Robert A. Nelson: Hemp & Health


![](0logo.gif) **[rexresearch.com](../index.htm)**

---

***Hemp & Health***

**by** **Robert A. NELSON**

**Copyright 1999**

---

 **Table of Contents** 
**1.     [Traditional Materia
Medica](#hhl1)**

**2.     [Modern Medical
Studies](#hhl2)**

> > **a.   [Glaucoma](#hhl2a)**
> >   
> > **b.   [Anti-Emetic](#hhl2b)**   
> > **c.   [Asthma](#hhl2c)**   
> > **d.   [Anti-Convulsant](#hhl2d)**   
> > **e.   [Tumors](#hhl2e)**   
> > **f.    [Antibiotic](#hhl2f)**   
> > **g.   [Arthritis](#hhl2g)**   
> > **h.   [Anxiety](#hhl2h)**   
> > **i.    [Depression](#hhl2i)**   
> > **j.    [Anti-Inflammatory](#hhl2j)**
> >   
> > **k.   [Analgesia](#hhl2k)**   
> > **l.    [Anaesthesia](#hhl2l)**
> >   
> > **m.  [Alcoholism](#hhl2m)**   
> > **n.   [Opiate Addiction](#hhl2n)**   
> > **o.   [Diuretic](#hhl2o)**   
> > **p.   [Insomnia](#hhl2p)**   
> > **q.   [Herpes](#hhl2q)**   
> > **r.   [Migraine](#hhl2r)**   
> > **s.   [Ulcer](#hhl2s)**   
> > **t.   [Gynecology](#hhl2t)**   
> > **u.   [Anti-Oxidant](#hhl2u)**

**3.     [Hempseed &
Nutrition](#hhl3)**

**4.     [Hempseed Oil](#hhl4)**

**5.     [Public Health](#hhl5)**

> > **a.   [Indian Hemp
> > Drugs Commission](#hhl5a)**   
> > **b.   [The Canal Zone Studies](#hhl5b)**
> >   
> > **c.   [The LaGuardia Committee](#hhl5c)**
> >   
> > **d.   [The Wooton Report](#hhl5d)**
> >   
> > **e.   [The Shafer Commission](#hhl5e)**
> >   
> > **f.   [The Jamaica Study](#hhl5f)**
> >   
> > **g.   [The Costa Rica Study](#hhl5g)**
> >   
> > **h.   [The Greek Study](#hhl5h)**   
> > **i.    [The Coptic Study](#hhl5i)**
> >   
> > **j.    [The Expert Group](#hhl5j)**
> >   
> > **k.   [The Relman Committee](#hhl5k)**
> >   
> > **l.    [The LeDain
> > Commission](#hhl5l)**

**6.     [Physical Effects](#hhl6)**
> > **a.   [Smoking](#hhl6a)**
> >   
> > **b.   [Hypothermia](#hhl6b)**   
> > **c.   [Chrono-Pharmacology](#hhl6c)**
> >   
> > **d.   [Toxicity](#hhl6d)**   
> > **e.   [Driving](#hhl6e)**   
> > **f.    [Antidotes](#hhl6f)**   
> > **g.   [Potentiation](#hhl6g)**   
> > **h.   [Interactions](#hhl6h)**   
> > **i.    [Contra-Indications](#hhl6j)**
> >   
> > **j.    [Contaminants](#hhl6j)**
> >   
> > **k.   [Immunology](#hhl6k)**   
> > **l.    [Male Reproduction](#hhl6l)**
> >   
> > **m.  [Gynecomeistia](#hhl6m)**   
> > **n.   [Female Reproduction](#hhl6n)**
> >   
> > **o.   [Mutagenesis &
> > Cytogenesis](#hhl6o)**   
> > **p.   [Cerebral Atrophy](#hhl6p)**

**7.     [Mental Effects](#hhl7)**
> > **a.   [Perception](#hhl7a)**
> >   
> > **b.   [Adverse Effects](#hhl7b)**   
> > **c.   [Learning](#hhl7c)**   
> > **d.   [Dependence](#hhl7d)**   
> > **e.   [Amotivational Syndrome](#hhl7e)**

**8.     [Neurology](#hhl8)**

**9.     [Compassionate
Cannabis](#hhl9)**

> > **a.  [NORML vs. DEA](#hhl9a)**
> >   
> > **b.  [The RAP Report](#hhl9b)**

**10.   [Propaganda](#hhl10)**

**11.   [Cannabis & Crime](#hhl11)**

**12.   [Polemics Against
Prohibition](#hhl12)**

**13.   [References](#hhl13)**

**14.   [Index](#hhl14)**

**Tables:   1.  Properties of Hempseed Oil**
  
**2. 
Fatty Acid Analysis of Hempseed Oil**   
**3. 
General Analysis of Hempseed**   
**4. 
Typical Mineral Assay of Hempseed**   
**5. 
Typical Protein Analysis of Hempseed**

![](glowbar.gif)
**Cannabis sativa**, the "True Hemp", is tightly woven into the
tapestry of human life. Since earliest times, this great plant
ally has provided people with cordage and fabric, paper, medicine,
and inspiration. For all the many benefits it bestows, Cannabis
hemp is a friendship well worth cultivating. Hemp is many things
to many people, and it is known by hundreds of names. Poets and
musicians sing its praises, and preachers damn it. Executioners
hang condemned men with hemp rope, but sailors and mountaineers
hang onto it for dear life. Doctors prescribe it as a versatile
medicine, yet prohibitionists proscribe it as a poison. Armies and
navies make war with hemp, while lovers use it as an aphrodisiac.
It is the warp of the minds veil of illusion, and the woof of
politicians, who "lead us in the manner dogs lead a parade" (Mark
Twain). The resinous virtue generates real happiness,
enlightenment and entertainment, equal in quality and worth to the
similar joys of love, freedom and good health --- and it
complements them all, and comforts those without such blessings.
Hemp is a most interesting and paradoxical plant, one that defies
control and begs understanding. Hemp is one of mankinds best (and
few) friends on Earth, yet it is held prisoner within its own
cells, bound in a Gordian Knot of laws. Yet again, it is Ariadnes
Thread, a guideline out of the labyrinth of bureaucratic tyranny
and into a new state of liberty and grace. We should be thankful
for Cannabis.

![](glowbar.gif)

**1.**   
**Traditional Materia Medica**

Cannabis has been used in medicine since about 2300 BC, when
the legendary Chinese Emperor Shen-Nung prescribed *chu-ma*
(female hemp) for the treatment of constipation, gout, beriberi,
malaria, rheumatism, and menstrual problems. He classified *chu-ma*
as one of the Superior Elixirs of Immortality. In the 2nd
century AD, the renowned physician Hua Tuo formulated *ma-yo*
(hemp wine) and *ma-fei-san* (hemp-boiling powder) as
anesthetics for the many surgeries he performed. The 14th
century text *Ri-Yong-Ben-Cao* (*Household Materia
Medica*) by Wu Rui described the use of hempseed as a
medicine.

Chinese herbalists recommend *huo ma ren* ("fire hemp
seeds") in doses from 9-15 grams, up to 45 grams, to nourish the
Yin (feminine) in cases of constipation in the elderly, "blood
deficiency", and to recuperate from febrile diseases. Hempseed
is "sweet" and "neutral" and "clears heat". It operates through
the channels of the stomach, large intestine, and spleen. It
promotes the healing of sores and ulcerations when applied
topically or ingested. Excessive, prolonged use may result in
"vaginal discharge" or spermatorrhea. **(1)**

Both the ancient Ayurvedic system of Indian medicine and the
Arabic Unani Tibbi system make extensive use of hemp for
healing. Usually, it is mixed with other vegetable, mineral and
animal substances which neutralize the narcotic effects and
enhance the therapeutic virtues. The 9th century medical text *Susruta
Samhita* describes bhang as an anti-phlegmatic against
catarrh. The Sanskrit book *Rajbulubha* recommends hemp
for the treatment of gonorrhea. The 10th century treatise *Anandakanda*describes the rejuvenating qualities of cannabis:

*"Bahnagini* is that which breaks the three types of
miseries... gives happiness to mind... gives pleasure, lustre,
intoxication and beauty... intoxicates like alcohol... helps to
overcome death... helps in the excretion of nectar located at
the *Brahmarandhra*... accomplishes the objects of mind...
liberates living creatures from the bonds of the world... cures
all diseases... has attained *siddhi* [spiritual
perfections]... and endows *siddhi* on others."

Ayurvedic physicians regularly use the juice of hemp to treat
dozens of diseases and other medical problems including
diarrhea, epilepsy, delirium and insanity, colic, rheumatism,
gastritis, anorexia, consumption, fistula, nausea, fever,
jaundice, bronchitis, leprosy, spleen disorders diabetes, cold,
anemia, menstrual pain, tuberculosis, elephantiasis, asthma,
gout, constipation, and malaria. **(2, 3)**

The *Materia Medica of the Hindus* (1877) states:

"The leaves of Cannabis sativa are purified by boiling in milk
before use. They are regarded as heating, digestive, astringent,
and narcotic [sleep-inducing]. The intoxication induced by *bhang*
is said to be of a pleasant description and to promote
talkativeness. In sleeplessness, the powder of the dried resin
is given in suitable doses for inducing sleep or removing pain."
**(4)**

The ancient Egyptian Ebers Papyrus (E.821) offers "A remedy to
cool the uterus":

*"Smsm t* [hemp] is pounded in honey and administered to
the vagina. This is a contraction."

A mixture of hemp and carob was employed as an enema, or
combined with other ingredients for use as a poultice (E. 618).
The Ramses III Papyrus (A. 26) offers an prescription that is
prescient of the modern use of cannabis in the treatment of
glaucoma:

"A treatment for the eyes: celery; *smsm t* is ground and
left in the dew overnight. Both eyes of the patient are to be
washed with it in the morning." **(5)**

The Greek physician Pedacius Dioscorides (1st cty. AD)
described *kannabis emeros* (female) in *De Materia
Medica* (3:165, 166):

"The round seed, which being eaten of much doth quench
geniture, but being juiced when it is green is good for the
pains of the ears... The root being sodden, and so laid on hath
ye force to assuage inflammations and to dissolve Oedemata, and
to disperse ye obdurate matter about ye joints."

The 16th century humorist Francois Rabelais heaped praise on
Pantagruelion (hemp) in giving passing notice of its healing
properties in his novel *Gargantua and Pantagruel*:

"I won't stop to tell you how the juice of this marvelous herb,
squeezed out and placed in the ears, kills every manner of
putrefied vermin that could possibly have bred in there, as well
as all other creatures that might have crawled in. Put this
juice in a small pail of water and you'll see the water suddenly
coagulates like clotted milk --- that's how powerful it is. And
this coagulated water is a sovereign remedy for colicky horses,
and also those with short breath...

"If you want to cure a burn, no matter whether it be from
boiling water or burning wood, just rub on raw Pantagruelion,
just as it comes out of the earth, without doing anything else.
But be careful to change the dressing, when you see it drying on
the wound.." **(6)**

Hemp was a popular remedy in medieval Europe. In addition to
the applications mentioned above, the herb was used to treat
toothaches, to facilitate childbirth, to alleviate convulsions,
fevers, inflammations, jaundice, and reduce swollen joints in
arthritis and rheumatism. Cannabis was found worthy of honorable
mention as a healing plant in several medieval herbals.

In the 18th century treatise *Hemp* by M. Marcandier,
readers are reminded:

"Pliny tells us, the Hemp-seed is of a drying nature, that it
weakens the generative powers in men when they eat it to excess.
On the contrary, it promotes fruitfulness in fowls, for which
reason it is purposely given them in winter time, and is a food
to which birds are accustomed. It expels wind; is hard of
digestion and disagrees with the stomach; it produces bad
humour, and occasions headaches. It was formerly one of those
legumes, which are fried for desserts: It was also made into
little sweet cakes, to be eaten at collations, and to promote
drinking; but at present, this unwholesome ragout is quite
banished from our tables: It heats those that it too freely so
much, that it occasions very dangerous vapours; so that those
who prescribe a decoction of this seed to children that labour
under epilepsies, far from procuring them relief, increase and
irritate their disorder. The juice of it, squeezed out when it
is green, draws insects to it, and brings out all the vermin
that enter into the ears, and infest them. Taken in an emulsion,
it is good against a cough and the jaundice, and also against
the gonorrhea; its oil is recommended as an ingredient in
pomatums for the small-pox; and it is laxative. Taken inwardly,
or outwardly applied, it has not the dangerous qualities that
are ascribed to the whole plant with its leaves; the powder of
it mixt with drink, will make those who use it drunk, dull, and
stupid: We are told that the Arabians make a sort of wine of it,
which intoxicates, and poor people eat the oil of it in their
soup.

"The grain and the leaves being squeezed, while they are green,
and applied, by way of cataplasm, to painful tumors, are
reckoned to have a great power of relaxing and stupefying...
What Pliny assures us, of the great effect which an infusion of
Hemp may have in coagulating water, will not appear surprising
if we attend to the quality and quantity of the gum, which
unites all the fibres of this plant together... It is,
doubtless, for this reason, that it is given in drink to cattle
to cure looseness. The decoction of green Hemp, with its seed,
when well cleared of the dregs, causes the worms to come out of
the ground on which it is poured, and the fishermen commonly
make use of this expedient to catch them, when they have
occasion...

"It abates inflammations, dissolves tumors and hard swellings
upon the joints. Beat and pounded in a mortar, with butter, when
it is still fresh, it is applied to burns, which it relieves
greatly when it is often renewed. The juice and decoction of it,
put into the fundaments of horses, brings out the vermin that
infest them."

In his *Herbal*, Nicholas Culpepper (1616-1654) advised
readers thus:

"An emulsion or decoction of the seed... eases the colic and
always the troublesome humours in the bowels and stays bleeding
at the mouth, nose, and other places."

Cannabis offers other mercies. In the 1830s, Dr. William
O'Shaugnessy administered 2 grains of the resin to alleviate the
suffering of a man dying of hydrophobia:

"In reviewing... this interesting case, it seems evident that
at least one advantage was gained from the use of the remedy;
the awful malady was stripped of its horrors; if not less fatal
than before, it was reduced to less than the scale of suffering
which precedes death from most ordinary diseases." **(7)**

Cannabis also was reported to be useful with varying degrees of
success in the treatment of alcoholism, asthma, bronchitis,
constipation, diarrhea, dysentery, dysmenorrhea and uterine
hemorrhage, dropsy or edema, epilepsy, insanity, migraine,
palsy, rheumatism, anthrax, beriberi, blood poisoning,
incontinence, leprosy, malaria, snakebite, tonsillitis,
parasites, and a legion of other maladies. **(8-11)**

In the late 19th century, cannabis was included in dozens of
remedies available by prescription or over-the-counter. Reports
of "cannabis poisoning" began to concern doctors. But V.
Robinson noted in *An Essay on Hasheesh* (1912):

"An overdose has never produced death in man or the lower
animals. Not one authenticated case is on record in which
Cannabis or any of its preparations destroyed life... Cannabis
does not seem capable of causing death by its chemical or
physiological action." **(12)**

![](glowbar.gif)

**2.**   
**Modern Medical Studies**

After it was criminalized by the Marijuana Tax of 1937,
cannabis was deleted from the British and US *Pharmacopoeia*,*Merck Index*, etc.. Despite governmental efforts to
suppress the plant, people have continued to rediscover the
medical benefits of cannabis, and thousands of scientific
articles have been published to that effect. Dozens of
therapeutic effects have been reported for the major
cannabinoids, TetraHydroCannabinol (THC), Cannabinol (CBN), and
Cannabidiol (CBD)**(Fig. 2)**

**2a.**   
***Glaucoma***: --- Several million
people worldwide are afflicted with glaucoma, in which the
unchecked rise of intraocular pressure (IOP) causes irreparable
damage of the retina and optic nerve, resulting in blindness.
About 250,000 Americans suffer from glaucoma, and several
thousand people go blind from the affliction each year in the
USA. Glaucoma is somewhat controllable with medications, all of
which are attended by dangerous side-effects -- with the
exemption of cannabis.

In 1971, while conducting an experiment to determine whether
cannabis dilated the pupils, R.S. Hepler and I.M. Frank chanced
to notice that the smoking of marijuana reduced IOP by about 25%
after 30 minutes. In addition, there was a 50% reduction in tear
flow and in ocular pulse pressure. Subsequent studies confirmed
this effect with THC and cannabis extracts administered orally,
intravenously, or by topical application of THC in sesame oil.
There is no development of tolerance.  **(13-15)**

The mechanism of this effect is uncertain, but it is known that
THC increases the outflow facility of the eyes and reduces the
secretion of ocular fluid by constricting the blood vessels of
the ciliary epithelium. CBD has no effect on IOP. Cannabis is
known to produce tears and mild reddening of the conjunctiva,
but these effects have little apparent clinical significance.

In a contrary finding, W. Daeson, *et al*., reported that
chronic users in Costa Rica had increased IOP and an apparently
incorrectable optical acuity deficit. A case of conjugate
deviation of the eyes reportedly was caused by cannabis
intoxication, according to Mohan and Sood. The effect lasted six
weeks. **(16, 17)**

Dr. M.E. West confirmed the Jamaican folk belief that a
run-extract of cannabis improves night-vision. Dr. West and Dr.
Albert Lockhart eventually prepared a non-pyschoactive
substance, called Canasol, which showed a marked improvement on
IOP and "significant improvement in night vision." **(18, 19)**

The report by West and Lockhart prompted Keith Green, *et al*.,
to
isolate and test water-soluble extracts of cannabis for
IOP-reducing activity. Some compounds were found to reduce IOP
by about 60% for up to 60 hours with doses as low as 1
microgram, administered intravenously. Other routes of
administration are ineffective, due to the extremely large size
of the glyco-protein molecules.  **(20-22)**

**2b.**   
***Anti-Emetic*** --- In the 1970s,
many patients undergoing chemotherapy for AIDS, Hodgkins disease
and other cancers discovered that they suffered less nausea and
vomiting if they smoked marijuana before receiving treatment.
Subsequent tests by several oncologists showed THC to be
superior to chlorperazine as an anti-emetic, but no more
effective than metoclopramide or thiethylperazine. In other
trials, no difference was found between the anti-emetic effects
of THC. The emesis produced by methroxate, duxorubium,
cyclophosphamide and flouracil are dramatically reduced by THC.
It is less beneficial for patients receiving mustine,
nitrosoureas, and cisplatin therapy. The synthetic cannabinoid
Nabilone was found to be more effective than prochlorperazine as
an anti-emetic in cisplatin treatment. The side-effects of being
"high", dysphoric, sedated, etc., are tolerated better by young
persons than by elders. The synthetic THC analog Levonantradol
is known to possess anti-emetic activity while producing only
mild side effects. Sallan, *et al*., found that nausea an
vomiting was controlled by THC in 81% of patients. **(23-27)**

Chemotherapy patients who use cannabis as medicine generally
prefer to smoke marijuana rather than ingest synthetic THC
(Marinol) because they usually vomit before the pill can take
effect (up to 3 hours later). Smoking allows the patient to
titrate the dose puff by puff, and the drug takes effect within
a few minutes. Synthetic THC loses its effectiveness after only
a few treatments, and it is expensive. Alternatively, it is a
simple matter to prepare an extract with clarified butter. This
is administered in suppository capsules with pinholes poked in
them.

