Hemp is Not a Drug

Recently, President Barack Obama delivered his first State of the Union Address.  In his speech, he emphasized clean energy and economic growth as our nation’s primary goals for this year. In light of his Obama’s speech, it seems high time to renew the debate about allowing the cultivation of hemp for industrial applications.  There are literally tens of thousands of uses for industrial hemp, and allowing for its legalization could not only create jobs, but pave the way for a greener and cleaner tomorrow.

           
The most prevalent issue regarding industrial hemp is the concern that hemp crops could be diverted to the black market for drugs.  This seems like a rational concern for someone who doesn’t know much about hemp, which most people do not.  After all, hemp is still cannabis is it not?  Well, yes, and no.

The cultivation methods for both hemp and cannabis vary significantly.  Drug grade cannabis comes from the flowers of female cannabis plants, and female cannabis plants alone.  In order to produce the potent, and thus economical cannabis that most users are used to, the cultivator must not allow any male plants to pollinate their female crop.  If pollination occurs, the potency of the female buds will be drastically reduced, the flowers will bear seeds (seedy cannabis is extremely undesirable), and the risk and of expense on the cultivator’s end will have been in vane, as the will have produced a product that no cannabis user would be willing to purchase. 

           
Hemp on the other hand is grown with both males and females together, not because it’s an equal opportunity thing, but because hemp is not grown to produce the psychoactive substance THC.  Instead, hemp is grown as a fiber source, much like cotton, although unlike cotton, the parts of the hemp plant that is not used for fiber can be used for many other purposes. 

           
 However, don’t hemp plants still produce THC even if they are not grown to produce it?  Yes, they do, but not very much, in fact it isn’t much at all.  Drug variety cannabis produces somewhere between 1 percent THC by dry weight on the low quality end of the spectrum, to up to 20 percent, or even up to 30 percent THC by dry weight for the highest quality cannabis.  Hemp on the other hand produces much less THC, typically not more than 0.15 percent THC by dry weight, that is nearly six and a half times less potent than the lowest quality drug variety cannabis, and one hundred to two hundred times less potent than high quality drug grade cannabis.  That means that if one joint of very low quality cannabis were necessary to produce a desirable effect, it would require six joints of hemp flowers to produce the same effect.

           
 Most probably overlook another important aspect of industrial hemp production; the amount of THC that the crops produce can be regulated, and many countries that allow for its production regulate potency.  In Europe, potency is typically 0.3 percent or less, however as mention earlier, many hemp varieties produce much less.  It seems unlikely that cannabis users would be interested in cannabis with such low potency, especially when one considers the many ultra-potent drug grade strains available today.

           
The question remains, why grow hemp?  To start, hemp is a fantastic fiber source that can be grown in nearly all but the most extreme climates.  Hemp can be used to produce paper, and cloth, and at one point it was one of the United States most important export, as it was extremely important to maritime travel.  Hemp canvas and rope were both commonly used on sailing vessels. 

           
For paper production, one acre of hemp is equivalent to over four acres of trees.  That’s hardly small potatoes considering the great concerns over deforestation.  What’s more is that hemp can be grown in one season, were trees take at least ten years to become viable.  Additionally, hemp paper is naturally white, and thus does not need to be bleached like tree paper, and thus switching to hemp paper would be more ecologically sound in many ways. 

           
 Hemp can be used for many other applications as well.  For instance, the plant cellulose from hemp can be used to produce plastics, as opposed to the highly toxin and very difficult to break down petroleum based plastics that are currently used.  Also, hempseed oil can be used to produce biofuels, as opposed to using corn.  Corn would be a fine biofuel source in a perfect world, however in our world, it is utter moral poverty to use a food source to power our cars when so many die each day from starvation.

If the cultivation of industrial hemp were legalized, the United States could produce it for biodiesel and other fuels, and subsidize corn production to export to countries which have high starvation related mortality rates.  Perhaps with a policy like this, the United States could instigate a worldwide paradigm shift, and influence the citizens of other nations, particularly the downtrodden, to view our nation in a more positive light.  That seems like it would be the most effective and peaceful method to prevent acts of terrorism. 

