The Case for Marijuana Legalization: Food & Medicine*

Research conducted between 1966 and 1976, by American and Canadian universities—some 10,000 studies in all—proved unequivocally that cannabis has well defined medicinal properties. Of the handful of studies (about a dozen) that failed to return a positive finding of medicinal benefits, none could be replicated in subsequent studies using the same test criteria.

Indeed, cannabis was one of the best known and most widely used medicinal plants, in many parts of the world, for more than 3500 years. In U.S. pharmacopoeia, cannabis was the primary medicine prescribed to treat more than 100 illnesses or diseases until 1937, when growing hemp in the U.S. was effectively banned.

Among the therapeutic uses of cannabis are treatments for asthma, glaucoma, epilepsy, nausea, multiple sclerosis, tumors, arthritis, rheumatism, cystic fibrosis, herpes, back pain, muscle spasms, insomnia, stress, migraine headaches, anorexia, depression, and many others.

A healthy diet equates to a healthy immune system. Were hemp seed, a highly nutritious and easily digestible source of protein, essential amino acids and omega-3 fatty acids incorporated into the typical diet, the number of occurrences of the aforementioned illnesses and diseases would plummet.

Be advised that cannabis is not a panacea. Different people sometimes obtain different results and a small percentage experience allergic reactions. People who experience adverse reactions shouldn't use cannabis, but that's not to say that no one should use it. Lots of people are allergic to some things, some people are allergic to lots of things, but it just doesn't follow that because a small percentage of people are allergic to peanuts or hemp, peanuts and hemp should be off-limits to everyone.

It's worth noting that adverse reactions to cannabis are generally mild and no known deaths have occurred due to liver or kidney failure, or to overdose. If only the same could be said for aspirin and Tylenol.

The U.S. Government continues to spread misinformation, disinformation, negative propaganda and outright undisguised lies about cannabis hemp to the citizens it governs. It's a thinly veiled ploy to maintain hemp's illegal status for the benefit of vested pharmaceutical interests at the expense of the people who could most benefit from easy access to legalized hemp and its many medicinal and nutritional properties.

In 1937, the year that cannabis became illegal, one ounce of medicinal cannabis sold for $1 at local pharmacies all across the nation. Today, one ounce of kick-ass bud typically sells for $300 – $400 on the black market, no prescription needed. Obviously, legalized hemp would lower the cost of most other therapeutic drugs, and go a long way toward making healthcare affordable for everyone.

Anti-marijuana forces have used specious, disingenuous arguments to make their case against marijuana since day one. When one weighs all the facts about cannabis honestly, the moral and ethical concerns of marijuana legalization line up on the side of legalization.

When people finally shed their fear and ignorance of cannabis, they will vote to legalize it. When they finally see and experience the benefits to be had, they will wonder why it took so long.

Why, indeed!

When the people lead, politicians will follow.



*This brief article originally appeared in Petey's Pipeline E-zine, Issue #34, July 3, 2006


Register your vote for cannabis legalization, today. Visit Change.org/ for more information.

Not Just Reefer Madness, but Reefer Stupidity, too!

Despite the best efforts of the pro-legalization movement, nearly two-thirds of the American public still believes the government’s negative propaganda regarding marijuana. But please, let’s not call it marijuana. That’s a Mexican slang term, made popular in the 1920’s by yellow journalism’s founding father, William Randolph Hearst, that characterizes a relatively small part of one of the most amazing and useful plants ever to grow upon planet Gaia—cannabis hemp.

Marijuana, pot, reefer, ganja, weed, hay, and many lesser-known terms all refer to the flower tops (buds) of cannabis sativa and/or cannabis indica, both of which are known to possess numerous medicinal properties. A close cousin, cannabis ruderalis, is too low in THC content to be useful for smoking purposes, but it excels as a renewable industrial resource for users of fiber (rope, cordage, textiles, paper), cellulose (building materials, biofuels, bio-degradable plastics), and seeds (food, oil). At the time it was banned in 1937, there were known to be some 25,000 different uses for cannabis hemp. How many more might be discovered, today, using modern technologies and processes?

