Tag Archives: Marijuana

The DEA has failed to eradicate marijuana. Now Congress wants it to stop trying.

By Christopher Ingraham November 27 at 12:46 PM

The Drug Enforcement Administration is not having a great year.

The chief of the agency stepped down in April under a cloud of scandal. The acting administrator since then has courted ridicule for saying pot is "probably not" as dangerous as heroin, and more recently he provoked 100,000 petition-signers and seven members of Congress to call for his head after he called medical marijuana "a joke."

This fall, the administration earned a scathing rebuke from a federal judge over its creative interpretation of a law intended to keep it from harassing medical marijuana providers. Then, the Brookings Institution issued a strongly worded report outlining the administration’s role in "stifling medical research" into medical uses of pot.

Unfortunately for the DEA, the year isn’t over yet. Last week, a group of 12 House members led by Ted Lieu (D) of California wrote to House leadership to push for a provision in the upcoming spending bill that would strip half of the funds away from the DEA’s Cannabis Eradication Program and put that money toward programs that "play a far more useful role in promoting the safety and economic prosperity of the American people": domestic violence prevention and overall spending reduction efforts.

Each year, the DEA spends about $18 million in efforts with state and local authorities to pull up marijuana plants being grown indoors and outdoors. The program has been plagued by scandal and controversy in recent years. In the mid-2000s, it became clear that the overwhelming majority of "marijuana" plants netted by the program were actually "ditchweed," or the wild, non-cultivated, non-psychoactive cousin of the marijuana that people smoke.

More recently, overzealous marijuana eradicators have launched heavily armed raids on okra plants and warned the Utah legislature of the threat posed by rabbits who had "cultivated a taste for the marijuana." Last year, the DEA spent an average of roughly $4.20 (yes, really) for each marijuana plant it successfully uprooted. In some states, the cost to taxpayers approached $60 per uprooted plant.

The program has also proven to be ineffective. The idea behind pulling up pot plants is to reduce the supply of marijuana, thereby reducing its use. In 1977, two years before the program’s introduction, less than a quarter of Americans said they’d ever tried pot, according to Gallup. By 2015, after 36 years of federal marijuana eradication efforts, the share of Americans ever trying pot nearly doubled, to 44 percent.

Given that marijuana is legal in some form or another in nearly half of the nation’s states, some lawmakers are saying enough is enough. "The seizure of these plants has served neither an economic nor public-safety nor a health-related purpose," Lieu and his colleagues write. "Its sole impact has been to expend limited federal resources that are better spent elsewhere."

The letter-writers note that the provision to strip $9 million in funding from the program passed on voice vote earlier in the year, "without any opposition from either party." They urge leadership to include the provision in a must-pass spending bill later this year.

Lieu doesn’t want to stop there: Next year he intends to introduce a measure "to eliminate the program completely," he said earlier this year. Whether that actually happens will probably depend on how this year’s measure fares during upcoming spending bill negotiations.

Christopher Ingraham writes about politics, drug policy and all things data. He previously worked at the Brookings Institution and the Pew Research Center.


Pot forces come out in NKY


NKY groups for and against legal marijuana get their word out early.

(Photo: The Enquirer/Amanda Rossmann)

Talk about legalizing marijuana didn’t stop at Ohio’s southern border.

Just weeks after voters rejected the issue that would have made marijuana legal in Ohio, Northern Kentuckians for and against the idea for the commonwealth are voicing their opinions and gathering support for their views.

A career Air Force veteran from Campbell County who suffers from post traumatic stress disorder invited Kentuckians for Medical Marijuana, KY4MM, to Northern Kentucky for a town hall meeting on Nov. 8.

Thomas "Tony" Vance, 65, said he suffers from post traumatic stress disorder from being sexually abused as a child. Now he speaks out on behalf of other veterans who are suffering from PTSD and find marijuana to be "the only" way to feel normal.

Vance wants marijuana legalized in Kentucky. KY4MM is lobbying specifically for medical marijuana.

Meanwhile, drug prevention groups in Northern Kentucky are organizing for a "marijuana summit" on Dec. 1 in opposition to legalizing marijuana in Kentucky.

"My main concern has and always will be the impact (legalized marijuana) has on children, teenagers specifically," said Bonnie Hedrick,  coordinator of the Northern Kentucky Prevention Alliance and Kentucky Agency for Substance Abuse Policy. "When substances are available, kids are more able to use them. One example we have is prescription drugs. When they’re available in the household, kids are much more likely to use them. Also alcohol and tobacco."

The Ohio issue and a nationwide push toward legalizing marijuana helped spur the Kentucky foes of legalized marijuana into action, and their determination to push ahead even when Issue 3 failed. "The fight isn’t over," Hedrick said.

In the two weeks since the Nov. 3 election, when voters rejected Issue 3’s legalization plan, the Ohio Legislature has promised to examine options to allow limited access to medical marijuana. The campaign director for Issue 3, Ian James, said his organization has been meeting with voters across to state, and will propose an alternative initiative for the 2016 ballot.

Vance said the meeting supporting legal marijuana in Alexandria on Nov. 8 drew about 30 people, including some from outside of the region. KY4MM, which was established three years ago, led the town hall. Its founder and executive director, Jaime Montalvo, said the group has found it difficult, but not impossible, to swing Kentucky legislators to its side.

Montalvo said the turnout in Northern Kentucky was about average for town hall meetings his group has had around the state, adding, "A lot of people are still afraid to come."

Drug prevention coalitions in Northern Kentucky, meanwhile, have their Marijuana Summit, offering a daylong series of discussions about why marijuana shouldn’t be legalized in the Bluegrass state.

Kim Moser, director of the Northern Kentucky Office of Drug Control Policy, said the community meeting is a chance for folks to get facts about marijuana.

"Our office is engaged in community outreach to educate, ensuring folks get accurate information," Moser said.

Those who attend will hear "both sides" of the argument to legalize marijuana, she said, "and get an understanding of the national landscape in terms of unintended consequences in states where marijuana has been legalized." The agenda includes discussion about marijuana and the adolescent brain and hemp versus marijuana.

Moser said that in light of the current heroin epidemic that Northern Kentucky is experiencing, her office is encouraging "a drug-free community altogether."

Montalvo, founder and executive director for KY4MM, said that in the past few years he’s heard from numerous families throughout Kentucky who want medical cannabis legalized in the commonwealth. "They would rather use cannabis than the opioids that they are prescribed," he said.

Medical marijuana has already been an issue before Kentucky legislators.

Last year, Kentucky Rep. Greg Stumbo, speaker of the House of Representatives, introduced a medical marijuana bill. It never passed committee. And in 2014, Sen. Perry Clark, D-Louisville, introduced a bill that would let Kentuckians use medical marijuana with a doctor’s recommendation. The bill also died.

Another measure was enacted that allows trial use of cannabis oil to treat children who have seizures. But that law had many obstacles written into it and has not yet been useful for parents who have children with seizures.

To register or learn more about the Northern Kentucky Marijuana Summit, go to eventbrite.com or drugfreenky.org.


After federal raids, U.S. tribes cautioned about marijuana

SANTA FE, N.M. — Tribes across the U.S. are finding marijuana is risky business nearly a year after a Justice Department policy indicated they could grow and sell pot under the same guidelines as states.

Play Video

Justice Department clears the air on states’ marijuana laws

Federal raids on tribal cannabis operations in California followed by a South Dakota tribe’s move this month to burn its crop amid fears it could be next have raised questions over whether there’s more to complying with DOJ standards than a department memo suggested last December.

The uncertainty — blamed partly on thin DOJ guidelines, the fact that marijuana remains an illegal drug under federal laws, and a complex tangle of state, federal and tribal law enforcement oversight on reservations — has led attorneys to urge tribal leaders to weigh the risks involved before moving forward with legalizing and growing pot.

"Everybody who is smart is pausing to look at the feasibility and risks of growing hemp and marijuana," said Lance Gumbs, a former chairman of the Shinnecock Tribe in New York and regional vice president of the National Congress of American Indians. "But are we giving up on it? Absolutely not."

