by Chris Conrad
There’s another good reason to consider changing livestock production patterns, too. In 1960, 13 percent of staphylococci infections were penicillin-resistant; in 1988 it was 91 percent. Why are germs becoming increasingly immune to drugs? Many people think it is simply due to overuse. About 55 percent of antibiotics used in the U.S. are fed routinely to livestock, with or without signs of illness.31 United States meat and pharmaceutical industries support this practice. The European Community bans it because they suspect it acts as a natural selection process, killing off the weaker germs while allowing drug-resistant germs to multiply, flourish, and dominate the gene pool. In other words, survival of the fittest germs, which is bad news for the rest of us. Feeding our livestock hempseed is a way to support their immune systems and bolster the animals’ overall health without using antibiotics until their use is necessary and justifiable. Animals fed hempseed could prove to be healthier and more disease-resistant, but since the mechanism is nutritional rather than antibiotic, bacteria would not become resistant.
Hemp’s role as a restorative resource is evident in its horticultural uses. Growing hemp can extract heavy metal contaminants from the chemically degraded soil in damaged farm lands, so the lands can again be used for growing food crops. Researchers in Poland experimenting with this process are having good results. This does not eliminate the toxins, it merely draws them from the soil and fixes them into the fiber of the hemp plants, which are then used to make non-edible items. This is safer than having them in the food supply, but the toxins still end up at disposal sites when the end product is finally discarded. The researchers are looking for a way to extract the toxins from the fiber to solve this dilemma and dispose of them properly. The net effect could be to create a supply of recycled heavy metals for industrial applications.32
While important industrial crops like the loblolly pine, used for paper, and the soybean, used for food, face a potential 30 to 50 percent loss in productivity from increased ultraviolet radiation due to ozone depletion, the hemp plant remains largely unfazed. Cannabis merely increases its output of resinous cannabinoids, which seem to provide a shield, and keeps right on growing.33 To better ensure survival of the species, when its seeds are exposed to high levels of ultraviolet light hemp increases its output ratio of female to male plants.34 Hemp will thus offer a continuing source of raw material for consumer goods, long after other sources begin to die off from radiation. This will protect both our productivity and jobs until the problem is properly solved, which may well take centuries.
Returning from plastics to natural fiber will reduce the buildup of solid waste that threatens to bury our society. In a few situations, ultra-lightweight plastic rope may be preferable, but a good, strong, biodegradable hemp rope will still meet most cordage needs. Plastic bags can largely be eliminated and replaced with reusable cloth or recyclable paper bags made of tree-free hemp cellulose. Hemp cardboard packaging can be designed to replace most Styrofoam containers. Another critical advantage of returning to hemp as an industrial feed stock is the job-intensive nature of its use, allowing more people to afford healthier lives. There are jobs on the farm to prepare the soil, plant, and harvest the crop. There are transportation jobs to move it to the mill. There are jobs at the mill for preliminary processing, and the product is then transported to the factory for finishing. By now the commodities market and stock market are starting to get their value out of the crop. After inspection, the goods are shipped to the distributor, who sells it to the wholesaler, who puts it onto the retail market. The ordering departments, inventory control, and clerical staff get ready to move the goods to the public. Once purchased, many items like paper and building supplies go on to be used in other trades and businesses, creating even more job opportunities.
The rebounding hemp industry is evident in international symposia and conferences like Germany’s 1995 Biofach and 1996 Europhalle CannaBusiness Expo. Entrepreneurs and investors have created new companies and joined together to form the Hemp Industries Association (HIA) to protect their interests and the integrity of the trades.35 Economic opportunity relieves a lot of personal stress, and that’s healthy, too.
Restoring hemp will allow future generations to breathe cleaner air, drink cleaner water, and enjoy cleaner environs with healthier lakes, rivers, and forests to enjoy. This planet can still be the garden paradise we deserve—a beautiful, bountiful world. Society needs forests and quiet spaces where we can ponder life and draw strength. But we need to be better gardeners.