Harvard University surveyed members of the American Society of
Clinical Oncology in 1990, and found that 44% of the 1,035
respondents acknowledged that they had recommended the illegal
use of marijuana to at least one patient undergoing
chemotherapy. 48% agreed that they "would prescribe marijuana in
smoked form to some of their patients if it were illegal." **(28)**

**2c.**   
***Asthma*** --- For the past 3,000
years or more, cannabis has provided welcome relief for
countless numbers of asthmatics. It was widely used for that
purpose in the 19th century. The inhalation of marijuana smoke
causes bronchial dilation lasting up to 1 hour. The
bronchodilator effect of orally-ingested THC lasts up to 6
hours, but it is not so powerful as smoking marijuana. THC
aerosols are not so effective as smoking marijuana because
aerosolized THC has an irritating effect on the air passages. **(29)**

L. Vachon, *et al*., reported that 0.7 mg. THC in a
micro-aerosol proved to be up to 60% effective as a
bronchodilator, with minimal mental effects and no
parasympathetic effects. J. Hartley, *et al*., found that
administration of minute doses (50-200 micrograms) of THC by
inhalation increased the peak expiratory flow and forced
expiratory volume in 1 second in a dose-related manner. The
effects last 4 hours. D. Tashkin, *et al*., explored the
anti-asthmatic effect of THC, and found it to be useful against
the encroachment of emphysema. R. Gordon, *et al*.,
confirmed the anti-tussive effect. Cannabis also has been used
with success in the treatment of whooping cough. In 1955, J.
Sirek reported on the importance of hempseed in tuberculosis
therapy, but the discovery has been largely ignored since then.
**(30-34)**

**2d.**   
***Anti-Convulsant*** --- Cannabis'
power to control spasticity and convulsions has been applied in
folk medicine for thousands of years. The first European report
of this effect was published in the 1830s by Dr. William
O'Shaughnessy, who stated that "The [medical] profession has
gained an anti-convulsive remedy of the greatest value." Dr. J.
Russell Reynolds, who was Queen Victoria's personal physician
for 30 years and administered cannabis to her, praised the
anti-convulsive virtue of hemp. He wrote that "There are many
cases of so-called epilepsy... in which India hemp is the most
useful agent with which I am acquainted." **(35, 36)**

Many thousands of victims of all forms of convulsions,
spasticity, and epilepsy, and of paralysis --- paraplegia,
quadriplegia, Muscular Dystrophy (MD), Multiple Sclerosis (MS),
and chorea, etc., and the associated neuralgias --- praise
cannabis for its unique  power of relaxation. Anecdotal
reports of its efficacy prompted clinical studies which showed
that Cannabidiol can help some patients to remain nearly free of
convulsions without any toxicity or psychoactive side-effects.
W.A. Check found a limited effect of smoking marijuana to
alleviate the spasticity of MS. Experiments conducted by P.
Consroe, *et al*., demonstrated a dose-related improvement
of idiopathic dystonias by treatment with CBD. Other researchers
have found THC to be useful in the treatment of MD. **(37-40)**

While testing THC for possible immunosuppressive effects,
Lyman, *et al*., found that guinea pigs treated with THC
developed few or no symptoms of experimental autoimmune
encephalitis (EAE), which is used as a laboratory model of MS.
98% of untreated animals died, while 95% of the animals treated
with THC survived and had much less inflammation of their brain
tissue. **(41, 42)**

The 11-hydroxy metabolites of THC have been reported to be more
effective against convulsions than the parent molecule. CBD also
possesses anticonvulsant properties without producing behavioral
impairment or tolerance, and it works where other drugs are
refractory, or in combination with them. The CBD nucleus has
been recommended as a template for the development of other
anti-epileptic drugs. **(43, 44)**

In 1998, Gilson and Busalacchi reported a new medical use of
cannabis, i.e., for the treatment of intractable hiccups. In
their letter to *Lancet* (351: 267) the authors concluded:

"Because intractable hiccups is an uncommon condition, it is
unlikely that the use of marijuana will ever be tested in a
controlled clinical trial, and blinding would be difficult.
Despite federal policy which forbids the use of marijuana
therapeutically, this report should be considered for hiccups
refractory to other measures.**"**

**2e.**   
***Tumors***--- L. Harris, *et al*.,
found
anti-tumor effects of THC and CBN on Lewis Lung Tumor (LLT), but
not in L-1210 Leukemia. THC and CBN inhibited primary tumor
growth from 25% to 82% and increased the life expectancy of
cancerous mice to the same extent. The anti-tumor activity of
THC and CBN is very selective; it reduces tumor cells without
damaging normal cells. CBD was ineffective. A. White, *et al*.,
found that THC slightly inhibited DNA replication, but CBD
appeared to enhance the growth of LLT.

A 1975 study of "The Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabinoids"
by the Department of Pharmacology and the Medical College of
Virginia Commonwealth University Cancer Center reported:

"Lewis lung adenocarcinoma growth was retarded by the oral
administration of delta-9-THC... and CBN, but not CBD. Animals
treated for 10 consecutive days with delta-9-THC, beginning the
day after tumor implantation, demonstrated a dose-dependent
action of retarded tumor growth. Mice treated for 20 consecutive
days with delta-8-THC and CBN had reduced primary tumor size."

M. Friedma reported that THC and CBD failed to inhibit tumor
macromolecular biosynthesis in LLT. **(45-48)**

In 1994, the National Toxicology Program conducted a study
which showed that THC protects against malignant tumors. The
report was suppressed for three years. According to NTP deputy
director John Bucher, the delay was due to a "personnel
shortage".

**2f.**   
***Antibiotic*** --- The
cannabinoid acids effectively inhibit and kill Gram(+) bacteria
such as Staphylococcus and Streptococcus. An alcoholic extract
of cannabis has been recommended as a topical application and
for use in the treatment of penicillin-resistant organisms. The
preparations of cannabis can be applied to the skin or mucous
membranes as a salve, poultice, or spray.

J. Kabelic, *et al*., reported a case in which a
pathologist injured his thumb during a dissection. It became
severely infected and was absolutely resistant to other
antibiotics. Amputation was imminently necessary, but the
infection was defeated by the last resort of cannabis extract.

Herpes labialis (acute viral inflammation of the skin), otitis
media (inflammation of the middle ear), and second degree burns
have been treated successfully in the same way.

Krejci, *et al.*, identified the active substance as
3-methyl-6-isopropyl-4'-n-pentyl-2',6'-dihydroxy-1,2,3,6-tetrahydrodiphenyl-3'carbonic
acid.
It was prepared as follows:

"The comminuted drug was extracted with petroleum ether, light
benzene, or benzine, a water-soluble salt made by treatment with
NaOH, acidified with Hcl, th precipitated resin extracted with
ether, and this distilled off. Such a purified extract showed
anti-bacterial activity against *Mycobacterium tuberculosis*
even when the extract was diluted to 1:150,000. Gram-negative
organisms of the coli-typhus group... were not affected...
Blood, blood plasma, and serum partially inactivated the
anti-bacterial substance, reducing the antibiotic effect...
Sodium salts of the isolated amorphous substance showed
increasing activity with increase of pH from 5 to 7.5; whereas
crystallized acetyl derivatives (acids) showed increasing
activity when pH decreased from 8 to 5..."  **(49-52)**

Cannabidiolic Acid (CBDA) in a concentration of 1:200,000 in
tomato juice inhibits the growth of *Leuconostoc
mesenteroides* without changing the flavor of the drink.
CBDA may be treated at 60 deg C. for 2 hours without affecting its
antibiotic activity. CBDA also inhibits lactic acid bacteria
which grow along with yeast in fruit juices. CBDA is ineffective
in raw fruits. **(53)**

**2g.**   
***Arthritis***--- Pliny the Elder
recommended cannabis in the treatment of arthritis. In his *Treatise
on Hemp*, M. Marcandier mentioned this:

"The root of it boiled in water, and applied in the form of a
cataplasm, softens and restores the joints or fingers or toes
that are dried or shrunk. It is very good against the gout, and
other humours that fall upon the nervous, muscular, or tendinous
parts."

In 1994 *The Times of London* reported:

"The demand for marijuana among British pensioners has stunned
doctors, police and suppliers... The old people use the drug to
ease the pain of such ailments as arthritis and rheumatism. Many
are running afoul of the law for the first time in their lives
as they try to obtain supplies." **(54)**

**2h.**   
***Anxiety*** --- Most users of
cannabis find that it produces calm, relaxed feelings, and some
persons use it specifically to alleviate anxiety. Some
inexperienced people become anxious or panicky over the
side-effects (dizziness, dissociation, etc.), which usually can
be minimized by lying down and being reassured that there is no
danger. Cannabis or THC does not provide consistent relief from
anxiety for clinical purposes. Cannabis can precipitate
psychotic episodes in clinical schizophrenics. L. Hollister, *et
al*., have shown that oral administration of low doses of
cannabis preparations have a sedative and tranquilizing effect
without producing psychoactivity. THC alone has been shown to
induce anxiety; the effect is blocked by CBD. **(55, 56)**

**2i.**   
***Depression***--- As early as
1843, Jacques-J. Moreau de Tours extolled the value of hashish
in the treatment of melancholy. In his *Observations on
Hashish and Mental Illness*, Moreau wrote:

"One of the effects of hashish that struck me most forcibly and
which generally gets the most attention is that manic excitement
always accompanied by a feeling of gaiety and joy inconceivable
to those who have not experienced it... It is really happiness
that is produced." **(57, 58)**

In 1943, Dr. George Stockings reported on the synthetic
cannabinoid Synhexyl as "A New Euphoriant for Depressive Mental
States", particularly neurotic depression. This is the most
common psychiatric condition encountered in clinical practice.
Stocking concluded:

"The results... suggest that we have in this class of compounds
a promising therapeutic agent for the treatment of chronic and
intractable depressive states... Synhexyl... has the advantages
of low toxicity, minimum of side effects, ease of
administration, and chemical stability. Its use is not
contra-indicated by the presence of coexisting organic disease,
and it is suitable for out-patient practice. Its use does not
interfere with other therapeutic measures, such as occupational
therapy or psychotherapy. It is free from risks and
disadvantages of the more drastic forms of treatment...**" (59)**

The results of more recent clinical studies  with THC have
been inconsistent. W. Regelson, *et al*., reported a
significant reduction of depression in cancer patients with THC,
but J. Kotin, *et al*., found no significant
anti-depressant activity in several bipolar and unipolar
depressed patients. Ablon and Goodwin obtained a positive
response with bipolar (manic) depressives, but not with unipolar
patients. Be that as it may, many depressed out-patients who do
not respond well to standard treatments find respite in
marijuana. **(60-62)**

A survey Richard Warner, *et al.* (*Amer. J.
Orthopsychiatry,* Jan. 1994) of substance abuse among the
mentally ill found that patients who used marijuana enjoyed
greater relief from their symptoms (anxiety, depression,
insomnia) and suffered fewer hospitalizations. Most patients who
used alcohol reported that it worsened their problems.

**2j.**   
***Inflammation*** --- The soothing effect of hemp on
inflammatory disorders has been known for centuries. In modern
times, cannabis has received recognition from physicians after
some patients began reporting that smoking marijuana gave them
relief from conditions such as pruritis and atopic dermatitis,
an allergic reaction distinguished by severe itching and patches
of inflamed skin. The problem can become life-threatening and
disfiguring when it is complicated by infection. Conventional
treatments have only limited effect.

R. Turner, *et al*., have shown that THC has an
anti-histamine effect. Mishra and Sahai found that an alcoholic
extract of cannabis potentiates the anti-pyretic action of
aspirin. D. Kosersky, *et al*., showed that oral
administration of THC is 20 times more powerful that aspirin and
twice as potent as hydrocortisone in its power to inhibit edema.
CBD was found to produce over 90% inhibition of erythema at a
dose of only 100 micrograms, whereas THC produced only 10%
inhibition.  **(63-66)**

Another treatment of burns, bedsores, and other skin
afflictions is described by B. Carty, *et al*., in US
Patent 4,917,889, comprising an aqueous mixture of calcium
hydroxide and hempseed oil. **(67)**

**2k.**   
***Analgesia*** --- From ancient times to date,
cannabis preparations have been used to relieve pain. Several
modern studies have shown analgesic effects of cannabis and its
derivatives and analogues in animals, but the human model gives
conflicting results. S. Miletin, *et al*., found that
cannabis smokers have increased tolerance to experimental pain.
To the contrary, Hill, *et al*., failed to detect
analgesic action with another type of experimental pain. A study
of cancer patients by R. Noyes, *et al*., found THC to be
effective in reducing pain, while W. Regelson, *et al*.,
reportedly found no significant analgesia. The variable and
non-specific analgesic effects of THC are accompanied by mental
obfuscation, so it is unlikely to become clinically useful for
this purpose. Research continues with synthetic analogues of
THC. Fairbairn and Pickens showed that an ethanol extract of
cannabis will potentiate the effects of pethidine and other
analgesics. J. Barrett, *et al*., subsequently isolated
two new flavenoids, called Canflavons, which exhibit potent
analgesia due to their peripheral activity. **(68-72)**

More recent animal studies by several researchers (Univ.
California SF., Univ. Michigan, Brown Univ., Univ. Minnesota)
have shown that cannabinoids are effective analgesics which are
not addictive, nor do they develop any tolerance. The
cannabinoids alleviate several types of pain, particularly that
of arthritis. Kennth Hargreaves (Univ. Texas) reported that
injection of a THC-analog at an arthritic site  relieves
associated inflammation:

Local administration of the cannabinoid to the site of injury
may be able to both prevent pain from occurring and reduce pain
which has already occurred without producing side effects.

**2l.**   
***Anesthesia*** --- THC and CBN prolong ether
anesthesia, while CBD reverses the effect. When administered in
combination with THC and CBN, CBD reverses the effect of CBN,
but not of THC. **(73, 74)**

**2m.**   
***Alcoholism*** --- Several women's temperance
societies in the 1890s recommended the recreational use of
hashish rather than alcohol, because liquor obviously led to
wife-beating, while hashish did not. In fact, it was considered
to be an aphrodisiac, and experts recommended it for the
purpose.

In 1891, Dr. J.B. Mattison recommended cannabis as "the best"
treatment for delirium tremens. In 1953, Drs. Lloyd Thompson and
Richard Proctor tested the synthetic cannabinoid Pyrahexyl in
the treatment of alcohol withdrawal and obtained positive
results:

We can report clinical alleviation of the symptoms in 59, or
84.28%. The 11 cases that did not show improvement (or 15.72%)
did not differ a great deal clinically from the other 59...
Perhaps an individual idiosyncrasy is the explanation, for it is
known that individual reactions to other drugs do occur." **(75)**

In 1971, J. Scher proposed the use of cannabis as a substitute
for alcohol in treatment of withdrawal and in delerium tremens.
Rosenburg found no useful effect from cannabis alone. However,
experiments conducted with marijuana as a reinforcer of
disulfiram in the treatment of alcoholics did give positive
results. **(76-78)**

During the rapid rise in popularity of marijuana among students
in the 1960s, Dr. Halleck (Univ. Of  Wisconsin) commented
in the *New York Times*:

"Perhaps the one major positive effect of the drug is to cut
down on the use of alcohol. In the last few years it is rare for
our student infirmary to encounter a student who has become
aggressive, disoriented, or physically ill because of excessive
use of alcohol. Alcoholism has almost ceased to be a problem on
our campuses. Many cannabists consider alcohol to be a debasing
and degrading drug which they decline to use if marijuana is
available."

**2n.**   
***Opiate Addiction*** --- In some
cases, cannabis can serve to alleviate the symptoms of opiate
withdrawal. As early as 1885, Dr. E. Birch reported the
successful treatment of an opium addict and a chloral-hydrate
addict by cannabis substitution and slow withdrawal. In 1891,
Dr. J.B. Mattison held forth that "It has proved an efficient
substitute for the poppy", and he described the case of "a naval
surgeon, nine years a ten grains daily morphia taker... [who]
recovered with less than a dozen doses. He recommended cannabis
accordingly:

"[Cannabis is] a drug that has a special value in some morbid
conditions, and the intrinsic merit and safety of which entitles
it to a place it once held in therapeutics... Indian hemp is not
here intended as a specific. It will, at times, fail. So do
other drugs. But the many cases in which it acts well, entitle
it to a large and lasting confidence." **(79-81)**

In a study of 49 cases of opiate withdrawal, conducted in 1942
by Drs. S. Allentuck and K. Bowman, cannabis was substituted for
opium:

"The withdrawal symptoms were ameliorated or eliminated sooner,
the patient was in a better frame of mind, his spirits were
elevated, his physical condition was more rapidly rehabilitated,
and he expressed a wish to resume his occupation sooner." **(82)**

Prof. Sandra Welch (Virginia Commonwealth Univ.) found that THC
has a pronounced potentiating effect on morphine. At a low dose,
THC increases the analgesic effect of morphine by 500%. At
double the dose of THC, the effect is 10 times greater. The
effect is not additive, and is relatively safe:

"One major advantage to a marijuana-morphine combination would
be to reduce both the morphine component and a major morphine
side-effect, depression of the respiratory system. It has
already been confirmed that marijuana has no effect on the
medulla, the center of the brain that controls respiration." **(164)**

This singular finding may lead to new methods of treating
opiate addiction.

**2o.**   
***Diuretic*** --- H. Shirkey and J.
Rodger reported a diuretic effect of cannabis roots; R. Sofia, *et
al*., found that it disappears with increasing tolerance to
the drug. **(83-85**)

**2p.**   
***Insomnia*** --- In 1890, the
British physician J. Reynolds highly recommended cannabis indica
for patients with "senile insomnia". The treatment remained
effective for years without producing tolerance:

"In this class of cases I have found nothing comparable in
utility to a moderate dose of Indian hemp."

CBD induces sleep in insomniacs, with fewer dreams and no side
effects. Other conventional hypnotics produce undesirable
consequences such as tolerance and addiction. Marijuana
decreases slow-wave sleep but does not affect REM sleep. **(86)**

**2q.**   
***Herpes*** --- P. Morhan, *et
al*., reported that THC reduces resistance to the herpes
simplex virus. G. Lancz, *et al*., on the other hand, have
shown that THC binds to the herpes virus and thus inactivates
it. Topical application of an isopropyl alcohol extract of
Cannabis has been used to provide symptomatic relief of herpes
sores. It prevents blisters and makes sores disappear within a
day. Cannabis also provided symptomatic relief from gonorrhea
and syphilis. **(87, 88)**

**2r.**   
***Migraine*** --- In 1887, H. Hare
gave medical testimony to the value of hemp in subduing and
preventing attacks of migraine. In 1890, Dr. J. Reynolds stated:

"Very many victims of this malady have for years kept their
suffering in abeyance by taking hemp at the moment of
threatening, or onset of the attack."

In 1891, Dr. J.B. Mattison asserted that, of all the
applications of cannabis, "Its most important use is in that
opprobrium of the healing arts --- migraine." He concluded that
the drug not only stopped migraine headaches, but also prevented
the attacks. In *The Principles and Practice of Medicine*
(1913), Dr. William Osler affirmed that "Cannabis is probably
the most satisfactory remedy" for migraines. This fact is widely
known amongst victims of migraine, but it has not been
sufficiently explored by modern science. Z. Volfe, *et al*.,
reported that THC inhibits the release of serotonin from blood
plasma platelets during migraine attacks, but the significance
of the finding is unknown. **(89-93)**

**2s.**   
***Ulcers*** --- Stomach acid output decreases after the
consumption of cannabis. This fact recommends it for the
treatment of peptic ulcers, colitis, ileitis, spastic colon, and
gastritis. Preparations of cannabis were used for that purpose
in the 1890s. **(94, 95)**

**2t.**   
***Gynecology*** --- Cannabis has been used in the
treatment of hyperemesis gravidum, a rare form of morning
sickness in which the patient suffers from constant nausea and
vomiting. When smoked or eaten during parturition, cannabis
reduces pain and increases uterine contractions more quickly
than ergot alkaloids. Native women in South Africa stupefy
themselves with *dagga* to facilitate delivery. However, a
heavily drugged baby might have a slow heartbeat and impaired
ability to clear mucus from air passages. Dr. J. Grigor
rediscovered the oxytocic properties of Indian hemp in 1852, and
stated:

"It is capable of bringing the labor to a happy conclusion
considerably within half the time that would otherwise have been
required, thus saving protracted suffering to the patient, and
the time of the practitioner."

Cannabis also has been used to treat mastitis, dysmenorrhea,
and post-partum pain, and to increase lactation. **(96, 97)**

In 1883, Dr. John Brown recommended the use of cannabis in
uterine dysfunctions, especially menorrhagia (excessive uterine
bleeding):

"There is no medicine which has given such good results; for
this reason it ought to take the first place as a remedy in
menorrhagia... The failures are so few, that I venture to call
it a specific in menorrhagia."

His contemporary colleague Dr. Robert Batho agreed:

"Considerable experience of its employment in menorrhagia has
convinced me that it is... one of the most reliable means at our
disposal... [Cannabis is] par excellence the remedy for that
condition... It is so certain in its  power of controlling
menorrhagea, that it is a valuable aid to diagnosis in cases
where it is uncertain whether an early abortion may or may not
have occurred..." **(97)**

**2u.**   
**Anti-Oxidant ---**Experiments conducted at the National
Institute of Health (Bethesda MD) in 1998 showed Cannabidiol to
be a potent anti-oxidant, even more effective than Vitamins C or
E. The researchers induced ischemic strokes in rats, then
treated them with CBD to neutralize free radicals which cause
much of the damage associated with such strokes. The Israeli
company Pharmos is conducting human clinical trials with the
synthetic cannabinoid Dexnibinol to treat damage from strokes.
CBD potentially offers an optional treatment (and possible
prevention) of stroke, heart attacks, and neurodegenerative
conditions such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases. **(98)**

![](glowbar.gif)

**3.**   
**Hempseed & Nutrition**

Legend says that Gautama Buddha ate only one hemp seed a day
for six years while he waited for nirvana.Hempseed is
eaten by many of India's poor people. A mixture called *bosa*
consists of the seeds of Eleusine and hemp, and *mura* is
made with parched wheat, amaranth or rice, and hempseed. The
seeds are said to make all vegetables more palatable and
complete foods. Sometimes it is an ingredient in chutney. *Bhang*
and ripe hempseed also is used to flavor or strengthen the
formulations of some alcohol beverages.

Hempseed has served as a primary famine food in China,
Australia, and Europe as recently as World War Two. Medieval
Christian monks ate hempseed gruel every day. Even in modern
times, mothers of the Sotho tribe in South Africa are known to
feed their babies with ground hempseed in pap. **(99)**

Hempseed now is an ingredient in food products, including
flour, cheese, ice cream, yogurt, pudding, milk, spreads, candy,
and meat substitutes. Prices are kept high by the cost of
shipping, steam sterilization, repackaging, domestic shipping,
and old equipment.