At a conference on tribal economic development held in Santa Fe, tribal leaders and attorneys said Wednesday that the raids have shown there may be more red tape for tribes to negotiate when it comes to legalizing cannabis than states have faced.

That’s especially the case for tribes that are within states where marijuana is not legal. In those cases, tribes may face the challenge of figuring out how to bring cannabis seeds onto reservations without crossing a state jurisdiction, and sheriffs and state officials are bound to be less approving of marijuana, said Blake Trueblood, director of business development for the National Center for American Indian Enterprise Development, host of the conference.

The DOJ memo sent to U.S. attorneys last December directed them not to prioritize prosecuting federal marijuana laws in most cases where tribes legalized the drug for medical or recreational use. The memo calls for tribes to follow an eight-point policy standard that includes taking measures to keep pot out of the hands of children and criminal networks, and not transport it across federal or state jurisdictions where it remains illegal.

"Industrial hemp, medical marijuana and maybe recreational marijuana present a lot of opportunity. But for now, the best advice is to proceed with caution," said Michael Reif, an attorney for the Menominee tribe in Wisconsin, where tribal leaders filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday after federal agents recently seized thousands of hemp plants grown for research. "We’re seeing the ramifications of things being unclear in a way states didn’t."

The Flandreau Santee Sioux in South Dakota – a state where marijuana isn’t legal – was the first to approve recreational pot under tribal law with a vote in June, and was one of the most aggressive about entering the industry, with plans to open the nation’s first marijuana resort on its reservation north of Sioux Falls.

But after weeks of discussions with authorities who signaled a raid was possible, the tribe announced last week it had burned all of its marijuana plants. Anthony Reider, the tribe’s president, told The Associated Press the main holdup centered on whether the tribe could sell marijuana to non-Indians, along with issues over where the seed used for planting originated.

He suggested that by burning the crops, the tribe could have a clean slate to relaunch a grow operation in consultation with authorities.

In California, the Alturas and Pit River Indian rancherias launched tribally run marijuana operations that were raided by federal authorities, with agents seizing 12,000 marijuana plants in July. The regional U.S. attorney’s office said in a statement that the two neighboring tribes planned to distribute the pot off tribal lands and the large-scale operations may have been financed by a foreign third-party foreign.

It’s not clear if the two tribes have plans for a new marijuana venture, and calls from the AP were not immediately returned.

The California and South Dakota tribes are three of just six so far this year that have legalized medical or recreational marijuana on their reservations.

The Squaxin Island Tribe in Washington state is another, and just opened a store last week for retail sales of the drug. But most expect the tribe to face fewer legal challenges because Washington allows for recreational marijuana use and the tribe entered into a compact with the state that sets guidelines for taxing pot sales.

"The tribes are not going to be immune to what the local attitudes toward marijuana are going to be," Trueblood said. "If there’s one 30,000-feet takeaway from this year, it’s that you’re not going to be successful if you don’t work with you local governments or U.S. attorneys.


Consuming Marijuana During Pregnancy Does Not Make A Mother Unfit

Since 1985 cigarette packages sold in the United States have carried four rotating warnings from the surgeon general, including this one: “Smoking by Pregnant Women May Result in Fetal Injury, Premature Birth, and Low Birth Weight.” Since 1989 the labels of alcoholic beverages have included this government-mandated warning: “According to the Surgeon General, women should not drink alcoholic beverages during pregnancy because of the risk of birth defects.” This week the American Medical Association (AMA) proposed a similar label for cannabis products:  “Marijuana use during pregnancy and breastfeeding poses potential harms.”

The proposed warning represents a concession to political reality by the AMA, which opposes marijuana legalization but seems to recognize that pot prohibition is inexorably crumbling. The AMA’s wording is notably milder than the warnings for tobacco and alcohol—appropriately so, since the evidence that cannabis consumption during pregnancy can harm the fetus is less clear than the evidence that smoking and heavy drinking can. In any case, providing information about marijuana’s hazards is surely preferable to the punitive moralism of the war on drugs.

Hollie Sanford holding Nova (Image: WJW)

Hollie Sanford holding Nova (Image: WJW)

The latter approach still prevails in most of the country, as illustrated by what happened to Hollie Sanford and her baby girl, Nova. After Sanford gave birth at Cleveland’s Fairview Hospital on September 26, Nova was snatched away from her because the newborn’s first stool tested positive for a marijuana metabolite. Against the recommendation of county social workers (who are usually the villains in stories like this), Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court Magistrate Eleanore Hilow decided the drug test result by itself justified separating Nova from her parents. They were not reunited until last week, after a judge overruled Hilow.

Sanford used cannabis tea to treat morning sickness and severe sciatic nerve pain while she was pregnant with Nova, as she had when she was pregnant with Nova’s brother, Logan, who is now almost 2. Her research convinced her marijuana was a safer choice than the painkillers she had been prescribed, and she may be right about that. The Food and Drug Administration puts opioids such as hydrocodone and oxycodone in Category C, meaning “animal reproduction studies have shown an adverse effect on the fetus and there are no adequate and well-controlled studies in humans,” although “potential benefits may warrant use of the drug in pregnant women despite potential risks.” The evidence concerning marijuana’s effects on fetuses is likewise mixed and incomplete.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse, whose raison d’etre is highlighting the hazards of illegal intoxicants, says “research in rats suggests that exposure to even low concentrations of THC late in pregnancy could have profound and long-lasting consequences for both brain and behavior of offspring.” It adds that “human studies have shown that some babies born to women who used marijuana during their pregnancies respond differently to visual stimuli, tremble more, and have a high-pitched cry, which could indicate problems with neurological development.” NIDA also notes that “children prenatally exposed to marijuana are more likely to show gaps in problem-solving skills, memory, and the ability to remain attentive.” But it admits that “more research is needed…to disentangle marijuana’s specific effects from other environmental factors, including maternal nutrition, exposure to nurturing/neglect, and use of other substances by mothers.”


EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW Mark Thornton: Cannabis Legalization Starting to Advance Rapidly –

Anthony Wile: Hello, Mark. It’s been over a year since we last interviewed you. Give us an update on your recent work.

Mark Thornton: I was asked to debate the War on Drugs at Oxford Union in June of last year. I was happy to see such a political elitist institution interested in debating the War on Drugs. Maybe the new requirement for paying tuition is having a positive effect or it could be just part of the worldwide trend against the War on Drugs and political institutions in general.

Recently, I was asked to speak to the Atlanta Economic Club at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. I spoke about the Skyscraper Curse, a topic that I was criticized about by the Economist magazine. It’s a topic that I have been talking about often these days as we look out at a pending Skyscraper Signal in Saudi Arabia and the collapse of the world economy.

Anthony Wile: We continue to follow the cannabis trend at The Daily Bell, and given your focus on "the economics of prohibition" over the years, would like to talk with you about several recent developments, especially in regard to two areas – the economics of prohibition and tariffs and price controls. When we talked with you in March 2014 you talked about "UNGASS 2016 and the Enormous Benefits of Legalizing Marijuana." Given the progress to date, what do you expect to come from UNGASS 2016? And how would you assess the working sessions being hosted around the world in preparation for the UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on Drugs, in April 2016?

Mark Thornton: Well, I have heard about the leaks and those leaks seem quite promising. I believe they basically confirmed what we hoped and expected from UNGASS 2016. It is complete reversal from 1998. In 1998 the report said that policy could achieve a drug-free world. That is an insane position to take, like no more storms, no more automobile accidents. It is the Pollyanna delusion. In 2016 we expect the UNGASS to issue a harm reduction recommendation where illicit drug consumption and possession would not be criminal acts that could lead to a prison sentence. This is a sane policy position. Prison sentences for illicit drug users are clearly harmful to the consumer (who now has a criminal record) and to government (cost of courts and prisons, etc.) and it does not deter consumption, or crime, or other negative consequences.

It is not the correct position of full legalization, but decriminalization has achieved good results in Portugal and Ireland has announced its intention to follow Portugal’s lead. With UNGASS 2016 recommendations we can expect many more counties to follow suit with legalization of marijuana and decriminalization of the hard drugs. Many governments have already turned a blind eye towards illicit drug consumers in anticipation of UNGASS 2016 and are ready to enact harm reduction policies such as decriminalization, marijuana legalization, and needle exchange programs. So I am hopeful that we will see a windfall of policy liberalization in many countries and then political change in countries that do not follow suit.

