Judge Jim Gray: In Harm’s Way

5 09 2011

Jim Gray talking about America´s “failed and hopeless policy of drug prohibition”. Describing himself as a “conservative judge” who has never used illicit drugs or marijuana, he nevertheless spells out why he believes that prohibition of cannabis is putting children and young people in more danger than regulation would.

His arguments are presented in a way that is easily understood by all, and backed up by facts and experience from his years working in the criminal justice system and with youth outreach projects. If you have ever wished you had a unquestionably credible and succinct case against prohibition to share with someone, this is exactly the right video.





Why Medicinal Marijuana Is Here to Stay

6 06 2011

“We are not far from a time when pot will be hailed as a wonder drug.”

The following is the text of a speech by Lester Greenspoon, M.D. recently delivered to the 2011 NORML conference.

Lester Grinspoon on Medicinal MarijuanaIn 1967, because of my concern about the rapidly growing use of the dangerous drug marijuana, I began my studies of the scientific and medical literature with the goal of providing a reasonably objective summary of the data which underlay its prohibition.  Much to my surprise, I found no credible scientific basis for the justification of the prohibition.  The assertion that it is a very toxic drug is based on old and new myths.  In fact, one of the many exceptional features of this drug is its remarkably limited toxicity.  Compared to aspirin, which people are free to purchase and use without the advice or prescription of a physician, cannabis is much safer: there are well over 1000 deaths annually from aspirin in this country alone, whereas there has never been a death anywhere from marijuana.  In fact, when cannabis regains its place in the US Pharmacopeia, a status it lost after the passage of the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, it will be seen as one of the safest drugs in that compendium.  Moreover, it will eventually be hailed as a “wonder drug” just as penicillin was in the 1940s.  Penicillin achieved this reputation because it was remarkably non-toxic, it was, once it was produced on an economy of scale, quite inexpensive, and it was effective in the treatment of a variety of infectious diseases.  Similarly, cannabis is exceptionally safe, and once freed of the prohibition tariff, will be significantly less expensive than the conventional drugs it replaces while its already impressive medical versatility continues to expand.

Read the rest of this entry »





French newspaper Le Figaro warns of cannabis cyber-police and fictional worldwide cannabis seed shipping

31 03 2011

In these times of increasing repression in France, national daily ‘Le Figaro’ shows its true colours as a propaganda tool rather than a source of factual information.

An article published on the website of Le Figaro last week (23rd March 2011)  aroused our curiosity as, in addition to vague threats about cyberpolice, it mentioned the well-known cannabis seed company Sensi Seeds on several occasions.

Picture used to illustrate what you can buy online, according to the paper

Fact or propaganda? An extract from the beginning of the article states:

“ [Based] In the Netherlands, the Sensi Seed website unapologetically advertises their ‘cannabis seedbank’ in all languages. They sell complete culture tents, similar in size  to wardrobes, ‘bloom boosters’ and even teach how to ‘grow with the Moon,’ to optimize growth according to the lunar calendar. From “Shiva Shanti” at 20 euros for ten seeds to the “Marley’s Collie”, 120 euros, “a strain of ganja celebrated by the great Bob Marley”, the bank offers hundreds of varieties. And even accessories: caps, t-shirts, playing cards. Everything is available worldwide, sent in express parcels.” Read the rest of this entry »





We declared a war on ourselves, not drugs!

15 06 2010

As the country of origin for the war on drugs, the USA is the perfect example to overview the consequences of such measure.

As some Americans have been, and continue to be, pointing at the utility of such measures, Tony Newmann, communications director for the Drug Policy Alliance gives his view on the conception of drugs:

ALL OF US USE DRUGS, BUT ONLY SOME OF US GO TO JAIL!

Despite a $40 billion a year “war on drugs” that is premised on the goal of creating a “drug-free society,” our country is swimming in drugs.

Most people start using drugs before they even leave the house in the morning.  Yes, that first cup of coffee is what many of us need to start the day.  The next drug that millions of Americans use, sometimes up to 20 times a day, is our nicotine! And then, after a long day of work, many of us head to a local bar or to our refrigerator and pour ourselves a cocktail, ice cold beer or a nice glass of wine.