Hempseed contains all the essential amino acids and fatty
acids, and is considered to be a complete food. The seed or
achene contains 26-31% crude protein, 65% of which is globular
edestin and albumin that is about 84% digestible. Lysine (the
limiting protein in edestin) and other components are destroyed
by the heat generated when hempseed is pressed for its oil.
Addition of 1% lysine hydrochloride will restore the nutritional
balance of heat-treated edestin. The meal also contains about 6%
carbohydrates, 5-10% fat, 12% crude fiber, 10% moisture, and 7%
ash. **(100, 101)**

T.B. Osborne studied hemp edestin and reported on its isolation
and purification in 1892. Until the passage of the infamous
Marihuana Tax Act in 1937, edestin was regarded as a standard
example of the seed globulins (the third most abundant protein
after collagen and albumin). They are vital to the maintenance
of a healthy immune system. **(102, 103)**

The globulin edestin in hempseed closely resembles that found
in human blood plasma, and it is easily digested, absorbed, and
utilized. Hemp edestin is so completely compatible with the
human digestive system, that the Czechoslovakian Tubercular
Nutrition Study (1955) found hempseed to be the only food that
can successfully treat the consumptive disease tuberculosis, in
which the nutritive processes are impaired. **(104)**

When hempseed is fed to poultry on a regular basis, the birds
do not go "off feed", and they do not require hormones to fatten
them. Egg production also is increased. Hempseed meal has an
effect analogous to that of grit in chicken diets in as much as
the gizzard linings are found to be free of corrugations and
erosions. **(105-107)**

In *Systema Agriculturae* (1675), John Worlidge
commented:

"Hemp seed is much commended for the feeding of poultry and
other fowl, so that where plenty thereof may be had, and a good
return for fowl, the use thereof must needs be advantageous..."

![](glowbar.gif)

**4.**   
**Hempseed Oil**

Hempseed oil is used in paints, varnishes, inks and lubricants.
When exposed to air, the fatty acids in hempseed oil form a hard
film which makes it very useful in the manufacture of paints.
The cellulose and other organic chemicals in cannabis can serve
as feedstock for the manufacture of plastics and other synthetic
substances. The oil has excellent surfactant properties which
are put to use in several new hygiene products such as soap,
shampoo, cosmetics and balms. For example, the SATIVA Gmbh
(Germany) manufactures a detergent from hempseed oil and
ruptured yeast; it removes stains with high efficiency, due to
its very low surface tension. The detergent is used as an
industrial cleaner for engines, and to clean
petroleum-contaminated soil. It is completely bio-compatible and
uses no phosphates, enzymes, or bleaches.

30-35% of the weight of hempseed is oil containing 80% of the
unsaturated essential fatty acids (EFA), Linoleic Acid (LA, 55%)
and Linolenic Acid (LNA, 21-25%). These are not manufactured by
the body and must be supplied by food. The oil also contains
about 8% by volume of palmitic, stearic, oleic and arachidic
acids. The 80% EFAs in hempseed oil is the highest total
percentage amongst the common plants used by man. Flax oil ranks
second with 72% EFAs. The EFAs are very sensitive to heat, light
and oxygen. For this reason, hempseed oil must be processed and
stored carefully (in the cold, dark, and under vacuum) to
preserve the potency of the EFAs. The fatty acid composition (%
of total oil) of hempseed oil is: 18:3w3 (20%), 18:2w6 (60%),
18:1w9 (12%), 18:0 (2%), and 16:0 (6%).

EFAs are precursors to the prostaglandin series (PGE 1,2, &
3). PGE 1 inhibits the production of cholesterol and dilates
blood vessels, and it prevents the clotting of blood platelets
in arteries. A. Kemmoku, *et al*., found that a diet of
hempseed causes the serum levels of total cholesterol to drop
dramatically. Blood pressure also decreases after several weeks
of eating hempseed, due to the steady, adequate supply of EFAs.**(108-110)**

U. Erasmus, author of *Fats that Heal, Fats that Kill*,
states that the proportions of Linoleic Acid (LA) and Linolenic
Acid (LNA) in hempseed oil are perfectly balanced to meet human
requirements for EFAs, including gamma-linoleic acid (GLA).
Unlike flax oil and others, hempseed oil can be used
continuously without developing a deficiency or other imbalance
of EFAs. The peroxide value (PV, the degree of rancidity) of
hempseed oil is only 0.1-0.5, which is very low and safe and
does not spoil its taste. In comparison, the PV of virgin olive
oil is about 20, and the PV of corn oil is about 40-60. **(111-116)**

A study conducted by Struempler and Nelson (Univ. of Utah) in
1997 indicates that legal hempseed oil contains enough
cannabinoids to produce a positive result with standard urine
drug test procedures. Samples continued to test positive for two
days after the subject stopped ingesting hempseed oil. This
effect has caused consternation in the drug-testing industry,
and has led to lawsuits. The drug-testing industry is lobbying
to ban hempseed oil.  **(116)**

![](glowbar.gif)

**Table 1**   
**Properties of Hempseed Oil**

![](glowbar.gif)

**Table 2**   
**Fatty Acid Analysis of Hemp Seed Oil**

![](glowbar.gif)

**Table 3**   
**General Analysis of Hemp Seed**

![](glowbar.gif)

**Table 4**   
**Typical Minera l Assay of Hemp Seed**

![](glowbar.gif)

**Table 5**   
**Typical Protein Analysis of Hemp Seed**

![](glowbar.gif)

**5.**   
**Public Health**

The public health effects of cannabis consumption have been
examined repeatedly by official panels, beginning with the
Indian Hemp Drugs Commission in 1893. None of the studies have
found reason to proscribe cannabis, and several have recommended
that it be legalized.

**5a.**   
***The Indian Hemp Drugs Commission***
(1893-94) --- In the 1870s, it was common practice for
government officials in India to blame ganja as a cause of
insanity and crime, since users of ganja were poor, helpless,
and convenient scapegoats. In 1871, the Indian Secretary of
State directed all local administrators to inquire into the
ganja problem. After reviewing the correspondence it received,
the government duly announced that there was no proof that hemp
drugs caused criminal behavior any more than any other drugs,
such as opium or cocaine. The government also stated:

"There is no doubt that its habitual use does tend to produce
insanity, the total number of cases of insanity is small in
proportion to the population, and not large enough [to be of
concern] even in proportion to the number of ganja smokers..."

Local officials were not convinced and continued to complain.
Another commission was appointed in 1877 to study the issue. It
was determined that the only way to reduce consumption was to
make "the tax on this article as high as it can possibly bear":

"The policy of Government must be to limit its production and
sale by a high rate of duty without placing the drug entirely
beyond the reach of those who will insist upon having it."

Eventually the English bureaucrats also began to complain,
until The Indian Hemp Drug Commission was established to study
the issue. The commissioners did an excellent job, questioning
the morality of hemp use, the possibility of controlling its
cultivation, the grade of cannabis used (bhang, charas, or
ganja), and the problem of admixtures of opium, datura, etc..

The Commission also studied the extent of use of hemp as a
drug, its social and religious usage, its physical and
psychological effects, and its relation to insanity and crime.
When the Commission investigated the "very sketchy" records of
insane asylums, they found that cannabis had been scapegoated:

"It is a common practice to enter hemp drugs as the cause of
insanity where it has been shown that the patient used these
drugs," and to change the reported "cause of insanity" from
"unknown" to "ganja smoking"...

"It must be borne in mind that it is impossible to say that the
use of hemp drugs was in all [61 of 222] cases the sole cause of
insanity, or indeed any part of the cause... Taking these
accepted cases as a whole, we have a number of instances where
the hemp drug habit has been so established in relation to
insanity that, admitting (as we must admit) that hemp drugs as
intoxicants cause more or less of cerebral stimulation, it may
be accepted as reasonably proved, in the absence of evidence of
other causes, that hemp drugs do cause insanity...

"Summary of conclusions regarding effects... It has been
clearly established that the occasional use of hemp in moderate
doses may be beneficial; but this use may be regarded as
medicinal in character. It is rather to the popular and common
use of the drugs that the Commission will now confine their
attention...

"In regard to the physical effects, the Commission have come to
the conclusion that the moderate use of hemp drugs is
practically attended by no evil results at all... The moderate
use of hemp drug appears to cause no appreciable physical injury
of any kind... As in the case of other intoxicants, excessive
use tends to weaken the constitution and to render the consumer
more susceptible to disease... It is but rarely that excessive
indulgence in hemp drugs can be credited with inciting to crime
or leading to homicidal frenzy...

"Total prohibition of the cultivation of the hemp plant for
narcotics... is neither necessary nor expedient in consideration
of their ascertained effects... When subjected to careful
examination, the grounds on which the allegations [against hemp]
are founded prove to be in the highest degree defective."**(117-119)**

**5b.**   
***The Canal Zone Studies*** --- The
Republic of Panama prohibited the "cultivation, use and
consumption of the herb Kan-Jac" (cannabis) in 1923. At the same
time, reports of American soldiers smoking the drug prompted the
provost marshal to prohibit its possession by military personnel
in the Canal Zone. A formal committee was convened in April 1925
to investigate the issue. Col. J.F. Siler (chairman of the
committee), *et al*., observed some soldiers, four
doctors, and two police officers smoking marijuana without ill
effect. Lt. Col. Chamberlain declared:

"I think we can safely say, based upon samples we have smoked
here and upon the reports of individuals concerned, that there
is nothing to indicate any habit forming tendency or any
striking ill effects. All of the statements to the effect that
two or three puffs produce remarkable effects are nonsense,
judging from our experience."

In its report to the governor, the committee recommended:

"No steps [should] be taken by the Canal Zone authorities to
prevent the sale or use of marihuana... There is no evidence
that marihuana, as grown and used is a 'habit-forming' drug in
the sense in which the term is applied to alcohol, opium,
cocaine, etc., or that it has any appreciable deleterious
influence on the individuals using it... The influence of the
drug when used for smoking... apparently has been greatly
exaggerated. Most of the reports appear to have little basis in
fact. There is no medical evidence that it causes insanity...
The British [Indian Hemp Drugs Commission] which investigated
the effects of Cannabis sativa... came to the conclusion that...
most of the effects attributed to it were due to other
substances (opium, datura, stramonium, cantharides, etc.) added
to the preparations which were used...."

Repeated investigations in 1929 and 1931 produced the same
results. Col. Siler's summary of the Canal Zone investigations
was published in *Military Surgeon* (November 1933):

"The Committee reached the following conclusions:

"There is no evidence that marijuana  as grown here is a
'habit-forming' drug in the sense in which the term is applied
to alcohol, opium, cocaine, etc., or that it has any appreciable
deleterious influence on the individual using it...

"Delinquencies due to marijuana smoking... are negligible in
number when compared with delinquencies resulting from the use
of alcoholic drinks which also may be classed as stimulants and
intoxicants. **" (120, 121)**

Years later during the Vietnam War, the drug problem certainly
did exist for the military, and it was severely complicated by
the easy availability of opiates and by the CIA's trafficking of
heroin. It was estimated that about 60% of the US soldiers in
Vietnam used marijuana to make their situation tolerable.

**5c.**   
***The LaGuardia Committee Report*** --- In 1938, while
Frank H. LaGuardia was mayor of New York, he requested that the
N. Y. Academy of Medicine appoint a special subcommittee "to
make a survey of existing knowledge on this subject [marijuana]
and carry out any observation required to determine the
pertinent facts regarding this form of drug addiction and the
necessity for its control." In 1944, Mayor LaGuardia's Committee
on Marihuana published its report, *The Marihuana Problem in
the City of New York*. The study was comprised of
sociological, clinical, and pharmacological studies. The
clinical study considered medical aspects (symptoms, behavior,
and organic and systemic functions, addiction, tolerance, and
possible therapeutic applications), psychological and
intellectual functioning, emotional reactions, general
personality structure, and family and community ideologies.

In its final report, the Committee drew the following
conclusions (among others):

"The practice of smoking marijuana does not lead to addiction
in the medical sense of the word... The use of marihuana does
not lead to morphine or heroin or cocaine addiction and no
effort is made to create a market for these narcotics by
stimulating the practice of marihuana smoking. Marihuana is not
the determining factor in the commission of major crimes...
Juvenile delinquency is not associated with the practice of
smoking of marihuana. The publicity concerning the catastrophic
effects of marihuana smoking in New York City is unfounded...

**"**Indulgence in marihuana does not appear to result in
mental deterioration... Under the influence of marihuana the
basic personality structure of the individual does not change,
but some of the more superficial aspects of his behavior show
alteration... [A comparison between users and non-users]
accustomed to daily smoking for a period of from two and a half
to sixteen years, showed no abnormal system functioning which
would  differentiate them from the non-users. There is
definite evidence in this study that marihuana smokers were not
inferior in intelligence to the general population and that they
suffered no mental or physical deterioration as a result of
their use of the drug."

When subjects were tested for their family values and
ideologies while under the influence of marihuana, it was found:

"The only very definite change as a result of the ingestion of
marihuana was in their attitude toward the drug itself. Without
marihuana only 4 out of 14 subjects said they would tolerate the
sale of marihuana while after ingestion 8 of them were in favor
of this." **(122)**

**5d.**   
***The Wooton Report ---*** The British Advisory
Committee on Drug Dependence appointed the Hallucinogens
Sub-Committee, chaired by Baroness Barbara Wooton of Abinger, to
review the literary evidence about cannabis. The *Wooton
Report on Cannabis*, issued in 1968, confirmed earlier
studies:

"Having reviewed all the material available to us we find
ourselves in agreement with the conclusion reached by the Indian
Hemp Drugs Commission appointed by the Government of India
(1893-1894) and the New York Mayor's Committee on Marihuana
(1944) that the long-term consumption of cannabis in moderate
doses has no harmful effects." **(123, 124)**

**5e.**   
***The Shafer Commission*** --- The Comprehensive Drug
Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 also established the
national Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, chaired by
former Pennsylvania Governor Raymond Shafer. In summary, the
commission concluded:

"WHO USES THE DRUG? At least 24 million Americans over the age
of 12 have used marihuana at least once, and at least 8.3
million are current users. Two percent (500,000) of the
'ever-users' can be classified as heavy users and use the drug
more than once a day.

"EFFECTS OF MARIHUANA ON THE INDIVIDUAL: There is no evidence
that experimental or intermittent use of marihuana causes
physical or psychological harm...

"The immediate effects of marihuana intoxication on the
individual's organs or bodily functions are transient and have
little or no permanent effect. However, there is a definite loss
of some psychomotor control and a temporary impairment of time
and space perception.

"No brain damage has been documented relating to marihuana use.

"There is no reported case of a single human fatality in the
United States proven to have resulted solely from the use of
marihuana.

"No reliable evidence exists to indicate that marihuana causes
genetic defects in man.

"Psychosis resulting from marihuana use is extremely rare and
such reactions tend to occur in predisposed individuals.

"MARIHUANA & PUBLIC SAFETY: The evidence indicates that
marihuana does not cause violent or aggressive behavior or
crime.

"Recent research has not proven that marihuana use
significantly impairs driving ability...

"MARIHUANA & THE PUBLIC HEALTH & WELFARE: The present
level of marihuana use in American society does not constitute a
threat to the public health.

"Although some segments of society fear that marihuana use
leads to idleness and "dropping out", little likelihood exists
that the introduction of a single element such as marihuana
would significantly change the basic personality of any person;
rather, an individual is more likely to "drop out" when
circumstances join to produce psychological pressures which he
cannot handle effectively.

"Except for some individuals for whom drug-taking, perhaps
including marihuana use, has become a central figure of their
lifestyles, the marihuana user is not "sick" or in need of
"treatment".

"MARIHUANA & OTHER DRUGS: The overwhelming majority of
marihuana users do not progress to drugs other than alcohol,
although statistically marihuana users are more likely to
experiment with other drugs than non-users. In general, a person
willing to experiment with one drug is more likely to experiment
with another drug than a person not predisposed to experiment to
begin with...

"The weakest link between marihuana use and use of other drugs
is between marihuana and heroin; about 4% of those who have
tried marihuana have also tried heroin."

In its summary, the Commission noted:

"Once existing policy was cast into the realm of public debate,
partisans on both sides of the issue over-simplified the
question of the effects of the drug on the individual.
Proponents of the prohibitory legal system contended that
marihuana was a dangerous drug, while opponents insisted that it
was a harmless drug or was less harmful than alcohol or tobacco.

"Any psychoactive drug is potentially harmful to the
individual, depending on the intensity, frequency, and duration
of use. Marihuana is no exception. Because the particular
hazards of use differ for different drugs, it makes no sense to
compare the harmfulness of different drugs. One may compare the
harmfulness of different drugs. One may compare, insofar as the
individual is concerned, only the harmfulness of specific
effects. Is heroin less harmful than alcohol because, unlike
alcohol, it directly causes no physical injury? Or is heroin
more harmful than alcohol because at normal doses its use is
more incapacitating in a behavioral sense?

"Assessment of the relative dangers of particular drugs is
meaningful only in a wider context which weighs the possible
benefits of the drugs, the comparative scope of their use, and
their relative impact on society at large...

"Looking only at the effects on the individual, there is little
proven danger of physical or psychological harm from
experimental or intermittent use of the natural preparations of
cannabis, including the resinous mixtures commonly used in this
country. The risk of harm lies instead in the heavy, long-term
use of the drug, particularly of the most potent preparations.

"The experimenter and the intermittent users develop little or
no psychological dependence on the drug. No   
organ injury is demonstrable...

"Total prohibition is functionally inappropriate. Apart from
the philosophical and constitutional constraints... a total
prohibition scheme carries with it significant institutional
costs. yet it constributes very little to the achievement of our
social policy. In some ways it actually inhibits the success of
that policy.

"The primary goals of a prudent marihuana social control policy
include preventing irresponsible use of the drug, attending to
the consequences of such use, and deemphasizing use in general.
Yet an absolute prohibition of possession and use inhibits the
ability of other institutions to contribute actively to these
objectives. For example... the illegality of possession and use
creates difficulties in achieving an open, honest educational
program, both in the schools and in the home." **(125)**

The Commission recommended changes in the Federal law, thus:

"Possession of marihuana for personal use would no longer be an
offense, but marihuana possessed in public would remain
contraband subject to summary seizure and forfeiture. Casual
distribution of small amounts of marihuana for no renumeration,
or insignificant renumeration not involving profit would no
longer be an offense."

Instead of heeding the sage advise of the Shafer Commission,
President Nixon declared "war on drugs" in a message to Congress
on June 17, 1971, and we now suffer accordingly.

**5f.**   
***The Jamaica Study*** --- In 1970,
the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Center for
Studies of Narcotic and Drug Abuse sponsored the Jamaica Study,
"the first project in medical anthropology to be undertaken
and... the first intensive, multi-disciplinary study of
marijuana use and users to be published." **(126-129)**

The Jamaica project staff studied the legislation,
ethnohistory, and social complex of ganja, and the acute effects
of smoking in a natural setting. Clinical studies were
conducted, and examinations made of respiratory function and
hematology, electroencephalography, and psychiatric evaluations
and psychological assessments ere made of the 70 subjects. The
complex ganja culture from which the subjects were drawn
pervades and greatly influences the working-class community. In
some communities, 50% of the males over 15 smoked ganja
regularly, and only 20% were non-smokers.

In his forewords to Vera Rubin and L. Comitas' *Ganja in
Jamaica* (1975), Raymond Shafer (Chairman of the Shafer
Commission, v.i.) stated:

"While Americans are concerned with the alleged 'amotivational'
and drug escalation effects of marihuana, ganja in Jamaica
serves to fulfill values of the work ethic; for example, the
primary use of ganja by working class males is as an energizer.
Furthermore, there is no problem of drug escalation in the
Jamaican working class; as a multipurpose plant, ganja is used
medicinally, even by non-smokers, and is taken in teas by women
and children for prophylactic and therapeutic purposes. For such
users, there is no reliance even on potent medicines,
amphetamines or barbiturates, let alone heroin and LSD. Further,
the use of ganja appears to be a "benevolent alternative" to
heavy consumption of alcohol by the working class. Admissions to
the mental hospital in Jamaica for alcoholism accounts for less
than 1% annually, in contrast to other Caribbean areas where
ganja use is not pervasive and admission rates for alcoholism
are as high as 55%.

"This study indicates that there is little correlation between
use of ganja and crime, except insofar as the possession and
cultivation of ganja are technically crimes. There were no
indications of organic brain damage or chromosome damage among
the subjects and no significant clinical (psychiatric,
psychological or medical) differences between the smokers and
controls. The single medical finding of interest, and this is a
trend, is the indication of functional hypoxia among heavy,
long-term chronic users. Ganja is customarily mixed with
tobacco, and ganja smokers are also heavy cigarette smokers...
It was impossible to distinguish between clinical effects of
ganja and tobacco smoking and cigarette smoking; it is,
consequently suggested that smoking per se may be a factor in
this finding.

"Despite its illegality, ganja use is pervasive, and duration
and frequency are very high; it is smoked over a longer period
in greater quantities with greater THC potency than in the
United States, without deleterious social or psychological
consequences. The major difference is that both ganja use and
expected behaviors are culturally conditioned and controlled by
well-established tradition. The findings throw new light on the
cannabis question, particularly that the relationship between
man and marihuana is not simply pharmaceutical, and indicate the
need for new approaches."

The Jamaica Study also afforded due respect to the Rastafari
religion, in which ganja is regarded as a sacrament and a gift
of God:

"In addition, ganja, unlike alcohol, has special symbolic
attributes. Rastafarian metaphysics, for example, emphasizes and
brings into focus general concepts derived from working-class
views of ganja. For them, it is "the wisdom weed" of divine
origin, an elixir vitae, documented by Biblical chapter and
verse which over-rides man-made proscriptions. Religious
authority thus validates and fortifies commitment to its use;
there is no need to invoke religious validations of alcohol
consumption, which is legally and socially accepted. While
drinking in the local bar may enhance feelings of sociability,
the sacred ganja permits a sense of religious communication,
marked by meditation and contemplation."