There will be some pushback from countries like the US, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. The for-profit prison companies in the US will spend lots of money trying to defeat public opinion. Someone should keep an eye on them and their political and lobbying spending. If politicians knew that anyone accepting for-profit prison money would be outed as an ally of crony capitalism, it could be helpful.

Anthony Wile: What about individual response from member nations? Many have already implemented new regulations but I’ve stated my expectation that many changes will likely need to be made to at least parts of those regulatory regimes post-UNGASS, in order to come in line with treaty agreements.

Mark Thornton: Yes, it will be a messy process. Government always is a mess. Some will stick with the War on Drugs, some will adjust within the new framework, and others will venture outside the new guidelines and treaty agreements. As I mentioned, Ireland has already jumped the gun in preparing for full decriminalization. There will be experimentation and lots of reviewing of the evidence. I am sure there will be reform efforts that fail, but overall I am not worried about the long term because we have solid evidence from Portugal.

Medical marijuana legalization has been a big success. Recreational marijuana legalization has been a big success, rather than the disaster that was predicted, for Colorado and Washington. Marijuana and hemp are going to be big businesses in areas as diverse as medicine, textiles, chemicals, building materials, and fuel. They can be grown in diverse climates without herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers, and without much labor.

It is a "master ingredient" like petroleum, except it’s renewable. So it’s appealing to our progressive and environmentalist friends and it’s the type of thing that will turn the current and future generations of entrepreneurs to create a giant leap in human progress. I think this potential will force regulators to innovate and fix problems in their systems.

Anthony Wile: I’ve also cautioned excited investors to take a deep breath and wait a bit for the market to shake out, for this very reason. Comment?

Mark Thornton: It is wise to caution investors. Any new product or ingredient experiences a great deal of chaos in the early years. I expect thousands of new and existing businesses to get involved in cannabis and hemp, everything from retailing recreational marijuana, to new cutting-edge medical applications, to competing with the petrol-chemical industry. Initially there could be hundreds of firms in each "product space," but over time each will come to be dominated by a small number of firms. Think about automobiles, soda drinks, and personal computers. They started out with more than a hundred entrants and ended up with just a couple of primary domestic producers. Therefore, it is very difficult to pick winners at this early stage. By the way, there are no Tweets with #marijuanaprofits yet!

Anthony Wile: An argument is made that conflates legalization efforts with promoting the "normalization" of drug use. We suggest, rather, that ending prohibition simply accepts human nature for what it is and enables any adult person seeking to utilize the cannabis plant for either medicinal or adult use recreational purposes in a safe and maturely managed manner. We suggest maturity prevail in this conversation. Recently, the pro-legalization campaign in Ohio featured "Buddie," a marijuana mascot on street corners and public areas in view of children and families, in essence promoting cannabis use. This is quite reminiscent of the "Joe Camel" tobacco advertising that was dangerous and offensive, long ago relegated to the dustbin of history as an unsuitable figure for big tobacco. This kind of promotion is certainly not consistent with public values. Perhaps that’s part of why they lost the vote.

Would you agree that the main objective is to remove the black market from the equation but not to encourage drug use per se or to focus on expanding the usage of cannabis? Does anyone really think a costumed marijuana bud is going to fly?

Mark Thornton: Yes, I completely agree. I argue that the policy of government prohibition causes us all much harm and provides no benefits. Legalization creates opportunities for many economic benefits. However, when it comes to using marijuana for recreational use I am not an advocate. It may be less dangerous than alcohol, but that does not mean I recommend consuming it. It is a drug after all.

The situation in Ohio is important to discuss. The recreational legalization measure on the ballot was recently defeated and properly so. It would have changed the state constitution and put 10 monopoly marijuana growers into the constitution! These 10 monopolists were the ones that wrote and paid for the measure to be put on the ballot. They are the ones that paid for "Buddie" to be on the streets of Ohio. Naturally, crony capitalist/monopolists want to encourage consumption of their product. It is just shameful.

It is important to note that the defeated ballot measure was opposed by many advocates of legalization. Another measure to prevent any monopoly from being written into the state constitution was also passed by the voters. Hopefully, legalization will come in the next round of voting in Ohio. Overall, I consider the ballot results a great victory.


– See more at: http://www.thedailybell.com/exclusive-interviews/36640/Anthony-Wile-Mark-Thornton/#sthash.ft32TNJ2.dpuf

Ian Bell: Let’s end the war on drugs by making them legal

An Italian policeman holds a bag full of cocaine which was found in a car in the Scampia area of  Naples

IT could be a pub quiz question. What do Armenia and Argentina have in common? The Czech Republic and Chile? Paraguay and Poland? The answer isn’t football. Each has decided, in some fashion, that if you just say no to drugs, you say nothing useful at all.

Depending on the definitions used, there are between 25 and 30 such countries. Their laws, methods, aims and ambitions vary. Some have legalised drugs. Some have “re-legalised”. A few never got around to prohibition to begin with. Most have experimented – for personal use, you understand – with a gateway policy, decriminalisation.

Last week the Republic of Ireland decided, in effect, that what’s good enough for Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Estonia, the Netherlands and others might help with its own liberation from the half-century of failure we still call, without irony, the war on drugs. With a leaked report suggesting that the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) is on the brink of advocating decriminalisation, Ireland joins a growing consensus.

Britain doesn’t want to hear about that. Or rather, the Conservative Government doesn’t want to hear the accusation “soft on drugs” from its press sponsors. Amid a fragrant haze of hypocrisy, the line is that there will be no change, funding cuts aside, in UK drugs strategy. Meanwhile, police forces the length of these islands are improvising policies of their own.

In Ireland, serious thinking has been going on. The result, if carried through, will be the decriminalisation of drugs in “personal use” quantities combined with the introduction of injection (“consumption”) rooms. Narcotics will remain illegal, but in future – or such is the hope – no-one will be treated as a criminal because of an addiction or a problematic habit. The Irish are making a fundamental distinction.

Officially, Britain remains tough, tougher than tough, on drugs. Unofficially, an ad hoc pragmatism guides enforcement. A fall of close to a third in cannabis possession offences in England and Wales between 2011-12 and 2014-15 has not happened because dope has lost its allure. With budgets cut to ribbons, police forces have concluded they have better things to do than harass cannabis users.

There are worse principles a government could apply. In a speech at the London School of Economics last Monday, Aodhain O’ Riordain, the Irish minister responsible for drugs strategy, maintained that a “cultural shift” is required. Addiction should be regarded as a health issue, he argued, both for the sake of individuals and for the benefit of law enforcement. Time and money spent hunting addicts could be better used against a criminal trade.

O’Riordain advocates decriminalisation, not legalisation. He is not alone in that, though at the LSE he failed to explain the logic. Portugal’s experience over the last 14 years is the Irish minister’s inspiration, as it is for many reluctant conscripts in the war on drugs, but a conspicuous Iberian success remains half an answer to a complicated question.

With Europe’s highest HIV infection rate among injecting drugs users, Portugal faced an undoubted crisis at the turn of the century. Desperate, it decided that drug use or possession should remain offences, but not criminal offences. The money spent on treatment and prevention was doubled. The police meanwhile began to ignore mere marijuana use. And the HIV rate started to fall.

It has not been plain sailing since. According to some studies, hard drug use has increased. More people have sought treatment, perhaps as a result, but the number of drug-related deaths has declined. Pressure on courts has eased, meanwhile, and the street price of drugs has fallen. Adolescent use seems to be waning, but with the police still seizing several tonnes of cocaine each year, the effect of reform on organised crime has been hard to measure.

That, though, is an aspect of decriminalisation too often overlooked. On its own, without a wider health policy or O’Riordain’s “person-centred” strategy, it does not “solve” a narcotics problem. Chiefly, it spares individuals the brutal effects – prison, stigma, unemployment, existence without treatment or medical care – that are legacies of the unending war. But decriminalisation alone is not enough.