And I’m just getting started.  There are over 100 million Americans who have used marijuana.  Thirty years after Nancy Reagan told us to “Just Say No,” half of high-school seniors will try marijuana and 75% will try alcohol before they graduate.  And what about the college students who use Ritalin to help them focus and put in long hours at the library? And how about all of the superstar athletes who use performance enhancing substances? What about all of the men ( and women ) who are deeply grateful forthe “little blue pill”? And how about the businessmen who stay up until three in the morning with the help of a “little bump”?

Drugs are so popular because people use them for both pleasure and for pain.  Drugs can be fun.  How many of us enjoy having some drinks and going out dancing? How many of us enjoy a little smoke after a nice dinner with friends? Many people bond with others or find inspiration alone while under the influence of drugs.  On the flip side, many people self-medicate to try to ease the pain in their lives.  How many have us have had too much to drink to drown our sorrows over a breakup or some other painful event? How many of us smoke cigarettes or take prescription drugs to deal with anxiety or stress? Throughout recorded history, people have inevitably altered their consciousness to fall asleep, wake up, deal with stress, and for creative and spiritual purposes.

Read the rest of this entry »





Balkenende’s Message To Youth: (Some) Drugs Bad, Swearing Good

10 06 2010

Is Jan Peter Balkenende’s publicist on a secret sabotage mission?

The recent photos of the Dutch Prime Minister wandering around in a ‘FUCK DRUGS!’ t-shirt and swigging from a can of Grolsch at two in the afternoon would suggest so.  (see original picture)

He was visiting Volendam, the small fishing village where hard drug use is so prevalent it’s known as ‘Cocaine Town’ in  Amsterdam. Being spiked with Rohypnol and dragged to a festival might have explained all this, as well as why the t-shirt seemed to have been forced onto the politician over the top of his shirt and tie without due care and attention.

The group of laughing blokes in the background, drinking beer and taking phone photos of the CDA leader as he grins like a twit, completes the illusion that this is the PM having it large on a day off rather than a serious flesh-pressing junket just days before a general election.

Read the rest of this entry »





Judge Jim Gray – 6 Groups Who Benefit From Drug prohibition

17 05 2010

In little over 8 minutes Judge Jim Gray from Orange County, California, explains what 6 groups benefit most from drug prohibition AND he gives 6 clear reasons why cannabis should be legal!

The only thing we would like to correct, is that you actually have to be 18 or older (not 16 or older) to buy weed in coffeeshops in the Netherlands (Holland)





Colorado companies allowing their employees to use medical marijuana?

19 03 2010

Medicinal cannabisWhen it comes to medical marijuana, Colorado employers are caught between conflicting laws.

The state’s medical-marijuana amendment, passed by voters in 2000, says that employers don’t have to accommodate medical-marijuana use in the workplace.

But another Colorado law, enacted a few years ago to protect cigarette smokers, prohibits firing employees for engaging in legal activities during nonworking hours.

That suggests that people who smoke medical marijuana before arriving at work could be protected under state law, whether their employers like it or not. And with roughly 30,000 Coloradans now estimated to be qualified to use medical marijuana, employers are growing increasingly uneasy.

Read the rest of this entry »





New UK Government’s drug adviser Les Iversen seems to have a selective memory

14 01 2010

Les Iversen wanted cannabis legalisedAnother crazy news story from the UK. As you might have read on this blog, David Nutt was sacked because of him criticizing the Government’s decision to reclassify cannabis as a Class B substance.. He argued that the scientific research was devaluated and the UK government making an “artificial” separation of alcohol and tobacco from illegal drugs.

If you thought that was strange, wait until you hear this.. The new chairman that will replace David Nutt, Les Iversen, had exactly the same opinion with regards to Cannabis. During a lecture in 2003 he said the following;

“There have been no deaths to date caused by use of cannabis. Cannabis should be legalised, not just decriminalized, because it is comparatively less dangerous than legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco.”

In an article in 2003 he wrote that cannabis had been incorrectly classified for nearly 50 years as a dangerous drug and that it was one of the “safer” recreational drugs.

When he was questioned about these remarks during an interview on BBC Radio 5 Professor Iversen stated the following; “I don’t remember saying that. It’s certainly not my position now”

“We have now to confront the more potent forms of cannabis. We have the new evidence that arose since 2003 linking cannabis to psychiatric illness. I think it’s quite free for a scientist to change his mind when faced with new facts.”