Melanie Dreher, an anthropologist at the University of Miami,
was a key member of the Jamaica team. In her study, entitled *Working
Men and Ganja*, she found that the drinking of ganja tea or
tonic extracts is widespread, even by non-smokers and children:

"The health-rendering effects of these preparations are
reported for a wide variety of general and specific disorders
including the alleviation of symptoms specific to arthritis,
rheumatism, gonorrhea, hypertension, asthma, bronchitis, urinary
retention, recurrent malaria, impotence, vision problems,
dermatological eruptions, pneumonia, colds, and various
intestinal complaints. Ganja teas and tonics are particularly
recommended for children... The preparations are administered to
children to cure marasmus and infant diarrhea, relieve the pain
of teething, and in general provide an all-purpose medicine for
the young..."

**5g**.   
***The Costa Rica Study*** ---In
1971, the University of Florida and National Institute of Health
(NIH) cooperated in a study led by William Carter, *et al*.,
of *Chronic Cannabis Use in Costa Rica*. 84 cannabis
smokers and 156 controls who had never smoked ganja were
subjected to a battery of sophisticated medical and
psychological examinations. The results were equivalent to those
of the Jamaica study, with few notable differences: the
similarities outweighed the differences  between users and
non-users, and ganja smokers generally enjoyed longer-lasting
relationships with their mates. The Costa Rica project also
examined testosterone levels and immunology as affected by
cannabis. No relation was found between cannabis use and
testosterone levels, nor were the subjects' immune functions
impaired. The neurophysiological functions, intelligence and
personality of the subjects did not differ significantly from
the matched controls. Chronic cannabis consumption did not
impair intelligence or cause any apparent brain damage. In
short, the Costa Rica study found no significant health
consequences to chronic cannabis smokers.

The NIH refused to accept the report for publication, demanding
that it be rewritten three times. Still not satisfied, the NIH
then had it rewritten by another editor, and then printed only
300 copies. Fortunately, a copy of the original version was
leaked to NORML, which made it public. **(130-132)**

**5h.**   
***The Greek Study ---*** In their
study of hashish-smokers in Greece, conducted in 1975, C.N.
Stefanis and M.R. Issodorides presented microphotographs of
damaged human sperm and suggested that the low arginine content
in the sperm nuclei indicated "deviant maturation". However, it
was later revealed that the photographs had been retouched; the
study was fraudulent. Stefanis and Issodorides were obliged to
issue a "correction of misinformation" in the journal *Science*.**(133-136)**

**5i.**   
***The Coptic Study*** --- This 1981
study by two UCLA psychologists, Drs. J. Thomas and Jeffrey
Schaeffer tested the physical and mental health of 10 members of
the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church, whose members believe that the
use of ganja is a spiritual act. The church has been given
official recognition as an organized religion by the governments
of Jamaica and Florida. The Coptic Study showed that the IQs of
these people actually increased since they began to use ganja. **(137)**

**5j.**   
***The Expert Group*** --- In 1982,
the British Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs released its
*Report of the Expert Group on the Effects of Cannabis Use*,
in which it offered the following conclusions:

"1. There is insufficient evidence to enable us to reach
incontestable conclusions as to the effects on the human body on
the use of cannabis;   
"2. But that much of the research undertaken so far has failed
to demonstrate positive and significant harmful effect in man is
attributable solely to cannabis;

"3. Nevertheless in a number of areas there is evidence to
suggest that deleterious effects may result in certain
circumstances;   
"4. There is a continuing need for further research,
particularly of the epidemiological characteristics of cannabis
use and on the effects of its long-term use by humans;

"5. There is evidence to suggest that the therapeutic use of
cannabis or of substances derived from it for the treatment of
certain medical conditions may, after further research, prove to
be beneficial." **(138)**

**5k.**   
***The Relman Committee*** --- In
1982, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academy of
Sciences issued its comprehensive report on *Marihuana and
Health* after a 15-month study of the chemistry and
pharmacology of cannabis, its effects on the respiratory and
cardiovascular systems, brain, and other biological systems,
plus the behavioral and psychological effects and cannabis'
therapeutic potential. Their specific conclusions are included
in the sections following. **(139)**

**5l.**   
***The LeDain Commission* ---**The
Canadian government a Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical
Use of Drugs in May 1969. It was popularly called the LeDain
Commission after its chairman, Gerald LeDain (Dean of Osgoode
Hall Law School, York University, Toronto). In its 320-page *Interim
Report* (April 1970), the commission described the need to
legalize the simple possession of cannabis (and other
psychoactive drugs) in terms of the cost of prohibition:

"Its enforcement would appear to cost far too much, in
individual and social terms, for any utility which it may be
shown to have... The present cost of its enforcement, and the
individual and social harm caused by it, are in our opinion, one
of the major problems involved in the non-medical use of
drugs... Insofar as cannabis, and possibly the stronger
hallucinogens like LSD, are concerned, the present law against
simple possession would appear to be unenforceable, except in a
very selective and discriminatory kind of way. This results
necessarily from the extent of use and the kinds of individual
involved. It is obvious that the police cannot make a serious
attempt at full enforcement of the law against simple
possession...

"The Commission is of the opinion that no one should be liable
for imprisonment for simple posssession of a psychotropic drug
for non-medical purposes...

"Many of the young people who have appeared before us have been
critical of the drug education to which they have been exposed.
In particular, they have said that the attempts to use 'scare
tactics' have 'backfired' and destroyed the credibility of sound
information...

"The conclusion we draw from the testimony we have heard is
that it is a grave error to indulge in deliberate distortion or
exagerration concerning the alleged dangers of a perticular
drug, or to base a program of drug education upon a strategy of
fear. It is no use playing 'chicken' with young people; in nine
cases out of ten they will accept the challenge...

"1.  The use of marijuana is increasing in popularity
among all age groups of the population, and particularly among
the young;

"2. This increase indicates that the attempt to suppress, or
even to control its use, is failing and will continue to fail
--- that people are not deterred by the criminal law prohibition
against its use;

"3. The present legislative policy has not been justified by
clear and unequivocal evidence of short term or long term harm
caused by cannabis;

**"**4. The individual and social harm (including the
destruction of young lives and growing disrespect for law)
caused by the present use of the criminal law to suppress
cannabis far outweighs any potential for harm which cannabis
could conceivably possess, having regard to the long history of
its use and the present lack of evidence;

"5. The illicit status of cannabis invites exploitation by
criminal elements, and other abuses such as adulteration; it
also brings cannabis users into contact with such criminal
elements and with other drugs, such  heroin, which they
might not otherwise be induced to consider.

"For all of these reasons, it is said, cannabis should be made
available under government-controlled conditions of quality and
availability."

![](glowbar.gif)

**6.**   
**Physical Effects**

Many reports written in the 1970s about the physical effects of
THC and cannabis smoke were grossly biased for political
purposes, no thanks to the infamous Gabriel Nahas and his
coterie of propagandists. Their corruption of the scientific
process severely retarded the progress of cannabis medical
research at that time and since then.The Nahas scandal
is discussed in Section 10 (Propaganda).

**6a.**   
***Smoking*** --- THC is not a
respiratory depressant. However, heavy smoking of
marijuana  (several times daily) causes mild constriction
of airways. Smoking can produce inflammation and aggravate
existing sinusitis, pharyngitis, bronchitis, or coughing.
Antibiotics do not provide relief, but a decrease of consumption
does. Light smoking of marijuana has little effect on breathing,
except for bronchodilation. Many asthmatics are thankful for
this. Ventilatory mechanics and gas exchange remain normal,
except for a transient stimulatory effect on oxygen consumption
and CO2 ventilation. Marijuana decreases the salivary
flow in the maxillary gland, resulting in a dry mouth. **(140-142)**

Alveolar macrophages, the antibacterial mechanisms of the lung,
are slightly affected by water-soluble cytotoxins found in
marijuana smoke, but the reported experimental results are
conflicting and inconclusive. The heat of the smoke depresses
the activity of the ciliated esophageal cells. There is scant
evidence of a direct carcinogenic effect of smoke or tar. Some
experiments with marijuana tar have produced mutations in
several strains of bacteria, and rats which have been painted
with the tar have developed benign skin tumors. Marijuana smoke
has been found to contain many of the same carcinogenic
compounds as tobacco, but to date there have been no cases of
cancer attributed to smoking cannabis. The effect of marijuana
seems to accelerate (rather than initiate) malignant changes.
The traditional water-pipe (hookah or bong) serves well to
mitigate the irritating effects of the smoke. **(143, 144)**

Dr. Paul Donald has presented preliminary circumstantial
evidence of 20 cases of upper aerodigestive tract malignancy
(squamous cell carcinomas of the tongue, lips, neck, tonsils,
etc.) in 20 young patients (average age: 26.2 years) who smoked
marijuana. Only four of the group did not also use tobacco,
alcohol and other drugs. A few of the cases had used cannabis
only occasionally in high school and college. It is questionable
if their use of marijuana was the etiological cause of the
malignancies. Many of the same irritants in tobacco smoke are
found in marijuana smoke, some of them (such as napthalene and
benzopyrene) in greater amounts than in tobacco. Biopsies of
chronic hashish smokers conducted by Tennant and others have
shown cellular abnormalities such as proliferating basal
epithelial cells and atypical cells, but no malignancies.**(145-148)**

Vitamin C and cysteine have been found to reverse or protect
hamster lung tissue cultures against the atypical growth induced
by exposure to marijuana smoke. **(149)**

The most evident and immediate effect of smoking or ingesting
cannabis is a rapid increase in heart rate (up to 90
beats/minute) which diminishes within an hour and poses no
threat to a healthy individual. Blood pressure rises slightly,
and postural hypotension can occur. Premature ventricular
contractions have been reported. Chronic use of cannabis
produces a consistent gain in plasma volume caused by sodium
retention. After a few weeks, smokers develop a tolerance to the
cardiac and psychotropic effects of THC. However, people with
atherosclerosis or other coronary disease are at risk and should
not compromise themselves with cannabis. In a case reported in
1979, a 25 year old man developed an acute subendocardial
infarction after smoking marijuana.  **(150)**

**6b.**   
***Hypothermia*** --- THC produces
hypothermia (lower body temperature) in animals, but experiments
with humans have shown little or no such effect except at high
doses. Instead, skin temperature, metabolic rate, and heart rate
are increased, but core temperature remains unchanged. Marijuana
also inhibits sweating. **(151, 152)**

**6c.**   
***Chrono-Pharmacology*** --- E.L.
Abel found a chrono-pharmacological effect of THC in conjunction
with hypothermia in mice injected with THC in DMSO, morning,
noon and night. The greatest change in body temperature occurs
in the afternoon, and the least change in the morning and at
night. **(153)**

**6d.**   
***Toxicity*** --- Cannabis is
non-toxic. No deaths from an overdose of cannabis have ever been
verified. A few poorly documented reports have listed cannabis
as the cause of death, but closer examination has shown the
accusations to be untenable. **(154-15)**

A few near-fatal intravenous injections of a water extract of
marijuana have been reported. In 1970, one such foolish person
suffered reversible anuritic acute renal failure, hypotension,
tachycardia, transient leukopena, fever, pulmonary venous
congestion, and an enlarged liver. **(157)**

It has been estimated that it would be necessary to chain-smoke
about 800 marijuana cigarettes to kill a human, and even then
one would probably receive a lethal dose of carbon monoxide
first. In comparison, only 60 mg of nicotine or 300 ml of
alcohol can kill a person. The LD50 for THC in
animals is between 20-40 mg/kg/iv, or 800-1400 mg/kg orally
depending on the species. **(158, 159)**

**6e.**   
***Driving*** --- Experimental
studies of driving conducted on test courses have shown that
performance is impaired by marijuana. Judgment, concentration,
and car handling skills are affected, and the influence may
persist for a full day afterward. The determination of marijuana
intoxication requires a blood or urine sample; this has made it
difficult to study  role in driving violations and
accidents. Furthermore, the detrimental effects on motor skills
may persist for several hours after the subjective euphoria has
passed. Comparison of several studies indicates that about 15%
of road accidents involve marijuana. Soderstrom, *et al*.,
found that up to 34.7% of vehicular trauma patients they
examined were under the influence of marijuana. **(160)**

In 1993, police in Memphis TN outfitted an ambulance as a "drug
van" with a toilet, interview area, and videotaping equipment .
They proceeded to make on-the-spot tests of the urine of any
reckless drivers  who appeared not to be drunk. 150 drivers
were sampled; 89 (59%) tested positive for marijuana or cocaine.

Marijuana was implicated in the 1987 crash of a freight train
and a Metroliner, resulting in 16 dead and 48 injured persons.
Cannabinoids were detected in the blood of the conductor of the
freight train, which had run through 3 red signals before the
crash. In 1988, a switchman whose error caused a derailment and
a train crash was found to have smoked marijuana sometime before
the accident.

In 1994, the National Highway Transportation Safety
Administration (NHTSA) released a study made by K.W. Terhune, *et
al.*, in 1992 on "The Incidence and Role of Drugs in
Fatally Injured Drivers" (DOT-HS-808-065). The release of the
report was delayed because it apparently contradicted the
official federal propaganda that illicit drugs constitute a
major danger to drivers. Alcohol was found in 51.5% of 1882 dead
drivers. Only 17% showed traces of other drugs. THC was present
in 6.7%; cocaine in 5.3%, amphetamine in 1.9%, and tranquilizers
in 2.9%, etc. Two-thirds of the drug-using drivers also tested
positive for alcohol.

**6f.**   
***Antidotes*** --- Chinese
herbalists use the mung bean (*Phaseoli radix*) as an
antidote to cannabis intoxication. Hindu Ayurvedic practitioners
treat the effects of ganja with purgations, head baths with cold
water, unction with sandalwood paste, with fragrant and cooling
flowers. Drinks are prepared with sugar, milk and butter, or
with lemonade or other sour drinks. Patients are made to ingest
betel leaves, camphor, and cloves. Silk clothing should be worn,
and sleep is recommended. More recently, it has been found that
Magnesium Pemoline (Cylert) neutralizes the mental effects of
cannabis. **(161)**

**6g**.   
***Potentiation*** --- The Indian
Hemp Drugs Commission reported that the root of *juar* (sorghum)
is employed to increase the potency of *bhang*
preparations, but is considered to be too powerful to use by
itself. The unknown chemical in sorghum reportedly is found only
in cold-weather *ringhi* and *shialu* varieties
raised in the area of Bombay and in the Central Provinces, and
it occurs and disappears "within certain fixed limits of time
and locality." More recently, it was claimed that the "aversive
odor stimulus" of burning hair added to marijuana increased the
"subjective high" and decreased the heart rate in subjects. **(162)**

**6h.**   
***Interactions*** --- The
cannabinoids bind to plasma proteins and may interact with other
drugs thus bound. Cannabinoids are metabolized by hepatic
enzymes and may interact with other drugs (i.e., alcohol,
barbiturates, and theophyllin) by competing for the enzyme
substrate. **(163)**

Prof. Sandra Welch (Virginia Commonwealth Univ.) found that THC
has a pronounced potentiating effect on morphine. At a low dose,
THC increases the analgesic effect of morphine by 500%. At
double the dose of THC, the effect is 10 times greater. The
effect is not additive. Prof. Welch noted:

"One major advantage to a marijuana-morphine combination would
be to reduce both the morphine component and a major morphine
side-effect, depression of the respiratory system. It has
already been confirmed that marijuana has no effect on the
medulla, the center of the brain that controls respiration." **(164)**

THC enhances the depressive effects and prolongs the sleeping
time of barbiturates. It also produces a significant decrease in
heart rate. **(165)**

THC significantly potentiates PCP in a dose-related manner. The
LD50 values are not affected. THC and PCP interact by
potentiating the depressant effects and antagonizing the
stimulating effects of each other. The combined effects also are
attenuated. PCP sometimes is found as a contaminant of street
marijuana, having been added to increase the apparent potency,
and hence the sales value, at a low cost. **(166, 167)**

THC and CBD prolong the sleep time with Quaalude. Reportedly,
on rare occasions, Quaalude has been smoked with marijuana. **(168)**

Marijuana, tobacco, and alcohol often are consumed together,
and their effects are additive, increasing the impairment of
psychomotor performance. Nicotine uniformly augments the
bradycardia and hypothermia effects of THC . **(169-171)**

The mental and cardio-vascular effects of THC and amphetamines
are additive and related to aggregation, not to metabolic
process interactions. At lower doses, THC enhances amphetamine
stimulation; in high doses it blocks the stimulant action. **(172,
173)**

**6i.**   
***Contra-Indications*** ---
Marijuana has been a complicating factor in the emergency
treatment of diabetes. In one case, ingestion of marijuana was
followed by severe diabetic ketoacidosis. Another patient
developed diabetes mellitus following the ingestion of marijuana
over a 3-day period. Plasma glucose and insulin levels increase
after marijuana use. THC has been shown to impair glucose
tolerance in rats, to inhibit the action of exogenous insulin,
and to antagonize the release of endogenous insulin. CBD
antagonizes the action of insulin. **(174, 175)**

The administration of cannabis smoke to dogs receiving
penicillin-G reportedly caused coarse tremors and eleptiform
episodes in 90% of chronically-dosed dogs. Humans are advised to
avoid this combination.

In summary, marijuana should not be used by children or
pubescent youths, pregnant or nursing women, people with chronic
heart, lung, or liver disease or who are diabetic, epileptic, or
psychotic. Nor should anyone operate motor vehicles or other
dangerous machinery while under the influence of cannabis.

**6j.**   
***Contaminants*** --- *Aspergillus
niger*, *Salmonella*, *Chaetomium globosum*,
and other fungi have been found to contaminate cannabis. *Penicillium
chrysogonum* also has been found on hemp; it is pathogenic
to hemp seeds and leaves. M. Chusid, *et al*., reported
that a 17-year old male was debilitated by pulmonary
aspergillosis acquired from smoking marijuana. Outbreaks of
salmonellosis in Ohio and Michigan were linked to marijuana use
in 1981. The symptoms include diarrhea, fever, and abdominal
pain. **(176)**

Some samples of marijuana have been found to be adulterated
with other drugs, particularly PCP, which can produce severe
psychotic reactions. In one reported case, marijuana was soaked
in a solution of scopolomine, dried, and smoked. The result was
an acute though brief psychotic episode. **(177)**

The dust inhaled by soft hemp workers (hacklers and scutchers)
can cause byssinosis or cannabosis, and otherwise causes more
chronic lung disease and lower forced expiratory volume (FEV)
than controls of the same age. Chronic respiratory symptoms
(cough, phlegm, and dyspnea) develop even after exposure to hemp
dust. It is also a mild hemolytic. The degree of hemolysis
increases with the pH. Tracheobronchial lymph nodes develop
immunoblasts and become swollen with increased lymphocytes. A
study of 100 Spanish hemp hacklers showed the average age of
death to be 39,6 years, compared to regular farm workers hose
average lifespan was 67.6 years. **(178-181)**

The oral administration of diadril (25 mg) and 500 mg ascorbic
acid (vitamin C) prevented or restored breathing functions due
to byssinosis.

D. Drachler found that several soldiers who shared a
hashish-pipe contracted Hepatitis-B. Saliva is a vehicle for
transmitting the virus. It is also possible to transmit other
diseases in this manner, making it a dangerous practice. **(182)**

**6k**   
***Immunology*** --- THC or
marijuana has a mild, transient suppressive effect on the immune
system, but hashish has been shown to have a temporary
stimulating effect on the immune system. The reason is unknown.
Some persons develop antibodies in response to marijuana,
sometimes including allergic reactions. Many AIDS patients
consume marijuana to stimulate their appetites and to suppress
vomiting, but the practice  might weaken the immune system
in some cases and introduce salmonella, etc.. **(183-186)**

**6l.**   
***Male Reproduction*** --- THC
inhibits the synthesis of testosterone in Leydig cells by
blocking the cleavage of cholesterol ester. THC produces a mild,
reversible effect on sperm production, but does not seem to have
a negative effect on male fertility. Various animal and human
studies have measured reduced weights of the testes and prostate
gland, lower levels of testosterone in blood plasma, and
suppressed spermatogenesis after acute or chronic administration
of THC or cannabis. **(187)**

A few cases of "pubertal arrest" have been reported, i.e., a
17-year old male who had smoked marijuana several times daily
since age 11, yet still had not attained puberty. After a few
months of abstinence, his growth accelerated, his sex organ
enlarged, and his levels of testosterone and luteinizing hormone
(LH) rose to normal levels.

In 1974, R. Kolodny, *et al*., reported that the levels
of LH, plasma testosterone,  follicle-stimulating hormone,
prolactin, and sperm counts of 20 men who regularly smoked
marijuana were significantly lower than controls. The report
sparked a controversy that has smoldered for years since then.
J. Mendelson, *et al*., J. Coggins, *et al*., and
other researchers obtained other results, attributed to
differences in study designs, routes of administration, the
potency and purity of the drug, and bias. Because the hormonal
suppression of spermatogenesis takes more than 4 weeks to
develop, W. Hembree, *et al*., concluded that the observed
short-term effects are caused by direct action upon the
seminiferous tubular epithelium. Possibly this could lead to the
development of a new type of male contraceptive. **(188-191)**

In the Jamaica project study of subjects' chromosomes, the
researchers reported:

"No abnormal configurations, exchanges or dicentrics were
seen... Chronic cannabis smoking appears to have no significant
effect on the mitotic chromosomes of human peripheral blood
lymphocytes in the Jamaican male. The incidence of mild
chromatid breakage... was no higher than that found randomly in
other studies...

"These findings lend no support to the recent allegation that
chromosome damage... even in those who use cannabis "moderately"
is roughly the same type and degree of damage as in persons
surviving atom bombing..."