It counts as a start, nevertheless, and that is more than Britain has managed. Last October, the Home Office caused strife within the coalition by publishing a report, Drugs: International Comparators, that looked at the experience of Portugal and a dozen other countries. To the dismay of Tories, the survey said there was “no apparent correlation” between tough laws and the level of drug use. While decriminalisation would not curb use, there were “indications that decriminalisation can reduce the burden on criminal justice systems”.

Who’d have thought? In the ensuing battle, the LibDem Norman Lamb resigned as a Home Office minister while policy – “this government has absolutely no intention of decriminalising drugs” – was reaffirmed. Faced with a problem, Britain had not got beyond failing to put two and two together.

Why decriminalise? For an Irish recreational user, far less an addict, the question is superfluous. Nevertheless, O’Riordain, like his peers around the world, has taken a first step and refused the second. As the Home Office report suggested, decriminalisation has little effect on use. People go on buying their blood-stained substances and enriching some of the nastiest people on the planet. A few more police go to work hunting traffickers. Users are no longer persecuted. The mafias remain.

In 2006, the Italian journalist Roberto Saviano published Gomorrah, an expose, in the proper sense, of the Neapolitan Camorra. He has been forced to live since under armed guard in secret locations. Nevertheless, this summer he published Zero Zero Zero, a title derived from a traffickers’ joke name for pure cocaine. The book is horrifying, but not just for the routine, fantastical violence. In Saviano’s account, the cartels’ trade has corrupted the world.

UNODC will mention “vast sums” that “compromise” economies, buy politicians and rig elections. Saviano will tell you that drugs money courses through the world’s financial systems, that it touches all of us, and that it alone kept banking afloat in parts of the Americas during the great crash. He calls it narco-capitalism.

The journalist has dedicated his life to opposing the mafias. Nevertheless, in the last pages of Zero Zero Zero he writes: “As terrible as it may seem, total legalisation may be the only answer. A horrendous response, horrible perhaps, agonising. But the only one that can stop everything.”

That strikes me as true. By one calculation, the United States alone had spent $150 billion on the drugs war by 2010. Any victories? Or just the news that Barack Obama has been commuting sentences on dozens of hapless souls locked away for life because of recreational use? According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, as of September 26, 48.4 per cent of the entire US inmate population, 93,821 individuals, had been locked up for drug offences. Some war; some victory.

So legalise the lot. Those who want to use drugs will go on using drugs. In a country with common sense, like Ireland, they might get the help they need. But Saviano is right. Only one thing will put the traffickers out of business and end this hopeless war.


Why Are So Many Veterans on Death Row?

By Jeffrey Toobin

A new study shows that at least ten per cent of death-row inmates are military veterans.

The death penalty has always provided a window into the darkest corners of American life. Every pathology that infects the nation as a whole—racism, most notably—also affects our decisions about whom to execute. A new report from the Death Penalty Information Center adds a new twist to this venerable pattern.

The subject of the report, just in time for Veterans Day, is the impact of the death penalty on veterans. The author, Richard C. Dieter, the longtime executive director of the invaluable D.P.I.C., estimates that “at least 10% of the current death row—that is, over 300 inmates—are military veterans. Many others have already been executed.” In a nation where roughly seven per cent of the population have served in the military, this number alone indicates disproportionate representation. But in a nation where military service has traditionally been seen as a route into the middle class—and where being a vet has been seen as more of a benefit than a burden—the military numbers are especially disturbing.

Why are so many veterans on death row? Dieter asserts that many veterans “have experienced trauma that few others in society have ever encountered—trauma that may have played a role in their committing serious crimes.” Although this is hardly the case with every veteran, or even the overwhelming majority of them, Dieter goes on to relate several harrowing stories that follow this model. Because of such traumas, many veterans suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, for which they have too often received poor treatment, or none at all.

Veterans who kill are not, by and large, hit men or members of organized crime or gangs. They very often lash out at those around them. Dieter notes that a third of the homicide victims killed by veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan were family members or girlfriends. Another quarter were fellow service members. This record suggests that, if these veterans had received adequate mental-health care, at least some of them and their victims might have had a different fate.

But it’s possible to see, in the D.P.I.C. study, an echo of another recent high-profile study. Anne Case and Angus Deaton, of Princeton, found that the death rates for middle-aged white men have increased significantly in the past decade or so. This was largely due, according to the authors, to “increasing death rates from drug and alcohol poisonings, suicide, and chronic liver diseases and cirrhosis.” The Princeton study fits into a larger pattern in American life, which is the declining health and fortunes of poorly educated American whites.

That cohort has gravitated to military service for generations. And while, again, most veterans never commit any crime, much less crimes that carry the death penalty, the sour legacies of our most recent wars certainly play into the despair of many veterans. Earlier generations of veterans came home from war to ticker-tape parades, a generous G.I. Bill, and a growing economy that offered them a chance at upward mobility. Younger veterans returned to P.T.S.D., a relatively stagnant economy, especially in rural and semi-rural areas, and an epidemic of drug abuse. And they came home to a society where widening income inequality suggested the futility of their engagement with the contemporary world.

In an interview with Vox, Deaton said that the death rate for members of this cohort had increased, in part, because they had “lost the narrative of their lives.” This elegant, almost poetic phrase can be read to include the lost promise of military service—the vanished understanding that veterans earned more than a paycheck, that they also gained a step up in status, both economic and social. The reality has been that many veterans returned to lives that were materially and spiritually worse than the ones they left, and far worse than the ones they expected.

According to the Princeton study, a shocking number of poorly educated whites turned their rage inward, in the form of drug abuse and suicide. But a small handful inflicted their rage on others, and an even smaller number wound up on death row. They are different groups of people, and their individual stories are even more variegated, but it’s possible to see across them the symptoms of a broader anguish.


Michigan State crime lab accused of falsifying marijuana tests to support bogus felony charges


Written By Emily Gray Brosious

Posted: 10/30/2015, 12:40pm

Crime lab accused of helping prosecutors unlawfully slap medical marijuana patients with felony possession charges

An attorney is accusing Michigan State Police Forensic Science Division crime labs of falsifying marijuana lab reports under a new lab policy that allows prosecutors to charge medical cannabis users with felonies they did not commit, according to a press release from the Law Firm of Michael Komorn and published by The Weed Blog.

Komorn says prosecutors told scientists to report an unknown origin for THC contained in marijuana products with no visible plant material – like concentrates, oils and waxes. The substance would then be declared synthetic THC rather than marijuana, which turns a misdemeanor marijuana charge into a felony charge, as reported by MLive.

“The crime lab is systematically biased towards falsely reporting Schedule 1 synthetic THC, a felony, instead of plant-based marijuana, a misdemeanor,” Komorn said.

Komorn’s discovery stems from a client he represents in Ottawa County, Max Lorincz, who faces two years in jail for synthetic THC charges, and whose 6-year-old son has been placed in foster care due to the charges.

Komorn says his client was initially charged with misdemeanor marijuana possession. When Lorincz would not plead guilty because he’s a registered medical marijuana user, the prosecutor withdrew the original charge and recharged him with felony synthetic THC possession, relying on the state crime lab report to do so, according to FOX 17.



“What is unique about this case is that they [the prosecution] are relying on the lab to report these substances so that they can escalate these crimes from misdemeanors to felonies,” said Komorn.

Per MLive:

Komorn used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain numerous emails from state police crime lab workers, some raising concern about the way they had to report THC cases. Others testified in court about the new policy of denying evidence of THC coming from a marijuana plant if no material is found.

He contends that the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan (PAAM) and state Attorney General Bill Schuette, an opponent of medical marijuana, influenced state police policy.

“It is scandalous, scandalous. How can you trust the state lab when they are influenced by politicians?” he said.

The Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan’s President Michael Wendling told FOX 17 that the Michigan State Police Forensic Science Division sets its own crime lab testing and reporting policies, and “neither PAAM nor county prosecutors make those protocols.”

A hearing in Lorincz’s case is set for Nov. 9, according to MLive.