Why, then, does the government persist in maligning such a valuable plant, in disseminating false information about it, in criminalizing its use, when all credible scientific evidence suggests that the world would be a saner, safer, healthier place were it legalized and put into widespread use? As it turns out, there are a multitude of answers to that question, none of which agree with the government’s publicly stated reasons for banning cannabis hemp.

Government agencies responsible for fostering the current climate of anti-cannabis ignorance and hysteria include the ONDCP, the FDA, and the DEA, all of which regurgitate a litany of false premises in order to defend and promote a cannabis prohibition agenda. These agencies have long argued that marijuana (their term, not mine) contains no known medicinal properties, that it’s a gateway drug, that it’s an addictive drug, that it’s a dangerous drug, that it’s a health hazard, yada, yada, yada, despite thousands of university studies conducted over a ten-year period between the mid-sixties and the mid-seventies that reached opposite conclusions on every point. Add to that anecdotal evidence based on the personal experiences of millions of cannabis users and the government’s case for cannabis prohibition falls apart. Still, the government persists.

The feds claim that marijuana lacks enough research to determine its relative safety and medical efficacy. Of course, the feds have, for nearly 30 years, used every means available to block legitimate cannabis research by denying legitimate researchers the necessary permits and access to cannabis they need in order to do the research. The government’s lack of credibility on this issue further erodes its case for cannabis prohibition.

Nor do cannabis foes gain any traction for their cause in the way they demonize their nemesis. A recent anti-marijuana ad, which played on one of the cable channels a few weeks ago, was no better conceived than any of its predecessors; stupidity is stupidity, no matter how you package and present it.

In one segment of the ad, a supposedly stoned teenager (or he could simply be a disgruntled environmental activist who’s incensed over global climate change) sets fire to a car in a driveway. None of the stoners I have known—and I’ve known many—would behave in this way, so this specious bit of nonsense flunks the straight face test.

A second segment depicts another teenager, also supposedly stoned, piling his broken-to-pieces guitar onto a barbeque. Give me a break! While a stoner might strum his guitar until it’s a-smokin’, no music-loving stoner I’ve ever known would mistake a guitar for a hamburger, not even in a worst-case scenario of the munchies. Once again, government-inspired lunacy gets a failing grade.

Archaic laws, and the draconian criminal penalties meted out for breaking them, also undermine the government’s case for cannabis prohibition. The public is growing weary of invasions of privacy, of no-knock raids gone awry, of wrongful deaths, of low-level non-violent marijuana offender emerging from lengthy prison sentences as hardened criminals. Eventually, even the politicians who could hasten real change are bound to get a clue.

If the government agencies responsible for waging a war against (some) drugs told the truth about cannabis, that truth would look something like this:

• If marijuana were legalized, millions of Americans would turn to low-cost, high-efficacy marijuana-based remedies, thus depriving the pharmaceutical industry of billions of dollars in annual profits. Doctors and hospitals would also lose billions.

• If marijuana were legalized, it would go a long way toward ending America’s dependence on foreign oil, thus costing Big Oil billions of dollars in annual profits.

• If marijuana were legalized, the rationale for waging war in the Middle East would collapse, and the Pentagon would lose billions of dollars in annual funding.

• If marijuana were legalized, law enforcement and the private prison industry would lose billions of dollars in annual funding and profits.

• If marijuana were legalized, the annual timber harvest decline would cost timber companies billions of dollars in profits.

• If marijuana were legalized, family farms might find it possible to stay in business, thus threatening the ongoing expansion and industry dominance enjoyed by Big Ag factory farms.

• If marijuana were legalized, certain petrochemical companies would suffer huge losses (potentially billions of dollars) when their poisonous products suddenly become irrelevant.

