposes.

SUMMARY AS OF: 6/23/2011 Introduced

Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011 - Amends the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to: (1) provide that such Act shall not apply to marihuana, except that it shall be unlawful to ship or transport from one state, territory, or district (jurisdiction) of the United States to another, or from a foreign country into such a U.S. jurisdiction, marihuana that is intended to be received, possessed, sold, or in any manner used in violation of any law of such jurisdiction; and (2) remove marihuana and tetrahydrocannabinols from the list of Schedule I controlled substances.

Amends the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act to exclude marijuana from its prohibitions on the import, export, manufacture, possession with intent to distribute, or distribution of a controlled substance.

112th Congress, 2011–2012 Sponsor: Rep. Barney Frank [D-MA4]

 

Sponsor: Frank R. Wolf [VA-10] (introduced 5/2/2012) NO Cosponsors

Related Bills: H.RES.643, S.2323

Latest Major Action: 5/14/2012 Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 397.

House Reports: 112-463 SUMMARY AS OF: 5/2/2012 Introduced

Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2013 - Makes appropriations for FY2013 for the Departments of Commerce and Justice (DOJ), science-related programs, and related agencies.

Department of Commerce Appropriations Act, 2013 - Makes appropriations for 2013 for the Department of Commerce for various agencies and programs, including transfers of funds.

Department of Justice Appropriations Act, 2013 - Makes appropriations for FY2013 for DOJ for various agencies and programs, including transfers of funds.

Makes appropriations for FY2013 for: (1) the Office of Science and Technology Policy; (2) the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), including for the Office of Inspector General; and (3) the National Science Foundation (NSF), including for the Office of the National Science Board and the Office of Inspector General.

Makes appropriations for FY2013 for: (1) the Commission on Civil Rights, (2) the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), (3) the International Trade Commission (ITC), (4) the Legal Services Corporation, (5) the Marine Mammal Commission, (6) the Office of the United States Trade Representative, and (7) the State Justice Institute.

Specifies certain uses and limits on or prohibitions against the use of funds appropriated by this Act. Rescinds certain unobligated balances.

Bipartisan amendment H.R. 5326 seeks to halt Obama's medical marijuana raids

Sponsor: Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] (offered 5/9/2012)

AMENDMENT PURPOSE: An amendment to prohibit the use of funds to be used with respect to preventing the States of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

STATUS:

  1. 5/9/2012 7:25pm: Amendment (A051) offered by Mr. Rohrabacher. (consideration: CR H2524-2529, H2553-2554; text: CR H2524)
  2. 5/9/2012 11:42pm: On agreeing to the Rohrabacher amendment (A051) Failed by recorded vote: 163 - 262 (Roll no. 238).

 

ReLegalization = Reversing the Hemp Prohibition

2009 HR1866 Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2009 - U.S. Congress
The current laws against the cultivation of Hemp can be attributed to three men, Henry J. Anslinger, Lammont DuPont, and William Randolph Hearst, who made growing hemp illegal.

Henry J. Anslinger was the head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, DuPont and Hearst were the owners of the largest chemical company and newspaper, respectively.

William Randolph Hearst began printing outlandish stories with headlines such as "Marijuana goads user to blood lust" and "Hotel clerk identifies Marijuana smoker as gunman". He also took advantage of the country's prejudice against blacks and immigrants by printing that marijuana-crazed negroes were raping white women and by painting pictures of lazy, pot-smoking Mexicans.

Lammont DuPont's banker Andrew Mellon who happened to be Secretary of the Treasury under Herbert Hoover, also had a nephew-in-law, Henry Anslinger, who had the Marijuana Tax Law of 1937 passed allowing munitions maker DuPont to supply synthetic fibers for the domestic economy without competition.

These men succeeded in a conspiracy [plural form of the LEGAL term "plot"] which ultimately added to the destruction of the environment, by them producing plastic and paper where hemp could have been more beneficial. In 1991 DuPont was still the largest producer of man-made fibers, while no citizen has legally harvested a single acre of textile grade hemp in over 50 years.

The standard fiber of world history, America's traditional crop, hemp, could provide our textiles, paper and be the premier source for cellulose. The war industries DuPont, Allied Chemical, Monsanto, and others are protected from competition by the marijuana laws and they make war on the natural cycle and the common farmer.

Congress banned hemp because it was said to be the most violence-causing drug known. Anslinger, head of the Drug Commission for 31 years, promoted the idea that marihuana made users act extremely violent. In the 1950s, under the Communist threat of McCarthyism, Anslinger now said the exact opposite. Marijuana will pacify so much that soldiers would not want to fight.