Interview with Dr. Lester Grinspoon


By Patrick Dewals

Dr. Lester Grinspoon is associate professor emeritus of psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School. He researched the medicinal legitimacy of the marihuana prohibition forty five years ago and discovered that an immense chain of lies served as a base for sending millions of people to jail the last four decades and a half in the US. Since then he became an advocate for telling the truth about marihuana. I had an telephone interview with him at the end of august 2015. This is my transcript of our Skype conversation.

Dewals: Can you tell me how you became interested in marihuana?

Professor Grinspoon: Well it began in 1966. During my anti-Vietnam activism I met Carl Sagan and he and I became very good friends. When I met Carl Sagan I was convinced that cannabis was a very harmful drug. Going to his house one day I discovered that he smoked cannabis and so did many of his friends. Now these were not unsophisticated people and I tried to tell Carl how harmful marihuana was but he responded in a joyful manner that it wasn’t harmful at all. With this experience came the idea of writing a paper  which would summarize the medical scientific basis for the marihuana prohibition. At that time marihuana prohibition was leading to the arrest of 300.000 people, mainly young people, a year of which 89% for simple possession. For me it became important that this prohibition was justified. It was in the library of the Medical School that I found out that I was completely wrong about the harmfulness effects of marihuana. Not only was it not harmful it was remarkably nontoxic and the drug itself was not causing harm to the user but the policy of arresting people did. Some went to prison for having it and others saw their career goals compromised. So I wrote an article about the subject and it was published in the International Journal of Psychiatry. One of the few people who read it was the editor of Scientific American. He asked me to reduce the article so it could fit in his magazine and he would than publish it as the lead article in one of the coming issues. When my article was published in the November, 1969 issue it caused a huge tsunami so to speak and debouched in the proposal from three different publishing companies to write a book about marihuana. Eventually I wrote my book Marihuana reconsidered, that came out in 1971, with the Harvard University Press. When I was doing the research for my book I did not only find out that marihuana was not harmful but I started to understand why people would use it, what the attraction was for them, and I decided, at the age of 42, that I was going to use it as well. It was just too interesting an experience to let go. But I knew that if the book would be a success there would be a good chance for me to be asked to testify before a congressional session or senate committee. Because I didn’t want my own experiences with marihuana to make my testimony less objective, in the view of others, I decided that I could only use marihuana, even being interested as I was, two years after the publishing of my book. And indeed I ended up testifying before a senate committee. I remember a big tall senator who was rather doubtful about all I said, asking me “Doctor did you ever use marihuana?” and I answered “Senator I would be glad to answer that question if you could tell me that if I gave you an affirmative answer it would make you more sympathetic to my answer or less” He starred at me saying “You sir, are being impertinent” and he walked out the backdoor. Later that day, when I drove home, I said to my wife Betsy “The time has come” and sometime that week I would experience marihuana for the first time.

Dewals: You said earlier that through the research for your first book you came to understand why people would use marihuana. What are the reasons people use it?


Professor Grinspoon: Most people are familiar with the recreational use. But along with this use marihuana has an ancient history as a medicine as well. We know that Shen Nung, a Chinese emperor, who lived about 5.000 years ago already used marihuana as a medicine. In modern western medicine we had to wait until the mid 19th century for the introduction of marihuana through an English man named William O’Shaughnessy. At that time he worked in Calcutta and observed the indigenous people using marihuana as a medicine. He started studies on animals to be sure it was safe and published his studies when he came back to England. Between 1849, the year O’Shaughnessy published his first paper, and 1900 I came across about 100 critical papers about marihuana as a medicine in my review of the literature. The third use is the enhancement of a broad range of human activities. Everybody that has used marihuana knows that an ordinary meal can taste like a culinary treat and that it can enhance sexual experiences. But these are enhancements that are right there on the surface. Once one becomes more experienced with cannabis he can experience or appreciated phenomena in another way, for example understand art in a better way, use it for creative purposes or spirituality.

Dewals: When you published your first book Marihuana reconsidered in 1971, which was a controversial book at that time, what where the reactions of your peers and other scholars?

Professor Grinspoon: Well yes there was a lot of reaction. I remember the most significant of all. I was put up for early professorship by my chief at Harvard Medical School. At that time I had already published about 70 papers about schizophrenia and I had some expertise in this domain. So when my chief came back from the promotions committee he told me that the committee members loved my work on schizophrenia but they hated Marihuana reconsidered because it was much too controversial.

Dewals: Even with all the data that you used to support your work?

Professor Grinspoon: Oh yes, I just couldn’t believe it I said to him “Controversial, what do they think of scholarship”. When I was leaving his office my chief said to me “They asked me to ask you a question, what are you planning to do next”. I said that I was an intellectual and that I did not know yet, which was a kind of lie, but that I wanted to have the freedom to go my way. The affaire resulted in the turndown of my candidacy for professorship at that moment and I had to wait till 1995 to become professor at Harvard, twenty years after my first candidature. In the beginning I was heartbroken but because I did not become a professor I could skip a lot of department meetings and other things, so I had a lot of time for my own research. Because of the free time I started to become active against the cannabis prohibition that was and still is very destructive in the American society.

Dewals: What can you tell me about marihuana as an addictive substance and not holding any medicinal benefits?


Professor Grinspoon: Those are the myths about it. There are still people that think that it is addictive. They say that about 10% of the users become addicted. I don’t see it as an addictive substance. Sure you see some people using it all the time, especially many young people, but they do it because they did not figure out yet what to do with their lives. I used it for more than four decades, almost everyday, when there were times I could not use it I would not encounter any problems. Once I had to go to Malaysia for ten days to meet with a man that was caught with drugs over there and who was sentenced to death. Of course I did not bring marihuana with me and I felt good. I missed it but I felt nothing more.

Dewals: So marihuana addiction is just a myth?

Professor Grinspoon: I don’t believe there is such a thing as marihuana addiction but common people are very concerned when they discover that their college kid is using marihuana. They will get upset and take him to the psychiatrist. This doctor has no other choice than diagnosing the youngster as a marihuana addicted, like is mentioned in the DSM, because without putting a label on the ‘patient’ he will not be reimbursed. Afterwards people use this data to show that 9 or 10 % of the marihuana users are addicted, but that is simply not true. I remember that one of my students who smoked marihuana decided one day to stop using it to prove to himself he was not addicted. I thought it was a good idea and I said to myself let’s stop for 40 days and see how it goes. I had no problem at all. The people who insist that marihuana is addictive are on very thin ice. Another thing is that you can smoke it safely, there is no pulmonary bronchial notorious effect. Even if you smoke it straight without using a vaporizer. Doctor Tashkin, a pulmonologist, published articles on that issue and made it very clear that there was no danger.

Dewals: Do you think that doctors and therapists that work in rehab hospitals have a conflict of interest? I mean, if a cannabis user is not longer labelled and treated as an addict a lot of them would find themselves without a job, no?

Professor Grinspoon: Exactly right! They have as I said above to diagnose marihuana users as addicted people or miss their reimbursement. But you can’t compare cannabis with opiates or alcohol. Especially the alcohol addicts can have severe withdrawal symptoms. But you will not have those with marihuana.

Dewals: Can cannabis cause psychosis or schizophrenia?


Professor Grinspoon: Absolutely not! Schizophrenia is a disorder which one is born with but it doesn’t always manifest itself. Usually it is during adolescence that it starts showing. The one way that the use of cannabis could be related to schizophrenia his when people who are not used to cannabis start smoking and become anxious or paranoia which is off course uncomfortable. That’s why people have to learn smoking it. I can imagine that with someone who is cannabis naïf and has that kind of experience it can occur as a precipitating event. Many schizophrenics say their psychotic episode started after such a precipitating event. Those events can range from an automobile accident or the death of a loved one. And I can imagine, I have never seen this, that the naïf use of marihuana can act as a precipitating event.

Dewals: But then the use of marihuana is not the cause of the schizophrenic disorder. The person was born with it?