• If marijuana were legalized, it would cost the tobacco and alcohol beverage industries billions of dollars in lost profits.

• If marijuana were legalized, it would upset entrenched economic interests and rearrange the status quo by opening new windows of opportunity for the millions of workers and would-be entrepreneurs who now cling to the economic ladder’s lowest rungs.

Faux patriots and hardcore capitalists will be comforted to know that the federal government values corporate profits over the global environment, civil liberties, public health, and human life. The federal government’s anti-cannabis bias has never been about protecting the public’s health and safety; it couldn’t care less about these things. From its inception, cannabis prohibition has been all about protecting corporate profits, the public be damned. The demon drug marijuana has always been the excuse for—but never the reason behind—cannabis prohibition.

Gradually, the public’s perception of cannabis is changing as true knowledge and understanding of this remarkable plant’s potential to revolutionize and revitalize the nation’s economy infuse themselves into the national consciousness. Although much remains to be done, there are now some clearly defined blueprints to aid in bringing about the necessary changes.

Time, logic, and necessity favor cannabis legalization; the public mindset is shifting from ignorance, fear, denial and skepticism to fearless acceptance and informed optimism. When human needs and environmental degradation reach critical tipping points, cannabis legalization will be a done deal.

Lou Dobbs Demonizes Marijuana—Again!

On Lou Dobbs Tonight (CNN) a couple of nights ago, a segment on marijuana proves once again that neither the government nor mainstream media can be trusted to report factually accurate information about marijuana.

Brookhaven National Laboratory, a government nuclear physics research facility in New York, conducted research into how long-term marijuana use might affect the human brain. Consistent with US policy over the past 30 years, BNL looked for only the negative effects of marijuana. Where their findings weren’t negative enough, a little help from Lou Dobbs, CNN correspondent Bill Tucker, anti-drug warrior Steven Steiner, and Dr. Stephen Dewey, of BNL, skewed the facts to make them conform to the desired results.

What follows are excerpts from the original transcript of CNN’s marijuana segment. I’ve added my own comments regarding each quote, and linked them to relevant articles where appropriate.

"Researchers now say marijuana may cause long-term brain damage and cancer.” —Lou Dobbs, CNN

Now say? Actually, marijuana foes have said essentially the same things for 30 years, and repetition hasn’t made them any more credible.

Last year’s UCLA study, which contradicts Dobbs’ statement, showed that smoking cannabis does not cause lung cancer but may, in fact, prevent it.


“Political maneuvering has intensified the debate over medical marijuana and the growing evidence about its detrimental and dangerous effects.” —Lou Dobbs, CNN

Yeah, yeah, yeah! Now get the rest of the story.


“And it's becoming an increasingly familiar ballot initiative. Minnesota, New Mexico, Missouri, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Illinois, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Connecticut are all considering some form of legislation to legalize marijuana for medical purposes. It is a drive that opponents say has no merit.” —Bill Tucker, CNN Correspondent

The opponents are wrong. A recent study proved that cannabis has medical value, even when smoked.


“You've got to remember something. This whole legalization movement isn't just about marijuana. These people want to legalize heroin, meth, cocaine for recreational use. Make no mistake about it.” —Steven Steiner, Americans For Drug Free Youth

Not specifically for recreational drug use. Read the real reasons.


“Not only does it alter the structure, the brain's chemistry, but you run the risk that the alterations that you produce today will manifest themselves in ten years or 20 years.” —Stephen Dewey, Brookhaven National Laboratory

Must all changes to the brain be automatically presumed to be negative in effect? And if no changes manifest in 10 or 20 years, then the only risks were imaginary. Why not do the research before jumping to conclusions?


“Impaired memory and feelings of anxiety are more than just jokes. They are reality. So, too, are frequent respiratory infections and there is concern that the cancer risk of marijuana users is higher, which is why the American Cancer Society does not endorse, smoke marijuana, nor its legalization.” —Bill Tucker, CNN Correspondent

Higher cancer risk in marijuana users is not supported by facts.