For the first 162 years of America's existence, marijuana was totally legal and hemp was a common crop. But during the 1930s, the U.S. government and the media began spreading outrageous lies about marijuana, which led to its prohibition. Some headlines made about marijuana in the 1930s were: "Marijuana: The assassin of youth." "Marijuana: The devil's weed with roots in hell." "Marijuana makes fiends of boys in 30 days." "If the hideous monster Frankenstein came face to face with the monster marijuana, he would drop dead of fright." In 1936, the liquor industry funded the infamous movie titled Reefer Madness. This movie depicts a man going insane from smoking marijuana, and then killing his entire family with an ax. This campaign of lies, as well as other evidence, have led many to believe there may have been a hidden agenda behind Marijuana Prohibition.

Shortly before marijuana was banned by The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, new technologies were developed that made hemp a potential competitor with the newly-founded synthetic fiber and plastics industries. Hemp's potential for producing paper also posed a threat to the timber industry (see New Billion-Dollar Crop). Evidence suggests that commercial interests having much to lose from hemp competition helped propagate reefer madness hysteria, and used their influence to lobby for Marijuana Prohibition. It is not known for certain if special interests conspired to destroy the hemp industry via Marijuana Prohibition, but enough evidence exists to raise the possibility.

After Alcohol Prohibition ended in 1933, funding for the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (now the Drug Enforcement Administration) was reduced. The FBN's own director, Harry J. Anslinger, then became a leading advocate of Marijuana Prohibition. In 1937 Anslinger testified before Congress in favor of Marijuana Prohibition by saying: "Marijuana is the most violence causing drug in the history of mankind." "Most marijuana smokers are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes." Marijuana Prohibition is founded on lies and rooted in racism, prejudice, and ignorance. Just as politicians believed Harry J. Anslinger to be a marijuana expert in 1937, many people still believe law enforcement officials are marijuana experts. In reality, law enforcement officials have no expert knowledge of marijuana's medical or health effects, but they do represent an industry that receives billions of tax dollars to enforce Marijuana Prohibition.

Before the government began promoting reefer madness hysteria during the 1930s, the word marijuana was a Mexican word that was totally absent from the American vocabulary. In the 1930s, Americans knew that hemp was a common, useful, and harmless crop. It is extremely unlikely anyone would have believed hemp was dangerous, or would have believed stories of hemp madness. Thus, the words marijuana and reefer were substituted for the word hemp in order to frighten the public into supporting Hemp Prohibition. Very few people realized that marijuana and hemp came from the same plant species; thus, virtually nobody knew that Marijuana Prohibition would destroy the hemp industry.

Bolstering the theory that marijuana was banned to destroy the hemp industry, two articles were written on the eve of Marijuana Prohibition that claim hemp was on the verge of becoming a super crop. These articles appeared in two well-respected magazines that are still published today. The articles are:

This was the first time that billion dollar was used to describe the value of a crop. These articles praise the usefulness and potential of hemp by stating "hemp can be used to produce more than 25,000 products" and "hemp will prove, for both farmer and public, the most profitable and desirable crop that can be grown." Marijuana Prohibition took

 

Forgotten American History

From more than 1,000 years before the time of Christ until 1883 A.D., cannabis hemp - indeed, marijuana - was our planet's largest agricultural crop and most important industry, involving thousands of products and enterprises; producing the overall majority of Earth's fiber, fabric, lighting oil, paper, incense and medicines. In addition, it was a primary source of essential food oil and protein for humans and animals.

From 1776 to 1937, hemp was a major American crop and textiles and medicines made from hemp were common. Yet, The American Textile Museum, The Smithsonian Institute, and most American history books contain no mention of hemp. Dupont's War on Marijuana Smokers has created an atmosphere of self censorship--speaking of hemp in a positive manner is considered taboo.

United States Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew hemp, used products made from hemp, and praised the hemp plant in some of their writings. Under the laws written by today's politicians, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would be considered a threat to society - they would be arrested and thrown in prison for the felony crime of growing natural plants.

 

Decortication Machine Coincidence?

Decortication is the removal of the bark, husk, or outer layer, or peel of an object.

The Industrial Hemp Prohibition was a direct result of the invention of a decortication machine that reduced the manula labor required to decorticate the fiber from the hemp plants. This effectively ruined DuPont's chance to make a synthetic fiber known as nylon (offshore with CURRENTLY HALF OF Rockefeller's offshore oil imports) at less cost than American farmers can produce hemp that is far superior to toxic nylon.

Keep in mind that DuPont is a CHEMICAL company that directly competes directly with hemp. Rockefeller owns or controls most OIL companies, which compete directly with organic ethanol and methanol produced from hemp. Biomass also competes directly with his coal mining monopolies.