Professor Grinspoon: Look, it is a very simple exercise. The prevalence of schizophrenia is 1% around the world, across all different cultures. Given the amount of people who started smoking marihuana, including adolescents which I wished wouldn’t do it because their brain is not fully developed yet so they would better wait until their twenties, no scientist picked up even the tiniest increase in the prevalence of schizophrenia. So the people who write this can not prove it.

Dewals: With the newest dates that are available now, what do you know about marihuana in relation with cancer?

Professor Grinspoon: I am glad that you bring that one up. I hear a lot of people talking as if cannabis can cure cancer, and that worries me. People who are not sophisticated about this will not go to a doctor and they will miss chemo treatment, radiation or surgery and just rely on cannabis. By acting like this they lose a lot of time because with cancer you want to go as fast as you can to the doctor. So I think you can not say that cannabis cures cancer. However there are some properties of cannabis which in my view make it very important that those patients use marihuana alongside the modern western oncological treatment. In case of chemotherapy for instance they can use cannabis to combat the side effects of the treatment like distressful nausea. Cannabis can help as well to diminish the size of tumours which can be important when the tumour causes an obstruction, it stimulates appetite and in vitro it stops cancer cells from spreading, kills cancer cells and leaves healthy cells untouched and interferes with the blood flow in the tumour. So there are a number of effects which shows that marihuana pushes back cancer. This makes it important to use marihuana but along with the modern medicine. Nobody has proven to me so far that cannabis cures cancer but for sure it is a very good adjunct.

Dewals: In Belgium our minister of health Maggie De Block, who is a doctor as well, says you can’t use marihuana as a medicine because their is no proof of it. According to her the only thing that is useful is sativex and only for MS-patients. What is your comment on that?


Professor Grinspoon: Let me start with saying that sativex is marihuana! To say that you could use sativex and not smoke marihuana to have a similar effect is a silly thing to say. And to state that there is no evidence is nonsense. There are mountains of anecdotal evidence, you can not just deny them. We are used to the idea that medicines come from pharmaceutical enterprises. After they did double blind tests with them. But this is a plant, and you can not patent a plant and have the exclusive license to sell it. That’s why the pharmaceutical enterprises are not interested in doing very expensive tests with marihuana, because at the end of a positive test anyone could bring a medication on the market.

Dewals: Are you saying that marihuana is a great medicine for the people but not for the pharmaceutical enterprises, for them it is worthless?

Professor Grinspoon: Absolutely! Another reason why you should not worrying about using marihuana is because it is not toxic. I remember when I had for the first time a patient with Crohn disease, even after surgery she was still compromised in her work because of it. So I said to her I don’t know if marihuana will help you enough but I would try it. If it doesn’t help you it surely is not going to hurt you. And today, if you read the medical literature, it became a very important treatment for people with Crohn disease. Some people say to me you should not say to people to use marihuana for this or for that. But that is a silly thing, because it might help you and surely will not hurt you. If it does help you, you are very fortunate because it has no side effects and it will always be cheap.

Patrick Dewals is a 44 years old Belgian with a bachelor degree in mental nursery, a master in political sciences and on his way to becoming a master in political philosophy. Along with his studies he works as a freelance reporter.

Patrick Dewals


“Rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to purposes and principles of the United Nations.” HOW THE UNITED NATIONS IS STEALING OUR “UNALIENABLE RIGHTS” TO GROW FOOD AND MEDICINE THROUGH THE U.N. CONVENTION ON NARCOTIC DRUGS AND AGENDA 21.



Sheree Krider

Because of the nature of the Beasts which we are dealing with in regards to the “War on Drugs” in general, but additionally because the Beasts are taking control of plants, food, medications and plant medicines worldwide at will, I feel it is imperative that we confront this issue now.

WHILE READING THIS KEEP IN MIND THAT THE U.S. HAS HAD A PATENT ON MARIJUANA SINCE 2003: #6,630,507 October 7, 2003 Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants.

This control is being achieved thru the United Nations which officially began on October 24, 1945, with the victors of World War II — China, the U.S.S.R., France, United Kingdom, and the United States — ratified the U.N. charter, creating the U.N. Security Council and establishing themselves as its five permanent members with the unique ability to veto resolutions. This ability keeps them in control of the U.N.

To date More than six in ten Americans have a favorable opinion of the U.N. as reported on the “Better World Campaign” website which is the funding source for the U.N.

The U.N. 1961 convention on narcotic drugs essentially set into motion the drug war as we know it today.

The United Nations Conference to consider amendments to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, met at the United Nations Office at Geneva Switzerland from 6 to 24 March 1972. 97 States were represented.

On November 7, 1972 President Richard Nixon was re-elected to office. It was on his watch that the amendments to the U.N. were enacted with an establishment of a “United Nations Fund for Drug Abuse Control.”

They readily admit that many of the drugs included have a useful and legitimate medical purpose and are necessary to maintain the health and general welfare of the American people.

The term ”addict” means any individual who habitually uses any narcotic drug. Who will determine when a narcotic has become habitual? The “Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 .

The Parties, recognizing the competence of the United Nations with respect to the international control of drugs, agree to entrust to the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of the Economic and Social Council, and to the International Narcotics Control Board, the functions respectively assigned to them under this Convention.”

The “Parties shall maintain a Special administration for the purpose of applying the Provisions of this Convention.” in the U.S. this was the Drug Enforcement Administration or DEA.

Article 28 control of cannabis states that if a party permits cultivation that the system of control is the same as for opium poppy in article 23 which requires licensing by the “agency” which in the case of the U.S. would be the DEA. The number of acres planted and harvested must be recorded and “the agency must purchase and take physical possession of” it. The agency has exclusive rights to importing, exporting, and wholesale trading. It is also subject to limitations on production.

This is total control of the plant by the U.N. and effectively eliminates any chance of personal growing.

Natural growing plants which are included in Schedule 1 are marijuana, mescaline (peyote), psilocybin, and Khat. Other drugs are also included in this list.

More common opiates such as hydrocodone are included in Schedule II. These are regulated and handed out at the will of the government thru the medical industrial complex. How many people have been refused a prescription for Valium or Xanax in the past year because of a positive drug screening for Marijuana? How many people who do not consume Marijuana have been cut off as well because the DEA has, for all practical purposes, threatened the physician’s livelihood thru Statutes and “Bills” which have cut people off from their medications with no warning in the past year or two?

Title 21 states that the rules shall not apply to the cultivation of cannabis/hemp plant for industrial purposes only – however, it also does not say that hemp may be used for medicine without restriction.

Article 33 states that the parties shall not permit the possession of drugs without legal authority.

In the 1972 Protocol Amending The Single Convention On Narcotic Drugs 1961 Article 49 states that:

f) The use of Cannabis for other than medical and scientific purposes must be discontinued as soon as possible but in any case within twenty-five years from the coming into force of this Convention as provided in paragraph 1 of article 41.

1972 + 25 = 1997

Ironically enough the first medical cannabis law was enacted by California in 1996 – just in time to meet the 25 year deadline for ending all use of cannabis except for medical and scientific purposes…

Proposition 215, or the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, is a California law allowing the use of medical cannabis despite marijuana’s lack of the normal Food and Drug Administration testing for safety and efficacy. It was enacted, on November 5, 1996, by means of the initiative process, and passed with 5,382,915 (55.6%) votes in favor and 4,301,960 (44.4%) against.

As I stated previously, in the U.S. the governing agency would be the DEA and on July 1, 1973 this agency officially came into existence in accordance with the U.N. Treaties which the U.S. government created and implemented. THE DEA HAS AN Annual Budget of $2.4 billion.


States that:

“(1) If control is required by United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on October 27, 1970, the Attorney General shall issue an order controlling such drug under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out such obligations, without regard to the findings required by subsection (a) of this section or section 812(b) of this title and without regard to the procedures prescribed by subsections (a) and (b) of this section.”

Meaning, it does not matter what the U.S. Citizens (or any other country for that matter) has to say about Cannabis or any other drug or plant on the list of U.N. control we are bound by the U.N. Treaty first and foremost, which was set into place by our own government.

“In 1986, the Reagan Administration began recommending a drug testing program for employers as part of the War on Drugs program. In 1988, Drug Free Workplace regulations required that any company with a contract over $25,000 with the Federal government provide a Drug-Free Workplace. This program must include drug testing.”