A study by Dr. Donald Tashkin, *et al.* (UCLA), published
in 1997, found that habitual smokers of marijuana do not suffer
a greater annual rate of decline in their lung function than do
non-smokers. Their report concluded:

"Findings from the present long-term, follow-up study of heavy,
habitual marijuana smokers argue against the concept that
continuing heavy use of marijuana is a significant risk factor
for the development of [chronic lung didease]... Neither the
continuing nor the intermittent marijuana smokers exhibited any
significantly different rates of decline... No differences were
noted between even quite heavy marijuana smoking and nonsmoking
of marijuana."

In contrast, tobacco-only smokers suffered a significant rate
of decline in their lung functions. It was noted that regular
marijuana-smokers are more likely to suffer mild bronchitis or
wheezing than non-smokers.

**6m.**   
***Gynecomysteia*** --- The
enlargement of breast glands in males is a common transient
occurrence among adolescents. Gynecomysteia also is caused by
cirrhosis of the liver, by testicular, adrenal and pituitary
tumors, and by steroids, amphetamines, and other drugs. In 1972,
J. Harmon and M. Aliapoulios presented 14 cases of breast
development in young men who had smoked marijuana for several
years. Other causes were excluded. Three patients enjoyed a
decrease in breast development after abstaining from marijuana.
A controlled study of 11 gynecomastic US soldiers in Germany
found only "a non-association between idiopathic gynecomysteia
and chronic cannabis use." Experiments with rats showed that THC
stimulated male breast development, possibly by affecting the
release of pituitary prolactin. Human studies found a transient
increase in serum prolactin concentration. If cannabis does
induce gynecomysteia, it may depend on the dosage, potency,
frequency of use, and the endocrinology of the individual. **(192-195)**

**6n.**   
***Female Reproduction*** ---
Experiments with rats have demonstrated some teratogenic effects
(malformations) and decreased conception caused by cannabis, but
the results are considered to be of marginal relevance to
humans. The route of administration, solvent medium,
concentration and high doses used in the experiments were
extremely unnatural and unrealistic. Insulin, penicillin,
cortisone and aspirin produce the same effects. The Relman
Committee report on *Marijuana and Health* concluded:

"Although there is widespread use of marijuana in young women
of reproductive age, there is no evidence yet of any teratogenic
effects of high frequency or consistent association with the
drug. There are isolated reports of congenital anomalies in the
offspring of marijuana users, but there is no evidence that they
occurred more often in users than in nonusers..." **(196)**

In any case, pregnant women probably should not smoke
marijuana.

Jonathan Buckley studied *in utero* exposure to
marijuana:

"Maternal use of mind altering drugs prior to and during
pregnancy was found to be associated with an 11-fold increased
risk (p=0.003) of ANLL [Acute Non-Lymphatic Leukemia] in
offspring when compared to offspring of controls... We conclude
that, although the association of marijuana exposure *in
utero* and subsequent development of ANLL has not been
firmly established, the evidence is strong enough to justify
further study."

Other investigators have reported that babies born of
marijuana-smoking mothers are shorter, weigh less, and have
smaller heads, and cry less at birth. **(197)**

A study by M.C. Dreher, *et al.*, published in the
journal *Pediatrics* tested 24 Jamaican newborns who had
been exposed to cannabis prenatally, plus 20 non-exposed babies
from socially and economically matched mother. The infants were
compared at day one, three, and thirty by a trained examiner who
was unaware of which babies' mothers smoked. No differences were
found on day 1 or 3, but at day 30 the children of the cannabist
mothers scored much higher in tests of their reflexes, autonomic
stability, and general irritability. The children of heavy
smokers (at least 21 times a week) scored significantly higher
in 10 of the 14 measured characteristics (alertness,
orientation, robustness, regulatory capacity, etc.). No negative
effects were observed. The researchers also offered a
speculation:

"It is possible... that the outcomes at one month are related
to neonatal exposure to marijuana constituents via breast milk.
Nineteen of the mothers reported that cannabis increased their
appetites and relieved their nausea during pregnancy." **(198)**

**6o.**   
***Mutagenesis & Cytogenesis***
--- THC is not carcinogenic, but the tar from marijuana smoke
has been shown to produce mutations in bacteria, and skin tumors
on rats painted with the tar. Extensive testing by H. Glatt, *et
al*., A. Zimmerman, *et al*., and others failed to
demonstrate any mutagenic effect or any inhibition of DNA
repair. Despite the worst efforts of Gabriel Nahas and his
colleagues, other researchers and peer reviews have determined
that marijuana and THC do not cause chromosome damage. However,
it may affect chromosome segregation during the course of cell
division, resulting in daughter cells with abnormal numbers of
chromosomes. **(199-201)**

After examining the available evidence, the Relman Committee
concluded:

"A variety of effects on cellular processes have been reported,
usually based on studies of *in vitro* systems. The low
water solubility of the cannabinoids and the need to add
solvents and emulsifiers, along with the tendency to use higher
*in vitro* concentrations than occurs in living animals,
makes interpretation of such experiments difficult... The weight
of the evidence from *in vitro* cultures of human cells
and from *in vivo* animal and human studies is that
neither marijuana nor THC causes chromosome breaks." **(202-204)**

**6p.**   
***Cerebral Atrophy*** --- In the
1970s, considerable controversy was generated by sensational
reports by R. Heath, *et al*., alleging that smoking
marijuana caused "brain damage." The animals were forced to
smoke large amounts of marijuana in a few minutes through a
smoking machine, without any opportunity to breathe normally:
the animals were suffocated with the smoke. Any brain damage was
certainly caused by oxygen starvation, not by the drug. Other
experiments with rats have demonstrated severe damage to the
hippocampus using huge doses (10-60 mg/kg/day for 60 days), but
such experiments bear no relation to real-life conditions and
are not relevant to humans except for purposes of prohibitionist
propaganda. **(205-207)**

The Relman Committee summarized the issue thus in their report
on *Marijuana and Health*:

"There is substantial controversy about whether marijuana
causes changes in brain structure or in brain cells. Two studies
have reported that marijuana produces changes in brain
morphology. Both suffer sufficiently from methodological and
interpretational defects that their conclusions cannot be
accepted. Furthermore, other studies have not found changes in
morphology...

"There is no persuasive evidence that marijuana causes
morphological changes in brain structure. Electron micrographic
studies of monkey brains indicating morphologic changes are
methodologically flawed and cannot be used as evidence for an
effect of marijuana on brain cell morphology..."

![](glowbar.gif)

**7.**   
**Mental Effects**

Cannabis' mental effects are notorious. They are generally
characterized by euphoria, but that is a simplistic description.
The clinical effects are much more complex, and sometimes
frightening, but apparently benign:   
**7a.**   
***Perception*** --- Marijuana produces a wide spectrum
of perceptual effects. These include mood changes, facilitation
of interpersonal behavior, and reduction of aggressive behavior.
In other words, marijuana usually makes people feel happy,
sociable, and peaceful. A variety of perceptual phenomena have
been recorded by Charles Tart, who made a psychological study of
marijuana intoxication. Characteristic visual perceptions
include patterns, vivid imagery, and improved peripheral vision.
Hallucinations, auras, and dimensional changes occur less often.
The senses of taste, smell, touch and hearing are augmented with
new qualities and greater intensity. Usually there is a craving
for sweets. The sense of time is consistently distorted by
marijuana; events seem to last much longer than they really do.
Another common effect is a strong sense of being here-now. The
phenomenon of *deja vu* occurs more often. In some
subjects, time becomes non-linear. This can be problematic if
the person is not aware of techniques for manipulating the
effect to advantage. Paranormal phenomena such as empathy,
intuition, or telepathy, and mystical experiences often are
reported. Marijuana often is considered to be an aphrodisiac in
that it can enhance sexual experiences. Emotions are felt more
strongly. People often report that they feel more childlike and
open to new experiences. **(208-212)**

Reese Jones repeatedly tested marijuana and placebos containing
no THC, and found that the placebo produced about 60% subjective
"high" responses. Average quality marijuana gave about 70% high
response. Much of the high results from "set and setting" 
(the subject's expectations and surroundings). Cannabis is
unique among drugs in that the user can develop so-called
"reverse tolerance", requiring less and less to get high.

Dr. Andrew Weil elaborated on the concept of a placebo-effect
by marijuana and reverse tolerance in *The Natural Mind*
(1972):

"If all of the so-called psychological effects of marihuana are
really not attributable to marihuana, and if the physical
effects that are attributable to it are so unimpressive, what,
then, is marihuana? Certainly it is about as far from being a
drug as it can be and still merit the name drug rather than
herb. In fact, nutmeg, which we are used to thinking of as a
spice, has far more pharmacologic power than hemp. To my mind,
the best term for marihuana is active placebo -- that is, a
substance whose apparent effects on the mind are actually
placebo effects in response to minimal physiological action...
all psychoactive drugs are really active placebos since the
psychic effect arise from consciousness, elicited by set and
setting, in response to physiological clues... Not surprisingly,
regular marijuana users often find themselves becoming high
spontaneously... The user who correctly interprets the
significance of his spontaneous highs take the first step away
from dependence on the drug to achieve the desired state of
consciousness and the first  step toward freer use of his
nervous system..." **(213)**

**7b.**   
***Adverse Effects ---*** Cannabis sometimes evokes a
panic reaction from naive smokers (and from prohibitionists). As
many as a third of regular users occasionally experience
paranoid or panic reactions, hallucinations, confusion, and
other adverse reactions, especially in unfavorable settings and
at high doses. The problem occurs most often when cannabis is
ingested, apparently because the dose cannot be controlled as it
can with smoking. Medical treatment is rarely sought because the
situation is easily self-controlled in most cases. Chinese
herbalists recommend mung bean as an antidote.

Perhaps the most extreme case on record involved an episode of
"koro" following cannabis-smoking. Koro is a state of acute
anxiety characterized by retraction of the penis into the
abdomen. In this instance, a Hindu man who smoked ganja for the
first time experienced extreme depersonalization and could not
feel his legs:

"He then tried to feel the presence of his legs by deep
pressure with his fingers, and to his utter surprise and horror
he discovered that is penis had seemingly gone inside the
abdomen beyond grasping or holding. At this feeling of "penis
loss" he shouted for help... His friends came hurriedly and
"dragged out" the receded penis manually. He was in a state of
acute psychogenic shock... He was taken to a nearby pond with
his penis held by one of his friends and he was put into the
water... Eventually the victim perceived that the retracting
penis had become stable and regained its usual morphology." **(214)**

The so-called "acute brain syndrome" or delirium attributed to
cannabis abuse is distinguished by mental clouding, perceptual
disturbances, disorientation, impaired goal-directed thinking
and behavior, memory disorders, disruptions of sleep patterns,
and changes in psychomotor control. The symptoms develop quickly
and fluctuate rapidly. The syndrome manifests during drug use
and soon disappears with abstinence. Most of the reported cases
have come from India and the Middle East, where the potency of
cannabis products is generally higher and consumption is more
widespread than in Europe and America. Cases have been reported
among American soldiers in Vietnam and in Europe; the men
recovered in 3 to 11 days and returned to duty. **(215-218)**

A sufficient number of reports have accumulated to indicate a
temporal association between the use of marijuana and the return
of preexisting symptoms of mental illness such as hypomanic
behavior. Schizophrenics may be particularly susceptible to such
relapse. Depressive patients treated with THC have shown a high
incidence of dysphoria reactions. Nonetheless, many psychotic
persons smoke marijuana to relieve their symptoms; this
indicates that negative or positive reactions are highly
individualized. **(219-221)**

**7c.**   
***Learning***--- In state-dependent learning,
information is learned while intoxicated and is best recalled
while intoxicated with the same drug. State-dependent learning
is performed more slowly with marijuana. Recall usually is
impaired, apparently because of poor concentration causing a
deficit in the attention-storage phase of memory. **(222)**

Numerous tests have shown that marijuana has adverse effects on
short-term memory, persisting for 2-3 hours. Some researchers
contend that the effects persist for at least 6 weeks. Some have
gone so far as to claim that marijuana causes brain damage. On
the other hand, Arthur Leccese (Prof. of Psychology, Kenyon
College, OH), has researched the effects of drugs on memory, and
offers a second opinion:

"There is really no evidence that any of the recreational
compounds --- cocaine, marijuana, LSD --- are capable of causing
significant or prolonged brain damage that would have any effect
on anybody's ability to function adequately in a cognitive way.
That is, unless you overdosed. If you're not sure whether you
ever overdosed, then you didn't. I teach a course where we talk
about memory loss as a consequence of brain damage, and if you
scour that literature, you'll find that --- short of overdose
--- the only drugs we know do it are alcohol and other organic
solvents, glue sniffing, stuff like that. The only that is
demonstrated to be certainly associated with brain damage... to
areas involving memory is alcohol." **(223, 224)**

**7d.**   
***Dependence*** --- *The Merck Manual of Diagnosis
and Therapy* (15th edition, 1987) states:

"Chronic or periodic administration of cannabis or cannabis
substances produces some psychic dependence because of the
desired subjective effects, but no physical dependence; there is
no abstinence syndrome when the drug is discontinued.

"Cannabis can be used on an episodic but continual basis
without evidence of social or psychic dysfunction. In many users
the term dependence with its obvious connotations probably is
misapplied.

"Many of the claims regarding severe biologic impact are still
uncertain, but some are not. Despite the acceptance of the "new"
dangers of marijuana, there is still little evidence of biologic
damage even among relatively heavy users. This is true even in
the areas intensively investigated, such as pulmonary,
immunologic, and reproductive function... The chief opposition
to the drug rests on moral and political, and not a toxicologic,
foundation". **(225, 226)**

**7e.**   
***Amotivational Syndrome*** --- Some chronic users of
marijuana exhibit a group of personality changes which
clinicians are wont to call "amotivational syndrome". The
changes include: apathy, loss of ambition and energy, poor
concentration, and a decline in work or scholastic performance.
This group of symptoms also is found in nonsmokers, and it is
not always associated with regular use of marijuana. Since many
troubled individuals seek relief or "escape" in drugs, frequent
use of marijuana can be counter-productive behavior for such
people, and for adolescents in particular. **(227, 228)**

The issue of "amotivational syndrome" largely began in 1971,
when the *Journal of the American Medical Association*
published an article entitled "Effects of Marihuana on
Adolescents and Young Adults", written by Harold Kolansky and
William Moore. It was accompanied by an editorial proclaimation:

"[This study is] the first real evidence based on good research
of the harmful effects of marihuana. Heretofore, medicine has
been able to say only that there was no good evidence of harm
from smoking pot. Now we have some evidence."

Kolansky and Moore described 38 marijuana smokers, 13 to 24
years old:

"[They]showed an onset of psychiatric problems shortly after
the beginning of marihuana smoking; these individuals had either
no premorbid psychiatric history or had premorbid psychiatric
symptoms shortly after the beginning of marihuana smoking; these
individuals had either no premorbid psychiatric history or had
premorbid psychiatric symptoms which were extremely mild or
almost unnoticeable in contrast to the serious symptomatology
which followed the known onset of marihuana smoking... It is our
impression that our study demonstrates the possibility that
moderate-to-heavy use of marihuana by persons with a
predisposition to psychiatric illnesses may lead to ego
decompensation ranging from mild ego disturbance to
psychosis..."

Although the authors showed an association between smoking
marihuana and mental problems, they did not demonstrate causal
relationship, nor did they explain the mechanism of "ego
decompensation", which they repeatedly stated was due to the
"toxic" effect of marihuana. Thus, the damage as done to the
truth, if not the marihuana smokers.

The unqualified report generated a storm of controversy. The
eminent Dr. Lester Grinspoon offered this observation:

"All in all this paper is, from a scientific point of view, so
unsound as to be all but meaningless. Unfortunately, from a
social point of view it will have a great significance in that
it confirms for those people who have a hyperemotional bias
against marijuana all the things they would like to believe
happen as a consequence of the use of marijuana and in turn it
will enlarge the credibility gap which exists between young
people and the medical profession. I am convinced that if the
American Medical Association were less interested in the
imposition of a moral hegemony with respect to this issue and
more concerned with the scientific aspects of this drug this
paper would not have accepted for publication."

In 1990, J. Shedler and J. Block published the results of a
rigorous longitudinal study of 101 youths whom they followed
from age 3 to 23, examining their psychological health in
relation to drug use. The researchers found that adolescents who
had experimented occasionally with drugs, particularly, were
well adjusted. Abusers and non-users were not so happy:

"Adolescents who used drugs frequently were maladjusted,
showing a distinct personality syndrome marked by interpersonal
alienation, poor impulse control, and manifest emotional
distress. Adolescents who had never experimented with any drug
were relatively anxious, emotionally constricted, and lacking in
social skills. Psychological differences between frequent drug
users, experimenters, and abstainers could be traced to the
earliest years of childhood and related to the quality of their
parenting. The findings indicate that (a) problem drug use is a
symptom, not a cause, of personal and social maladjustment, and
(b) the meaning of drug use can be understood only in the
context of an individual's personality structure and
developmental history...

"The most effective drug prevention programs might not deal
with drugs at all... Current efforts at drug 'education' seem
flawed on two counts. First, they are alarmist, pathologizing
normative adolescent experimentation... and perhaps frightening
parents and educators unnecessarily. Second, and of far greater
concern, they trivialize the factors underlying drug abuse,
implicitly denying their depth and pervasiveness." **(229)**

Johnathan Shedler said:

"It's absolutely not the case that experimentation leads to
abuse... The few youths who did become addicts shared three
psychologic factors that made them susceptible: poor impulse
control; unhappiness --- they were anxious, distressed or
depressed; and alienation --- they had few friends, they weren't
invested in anything like sports or family relations."

Psychologist Judith Brook concluded from her similar studies
that "parental support, warmth, responsiveness, affection and
the child's identification with the parent" were fundamental to
prevention of drug abuse in later years, Mellinger, *et al*.,
also refuted the association of marijuana with amotivation;
instead, they found that poly-drug use (alcohol, amphetamines,
cocaine, etc.) is associated with the syndrome. **(230)**

A comparison of marijuana users and non-users revealed that
individuals who did not smoke marijuana scored slightly higher
on psychological tests for sociability, communality,
responsibility, and achievement by conformity, perhaps because
they were "too deferential to external authority, narrow in
their interests and over-controlled." Marijuana smokers scored
higher for empathy and independent achievement, and had better
social perception and more sensitivity to the feelings and needs
of other persons. The researchers concluded that marijuana
smokers possess all the "achievement motivation necessary for
success in graduate school."

Interviews conducted in 1970 by N. Zinberg and A.Weil with
regular and heavy smokers of marijuana revealed that they felt
"bitter about society's attitude toward marijuana... Being
defined as a deviant and law breaker, for something they could
not accept as criminal, had driven them into increasingly
negative attitudes toward the larger society." C. Davis reported
in the *Drug Journal Forum* (1977) that the psychological
health of young marijuana smokers did not appreciably differ
from that of non-users or psychedelic users. **(231, 232)**

*Scientific American* magazine reviewed and evaluated the
many studies claiming to show that drug use in the workplace is
counter-productive or dangerous. It was found that all but one
of the studies were poorly designed or had been misinterpreted.
The single valid study, published in the *Journal of General
Internal Medicine*, found "no difference between
drug-positive and drug-negative employees" in terms of job
performance or evaluations by their supervisors, except for the
fact that 11 persons out of the 158 who passed their drug tests
were fired within a year, while none of those who tested
positive after being hired were dismissed. **(233)**

Contrary to Kolansky and Moore, the Jamaica Study found
otherwise:

"Almost unanimously, informants categorically stated that
ganja, particularly in spliff form, enabled them to work harder,
faster and longer. For energy, ganja is taken in the morning,
during breaks in the work routine, or immediately before
particularly onerous work... The effects of small doses of ganja
in the natural setting are negligible, while concentration on
the work task itself increases markedly after smoking...

"The belief that ganja acts as a work stimulant and the
behavior that this induces casts considerable doubt on the
universality of what has been described in the literature as
'the amotivational syndrome', or a 'loss of desire to work', to
compete, to face challenges. Interests and major concerns of the
individual become centered around marijuana and drug use becomes
compulsive... In Jamaica, and one would suspect in other
cannabis-using, agricultural countries, ganja is central to a
'motivational syndrome', at least on the ideational level.
Ganja... rather than hindering, permits its users to face, start
and carry through the most difficult and distasteful manual
labor..."

[Dr. Andrew] Weil suggests that in the United States
'amotivation' is a cause of heavy marihuana smoking rather than
the reverse.

Melanie Dreher, a member of the Jamaica Study, made a similar
finding:

"[There was] no impairment of the ability to work, no apathy.
In fact, the opposite seemed to be true... But anthropological
findings have been disappointingly underutilized in the forming
of national policy."

Dreher said that members of a presidential commission told her
they weren't interested in the results of her work if it failed
to show negative effects of marijuana use. **(234)**

![](glowbar.gif)

**8.**   
**Neurology**

In 1984, Miles Herkenham and his colleagues at NIMH mapped the
brain receptors for THC, using radioactive analogs of THC
developed by Pfizer Central Research. They found the most
receptors in the hippocampus, where memory consolidation occurs.
There we translate the external world into a cognitive and
spatial "map". Receptors also exist in the cortex, where higher
cognition is performed. Very few receptors are found in the
limbic brainstem, where the automatic life-support systems are
controlled. This may explain why it is so difficult to die from
an overdose of cannabis. The presence of THC receptors in the
nasal ganglia --- an area of the brain involved in the
coordination of movement --- may enable the cannabinoids to
relieve spasticity. Some receptors are located in the spinal
cord, and may be the site of the analgesic activity of cannabis.
A few receptors are found in the testes. These may account for
the effects of THC on spermatogenesis and its alleged
aphrodisiacal properties.