 

Hemp was Criminalized with a $1 TAXSTAMP

In the United States, the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act, Pub. 238, 75th Congress, 50 Stat. 551 (Aug. 2, 1937), was a significant bill on the path that led to the criminalization of cannabis. The act was penned by Harry Anslinger and introduced by Rep. Robert L. Doughton of North Carolina, on April 14, 1937.

The Act did not itself criminalize the possession or usage of hemp, marijuana, or cannabis, but levied a tax equaling roughly one dollar on anyone who dealt commercially in cannabis, hemp, or marijuana. The Act did include penalty provisions and elaborate rules of enforcement to which marijuana, cannabis, or hemp handlers were subject. Violation of these procedures could result in a fine of up to $2000 and five years' imprisonment

Literally millions of wild hemp plants currently grow throughout the U.S. - Wild hemp, like hemp grown for industrial use, has no drug properties because of its low THC content. U.S. marijuana laws prevent farmers from growing the same hemp plant that proliferates in nature by the millions.

The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 made possession or transfer of cannabis illegal throughout the United States under federal law, excluding medical and industrial uses, in which an expensive excise tax was required. Annual fees for the tax were $24 ($337 adjusted for inflation) for importers, manufacturers, and cultivators of cannabis, $1 annually ($14 adjusted for inflation) for medical and research purposes, and $3 annually ($42 adjusted for inflation) for industrial uses. Detailed cannabis sale logs were required to keep record of cannabis sales. Selling cannabis to any person who has previously paid the tax is $1 per ounce or fraction thereof; however, it is $100 ($1,406 adjusted for inflation) per ounce or fraction thereof to sell any person who has not registered and paid the special tax.

 

Mandatory sentencing and increased punishment were enacted when the United States Congress passed the Boggs Act of 1952 and the Narcotics Control Act of 1956. The acts made a first-time cannabis possession offence a minimum of two to ten years with a fine up to $20,000; however in 1970 the United States Congress repealed mandatory penalties for cannabis offences.

 

In 1968 the United States Department of the Treasury subsidiary the Bureau of Narcotics and the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare subsidiary the Bureau of Drug Abuse Control merged to create the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs as a United States Department of Justice subsidiary.

In 1973 President Richard Nixon's "Reorganization Plan Number Two" proposed the creation of a single federal agency to enforce federal drug laws and Congress accepted the proposal, as there was concern regarding the growing availability of drugs. As a result, on July 1 1973 the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD) and the Office of Drug Abuse Law Enforcement (ODALE) merged to create the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). On December 1, 1975, the Supreme Court ruled that it was "not cruel or unusual for Ohio to sentence someone to 20 years for having or selling cannabis."

 

In January 1976, California's careful study of the economic impact of its law repealing prohibitions of use went into effect. The law reduced the penalty for personal possession of an ounce or less of marijuana from a felony to a citable misdemeanor with a maximum fine of $100. Possession of more than an ounce was made a misdemeanor, making the maximum fine $500 and/or six months in jail. After the law went into effect, the states annual spending towards marijuana laws went down 74%. Prior to the law, the state had been spending from $35 million to $100 million.

 

During the Reagan Administration the Sentencing Reform Act provisions of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 created the Sentencing Commission, which established mandatory sentencing guidelines. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 reinstated mandatory prison sentences, including large scale cannabis distribution. Later an amendment created a three-strikes law, which created mandatory 25-years imprisonment for repeated serious crimes - serious drug offenses is in on that list - and allowed the death penalty to be used against "drug kingpins."

 

In 1996 California voters passed Proposition 215, which legalized medical cannabis. The Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative was created to "provide seriously ill patients with a safe and reliable source of medical cannabis, information and patient support" in accordance with Proposition 215.

In January 1998 the U.S. Government sued Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative for violating federal laws created as a result of Controlled Substances Act of 1970. On May 14, 2001, the United States Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop that federal anti-drug laws do not permit an exception for medical cannabis and rejected the common-law medical necessity defense to crimes enacted under the Controlled Substances Act because Congress concluded cannabis has "no currently accepted medical use" when the act was passed in 1970.

 

Gonzales v. Raich 545 U.S. 1 (2005) was a decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (6-3) that even where persons are cultivating, possessing, or distributing medical cannabis in accordance with state-approved medical cannabis programs, such persons are violating federal marijuana laws and can therefore be prosecuted by federal authorities because the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution permits federal authorities (pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act) to prosecute any and all offenses of federal marijuana laws. The respondents argued that because the cannabis in question had been grown, transported, and consumed entirely within the state of California, pursuant to California medical cannabis laws, their activity did not implicate interstate commerce and as such, could not be legitimately regulated by the federal government through the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court disagreed, reasoning that cannabis grown for medical purposes is indistinguishable from illicit marijuana and that, because the intrastate medical cannabis market contributes to the interstate illicit marijuana market, the Commerce Clause applies. Even where persons are using medical cannabis in full compliance with state law, those persons can still be punished by federal authorities for violating federal law.