Manfred Donike, in 1966, the German biochemist demonstrated that an Agilent (then Hewlett-Packard) gas chromatograph could be used to detect anabolic steroids and other prohibited substances in athletes’ urine samples. Donike began the first full-scale testing of athletes at the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich, using eight HP gas chromatographs linked to an HP computer.

YEP, HP IS HEWLETT PACKARD…His method reduced the screening process from 15 steps to three, and was considered so scientifically accurate that no outside challenges to his findings were allowed.

HP has laboratories around the globe in three major locations, one of which happens to be in Israel. Late Republican Senator Jesse Helms used to call Israel “America’s aircraft carrier in the Middle East”, when explaining why the United States viewed Israel as such a strategic ally, saying that the military foothold in the region offered by the Jewish State alone justified the military aid that the United States grants Israel every year.

Most everybody thinks that the Cannabis issue is a U.S. issue and an issue unto itself, not encompassed within the issue of control of the masses, and at least as far as our own laws/statutes are concerned. “ALL WE NEED TO DO IS GET OUR STATE TO LEGALIZE IT”. This couldn’t be farther from the truth.

We are all rolled up into the UN by virtue of our own Country which used this as a means to control worldwide, the people, without ever having to answer for or take responsibility for it again. Why? Because it is now a UN issue. And WE ARE BOUND by the UN treaties, as one of 5 founding members, who now rule the world.

Welcome to “THE NEW WORLD ORDER”. Yep, it’s been around a long time, we just didn’t notice it in time. Our men had just gone through a horrific war (WWII) and were too beat down and TOO sick to fight again and most likely didn’t even notice or worse yet thought the U.N. was a good thing that would prevent another WWII….. WELL, WELCOME TO WWIII AKA THE “DRUG WAR”.

I don’t care which State you reside in it is NOT legal to possess or use Marijuana in any form or fashion. You are living in an “Illusion.

As long as the U.N. has control over all narcotics in any form, we as a people will not legally be able to grow cannabis or any other plant that they categorize as narcotic.

What they will do for us is to use us like Guinea pigs in a testing environment to accumulate enough information whereby cannabis can be deemed a potentially useful drug from a pharmacological standpoint and then they can turn it over to the pharmaceutical companies to sell to us through commerce as a prescription. This is happening as we speak.

The drug war was created for us, and the prison industrial complex which they set up for control of us is the holding center for the Guinea pigs which are “us”.

They make sure enough of it gets out there that we can continue to use it illegally and they can study it at the same time they are locking us up for doing just that — using and studying marijuana. This in effect creates a double paycheck for them as they are keeping the prisons full and instituting private prisons for commerce and at the same time they are collecting information about the beneficial uses of cannabis thru drug testing patients. As well, those who seek employment or who are already employed with are targeted by random testing, and they collect our medical records for research at the same time the physicians are tagging us as cannabis abusers for reference via the ICD-10 codes used on medical claim forms submitted to the Insurance companies by our doctors’ offices. Essentially anyone who is a marijuana user is rounded up by the legal and medical system. If you use marijuana you cannot hide the fact unless you are part of the drug cartel itself and do not seek employment or medical care anywhere in the U.S. The marijuana cartel remains intact because they are “self-employed”.

Additionally, HIPPA states that In the course of conducting research, researchers may obtain, create, use, and/or disclose individually identifiable health information. Under the (HIPPA) Privacy Rule, covered entities are permitted to use and disclose protected health information for research with individual authorization, or without individual authorization under limited circumstances set forth in the Privacy Rule.

As far as Pharma Drugs are concerned, I must quote from Ms. Cris Ericson of the Vermont Marijuana Party, who stated, “People can no longer afford the pharmaceutical industry. The U.S. Congress votes to give research money to the pharmaceutical companies who invent new prescription drugs by synthesizing natural herbs, and then the pharmaceutical companies claim ownership of the new Rx patent, but it was the taxpayers who paid for the research. The taxpayers, under the patent law which states that “work made for hire, should own 50% of the patent” should rightfully be paid. The pharmaceutical companies not only profit wrongfully, by taking ownership of the patent that the taxpayers paid the research for, but then they take their huge profits and donate millions of dollars to PAC’s political action committees and Super PAC’s and then the PAC’s donate money to the U.S. Congress, so your taxpayer dollars have come full circle, and that looks just like money laundering, because millions of your taxpayer dollars end up in the campaign war chests of the elected officials.”

To that I must add that even if you obtain your medications for a $0 copay, you have paid for them already via taxation of the general public. Even those persons on disability or other government subsidy pay tax every time they make a purchase.

The U.N. Convention and the CSA both state that, “No prescriptions may be written for Schedule I substances, and they are not readily available for clinical use. NOTE: Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, marijuana) is still considered a Schedule 1 drug by the DEA, even though some U.S. states have legalized marijuana for personal, recreational use or for medical use. May 4, 2014”

This issue gains even more momentum when you understand that it is not just about cannabis/hemp/marijuana. It also involves all food and plants which are coming under their jurisdiction.

It is entirely possible that just as they can use drug testing to determine what drugs you put into your body they could develop testing to determine what foods you are eating. Imagine being “food tested” to see if you ingested beef or broccoli that was illegal to be in possession of! It seems an exaggeration but entirely within the realm of possibility.


The national focal point in the United States is the Division Chief for Sustainable Development and Multilateral Affairs, Office of Environmental Policy, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, U.S. Department of State.

A June 2012 poll of 1,300 United States voters by the American Planning Association found that 9% supported Agenda 21, 6% opposed it, and 85% thought they didn’t have enough information to form an opinion.

The United States is a signatory country to Agenda 21, but because Agenda 21 is a legally non-binding statement of intent and not a treaty, the United States Senate was not required to hold a formal debate or vote on it. It is therefore not considered to be law under Article Six of the United States Constitution. President George H. W. Bush was one of the 178 heads of government who signed the final text of the agreement at the Earth Summit in 1992, and in the same year Representatives Nancy Pelosi, Eliot Engel and William Broomfield spoke in support of United States House of Representatives Concurrent Resolution 353, supporting implementation of Agenda 21 in the United States. In the United States, over 528 cities are members of ICLEI, an international sustainability organization that helps to implement the Agenda 21 and Local Agenda 21 concepts across the world.

During the last decade, opposition to Agenda 21 has increased within the United States at the local, state, and federal levels. The Republican National Committee has adopted a resolution opposing Agenda 21, and the Republican Party platform stated that “We strongly reject the U.N. Agenda 21 as erosive of American sovereignty.” Several state and local governments have considered or passed motions and legislation opposing Agenda 21. Alabama became the first state to prohibit government participation in Agenda 21. Many other states, including Arizona, are drafting, and close to passing legislation to ban Agenda 21.

The Committee on World Food Security (CFS) was established in 1974 as an intergovernmental body to serve as a forum in the United Nations System for review and follow-up of policies concerning world food security including production and physical and economic access to food. The CFS Bureau and Advisory Group-The Bureau is the executive arm of the CFS . It is made up of a Chairperson and twelve member countries. The Advisory group is made up of representatives from the 5 different categories of CFS Participants. These are: 1 UN agencies and other UN bodies; 2 Civil society and non-governmental organizations particularly organizations representing smallholder family farmers, fisherfolks, herders, landless, urban poor, agricultural and food workers, women, youth, consumers and indigenous people; 3 International agricultural research institutions; 4 International and regional financial institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, regional development banks and the World Trade Organization; 5 Private sector associations and philanthropic foundations.


“Even the term “sustainable” must be defined, since on the surface it appears to be inherently positive. In reality, Sustainable Development has become a “buzz” term that refers to a political agenda, rather than an objectively sustainable form of development. Specifically, it refers to an initiative of the United Nations (U.N.) called Sustainable Development Agenda 21. Sustainable Development Agenda 21 is a comprehensive statement of a political ideology that is being progressively infused into every level of government in America.”

Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines unalienable as “not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as in unalienable rights” and inalienable as “cannot be legally or justly alienated or transferred to another.”