The Crime of Addiction

The use of psychoactive substances is ubiquitous in human society and has been since our early pre-history. Mind-altering substances have the remarkable ability to change the way we think, feel and interact. For bettor worse, we like to use psychoactive substances, and we use them all the time. Most of us don’t see our personal consumption of these substances as being particularly criminal regardless of how additive, harmful, legal or illegal the substance we consume may be. Why is it that some substances that have a particularly high potential for abuse are perfectly legal, while other, less addictive substances are not? For that matter, why is it that we criminalize something that could be classified as typical mammalian behavior? Why is it that the United States criminalizes the disease of addiction?

Humans consume a multitude of substances for a multitude of reasons. We consume everything from an innocent cup of coffee to a cigarette, to antidepressants, sedatives, pharmaceutical stimulants, to the perceptibly less innocent street drugs and everything in between. We consume these substances on a daily basis, mainly for the simple purposes of coping, adapting, and surviving.
Just think about it, most of you reading this probably had coffee or some form of caffeinated beverage this morning. Take a moment to consider this morning ritual that you partake in on a daily basis. How long have you done this and more importantly, why? Is it because coffee is simply the most flavorful and delicious substance known to man? Or, could it be possible that you only drink it for the buzz? Likewise, does alcohol such as beer and wine really tastes that great? Of course not, however we acquire a taste for these substances because we desire their respective effects.

In the universe of drugs there are galaxies of uppers, downers, psychedelics, and dissociatives to choose from, many of them are highly addictive, and most are strictly controlled. It is true that some individuals will try these drugs a few times and walk away, while others will become chronic abusers of the substance, strongly dependent, and hopelessly addicted. Fortunately for those individuals, most reputable doctors consider addiction to be an illness. Additionally there are ways to treat their substance dependence and abuse problems. Unfortunately for those individuals, their addiction also typically makes them criminals by default because for the most part, drug use is seen as a crime by our government.
Sadly, there isn’t necessarily a lot of sympathy for addicts in our society. Like sexually transmitted diseases, many see addiction as disease that is one acquires by choice of action, and a disease of vice. This may be true to a certain extent, however for many addicts, the choice was already made for them by their DNA, and their exposure to mind altering substances in their childhood environment. This idea being contrary to the former motif of addiction being a moral failing, or a disease of choice

Furthermore, by the logic that addiction is a disease that one chooses to acquire, any communicable disease could be considered a disease that one chooses to acquire by virtue of one’s desire to intermingle in society. Imagine that an individual acquires some terrible infection, he or she goes to their doctor and he tells them “too bad, you should have never gone outside, but since you did, you have chosen to get this disease and thus there is nothing I can do to help.” To make matters worse, the drug that person needs to make them feel better is illegal, and if they are caught with or trying to get the drug, they could be arrested and jailed.
In a sense, this is what addicts face on a daily basis. An individual dependant on a substance may feel fine when they have gotten a fix, but when that fix wears off, they will need another, and it won’t be cheap. Withdrawal is a powerful motivator for the addict, as the symptoms of withdrawal, depending on the drug can range from severely unpleasant, to debilitating, to even life threatening. Thus that individual has no choice but seek out their substance of abuse, or face the harsh reality of withdrawal and any other underlying emotional or mental problems that spurred their drug use in the first place.

This is the reality of Americans who are dependent on illegal substances. Their doctors tell them that they are ill, yet their government tells them that they are criminals because of their illness. Their doctor (if they have a doctor, or insurance) may be able to prescribe them medication to stave off withdrawals, but should they have a relapse with their drug of choice, and if they are caught with that drug, they will be arrested, prosecuted, humiliated, and imprisoned, simply because they were sick.

From this point, the addict can expect his or her life to become progressively worse. Not only are they ill, now the individual is a convict, convicted of possessing the drug that is the manifestation of their illness. Being a convicted felon is a terrible thing for an individual to experience. As a convict one may not leave the country, they may not vote, and they may find it difficult to find adequate employment or housing. In addition since they have been convicted of possessing an illegal drug, they are no longer eligible for student loans or any form of government loan or grant, and thus they are deprived of any means of improving their lives.