S. Munro, *et al*., located a peripheral CX5 receptor for
cannabinoids in the marginal zone of the spleen. The
Anandamide/cannabinoid receptor site, a protein on the cell
surface, activates G-proteins inside the cell and leads to a
cascade of other biochemical reactions which generate euphoria.
**(235-240)**

CBD antagonizes THC and competes with THC to fill the
cannabinoid receptor site. THC also exerts an inhibitory effect
on acetylcholine activity through a GABA-ergic mechanism. It
significantly increases the intersynaptic levels of serotonin by
blocking its reuptake of into the presynaptic neuron. THC also
elevates the brain level of 5-hydroxy-tryptamine (5-HT) while
antagonizing the peripheral actions of 5-HT. **(241-243)**

In 1990, Patricia Reggio, *et al*., developed a molecular
reactivity template for the design of cannabinoid analgesics
with minimal psychoactivity. The analgesic activity of the
template molecule (9-nor-9b-OH-HHC) is attributed to the
presence and positions of two regions of negative potential on
top of the molecule. The template places all cannabinoid
analgesics on a common map, no matter how dissimilar their
structures.

The brain produces Anandamide (Arachidonylethanolamide), which
is the endogenous ligand of the cannabinoid receptor. It was
first identified by William Devane and Raphael Mechoulam, *et
al*., in 1992. Anandamide has biological and behavioral
effects similar to THC. Devane named the substance after the
Sanskrit word *Ananda* (Bliss). The discovery of
Anandamide and its receptor site has unlocked the door to the
world of cannabinoid pharmacology. **(245-248)**

![](glowbar.gif)

**9.**   
**Compassionate Cannabis**

Robert C. Randall, a glaucoma patient, was arrested in 1975 for
cultivating cannabis. He sustained a defense of "medical
necessity": THC is proven to reduce Intra-Ocular Pressure (IOP)
in glaucoma with negligible side-effects (to wit, euphoria or
anxiety), when other conventional treatments have failed. Over
7,000 Americans go blind from glaucoma each year. More than
250,000 people in the USA suffer from the incurable disease, and
so do millions more worldwide. Being obliged to supply Randall
with legal medical marijuana, the federal government created the
Compassionate Investigative New Drug program, through which
qualified patient could obtain their supply. The application
involved a ludicrous amount of paperwork, and few doctors were
willing to take on the task. The Public Health Service has
suspended the program in 1993. Assistant Health Secretary Philip
Lee wrote: "Sound scientific studies supporting these claims are
lacking despite anecdotal claims that smoked marijuana is
beneficial", but suggested that the PHS may allow privately
funded experiments to determine if cannabis has any health
benefits.

A review of the extant literature on Cannabis shows many
conflicting claims. The results obtained by one researcher or
group often cannot be duplicated by others, and sometimes are
inconsistent in themselves. The  problem may be due to any
of several causes, such as purity of materials, small numbers of
test subjects, different external conditions, routes of
administration, and differences in protocols. The problem has
also been complicated by politically bias pseudo-scientific
studies conducted by such as Gabriel Nahas, *et al*.

Since New Mexico first allowed the medical use of marijuana in
1978, some 40 states have passed similar legislation, but their
programs have been suppressed by federal prohibition, despite
official protests from the states.

**9a.**   
***NORML vs. DEA*** ---The obnoxious
recidivism posed by the various federal agencies which are 
concerned with cannabis, is well-illustrated by the example set
by NORML vs. DEA. The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970
placed marijuana under Schedule I, the most restrictive
classification, thus making it unavailable for medical use. The
provisions of the CSA allow individuals and organizations to
petition for rescheduling. Accordingly, the National
Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) filed a
petition with the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD)
in May 1972, urging the BNDD to reclassify cannabis to Schedule
II so doctors could prescribe it as a medicine. The petition was
summarily rejected without holding public hearings as required
by the CSA, and it was falsely claimed that reclassification
would violate the obligations of the United Nations Single
Convention on Narcotic Substances.

NORML filed suit in the US Court of Appeals, which issued its
decision in January 1974, ordering the BNDD to reconsider the
matter. The BNDD and its successor, the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), did not take action until September 1975,
when the DEA denied NORML's petition "in all respects." NORML
again appealed to the US Court of Appeals, which decided against
the DEA in April 1977 and ordered the agency and the Department
of Health, Education & Welfare (DHEW) to undertake a
scientific and medical evaluation of the petition. Despite
repeated court orders to review the petition, the DEA only
continued to delay and divert the issue. On October 16, 1980,
the Court again ordered the DEA to review the petition "in its
entirety", but the DEA ignored the judgment.

In March 1982, The Food & Drug Administration (FDA)
published a recommendation that pure THC be reclassified to
Schedule II of the CSA. The DEA reclassified THC under Schedule
II in April 1982. The FDA approved synthetic THC for medical use
in June 1985 under the chemical name Marinol.

NORML was joined by the Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics
(ACT), which also filed 13 "patient petitions" with the DEA.
Again and again, NORML and ACT appealed for a review of their
joint petition. After still more delaying action, the DEA saw
fit to conduct hearing, only 15 years after the initial court
order to that effect. The hearings were held from Summer 1986
until Summer 1988 (Docket No. 86-22).

Administrative law judge Francis Young reviewed the documentary
evidence and the testimonies of the many patients and doctors
who appeared as witnesses, and issued his 69-page ruling on
September 6, 1988. He wrote, in part:

"Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest
therapeutically active substances known... The provisions of the
[Controlled Substances] Act permit and require the transfer of
marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II... The cannabis plant
considered as a whole has a currently accepted medical use in
treatment in the United States. There is no lack of accepted
safety for use under medical supervision and it may lawfully be
transferred from Schedule I to Schedule II. The judge recommends
the Administrator transfer cannabis. Based upon the facts
established in this record and set out above, one must
reasonably conclude that there is accepted safety for use of
marijuana under medical supervision... The evidence in this
record clearly shows that marijuana has been accepted as capable
of relieving the distress of great numbers of very ill people,
and doing so with safety under medical supervision. It would be
unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the DEA to continue
to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this
substance in light of the evidence in this record."

While he concluded that the perceived dangers of marijuana do
not outweigh its medical benefits, Judge Young noted that "In
strict medical terms, marijuana is far safer than many foods we
commonly consume."

DEA administrator John Lawn summarily rejected the court's
decision and made his own arbitrary judgment:

"Accounts of these individuals' suffering and illnesses are
very moving and tragic. They are not, however, reliable
scientific evidence... These stories of individuals who treat
themselves with a mind-altering drug, such as marijuana, must be
viewed with great skepticism. There is no scientific merit to
any of these accounts."

In 1989, Lawn charged that advocates of medical cannabis have a
"Dark Ages" mentality and have "attempted to perpetrate a
dangerous and cruel hoax on the American public."

In April 1991, the Appeals Court decided that Lawn "had acted
with a vengeance" to reject Judge Young's recommendation, and
ordered the DEA to restudy its opposition to marijuana. The DEA
then demanded that cannabis must meet a new set of standards for
accepted medical use, based on the Food, Drug & Cosmetic
Act. The DEA required: an acceptable scientific determination
and knowledge of cannabinoid chemistry and its toxicology and
pharmacology in animals, designed on scientific clinical trials
of its effectiveness in humans, general availability,
information about the use of marijuana, general recognition of
cannabis' clinical use in medical journals, texts, and
pharmacopoeia and by physicians associations and other
organizations, and its recognition and use by a majority of
practitioners.

The plaintiffs appealed once more, and on April 1971, a
three-judge panel of the US Courts of Appeal (DC Circuit)
ordered the DEA to reconsider its opposition to marijuana as
medicine and to reevaluate its criteria, which were illogical
and impossible to satisfy. Again, the DEA refused to act, and in
March 1992 issued its final rejection of any petitions to
reschedule cannabis. On February 8, 1994, the US Court of
Appeals upheld the DEA decision to keep marijuana classified as
a Schedule I substance.

Meanwhile, in May 1991, the United Nations deigned to reassign
THC from Schedule I (as established by the 1971 Convention on
Psychotropic Substances) to Schedule II, because the pure
substance has been proven useful for several medical purposes,
and it is "not widely used outside legitimate medical channels."
The Cannabis plant remained in Schedule I, because it is "used
illegally by millions of people worldwide."

In June 1991, Herbert Kleber, the Deputy Director of National
Drug Control Policy, assured the public that anyone with a
legitimate medical need for cannabis would be able to receive a
Compassionate IND. Yet, only about 50 persons ever were approved
for the program. Nonetheless, NIDA processed and distributed
more than 160,000 marijuana cigarettes for human use between
1979 and 1990. James Mason, chief of the Public Health Service
(PHS), canceled the program in March 1992 after a surge of new
applications from AIDS patients. The increase in applications
was prompted by a 1990 court decision supporting the medical
necessity defense posed by Kenneth and Barbara Jenks, a young
Florida couple who contracted AIDS from  a tainted blood
transfusion received by the husband, a hemophiliac. They smoked
home-grown marijuana to relieve the nausea and loss of appetite
caused by AIDS and their AZT treatments. Mason said the
free-marijuana program ended because "If it is perceived that
the Public Health Service is going around giving marijuana to
folks, there would be a perception that this stuff can't be so
bad. It gives a bad signal. I don't mind doing that if there is
no other way of helping these people... But there is not a shred
of evidence that smoking marijuana assists a person with AIDS."
He also claimed that inhalation of marijuana smoke could
aggravate the lung ailment known as pneumocystitis carinii
pneumonia, which afflicts some people with AIDS. Mason said he
also feared that AIDS patients, crazed on marijuana, would be
more likely to practice unsafe sex." A PHS spokesman denied
charges that the move was politically motivated, saying that
Mason made the decision because doctors at the NIMH said
patients who used marijuana could be treated with other drugs
instead. The decision was also influenced by the "apparent
inconsistency of the government manufacturing and distributing
marijuana while it is waging a war on drugs."

DEA Administrator Robert Bonner said, "Claims of marihuana's
medical benefits are a cruel hoax to offer false hope to
desperate people," and he compared the modern movement to
support the medical use of cannabis to when, "a century ago,
many Americans relied on snake oil salesmen to pick their
medicines."

**9b.**   
***The RAP Report* ---** In 1990,
the office of California Attorney General John Van de Kamp tried
to censor the 20th annual report issued by its Research Advisory
Panel (RAP. The office had been mandated to research "the nature
and effects" of marijuana and to provide "compassionate medical
access" to cannabis. The RAP was required to report yearly to
the governor and the Legislature on its research projects. RAP
chairman Edward O'Brien, Jr., strictly limited research and
failed to provide cannabis for qualified patients. Instead, he
insisted on foisting synthetic THC (Nabinol, Marinol, etc.) onto
applicants. The program expired in September 1989 after the
staff members decided that "not enough people had been treated
to justify its extension."

The RAP recommended that the state legislature "immediately
modify" the state's anti-drug policy and permit the cultivation
of cannabis for personal use. Instead, the report was censored
and published with this disclaimer:

"The executive summary and commentary sections of this annual
report have been deleted at the direction of the attorney
general."

Vice Chairman Frederick Meyers, MD, and other panel members
decided to publish the report themselves, an did so. In its
commentary section, the group wrote:

"Our 'War on Drugs' for the past fifty years has been based on
the principle of prohibition and has been manifestly
unsuccessful in that we are now using more and a greater variety
of drugs, legal and illegal...

"Legislation aiming at regulation and decriminalization (not
'legalization') should be formulated as novel efforts that could
be quickly modified if unsuccessful.

"The first suggestions for demonstration legislation,
rationalized and detailed herein are: 1) Permit the possession
of syringes and needles. 2) Permit the cultivation of marijuana.
3) As a first step in projecting an attitude of disapproval by
all citizens toward drug use, take a token action in forbidding
sale or consumption of alcohol in state-supported institutions
devoted in part or whole to patient care and educational
activity...

"As Prohibition failed to stop people from consuming alcohol,
so too have today's drug laws failed to halt drug abuse and may
actually be exacerbating some of the problems associated with
it. We are currently at a similar point in our history where
much of the leadership and a considerable fraction of the public
are coming to question whether prohibition is not equally
unproductive in coping with the drug problems. Clearly the
marijuana laws are unenforceable in the face of the attitudes
and practices of a significant fraction of the population."

![](glowbar.gif)

**10.**   
**Propaganda**

During the 1970s, a spate of research reports were published
claiming that marijuana causes damage to the brain, to
chromosomes, the immune system and the lungs, etc.. Although
those studies have been discredited since then, they continue to
be mongered as facts by prohibitionists will say anything and
stop at nothing to prevent cannabis from coming into its own.
Much of the injury to truth was caused by Gabriel Nahas of
Columbia University. Nahas was appointed to the UN Narcotic
Control Board in  by Secretary General Kurt Waldheim in
1971. Earlier that same year, Nahas (who was an
anesthesiologist) was involved in a scandal over a fraudulent
report of a death attributed to cannabis in Belgium. In his new
position with the UN, Nahas dispensed generous grants to a
clique of colleagues who proceeded to generate numerous biased
and misinterpreted studies alleging to reveal terrible bodily
and mental damage resulting from marijuana use.

The *Journal of the American Medical Association*
published a critical review of Nahas' "essentially moralistic"
book, *Marihuana: Deceptive Weed* (1973), and noted:

"Biased selection and interpretation of studies and omissions
of facts abound in every chapter... So much of the volume is
distorted that one must know the marijuana literature in order
to judge the accuracy of each statement." **(249-251)**

Columbia University held a press conference in 1975 to publicly
dissociate itself from Nahas' embarrassing pseudo-science. In
1976, the National Institute of Health refused to give Nahas any
more money for cannabis research, and in 1983, the National
Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) repudiated his work and cut off
any further funding to him. Nahas left America and moved to
Paris, where he established a prohibitionist organization called
Europe Against Drugs (EurAD) in 1992. Meanwhile, the DEA and
various prohibitionist groups in the USA continue to tout his
phony publications as scientific gospel.

Richard Cowan, then head of NORML, pointed out the dangers of
anti-drug propaganda in the *National Review*:

"The fact is that the "narcotics" bureaucrats had been making a
variety of wild claims about the perils of pot for decades,
making it virtually impossible to do research on the subject.
Today, since they can no longer block all research on the drug,
the narcocrats simply sponsor ideologically reliable researchers
who can be counted on to produce politically useful results. And
conservatives generally swallow it whole, because they do not
apply to marijuana the same high intellectual standards with
which they analyze other subjects, nor do they apply the same
standards to the laws against it that they apply to other
laws...

"In general, the politicization of drug research undermines the
credibility of valid drug information. In the short run, untrue
but frightening reports about the dire effects of pot may result
in reduced consumption. In the long run, these reports will be
seen to be false, and users will, in reaction, disbelieve even
the reports that are true. Even worse, warnings about the
effects of other drugs also lose credibility, with most
unfortunate consequences. Statements such as "marijuana is the
most dangerous drug" are not just harmless hyperbole --- they
necessarily imply that angel dust, speed and heroin are
"safer"...

"Consider the implications of what I am saying, if I am
correct. The narcotics police are an enormous, corrupt
international bureaucracy with billion-dollar budgets, and
multi-billion graft opportunities. They have lied to us for
fifty years about the effects of marijuana and now fund a
coterie of researchers who provide them with "scientific"
support. Some of these people are fanatics who distort the
legitimate truth of others for propaganda purposes.

"I realize that this is much more extreme than saying that
marijuana is harmless, which, again, it is not. If I am right,
then the anti-marijuana propaganda campaign is a cancerous
tissue of lies undermining law enforcement, aggravating the drug
problem, depriving the sick of needed help, and suckering in
well-intentioned conservatives... and countless frightened
parents..."

In testimony at hearings before the DEA in 1987 on the medical
use of marijuana, Dr. Tod Mikuriya, who had worked with the
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) in 1967, said:

"When I served at NIMH, in my responsibility in setting up the
first legitimate research on cannabis, I saw first-hand the
government's bias in examining marijuana. The government seemed
only to want to justify the total prohibition of cannabis,
including it prohibition as a medicine, rather than to honestly
research this plant. This political motivation for government
research was a principle reason for my leaving NIMH."

![](glowbar.gif)

**11.**   
**Cannabis & Crime**

Beginning with the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (1983-94),
several distinguished governmental and scientific bodies have
investigated the possible association of marijuana with crime.
All such studies have reached similar conclusions: marijuana
does not usually incite users to commit violent or sexual
crimes. Instead, marijuana tends to reduce aggression in most
people. Laboratory and clinical studies have shown that although
some persons do commit crimes while under the influence of
cannabis, such abuse is under-represented in studies of violent
offenders, especially in comparison with users of alcohol and
amphetamines. Studies also indicate that while some marijuana
users commit crimes against property, non-drug variables
probably are more influential than are drug effects on deviant
behavior.

Drug effects are highly individualized by multiple factors,
such as: pharmacological properties of the drug, poly-drug
interactions, adulterants, dosage, mode of administration,
cumulative effects, and pre-drug personality conflicts, mindset,
and setting. Sophisticated analyses by several researchers
indicate that pre-drug personality disorders are closely
associated with assaults that occur during marijuana
intoxication. Only an indirect relation exists between marijuana
and crime. While all studies suffer from methodological
limitations, it is nonetheless apparent that other than the
crime of buying and possessing marijuana, there is no reliable
evidence that the plant is a "cause" of crime. **(252-255)**

The Indian Hemp Drugs Commission found that, "For all practical
purposes, it may be laid down that there is little or no
connection between the use of hemp drugs and crime."

William Bromberg and associates reviewed the criminal records
of 16,854 offenders in the psychiatric clinic of New York County
from 1932-37, and found only 67 users of marijuana. Six were
charged with crimes of sex and violence, and the rest were
charged with crimes against property. **(256, 257)**

The LaGuardia Commission of New York City (1944) concluded that
"Marijuana is not the determining factor is the commission of
major crimes."

In the Wooton Report, it was pointed out that, "In the United
Kingdom, the taking of cannabis has not so far been regarded,
even by the severest critics, as a direct cause of serious
crime."   
After conducting a thorough review of the available research in
1972, the Shafer Commission reported these conclusions:

"The use of marijuana did not cause or lead to the commission
of aggressive or violent acts by the large majority of
psychologically and socially mature individuals in the general
population... In fact, only a small proportion of marijuana
users among any group of criminals or delinquents known to the
authorities and appearing in study samples had ever been
arrested or convicted for such violent crimes as murder,
forcible rape, aggravated assault or armed robbery. When these
marijuana-using offenders were compared with offenders who did
not use marijuana, the former were generally found to have
committed less aggresive behavior than the latter...

"Further, no findings indicate that marijuana was generally or
frequently used immediately prior to the commission of offenses
in the very small number of instances in which these offenses
did occur. In contrast, however, the aggressive and violent
offenders in this sample did report with significantly greater
frequency the use of alcohol within 24 hours of the offense in
question.

"These findings should be considered in the light of an earlier
West Coast study of disadvantaged minority-group youthful
marijuana users, many of whm were raised in a combative and
aggressive social milieu... the data show that  marijuana
users were much less likely to commit aggressive or violent acts
than were those who preferred amphetamines or alcohol. They also
show that most marijuana users were able to condition themselves
to avoid aggressive behavior even in the face of provocation. In
fact, marijuana was found to play a significant role in youth's
transition from a "rowdy" to a "cool", non-violent style."

In the book *Legalize It?* (1993), co-authored with James
Inciardi, Arnold Trebach stated:

"[Before the passage of the Harrison Act in 1914] massive crime
was not caused by wide drug avilablility. It is quite possible
that prohibition was the leading cause of the huge increases in
crime evident in the last 100 years. However, I do not attempt
to make that argument here because so many other social and
environmental factors --- urbanization, economic dislocations,
class conflicts, the breakdown of old family values and
controls, to name only a few -- have emerged over the last
several decades that help explain crime... Nevertheless, I
believe the data [police records]... seriously undercut the
modern argument that legalizing drugs would certainly lead
legions of citizens into lives of crime... Virtually all of the
data support my central thesis: the absence of national
prohibition and the generally easy availability of drugs cannot
be shown to have pushed significant numbers of people into
crime. Under prohibition, crime rates have risen dramatically."
**(258)**

![](glowbar.gif)

**12.**   
**Polemics Against Prohibition**

**America** has been fighting the so-called Drug War ever
since President Nixon cursed the nation with his   
declaration in 1971. It has been to little avail, because the
Drug War cannot be won. Instead, the institutionalized national
psychosis known as the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has
turned the USA into a police state.

Intoxication is a basic drive in the animal world. It cannot be
suppressed without generating psychotic consequences. The
eminent psychopharmacologist Ronald K. Siegal, Jr. (UCLA)
presented the case for natural drug use in his study of *Intoxication:
Life in Pursuit of Paradise* (1989):

"Recent ethological and laboratory studies with colonies of
rodents and islands of primates, and analyses of social and
biological history, suggest that the pursuit of intoxication
with drugs is a primary motivational force in the behavior of
organisms. Our nervous system, like those of rodents and
primates, is arranged to respond to chemical intoxicants in much
the same way it responds to rewards of food, drink, and sex.
Throughout our entire history as a species, intoxication has
functioned like the basic drives of hunger, thirst or sex,
sometimes overshadowing all other activities in life.
Intoxication is the fourth drive. We have become the most eager
and reckless explorers of intoxication."