Chapter 13
The Age of Deceit
A rational soul might think it pointlessly cruel for a wealthy nation to provide no health care for the vast majority of its citizens, then proceed to inflict criminal penalties upon sick and dying people who use a medicine that is not officially authorized, yet that is exactly what happens. Left to their own desperate resources, millions of Americans find that medical relief can be grown for free in their own home garden, in the form of a few lush cannabis plants. At some point, it becomes worth it to pay almost any price or run any risk, simply to get relief. Many choose to run that risk in hopes of being cured before being arrested. Then the enforcement trap is sprung; the drug task force kicks in the door, knocks in walls, grabs all the money, rounds up the family on the ground with automatic weapons aimed at their heads, and begins asking who wants to testify against whom, in exchange for a lighter sentence. The harm done to patients by criminal prosecution and punishment greatly exceeds any possible harm these people might cause by even their wildest excessive misuse of cannabis. In many cases, criminal penalties rival the consequences of even the most horrible physical maladies that afflict these patients.
But that’s the difference between rationality and rationalizations. Unfortunately, we live in an age of deceit. Federal agencies of the United States rely on disinformation and brute force to prevail over the face of logic and human decency. They trot out spin doctors to explain why taxpayers must continue to foot the bill for a failed policy that is such a sacred cow politicians are afraid to even discuss it. They pull out smoke and mirrors to dazzle us with their propagandistic aplomb. Then they throw up a cloud of scientific dust into our eyes to keep us from seeing their hidden agendas. Pity the poor deceivers when their mask of respectability is pulled away from them, and their true motivations stand exposed.
PROTECTING THE PUBLIC FROM THE TRUTH
Marijuana is not a “cure all.” No drug is. In fact, marijuana does not cure much of anything; it merely helps to relieve and control specific symptoms—lots of different symptoms, some worse than others, scattered throughout the incredibly complex human anatomy. Like a panacea, it is very broad in scope, and can alleviate suffering for millions of Americans.
The public is not supposed to know that, and must therefore be protected from the facts. John Ingersoll, the first Director of the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), put it this way in 1972: “Not only are we here to protect the public from vicious criminals in the street but also to protect the public from harmful ideas.”1 He promptly set about fabricating an exciting sideshow of “new” and “scientific” myths, such as unproved theories about brain damage, cancers, lab cultures jumping through hoops, uncontrollable weight gain, and the ever-amazing “pot grows breasts on men.” That last claim got a lot of transsexuals’ hopes up and set them to smoking like chimneys, but with little success.
After ten years, the Institute of Medicine finally reviewed the rumors of “new dangers” of marijuana in 1982 and released a study that contradicted most of the claims. The report found that no solid evidence of adverse effects from moderate use of cannabis had been demonstrated. Then the tax-exempt Partnership for a Drug Free America (PDFA) began a commercially polished, mass media propaganda blitz defaming productive members of society who smoked marijuana, forcing many into denial, and sometimes turning their children against them. The tragedy is that this carefully orchestrated campaign is built upon the legitimate concerns of unsuspecting paren
ts, physicians, and social scientists who don’t know the facts needed to see through the absurd misrepresentations of the generally benign and helpful nature of the plant Cannabis sativa L.
Not until 1995 did the world’s preeminent scientific journal, Lancet, again review the data and conclude that “The smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health.”2 Dr. James Spurlock summarized the situation on marijuana as, “Medical researchers know it’s a pharmacological substance which can do great good.”3 However, the American Medical Association says it cannot endorse medical marijuana until approved controlled studies are completed. That makes sense. But millions of patients go on suffering, or self-medicate and take the risk that their lives and reputations will be destroyed by law enforcement, while we wait on those studies. Science should guide politics, not vice versa. Yet, we see over and over the steadfast perversion of published findings and statistics designed to give the drug warriors what they need to stay in business.