“Well, marijuana, thought to be harmless by many, particularly baby boomers, who have been associated with drug for decades. It's now known to be a dangerously addictive drug and it's long-term effects are still being studied.” —Lou Dobbs, CNN

Dangerously addictive? The facts (and personal experience) say otherwise. But why not get some research from unbiased sources?


“We don't fully understand the potential ramifications of using the drug today and what it can do 20 years down the road.” —Dr. Stephen Dewey, Brookhaven National Laboratory

It’s possible that marijuana killed my father-in-law. He died, cancer free and of sound mind, at age 82 after 50 years of heavy marijuana use.

“The research on marijuana for 30 years has been -- I think the research has been — I think the best way to say it is mixed. Why is there such an ambiguity? And I'm not talking about in terms of weight, but an ambiguity among all the research conclusions on marijuana in the country over the last 30 years?” —Lou Dobbs

The only ambiguity comes from Lou Dobbs, BNL, DEA, FDA, ONDCP, and other anti-marijuana groups. See what other researchers have to say.


“ . . . it's very difficult to find people who just use marijuana. You know, you have to tease apart marijuana use with alcohol, cocaine, methamphetamine, LSD. You have situations where it's not straight forward looking at just a marijuana user because they're poly-drug-abusers.” —Dr. Stephen Dewey, Brookhaven National Laboratory

Another disingenuous statement that’s pure bullshit! Most of the people I know who use marijuana use marijuana exclusively. They don’t mess with other drugs, including alcohol and tobacco. Don’t construe this to mean that all marijuana users abstain from other drugs; obviously, they don’t. I’m only saying it’s not at all difficult to find people who just use marijuana.


Read the entire transcript of Dobbs’ marijuana segment. (Scroll down the page slightly more than halfway.)

Failed Policy Builds Better Attitudes

As a subscriber to a number of online activist group newsletters, I often take advantage of opportunities to sign petitions or send e-mail to various political or corporate leaders on behalf of worthy causes. The Marijuana Policy Project, Drug Policy Alliance, NARAL Pro-choice, DefCon, and Biofuels4Oregon are just a few of the organizations with which I engage in political activism.

Normally, I’ll get behind any movement that favors protecting the environment or wildlife, preserving civil rights and liberties, or legalizing drugs. Generally, I oppose drilling for oil in the ANWR, lower taxes for the wealthy, and televised basketball games lasting longer than an hour.

When the DPA sent out their newsletter on May 18, soliciting my participation in helping to stop the ONDCP from spending taxpayers’ money on those disingenuous anti-marijuana ads one so frequently sees on television, I was eager to make it a done deal.

However, as I read DPA’s arguments for blocking the ads, I came to this paragraph (quoted in its entirety directly from the DPA newsletter), which caused me to rethink my position:

“As you may know, five government studies have found that the ads have not reduced marijuana use - and two of the studies found that the ads might make some teenagers more likely to start using marijuana. Now, a new study by two researchers at Texas State University-San Marcos finds that 18- to 19-year-old college students who view the TV ads develop more positive attitudes towards marijuana than those who do not.”

Pay particular attention to the second sentence in that paragraph. Excuse me? Isn’t that what we want? Wouldn’t more people developing more positive attitudes towards marijuana hasten its legalization?

Even though the ONDCP anti-marijuana ad campaign is backfiring big time, I can’t wrap my mind around the idea that it’s an enormous waste of taxpayers’ money. In fact, I think it’s a case of the taxpayers’ money being exceptionally well spent. With results like this, we can probably expect to see marijuana legalized within the next year or two.

So, with that in mind, rather than endorse the letter to block the ads, I’m going to send the ONDCP a large contribution to help them run more ads.

Heh! Heh! Just kidding!