It behooves us to cultivate our abilities and realize our
potential, but not necessarily without drugs, as prohibitionists
would have it. However, that lesson cannot be learned by denying
ourselves freedom of choice. Our dysfunctional drug laws punish
natural exploratory behavior and forbid us from testing our
character in the mirror of  psychedelic molecules.
Prohibition is ineffective and unconstitutional. Illicit drugs
are readily available to almost anyone who wants them,
especially among youths, and even in prison, where guards are
dealers.

Laws against drugs are predicated on the false assumption that
all drug use is harmful. Actually, few drugs are truly addictive
when used in moderation, and most people simply will not allow
themselves to become addicted. Instead, they use other forms of
compulsive behavior (religion, sex, love, politics, money, work,
sports, TV, gambling, etc.) to produce altered states of
consciousness; some claim to be happy.

Prohibitionists take the process several steps farther, getting
their kicks by trampling on the rights of others. Indeed, as the
British M.P. Walter Elliot observed in 1920, Americans are "the
barbarians of the West" because of their "extraordinary savage
idea of stamping out all people who happen to disagree... with
their social theories" about alcohol and other intoxicants.

People use and abuse any and all substances in their search for
reality or fantasy. Most societies and individuals choose their
poisons (alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, coffee, cocaine, opium,
Prozac, etc.) for arbitrary moral or traditional reasons. Thus
they determine what is a "good", "bad", legal or illicit drug.
Otherwise, as Dr. Andrew Weil put it, "There are no good
or  bad drugs; there are only good or bad relationships
with drugs".

The distinctions between legal and illicit drugs are purely
ritualistic, magical attributes with little or no basis in
pharmacology. Dogmatic Christians (and religionists of almost
all other brands) especially fear magic and drugs, so they
cannot be very realistic about drugs (let alone magic). There's
just no arguing with taste. Indeed, as Fred Nietzsche observed,
"Alcohol and Christianity are the two great European narcotics".
Karl Marx expressed the same general idea in a similar aphorism:
"Religion is the opium of the people".

The entire sad spectacle is mere superstitious scapegoating.
The scapegoat is a sacrificial victim (animal or human), heaped
upon with the sins and other failures of the people. The
wretched creature is banned into the wilderness, or condemned to
death. In ancient Greece, the sacrificial human was called *pharmakoi*
(remedy), from which are derived the terms pharmacology,
pharmacy, etc.. The Greeks abandoned the practice ca. 600 BC,
after which *pharmakoi* assumed its modern meaning.
However, the collective subconscious mind appears to have
retained its primitive magical character; today we exercise the
custom of *pharmakoi* in the form of draconian anti-drug
laws by which users and dealers are ostracized or quarantined as
if they were diseased. Through the skillful abuse of language,
prohibition propagandists portray drugs as a virus; no one is
immune to the plague of pleasure and self-destruction, and there
is no cure.

Fortunately, education is a powerful prophylactic against such
quackery. Plato warned us: "Complacent ignorance is the most
lethal sickness of the soul". Truly, knowledge is the only
therapy for the deadly stupidity caused by anti-drug propaganda.
With knowledge and self-control we can meet the challenge and
carefully explore the dimensions revealed by psychoactive
substances.

Thomas Jefferson and Dr. Benjamin Rush (who was George
Washingtons personal physician and a signer of the Declaration
of Independence) both foresaw that the federal government might
someday attempt to control medicine. Dr. Rush warned:

"Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time
will come when medicine will organize into an underground
dictatorship... To restrict the art of healing to one class of
men and deny equal privileges to others will constitute the
Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and
despotic and have no place in a republic... The Constitution of
this republic should make special privilege for medical freedom
as well as religious freedom."

Thomas Jefferson also declared this in no uncertain terms:

"If people let the government decide what foods they eat and
what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry
a state as are the souls who live under tyranny."

The foresight of Jefferson and Rush has proven true, and the
problem appears to be terminally cancerous. Medical tyranny
pervades modern society in such various forms as national health
care programs, the FDA and DEA, and the heinous Drug War.

Prohibition is a complete failure. The Drug War actually is
controlled chaos, serving the interests of an "underground
dictatorship" while it forbids us from the pursuit of happiness
--- particularly in the form of Cannabis.

Using the phony Drug War as its primary excuse for "necessary"
abridgements of our rights, the federal government of the USA
has abandoned the Constitution and surrendered to the Communist
model of suppression by imposing pre-trial detention without
bail, mandatory minimum prison sentences, and capitol punishment
for drug crimes, plus increased fines, forfeitures and asset
seizures, "good faith" exceptions to the exclusionary rule, and
other aberrant violations of justice. Stoned military forces are
used to enforce civilian law and to interdict suspected
smugglers at sea and in the air. Intelligence agencies smuggle
huge quantities of cocaine and heroin from Asia and South
America into the USA, and operate clandestine laboratories to
finance their crimes. Entire governments have been toppled by
cocaine (Bolivia, Panama, Bahamas, etc.). Civilians are required
to submit to unreliable drug tests to gain employment. Obnoxious
currency controls supposedly prevent the laundering of drug
money, and so on. In short, America has become a police state
because of its insane drug laws and cowardly citizens.

The Drug War is a coup detat. The Drug War is not being fought
against molecules, but against ourselves and freedom. The Drug
War is conquering America law by law, right by right, until
nothing will remain but to fight the Second Civil War foreseen
by George Washington and several other American prophets. The
Drug War is a fraud that has cost Americans their civil rights,
over 150 billion tax dollars, and at least 100 million man-years
spent in prisons, in futile, corrupt law enforcement, and other
associated costs including countless deaths at home, in the
streets, and abroad. We have been rendered dumb and stupid by an
open conspiracy that suckles on us like a vampire, eats our
children, and aborts our birthrights.

Abraham Lincoln is attributed with having stated (8 December
1840):

"Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it
attempts to control a mans appetite by legislation and makes a
crime out of things that are not crimes... A prohibition law
strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government
was founded."

There are several legal precedents which support the many
Americans who refuse to obey drug laws. The decision in Maybury
vs. Madison (1803) is clear enough:

 "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are
null and void."

According to 16 Am Jur. 2d. Sec. 177 & 178, the general
rule is:

"An unconstitutional statute, having the form and name of law,
is in reality no law, but is wholy void and ineffective for any
purpose. It imposes no duty, confers no rights, creates no
office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no
protection and justifies no acts performed under it. No one is
bound to obey an unconstitutional statute and no courts are
bound to enforce it... If any person acts under an
unconstitutional statute, he does so at his peril and must take
the consequences."

Cannabis must be made legal. This is the first step toward the
only viable resolution of the drug problem: legalize all drugs
(with regulatory control of quality, dosage, etc.). Cannabis
does not need to be controlled, but only to be regulated and
cultivated for all the values of its fiber, seeds and resin.
Yet, instead of enjoying the benefits of Cannabis, we suffer for
tiny Pyrrhic victories in a perpetual civil war. We have been
convinced by propaganda to repudiate the principles of freedom
upon which our former rights were founded. The continued
suppression of Cannabis only aggravates a grave injury to
society that probably will not be healed by legalization in time
to prevent disaster from other quarters. God forbid that this
burning issue should become the funeral pyre of freedom! Hemp is
sure to survive and thrive, whether it is in the victory gardens
or in the ruins of the USA.

**Legalize it!**

![](glowbar.gif)

**13.**   
**References**

**1.**            
Bensky,
Dan & Gamble, Andrew: *Chinese Herbal Medicine: Materia
Medica*; 1993, Eastland Press, Inc., Seattle.   
**2**.            
Manandhar,
N.P.: *Economic Botany* 45:63 (1991)   
**3**.            
Francis,
P.: *Economic Botany* 38: 197-800 (1984)   
**4.**            
Chang,
Uday & King, G.: *The Materia Medica* *of the
Hindus*; 1877, Thacker, Spink & Co.   
**5.**            
Manniche,
Lise: *An Ancient Egyptian Herbal*; 1989, University of
Texas Press, Austin.   
**6.**            
Rabelais,
Francois*: Gargantua and Pantagruel*; Translated by Burton
Raffel; 1990, W. Norton & Co., NY; ISBN 0-393-02843-7.   
**7.**            
O'Shaughnessy,
W.B.: *Trans. Med. & Physical Soc. Bengal* 8: 421-469
(1838-1840)   
**8.**            
Aubert-Roche,
L.: *Documents & Observations Concerning the Pestilence
of Typhus...* (&c.); 1843, J. Rouvier, Paris   
**9.**            
Rodger,
J.R.: *J.A.M.A*. 217(12):1705-1706 (1971).   
**10.**         
Shaw, J.: *Madras Q. Med. J*. 5:74-80 (1843).   
**11.**         
Inglis, R.: *Medical Times* 12: 454 (1854).   
**12.**         
Robinson, V.: *Medical Review of Reviews* 18: 159-169
91912).   
**13.**         
Green, Keith: "Marijuana Effects on Intraocular Pressure" in
Drance, Stephen M. & Neufeld, A.: *Glaucoma: Applied
Pharmacology in Medical Treatment*; 1984, Grunne &
Straton.   
**14.**         
Hepler, R.S. & Frank, I.M.: *J.A.M.A*. 217: 1392
(1971).   
**15.**         
Green, K., *et al*.: *Exper. Eye Res*. 27: 239-246
(1978).   
**16.**         
Dawson, W.W., *et al*.: *Investig. Opthalmol*.
16(8):689-699 (1977)   
**17.**         
Mohan, H. & Sood, G.C.: *Brit. J. Opthalmology* 48:
160 (1964).   
**18.**         
West, M.E.: *Nature* 351: 703-704 (27 June 1991).   
**19.**         
West, M.E.: *West Indies Med. J.* 27: 16-25 (1978)   
**20.**         
Green, K.: *et al*.: *J. Clinical Pharmacology* 21:
479-485 Suppl. (1981)   
**21.**         
Deutsch, H.M., *et al*.: *Current Eye Research*
1(2):65-75 (1981)   
**22.**         
Green, K.: *J. Toxicology* (1):3-32 (1982)   
**23.**         
Sallan, S.E., *et al*.: *New England J. Med*.
293:795-797 (1975).   
**24.**         
Sallan, *et al*.; *ibid.,* 302: 135-138 (1980).   
**25.**         
Orr, L.E., *et al*.: *Arch. Int. Med*. 140:
1431-1433 (1980).   
**26.**         
Gralla, R.J., *et al*.: *Proc. Amer. Soc. Clin. Oncol*.
1:58 (1982).   
**27.**         
Formukong, E.A., *et al*.: *Phytotherapy Res*.
3(6):219-231 (1989).   
**28.**         
Kleiman, M. & Doblin, R.: *Annals of Internal Medicine*
(1 May 1991).   
**29.**         
Anon., *Ther. Gazz.* 11: 4-7, 124 (1887)   
**30.**         
Vachon, L., *et al*.: *Chest* 70 (3): 444 (1976).   
**31.**         
Hartley, J., *et al*.: *Brit. J. Clin. Pharmacol.*
5(6):523-525 (1978)   
**32**.         
Tashkin, D.P., *et al*.: *Amer. Rev. Respir. Dis.*
109:420-428 (1974); *ibid*., 122: 377-386 (1975)   
**33.** Gordon,
R., *et al*.: *Europ. J. Pharmacology* 35: 309-313
(1976).   
**34.** Sirek, J.:
"Hempseed in TB Therapy"; *Acta Univ. Palack. Olomuc.*
(Czeck.) 6:93-108 (1955)   
**35.** Reynolds,
J.R.: *The Lancet* 1:637-638 (22 March 1890).   
**36.** Cunha,
J.M., *et al*.: *Pharmacology* 21: 175-185 (1980).   
**37.**         
Check, W.A.: *J.A.M.A*. 241(23):2476 (1979).   
**38.**         
Consrue, P., *et al*.: *Pharmacology* 21: 175-185
(1980)   
**39.**         
Giusti, G., *et al*.: *Experientia* 33: 257 (1977).
  
**40.**         
Gildea, M., & Bourne, W.: *Life Science* 10: 133-140
(1977).   
**41.**         
Lyman, W.D.: *et al*.: *J. Neuroimmunology* 23:
73-81 (1989).   
**42.**         
Karler, R., *et al*.: *Life Sci.* 15:9131-9147
(1974).   
**43.**         
Karler, *et al*.: *Res. Commun. Chem. Pathol.* 9:
441-451 (1974); *ibid*., 7: 353-385 (1974).   
**44.**         
Carlini, E.A. & Cunha, J.A*.: J. Clin. Pharmacol*. 21:
217-275 (1981).   
**45.**         
Haris, L.S., *et al*.: "Anti-Tumor Properties of
Cannabioids" in Braude & Szara: *Pharmacology of
Marihuana*; 1976, Raven Press, NY   
**46.**         
Harris, L.S.: *Pharmacologist* 16: 259 (1974)   
**47.**         
White, A.C., *et al*.: *J. Nat'l. Cancer Inst*. 56:
655-658 (1976).   
**48.**         
Friedma, M.A.: *Cancer Biochem. Biophysics*
2(2):51-54  (1977).   
**49.**         
Kabelik, J., *et al*.: *Bull. Narcotics* 12: 5-23
(1960).   
**50.**         
Krejci, Z.: *Pharm. Industry* 13: 155-157 (1958).   
**51.**         
Krejci, Z.: *Pharmazie* 14:279-281, 349-355 (1959);*ibid*., 12: 439-443 (1957); *ibid*., 13: 155-166
(1958); *Biol Abstr.* 32: 33889, 41940; *ibid.*, 35:
63987   
**52.**         
Van Klingerin, B., & Ten Ham, M.: *Antonie van
Leeuwenhoek* 42: 9-12 (1976).   
**53.**        *Chem.
Abstr.* 73: 33992k (1970); *ibid*., 72: 88976t (1970)
  
**54.** *Globe
& Mail* (Toronto); 16 June 1994, p. A-20.   
**55.**         
Hollister, L.E., *et al*.: *Clin. Pharmacol. Ther*.
9:783-791 (1968)   
**56.**         
Zuardi, A.W., *et al*.: *Psychopharmacologia*
(Berlin) 76: 245-250 (1982).   
**57.**         
Moreau de Tours, J.-J.: *Hashish and Mental Illness*;
1973, Raven Press, NY.   
**58.**         
Brigham, A.: *American J. of Insanity* 2: 275-281 (1846).
  
**59.**         
Stockings, G.T.: *J. Mental Sci*. 90: 772 (1944)   
**60.**         
Moreau de Tours, J.J.: *Lancette Gazette Hopital* 30: 391
(1857)   
**61.**         
Regelson, W., *et al*.: "THC as an Effective
Anti-Depressant" in Braude & Szara: *Pharmacology of
Marihuana*, Vol 2: 763-777, supra   
**62.**         
Kotin, J., *et al*.: *Arch. Gen. Psychiatr*. 28:
345-348 (1973)   
**63.**         
Mishra, S.S., & Sahai, I.: *Proc. 7th Int'l. Congr. of
Pharmacology* (Paris), 16-21 July 1978).   
**64.**         
Turker, R.K., *et al*.: *Arch. Int. Pharmacodyn. Ther*.
214(2): 254-262 (1975)   
**65.**         
Kosesky, D.S., *et al*.: *Eur. J. Pharmacol.* 24:1-7
(1973).   
**66.**        
Formukong, E.A., *et al*.: *Inflammation* 12:
361-371 (1988)   
**67.**         
Carty, B., *et al*.: *U.S. Patent* 4, 917,889
(Cl.424/693.1), 17 April 1990   
**68.** Milstein,
S.L.: *Int'l. J. Pharmacopsychiatry* 10: 177-182 (1975)   
**69.**         
Hill, S.Y.: *J. Pharmacol. Exper. Ther.* 188: 415-418
(1974).   
**70.**         
Noyes, R., *et al.*: *J. Clin. Pharmacol*. 15:
139-143 (1975)   
**71.** Fairbairn,
J.W., & Pickens, J.T.: *Brit. J. Pharmacology* 69:
491-493 (1980)   
**72.**         
Barrett, J.M., *et al*.: *U.S. Patent* 4, 917, 889
(Cl. 424/693.1), April 17, 1990   
**73.**         
Malor, R., *et al*.: *Biochem. Pharmacol*. 34:
2019-2024 (1985)   
**74.**         
Paton, W.D.: "Unconventional Anaesthetic Molecules" in Halsey,
M.J., *et al*.: *Molecular Mechanisms in General
Anaesthesia*; 1974, Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh; p.
48-64   
**75.**         
Thompson, L.J., & Proctor, R.C.: "Pyrahexyl in the Treatment
of Alcoholic and Drug Withdrawal Conditions" in Solomon, David
(ed.): *The Marihuana Papers*; 1966, Bobbs-Merrill, NY.   
**76.**         
Rosenburg, C.M.: *Psychopharmacology Bulletin* 9:25 (1973)
  