It is not within the scope of this book to elaborate the details of this corrupting system, so instead I devote a few pages to a review of the more egregious errors, misrepresentations, and overgeneralizations propagated by the drug warriors.
YOUR BRAIN ON EGGS
No marijuana scare campaign has ever been complete without bringing up brain damage. And no claim of cannabis causing physical brain damage has ever been proven. The primary basis for this fear was the Heath Monkey study. Dr. Robert Heath’s research alleging brain damage from smoking cannabis was met with widespread skepticism from the start, because it contradicted previous findings. The initial peer review warned that Heath’s claims “must be interpreted with caution. . . . No definitive interpretation can be made at this time.” Closer examination revealed that basic lab procedures regarding tissue preparation, fixation, and photography had not followed proper controls or safeguards against contamination and bias. The monkeys were forced to inhale immense amounts of cannabis smoke through oxygen masks for long periods of time, with no opportunity to breathe fresh air. The tissue damage Heath documented was indicative of oxygen deprivation. Once this was factored into the equation, cannabis was ruled out as a significant factor in the tissue damage. Repeated follow-up studies still cannot document significant brain tissue problems associated with marijuana.
Curiously, Heath’s monkey experiment had been carried out more professionally some eighty years earlier. In 1892, the Raj Commission conducted a clinical experiment in which a rhesus monkey took 181 inhalations of ganja smoke over a period of eight months and ten days, at a daily dosage proportional to a heavy smoker. After sacrificing the animal, a meticulous autopsy found “no evidence of any brain lesions being directly caused by hemp drugs. There is evidence that the coarse brain lesions produced by alcohol and dhatura are not produced by hemp drugs.”
The classic PDFA ad is a picture of an egg in its shell, labeled “Your brain.” The next picture is a fried egg in a skillet, labeled “Your brain on drugs.” Followed by “Any questions?” Actually, yes. For starters, what does an egg in a skillet really have to do with my brain? More importantly, why do the alcohol, tobacco, and pharmaceutical drug industries, all of which produce products that cause physical brain damage, contribute so much tax-deductible money to produce ads that trick people into thinking cannabis does?
SMOKING MEDICINE
Opening up the British Medical Journal of Nov. 11, 1897, we read, “Hemp therefore exerts its effects differently according to the preparation used. . . . In cases where an immediate effect is desired, the drug should be smoked, the fumes being drawn through water. In fits of depression, mental fatigue, nervous headache, and exhaustion, a few inhalations produce an almost immediate effect, the sense of depression, headache, feeling of fatigue disappear and the subject is enabled to continue his work, feeling refreshed and soothed. I am further convinced that its results are marvelous in giving staying power and altering the feelings of muscular fatigue which follow hard physical labour.”4
In 1980 cancer patients demonstrated clear benefits from smoked marijuana, and their preference for smoking it was again established in 1987 in the Vinciguerra study.5 Dozens of cannabis buyers clubs have provided smoking material for thousands of patients in the 1990s. A majority of oncologists responding to a Harvard University survey in 1991 agreed that they should be allowed to prescribe it.6 Legislators in thirty-seven states have endorsed medical marijuana, and voters in Arizona and California approved its use by margins of more than 10 percentage points in 1996.
In other words, resinous cannabis has always been and will continue to be smoked as medicine. In fact, it is being smoked right now, in your home town, for medicinal purposes.
THE LUNG’S FAIR SHARE
Is marijuana four times as dangerous as tobacco or a zillion times more so? It all depends on which tobacco lobbyist you ask. Proponents of this claim point to smokers’ intake of two specific items—smoke particulate and carbon monoxide—and only in the large air passage of the lungs. If you ignore everything else, greater concentrations do occur in marijuana smoke, and it does cause lesions in that one air passage. These lesions are described as “precancerous” in press reports about marijuana, although scientists admit they have no proof that the lesions lead to cancer. Yes, this is cause for minor concern, and cannabis smoking could contribute to bronchitis. But put this in perspective. Cigarette smokers are measured by how many packs-a-day they consume. There are 400,000 deaths a year attributed to tobacco, many of them extremely painful due to gruesome lung cancers. Addicted patients suck on cigarettes as their last breath slips away.