Now I ask you, is this fair? Is this right? Is this what we as Americans call justice? I think, or at least I hope not. It is time for Americans to encourage their government to change they way that substance abuse is approached. Our nation needs to shift its focus to harm-reduction and education, rather than arrest and prosecution.

One of the major flaws of our nation’s drug policy is our government’s unwillingness to accept the tenets of harm-reduction. First of all, what is harm-reduction? Well, its pretty simple, the basic idea is to reduce the potential for drug users to harm themselves or others in the course of their drug use. This process involves a number of steps such as providing clean hypodermic needles, providing purity testing, even providing safe drugs and a safe environment to use to addicts.
All of this may seem pretty liberal to the citizens of this country, and some may fear that such steps will only encourage more people to use drugs. However, the idea of harm reduction, and the steps that I have mentioned above are not new ideas, in fact they are old ones that have been employed for some time by a small European nation that we call the Netherlands.

Like other nations of the world, the Netherlands is not exempt from drug problems; the difference is how they have chosen to handle the issue. Rather than seeing drug abuse as a moral and legal issue, the Dutch see drug addiction and abuse for what it is, an illness. Likewise, rather than pursing our own corporalistic approach of prosecuting and imprisoning citizens with drug problems, citizens of the Netherlands have adopted the approach of harm-reduction.

This does not mean that drugs are legal in the Netherlands nor is their country comprised of mostly drug users. On the contrary, drugs are still very much illegal, and unlike the United States and many other European nations, drug use is relatively low. This is odd considering that most of us here in the states see the city of Amsterdam in the Netherlands as the Mecca of marijuana. However, despite their liberal drug policies only about ten percent of all high school students in the Netherlands have used or do use soft drugs such as cannabis. In the United States almost half of all high school students have tried cannabis in spite of the outrageously disproportionate legal and social consequences.

Of course, I am not advocating the legalization of all drugs, however, our government needs to reassess how effective the war on drugs (and consequently the war against its own citizens) really is. Furthermore, our legal system needs to treat citizens with substance abuse problems as people with psychological and biological illnesses, rather than as criminals. In order to do this, the very thing that makes them a criminal; the possession of a drug, needs to be decriminalized, if not controlled outright by the government.

It is time for the United States Government to start seeing addiction for what it is, an illness, and not a crime. Furthermore, it is time for our nations leaders to realize that although addiction is an illness, it is hardly communicable, and purging drug users from our society is for one impossible (as nearly all of us use drugs), and secondly a waste of time. It is time for our government to stop harassing drugs users, and to start focusing on organized crime and drug traffickers, perhaps then our government would have a drug policy that actually makes a difference.

Movie Review: The Union: The Business Behind Getting High

There are a lot of "pot-umentaries" out there, and many of them aren't even worth watching stoned. However, Brett Harvey's film The Union: The Business Behind Getting High is NOT one of those movies. It is hands down the best documentary covering any aspect of marijuana that I have seen to date, period. This movie should be watched by everyone in the United States, hell on the American continent, North and South for that matter.

The Union is a Canadian documentary, and for the large part focuses on flaws in Canadian drug policy. However, those flaws are highly applicable to the very flawed United States drug policy. The fact of the matter is that the drug policies of the United States, Canada, and Mexico are intrinsically entwined, and it is hard to talk about just one while excluding the others, and this film does a good job of including everyone.

The film itself focuses mainly on legalization vs. decriminalization, which is becoming a hot-button issue in both Canada and the USA. Harvey argues that legalization is the best alternative for a number of reasons, the main reason being that legalization of marijuana would take a very large chunk out of the profits of organized crime. Other reasons include tax revenue, and better control over sale to minors.

Harvey's arguments are compelling, however, what really sets his movie apart from others is the expert contribution to the documentary. Unlike other documentaries pertaining to marijuana, Harvey's film includes interviews from high level Canadian politicians including mayors and senators, the former Chief of Police for Seattle, WA, Harvard medical doctors, chemists, and biologists. The point I'm making here is that this film has real expert testimony from real experts, explaining why marijuana should be legal.