The Declaration of Independence reads:

“That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”

This means that human beings are imbued with unalienable rights which cannot be altered by law whereas inalienable rights are subject to remaking or revocation in accordance with man-made law. Inalienable rights are subject to changes in the law such as when property rights are given a back seat to emerging environmental law or free speech rights give way to political correctness. In these situations no violation has occurred by way of the application of inalienable rights – a mere change in the law changes the nature of the right. Whereas under the original doctrine of unalienable rights the right to the use and enjoyment of private property cannot be abridged (other than under the doctrine of “nuisance” including pollution of the public water or air or property of another). The policies behind Sustainable Development work to obliterate the recognition of unalienable rights. For instance, Article 29 subsection 3 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights applies the “inalienable rights” concept of human rights:

“Rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

Read that phrase again, carefully! “Rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

It suffices to say that the “war on drugs” is a war on us as a people. It is entwined with the United Nations and agenda 21. It is control of the masses through the illusion of a better world and offers peace and harmony to all people. It sounds really good on the surface until you start analyzing the issues at hand. The problem is that its intent is ultimately to control everything and everybody.

“Rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to purposes and principles of the united nation”…there you have it in one sentence, straight out of the horse’s mouth. The new world order is now. If we continue down this path, sooner rather than later we will be told that we can no longer grow our own food, or meat, eggs, cheese, etc. It must be purchased through a reputable source – the grocery stores and the pharmacy so it can be “regulated”.

Our rights to the cannabis/marijuana plant has all but been lost at this point and if we do not do something immediately to regain it and continue passing illegal statutes (by virtue of the U.N.) state to state is not going to hold up in the long run because, first of all, federally it remains illegal and they can squash those legalization antics at any time, and most of all the U.N. owns it. And who owns the U.N.? The United States and five other countries which are china, Russia, France and the U.K.

It seems to me that the placing of these plants (including marijuana, and peyote) into a “U.N. Convention of Narcotic Drugs” was just the first step in their taking total control of all people throughout the world through their access to food and medication, and was and still is a test case to see if it would work in their favor. So far it seems it is working in their favor because we are losing the ability to fight back on a political basis and their guns are bigger than ours.

The fact that for years we have blamed the eradication of marijuana on Harry Anslinger even though the LaGuardia commission refuted his findings and Harry Anslinger himself later admitted his testimony wasn’t true and in fact marijuana was relatively harmless, only proves that the rhetoric remained in place for ulterior motives.

When the 1937 tax act was repealed in 1969 in Timothy Leary v. United States, the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 picked up and took over keeping the plant from us yet again. To this day it remains illegal although individual states within the U.S. are attempting to change that, the fact still remains that legally it is still a schedule 1 at the federal level and since federal law trumps state law we are getting next to nowhere.

The only thing that state legalization does do, is keep the state authorities from prosecuting except within the realm of the individual state statutes. At least we are fighting back and gaining momentum in that we are letting them know how we feel about it! Other than that at any time everything gained could be lost at the whim of the federal government.

If we do not focus on regaining the freedom of cannabis from the U.N. now, not only will it be forever lost to pharma, all of our food, medicines and plants are going right along with it and we will not ever be able to get them back. And if you think the prison industrial complex is a monstrosity now just wait till we are being locked up for growing a tomato or hiding a laying hen in our closet just to have access to an egg. Yes, I believe that it will get that bad in the not so far future.

So if you are not worried about it because you do not smoke marijuana, you might ought to worry about it because your grandkids will still need to eat whether or not they have cannabis as a medication through the pharmaceutical industrial complex. And to top it all off, what happens when you “break the law” by planting food and they find out and take away your right to obtain food much the same way they have taken away our rights to obtain scheduled medications because you tested positive for marijuana? (Don’t worry too much I am sure they will let you “something” to eat!)

We must have access to our own gardens and herbal plants because virtually every “drug” made comes from a plant and both prescription drugs and over the counter medications are at risk and could disappear rapidly. Remember over-the-counter pseudoephedrine? Every time they want to take something out of our hands they make it illegal and claim it is for the greater good. You may very well need to grow your own medicine too because if you do not meet their requirements they won’t let you have any of theirs.

It is a fact that cannabis/hemp is a food and a medicine. By withholding it from us they have effectively made many of us weaker through endocanabinoid deficiency and people are becoming sicker in general from the foods that we ingest as well as the ones that we do not have access to. Our ability to stand up to an enemy of any kind on a physical scale has been dramatically affected by both nutrition and the chemicals we are exposed to in our food and in our air and water as well as required inoculations against various diseases. Our children are having the worse reactions to all this which can be seen by the rise in not only autism but other birth defects as well.

The most important thing to note is that cannabis, food and medicine is something that everyone needs to have access to in various forms for various reasons. If it is only available thru a controlled environment then we will be subjected to probable malnutrition and genocide. Our health has become bad enough already due to corporate food and medicine. We certainly do not need it to get any worse. Is this going to be total population control via food and medicine? I am afraid so.

“People who don’t get enough food often experience and over the long term this can lead to malnutrition. But someone can become malnourished for reasons that have nothing to do with hunger. Even people who have plenty to eat may be malnourished if they don’t eat foods that provide the right nutrients, vitamins, and minerals.”


Probably the best thing we can do right is to demand cannabis sativa and any naturally growing plant removed from United Nations control and the Controlled Substance Act in the U.S.

Additionally, Agenda 21 needs to be eliminated as it stands now. No entity should be allowed total control over plants and food, especially those grown in our own garden.

However, it is a fact that any type of food or medicine created and/or sold by a corporate entity has to be governed. Their entire purpose is to make money and they will do anything to accomplish that including selling us pink slime for meat. That is what should be governed.

It seems to me that the FDA is not doing its job correctly. Protect the people, not the corporations. The fact that a corporation has its own “personhood” is just totally ridiculous and must end.

The United Nations itself could be modified into an agency that protects the unalienable rights of the people throughout the world. It cannot police the world however. And it cannot rule the people as a government does. For this reason any policing agencies that are international such as Interpol must be eliminated. This would throw the policing back to the people’s own respective countries and the people of those countries will have to police their own governments to ensure that they keep the will of their people as top priority while governing.

Will this mean that war will continue to be a fixture in our world? Yes, of course it does. War always has been and always will be. It is the next closest thing to “God” that exists in that aspect. But if each country’s government has jurisdiction over its own people then the citizens can decide who will be ‘in charge’. If they need help during a crisis then other countries can step in to help where needed at the time and as they choose to do so. If the whole world comes under the rule of one governing body then we would have no control anymore at all. And this is what it seems to be leading up to – one governing body ruling virtually the entire planet with the ‘head’ of that governing body being the five original victors of WWII: the United States, Russia (U.S.S.R), France, China and the U.K.

World War II never really ended, it just changed it course. We have to put an end to this global war against all God’s people and the time is now! If you do not believe in god then you can say we have to put an end to the war against world humanity. It means basically the same thing – at least to me.

Just say no!



Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969), is a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with the constitutionality of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Timothy Leary, a professor and activist, was arrested for the possession of marijuana in violation of the Marihuana Tax Act. Leary challenged the act on the ground that the act required self-incrimination, which violated the Fifth Amendment. The unanimous opinion of the court was penned by Justice John Marshall Harlan II and declared the Marihuana Tax Act unconstitutional. Thus, Leary’s conviction was overturned. Congress responded shortly thereafter by repealing the Marihuana Tax Act and passing the Controlled Substances Act to continue the prohibition of certain drugs in the United States.

“By 2020, 30 billion connected devices will generate unprecedented amounts of data. The infrastructure required to collect, process, store, and analyze this data requires transformational changes in the foundations of computing. Bottom line: current systems can’t handle where we are headed and we need a new solution. HP has that solution in The Machine. ”

Ban Ki-moon (Hangul: ???; hanja: ???; born 13 June 1944) is a South Korean statesman and politician who is the eighth and current Secretary-General of the United Nations. Before becoming Secretary-General, Ban was a career diplomat in South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and in the United Nations.

































Titles II and III Of The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act Of 1970 (Pub-Lic Law 91–513) https://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/91-513.pdf