Grow room for a Texas buyers club.
Zero deaths a year are attributed to the direct physical effect of consuming marijuana. In fact, Miles Herkenham, a brain researcher at the National Institute of Mental Health, says that “It’s impossible to take a lethal overdose. You absolutely cannot kill an animal with THC.”7 Cannabis smoke does irritate the lungs a bit, but almost nobody chain-smokes marijuana. It’s usually a matter of a few puffs on the weekend or up to several joints per day as a medical dosage.
This brings up one of the best kept secrets about cannabis. The active compounds are assimilated almost instantly when smoke is taken into the lungs. After a few seconds, the ratio of beneficial to potentially destructive compounds in the smoke takes a negative turn. In other words, holding the smoke in longer doesn’t increase THC intake as much as it increases the health risk. The government has known this since at least 1970, but is so eager to produce evidence of lung damage in marijuana smokers that it hides the importance of this simple smoking behavior. Exhale sooner. The light-headedness from holding your breath gives an extra rush to the high, but does not increase the psychotropic effects or medical benefits of the cannabis. If you are concerned about even this minor lung irritation, there is a medically-effective alternative—don’t smoke it, eat or vaporize it.
STRONGER MARIJUANA
Government statistics from the Mississippi Potency Measuring Project disprove the claim that marijuana is significantly stronger today than it was a decade ago. It’s still around 3 or 4 percent THC. However, the proper manicure of a bud before it is consumed improves its potency greatly through the removal of inert plant matter. That part isn’t good for you anyway, so you’re better off not smoking it—besides, it makes great compost. Most patients with serious illness want strong medicines, especially for allopathic uses. Stronger medicine is better in the case of cannabis, because it means more effective relief with less irritating smoke. This is better for the lungs.
Cannabis is often criticized for having too many chemicals in it. Being a highly evolved organic substance, it contains 421 chemical compounds, sixty of which are medically active. The government declares that it can never approve such a complex substance, while its tax stamp adorns packs of tobacco cigarettes containing over seven hundred chemicals, almost none of which are beneficial. It’s hard to argue against such logic.
The synthetic THC pill lac
ks many of the key beneficial compounds found in ordinary cannabis. This is because the current approval processes of the DEA and FDA are neither sophisticated enough nor designed to handle complex natural medicines like cannabis, which combines a wide range of synergistic compounds into a single therapeutic form. The FDA approval process is designed to handle molecules, not plants. So cannabis chemistry is completely out of their league. The simple solution is to not put cannabis through the “new” drug approval process. Instead, recognize the classical medical literature and recent studies, then grandfather cannabis in as a traditional natural medicine and crop.
ACCIDENT RATES OVERRATED
Public safety is an important concern of society. Concern that cannabis use might lead to injuries is based on the recent, dramatic increase in “emergency room mentions” of marijuana use. The key here is that “mentions of” marijuana is not the same as “caused by” marijuana. In fact, there is little data to support any such connection. The admission process was amended to ask patients if they ever used marijuana, which led to a jump in the reporting. This statistical slight-of-hand created the false impression of dramatic data.
A major source of public safety concern is a Baltimore trauma clinic study, which identified a high proportion of people having active THC in their system when they came into the clinic—almost one out of three. This report has no corresponding studies to replicate it, and the claimed percentage of cannabis use is so disproportionate to the general population as to be suspicious. However, an even more surprising figure is buried in the details of the report. While about half the injuries had been sustained in vehicular accidents, less than 2 percent of the marijuana smokers were driving at the time the accident occurred.8 In other words, they were the passengers, not the drivers. Cannabis users tend to feel impaired before they actually become impaired, and so are more likely to have a responsible designated driver. That practice should be encouraged.