Well that's the short of it, I highly recommend you see the movie for yourself to get the rest. After you see the movie, get your friends and family to watch it too. If we want pot to be legal, we can't be afraid to share our point of view with those close to us, so please, share this film. This is a film anyone can enjoy, and everyone should find informative and enlightening.

The Controlled Substance Act

To really put into perspective how un-free we are in this country, we must examine the behavior of the government. That is why I am providing you with the this; the Controlled Substance Schedules. It could be considered the ultimate body of evidence for indicting government hypocrisy, but I'm sure that there are plenty of other examples so I won't jump the gun. These should make for an interesting read for many of you, and hopefully an informative one as well.

For those of you who don't know how it works, there are five different controlled substance categories. Schedule I (that's the worst of the drugs) Schedule II, Schedule III, Schedule IV, and Schedule V. In addition to these very long lists of controlled substances are regulated chemicals, Lists I and II, these chemicals can be used in the production of drugs.

The schedules are explained below.

Schedule I.
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision

Schedule II.
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence

Schedule III
(A) The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence

Schedule IV.
(A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III

Schedule V.
(A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV."

Anyhow, without any further ado, here they are the controlled substances listed by schedule.

The DEA Diversion Control Program Main Page, and for convenience sake, here is a handyControlled Substances PDF. Its called the Orange Book.

I'm not sure why its called that, but I suspect that the original document passed around at DEA meetings had an orange cover. Of course I could be wrong, it could be some kind of weird code or some inside joke those snide fuckers snicker about whenever a PDF is downloaded. Who knows? Any-who, the point is there is nothing colorful about this document except the goofy logo on the cover page that looks like it was made with clip-art.

If you don't know what a substance on this list is, I suggest you Wikipedia it and read up on it. You should be able to find some pretty interesting inconsistencies on there. For instance I'm sure you have all heard of GHB, gamma-Hydroxybutyric acid, liquid ecstasy. Its a Schedule I substance, however there is a pharmaceutical known as Xyrem, which is produced by the somewhat ironically named Jazz Pharmaceuticals that is regarded as a Schedule III substance. That drug, Xyrem, is the exact same thing as GHB.

Did you get that? Its the same thing, but one is a Schedule I drug, which means it is addictive, dangerous, and of no medical value, while the other is a Schedule III drug, which means it is considered safe when used properly. I hate to say it but WTF?!

Our good friend Marry Jane finds herself in the same boat as her considerably more dangerous counterpart GHB. Marijuana in its herbal form is also considered a Schedule I substance, meaning that it is dangerous, addictive, and has no medical value.

Just to clear this up, I have two questions for you. One, have you ever known anyone that has overdosed on pot and died? I'm actually died, not "almost?" Two, have you ever sucked dick for weed? For all of you I know that the answer to the first question is "no." For almost all of you, I know the answer to the second question is also "no."

Now if it has no medical value, why is there a synthetic version of THC known as Marinol or dronabinol, which is produced by a pharmaceutical company, and listed as a Schedule III drug?

What is interesting is that while not many definitive studies have been done on marijuana (some would say none), Marinol was thoroughly studied, and the results are pretty interesting.

For instance in an open-label study in patients with AIDS who received MARINOL Capsules for up to five months, no abuse, diversion or systematic change in personality or social functioning were observed despite the inclusion of a substantial number of patients with a past history of drug abuse. Studies also showed that there was no carcinogenicity associated with even high dose, continuous use of THC.

Best of all, Marinol is listed as Schedule III substance, which means it is safe when used properly. That means that the government admits that THC, the same thing in weed, is perfectly safe. If this is the case, why the hell is pot still illegal? Moreover, why is it listed as a Schedule I drug along with heroin, coke, ecstasy, meth, and GHB?

It seems to me that even the government knows pot should be legal, and any right minded individual should be able to see that Marijuana should have no place on Schedule I. I hope this has helped open your eyes to the hypocrisy surrounding the marijuana prohibition.