Sanity South of the Border

Mexico recently announced a bill that would remove penalties for possession of minor amounts of most illicit drugs, including marijuana, peyote, LSD, ecstasy, coke, heroin and meth, among others. President Vincente Fox is expected to sign the bill into law. Way to go, Meh-hee-co. This makes the first time you've come out ahead of the U.S. since the Alamo. And you haven't even begun to tap your true potential.

The latest issue of Petey's Pipeline E-zine takes a wild guess at how global and national economies will look in the near future (10 - 30 years), and brings you the first in a planned series of articles advocating hemp legalization. Look for more writing tips for aspiring Web page writers, too.

Earth Day and Hemp Awareness

Saturday’s Earth Day celebration at Sellwood Park, in southeast Portland, was about what I expected -- an eclectic mix of the curious and clueless, of passionate progressives and extreme environmentalists, of posturing politicos and crusading capitalists. Whether they came to learn or to teach, to share ideas, to promote public or private agendas, or just to enjoy fresh air and sunshine and music, everyone who showed had a personal reason for being there.

My own reason for showing up was straightforward, no less altruistic nor more selfish than any other. I wanted only to ask one question and gauge people’s response. The question, of course, is one that I’ve asked, in varying forms, for more than a decade. In essence, the question is this: Do you support the legalization of cannabis hemp, and if not, why not?

Responses varied from adamantly opposed to wildly enthusiastic. It’s not surprising that opponents outnumbered proponents by more than three to one, but it is discouraging. That so many people can remain ignorant in this age of computers and the Internet and Google searches and alternative media is truly mind-boggling.

In striking up a conversation with Jim Hill, democratic candidate for Oregon Governor, I asked, “Mr. Hill, if you’re elected governor, will you support the legalization of cannabis hemp?”

“Uhmm, no!” he replied, as if my question had triggered an automatic response. “With the medical marijuana laws we already have in place I don’t think we need to expand . . ..”

“But Mr. Hill, I wasn’t talking about marijuana, per se. I’m talking about cannabis hemp, about its industrial and commercial applications that go beyond what you’re likely to find in a sandwich bag.”

“Uh, oh, well . . ..”

Thus did Jim Hill reveal his ignorance. That someone who aspires to solve Oregon’s environmental, economic, educational, healthcare and energy crises, all of which loom large on the horizon, can remain so uninformed in a deluge of positive knowledge about something that can help achieve those worthy goals goes beyond belief. Ignorance of this magnitude strains credibility and speaks loudly of incompetence.

You can’t denounce hemp and save the planet at the same time, Mr. Hill. That’s being hypocritical. Especially on Earth Day.

To Jim Hill’s credit, he did indicate a willingness to reevaluate his position if presented with a suitable amount of credible evidence that hemp legalization would be a net gain for society. In which case I’ll have to reevaluate my decision not to vote for him.

Rethink marijuana policy!

Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., opposes medical marijuana initiatives because he thinks they're "a front" to legalize all uses of marijuana. Before I weigh in on the subject, let's define "marijuana."

Marijuana is a Mexican slang term that refers to the leaves and flower tops of cannabis sativa, the common hemp plant. The U.S. Government expanded its definition of marijuana to include stalks, branches, stems, seeds, roots, and root balls of both cannabis sativa and cannabis indica. Never mind that only the leaves and flower tops contain enough THC (the active ingredient in marijuana) to actually get someone high.

Rather than using lame-brained arguments to maintain a strict ban on marijuana, maybe we should more closely scrutinize the government's obsession with marijuana prohibition. And maybe we should try to figure out what constitutes "all uses" of marijuana. Does it mean that some people might smoke marijuana recreationally instead of medicinally? So what if they do? Or does it imply that marijuana -- more specifically, cannabis hemp -- has industrial uses that, if allowed free rein in a market-driven economy, would threaten to upset the status quo?

Stay tuned! I'll explore this issue in greater detail in an upcoming issue of Petey's Pipeline E-zine.