To combat state-approved medical cannabis legislation, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) routinely targets and arrests medical cannabis patients as well as seizing medical cannabis and the business assets of growers and medical dispensaries. However, the Obama administration has indicated that this practice may potentially be curtailed.

 

What does the "War on Drugs" mean?

The War on Drugs is a campaign of prohibition and foreign military aid and military intervention being undertaken by the United States government, with the assistance of participating countries, intended to both define and reduce the illegal drug trade. This initiative includes a set of drug policies of the United States that are intended to discourage the production, distribution, and consumption of illegal psychoactive drugs. The term "War on Drugs" was first used by President Richard Nixon in 1971.

Economics of the "War on Drugs"

How is the CIA spending the funding to "fight" this "war"?

Mike Ruppert on CIA Drug Running (1997)

Economics alone is enough to end the prohibition (cost of drug war, jail food, GDP loss, enforcement cost), not to forget the decriminalization of victimless crimes. 1% of the USA population in prison, other countries laughing at us, making jokes about a criminal stereotype.

U.S. tax dollars (legal tender) paid for tanks to abolish Lebanon's hemp industry, and funded the abolition in Nepal where people eat food made from hempmeal and hemp oils - because the altitude is too high and too dry to grow rice for protein.

Approximately 50% of all drug enforcement money, federal and state, during the last 60 years has been directed toward marijuana! Some 70-80% of all persons now in federal and state prisons in America wouldn't have been there as criminals until just 60 or so years ago. In other words we, in our (Anslinger and Hearst inspired) ignorance and prejudice, have placed approximately 800,000 of the 1.2 million people in American prisons (as of August 4, 1998) for crimes that were, at worst, minor habits, up until the Harrison Act, 1914 (whereby the U.S. Supreme Court in 1924 first ruled that drug addicts weren't sick, they were instead vile criminals).

80% of these government "War on Drugs" victims were not dealing. They have been incarcerated for simple possession. And this does not include the quarter of a million more in county jails. Remember, just 30 years ago, in 1978, before the "War on Drugs," there were only 300,000 persons in American prisons for all crimes combined.

The United Kingdom officially downgraded the classification of cannabis from Class B to Class C effective Jan. 29, 2004. The London Guardian reported that "Under the switch, cannabis will be ranked alongside bodybuilding steroids and some anti-depressants. Possession of cannabis will no longer be an arrestable offence in most cases, although police will retain the power to arrest users in certain aggravated situations - such as when the drug is smoked outside schools. The home secretary, David Blunkett, has said the change in the law is necessary to enable police to spend more time tackling class A drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine which cause the most harm and trigger far more crime." Source: Tempest, Matthew, "MPs Vote To Downgrade Cannabis," The Guardian (London, England), Oct. 29, 2003.

 

"Marijuana" Propaganda

The mainstream media hoodwinked the public into opposing hemp (which was commonly known to be in medicines and used to make the most durable clothing). People never would've believed that their clothes and medicines they had most likely used during childbirth were as dangerous as they needed us to believe to support their hemp prohibition. So they called it by another name, a term that was previously unheard of in America, a "foreign" word...

People in Mexico were getting ALGODON inside their homes for a long time, lots of them even got ALGODON on their bodies ---- and ALGODON has already spread across the world from Mexico to India! Mexican immigrants are spreading it into the American culture.

But you see "ALGODON" is just the Spanish (Español) word for "cotton" ~ just like how "Marijuana" is actually SPANISH translation for cannibis. Foreign words can sound very dangerous depending on the context of their use. Penn and Teller tricked a bunch of people into signing a petition to ban water (H2O) by calling it "Hydrogen-Dioxide" in order to illustrate how propaganda works. People ignorantly, and naively associated hemp with illegal immigration problems.

The Risks have been over-exagerated.

"In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. 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."
— Francis L. Young, Administrative Law Judge of the DEA (September 6, 1988)

No reports of a statistical linkage between hashish and violent crime have been published in known scientific literature, instead it has been found to generally inhibit aggressive impulses.

 

Movies About Hemp Prohibition

Hemp For Victory Hemp Revolution How Weed Won The West
Grass Reefer Madness The Emporer Wears No Clothes

 

 

free counters

Find Marijuana Doctors Your State! | Find Marijuana Doctors in Canada!