We wonder what these new facts are? Is it the fact that he will get sacked, like David Nutt,  if he says that cannabis should be legalized? Or the fact that he would never have been appointed in the first place if he still had that opinion?

Read the full article





The Super-Marijuana “Kush/Skunk” story

23 11 2009

In the US, it seems that the word ‘Kush’ is about as meaningful as ‘Skunk’ is in the UK.

That is, the two terms are applied to most indoor weed that’s sold for profit, and both names are used to suggest that the cannabis being sold is highly potent, rather than to indicate any particular genetic heritage. Before being adopted as the strain-name buzzwords of the moment, both “Skunk” and “Kush” were fairly strictly defined strains, with clear breeding or geographical origins.

More worryingly, when the buzzwords of the youth or underground cultures seep into the mainstream, they get picked up by the hysterical MSM and turned into the latest scare story.

No doubt, all of the forum’s British members will be aware of the garbage that’s written and broadcast about “Skunk” in Blightly – as if it’s some new, child-incinerating super-weed that just dropped out of the sky, rather than a fairly common, medium-to-high potency strain that’s been around for at least 30 years.

What’s especially nauseating about this claim what it tacitly suggests. Most members of the current establishment (government and media) have personal experience of consuming cannabis, in their ‘experimental student days’ or whatever. The subtext of the “new, super-potent weed” claim is that, in hindsight, the harmless old ‘natural’ cannabis of their youth was actually fine after all (as was the hashish of the times, apparently, despite it being orders of magnitude more powerful than today, but that’s another story).

No matter that thousands were deprived of their liberty due to the draconian laws covering old-timey, harmless ‘natural’ cannabis in the 60s and 70s, it turns out that version of the demon weed was fine and harmless. Mistakes were made.
But this new “Skunk” weed … that really does live up to all the fantasies that were spread back then, about the stuff we now know to be harmless.

Anyway, it seems American prohibitionists have embraced the tactic of defining slightly more potent cannabis as a different drug deserving of even greater and more ridiculous penalties

As might be expected, US lawmakers have taken it to the next level.

Kirk and Law Enforcement: Super-Marijuana “Kush” Hits Suburbs
Monday, 15 June 2009

CHICAGO – U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk, Lake County Metropolitan Enforcement Group Director Larry Lindenman, Waukegan Police Chief Artis Yancey and representatives from Lake County Sheriff Mark Curran’s office today unveiled tougher penalties for a new type of “super-marijuana” hitting the northern suburbs.   “Kush,” street slang for a strain of highly-potent marijuana, has a tretrahydrocannabinol (THC) content of at least 20 percent.  According to the National Drug Intelligence Center, the THC average of seized marijuana was less than 10 percent in 2007.  In the early 1990s, THC levels were less than 4 percent.

“According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, more than 25 million individuals age 12 and older used marijuana in 2007 – significantly more than any other drug,” Congressman Mark Kirk said.  “That’s why Kush and other high-potency marijuana strains are so worrying.  Local law enforcement reports that Kush users are ‘zombie-like’ because of the extreme THC levels.  Drug dealers know they can make as much money selling Kush as cocaine but without the heavier sentences that accompany crack and cocaine trafficking.  Higher fines and longer sentences aren’t the total solution to our nation’s drug problem.  But our laws should keep pace with advances in the strength and cash-value of high-THC marijuana.  If you can make as much money selling pot as cocaine, you should face the same penalties.”

The rise of Kush mirrors the increasing popularity of high-THC marijuana, which has become more accessible with the rise of hydroponics.  Drug growers are able to strictly control light, temperature and humidity and can cross-breed to maximize THC content.  It takes growers approximately four months from planting to harvest to produce the high-potency marijuana.  Other types of Kush are known as Bubba, Paris, Bubble Gum, Sour and Orange Kush.

According to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Kush has been known to sell for as high as $600 per ounce – creating the same profit potential as crack cocaine. (Er.. really?)

Kirk’s legislation, the High-Potency Marijuana Sentencing Enhancement Act of 2009 (H.R. 2828), increases federal fines and sentences for the distribution of high-potency marijuana.  It defines high-potency marijuana as marijuana with a THC content of 15 percent or more.  The legislation targets drug trafficking only and not possession of marijuana.