**77.**         
Scher, J.: *American J. Of  Psychiatry* 127: 971-972
(1971)   
**78.**         
Mattison, J.B.: *St. Louis Med. Surg. J*. 61: 265-271
(1891)   
**79.**         
Birch, E.: *Lancet* 1: 625(1889).   
**80.**         
Mattison, J.B.: *Can. Med. Record* 13: 73-84 (1885)   
**81.**         
Mattison, J.B.: *St. Louis Med. Surg. J.* 61: 265-271
(1891)   
**82.**         
Allentuck, S. & Bowman, K.M.: *Amer. J. Psychiatry*
99: 250 (1942)   
**83.**         
Shirkey, H.C., *J.A.M.A*. 218(9):1434 (1971).   
**84.**         
Rodger, J.: *J.A.M.A*. 217:1706 (1971).   
**85.**         
Sofia, R.D., *et al*.: *Arch. Int. Pharmacodynamic
Therapy* 225(1): 77-87 (1977)   
**86.**         
Carlini, E.A. & Cunha, J.M.: *J. Clin. Pharmacol*. 21:
417-427 Suppl. (1981).   
**87.**         
Morahan, P.S., *et al*.: *Infect. Immunology* 23(3):
670-674 (1979)   
**88.**         
Lancz, G., *et al*.: *Proc. Exper. Biol. & Med.*
196: 401-404 (1991).   
**89.**         
Hare, H.A.: *Ther. Gazz.* 11: 225 (1887)   
**90.**         
Reynolds, J.J.: *Lancet* 1: 637 (1890)   
**91.**         
Mattison, J.B.: *St. Louis Med. Surg. J.* 61: 265-271
(1891)   
**92.**         
Osler, W.: *The Principles and Practice of Medicine* (8th
ed., 1913), p. 1089.   
**93.**         
Volfe, Z., *et al*.: *Int'l. J. Clin. & Pharmacol.
Res.* 5: 243-246 (1985)   
**94.**         
Jones, J.S.: *Lancet* 2(8098): 1053 (1978)   
**95.**         
See, G.: *J.A.M.A.* 15: 540 (1890)   
**96.**         
Heczko, P., & Krejci, Z.: *Acta Univ. Plac. Olomuc.*
14: 277-282 (1958)   
**97.**         
Brown, J.: *Brit. Med. J.* 1: 1002 (26 May 1883)   
**98.** *Proc.
Nat. Acad. Science* (7 July 1998)   
**99.**         
Osburn, Lynn: *Hemp Line J.* 1(2): 12, 13, 21 (1992).   
**100.**        Vickery,
H.B., *et al.:* *Scienc*e 92 (#2388): 317-318 (4
October 1940).   
**101.**      *The Wealth of
India, Raw Materials*, vol. 2; 1950, Council of Sci. &
Ind. Res., Delhi; pp. 58-64   
**102.**        Osborne,
T.B.: *Amer. Chem. J.* 14: 662 (1892)   
**103.**        Osborne,
T.B.:& Mendel, L.B.: *J.Biol. Chem.* 13: 233 (1912)   
**104.**        St.
Angelo, A.J., *et al*.: *Arch. Biochem. And Biopysics*
124: 199-205 (1968).   
**105.**        Almquist,
H.J.: *Poultry Science* 17(2): 155-158 (March 1938).   
**106.** Hammond, J.C.: *Poultry
Science* 23(1): 78 (1944)   
**107.**        Folger,
A.H.: "The Digestibility of Perilla Meal, Hempseed Meal...
&c."; *Bulletin* #604 (Jan.1937), Univ. Of Calif.
(Berkeley) College of Agriculture   
**108.**        Shinogi,
M., & Mori, I.: *Yakugaku Zasshi* 98(5): 569-576
(1978).   
**109.**        Waisman,
Harry & Elvehjem, C.A.: *J. Nutrition* 1692): 103-114
(August 1938).   
**109.**        Rosenthal,
Ed (ed.): *Hemp Today*; 1994, Quick American Archives,
Oakland CA.   
**110.**        Kemmoku,
A., *et al*.: *Bull. Fac. of Educ., Utsonomiya U.*
42(2): 165-172 (1992)   
**111.**      *Herbal
Pharmacology in the People's Republic of China*; 1975,
National Acad. of Sci., p. 111   
**112.**        Weil, A.:
*Natural Health Magazine* (March-April 1993), pp. 10-12.   
**113.**        Erasmus,
U.: *Fats that Heal, Fats that Kill*; 1993, Alive Books,
Burnaby, Canada.   
**114.**        Bailey,
Alton: *Bailey's Industrial Oil & Fat Products*, Vol.
1 (4th ed., 1978); J. Wiley & Sons   
**115.**        Hilditch,
T.P., *et al*.: *J. Sci. Food Agric.* 2: 543-546 (2
December 1951)   
**116.**        Strempler,
Richard: *Analytical Toxicology* (July 1997).   
**117.**      *Report of the
Indian Hemp Drugs Commission* (1893-1894); 1894, Brit.
Govt. Central Printing House, Simla, India; 8 vols   
**118.**        Mikuriya,
Tod: *International J. of the Addictions*; Spring 1968   
**119.**        Kaplan,
John: *Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (Summary
Volume);* 1969, Jefferson Press, Silver Springs, MD   
**120.** Siler Committee: *Canal
Zone
Papers*; 1931, U.S. GPO, Washington DC.   
**121.**        Siler,
J.F., *et al*.: *Military Surgeon* 73: 269-280
(November 1933)   
**122.**        New York
City Mayor's Committee on Marihuana: *The Marihuana Problem
in the City of New York;* 1973, Scarecrow Reprint Corp.,
Metuchen, NJ   
**123.** Hallucinogens
Sub-Committee of the Home Office's Advisory Committee on Drug
Dependence: *The Wooton Report on Cannabis*; 1968, Her
Majesty's Stationery Office   
**124.**      *Nature* 221:
205-206 (1969)   
**125.**        Report of
the National Commission on Marihuana & Drug Abuse: *Marijuana:
Signal
of
Misunderstanding;* 1972, USGPO, Washington DC; Stock #
5266-0001   
**126.**        Rubin,
Vera, & Comitas, Lambros: *Ganja in Jamaica: A Medical
Anthropological Study of Chronic Marihuana Use*; 1975, The
Hague, Mouton.   
**127.**        Nahas, G.:
*Bulletin on Narcotics* 37(4): 15-29 (1985).   
**128.**        Dreher,
Melanie: *Working Men and Ganja*; 1982, Inst. f. Study of
Human Issues, Phila., PA.   
**129.**        Carter,
W.E., & Doughty, P.L.: *Annals N.Y. Acad. Sci.* 282:
17-23 (1976)   
**130.**        Fletcher,
J.M., *et al.:* *Contemporary Drug Problems* 7(1):
3-34 (1978).   
**131.**        Satz, P.,
*et al.:* *Annals N.Y. Acad. Sci.* 282: 266-306
(1976)   
**132.**        Carter, W.
(Ed.): *Cannabis in Costa Rica: A Study in Chronic Marijuana
Use*; 1980, Inst. For the Study of Man, Philadelphia, PA   
**133.** Stefanis, C.N., &
Issodorides, M.R.: *Science* 191(4233): 1217 (1976)   
**134.**        Stefanis,
C.N.: *et al*.: *Hashish! A Study of Long-Term Use*;
1977, Raven Press, NY   
**135.**       
Bouloulgouris, J.C., *et al*.: *Annals N.Y. Acad. Sci*.
282: 17-23 (1976).   
**136.** Dornbush, R.L., &
Kokkevi, A.: *Annals N.Y. Acad. Sci.* 282: 58-63, 313-322
(1976).   
**137.** *NewsBank*
(1983): Law 67: E-14   
**138**.        Advisory
Council on the Misuse of Drugs: *Report of the Expert Group
on the Effects of Cannabis Use;* 1982, Home Office, UK   
**139.**        National
Academy of Sciences: *Marijuana and Health*; 1982, Nat.
Acad. Press,    Wash. DC.   
**140.**        Tennant,
D.P., *et al*.: *J.A.M.A*. 216: 1965-1969 (1971).   
**141.**        Zwillich,
C., *et al.:* *Clinical Research* 25(2): 136-A
(1977).   
**142.**        McConnel,
W.R., *et al*.: *Fed. Proc.* 34(3): 782 (1975).   
**143.**        Huber,
G.L., *et al.:* *Chest* 77: 403-410 (1980)   
**144.**       
Leuchtenberger, C., *et al*.: *Nature* 241: 137-139
(1973)   
**145.** Donald, Paul J.:
"Marijuana and Upper Aerodigestive Tract Malignanacy ..." in
Nahas, G. & Latour, C.: *Cannabis Physiology,
Epidemiology, Detection*; 1993, CRC Press, FL   
**146.** Tennant, F.S., *et
al*.: *J.A.M.A.* 216: 1965-1969 (1971)   
**147.** Tennant, F.S., *et
al*.: *Substance and Alcohol Abuse* 1:93-100 (1980)   
**148.**       
Leuchtenberger, C., & Leuchtenberger, R.: *Brit. J.
Experimental Pathology* 58(6):625-634 (1977).   
**149.**        Charles,
R., *et al*.: *Clinical Toxicology* 14(4):433-438
(1979).   
**150.**        Piemme,
T.E.: *New England J.Med.* 285(2): 124 (1971)   
**151.** Hanna, J.M., *et
al*.: *Aviation, Space, & Environ. Med*. 47:
634-639 (1976)   
**152.** Waskow, I.E., *et
al*.: *Arch. Gen. Psychiatry* 22: 97-107 (1970).   
**153.** Abel. E.L.: *Experientia*
29(12): 1528-1529 (1973).   
**154.**        Ewens,
G.F.: *Insanity in India, Its Symptoms and Diagnosis with
Reference to the Relation of Crime and Insanity*; 1908,
Calcutta.   
**155.**       A.
Heyndricks, *et al*.: *J. Pharm. Belg*. 24: 375
(1969).   
**156.**     *Chem. Abstracts*
72: 41177t (1970).   
**157.**       Gary,
N.E., Y Keylon, V.: *J.A.M.A.* 211(3): 501 (1970)   
**158.**       Garriott,
J.C.: *New England J. Med.* 285: 86-87 (1971)   
**159.**     *Chem. Abstracts*
74: 97268g (1971)   
**160.**       
Soderstrom, CA., *et al*.: *Arch. Surgery* 123:
733-737 (1988)   
**161.**        Dash,
Bhagmwan: *Fundamentals of Ayurvedic Medicine*; 1978,
Bansal & Co., India.   
**162.** Pihl, R.O., *et al*.:
*J. Clinical Psychology* 34(3): 775-779 (1978)   
**163.**       Benowitz,
N.L., & Jones, R.T.: *Clin. Pharmacol. Ther.* 22:
259-268 (1977).   
**164.**     *NewsBank*
(1991): Health 93: G-10.   
**165.**       Kubena,
R.K. & Barry, H.: *Pharmacologist* 11: 237 (1969).   
**166.**       Pryor,
G.T., *et al*.: *Pharmacol. Biochem. Behavior* 6(1):
123-136, 331-334 (1977).   
**167.**       Pryor,
G.T., & Brude, M.C.: Pharmacologist 17: 182 (1975)   
**168.**       Stone,
C.J., *et al*.: *J. Forensic Sci.* 21(1): 108-111
(1976).   
**169.**       Manno,
J.E., *et al*.: *Clin. Pharmacol. Ther.* 12: 202-211
(1971)   
**170.**       List,
A.F., *et al*.: *J. Pharm. Pharmacol.* 27: 606-607
(1975)   
**171.**      Siemens,
A.J., *et al*.: *Alcoholism* 1: 343-348 (1977)   
**172.** Evans, M.A.: *Diss.
Abstr. Int*. B 35(7): 3488 (1975).   
**173.** Phillips, R.N., *et
al*.: *Pharmacologist* 1392): 297 (1971)   
**174.** Ten ham, M., & De
Yong, Y.: *Pharm. Weekblad* 110 (47): 1157-1161 (1975)   
**175.**       Bier,
M.M., & Steahly, L.P.: "Emergency treatment of marijuana
complicating diabetes" in *Auto Drug Abuse Emergencies*;
1976, Academic Press, NY, p. 163-173   
**176.**       Anon.: *Med.
J.
Australia* 1(7): 360 (1971).   
**177.**       Chusid,
M.J., *et al.*: *Ann. Intern. Med*.:. 82(5): 682-683
(1975)   
**178.**       Graff, H.:
*Amer. J. Psychiatry* 125: 1258-1259 (1969).   
**179.**       Bouhuys,
A., *et al.*: *Arch. Environ. Health* 14: 533-544
(1967)   
**180.**       Bouhuys,
A., *et al*.: *Amer. J. Med.* 46(4): 526-537 (1969);
*Biol Abstr.* 59: 5536   
**181.**        Barbers,
A.C., & Flores, M.R.: *Archiv. Environ. Health* 14:
529-532 (1967   
**182.**        Drahler,
D.H.: *New Engl. J. Med.* 293: 667 (1975)   
**183.**       Kaklamani,
E., *et al*.: *Arch. Toxicol*. 40: 97-101 (1978)   
**184.**      
Kalofoutis, A., *et al.:* *Acta Pharmacol. Toxicol.*
43: 81-85 (1978)   
**185.**       Lecorsier,
A., *et al*.: *Compte Rendu Acad. Sci. (Soc. Biol.)*
285: 1351-1353 (1977)   
**186.**       Liskow,
B.: *et al*.: *Ann. Intern. Med.* 75: 571-573 (1971)
  
**187.**       Burnstein,
S., *et al*.: *Molecular Pharmacology* 15(3):
633-640 (1979).   
**188.**       Kolodny,
R.C., *et al*.: *New England J. Med.* 290: 872-874
(1974).   
**189.**       Mendelson,
J.H., *et al*.: *New England J. Med.* 291: 1051-1055
(1974); *ibid.*, 291: 1051 (1974)   
**190.**        Hembree,
W.C., *et al*.: "Changes in human spermatazoa associated
with high dose marihuana smoking", pp. 429-439 in Nahas, G.G.,
& Paton, W. (Eds.): *Marihuana: Biological Effects*;
1979, Pergamon Press, Oxford   
**191.** Tashkin, Donald P.: *Amer.
J.
Respiratory & Critical Care Medicine* 155 (1997); *Forensic
Drug
Abuse Advisor* (Marh 1997)   
**192.**       Harmon,
J., & Aliapoulios, M.A.: *New England J. Med.* 287:
936 (1975)   
**193.**        Harmon,
J., & Aliapoulios, M.A.: *Surg. Forum* 25: 423-425
(1974).   
**194.**        Cates, W.,
& Pope, J.: *Amer. J. Surgery* 134: 613-615 (November
1977)   
**195.**       
Pere-Vitoria, C.: *Rev. Iber. Endocrinol.* 23 (137):
437-444 (1976)   
**196.**       Anon.: *Brit.
J.
Med.* 1: 797 (1969)   
**197.**       Buckley,
J.: "A case study of acute-non-lymphoblastic leukemia --
evidence for an association with marihuana exposure," p. 155, in
Nahas, G. & Latour, C.: *Cannabis: Physiology,
Epidemiology, Detection,* supra.;  *ibid.*,
Tuchmann-Duplessis, H.: "Effects of Cannabis on reproduction",
pp. 187-193.   
**198.** Dreher, M.C., *et
al*.*: Pediatrics* 93 (2): 254-160 (1994).   
**199.**        Glatt, H.,
*et al*.: *Mutation Res.* 66: 329-335 (1979).   
**200.**        Zimmerman,
A.M., *et al*.: *Pharmacologogy* 18: 143-148 (1979).
  
**201.**        Morishima,
A., et al.: "Hyploid metaphases in cutured lymphocytes of
marihuana smokers", pp. 371-376, in Nahas, G. & Paton,
W.(eds.): *Marihuana: Biological Effects*, supra.   
**202.**        Nichols,
W.W., *et al*.: *Mutation Res.* 26: 413-417 (1974).
  
**203.**        Gilmour,
D.G., *et al*.: *Arch. Gen. Psychiatry* 24: 268-272
(1971).   
**204.**        Herha, J.
& Obe, G.: *Pharmakopsychiatry* 7: 328-337 (1974)   
**205.** Heath, R.G., *et
al*.: *Biol. Psychiatry* 15: 657-690 (1980)   
**206.**        Harper,
J.W., *et al*.: *Neuroscience Research* 3: 87-93
(1977)   
**207.**        Campbell,
A., *et al*.: *Lancet* 2: 1219-1225 (1971)   
**208.**        Tart,
Charles: *On Being Stoned*; 1971, Science and Behavior
Books, Palo Alto, CA   
**209.** Clark, L.D., *et
al*.: *Arch. Gen. Psychiatry* 23: 193-198 (1970).   
**210.**        Vachon,
L., *et al*.: *Psychopharmocologia* 39: 1-11 (1974).
  
**211.**      
Tinklenberg, J.R.: *Psychopharmacology* 49: 275-279
(1976).   
**212.**        Paton, W.
& Crown, June (eds.): *Cannabis and its Derivatives*;
1972, Oxford U. Press, London.   
**213.**       Weil,
Andrew: *The Natural Mind*; 1972, Houghton Miflin Co.,
Boston; pp. 96-97   
**214.**       Chowdhury,
A.N., & Bera, N.K.: *Addiction* 89: 1017-1020 (1994)   
**215.**        Spencer,
D.J.: *Brit.J. Addiction* 65: 369-372 (1970).   
**216.**        Chopra,
D.S., & Smith, J.W.: *Arch. Gen. Psychiarty* 30: 24-27
(1974).   
**217.**       Talbott,
J.A., & Teague, J.W.: *J.A.M.A.* 210: 299-302 (1969).
  
**218.**        Tennant,
F.S.: *J.A.M.A.* 221: 1146-1149 (1972).   
**219.**       Treffert,
D.A.: *Amer. J. Psychiatry* 135: 1213-1215 (1978).   
**220.** Rajs, J., *et al*.:
"Cannabis-associated
deaths in medico-legal postmortem studies. Preliminary report,"
p. 123 in Nahas, G., & Latour, C. (Eds.); *Cannabis:
Physiology, Epidemiology, Detection,* supra.   
**221.** Day, R., *et al*.:
*Medical J. of Australia* 160:731 (6 June 1994)   
**222.** Darley, C.F., *et
al*.: *Psychopharmacologia* 29: 231-238 91973); *ibid*.,
37: 139-149 (1974).   
**223.**        Abel,
E.L.: *Nature* 227: 1151-1152 (1970); *ibid*., 231:
260-261 (1971).   
**224.**        Robison,
Kenton: *Las Vegas Review J*., p. 10-J (13 November 1994).
  
**225.**        Berkow,
Robert (ed.): *Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy*;
1987, Merck Sharp & Dohme Research Labs., Rashway, NJ.   
**226.**        Gold, Mark
S.: *Marijuana*; 1989, Plenum Medical Book Co., NY.   
**227.**       
McGlothlin, W.H., & West, L.J.: *Amer. J. Psychiatry*
125: 370-378 (1968).   
**228.**        Shedler,
J., & Block, J.: *Amer. Psychologist* 45: 612-630 (May
1990).   
**229.**        Mellinger,
G.D., *et al*.: *Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci*. 282: 37-55
(1976).   
**230.**      *NewsBank* XXV
(1994): Law 9:C-3   
**231.**        Zinberg,
N., & Weil, A.: *Nature* 226: 119 (1970).   
**232.**        Davis,
C.S.: *Drug Forum* 6(4): 315-326 (1977-78)   
**233.**        Morris,
D.: "Drug Stories"; *Anchorage Daily News* (12 May 1991).
  
**234.** *NewsBank* XVI
(1985): Law 42:E-10.   
**235.**      *Science News*
134: 350 (26 November 1984)   
**236.**        Fackelman,
Kathy A.: *Science News* 143: 88-89, 94  (6 February
1993).   
**237.**        Munro,
Sean, *et al*.: *Nature* 365:61-65 (2 September
1993).   
**238.**        Matsuda,
L., *et al*.: *Nature* 346: 561-564 (9 August 1990)
  
**239.**        Corey,
E.J., *et al*.: *J. Amer. Chem. Soc*. 106: 1503-1504
(1985)   
**240.** Husain, S. &
Khan, I.: *Bull. on Narcotics* 37(4):3-13 (1985)   
**241.**        Freemon,
F.R., *et al*.: *Clin. Pharmacol. Ther.* 17: 121-126
(1975)   
**242.**        Low, M.D.,
*et al*.: *Can. Med. Assoc. J.* 108: 157-164 (1973).
  
**243.**        Drew, W.G.
& Miller, L.L.: *Pharmacology* 11: 12-32 (1974)   
**244.**        Reggio,
P., *et al*.: *Intl. J. Quantum Chemistry: Quantum
Biol. Sympos.* 17: 119-131 (1990)   
**245.**      *Chemical Abstracts*
120: 314973h.   
**246.**        Devane,
W.A.: *Trends Pharmacol. Science* 15 (2):40-41 (1994)   
**247.**      *Chemical Abstracts*
120: 51134a   
**248.**        Crawley,
J., *et al.: Pharmacol. Biochem. Behavior.* 46(4):967-972 
(1993)   
**249.** *J.A.M.A.* (30
April 1973), p. 631   
**250.** Nahas, Gabriel: *Marihuana:
Deceptive
Weed*; 1973, Raven Press, NY.   
**251.** Vigilante, R., &
Cowan, R.: *National Review* (29 April 1983); p. 485.   
**252.** Charen, S. &
Perelman, L.: *Amer. J. Psychiatry* 102: 674 (1946).   
**253.** Malmquist, C.P.: *Amer.
J.
Psychiatry* 128: 461-465 (1971).   
**254.** Chopra, R.N., &
Chopra, I.C.: *Amer. J. Med. Res*. 30: 155-171 (1942)   
**255.** Tinkelberg, J.R.,
& Murphy, P.: *J. Psychedelic Drugs* 5(2): 183-191
(Winter 1972)   
**256.** Bromberg, W.: *Amer.
J. Psychiatry* 91: 303-330 (1934); *ibid*., 102:
825-827 (1946)   
**257.** Bromberg, W.: *J.A.M.A*.
113: 4 (1939).   
**258.**        Trebach,
Arnold & Inciardi, James: *Legalize It? Debating American
Drug Policy*; 1993, American University Press, Washington
DC; ISBN 1-879383-13-6   
**259.** Abel, Ernest L.: *A
Comprehensive Guide to the Cannabis Literature*; 1979,
Greenwood Press, CT

![](glowbar.gif)

**14.**   
**Index**

**Adverse Effects ~ (7.b)**   
**Alcoholism ~ (2.m)**   
**Amotivational Syndrome ~ (7e)**   
**Anaesthesia ~ (2.l)**   
**Anandamide ~ (8)**   
**Analgesia ~ (2.k)**   
**Antibiotic ~ (2.f)**   
**Anti-Convulsant ~ (2.d)**   
**Anti-Depressant ~ (2.I)**   
**Antidotes ~ (6.f)**   
**Anti-Emetic ~ (2.b)**   
**Anti-Inflammatory ~ (2.j)**   
**Anxiety ~ (2.h)**   
**Arthritis~ (2.g)**   
**Asthma ~ (2.c)**   
**Canal Zone Studies ~ (5.b)**   
**Cerebral Atrophy ~ (6.p)**   
**Chrono-Pharmacology ~ (6.c)**   
**Compassionate Cannabis ~ (9a,b)**   
**Contra-Indications ~ (6.I)**   
**Contaminants ~ (6.j)**   
**Coptic Study ~ (5.I)**   
**Costa Rica Study ~ (5.g)**   
**Crime, Cannabis & ~ (11)**   
**Cytogenesis ~ (6.o)**   
**DEA ~ (9.a)**   
**Dependence ~ (7.d)**   
**Diuretic ~ (2.o)**   
**Driving ~ (6.e)**   
**Edestin ~ (3)**   
**Expert Group ~ (5.j)**   
**Female Reproduction ~ (6.n)**   
**Glaucoma ~ (2.a)**   
**Greek Study ~ (5.h)**   
**Gynecology ~ (2.t)**   
**Gynecomeistia ~ (6.m)**   
**Hempseed Oil ~ (4)**   
**Herpes~ (2.q)**   
**Hypothermia ~ (6.b)**   
**Immunology ~ (6.k)**   
**Indian Hemp Drugs Commission ~ (5.a)**   
**Insomnia ~ (2.p)**   
**Interactions ~ (6.h)**   
**Jamaica Study ~ (5.f)**   
**Koro ~ (7.b)**   
**LaGuardia Committee ~ (5.c)**   
**Le Dain Commission ~ (5.l)**   
**Learning ~ (7.c)**   
**Male Reproduction ~ (6.l)**   
**Materia Medica, traditional ~ (1)**   
**Medical Studies, modern ~ (2.a-t)**   
**Mental Effects ~ (7.a-e)**   
**Migraine ~ (2.r)**   
**Morphine ~ (2.k, 6.h)**   
**Mutagenesis ~ (6.o)**   
**Neurology, receptors &c ~ (8)**   
**Nutrition, Hempseed & ~ (3)**   
**Opiate Addiction ~ (2.n)**   
**Perception ~ (7.a)**   
**Physical Effects ~ (6.a-p)**   
**Potentiation ~ (6.g)**   
**Propaganda ~ (10)**   
**Public Health ~ (5.a-l)**   
**RAP Report ~ (9.b)**   
**References ~ (13)**   
**Relman Committee ~ (5.k)**   
**Shafer Commission ~ (5.e)**   
**Smoking ~ (6.a)**   
**Toxicity ~ (6.d)**   
**Tumors ~ (2.e, 6.o)**   
**Ulcer ~ (2.s)**   
**Veterinary uses ~ (3)**   
**Weil, Dr. A. ~ (7.a)**   
**Wooton Report ~ (5.d)**

  



---

---

![](0logo.gif)

********Your Support Maintains this
Service --******BUY**  
********The
Rex Research Civilization Kit********   
  
********... It's
Your Best Bet & Investment in
Sustainable Humanity on Earth ...********  ********Ensure & Enhance Your Survival &
Genome Transmission ...********  
********Everything
@ rexresearch.com on a******** **Thumb
Drive or Download !**  
  
 ********[ORDER PAGE](../order.htm)********

   


---