Under current law, unlawful distribution, possession with intent to distribute, manufacture, importation and exportation of marijuana under 50 kilograms or 1 to 49 plants carries a maximum fine of $250,000 for an individual, $1 million for a group and up to five years in prison.  H.R. 2828 increases maximum fines to $1 million for an individual and $5 million for a group, with a maximum sentence of 25 years.  If death or serious bodily injury occurs, sentencing would be 20 years to life in prison.

A second offense after a drug felony conviction would result in a minimum fine of $2 million for an individual or $10 million for a group, with a maximum sentence of 35 years, or life if death or serious bodily injury resulted from the use of the marijuana.

Source: kirk.house.gov

And what a coincidence, that as medicinal cannabis laws are sweeping the USA (13 states and counting), the cannabis most valued for medicine – potent, well-grown sinsemilla – is being defined as an even harder drug than before.
Don’t forget that cannabis is a Schedule I (Class A) drug in the US…





18 negative effects of the ban on cannabis

12 11 2009

Negative effects Cannabis prohabition

Here is a list of some of the negative effects of the ban on cannabis:

  1. The ban on cannabis means that in addition to the coffeeshops and people who grow for their own use, an illegal market in cannabis also exists. There is no possibility of control over this illegal market which leads to criminality, unsafe situations, and events that disturb the peace; and to which underage people have easy access.
  2. The ban on cannabis makes large scale crops and export of the product into a lucrative source of income for criminal organizations which can then use this income for other criminal activities, or ‘wash’ it via money laundering operations that can disturb the legal economy.
  3. The ban on cannabis encourages criminal and antisocial behavior: rules concerning safety and security (for growing and in the marketplace) are easily broken and this goes unpunished. Conflicts are resolved using violence.
  4. The ban on cannabis leads to an increase in prices, as the producer in an illegal market calculates their risk into the price.
  5. The ban leads to a migration of tourists to coffeeshops near the borders of the country, and the operation of ‘drug runners’ to transport the product. Simple solutions for this problem such as the proposal for a so-called ‘Weed Boulevard’ with legal supply logistics are held back by the ban on cannabis.
  6. The ban on cannabis puts enormous pressure on the resources of the police and the justice system, which cannot then devote them to other, more important goals. Some of the methods used to enforce the ban limit the personal freedom of civilians and are a matter of contention in court.
  7. The costs of enforcing the ban on cannabis are not justified by the results. Although the goal of the ban (an essential reduction in supply and demand) fails to come a single step closer, the ban itself is never brought forward for discussion.
  8. The ban on cannabis damages the credibility of the government, given that the use of cannabis continues to be firmly naturalized in society.
  9. The (world-wide) ban on cannabis is one of the pillars of the U.S. dominated War On Drugs, which has led to sizeable global violations of human rights; and severely damages both the environment, and the security of the populations of cannabis-producing lands.
  10. The ban on cannabis impedes the development of the industrial applications of the plant, which is capable of making a very valuable contribution to a sustainable future.
  11. The ban on cannabis makes it impossible to carry out standardized controls on the product. Therefore demands can hardly be placed on the product in terms of consistent quality, health, or accompanying information on the contents and effects of the product.
  12. The ban on cannabis leads to unwelcome and unhealthy practices in production which negatively affect the quality and effects of the product, and thereby damage the health of the consumer.
  13. The ban on cannabis criminalizes the cannabis consumer (over one million Dutch people), with negative social consequences for the people in question, their relationships, their family, and their home and work environment.
  14. The ban on cannabis is a restriction of the right to freedom of expression. It legitimizes information about the supposed evils of cannabis, information that cannot be seriously tested for durability, credibility or truthfulness and yet is used as justification for the active enforcement of the ban.
  15. The ban on cannabis damages the right of the individual to make decisions about his / her own body.
  16. The ban on cannabis damages the right of the individual to possess a medicine that is necessary to maintain or support his or her health and wellbeing.
  17. The ban on cannabis dissuades doctors from prescribing it to patients who could benefit from the effects; and delays the process of recognition of its medicinal applications in the treatment of multiple afflictions such as HIV and AIDS, Multiple Sclerosis, cancer, and chronic pain.
  18. The ban on cannabis denies the government the possibility of levying taxes on the product.

Source: hashmuseum.com/cannabis-cultuurprijs/








%d bloggers like this: